WW1 Naval Losses to Mar 1915

[melliget]

I was browsing The Times for something else and happened to notice this comparative table of naval losses from the start of the war (published 1 Mar 1915): http://tinyurl.com/24hu8m

Almost looks like a league table, an easy guide to who was winning the war of the seas! The original idea may have been to publish a similar table at regular intervals. They don't seem to have done this however.

[sotonmate]

ME

No surprise really ! The German High Seas Fleet was blockaded for the rest of the War. We would have lost out to the U-Boats later but the casualties were predomionantly MN.

Best wishes

Sotonmate

[per ardua per mare per terram]

If future losses had included those in the Dardanelles campaign, it would have been a very po sided picture. Blockading forces in harbour, rendering them a largely theoretical threat does not make for easy to read charts. Following Jutland there were probably charts like this for Germany!

[simonharley]

Note the fact that officially "Audacious" still hasn't sunk. That would make the chart look rather bad for the Allies!

Of course, after Jutland all The Times would have to do is produce a big supplement or something showing the sillhouettes and numbers of every ship in the Allied Navies as opposed to Germany/Austria-Hungary. I think the preponderence in strength would be overwhelming, even before the USN entered the war.

Harley

[John Gilinsky]

A gaphic chart comparing as of November 11, 1918 the Anglo - American High Seas Fleet with the German Navy would be the epitome of lopsideness rather than post-Jutland.

John