On 17 October 1917, two
light cruisers of the Imperial German Navy's surface fleet participated in the
Action off Lerwick, in which the German ships attacked a group of neutral cargo vessels sailing under
Scandinavian flags. This attack, unusual at the time for its use of the surface fleet as opposed to the
U-boats which had enjoyed much greater success against the Royal Navy, drew outrage for use of armed force against neutral cargo ships. It is not clear, in hindsight, whether this outrage was justified, given the colliers were transporting war material in convoy. The action, which saw the loss of nine colliers, also resulted in the loss of the Royal Navy destroyers
Strongbow and
Mary Rose, while the two German cruisers escaped the battle without damage or loss of life. The resulting uproar over the loss of the coal ships and charges that the Germans had not allowed for sufficient time for the civilians aboard the coal ships to evacuate compelled the British Admiralty to reply in kind to the German attack.
The Royal Navy's response came during the
Second Battle of Heligoland Bight on 17 November 1917, after British Naval Intelligence caught wind of an Imperial German Navy surface group that had put to sea with the intention of clearing naval mines laid by the Royal Navy. The intelligence was passed to the Admiralty, which put together a surface force that included
battlecruisers to intercept and hopeful destroy the German task force. Around 7:30 AM the Royal Navy sighted its enemy and the battle began with the opening salvo at 7:37, but the Imperial German Navy's task force elected to withdraw rather than stand and fight. This turned what the Royal Navy had hoped would be a retaliatory strike into a race to catch up with the withdrawing German surface assets. The chase was hampered initially by the presence of naval mines, which had to be navigated around carefully lest the Royal Navy incur further losses, and finally ended two hours later when the British reached the edge of known minefields and the withdrawing German surface force was reinforced by
SMS Kaiser and
Kaiserin, two Imperial Germany Navy battleships that had come out to cover the minesweepers. The battleships and battlecruisers engaged each other briefly before the Royal Navy, conceding the chase, elected to withdraw from the area and thus brought the battle to an inconclusive close.
Against the loss of the nine merchant vessels and two destroyers one month earlier, the British had to settle for a single minesweeper sunk in this retaliatory operation.
About The Bugle
First published in 2006, the Bugle is the monthly newsletter of the English Wikipedia's Military history WikiProject.
This caught my eye, and I felt I should respond, as I'm not sure I agree with the conclusions here.
First off, the suggestion that the action in the Bight was 'a response' to the attack on the Mary Rose convoy. As I understand it, Britain and Germany were vying for naval supremacy in WWI, so they hardly needed an excuse to seek action. The suggestion here is that if the convoy hadn't been attacked the action in the Bight wouldn't have taken place. I can't see the RN holding back if they had credible intelligence that a German detachment was coming out. Also, attacking a detachment of warships is not a reply 'in kind' to an assault on a group of unarmed, and neutral, civilian ships.
Second, why is it unclear whether the outrage over this was justified, even in hindsight? The Scandinavian countries were all neutral, yet the IGN had no compunction about attacking and sinking their ships (nearly 800 Norwegian, over 180 Swedish, and more than 250 Danish ships sunk by the U-boat Arm, according to
this) with the concomitant loss of life. The Scandinavians were absolutely justified in being outraged. It is also assumed that they were 'transporting war materials'; where does that idea come from? The purpose of these convoys was to deliver British coal to Scandinavia, so these ships, which were west-bound, would have been in ballast or carrying trade goods; there's nothing to suggest otherwise.
Third, it's suggested that an attack by surface warships on a convoy would be unusual; on the contrary, it was to be expected. It was one of the things the Admiralty were concerned about when introducing the convoy system. Grouping merchant ships together in convoy effectively protected them from U-boat attack (and by October 1917 the U-boat Arm was well on the way to being beaten) but made them vulnerable to attack by surface warships. If this attack was unusual it is only because the IGN didn't try it more often.
Finally, the conclusion (comparing the loss of nine merchants and two destroyers to that of a single minesweeper) is missing the point. The purpose of the cruiser attack on the convoy was to disrupt the traffic and to terrify the neutrals into halting their trading with Britain. It failed, because neither of those things happened. The proper comparison would be the 1600 odd ships that were convoyed east, and 1800 west, in perfect safety during 1917 (losses were 17 and 23 ships respectively). Contrariwise, the aim of the Grand Fleet was to bring the German fleet to battle, or keep it bottled up in port; the fact that they could pick a fight in the German Navy's front yard, while the Germans could only sweep mines with a battleship escort, suggests the RN were succeeding, regardless of how few minesweepers they sank on this occasion.
My two pennyworth,
Xyl 54 (
talk) 02:08, 11 November 2017 (UTC)reply
On 17 October 1917, two
light cruisers of the Imperial German Navy's surface fleet participated in the
Action off Lerwick, in which the German ships attacked a group of neutral cargo vessels sailing under
Scandinavian flags. This attack, unusual at the time for its use of the surface fleet as opposed to the
U-boats which had enjoyed much greater success against the Royal Navy, drew outrage for use of armed force against neutral cargo ships. It is not clear, in hindsight, whether this outrage was justified, given the colliers were transporting war material in convoy. The action, which saw the loss of nine colliers, also resulted in the loss of the Royal Navy destroyers
Strongbow and
Mary Rose, while the two German cruisers escaped the battle without damage or loss of life. The resulting uproar over the loss of the coal ships and charges that the Germans had not allowed for sufficient time for the civilians aboard the coal ships to evacuate compelled the British Admiralty to reply in kind to the German attack.
The Royal Navy's response came during the
Second Battle of Heligoland Bight on 17 November 1917, after British Naval Intelligence caught wind of an Imperial German Navy surface group that had put to sea with the intention of clearing naval mines laid by the Royal Navy. The intelligence was passed to the Admiralty, which put together a surface force that included
battlecruisers to intercept and hopeful destroy the German task force. Around 7:30 AM the Royal Navy sighted its enemy and the battle began with the opening salvo at 7:37, but the Imperial German Navy's task force elected to withdraw rather than stand and fight. This turned what the Royal Navy had hoped would be a retaliatory strike into a race to catch up with the withdrawing German surface assets. The chase was hampered initially by the presence of naval mines, which had to be navigated around carefully lest the Royal Navy incur further losses, and finally ended two hours later when the British reached the edge of known minefields and the withdrawing German surface force was reinforced by
SMS Kaiser and
Kaiserin, two Imperial Germany Navy battleships that had come out to cover the minesweepers. The battleships and battlecruisers engaged each other briefly before the Royal Navy, conceding the chase, elected to withdraw from the area and thus brought the battle to an inconclusive close.
Against the loss of the nine merchant vessels and two destroyers one month earlier, the British had to settle for a single minesweeper sunk in this retaliatory operation.
About The Bugle
First published in 2006, the Bugle is the monthly newsletter of the English Wikipedia's Military history WikiProject.
This caught my eye, and I felt I should respond, as I'm not sure I agree with the conclusions here.
First off, the suggestion that the action in the Bight was 'a response' to the attack on the Mary Rose convoy. As I understand it, Britain and Germany were vying for naval supremacy in WWI, so they hardly needed an excuse to seek action. The suggestion here is that if the convoy hadn't been attacked the action in the Bight wouldn't have taken place. I can't see the RN holding back if they had credible intelligence that a German detachment was coming out. Also, attacking a detachment of warships is not a reply 'in kind' to an assault on a group of unarmed, and neutral, civilian ships.
Second, why is it unclear whether the outrage over this was justified, even in hindsight? The Scandinavian countries were all neutral, yet the IGN had no compunction about attacking and sinking their ships (nearly 800 Norwegian, over 180 Swedish, and more than 250 Danish ships sunk by the U-boat Arm, according to
this) with the concomitant loss of life. The Scandinavians were absolutely justified in being outraged. It is also assumed that they were 'transporting war materials'; where does that idea come from? The purpose of these convoys was to deliver British coal to Scandinavia, so these ships, which were west-bound, would have been in ballast or carrying trade goods; there's nothing to suggest otherwise.
Third, it's suggested that an attack by surface warships on a convoy would be unusual; on the contrary, it was to be expected. It was one of the things the Admiralty were concerned about when introducing the convoy system. Grouping merchant ships together in convoy effectively protected them from U-boat attack (and by October 1917 the U-boat Arm was well on the way to being beaten) but made them vulnerable to attack by surface warships. If this attack was unusual it is only because the IGN didn't try it more often.
Finally, the conclusion (comparing the loss of nine merchants and two destroyers to that of a single minesweeper) is missing the point. The purpose of the cruiser attack on the convoy was to disrupt the traffic and to terrify the neutrals into halting their trading with Britain. It failed, because neither of those things happened. The proper comparison would be the 1600 odd ships that were convoyed east, and 1800 west, in perfect safety during 1917 (losses were 17 and 23 ships respectively). Contrariwise, the aim of the Grand Fleet was to bring the German fleet to battle, or keep it bottled up in port; the fact that they could pick a fight in the German Navy's front yard, while the Germans could only sweep mines with a battleship escort, suggests the RN were succeeding, regardless of how few minesweepers they sank on this occasion.
My two pennyworth,
Xyl 54 (
talk) 02:08, 11 November 2017 (UTC)reply
