Another reason for the lack of naval battles was the introduction of new technology, namely, the submarine and torpedo. Torpedoes were easily carried by small crafts, and could destroy even the biggest battle cruisers. Submarines were the small crafts that could carry them. They were easily made in mass and could be made small and not use masses of man power or material. This meant that the importance of which side could produce the largest and most ‘powerful’ navy was made futile, as with the coming of submarines and torpedoes, strength of ships were not vital, with a small submarine being able to destroy a Dreadnought.
Both of these reasons led to why there were so few sea battles, during World War 1. However, this did not mean that the naval war was any less crucial to the winning of the war. Both sides knew that they could not waste ships upon small pointless victories, as these victories may turn to be fatal defeats, meaning the loss of the war.
What steps did the British take to counter the unrestricted warfare of the German submarines?
The British used crucial steps to counter the unrestricted warfare of the German submarines, after the Allies began to protect merchant ships better.
From 1915, the British introduced five crucial tactics against the German Submarines. Q ships were used before unrestricted warfare, as decoys to ambush unwary U-boats. Merchant ships would be armed with disguised heavy guns and would fool the U-boats into attacking them. The instant the U-boat had attacked and made its position obvious, the Q ships would immediately fight back and return fire against the surprised Germans, almost always sinking them. Convoys were another tactic used. From mid-1917 almost all merchant ships travelled in convoys. British and US warships escorted merchant ships in close formation. Allied shipping losses fell by about twenty percent, as now it was harder for the enemy to attack the merchant ships without being destroyed first. Depth charges, also used in conjunction with convoys, were introduced in 1916 and proved second only to mines as a weapon against the U-boat. Depth charges were bombs set to go off underwater at certain depths, easily destroying nearby submarines. Long-range aircrafts were surprisingly effective in addition, especially towards the end of the war, with aircraft technology having developed so much that an aircraft could protect convoys. The final and most effective defence against submarines were mines. Mines destroyed more U-boats than any other weapon and were particularly effective in preventing U-boats from using the English Channel and sailing into British ports. The massive output from shipbuilders meant that by 1917, Britain and the USA were building so many ships that the U-boats could not possibly sink them all. This led to the calling off of their campaign as they no longer had the resources to sustain it.
The protective steps taken, coupled with the output of ships by Britain and the USA, countered unrestricted warfare and were highly-effective at combating it.
“The war at sea was more important than the Western Front.” What evidence is there to support or contradict this view?
The importance of the war at sea, relative to the Western Front is debatable. It can be argued either way, and in this essay I will discuss both views.
On the one hand, many people would argue that the war at sea was not nearly as important as at the Western Front. They would argue that without the war on land and at the Western front, there was no war. Without the military battles, there could be no war won as without it, land could not be protected or taken over. The land was also much more important, as the countries were fighting for land, not water, and the winning of the war could only occur on land. Also, the navy, though needed for supplies, was not as important as the battles which took place at the western front, as the war at sea was only supporting the land-warfare and not the other way round.
On the other hand, many people would argue that without the war at sea, the war on land could never have happened. The various land campaigns around the world depended on the use of the sea. Sea power had maintained the Allied nations in food, fuel and raw materials. Without it, the men would have not had enough food or ammunition, and without these supplies, they would not be able to fight for long, before starving and losing to the Germans. Conversely the use of sea effectively starved the Central Powers of all kinds of supplies, in a ruthless blockade that had contributed to their final collapse. Germany could never have been defeated at sea as Britain could have been. Germany's army was the mainstay of her power, and the only way it could be defeated was by other armies, supported by sea power. And it was the Allies naval blockade that primarily starved the people of Germany into defeat. It was this blockade that also brought about the Germany mutiny that led to the abduction of the Kaiser and ultimately the end of the War. This mutiny occurred when the German High Seas Fleet was ordered to break the blockade, an impossible mission.
Although both sides have good arguments and reason, I believe it would be unwise to view them as two separate fronts. Both fronts worked in unity, to win the war and relied upon each other. Without the war at sea being won by the British, the soldiers at the frontline would not have been able to fight without supplies, and without the military and soldiers at the front, Germany would have swept through Europe, making it increasingly powerful and unconquerable. Therefore, I believe that the war at the front and the war at sea, were both equally important, and without either of them, the war could not have been won.
