"Relationship between naval and army production" Topic

Assume Jutland goes worse for the British and hypothetically they lose an additional five dreadnoughts whereas the Germans take historical casualties. What impact would this have on production priorities, specifically, do you think resources (be it factories, workers, technical experts or materials) would be moved from army production to naval production? Whilst new battleships might take too long to produce, I'm wondering if there would still be some movement to increase naval production to produce more light vessels, even if it required a reduction in material for the army.

I'm asking about this because I am trying to integrate a naval campaign with a hex and counter simulation of land warfare (Der Weltkrieg). My thought is that British dreadnoughts lost would then result in a reduction in British land forces being produced. Also, as a non-hypothetical example, does anyone know if this occurred during the submarine crisis?

Losing an extra 5 Dreadnoughts would still leave Britain with a numerical advantage, plus it would take quite a while to build new ships from scratch.

link

Apples and oranges as regards dreadnoughts. Time frames are just too long to try and recover the additional loss during the war, particularly in 1916. i think Brown had a chart showing the slow down in capital ship production for both Britain and Germany in one of his books.

Now if the merchant ships were being sunk faster then happened, then you might see a switch in priorities I think to more escorts which might impact other industries.

Taking on board the point about new Battleships not being worth building, this is my logic as to why a loss at Jutland might substantially increase production of light craft:
1) Britain loses an additional 5 dreadnought at Jutland
2) Either they refuse to challenge the High Seas fleet again until existing dreadnought already being built make up the loses which will take time, allowing the Germans to potentially get cruisers into the Atlantic to harm British shipping, or they risk another Jutland but with weaker forces than they fielded last time
3) Since they took heavy loses last time, there is increased risk of taking heavy loses again, which could soon lead to Germany dreadnought parity or advantage. From that situation, Germany will find it much easier to get cruisers into the Atlantic to harm British shipping. Also, already a building dreadnought would only go some way to redress losses rather than give the British a strong advantage again.
4) Therefore, since starting building new dreadnoughts will not work, it makes sense as an insurance policy to work on more light craft to protect British Atlantic shipping in the event (for reasons listed in 2 and 3) German cruisers reach the Atlantic. Plausibly, this would be worthwhile even if it reduced land based production.

This is my rational but I'll try and find out whether any contingency plans were in place for a Jutland being a major loss and what actually happened during the submarine crisis.

If you're thinking about cruisers look at the table…

Armoured cruisers Britain/France/Italy/Russia total 66.
Germany/Austria total 10

Protected cruisers Allies 79, Axis 20.

Etc.

Frankly, not a race Germany would win. Take 5 Dreadnoughts out of the British total Britain has 18 to Germany and Austria combined with 18 – and the Allies could add the French and Italian ships. And with the Allies building 28 new battleships to the Axis on 8…