I could imagine these ships being harbour queens to an extent, possibly with 50-65% availability compared to 66-75% for other German capital ships, however they're still worth having.
 

Coulsdon Eagle

Monthly Donor
More to the point.... where would they go with them?
Whether in the Baltic or the Black, the Russians are effectively bottle-necked....

the battlecruisers had 14 inch guns, all of them had 12 guns on the centerline and an exceptionally high angle of fire giving them the longest range of any ship afloat.

Certainly more than a match for the older British ships

Then there's the destroyers and submarines which were first class. The old junk Britain used for commerce protection are now useless



The Baltic Fleet sails to Keil, the Black Sea fleet goes through the straits , joins the Austrian, French, Ottoman and Italian fleets on their journey to Dakar.

The " Britain cant lose school" seems to believe that British cabinet spent a billion pounds and millions of lives for no threat
IIRC the battlecruisers were to be fitted with German engines, but certainly the guns were to be supplied in the first instance by Vickers. The Rusian company meant to be picking up the slack in armaments managed to produce one gun in total. There were also serious deficiencies in the armour, both in quality and instalation, which also applied to the Baltic-based dreadnoughts. Not too sure about the Cuniberti-type main armament layout - other navies who used it junked it for superfiring turrets after one generation.

The high angle fire is a good point - the Black Sea squadron surprised the Goeben with the range of their guns.

The destroyers were very good though, some of the best for the period.

One other question - where are the Germans to find the experienced crew to man all these extra prize dreadnoughts, assuming they are also committed to increasing U-boat warfare? Remember the HSF suffered serious manning issues even early in the war, and had to put a lot of second-class ships into reserve. This became worse as the better men sought to join the U-boat crews. The Italians & Austrians can man their own ships, but the French & the Russians? I can't see them wanting to do that, or the Germans allowing their former enemies to sail fully armed & equipped after forcing peace terms on them.

Edited for spelling
 
IIRC the battlecruisers were to be fitted with German engines, but certainly the guns were to be supplied in the first instance by Vickers. The Rusian company meant to be picking up the slack in armaments managed to produce one gun in total. There were also serious deficiencies in the armour, both in quality and instalation, which also applied to the Baltic-based dreadnoughts. Not too sure about the Cuniberti-type main armament layout - other navies who used it junked it for superfiring turrets after one generation.
Certainly the war caused disruption in the construction of these ships bu a country as sophisticated as Germany should have little problem constructing the parts especially as they have the designs.

All ships at the time had drawbacks. Should we compare them to the top of the line models or the older ships the British pressed into the line at Jutland?
The high angle fire is a good point - the Black Sea squadron surprised the Goeben with the range of their guns.

The destroyers were very good though, some of the best for the period.
And a significant improvement to German capabilities
One other question - where are the Germans to find the experienced crew to man all these extra prize dreadnoughts, assuming they are also committed to increasing U-boat warfare? Remember the HSF suffered serious manning issues even early in the war, and had to put a lot of second-class ships into reserve. This became worse as the better men sought to join the U-boat crews.
From the army. With the land war over, the manpower freed would be tremendous. Most crews do very basic jobs- shoveling coal, moving ammo. Gunners can come from the artillery forces.

Yes it will take time to train crews but this is more of a when than an if question
The Italians & Austrians can man their own ships, but the French & the Russians? I can't see them wanting to do that, or the Germans allowing their former enemies to sail fully armed & equipped after forcing peace terms on them.

Edited for spelling
The British would suffer horribly from the loss of the French and Italian fleets who watched the Mediterranean In fact, the British would have to abandon the Mediterranean if they wanted to control the North Sea This alone would cost the British dearly.

You raise legitimate issues but they are more of when not if the Germans gain control of the seas. The continents industrial capabilities just overwhelm Britain's.

Britain would face many additional hurdles: the inability to blockade Germany, the Germans able to use the Channel ports, the probable loss of American loans, the ability of German warships using French colonial harbors

Sealion isn't impossible, its that in a world where sealion is possible, it is unnecessary. Britain will succumb to the blockade
 
IIRC the battlecruisers were to be fitted with German engines, but certainly the guns were to be supplied in the first instance by Vickers. The Rusian company meant to be picking up the slack in armaments managed to produce one gun in total. There were also serious deficiencies in the armour, both in quality and instalation, which also applied to the Baltic-based dreadnoughts. Not too sure about the Cuniberti-type main armament layout - other navies who used it junked it for superfiring turrets after one generation.

The high angle fire is a good point - the Black Sea squadron surprised the Goeben with the range of their guns.

The destroyers were very good though, some of the best for the period.

One other question - where are the Germans to find the experienced crew to man all these extra prize dreadnoughts, assuming they are also committed to increasing U-boat warfare? Remember the HSF suffered serious manning issues even early in the war, and had to put a lot of second-class ships into reserve. This became worse as the better men sought to join the U-boat crews. The Italians & Austrians can man their own ships, but the French & the Russians? I can't see them wanting to do that, or the Germans allowing their former enemies to sail fully armed & equipped after forcing peace terms on them.

Edited for spelling

IIUC the Russians were sourcing all sorts of parts from various foreign firms, the BCs needed 8" roller bearings for the turrets from Germany and couldn't get them from Britain or Sweden once war broke out. I suspect that the Germans could undertake refits to make these ships easier to sustain. That said, I doubt they'd be a solution to Germany's naval problems, more likely an interim measure to reach a goal. Perhaps they could use them to arrive at a naval agreement then on-sell them to an ally or whatever and build German ships are needed in the long term.

As for manning, Germany could institute the RN 3 fleet manning in peacetime. 1st fleet would be fully manned in peacetime, 2nd fleet partly manned and filled out on mobilisation and 3rd fleet entirely manned by reservists, these were the ships sent to distant stations in August 1914. Small units expand upon mobilisation they will be manned by comb throughs of the fleet once requirement become clear during the war.
 
You raise legitimate issues but they are more of when not if the Germans gain control of the seas. The continents industrial capabilities just overwhelm Britain's.

This is the long term trajectory in a CP victory. In ww1 Britain could have 37 capital ships and 70 divisions in 1916 to Germany's 21 capital ships and 251 divisions. Germany is simply bigger and victory will make it bigger again.
 
Top