Jutland tonnage numbers. Are these accurrate? - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

The First World War (1914-1918).
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
By Smilin' Dave
#13426800
To win the battle by sinking more enemy ships by a decisive margin. Objective achieved.

Objective achieved, but a strategic defeat. The Germans were never again able to challenge Britain's navy, and thus the blockade remained in force.

We are well versed on the blockade which failed to stop Subs

Submarines couldn't supply Germany with what it needed in WWI, and couldn't decisively defeat the British. To top it all off, unrestricted submarine warfare accelerated the US entry into the war, which is certainly not a good thing for the Germans.

which left command of the sea uncommanded by the British, thanks for reminding.

Did the submarines ever stop the British navy from going where it wanted? If they didn't, they the Germans did not successfully challenge British command of the sea.

But British still had too many, so it was not cost effective compared to Sub warfare

Here you admit the point that made your position in this debate ridiculous: it didn't matter if the Germans sank more, the British could afford it. Clearly the Germans couldn't afford the losses they sustained in this so called victory.

They did achieve to a degree some of their objective-s however.

So you aren't even sure if they achieved all their objectives, but have been calling this a victory? The British objective was to have a decisive naval engagement, and while it wasn't decisive in the manner they intended (eg. sinking the German fleet), it was decisvie in that the threat of the HIgh Seas Fleet was neutralised.
By cowofzot
#13426871
Objective achieved, but a strategic defeat. The Germans were never again able to challenge Britain's navy, and thus the blockade remained in force.

Correction, the word is not "able" but rather that they considered it less cost effective than Sub warfare.


Quote;
So you aren't even sure if they achieved all their objectives, but have been calling this a victory?

Naturally since they tonnage is nearly 2 to 1 in favor of the Germans. What else would you call that? By any logical definition or measure of the word success, it is without question exactly that, a success.
User avatar
By Thunderhawk
#13427493
Correction, the word is not "able" but rather that they considered it less cost effective than Sub warfare.

Even though subs were more effective dollar for dollar spent, submarines still had to be made while the surface ships were already there. Why would Germany not use equipment they had previously spent a decade building up, if it was still effective?

Naturally since they tonnage is nearly 2 to 1 in favor of the Germans. What else would you call that?

Taking the context into account, the word insufficient comes to mind.
By Smilin' Dave
#13427549
cowofzot, do you know how to use the quote tags?

Correction, the word is not "able" but rather that they considered it less cost effective than Sub warfare.

You have yet to provide any proof for this assumption of yours. The logic you present to justify your assumption is dubious, that somehow the Germans were utterly victorious but decided never to try and win that way again. As I pointed out earlier, if one were to take Jutland as the point where the Germans reached a decision of submarine warfare, you would have to wonder why they bothered. German subs used prior to Jutland having been pretty useless.
By cowofzot
#13427631
Can't find em. Insufficient is accurrate Hawk, but they still won the battle.

Proof is there for all to see, Germany switched over to unrestricted Sub warfare. Subs cost way less.

German subs prior to Jutland were not useless, they were quite successful.


1914 September 22 — German submarine U-9 sinks three British armoured cruisers HMS Aboukir, HMS Hogue and HMS Cressy in one action.(details)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_submarine_actions
User avatar
By MB.
#13427729
And how many warships were sunk by German submarines after September 22, 1914?
By cowofzot
#13427788
Good question, they hid in port after that.


On 22-Sep-1914 the U 9 under command of Kapitanleutnant Otto Weddigen sank the British light cruisers Abourkir, Hogue and Cressy in the English Channel. The problem here is that both sides soon refused to put their warships at risk by cruising the high seas. The great naval build-up of the last decade may have been one of the most monumental wastes of money of all time - both fleets spending the majority of the war at their home bases with the notable exception of Jutland.

http://www.worldwar1.com/arm012.htm




Feb 1915
The campaign began on 28 February, and, despite the small number of active U-boats, did well. In all, 29 vessels totaling some 89,500 gross tons were sunk in March; 33 ships totaling 38,600 tons in April; 53 vessels totaling 126,900 tons in May; 114 ships totaling 115,291 tons in June; 86 ships totaling 98,005 tons in July; 107 vessels totaling 182,772 tons in August; and 58 ships totaling 136,048 tons in September. British antisubmarine measures accounted for 15 U-boats, but the German Navy commissioned 25 new boats during the period.
User avatar
By MB.
#13427882
Cowofzot, very good! What are your thoughts about the development of the convoy system?
By pugsville
#13429472
The convoy system was widely regarded as a massive sucess in both wars, the Admirality tended to be agianst it for a number of reasons, (1) the esstianil defensive nature of the work, "hunter groups" attacking u-boats were prefered, but were a massive failure. (2) working with the merchant marine, civilians, non-professionals was beneath them (3) the big depolyment of escorts which would be a massive commitment, which would impact fleet operations as battleships also required escorts and screen ships, destroyers the ideal ship for both jobs were in demand. (thus the 50 old destroyer deal in the second war)

"Of the 16,693 merchant vessels being escorted from May 1917 to November 1918 in one of the 1,134 convoys, 99% safely reached their destination. "

from

http://www.uboat.net/history/wwi/part5.htm

The Germans may well have been much better off devoting there resources to u-boats rather than battleships in the first war , (even in the second they do not enter the wr with a big u-boat fleet) but the prestiage of battleships lead to an active political lobby (the navy league etc) which it would have been harder to get for u-boats not the glamour part of the fleet, submarines were pretty new and not understood, and building up u-boats instead of the rest of fleet might be pretty crystal vision hindsight and harder to see at the time, I think good operational submarines were only coming into service as the war began, and there was not the history of service and understanding of the pretty new weapon. U-Boat sinkings also generated a lot more heat in ww1, the Americans would have been very very upset by large scale unrestricted u-boat war, (there were also pretty pissed at the British for the blockade as the loss of very lucaretive german market during the war, but the u-boat sinkings managed to quash that) A larger , earlier full scale effort would have had a very big effect in the US, earlier entry likely.
By pugsville
#13429474
Just looking up German ship Building expeditures for 1913 (7.5 mill poounds) submarine costs were about 1 million pounds (though listed as construction and experiments) which would suggest for a pretty modest submarine fleet, the costs were not cheap (though a 1 million pounds is rough costs of 1 battleship) Sub marines I think required more highly trained crew.
Trump, Oh my god !

Falwell leveraged cable television. Nothing preve[…]

it's China too and it's just a renegade island […]

perfection would be the lack of contradiction Gö[…]

June 19, Wednesday Francis H. Pierpoint is name[…]