WWI vs. WWII Naval Doctrine

[Karl Heidenreich]

Always something has amazed me: Before and during WWI the naval actions were those of huge fleets and the idea was that of "Der Tag". Even the warships seemed designed to work as part of such a great ship.
But in WWII the idea of huge fleets was replaced by independent battlegroups like that of Hood and PoW or KGV and Rodney or Bismarck and PE. And the warships were designed accordingly, it seems at least.
Was this a part of a doctrine or it "just happened"?

Best regards.

[marcelo_malara]

Hi Karl:

In my view, they were different scenarios. In WWI the German fleet was powerfull, the only other enemy naval power was Turkey, not too strong. That enabled the UK to concentrate her fleet in home waters to neutralize the German one.
In WWII the German navy was weak on comparision, but there was an enemy fleet in the Mediterranean (Italy) , another one in the Far East (Japan) and the always present menace of the French fleet. So they had to protect more places, Egypt and Gibraltar in the Mediterranean, the posesions in the Far East. This could only be achieved dividing forces.

[Laurenz]

is right.
So in WWII it would have been easier to combat british warships than in WWI, even in WWI nobody had the idea to surprise the British.
Kind regards,
L.

[Tiornu]

Consider the Washington Treaty.

[Laurenz]

Of course.
But where the British had concentrated 35% of their forces?
So ist was easy for the Twins to be superiour at a certain point.
But its necessary to use fleet tactic.
Kind regards,
L.

[Bgile]

There were some very large fleet battles in the Pacific; it's just that the nature of aircraft dictated that formations no longer consisted of ships following each other in a line.

I suspect the size of some of the battlegroups in the Pacific in WWII dwarfed Jellico's fleet. There was just greater distance between indivitual capital ships.

[Karl Heidenreich]

Bgile:

There were some very large fleet battles in the Pacific; it's just that the nature of aircraft dictated that formations no longer consisted of ships following each other in a line.

I suspect the size of some of the battlegroups in the Pacific in WWII dwarfed Jellico's fleet. There was just greater distance between indivitual capital ships.

Bgile is right there. I was about to mention some fleet actions in the Pacific. But I suspect that the bulk of those armadas were infantry transport ships for the invasion of island groups.
Anyway there were fleet actions as in Leyte.
The fact is that battlelines as those of WWI were not the norm at WWII but the exception and, in the Atlantic Theatre, the battlegroups were much smaller in size than in WWI.
But the design of ships for WWII era was considered for this small battlegoups or not?

Kind regards.

[Laurenz]

of the battlegroup changed to a shape like a convoy.
The Aircraft-carrier is now the convoy.
Thats the reason why the Americans wanted to buy HDW shipsyard.
They were shocked when Bundesmarine's U31 moved up to the surface unseen in front of an american aircraftcarrier.
Easely U31 could have sunk the carrier.
Kind regards,
L.

[RF]

Always something has amazed me: Before and during WWI the naval actions were those of huge fleets and the idea was that of "Der Tag". Even the warships seemed designed to work as part of such a great ship.
But in WWII the idea of huge fleets was replaced by independent battlegroups like that of Hood and PoW or KGV and Rodney or Bismarck and PE. And the warships were designed accordingly, it seems at least.
Was this a part of a doctrine or it "just happened"?

Best regards.

Different age, different technology including air power and in WW2 more enemies spanning a global war.