For post war you said they might not keep the renowns, in personal opinion the UK would probably give them to Australia and allow them to build 3 more of them. Completely replacing HMAS Australia (Possibly New Zealand as well). Canada, South Africa and the rising Brit Raj would be able to build five of their own capitals.
Attractive idea, though it'd make subsequent agreement at Washington rather more problematic when the Americans kicked up a stink about the far larger o/a British Empire modern capital ship numbers and want either 1) the RN and/or the Dominion and Raj governments to reduce their strength accordingly OR, yet worse for the prospects of ever reaching a deal, 2) try to explicitly set total permitted US tonnage quotas re build/retention/conversion etc actually somewhat higher than those for the RN alone. Of course, on the plus side there's an outside chance that it all might've catalysed a revisitation of the the unsuccessful late C19th movement advocating the evolution of a full Imperial federal system. At least w.r.t. the 'Home Islands' and the 'Dominions'. Although in the 1920s with Naval Defence as the immediate driving justification, as opposed to trade/investment. Unlikely, alas, given the UK Westminster/Whitehall establishment elites very long established (and appropriate pre Napoleonic wars, but by 1900 already ossified) cultural default programming to insist, with a determined excess of geopolitical myopia, on seeing Britain as nothing more than just another European great power. Yet there y'go. As Edmund Burke observed even before that ossification... "A great empire and little minds go ill together." ...Which almost certainly explains why the first of those things is now long gone. While the second is still every bit as apposite a description of the things infesting Westminster and Whitehall in 2024, as it was in Burke's day!🙄
I used to spend many hours playing Jutland online, tested lots of different scenarios. The British should come away with a clear cut victory every time; assuming they have a competent commander.
You don't have to hit Beatty with a car, plenty of jobs to send him to; Lieutenant Governor of Tasmania, Liaison with the IJN or IRN, inspector general of fuel storage. Post war there Sturdee would improve intelligence distribution, communications, and if keeping RN aviation have more flying boats to support bases in distant stations like the Falklands.
56:10 - Its fair to say that the British Battlecruisers would not have made that fatal mistake of not opening fire at maximum range without Beatty. This could have meant the Battlecruisers being hit, if at all, at longer range and not being sunk?
A thought or three on consequences if this happens Dr C. 1) if the Germans focus on U-boat productiob earlier as the HSF is smashed/resources are tree, we could perhaps see butterflies such as more severe restrictions on british trade, the earlier construction of the channel nets and maybe the us entering the war earlier. 2) if the HSF concept is conclusively proven a failure and the lessons of greater uboat impact (as 1) is learned, does the kriegsmarine focus a lot more pre ww2 on having far more subs and surface raiders than capital units. 3) Without as much of the HSF stuck in port due to losses presenting a fleet in being threat, do the FAA develop the doctrine based on the intended OTL Wilhelmshaven strike with the resulting lack of the same specialist skills in WW2 (taranto). And the associated knowledge dissemination to japan. 4) without the painful lessons of OTL jutland night actions, does the RN in WW2 (if there is one), not have the same hard learnt training to fall back on for night actions. Matapan say.
Re: Question We're unlikely to get Beatty and then Chatfield as First Sea Lords. I'm not sure Sturdee becomes first Sea Lord either. I wonder about him versus Churchill after additional battlefield success for Sturdee. Jellicoe will probably spends either more time as head of the Grand Fleet, and probably becomes a stronger First Sea Lord. This could be an issue in terms of what convoy looks like. Henderson's report might not get the same love and care without Lloyd George making a nuseance of himself. Jellicoe was in favor of convoy, but the topic is perilous. I think the British try to force their way into the Baltic if they decisively win Jutland. If they can, the war ends early. Britain doesn't see the worst ravages of World War I in the final year. The knockout effect from this is enormous.
For starters, the USN's obsession with wargaming Jutland over the years would've reached uncomfortable levels had it been a decisive victory. And if Sturdee's battlecruisers played a key role in that victory, the US might've looked to build its own battlecruisers sooner or pushed harder to keep the Lexingtons as designed during naval treaty negotiations. If the night action unfolds very differently and isn't regarded as much of a missed opportunity, there may not have been quite the same impetus in the interwar years to developing the Royal Navy's night fighting doctrine.
Hmmm? W.r.t. the loss of Queen Mary and Indefatigable. Yes, it does indeed seem to be very well established that the former ship was indeed sunk due to a hit, not on the fwd magazines directly but rather, by near simultaneous hits on 'A' and 'B' turrets (likely from the same salvo). At least one of which resulted in the almost immediate detonation of the relevant turret's magazine and thus very shortly afterwards, the other too. As per the now well established consequences of lax shell/cordite handling practices tolerated by Beatty. This being so, the conjecture that HMS Queen Mary at least would very probably not have been lost had Sturdee been put in command of the 1st and 2nd BC Squadrons early enough to rectify such issues, seems valid. Wrt the very lightly armoured 1st gen. Invincible Class' equivalently light single RN follow-on BC, HMS Indefatigable (and in principle, her Dominion Navy sisters, RAN Australia and RNZN New Zealand), however, the available evidence is more mixed. She seems to have already been fatally struck aft by Von der Tann several minutes before another salvo arrived fwd and hits were observed both on the fwd turret AND the focsl generally. The explosion of both or either of the relevant magazines, incl. first, the aft one, the force of which seemingly was directed downwards, could therefore just as likely have resulted from their direct penetration as from hits on turrets. Therefore, in the absence of more definite evidence confirming lax shell & charges handling practices as the sole feasible cause, then there's only one way it can be estimated in retrospect that such "pure" Battle Cruisers (specialised cruiser killers and nothing else, which ideally should never have been allowed anywhere near a 'line of battle' engagement with real capital ships) were NOT lost simply by direct hits on their magazines. Or more generally, wouldn't have been otherwise lost in full fleet actions like Jutland. In short, if they were never permitted to participate to begin with on exactly the same basis as the other squadron members. Tactics that even Sturdee, whose handling of Invincible and Inflexible at the Battle of The Falklands indicates he was already very aware of such ships' vulnerability even to Armoured Cruisers medium caliber main armaments, simply did not have the luxury or opportunity to employ at Jutland. Something that can equally well be said of Rear Admiral Sir Horace Hood. OK, in the case where 1st and 2nd BC Squadrons and 5th BS are being commanded by Sturdee, the chance of ANY of the three BCs lost at Jutland in the real timeline is reduced significantly, anyway. Due just to general factors outlined very convincingly in the vid by Dr. Clarke that meant, in short, Hipper would've had even less time to do anything at all but extricate whatever he could from a BC + fast BS fleet that was handled cohesively as a single effective force throughout the actions. Then, along with Scheer, have to do much the same yet again to escape an already overwhelming and still at least just as effectively handled Grand Fleet that appeared even sooner.
Instead of a car accident, is there any way to get Beatty a different posting such that it comes across to the public as a reward for the "victory" at Dogger Bank? Or at least, someone else screwed up and now the RN needs to find someone more competent it can send. As a potential hook, in March Vice Admiral Carden falls ill and is replaced by Rear Admiral de Robeck. How well would a case like "We need someone competent and aggressive to take charge of the Dardanelles campaign. Additionally, the posting's a bit much for a Rear Admiral; it would be better if the squadron was headed by a Vice Admiral." work? (For that matter, whether it'd fly with the public/politicians and whether it'd fly with Beatty are two very different questions, and he was quite good at making things very messy.)
Well done! Any time you try to change history you should try to minimize the butterflies. Which I think you’ve done. The two questions I have after are 1) did Sturdee learn enough from his victory in The Falklands to look past the “hype” of the win 2) if Sturdee takes command in January 1916, and starts working on gunnery accuracy etc, is 5th Battle Squadron even assigned to the Battle Cruiser Fleet? That changes a lot then at Jutland. As for afterwards, yes Sturdee is the logical successor to Jellicoe as commander of the Grand Fleet. But Beatty had money and was popular with the politicians and media, which would (possibly) cause more problems than you think. And Ethel Beatty would cause even more. As for the RNAS and the WNT. I don’t know the full particulars of how the RAF came to be so maybe a particular vigorous First Sea Lord could buck the trend. As for the WNT, it depends a lot on what the RN gets in the water or very close to it by 1919. That will set the bar for what the British demand. And what kind of personal relationships he has and can develop. I think Sturdee would also be continually at it with a Beatty ‘faction’. Not perhaps rising to the level of Fisher Beresford, but a continual low medium level engagement. That will make it hard to sell his agenda.
Well Done. Now for the followup question, what if the British had LESS competent commanders at Jutland? For example, the Grand Fleet was commanded by Beatty. And BTW, having Beatty just injured in that accident means to me that Beatty will retain command of the Battlecruiser Fleet, giving him the power to choose his replacement, which might be his Chief of Staff, or someone like that. Personally, I'd say have Beatty killed in that accident.
Bravo Zulu, thank you very much for your time putting together this long patrol. Can I ask for a bit of context regarding "[beat Beatty] in exercises" - this would generally mean better scouting arrangements and thus better positioning of the fleet / squadron?
The most famous example is from actually when Beatty was in charge of the Grand Fleet... using Fog Madden managed to out manouver him and appear in fighting formation whilst Beatty's force was still in Travel Formation... Beatty ended the exercise before umpires could adjudicate the result insisting on calling it a draw - King(USN CNO WWII) who was watching at the time was left with a permanent bad impression of RN leadership as a result. The only difference had been when Jellicoe was in charge the exercises weren't stopped, in fact there is an argument one of the reasons Beatty's BCF didn't go north for exercises was because of their results.
The comments are really interesting and often incisive. But I wonder what difference it would really have made to the outcome of WW1? What strategic options does a British victory open up other than to mothball dreadnoughts and turn a relatively small number of sailors into infantry. A Baltic attack that keeps Russia in the war? Unlikely due to UK politics. A greater focus of "great minds" on the u-boat menace? Probably more of a hindrance. If there is a decisive battle and battleships are mothballed, how does that affect postwar budgets? Does the political class invest in the great victory or "learn" that the real action is a continental war? Negatively by WW2, the loss of improvements in night fighting doctrine may happen but the fact that there was night fighting probably means not. The blockade drove the doctrine of naval bombing - would that be lost with significant implications for the Med in WW2? Maybe enough to make a difference. Washington treaty implications? Japanese decisive battle doctrine relies on a smaller fleet of battleships at least holding off the larger fleet - they didn't need to "win" the decisive battle early on. Would that seem less possible and thus mean they went to war later or differently? The "what ifs" themselves are quite fluffy but the study of how outcomes affect future thinking interests me.
I consider it possible that their will not be a WNT in such a timeline. For the simple reason that the British electorate would much sooner spend the money than accept parity with America having just won a second Trafalgar. With an open supply rout to Russia though the Baltic and Germany cut off from Swedish Iron Ore and Baltic Wale Oil their war economy is going to take another catastrophic blow, meanwhile the moral and material conditions of Russia are going to improve, specifically in Petrograd which may or may not have a British battle squadron in it. Their is an outside chance of Germany surrendering in the winter of 1916-1917, the Turnip Winter, however I would characterise it as unlikely. This leaves Russia as the big bad on the continent, Fascism still rises in Italy, Spain and Germany however in the latter case they wont be the Nazis specifically because their won't be a Soviet union to get worked up over. This leaves the world in a situation where America and Britain are quite happily engaging in a qualitative race, America presumably relaxing into a rate of two ships per year and Britain into a rate of four. Japan attempting to maintain an eight eight fleet, which by there reckoning will take two ships per year, with Russia desiring to match that in the Pacific, with perhaps a squadron of battleships in the Baltic and Mediterranean seas (a fleet they would not be able to built in time for the next war). Japans reasons for invading Manchuria in 1931 would be unchanged, bringing them into a Russo-Japanese war part two. I suspect this war will end up going the way of the Iran Iraq war, if only there was a way for them both to lose, with Japan receiving material support from the rest of the world as the consequence of either side being victorious would be worse for the British, French, Dutch and Americans than a stalemate. In Europe both Germany and Italy would still have their territorial ambitions, however short of Germany opening a second front of the Russo-Japanese war in Poland their isn't an opportunity for such a war to start. Britain and France aren't going to go to war over Anschluss, war could be started over Czechoslovakia or the invasion of Albania. However being that it didn't I don't see a particularly good reason to suppose it would.
With a Baltic Incursion there is the scenario of WWI ending in 1917. But then... What happens to Russia? Do the Romanoffs survive, or there is the revolution, but only with the Mensheviks (who - contrary to the name, meaning "minority" were the majority, not the Bolsheviks)? What happens to Austria-Hungary? Multiple scenarios there too.
I still don’t think Sturdee would of been able to take over from Beatty because politically Churchill was a Beatty supporter so Jellicoe would maybe cause a political issue with Churchill if he replaced Beatty with Sturdee. I think Sturdee was blamed for the loss of the Falkland’s fleet before avenging it. The letters or false reports after Jutland replaced Jellicoe which means Churchill was never in Jellicoe’s camp even though Fisher had him as his protege and no one was better in that role. Another Churchill mistake in my view. As well as Gallipoli.
I can see your line of thinking, but there are some issues. Churchill resigned from the Admiralty in November 1915, so it wouldn't really matter much what he thought - he's off serving on the front... This is why he didn't come up in the video, he was not in the discussion. The First Lord of the Admiralty in this period was Arthur Balfour, and he was firmly in the let the Admiralty decide comissions camp. The Battle Cruiser Fleet could not be left without leadership and if Beatty is sufficiently incapacitated that he can't go to sea... then he would be replaced. I'd add that Jellicoe's promotion to First Sea Lord was more to do with the Admiralty not getting a grasp of the submarine problem and needing new leadership to come run that war... They couldn't give him a sideways push as that would be a demotion, so they made Jellicoe 1st SL so he was in charge of everything. He then made sure Beatty was surrounded by 'his' officers in order to ensure the smooth running of the Grand Fleet. The letters were less of a factor contemporaniously than when viewed historically, such things were a not uncommon practice of officers in the period and especially after the Fisher/Beresford feud it was kind of expected by the public. Hope that helps yours sincerely Alex
@@DrAlexClarke I bow to your better knowledge. I read about the Beresford / Fisher situation and if Beresford had won then again a different scenario. Was Jutland a disappointment yes, in some cases an American historian stated the high sea fleet won the battle looking over the actual battle. But we all know if the high sea fleet came out for a 2nd run then they would of got battered again. If only the shells were the improved ones. This was another story I read but so many many up for discussion. Great video and interesting especially on the admirals available. I do sometimes wonder if Beatty thought after Queen Mary was lost that he was not doing a very good job of the situation. As no letters available only ones where he criticised Jellicoe. Look forward to more videos about the RN. 👍🏻
I usually say if you look at the part vs the BCF, the germans won, if you look at the part vs the Grand Fleet it was a draw, possibly a loss on points for the HSF... and the thing is for the British what mattered was maintining control of the sea, they did, so for them it was a win. However, you mention improved shells - well that is something I've looked at before, so if you haven't seen them, these videos from an earlier patreon question may interest you: Baile_Inneraora: AH: Greenboys at Jutland. What difference would this have on the battle the aftermath and immediate post war live: Patreon 74: What if History - Greenboy shells had been developed and deployed in time for Jutland. ua-cam.com/users/livegRfvhyZ4jKc Long Patrol: Nothing Wrong With Our Shells Today; Alternate History, What if British Shells at Jutland Work? ua-cam.com/video/-qizwZ1JNog/v-deo.html
If the Battle is fought as discussed and the German's begin the unrestricted U Boat campaign earlier, might that bring the Unite d States into the war in 1916?
The trouble is the Germans might want to begin it earlier, but crew wise(especially with losses sustained in this sort of battle) & construction timelines mean they can't bring it forward by that much relative to it's historical timeline... that's if Holtzendorff doesn't basically say well thank you Tirpitz we're now the complete ultimate definition of an inclined plane wrapped helically around an axis
The American standard bb would be ordered with 25 knot speed, and maybe 15 inch guns if Britain ordered 14 inch 25 knots. Fuso, and ise’s would be 26 knots and 15 or 16 inch guns. Us has to have bigger guns and same speed, Japan bigger guns and faster. Germany would order guns smaller than Britain.
Bravo Zulu. So, if this happens, and we do see the RN lose many ships, do the Admirals get built sooner (ie no post-Jutland revisions), and as a class to replace the numbers lost? The RN would need new battlecruisers and they would be the designs available. I think the FAA being independent would make for something only marginally different. They’d get into dice-bombing earlier, and insist on some kind of fleet air defense fighter that is competitive with land aircraft because someone would note littoral situations would mean you’d need to face those threats. But the smaller budgets and lack of engines would still be a problem.
But if we consider the first thing the RN did when getting control of the FAA in 1937-9 was order the 2000hp engines... it would not surprise me with an RN FAA, if the RN don't invest a lot in engines - especially as they also help with motor torpedo boats, so investing in such things for the RN can pay off in many ways. It's just an idea I've always had.
@@DrAlexClarkeI think it’s a great idea. I just fear the ability of British industry to supply that motor is not up to what the RN needs. Given how long it took Bristol to get a 1000+hp radial; other than RR, is there anyone in 1936 who can give the RN that decent engine? Or would they just be better off building a separate Merlin factory for exclusive RN use?
For post war you said they might not keep the renowns, in personal opinion the UK would probably give them to Australia and allow them to build 3 more of them. Completely replacing HMAS Australia (Possibly New Zealand as well). Canada, South Africa and the rising Brit Raj would be able to build five of their own capitals.
Attractive idea, though it'd make subsequent agreement at Washington rather more problematic when the Americans kicked up a stink about the far larger o/a British Empire modern capital ship numbers and want either
1) the RN and/or the Dominion and Raj governments to reduce their strength accordingly
OR, yet worse for the prospects of ever reaching a deal,
2) try to explicitly set total permitted US tonnage quotas re build/retention/conversion etc actually somewhat higher than those for the RN alone.
Of course, on the plus side there's an outside chance that it all might've catalysed a revisitation of the the unsuccessful late C19th movement advocating the evolution of a full Imperial federal system. At least w.r.t. the 'Home Islands' and the 'Dominions'. Although in the 1920s with Naval Defence as the immediate driving justification, as opposed to trade/investment.
Unlikely, alas, given the UK Westminster/Whitehall establishment elites very long established (and appropriate pre Napoleonic wars, but by 1900 already ossified) cultural default programming to insist, with a determined excess of geopolitical myopia, on seeing Britain as nothing more than just another European great power. Yet there y'go. As Edmund Burke observed even before that ossification...
"A great empire and little minds go ill together."
...Which almost certainly explains why the first of those things is now long gone. While the second is still every bit as apposite a description of the things infesting Westminster and Whitehall in 2024, as it was in Burke's day!🙄
I used to spend many hours playing Jutland online, tested lots of different scenarios. The British should come away with a clear cut victory every time; assuming they have a competent commander.
Absolutely fascinating, thanks very much indeed.
Excellent long patrol doc
Bravo Zulu, enjoyed being around for this live!
If the new commander would have kept the 5 group with the battlecruisers, the Germans would have been WOOPED!
You don't have to hit Beatty with a car, plenty of jobs to send him to; Lieutenant Governor of Tasmania, Liaison with the IJN or IRN, inspector general of fuel storage. Post war there Sturdee would improve intelligence distribution, communications, and if keeping RN aviation have more flying boats to support bases in distant stations like the Falklands.
Trouble is he wouldn't go... and politically he was able to block things
many thx for all the very interesting video u have made for us alex!
If the replacement commander would have SENT THE MESSAGES ABOUT THE GERMAN SHIPS results would have been phenomenal!
56:10 - Its fair to say that the British Battlecruisers would not have made that fatal mistake of not opening fire at maximum range without Beatty. This could have meant the Battlecruisers being hit, if at all, at longer range and not being sunk?
A thought or three on consequences if this happens Dr C.
1) if the Germans focus on U-boat productiob earlier as the HSF is smashed/resources are tree, we could perhaps see butterflies such as more severe restrictions on british trade, the earlier construction of the channel nets and maybe the us entering the war earlier.
2) if the HSF concept is conclusively proven a failure and the lessons of greater uboat impact (as 1) is learned, does the kriegsmarine focus a lot more pre ww2 on having far more subs and surface raiders than capital units.
3) Without as much of the HSF stuck in port due to losses presenting a fleet in being threat, do the FAA develop the doctrine based on the intended OTL Wilhelmshaven strike with the resulting lack of the same specialist skills in WW2 (taranto). And the associated knowledge dissemination to japan.
4) without the painful lessons of OTL jutland night actions, does the RN in WW2 (if there is one), not have the same hard learnt training to fall back on for night actions. Matapan say.
Re: Question
We're unlikely to get Beatty and then Chatfield as First Sea Lords. I'm not sure Sturdee becomes first Sea Lord either. I wonder about him versus Churchill after additional battlefield success for Sturdee.
Jellicoe will probably spends either more time as head of the Grand Fleet, and probably becomes a stronger First Sea Lord. This could be an issue in terms of what convoy looks like. Henderson's report might not get the same love and care without Lloyd George making a nuseance of himself. Jellicoe was in favor of convoy, but the topic is perilous.
I think the British try to force their way into the Baltic if they decisively win Jutland. If they can, the war ends early. Britain doesn't see the worst ravages of World War I in the final year. The knockout effect from this is enormous.
For starters, the USN's obsession with wargaming Jutland over the years would've reached uncomfortable levels had it been a decisive victory. And if Sturdee's battlecruisers played a key role in that victory, the US might've looked to build its own battlecruisers sooner or pushed harder to keep the Lexingtons as designed during naval treaty negotiations.
If the night action unfolds very differently and isn't regarded as much of a missed opportunity, there may not have been quite the same impetus in the interwar years to developing the Royal Navy's night fighting doctrine.
Oh, I had to laugh when you said Sturdee meets King.
BZ.
Hmmm? W.r.t. the loss of Queen Mary and Indefatigable. Yes, it does indeed seem to be very well established that the former ship was indeed sunk due to a hit, not on the fwd magazines directly but rather, by near simultaneous hits on 'A' and 'B' turrets (likely from the same salvo). At least one of which resulted in the almost immediate detonation of the relevant turret's magazine and thus very shortly afterwards, the other too. As per the now well established consequences of lax shell/cordite handling practices tolerated by Beatty. This being so, the conjecture that HMS Queen Mary at least would very probably not have been lost had Sturdee been put in command of the 1st and 2nd BC Squadrons early enough to rectify such issues, seems valid.
Wrt the very lightly armoured 1st gen. Invincible Class' equivalently light single RN follow-on BC, HMS Indefatigable (and in principle, her Dominion Navy sisters, RAN Australia and RNZN New Zealand), however, the available evidence is more mixed. She seems to have already been fatally struck aft by Von der Tann several minutes before another salvo arrived fwd and hits were observed both on the fwd turret AND the focsl generally. The explosion of both or either of the relevant magazines, incl. first, the aft one, the force of which seemingly was directed downwards, could therefore just as likely have resulted from their direct penetration as from hits on turrets.
Therefore, in the absence of more definite evidence confirming lax shell & charges handling practices as the sole feasible cause, then there's only one way it can be estimated in retrospect that such "pure" Battle Cruisers (specialised cruiser killers and nothing else, which ideally should never have been allowed anywhere near a 'line of battle' engagement with real capital ships) were NOT lost simply by direct hits on their magazines. Or more generally, wouldn't have been otherwise lost in full fleet actions like Jutland. In short, if they were never permitted to participate to begin with on exactly the same basis as the other squadron members.
Tactics that even Sturdee, whose handling of Invincible and Inflexible at the Battle of The Falklands indicates he was already very aware of such ships' vulnerability even to Armoured Cruisers medium caliber main armaments, simply did not have the luxury or opportunity to employ at Jutland. Something that can equally well be said of Rear Admiral Sir Horace Hood.
OK, in the case where 1st and 2nd BC Squadrons and 5th BS are being commanded by Sturdee, the chance of ANY of the three BCs lost at Jutland in the real timeline is reduced significantly, anyway. Due just to general factors outlined very convincingly in the vid by Dr. Clarke that meant, in short, Hipper would've had even less time to do anything at all but extricate whatever he could from a BC + fast BS fleet that was handled cohesively as a single effective force throughout the actions. Then, along with Scheer, have to do much the same yet again to escape an already overwhelming and still at least just as effectively handled Grand Fleet that appeared even sooner.
Instead of a car accident, is there any way to get Beatty a different posting such that it comes across to the public as a reward for the "victory" at Dogger Bank? Or at least, someone else screwed up and now the RN needs to find someone more competent it can send. As a potential hook, in March Vice Admiral Carden falls ill and is replaced by Rear Admiral de Robeck. How well would a case like "We need someone competent and aggressive to take charge of the Dardanelles campaign. Additionally, the posting's a bit much for a Rear Admiral; it would be better if the squadron was headed by a Vice Admiral." work? (For that matter, whether it'd fly with the public/politicians and whether it'd fly with Beatty are two very different questions, and he was quite good at making things very messy.)
Well done!
Any time you try to change history you should try to minimize the butterflies. Which I think you’ve done. The two questions I have after are
1) did Sturdee learn enough from his victory in The Falklands to look past the “hype” of the win
2) if Sturdee takes command in January 1916, and starts working on gunnery accuracy etc, is 5th Battle Squadron even assigned to the Battle Cruiser Fleet? That changes a lot then at Jutland.
As for afterwards, yes Sturdee is the logical successor to Jellicoe as commander of the Grand Fleet. But Beatty had money and was popular with the politicians and media, which would (possibly) cause more problems than you think. And Ethel Beatty would cause even more.
As for the RNAS and the WNT. I don’t know the full particulars of how the RAF came to be so maybe a particular vigorous First Sea Lord could buck the trend. As for the WNT, it depends a lot on what the RN gets in the water or very close to it by 1919. That will set the bar for what the British demand. And what kind of personal relationships he has and can develop. I think Sturdee would also be continually at it with a Beatty ‘faction’. Not perhaps rising to the level of Fisher Beresford, but a continual low medium level engagement. That will make it hard to sell his agenda.
2:40 You're kind of rough on poor old Collingwood. He was an amazing head of the Mediterranean fleet. A much stronger station commander than Nelson.
Well Done. Now for the followup question, what if the British had LESS competent commanders at Jutland? For example, the Grand Fleet was commanded by Beatty. And BTW, having Beatty just injured in that accident means to me that Beatty will retain command of the Battlecruiser Fleet, giving him the power to choose his replacement, which might be his Chief of Staff, or someone like that. Personally, I'd say have Beatty killed in that accident.
Bravo Zulu, very good presntation Doc.
Bravo Zulu, thank you very much for your time putting together this long patrol.
Can I ask for a bit of context regarding "[beat Beatty] in exercises" - this would generally mean better scouting arrangements and thus better positioning of the fleet / squadron?
The most famous example is from actually when Beatty was in charge of the Grand Fleet... using Fog Madden managed to out manouver him and appear in fighting formation whilst Beatty's force was still in Travel Formation... Beatty ended the exercise before umpires could adjudicate the result insisting on calling it a draw - King(USN CNO WWII) who was watching at the time was left with a permanent bad impression of RN leadership as a result. The only difference had been when Jellicoe was in charge the exercises weren't stopped, in fact there is an argument one of the reasons Beatty's BCF didn't go north for exercises was because of their results.
The comments are really interesting and often incisive. But I wonder what difference it would really have made to the outcome of WW1? What strategic options does a British victory open up other than to mothball dreadnoughts and turn a relatively small number of sailors into infantry. A Baltic attack that keeps Russia in the war? Unlikely due to UK politics. A greater focus of "great minds" on the u-boat menace? Probably more of a hindrance. If there is a decisive battle and battleships are mothballed, how does that affect postwar budgets? Does the political class invest in the great victory or "learn" that the real action is a continental war?
Negatively by WW2, the loss of improvements in night fighting doctrine may happen but the fact that there was night fighting probably means not.
The blockade drove the doctrine of naval bombing - would that be lost with significant implications for the Med in WW2? Maybe enough to make a difference.
Washington treaty implications?
Japanese decisive battle doctrine relies on a smaller fleet of battleships at least holding off the larger fleet - they didn't need to "win" the decisive battle early on. Would that seem less possible and thus mean they went to war later or differently?
The "what ifs" themselves are quite fluffy but the study of how outcomes affect future thinking interests me.
I consider it possible that their will not be a WNT in such a timeline. For the simple reason that the British electorate would much sooner spend the money than accept parity with America having just won a second Trafalgar.
With an open supply rout to Russia though the Baltic and Germany cut off from Swedish Iron Ore and Baltic Wale Oil their war economy is going to take another catastrophic blow, meanwhile the moral and material conditions of Russia are going to improve, specifically in Petrograd which may or may not have a British battle squadron in it. Their is an outside chance of Germany surrendering in the winter of 1916-1917, the Turnip Winter, however I would characterise it as unlikely. This leaves Russia as the big bad on the continent, Fascism still rises in Italy, Spain and Germany however in the latter case they wont be the Nazis specifically because their won't be a Soviet union to get worked up over.
This leaves the world in a situation where America and Britain are quite happily engaging in a qualitative race, America presumably relaxing into a rate of two ships per year and Britain into a rate of four. Japan attempting to maintain an eight eight fleet, which by there reckoning will take two ships per year, with Russia desiring to match that in the Pacific, with perhaps a squadron of battleships in the Baltic and Mediterranean seas (a fleet they would not be able to built in time for the next war).
Japans reasons for invading Manchuria in 1931 would be unchanged, bringing them into a Russo-Japanese war part two. I suspect this war will end up going the way of the Iran Iraq war, if only there was a way for them both to lose, with Japan receiving material support from the rest of the world as the consequence of either side being victorious would be worse for the British, French, Dutch and Americans than a stalemate.
In Europe both Germany and Italy would still have their territorial ambitions, however short of Germany opening a second front of the Russo-Japanese war in Poland their isn't an opportunity for such a war to start. Britain and France aren't going to go to war over Anschluss, war could be started over Czechoslovakia or the invasion of Albania. However being that it didn't I don't see a particularly good reason to suppose it would.
How about falling of a station platform after one too many to drink? Sucks for the engine crew but might solve the free range Beatty problem.
LOL
Honestly I would love to hear an episode about the life of Cecil Burney
What would have happened if Beatty had been in charge of the van at Trafalgar instead of Collingwood?
What would Jutland have been like if Fisher had gotten his wish to build more BCs and fewer BBs?
Very different, but also unlikely as Fisher's successors may change course
If the DDs and CL are ramming does anyone try a boarding action!?
Just came on here to state that I heartily endorse the idea of replacing Beatty with Frederick Doveton Sturdee!
Thank you. At last my soubriquet has received the recognition it has long deserved!!
Was it just me of did the good doc sound like the thought of Beatty covered in casts from a wreck was enthusiastically wishful thinking?
With a Baltic Incursion there is the scenario of WWI ending in 1917. But then... What happens to Russia? Do the Romanoffs survive, or there is the revolution, but only with the Mensheviks (who - contrary to the name, meaning "minority" were the majority, not the Bolsheviks)?
What happens to Austria-Hungary? Multiple scenarios there too.
I still don’t think Sturdee would of been able to take over from Beatty because politically Churchill was a Beatty supporter so Jellicoe would maybe cause a political issue with Churchill if he replaced Beatty with Sturdee. I think Sturdee was blamed for the loss of the Falkland’s fleet before avenging it. The letters or false reports after Jutland replaced Jellicoe which means Churchill was never in Jellicoe’s camp even though Fisher had him as his protege and no one was better in that role. Another Churchill mistake in my view. As well as Gallipoli.
I can see your line of thinking, but there are some issues.
Churchill resigned from the Admiralty in November 1915, so it wouldn't really matter much what he thought - he's off serving on the front... This is why he didn't come up in the video, he was not in the discussion. The First Lord of the Admiralty in this period was Arthur Balfour, and he was firmly in the let the Admiralty decide comissions camp. The Battle Cruiser Fleet could not be left without leadership and if Beatty is sufficiently incapacitated that he can't go to sea... then he would be replaced.
I'd add that Jellicoe's promotion to First Sea Lord was more to do with the Admiralty not getting a grasp of the submarine problem and needing new leadership to come run that war... They couldn't give him a sideways push as that would be a demotion, so they made Jellicoe 1st SL so he was in charge of everything. He then made sure Beatty was surrounded by 'his' officers in order to ensure the smooth running of the Grand Fleet. The letters were less of a factor contemporaniously than when viewed historically, such things were a not uncommon practice of officers in the period and especially after the Fisher/Beresford feud it was kind of expected by the public.
Hope that helps
yours sincerely
Alex
@@DrAlexClarke I bow to your better knowledge. I read about the Beresford / Fisher situation and if Beresford had won then again a different scenario. Was Jutland a disappointment yes, in some cases an American historian stated the high sea fleet won the battle looking over the actual battle. But we all know if the high sea fleet came out for a 2nd run then they would of got battered again. If only the shells were the improved ones. This was another story I read but so many many up for discussion. Great video and interesting especially on the admirals available. I do sometimes wonder if Beatty thought after Queen Mary was lost that he was not doing a very good job of the situation. As no letters available only ones where he criticised Jellicoe. Look forward to more videos about the RN. 👍🏻
I usually say if you look at the part vs the BCF, the germans won, if you look at the part vs the Grand Fleet it was a draw, possibly a loss on points for the HSF... and the thing is for the British what mattered was maintining control of the sea, they did, so for them it was a win. However, you mention improved shells - well that is something I've looked at before, so if you haven't seen them, these videos from an earlier patreon question may interest you:
Baile_Inneraora: AH: Greenboys at Jutland. What difference would this have on the battle the aftermath and immediate post war
live: Patreon 74: What if History - Greenboy shells had been developed and deployed in time for Jutland. ua-cam.com/users/livegRfvhyZ4jKc
Long Patrol: Nothing Wrong With Our Shells Today; Alternate History, What if British Shells at Jutland Work? ua-cam.com/video/-qizwZ1JNog/v-deo.html
If the Battle is fought as discussed and the German's begin the unrestricted U Boat campaign earlier, might that bring the Unite d States into the war in 1916?
The trouble is the Germans might want to begin it earlier, but crew wise(especially with losses sustained in this sort of battle) & construction timelines mean they can't bring it forward by that much relative to it's historical timeline... that's if Holtzendorff doesn't basically say well thank you Tirpitz we're now the complete ultimate definition of an inclined plane wrapped helically around an axis
The American standard bb would be ordered with 25 knot speed, and maybe 15 inch guns if Britain ordered 14 inch 25 knots. Fuso, and ise’s would be 26 knots and 15 or 16 inch guns. Us has to have bigger guns and same speed, Japan bigger guns and faster. Germany would order guns smaller than Britain.
Bravo Zulu. So, if this happens, and we do see the RN lose many ships, do the Admirals get built sooner (ie no post-Jutland revisions), and as a class to replace the numbers lost? The RN would need new battlecruisers and they would be the designs available.
I think the FAA being independent would make for something only marginally different. They’d get into dice-bombing earlier, and insist on some kind of fleet air defense fighter that is competitive with land aircraft because someone would note littoral situations would mean you’d need to face those threats. But the smaller budgets and lack of engines would still be a problem.
But if we consider the first thing the RN did when getting control of the FAA in 1937-9 was order the 2000hp engines... it would not surprise me with an RN FAA, if the RN don't invest a lot in engines - especially as they also help with motor torpedo boats, so investing in such things for the RN can pay off in many ways. It's just an idea I've always had.
@@DrAlexClarkeI think it’s a great idea. I just fear the ability of British industry to supply that motor is not up to what the RN needs. Given how long it took Bristol to get a 1000+hp radial; other than RR, is there anyone in 1936 who can give the RN that decent engine? Or would they just be better off building a separate Merlin factory for exclusive RN use?