Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
World War I Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Jutland tonnage numbers. Any comment? Numbers accurate?
Black Hornet    6/8/2010 4:46:35 PM
VICTORY Historically, both sides had reason to claim victory. The British lost 117,025 tons of ships. The Germans lost 61,180 tons of ships. The smaller German fleet proved superior in guns and armor.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2
Factfinder    Jutland   8/23/2010 3:44:08 PM
The statement 'The smaller German fleet proved superior in guns and armor' could really only have been made by omeone whose knowledge of the battle is superficial.
 
The lessons learned by the British at the time were firstly that armoured cruisers were unable to stand up to heavy calibre weapons and were therefore unfit for employment with the main fleet, that the battlecruiser, or at least the Fisher conception of the battlecruiser, was under-armoured, that the enemy-reporting skills of the cruiser admirals were inadequate, and that night-fighting skills needed to be improved.
 
The lesson the Germans learned was a simple one; they had escaped disaster by the skin of their teeth and that a further such foray must be avoided at all costs.
 
The problem with British battlecruisers was that, in trying to balance the three requirements of a capital ship (firepower, speed, and armour), they had concentrated too much on firepower and speed, to the detriment of  protection. By comparison, the Germans had placed more emphasis on speed and protection, and less on firepower, as German battlecruisers carried smaller calibre guns than their British equivalents. Even so, recent investigation of the Jutland wrecks has revealed that the British foolishly stacked cordite charges around the interior of their turrets in order to increase their rate of fire. Had they not done so, the battlecruisers might well have survived the hits which sank them.
 
There was certainly nothing wrong with the armour on the British battleships; Warspite sustained 29 hits, of which 18 were heavy calibre, without being put out of action.
 
As to gunnery accuracy, the best results statistically were obtained by the 5th Battle Squadron (Warspite, Barham, Valiant, and Malaya), followed by the Grand Fleet battleships, followed by the High Seas Fleet and the German battlecruisers, with the worst results being achieved by the British battlecruisers, probably because their admiral, Beatty, did not believe in practice shoots.
 
The British learned their lessons, in that the commanders of WW2 were much more willing to act independently rather than simply obeying the instructions of their immediate superior in the chain of command ( e.g., Dalrymple-Hamilton taking Rodney out of the line without orders during the Bismarck action), and the emphasis on improving night fighting skills which paid such dividends at Matapan, and would have done had a night crossing by the Sealion invasion force been attempted.
 
The Battle of Jutland was best summed up by an American newspaper, which wrote that 'The German fleet has assaulted its gaoler, but it is still in gaol.'  The inescapable facts are firstly that on June 2, 1916 Jellicoe reported all but two of his battleships fit for action, whereas it was mid-August before Scheer could report his own fleet as ready for sea, and secondly that the High Seas fleet never did come out again, except on one abortive occasion in 1918, when an attempt to take it to sea led to a sailors mutiny.
 
Finally, of the fleet commanders, Hipper, was excellent, Jellicoe and Scheer competent and professional, and Beatty a headstrong bloody idiot!

 
 
 
Quote    Reply

CJH       5/26/2014 12:07:54 PM
I do not know whether night illumination rounds were in use by navies at that time. Were they used in WWI night fighting?

Why weren't the British more aggressive towards German shore bases of the German navy? I remember reading a short story set aboard a WWI British torpedo boat which raided a German port. Why didn't the British try dismantling German mine barrages and why didn't it employ smaller torpedo carrying craft against German capital ships more?

Imagine the German army being compelled to weaken its Western Front by drawing off troops to defend its North Sea coast against a possible sea born invasion?

At least this might have been more cost effective than the Battles of the Somme.

 
Quote    Reply

keffler25       9/29/2014 11:09:45 PM
The Germans had plenty of railroad artillery, the equivalent of anti-ship missiles of the day. Suicide for any RN coastal attack plans. One of the reasons Churchill was canned was because he didn't understand that and kept trying to push those lunatic coastal attack ideas. Re: Gallipoli and the horrendous allied NAVAL losses.   


Imagine the German army being compelled to weaken its Western Front by drawing off troops to defend its North Sea coast against a possible sea born invasion?


At least this might have been more cost effective than the Battles of the Somme.


 
Quote    Reply

keffler25       9/29/2014 11:14:35 PM
Finally, of the fleet commanders, Hipper, was excellent, Jellicoe and Scheer competent and professional, and Beatty a headstrong bloody idiot!
 
And who did the RN put in charge of their fleet after they sacked Jellicoe for not finishing the Germans at Jutland? 
 
It was Beatty.
 
The Germans should have tried again. 
 
They would have beaten that fool.
 
Quote    Reply

CJH       11/29/2014 2:34:20 PM



Finally, of the fleet commanders, Hipper, was excellent, Jellicoe and Scheer competent and professional, and
Beatty a headstrong bloody idiot!

 

And who did the RN put in charge of their fleet after they sacked Jellicoe for not finishing the Germans at Jutland? 

 

It was Beatty.

 


The Germans should have tried again. 

 

They would have beaten that fool.



Why didn't the Germans push hard to gain control of the North Sea? Is not good luck made up of preparation plus opportunity? Seems that all that the Germans lacked was opportunity and they weren't going to find that by sitting at anchorage.

 
Quote    Reply

CJH       11/29/2014 2:41:31 PM



Imagine the German army being compelled to weaken its Western Front by drawing off troops to defend its North Sea coast against a possible sea born invasion?


At least this might have been more cost effective than the Battles of the Somme.




Railroad artillery would be ok for stationary targets. How do you train this railroad artillery on moving targets, especially on swarms of WWI equivalents of PT boats?

Then I guess there would be the option of night attacks or the use of smoke during daylight?

Also, did the British ever consider counter-mining the German North Sea coast, had they rejected attacking it? Why not bottle up the German fleet in that case?

 
Quote    Reply

CJH       11/29/2014 2:53:40 PM



Imagine the German army being compelled to weaken its Western Front by drawing off troops to defend its North Sea coast against a possible sea born invasion?


At least this might have been more cost effective than the Battles of the Somme.




I thought that the failures at Gallipoli were in terms of the landings of and the general employment of ground forces. I didn't know that there were allied ships lost except in the Dardanelles strait.

What I've read is that the basic concept of the operation was good while its execution was unenthusiastic.

People criticize Churchill for a lot but someone has to exercise initiative in war. I guess taking the heat for trying is just part of doing that. Italy in WWII was tougher than Churchill said that it would be. But on the other hand, what was the alternative to the long tough slog up the Italian peninsula, invasion of the Balkans or just sitting on ones hands? I'm sure that the Russians benefitted given that Italy took place during a critical phase of the war in the East where German was feeling the manpower shortage strain.

I'm sorry but I'm skeptical about criticism of Gallipoli.

 
Quote    Reply

keffler25       11/30/2014 3:11:31 PM
1. The Germans had them (starshells and carbon arc lights).
2. Naval guns have shell flight times of 30 seconds. Assuming you have a track solution on a target moving at ten meters a second  a shot ladder of four shells has a fall footprint that will put one of those shells into a 200 meter long hull at 20-25 seconds range. A battery of railroad naval guns (US army study 4 gun battery, 1908) guarantees hits after six salvoes. Gallipoli proved this. especially if the enemy fleet is a sitting duck in a minefield.
3. WWI BRITISH torpedoes were no good. Italians, Americans and Russians were the class of the tech in that order.   
 


Imagine the German army being compelled to weaken its Western Front by drawing off troops to defend its North Sea coast against a possible sea born invasion?


At least this might have been more cost effective than the Battles of the Somme.


 
Quote    Reply

keffler25       11/30/2014 3:14:13 PM
Why didn't the Germans push hard to gain control of the North Sea? Is not good luck made up of preparation plus opportunity? Seems that all that the Germans lacked was opportunity and they weren't going to find that by sitting at anchorage.
 
The Germans knew about submarimes and were terrified of them (as were the British. for the Grande Fleet was as much stuck in port as the HSF.)
 
Quote    Reply

keffler25       11/30/2014 3:18:12 PM

Railroad artillery would be ok for stationary targets. How do you train this railroad artillery on moving targets, especially on swarms of WWI equivalents of PT boats?

See above about fire control solutions.

Then I guess there would be the option of night attacks or the use of smoke during daylight?

Against aircraft spotted artillery fire? Nope. Even planes in those days carried wireless. Zeppelins more so. Remember you solve for tracks, not aim at hulls.       

Also, did the British ever consider counter-mining the German North Sea coast, had they rejected attacking it? Why not bottle up the German fleet in that case?

It was tried. It didn't work because the Germans were too strong too close in and besides the currents kept breaking the mines loose. 








Imagine the German army being compelled to weaken its Western Front by drawing off troops to defend its North Sea coast against a possible sea born invasion?




At least this might have been more cost effective than the Battles of the Somme.










Railroad artillery would be ok for stationary targets. How do you train this railroad artillery on moving targets, especially on swarms of WWI equivalents of PT boats?



Then I guess there would be the option of night attacks or the use of smoke during daylight?



Also, did the British ever consider counter-mining the German North Sea coast, had they rejected attacking it? Why not bottle up the German fleet in that case?


 
Quote    Reply
1 2



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics