Talk:Naval warfare of World War I

Campaign boxes

I notice there are several little campaign boxes for naval actions in different seas. Why is this? Some foreign wikis just have one large box containing all ww1 actions, split into sections withing the box. This had the obvious advantage to me that it immediately links to all article about naval battles in WW1. Whereas now I can't do that. Ships wanders about into different oceans and I want to be able to flick to battles which happened next even though they were in a different part of the world. Sandpiper (talk) 10:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Blockade

I’ve changed this; the blockade didn’t cause Germany to seek an armistice; that is the substance of the Stab-in-the-back legend. The blockade contributed to Germany’s capitulation, but so did the defeat of her armies in the field. Xyl 54 (talk) 13:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Anglo-German Naval Arms Race

In the section "German Response", there is a rather confusing sentence about Britain's attempt to maintain naval superiority over Germany being impossible because it abandoned a "two-power" standard and that no amount of funding would allow it to compete with some sort of combination of other states. The exact wording is:

"...the commitment of funds to out-build the Germans meant Britain was abandoning any notion of a two-power standard for naval superiority. No amount of money would allow Britain to compete with Germany and Russia or the USA, or even Italy."

I find this highly confusing because not only is there no more elaboration on any of the issues presented, but those issues also don't seem to exist anywhere else (not without the reader having a separate understanding of the subject and drawing on their own knowledge). Even in the context of the section the sentences make no sense because with a sufficient amount of money, not to sound overly capitalist, almost anything is possible. And of course I have to assume that the last sentence is referring the naval force of these countries combined because the British were already more than a match for Germany, Russia, the US, and certainly Italy, and an increase in funding would tend to increase or, in the case of the arms race with Germany, at least maintain that power. Could someone please clarify exactly what this two-power standard for naval superiority is and possibly explain why, hypothetically, unlimited funds would not allow Britain to compete with anyone? Rajrajmarley (talk) 02:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Britain had wanted to maintain a navy larger than the next two largest powers combined (hence the "two power" bit) since the 1880s - British shipyards were essentially tapped out competing with Germany only, there simply wasn't the industrial capacity (and a host of other limitations) to add America (which was embarking on a very large construction program) or another major power to the equation.

Yes, with a truly unlimited amount of funds (and assuming the Germans, Americans, et al. were still financially constrained by reality), yes, Britain could simply build more shipyards, hire more workers, increase the size of the Royal Navy (in terms of sailors, logistics, etc.). Then you go into the issue of the number of support vessels (i.e., cruisers for reconnaissance and screening, destroyers for ASW, etc.) for each additional battleship, which multiplies the problems noted above, which could be solved with an unlimited amount of funds. But all that was about as possible as Fisher and Tirpitz having lunch on Mars. Parsecboy (talk) 02:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Makes perfect sense when explained properly. I think I'll reword that section a bit so it's not as confusing, and maybe add a reference to the Royal Navy article. Rajrajmarley (talk) 11:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Dover Patrol

This article makes no mention of the Dover Patrol - which I had believed made a significant contribution to the outcome of WW1 in preserving allied merchant ships against attacks from the German fleet. At least it did according to the books of this name written by Sir Reginald Bacon who commanded it for much of the war.

I'm not a historian so perhaps this not a generally held view, leading to its omission from the article?

But given that it apparently involved up to 400 vessels of all tpyes at its peak, I should have though that some mention was warranted, if only to say that it made no contribution to the result of the war, although it took a large number of ships to maintain! Inspeximus (talk) 13:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Naval warfare of World War I. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081231193831/http://www.turkeyswar.com/navy/navy_index.htm to http://www.turkeyswar.com/navy/navy_index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)