WWI - Austria-Hungarian navy options

[Terry Duncan]

Firstly, I don´t see any political gain, neither before nor after the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, as Italy is being considered to be, at that moment, at least "friendly neutral" and Serbia isn´t a naval power.

To my mind this is likely to be seen as a threat by Italy, and likely to push her even further away from the Central Powers, unless people like Conrad are removed from office or at least forced to renounce their ideas of war with Italy!

IMO, that product would be considerably and recognizably less if a German ship were to operate from a base in the Northern Adriatic instead of a base in the North Sea or the Baltic.

My own thoughts would be that Glenn's proposal would probably be twice as many ships as the Austrian facilities could handle easily, so whilst you have a lot of ships, any repairs or overhauls would reduce the numbers available at any one time very quickly. Then again, even presuming full effectiveness when war breaks out, it is hard to see what the ships are going to do to justify this deployment - if Italy is hostile it does allow somewhat greater scope, but keeping Italy neutral would be preferable for Austria by far.

And the thread should get back on track to pure "A-H navy options"

I would agree, but short of a death or glory sortie to try and find the French transports at the wars start, or maybe some 'vandalism' to Malta, I am a bit stuck to think how Austria can do much early on.

[BDV]

I agree,

The KuK KriegsMarine's problem is that a brazen sortie into the Med is very likely to have the same outcome as the Battle of Falklands - utter destruction of the KuK squadron, what with French numerical supremacy, and RN's strategic Malta position. So by itself, it's hard to see what else could KuK accomplish - except maybe sortie against the blockading forces somewhat more vigorously/frequently.

In OTL, the mass of RN dreadnaughts operated from home port and close home shipyard against the smaller mass of German dreadnaughts operating from home port and home shipyard. In the ATL a couple of top-of-the-line german dreadnaughts in the Adriatic would be operating from friendly port / friendly shipyard against however many dreadnaughts RN would be dispatching on patrol to guard the Adriatic exit. The situation, the game if you will, would change qualitatively. If Central Powers had any prayer in Sea matters, it would be in such a game-change, where they could opportunistically exploit the situation before the RN and the Marine Nationale figure out the new game rules and bring to bear their superior numbers.

And of course, such close cooperation was historically not forthcoming in the KuK - Reich relations. So it's difficult to project how THAT would come about, given that the one man who maybe, possibly, could have willed such cooperation through (FF) was quite dead.

P.S. But wouldn't such a show of support and force (as dispatching a strong Naval squadron) make Italy think twice before joining with the Entente and attacking the KuK empire?

[glenn239]

Oh goody, they can go! The problem is that you fail to see quite how many Entente ships are able to be placed across the Otranto barrage line to contain the threat.

The French fleet of 1914 was based in France, not Oranto.

Moving the Austrian fleet to the North Sea would have been a better bet

No, I think not; the North Sea has poor visibility with no prospect for advanced anchorages - helping to eliminate the KuK’s seaplane scouting advantage. There are no vital Entente shipping lanes in striking distance in the North Sea, but there is one just outside the Oranto Straights. The east coast of the Adriatic is replete with opportunities for protected anchorages if things get ‘hot’ far from base. The Austrians had no interest in facing the Grand Fleet - their odds against crappy French pre-dreadnoughts were much better. The Adriatic is tailor made for aerial recce - four Zeppelins line abreast should be able to sweep the whole sea.

A more aggressive Austrian navy theoretically had the ability to establish forward bases in Albania and a forward protected anchorage towards Oranto on the east coast of the Adriatic. Heck, every now and again it might be the case that a Greek base becomes available. This would require shipping, of course, as well as a higher strategic focus on the Balkans than was historically the case. Hence, another Austrian interests; a stronger German fleet in the Med might see Germany become more interested in the theatre.

In fact, it could be the case that Greece offered the only theoretically achievable alteration in the CP's otherwise hopeless basing situation; if instead of the Flanders offensive of October 1914 the Germans had eliminated Serbia...

Firstly, I don´t see any political gain, neither before nor after the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, as Italy is being considered to be, at that moment, at least "friendly neutral" and Serbia isn´t a naval power.

We’re assuming that Italy remains neutral.

To my mind this is likely to be seen as a threat by Italy, and likely to push her even further away from the Central Powers, unless people like Conrad are removed from office or at least forced to renounce their ideas of war with Italy!

That does not follow – the deployment is probably irrelevant to Italy either way. In 1913 an Austrian admiral was named commander of the Triple Alliance joint fleet. This was a mistake – it should have been an Italian.

Secondly, using "game theory": a warship´s operational effectiveness is the product of its operational capabilities, its operational base and its logistic system (the classic example being the "improved" German submarine warfare after the fall of France in 1940).

he logistics you mention are functionally irrelevant; the theoretical tempo of operations in the North Sea were far in excess of the historical pattern. That is, the requirement was far less than capacity. And what HSF logistic shortages I read about were in coal supply, not rail or dock capacity. Pola was a major city and major fleet base, so presumably had good rail capacity and acceptable dock facilities. The question is whether the Central Powers were better off concentrating or dispersing their fleets in view of Entente superiority everywhere, and whether the Nassau Class dreadnoughts offered any added offensive capability in the North Sea. I argue that greater dispersal of German resources was advisable and that the Nassaus added little to no offensive capacity to the High Seas Fleet.

[Terry Duncan]

The French fleet of 1914 was based in France, not Oranto.

Yes, and other than the transports so are almost all the potential targets at the outset of the war.

The east coast of the Adriatic is replete with opportunities for protected anchorages if things get ‘hot’ far from base.

Find a bay and call it a harbour?

The Austrians had no interest in facing the Grand Fleet - their odds against crappy French pre-dreadnoughts were much better.

Oddly enough, the Germans had no interest in sending parts of the battlefleet to the Med to aid Austria, though that can be sidelined by you.

The Adriatic is tailor made for aerial recce - four Zeppelins line abreast should be able to sweep the whole sea.

But it has a very narrow exit that can be monitored from ships based at Malta, and almost no obvious targets to strike at.

A more aggressive Austrian navy theoretically had the ability to establish forward bases in Albania and a forward protected anchorage towards Oranto on the east coast of the Adriatic.

That is not so easy for the major warships.

We’re assuming that Italy remains neutral.

Why? There is a war happening and Italy can benefit from it if she joins the winning side. She is unlikely to join Austria, and all her likely desires are in Austrian hands. A significant German force in Austrian hands will be seen as a threat, not a bonus.

And what HSF logistic shortages I read about were in coal supply, not rail or dock capacity. Pola was a major city and major fleet base, so presumably had good rail capacity and acceptable dock facilities.

Germany had spent years getting it right, building the bases and rail links and not forgetting all the infrastructure too, all designed to give a sizable fleet excellent support facilities. In this the Germans were far better off than the British, whose major naval bases had all been created in the age of sail to fight the French, Dutch and Spanish, many could not not handle the major ships in their docks, and were in the wrong places to oppose Germany.

Pola was a major base for the smaller Austrian navy, and its facilities were for a small fleet. You may anchor a lot of ships there, but the important drydocks and maintenance facilities are just not present. It takes years to build up a base to full efficiency, and it cannot be expected to handle a sudden increase of numbers without a major loss to its performance - even if you forget about all the new parts that will be needed to be kept in stores for these new ships.

This stuff is ok with years of planning, but to improvise this successfully is really not going to happen. Polar bear has direct naval experience, I am sure he will tell you quite how much in the way of replacement parts, specialist machinery and such is kept in home ports.

whether the Nassau Class dreadnoughts offered any added offensive capability in the North Sea.

They rather obviously add capability to the HSF, it would be hard to see how any other conclusion could be arrived at. Even Mauve's ships added to Scheer's capability to a degree, and led the line at points in the escape, replaced by the Nassua's! They are not as good as later ships, but they are better than nothing, and although they did slow the HSF they also brushed aside the GF's light forces allowing their usually more capable bretherin to get home safely.

[BDV]

Oddly enough, the Germans had no interest in sending parts of the battlefleet to the Med to aid Austria,

This, I think is the Achille's heel of this WHIF. A calvinist Hohenzollern to put his prized personal jewels on the line to bail out the despicable papist Habsburgs. Unconceivable.

But it has a very narrow exit that can be monitored from ships based at Malta, and almost no obvious targets to strike at.

Unless the RN dreadnaughts are on the line, patrolling side by side with the french ships, there will be no blockade of the straits. Otherwise, in case of KM-KM sortie, RN ships would arrive in time to pick up the few french survivors.

Why? There is a war happening and Italy can benefit from it if she joins the winning side. She is unlikely to join Austria, and all her likely desires are in Austrian hands. A significant German force in Austrian hands will be seen as a threat, not a bonus.

And power displays/ veiled threats have no place in world politics since when? Significant german naval support of KuK, and few dozen french sailor carcasses washed out on Bari beaches might convince Italy that continuing to profiteer is the most sensible course of action.

Pola was a major base for the smaller Austrian navy, and its facilities were for a small fleet. You may anchor a lot of ships there, but the important drydocks and maintenance facilities are just not present. It takes years to build up a base to full efficiency, and it cannot be expected to handle a sudden increase of numbers without a major loss to its performance - even if you forget about all the new parts that will be needed to be kept in stores for these new ships.

This stuff is ok with years of planning, but to improvise this successfully is really not going to happen. Polar bear has direct naval experience, I am sure he will tell you quite how much in the way of replacement parts, specialist machinery and such is kept in home ports.

But then, how well will Malta work out as a forward dreadnaught base? I'm sure british ships can limp to Marseille for parts/repairs (before Italy joining), but that would work (roughly) similarly well as Triest for the german dreadnaughts, while being farther from the action.

[Baltasar]

No, I think not; the North Sea has poor visibility [...]

Could you please explain why you think that a much larger sea area than the Adriatic would have worse visibility. Continuously? I happen to live near the coast and assure you that visibility can change as often as in any other area, which means there is no definitive pro or con for either area for operations.

helping to eliminate the KuK’s seaplane scouting advantage.

Can you please tell us which ships exactly did carry seaplanes?

There are no vital Entente shipping lanes in striking distance in the North Sea, but there is one just outside the Oranto Straights.

Same problem as in the North Sea, actually. The sea lanes are behind the enemy fleet.

The east coast of the Adriatic is replete with opportunities for protected anchorages if things get ‘hot’ far from base.

The enemy can hide in thos anchorages as well. Fast torpedoe boats are quite dangerous as the Austrians learned when the Italians sank one of their dreadnoughts.

The Austrians had no interest in facing the Grand Fleet - their odds against crappy French pre-dreadnoughts were much better.

Unfortunately, the French pre-dreadnoughts were not that crappy and the Royal Navy could easily shift forces to the Med if the Germans decided to send ships there prewar.

The Adriatic is tailor made for aerial recce - four Zeppelins line abreast should be able to sweep the whole sea.

If this is true, it works for both sides.

[glenn239]

Unfortunately, the French pre-dreadnoughts were not that crappy and the Royal Navy could easily shift forces to the Med if the Germans decided to send ships there prewar.

We’ll agree to disagree on French pre-dreadnoughts and the point is that shifting British forces out of the North Sea helps the HSF more than it does the GF.

Can you please tell us which ships exactly did carry seaplanes?

Who said anything about the K.u.K’s seaplane force being ship based?

Same problem as in the North Sea, actually. The sea lanes are behind the enemy fleet.

You argue against the granite face of geographical fact. In the North Sea the major Entente sea lanes are 1,000 miles distant, accessible only after a long and dangerous journey around Scotland. In the Adriatic the main Entente sea lane is outside the Straights, while the major French naval bases are hundreds of miles further away in France. An advanced base in Malta is possible, but without adequate defences Malta is too exposed and a fleet there could be annihilated in port by an attacking fleet.

They rather obviously add capability to the HSF, it would be hard to see how any other conclusion could be arrived at. Even Mauve's ships added to Scheer's capability to a degree

There is no question that the Nassau Class added defensive capacity to the HSF. But defensive capacity was largely irrelevant to the strategic mission of the HSF, making the Nassaus largely irrelevant to the war the North Sea. If drawing off six British dreadnoughts by deploying elsewhere, the Nassaus have already accomplished more than they ever did in the entire war.

Unless the RN dreadnaughts are on the line, patrolling side by side with the french ships, there will be no blockade of the straits.

An actual dreadnought blockade line will result in immediate pre-dreadnought sinkings via submarine, so its a non-starter. A CP advanced base at Vlore in Albania would be well positioned to contest the Entente SLOC. A base in Greece would be even better.

[Polar bear]

hi,

he logistics you mention are functionally irrelevant

A real nice way to continue a discussion is to tell your opponent that his arguments are irrelevant ... you should apply for a post in the diplomatic service.
A major fault is that your constant re-infusion of the HSF and "Nassaus" is in clear disregard of the thread´s title ... it´s "Austria-Hungarian navy options" ... now, please, start a new thread labelled "Central Powers naval options" or take your "Nassaus" and leave.

Polar bear has direct naval experience, I am sure he will tell you quite how much in the way of replacement parts, specialist machinery and such is kept in home ports.

No, I won´t. My argument about "Product of capability x base x logistics" has been made - actually, it was on the "German deployment", too and therefore misplaced - and I refuse further discussion under this title unless we restrict us to the A-H navy and stick to the topic.

greetings, the pb

[BDV]

and I refuse further discussion under this title unless we restrict us to the A-H navy and stick to the topic.

Well

short of a death or glory sortie to try and find the French transports at the wars start, or maybe some 'vandalism' to Malta, I am a bit stuck to think how Austria can do much early on.
Terry Duncan

is IMO well settled.

Thus, getting some sort of Kaiserlische support was KriegsMarine's only option, early. Later on, with Italy in war, and with french dreadnaughts sailing out of docks the situation is even more dire for the small A-H navy, if alone.

Taking "KuK gets german support" off the table makes for a very short thread, then.

[Polar bear]

hi,

sticking to what I`ve said before, I´m rather bound to provide some ideas myself for a renewal of discussion

here it is: after the UK`s DoW, no shelling of Malta, but an intensive mine offensive ... using ...
- surface ships (difficult with fighting for the breakthrough of Otranto Strait out- and inwards)
- submarines
- possibly: seaplanes ?

greetings, the pb

[Baltasar]

Pb,

there was no initial blockade of the Otranto straight. The passage was only officially blocked once Italy joined the war. Although the British / French forces did keep heavy patrols in this area, the Austrians might have been able to run surprise attacks on the blockade force. This would mean they would try to engage the screening, supposedly light ships and turn around after one or two hours or once they recieved information on the whereabouts of the Anglo / French fleets.

Mining would be possible, I think, especially with submarines. The Austro-Hungarian subs did sink relatively many ships during the war at relatively few losses of men and subs. They clearly were a danger to Entente shipping. May be the latest destroyers could be converted into minelayers, although this wouldprobably be moot after Italy's dow on Austria-Hungary.

Not sure about the seaplanes, I suspect that a single seamine would mean way too much payload for them. How about Zeppelins?

[glenn239]

I am a bit stuck to think how Austria can do much early on.

Austrian upon her own resources can do nothing significantly different than historical, save perhaps a higher tempo of operations and the possibility of sending a few ships to the Ottomans. The mining operations mentioned – I should think the limiting factor would be available mines.

there was no initial blockade of the Otranto straight. The passage was only officially blocked once Italy joined the war. Although the British / French forces did keep heavy patrols in this area, the Austrians might have been able to run surprise attacks on the blockade force.

Seems pretty risky - the Oranto raid in 1917 courted disaster, for example.

Not sure about the seaplanes, I suspect that a single seamine would mean way too much payload for them. How about Zeppelins?

None available – it was not until 1916 that even the German navy had enough Zeppelins in service that a significant operational impact could be made by them. The HSF would not be inclined to lend scarce resources to the Austrians.

[Polar bear]

Not sure about the seaplanes, I suspect that a single seamine would mean way too much payload for them.

I agree after checking. All payload went to the crew, fuel and MG armament.

How about Zeppelins?

a short check indicated that all A-H airships were wrecked before DoW.

greetings, the pb

[glenn239]

Ok, so no actual proposals for Austria-Hungary's navy on its own then? Other than the usual more mining (if stocks available) and some actual commando landings against the exposed Italian coast to force the diversion of a corps or two?

[Baltasar]

Keeping in mind that the assets were available and that literally anything would help the Central Powers, that'd still be not too bad.