Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Most Signifigant WWI Battle?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
Author
Jonathan4290 View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 03-Mar-2008
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 185
  Quote Jonathan4290 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Most Signifigant WWI Battle?
    Posted: 03-Mar-2008 at 21:35

The blockade on Germany was definitely the reason Germany surrendered, hence why all the soldiers thought they were betrayed, because the war was clinched at home. It is difficult to see that Jutland was decisive because it was indecisive in so many ways but is this not a possibility?: Germans crush Britain at Jutland and add some of their fleet to raiding merchant shipping. German homefront doesn't starve and unrestricted submarine campaign isn't as necessary so maaaybe America doesn't enter the war and 1918 is a very different situation.

Like great battles? How about when they're animated for easy viewing?
Visit my site, The Art of Battle: Animated Battle Maps at www.theartofbattle.com.
Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221
  Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Mar-2008 at 23:11
A few points here.
 
(1)  As the power utilizing the concept of the "fleet-in-being," Germany was always in a weaker position.  The fleet-in-being caused Britain to:  a) bring naval assets home from colonial stations, and b) build naval vessels at twice the rate Germany could.  Even if Germany managed a tactical success at Jutland, she never could be comparable to the numbers of modern ships available to the British.
 
(2)  German naval strategy was always flawed.  IF they could gain some temporary advantage over Britain such as a tactical success at Jutland, how would they be able to capitalize on that?  Germany might interrupt the blockade for a few months, but they would have been unlikely to be able to take much advantage of that for a couple of major reasons.  I think those are:
 
(3)  Germany concentrated on capital ship construction until the war itself when submarines became the dominating ship type.  Those are essentially offensive weapons systems.  They had comparatively few cruiser and escort-duty ships.  Escorts are defensive weapons systems necessary for the protection of seaborne commerce. 
 
If Germany were to break the blockade, unlikely as that would have been, not only would she have to have been ready and capable of fighting another "Jutland" against far more numerous British naval forces, she had not sufficient escort capability to protect shipping that might be headed for German ports.  Her own merchant marine (inadequate for the needs of war on the scale of WW I) had already been devastated or interred in foreign ports.  Neutrals were not likely to have run a re-established blockade which surely would have happened.
 
(4)  German ships were designed for operations in the North Sea.  They had limited or non-existent accomodations for liveability, and very minor for storage of food and water.  Their operational ranges had been sublimated to weight of armor (battleships) and to fast speeds at short distances (torpedo boats/destroyers).  The crews lived ashore in barracks and for very short duration at sea. These characteristics are not those of ships that can operate at longer distances such as escorts, and, as said, there were inadequate numbers of them.  No one is denying that the ships were good and the crews well trained; there were never enough of them to fight the RN and dominion ships - just a fact.  The ships they had could not compete outside of the North Sea, and that was never going to be good enough.  By 1914, commerce was world wide as never before.  Germany could neither compete with nor contend with the strengths of the maritime powers.   
 
 


Edited by pikeshot1600 - 03-Mar-2008 at 23:52
Back to Top
ChickenShoes View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 08-Apr-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 152
  Quote ChickenShoes Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Mar-2008 at 23:24
Originally posted by pikeshot1600

My vote would go to the battle of the Marne in 1914.  This determined that the war would be a war of attrition, and not of decisive moves like 1870.
 
Regardless of their organizational acumen, and their war plans, the Germans lost the war when they were unable to overwhelm the French army; the British entered the war, and the imperial resources and manpower of the allies could be mobilized to hold off defeat until a two-front war and American intervention turned the tide.
 
The American intervention was more psychological, IMHO, but important.  However, I think the Western Allies would have won anyway, although at greater cost.
 
   
 
 
I would most certainly agree, except with the last part. The United States involvement was not only influential psychologically, but it won the war for the Allies. It did not win with manpower, the AEF was quite small, but the credits i.e. money and food it brought made the difference. However, the Marne made everything, all other battles were just blood mills. Vimy Ridge wasn't decisive, the Canadians made meager gains they could not reinforce.


Edited by ChickenShoes - 03-Mar-2008 at 23:25
It is not enough that I succeed - everyone else must fail
Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
  Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Mar-2008 at 18:11
Germany doesn't need to protect any convoys unless the Entente will target neutral ships until the blockade is re-established. and German ships were just as sea-going as any other vessel in the world. how on earth did they else fought the battle off the Falklands? after all it was called Hochseeflotte for a reason. only Torpedo-boats were confined to the Northsea.
Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221
  Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Mar-2008 at 19:23

Temujin,

We disagree here.  With regard to the cruisers Adm Spee had, of course they could range further than the North Sea, as could Emden, et al.  However, the fleet was meant to contest the RN in the North Sea, with operations also in the Baltic.  The name High Seas Fleet is a name only.

British capital ships, at least the newer coal and oil fuel ships of Orion, KG V and Iron Duke classes, were designed for a cruising radius of between 4 and 5,000 miles.  The German ships of Kaiser and Koenig classes as well as those completed before, had cruising radiae of about 2,000 miles.  Of course they could venture out in a straight line, but maneuvering and changes of speed in battle would eat up much of that endurance.  I think the North Sea was the theater the fleet was designed for.

As you say, the German torpedo boats (or destroyers) were North Sea designed.  So, what would have been the point of sending the Battleships away from the North Sea where they would have little protection against torpedo attack except for their own secondary guns?
 
The British were unlikely to give an advantage to Germany in re neutral shipping, and, in extremis, may have declared any and all neutrals as legitimate targets.  If the German ships available for escort were limited to the North Sea, most of the incoming goods would have had to come from Britain.  Smile   Well, seriously, the deficiency in escorts, with so much being devoted to submarine construction, would have made "breaking the blockade" as meaningless as was Jutland. 
 
 
 
 
 
 


Edited by pikeshot1600 - 04-Mar-2008 at 22:54
Back to Top
Jonathan4290 View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 03-Mar-2008
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 185
  Quote Jonathan4290 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Mar-2008 at 03:02

Let's refocus: what IS the most significant battle in World War I? It appears the Marne is the obvious choice still. Maybe the Kerensky Offensive which knocked Russia out of the war and all its implications? It didn't win the war for the Central Powers but it's still pretty huge.



Edited by Jonathan4290 - 11-Mar-2008 at 03:07
Like great battles? How about when they're animated for easy viewing?
Visit my site, The Art of Battle: Animated Battle Maps at www.theartofbattle.com.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Mar-2008 at 13:36
Originally posted by Paul

Originally posted by pikeshot1600

Confidence is fine if you have the means.  Germany never had sufficient means.  Their ultimate naval weapon was unrestricted submarine warfare, which brought the US into the war against them resulting in more overwhelming naval power against them. 
 
Some fluke at Jutland that might have resulted in a British setback may (MAY) have brought the US into the war sooner, although 1916 was an election year.  Wink
 
 
 
A decisive victory and Germany no-longer blockaded. They would not have had to capitulate in 1918. They could have fought on and being as they were in the strongest position in 1918 since they had been in 1914, they may just have well won.
 
In the extreme that might be true, but the German ships at Jutland represented a much bigger proportion of the German navy than the British ships compared to the British navy. It would have had to have been an overwhelming German victory to change the course of the war, whereas any result up to and including a moderate German victory would have had no real long-term effect on the blockade or anything else.
 
As someone pointed out, the weaker opponent has to adopt a fleet-in-being strategy, and cannot take the risks necessary to achieve and exploit a major victory.
 
Similarly, a Franco-Spanish victory at Trafalgar would not have significantly changed anything (whereas a Spanish victory in 1588 might have done).
Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
  Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Mar-2008 at 19:24
Originally posted by gcle2003

As someone pointed out, the weaker opponent has to adopt a fleet-in-being strategy, and cannot take the risks necessary to achieve and exploit a major victory.


i strongly disagree with this, in fact i think fleet-in-beign is a very bad strategy in the first place, what the nation with the smaller fleet needs to achieve is to create local sucesses which will steadily break the imbalance. for example the naval engangements of the War of 1812 which allowed the rise of the US navy or the first sino-japanese and the russo-japanese war which made the Japanese navy, or as you mentioned in the Armada campaign. fleet-in-being will not achieve any change in the overall strategical situation.
Back to Top
Cryptic View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke

Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 05-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1962
  Quote Cryptic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Mar-2008 at 22:06
Originally posted by Tancrde

Verdun if German won there then they would won the war.
I disagree, Germany did not have the motorized recesources to exploit the victory (rapid breakthrough and encirclement of French armies). The French would have simply established another defensive line and the war of attrition would have continued.
 
I will vote for Marne, 1914.  That just set the tone for the entire war.  


Edited by Cryptic - 12-Mar-2008 at 01:30
Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221
  Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Mar-2008 at 01:11
Originally posted by Temujin

Originally posted by gcle2003

As someone pointed out, the weaker opponent has to adopt a fleet-in-being strategy, and cannot take the risks necessary to achieve and exploit a major victory.


i strongly disagree with this, in fact i think fleet-in-beign is a very bad strategy in the first place, what the nation with the smaller fleet needs to achieve is to create local sucesses which will steadily break the imbalance. for example the naval engangements of the War of 1812 which allowed the rise of the US navy or the first sino-japanese and the russo-japanese war which made the Japanese navy, or as you mentioned in the Armada campaign. fleet-in-being will not achieve any change in the overall strategical situation.
 
I agree that the fleet-in-being cannot change the strategic advantage of the stronger naval power.  However, achieving "local successes" that can break the imbalance have rarely been shown to be possible.  The High Seas Fleet would still have been at a substantial disadvantage vis a vis the RN even with a tactical success at Jutland.  The probability of a second success against the RN would have been less likely.
 
Just as an example, the RN had 5 QE class BB with 15" guns, four of which were at Jutland.  there were an additional 5 "R" class BB with 15" guns not yet ready at the time of Jutland.  The Kriegsmarine produced 2 BB with 15" guns, neither of which impacted the war at all.  The 10 BB with 15" guns (5 fast BB, and 5 line BB) were intended to outgun, by weight of broadside at long range, any ships the Germans might produce.  As such, their very existence canceled out the fleet-in-being as an effective strategy.  The probability of any local success was diminished.
 
I would disagree that the Japanese navy of 1905 (or 1895) was at any disadvantage.  They were very close to home waters and ports, had more modern (British) ships, with officers and crews that had embraced modern weapons (torpedos/HE shells), and operated unfettered by the conventions of "declarations of war," a decided advantage of surprise.
 
The US navy of 1812-14 presented no threat to the Royal Navy, however the successes of US frigates and Great Lakes vessels have been hyped.  The blue water successes of that war amounted to propaganda, nothing more.
 
The efforts of the English navy, and private ships, in 1588 had no decisive effect on the maritime capacity of Spain.  Further fleets were assembled; 1596; 1597, and dispersed by weather, not by the English.  The inability of England to follow up the "success" of 1588 was shown by the fiasco of the Portugal expedition of 1589.  The navy had no strategic advantage over Spain.  The 1596 expedition to Cadiz by Essex also resulted in no strategic advantage to England.  New English tactics were rapidly adopted by Spain, and the ships of the new fleets were similar to the English "race built" ships....and there were more of them.
 
The fleet-in-being is always weaker. 
 
      
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Mar-2008 at 11:15
Originally posted by Temujin

Originally posted by gcle2003

As someone pointed out, the weaker opponent has to adopt a fleet-in-being strategy, and cannot take the risks necessary to achieve and exploit a major victory.


i strongly disagree with this, in fact i think fleet-in-beign is a very bad strategy in the first place,
Bad or not, the point is it is inevitable. If the weaker power takes the risk of the offensive it almost certainly ends up beaten.
 
It may look as though the submarine offers an alternative, in that it is possible to attack without ever committing a major force to the attack. Something similar was true of the opening stages of the 1812 war, when the US won a number of single ship actions at least up until the Shannon defeated the Chesapeake.
 
But that isn't really an alternative to the 'fleet-in-being' strategy - restricting yourself to single-ship actions or attacks on merchant shipping IS the 'fleet-in-being' strategy.
 
Otherwise I agree with Pikeshott.
 
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Mar-2008 at 12:08
Pikeshot, I do want to mention that the QE-Class at Jutland did nit exactly cover themselves with glory, were rather badly manhandled by the Derfflingers.
Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
  Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Mar-2008 at 19:33
subs are just commerce raiders, they aren't supposed to fight warships, so no alternative.

if we look at the sino-jap war, we see that the Chinese had the dominance, as they had the two most capital ships ine ast asia, japan only having cruisers. same goes for the 1812 war, US having no man-o-wars, but heavy frigates which could harm the regular frigates of britain and denying any major naval battle which the US could not hope to win.
Back to Top
deadkenny View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 994
  Quote deadkenny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Mar-2008 at 19:59
Originally posted by Temujin

subs are just commerce raiders, they aren't supposed to fight warships, so no alternative....


That's not universally true.  Although the Germans certainly used their subs that way for the most part, there were definitely exceptions where warships were targeted.  The Japanese viewed their subs as being primarily for targeting enemy warships, and that is how they used them.  That in spite of the experience of being on the 'receiving end' of American subs being used against Japanese merchant shipping.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
Back to Top
Patch View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 19-Apr-2006
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 119
  Quote Patch Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Mar-2008 at 22:03
Surely if your positing the Germans somehow winning Jutland (though given the vast odds against them I don't see how - if Scheer hadn't ran when he did the German fleet would have been annhilated despite Beatty's incompetance) then the Britsih would have taken heavy casualties and the Germans would have dominated the waters around the UK.  To use an old quote "Jellicho could have lost the war in an afternoon".
Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
  Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Mar-2008 at 22:16
Originally posted by deadkenny


That's not universally true.  Although the Germans certainly used their subs that way for the most part, there were definitely exceptions where warships were targeted.  The Japanese viewed their subs as being primarily for targeting enemy warships, and that is how they used them.  That in spite of the experience of being on the 'receiving end' of American subs being used against Japanese merchant shipping.


yes it did happen, and British also used them this way, but it was not their strenght.
Back to Top
Tore The Dog View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 08-Feb-2008
Location: Sweden
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 74
  Quote Tore The Dog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Mar-2008 at 00:55
bump
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Mar-2008 at 10:24
Originally posted by Temujin

subs are just commerce raiders, they aren't supposed to fight warships, so no alternative.

if we look at the sino-jap war, we see that the Chinese had the dominance, as they had the two most capital ships ine ast asia, japan only having cruisers. same goes for the 1812 war, US having no man-o-wars, but heavy frigates which could harm the regular frigates of britain and denying any major naval battle which the US could not hope to win.
 
My point was that "denying any major naval battle which the US could not hope to win" IS the 'fleet-in-being' strategy.
 
If you're talking about the Sino-Japanese war that started in 1937, then I have no idea where you got your information from. After the Washington conference Japan had the third largest navy in the world (after Britain and the US), and in any case by 1934 it was abrogating the treaty, and by 1937 it was already building the Yamato class battleships, the largest and most heavily armed and armoured ever built by anyone.
 
Moreover Japan had the most powerful carrier fleet of all the world's navies.
 
And the Imperial Japanese Navy was committed to seeking out a major fleet-to-fleet battle in the Pacific, the very opposite to a 'fleet-in-being' strategy.
 
 
Back to Top
Tore The Dog View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 08-Feb-2008
Location: Sweden
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 74
  Quote Tore The Dog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Mar-2008 at 12:15
I wounder why these 2 battles is not on the ""list?"" Battle at Tanga and Battle at Kut As Asmara , they tied up a lot of troops , who could be employed elswhere , if Allied forces had won these.
 
 
 
Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
  Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Mar-2008 at 18:29
Originally posted by gcle2003

If you're talking about the Sino-Japanese war that started in 1937,


well apparently i don't
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.156 seconds.