PDA

View Full Version : The BATTLE of DOGGER BANK 24 Jan 1915


The Sailor
23-01-2008, 01:05
The battle of Dogger Bank was the second significant naval battle of the First World War.
The first time heavy units of the British and German fleets came into direct contact.
By 1915, the British Admiralty had gained access to the three main codes used by the German navy, and were able to decode German naval transmissions at the same speed as the Germans could themselves. The Germans soon realised that news of their sailing was getting to the British, but decided that the culprits were British spy ships posing as neutral Dutch fishermen. Accordingly, the Germans decided to send out a battle cruiser squadron under Admiral Hipper, to disrupt the British patrols in the area. However, news of their plan reached the admiralty, and both Admiral Beatty, based at the Forth, and Admiral Jellicoe, from Scape Flow, sailed to intercept them. Beatty's battlecruiser squadron was to do the fighting, with Jellicoe's battleships sailing to prevent any German breakout.
Hipper, sailing north at speed, encountered Beatty's heavier ships at Dogger Bank, and immediately turned tail and headed for home, with the British in hot pursuit, and gaining. The oldest German ship, SMS 'Blucher', was soon badly damaged, but by concentrating their fire, the Germans managed to force Beatty on HMS Lion to fall out of the chase.
In the following confusion, Beatty's signals were misunderstood, and the British concentrated on the already doomed 'Blucher', allowing the remaining three German battlecruisers to escape what had looked like a certain sinking. Both sides realised that there were flaws in their fleets - the British concentrated on their signals, but the Germans made the more important improvements. One of their ships had nearly been sunk after an explosion in the magazines, and it was realised that the problem was that too much explosive material had been taken from secure storage to the gun turrets, where it was vulnerable to any incoming shots. The Germans thus tightened up their ammunition handling, but the Royal Navy did not, and at the battle of Jutland lost several ships after flashes detonated the explosions.

herakles
23-01-2008, 03:45
A most interesting post Sailor. My, the time you spend here making good threads for the membership to read.

Yet another example of the importance of breaking codes I see. Can't be over-estimated, the importance of that.

:D

The Sailor
23-01-2008, 04:03
In fact Herk, I did not know this about the WW1 code breaking, did you?
WW2 and the German and Japanese naval codes are always to the forefront.

herakles
23-01-2008, 05:04
Code breaking was very important at that time. The navy was very worried using radio for fear of interception of their signals.

At least laying cable in the trenches made interception difficult. But as for semaphore or mirror flashing ... ...

John Brown
23-01-2008, 16:15
An important factor in the British success in decoding German signals in WW1 was the capture of code books by the Russians. In August 1914 the German cruiser 'Magdeburg' ran aground and was captured by the Russians. Despite attempts by the Germans to destroy their code books and maps, some were found by the Russians and copies were passed to the British in Oct 1914. These were immediately handed to the newly established British cryptography centre called 'Room 40' (The forerunner of Bletchley Park). The British later had another stroke of luck when another code book was found on a German Merchant ship off Melbourne giving them the second 'key' to the codes.

Regards.....John

Harley
23-01-2008, 16:37
Little known fact that the Germans had deciphered the British codes as well. On the morning of 31 May, 1916 the German radio station at Neumünster intercepted and decoded British signals that showed that warships were underway from Scapa Flow.

Instead of giving Scheer pause, the report, along with that of a U-Boat merely made him certain he could bring part of the Royal Navy to battle, not imagining it would be the whole Grand Fleet.

Harley

herakles
23-01-2008, 20:31
Capturing code books was crucial as I understand things. Consider how we came to understand Enigma. A couple of very brave Poles.

It happened too for Wellington in the Peninsula War. Captured French codes.

The problem has always been keeping it secret that you know of enemy plans. Consider Coventry and Crete in WW2. Coventry with its beautiful cathedral was levelled and Crete lost because it was considered too dangerous to take evasive action.

Bit different today. Digital encryption makes it all but impossible to decipher. I use 128 bit encryption in my computer. The weak link with this system is the choice of password. A 10 digit password would take hundreds of years to discover. Especially if the word is non-dictionary. A 5 digit one about two hours.

The weak link these days is mobile phones I gather.

rlw
15-01-2009, 21:11
I have just finished reading a book which if you have not seen it, I suggest you get a copy. You may all know about bit I found it quite by chance. it's called

"Scrimgeour's Small Scribbling Diary 1914 - 1916" and it is the diaries and letters of a young midshipman killed at Jutland. Quite a remarkable book.

Anyway, the compiler alludes to Beatty, following Dogger Bank, removing the air tight safety interlocks in the ammunition hoists in his ships as a means of increasing the firing rate but with a commensurate loss of primary safety - a hit on the turret risking fire reaching the magazine and this is what, supposedly, happened to Invincible, Indefatigable and Queen Mary at Jutland.

Beatty is also alleged to have suppressed a report detailing this and blamed inadequate armour apparently.

Harley
15-01-2009, 22:30
Last I heard it is pretty much impossible to know exactly the safety practices in force at the time of the Battle of Jutland.

I read it and thought that the diaries are exactly what they appear and no more - the scribblings of a spoilt, self-important teenager. I've read the contemporary writings of many other young naval officers in WWI and none of them come across as insufferable as Scrimgeour does. That however is just my opinion. Perhaps valuable from a social point of view, but from a strictly naval perspective I'd look elsewhere for information.

Simon