PDA

View Full Version : OT...90th Anniversary of the Battle of Jutland.



MB_Avro_UK
05-31-2006, 06:12 PM
hi all,

90 years ago this day during WW1 the British Fleet engaged their German opponants. AdmiraL Jellico who commanded the British Fleet stated that he alone in one day could have lost WW1.

As a footnote,my grandfather was a Royal Navy sailor in WW1 and was a crew member of a converted armed trawler. His job was to listen for German submarines. In 2 years he heard nothing but was sea sick many times every day at his post.He picked up many distress signals but by the time they arrived on scene there was nothing but wreakage left.

He told me about a a biplane that flew alongside them whilst the Observer climbed onto the lower wing and with a spanner tightened the wire rigging.Once complete ,the crew waved and flew away.

Three of my great uncles (all brothers) were killed on the Battle of the Somme in 1916.

Typing this reminds me that wars will continue and that is the way of life maybe.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

MB_Avro_UK
05-31-2006, 06:12 PM
hi all,

90 years ago this day during WW1 the British Fleet engaged their German opponants. AdmiraL Jellico who commanded the British Fleet stated that he alone in one day could have lost WW1.

As a footnote,my grandfather was a Royal Navy sailor in WW1 and was a crew member of a converted armed trawler. His job was to listen for German submarines. In 2 years he heard nothing but was sea sick many times every day at his post.He picked up many distress signals but by the time they arrived on scene there was nothing but wreakage left.

He told me about a a biplane that flew alongside them whilst the Observer climbed onto the lower wing and with a spanner tightened the wire rigging.Once complete ,the crew waved and flew away.

Three of my great uncles (all brothers) were killed on the Battle of the Somme in 1916.

Typing this reminds me that wars will continue and that is the way of life maybe.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

mynameisroland
06-01-2006, 03:34 AM
Respec to the Grand Fleet who helped ensure Germanys defeat in World War 1.


Id give it 20 min until Kufurst shows up claiming that the High seas fleet actually won the bttle of Jutland and secretly wanted to stay in port liking their rusting wounds for the next 3 years.

stathem
06-01-2006, 04:09 AM
There's an article in the Telegraph this morning about the last British survivor of the battle - 110 now, he served at the Somme and Passchendale as well.

tHeBaLrOgRoCkS
06-01-2006, 04:18 AM
I found this while looking for information on the Battle of Jutland and thought it was worthy of note.

A sobering reminder that not all who fought in that war and the others to follow were men but many died as such.

Cornwell (http://www.scoutingmilestones.freeserve.co.uk/cornwell.htm)

luftluuver
06-01-2006, 05:19 AM
The History Channel is going to have a show on Jutland tonight.

Lucius_Esox
06-01-2006, 06:22 AM
I once played the Avalon Hill game on the floor of my parents living room. Started at precisely the right time on the right day,,, 2.28pm if I remember correctly.. intercepting a Danish Steamer..

Jeeez what a nurd.

Yep I'm sure Kurfurst will be along to tell us of the high seas fleet victory at Jutland, and how the Prussians won Waterloo, and in fact to tell us all how inferior we are...........

Hmmm, heard that somewhere before??

Bewolf
06-01-2006, 06:28 AM
I guess it depends on how you define Victory.

AFAIK the Hochseeflotte sunk more tonnage then the british did, so tactically it is suppoed to be a german victory. Then again, that battle was not decicive and more importantly, the Hochseeflotte did not manage to break the Royal Navy's carantine. So it was a strategic victory for the British.

So, no need for discussions, everybody can be happy =)

P.S. Oh and yes..the prussians DID turn the tide at waterloo at the last moment.
But that was a joint effort, neither brits nor (and to a larger degree) prussians would have won without each other.

luftluuver
06-01-2006, 06:39 AM
Any force that retreats from the 'field of battle' is the looser.

Blutarski2004
06-01-2006, 06:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bewolf:
I guess it depends on how you define Victory.

AFAIK the Hochseeflotte sunk more tonnage then the british did, so tactically it is suppoed to be a german victory. Then again, that battle was not decicive and more importantly, the Hochseeflotte did not manage to break the Royal Navy's carantine. So it was a strategic victory for the British.

So, no need for discussions, everybody can be happy =)

P.S. Oh and yes..the prussians DID turn the tide at waterloo at the last moment.
But that was a joint effort, neither brits nor (and to a larger degree) prussians would have won without each other. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Sir, we are not going to be able to develop a proper flame war here if you continue to intrude with these sensible statements!

Bewolf
06-01-2006, 06:41 AM
@luftluuver

That, my friend, is a "bold" statement.

Kurfurst__
06-01-2006, 06:51 AM
Well the only extreme opinions I can see here is that of two notorious nationalists from England, appearantly not being able to accept anything else than english primary school history class bravado about Jutland, the Sea Battle Gloriously Won by His Majesty Royal Navy, and the same place's version of the Battle of Waterloo, which was single handely won by the bonny prince Wellington, who streamrolled over that poor idiot Napoleon. Quatre Bras never was, and who was Blucher...? An Allied victory, not ENGLISH alone, what a BLASPHEMY!

These kind of guys are so allergic to nitty details that they start foaming in the mouth even before their nationalistic version is questioned, but we rest just ignore these clowns and learn history as it was.

A very interesting account here on the battle, from no less man than the commander of the High Seas Fleet, Scheer :

http://www.richthofen.com/scheer/

Particularly interesting is Scheer's analysis of the Battle results.
http://www.richthofen.com/scheer/scheer10d.htm


"LOSSES ON BOTH SIDES

According to careful estimation made by us the enemy lost:

TONS
1 Dreadnought of "Queen Elizabeth" class 28,500
3 Battle-cruisers(Queen Mary, Indefatigable and Invincible) 63,000
4 Armoured Cruisers (Black Prince, Defence, Warrior and one of the "Cressy" type) 53,700
2 Light Cruisers 9,000
13 Destroyers 15,000
TOTAL 169,200

We lost:
1 Battle-cruiser (Lützow ) 26,700
1 older Battleship (Pommern) 13,200
4 Light Cruisers (Wiesbaden, Elbing, Rostock and Frauenlob) 17, 150
5 Torpedo-boats 3,680
TOTAL 60,730

The enemy's were almost complete losses, whereas we had rescued the crews of the Lützow, Elbing, Rostock and half of those of the torpedo-boats. [In my first report of the battle sent to the Admiralty at Berlin the loss of the Lützow was mentioned. The announcement of this loss was suppressed by the Naval Staff, though not at my request. The enemy could not have seen the ship go down. In the interests of naval warfare it was right to suppress the news. Unfortunately the secrecy observed produced the impression that it was necessary to enlarge our success to that extent.]

Our losses in personnel amounted to: 2,400 killed; 400 wounded. The enemy's losses may be estimated at over 7,000 killed. According to a list which he added to his report of June 18, 1916, Admiral Jellicoe endeavoured to exaggerate our losses in the following manner:

BATTLESHIP OR BATTLE-CRUISERS Correct facts
2 Battleships, "Dreadnought" type (certain) none
1 Battleship, "Deutschland" type (certain) one
1 Battleship or Battle-cruiser (probable) one
1 Battleship, " Dreadnought " type (probable) none
LIGHT CRUISERS 4 Light cruisers (certain) four
1 Large ship or light cruiser (certain) none
TORPEDO- BOAT DESTROYERS 6 Torpedo-boat destroyers (certain) five
3 Torpedo-boat destroyers (probable) none
SUBMARINES 1 Submarine (certain) none
3 Submarines (probable) none

With regard to the submarines he was totally mistaken, as none took part in the battle. I sent my final impressions of the battle in a written report of 4/7/16 to H.M. the Emperor as follows:

" The success achieved is due to the eagerness in attack, the efficient leadership through the subordinates, and the admirable deeds of the crews full of an eminently warlike spirit. It was only possible owing to the excellence of our ships and arms, the systematic peacetime training of the units, and the conscientious development on each individual ship. The rich experience gained will be carefully applied. The battle has proved that in the enlargement of our Fleet and the development of the different types of ships we have been guided by the right strategical and tactical ideas, and that we must continue to follow the same system. All arms can claim a share in the success. But, directly or indirectly, the far reaching heavy artillery of the great battleships was the deciding factor, and caused the greater part of the enemy's losses that are so far known, as also it brought the torpedo-boat flotillas to their successful attack on the ships of the Main Fleet. This does not detract from the merits of the flotillas in enabling the battleships to slip away from the enemy by their attack. The big ship€" battleship and battle-cruiser€"is therefore, and will be, the main strength of naval power. It must be further developed by increasing the gun calibre, by raising the speed, and by perfecting the armour and the protection below the water-line.

" Finally, I beg respectfully to report to Your Majesty that by the middle of August the High Sea Fleet, with the exception of the Derfflinger and Seydlitz, will be ready for fresh action. With a favourable succession of operations the enemy may be made to suffer severely, although there can be no doubt that even the most successful result from a high sea battle will not compel England to make peace. The disadvantages of our geographical situation as compared with that of the Island Empire and the enemy's vast material superiority cannot be coped with to such a degree as to make us masters of the blockade inflicted on us, or even of the Island Empire itself, not even were all the U-boats to be available for military purposes. A victorious end to the war at not too distant a date can only be looked for by the crushing of English economic life through U-boat action against English commerce. Prompted by the convictions of duty, I earnestly advise Your Majesty to abstain from deciding on too lenient a form of procedure on the ground that it is opposed to military views, and that the risk of the boats would be out of all proportion to the expected gain, for, in spite of the greatest conscientiousness on the part of the Chiefs, it would not be possible in English waters, where American interests are so prevalent, to avoid occurrences which might force us to make humiliating concessions if we do not act with the greatest severity."


Points of interests is that Admiral Jellicoe immidiately 'boosted' German losses for the public, appearantly seeking excuses for the results started right after the battle. It was followed by many others, some are just silly propaganda phrases, like the 'left the battlefield', 'attacked the jailor', others being claims and creative use of statistics.

From the German POV, it seems they got drawn the correct conclusions, that even with a loss ratio favouring the High Seas Fleet by 3 : 1, nothing really changed in the big picture. Big ships went out, fired at each other, got damaged, sailed home. Submarine warfare was realized as an effective way of waging naval warfare.

luftluuver
06-01-2006, 06:54 AM
The 'bonny prince' was Charlie. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ploughman
06-01-2006, 07:06 AM
Wellington was a Duke not a prince, bonny or otherwise.

Lucius_Esox
06-01-2006, 07:06 AM
Bewolf,
I was being naughty, yes the Prussians did indeed turn the tide at Waterloo.

Mere semantics on my part, they didn't win it though. ? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

You can define victory in many many ways. No doubt the allies winning the 2WW could be described as real victory for the German people, no doubt it was,,, not sure they saw it that way though http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Read the account of Jellicoe twice achieving tactical perfection, i.e. crossing the High Seas fleet's T.

They ran away and never came back for more in earnest. For sure the Germans had a tactical manouvre that the British didn't i.e a Battle turnaway,,

Could call it arrogance or stupidity on the Brits part but thay had rather a large amount of experience at Naval battles!

The newspapers in Britain at the time did what newspapers in Britain always do, sell more http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Pure conjecture on my part but I believe it's reasonable to assume an almost total anhialation of one fleet or the other if the battle had carried on that day, the odds were very firmly in the Brits hand when the rest of the Grand Fleet turned up.

Heheeeh,, ok were off http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif

Lucius_Esox
06-01-2006, 07:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">A very interesting account here on the battle, from no less man than the commander of the High Seas Fleet, Scheer : </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Oh yes that is going to be a very unbiased account,,, actions speak louder than words,,,,,, they ran away http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

stathem
06-01-2006, 07:12 AM
The fat Prussian dispatch rider (what was his name?) won Waterloo.

Discuss.

Lucius_Esox
06-01-2006, 07:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The fat Prussian dispatch rider (what was his name?) won Waterloo.

Discuss. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Roflolol,, Naughty http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Kurfurst__
06-01-2006, 07:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ploughman:
Wellington was a Duke not a prince, bonny or otherwise. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Little play with the words you know, other languages often use the words Duke (Dux) and Prince (Princeps) with the same meaning. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Bewolf
06-01-2006, 07:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Lucius_Esox:
Bewolf,
I was being naughty, yes the Prussians did indeed turn the tide at Waterloo.

Mere semantics on my part, they didn't win it though. ? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

You can define victory in many many ways. No doubt the allies winning the 2WW could be described as real victory for the German people, no doubt it was,,, not sure they saw it that way though http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Read the account of Jellicoe twice achieving tactical perfection, i.e. crossing the High Seas fleet's T.

They ran away and never came back for more in earnest. For sure the Germans had a tactical manouvre that the British didn't i.e a Battle turnaway,,

Could call it arrogance or stupidity on the Brits part but thay had rather a large amount of experience at Naval battles!

The newspapers in Britain at the time did what newspapers in Britain always do, sell more http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Pure conjecture on my part but I believe it's reasonable to assume an almost total anhialation of one fleet or the other if the battle had carried on that day, the odds were very firmly in the Brits hand when the rest of the Grand Fleet turned up.

Heheeeh,, ok were off http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, that is pure speculation, let's stay at what we have, kay? Else I fear this will degrade to a "what if" slaughter. I really think "strategical" and "tactical" are the two most important factors to judge here. Now strategic victory certainly is more important, so I give that to you.
But please, pretty please with sugar on top, don't try to do some word twisting and wannebe analysis of "would bes" and rather downlooking comments like "running away" over what was an objective descision based on what was known to the german command rather then some cowardly retreat the way it sounds with your wording.

Kernow
06-01-2006, 07:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stathem:
The fat Prussian dispatch rider (what was his name?) won Waterloo.

Discuss. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

IIRC, Count Muffling or something similar - can't find right books now. Was he fat? He is in the film, I know.

Yep, people who claim it was solely a British or Prussian victory miss the whole point: Wellington would not have given battle had he not known Blucher was coming to his aid; Blucher would not have marched against Napoleon if the Anglo-allied army wasn't going to stand.

I don't think anyone disputes that the Germans sank more tons at Jutland, but, in Scheer's words, '...enabling the battleships to slip away from the enemy by their attack.'

Victorious fleets do not disengage from the enemy and never put to sea again.

stathem
06-01-2006, 07:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kernow:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stathem:
The fat Prussian dispatch rider (what was his name?) won Waterloo.

Discuss. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

IIRC, Count Muffling or something similar - can't find right books now. Was he fat? He is in the film, I know.

Yep, people who claim it was solely a British or Prussian victory miss the whole point: Wellington would not have given battle had he not known Blucher was coming to his aid; Blucher would not have marched against Napoleon if the Anglo-allied army wasn't going to stand.

I don't think anyone disputes that the Germans sank more tons at Jutland, but, in Scheer's words, '...enabling the battleships to slip away from the enemy by their attack.'

Victorious fleets do not disengage from the enemy and never put to sea again. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And Napolean wouldn't have attacked if the armies had been combined earlier.

Cold comfort for the Inniskillens.

Blutarski2004
06-01-2006, 07:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Points of interests is that Admiral Jellicoe immidiately 'boosted' German losses for the public, appearantly seeking excuses for the results started right after the battle. It was followed by many others, some are just silly propaganda phrases, like the 'left the battlefield', 'attacked the jailor', others being claims and creative use of statistics.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... I beg to differ with regard to Jellicoe's report. He did not cynically inflate German losses. His report was a compilation of data drawn two weeks after the battle from the several hundred hastily written reports received from the ships under his command. As in any battle, observations were colored by wishful thinking and impressions became exagerrated under stress. Jellicoe's report to the Admiralty was simply a best effort to reconcile the data and produce some sort of report to his superiors regarding the battle. It was actually quite some months after the battle that a reasonably accurate picture of German losses and damage became known to the British.

My library holds a considerable number of copies of various internal post-Jutland reports from participating British ships (Fighting at Jutland, Official Despatches, Grand Fleet Gunnery and Torpedo Memoranda, etc) and the confusion and uncertainty is immediately apparent.

As for submarines, just as at Dogger Bank, British sensitivity to the German submarine threat produced numerous "submarine sightings" during the battle. At least a half dozen British ships at Jutland reported underwater collisions, which were also assumed to be submarines.

Jellicoe, as CiC GF, was never responsible for issuing communiques to the public; that was the purview of the Admiralty and ultimately the British government.

JtD
06-01-2006, 08:23 AM
I am just glad they didn't slug it out. Would have been another 100000 lives wasted.

ploughman
06-01-2006, 08:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ploughman:
Wellington was a Duke not a prince, bonny or otherwise. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Little play with the words you know, other languages often use the words Duke (Dux) and Prince (Princeps) with the same meaning. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting, but not this one alas. And I doubt anyone who'd chanced upong Arthur's hawkish visage would have accused him of being bonny, he had quite the hooter and hook nosed too although I expect you were being ironic there too.

Lucius_Esox
06-01-2006, 08:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Well, that is pure speculation, let's stay at what we have, kay? Else I fear this will degrade to a "what if" slaughter. I really think "strategical" and "tactical" are the two most important factors to judge here. Now strategic victory certainly is more important, so I give that to you.
But please, pretty please with sugar on top, don't try to do some word twisting and wannebe analysis of "would bes" and rather downlooking comments like "running away" over what was an objective descision based on what was known to the german command rather then some cowardly retreat the way it sounds with your wording.

Bewolf
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Point taken http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Bewolf,
Although in matters this serious it's probably not appropiate to "wind up" the "other side" it is an old hobby of the English and Germans to do it to each other,,, Fawlty Towers!!! Don't mention the War http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

If by chance England and Germany end up facing each other in the coming world cup finals the English tabloids front pages will be a sight to behold...........


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

csThor
06-01-2006, 08:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kernow:
I don't think anyone disputes that the Germans sank more tons at Jutland, but, in Scheer's words, '...enabling the battleships to slip away from the enemy by their attack.'

Victorious fleets do not disengage from the enemy and never put to sea again. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


You're missing the context here. It wasn't the target to get into a massive battle with the British Grand Fleet, but to draw out some of its forces and destroy this part. Scheer knew well enough that he could not take on the whole Grand Fleet (this strategy had been developed well before the war, the Doggerbank Engagement a while before the "Battle of Skaggerak" [as it is known in Germany] was a similar attempt).

And the reason why the High Seas Fleet never left its harbor again is simply that Emperor Wilhelm II prohibited its use as he feared losses would damage Germany's prestige (and pretty much his own). Additionally submarines had a greater range and were more successful against Britain's merchant shipping.

mynameisroland
06-01-2006, 08:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Well the only extreme opinions I can see here is that of two notorious nationalists from England, appearantly not being able to accept anything else than english primary school history class bravado about Jutland, the Sea Battle Gloriously Won by His Majesty Royal Navy, and the same place's version of the Battle of Waterloo, which was single handely won by the bonny prince Wellington, who streamrolled over that poor idiot Napoleon. Quatre Bras never was, and who was Blucher...? An Allied victory, not ENGLISH alone, what a BLASPHEMY!

These kind of guys are so allergic to nitty details that they start foaming in the mouth even before their nationalistic version is questioned, but we rest just ignore these clowns and learn history as it was.

A very interesting account here on the battle, from no less man than the commander of the High Seas Fleet, Scheer :

http://www.richthofen.com/scheer/

Particularly interesting is Scheer's analysis of the Battle results.
http://www.richthofen.com/scheer/scheer10d.htm


"LOSSES ON BOTH SIDES

According to careful estimation made by us the enemy lost:

TONS
1 Dreadnought of "Queen Elizabeth" class 28,500
3 Battle-cruisers(Queen Mary, Indefatigable and Invincible) 63,000
4 Armoured Cruisers (Black Prince, Defence, Warrior and one of the "Cressy" type) 53,700
2 Light Cruisers 9,000
13 Destroyers 15,000
TOTAL 169,200

We lost:
1 Battle-cruiser (Lützow ) 26,700
1 older Battleship (Pommern) 13,200
4 Light Cruisers (Wiesbaden, Elbing, Rostock and Frauenlob) 17, 150
5 Torpedo-boats 3,680
TOTAL 60,730

The enemy's were almost complete losses, whereas we had rescued the crews of the Lützow, Elbing, Rostock and half of those of the torpedo-boats. [In my first report of the battle sent to the Admiralty at Berlin the loss of the Lützow was mentioned. The announcement of this loss was suppressed by the Naval Staff, though not at my request. The enemy could not have seen the ship go down. In the interests of naval warfare it was right to suppress the news. Unfortunately the secrecy observed produced the impression that it was necessary to enlarge our success to that extent.]

Our losses in personnel amounted to: 2,400 killed; 400 wounded. The enemy's losses may be estimated at over 7,000 killed. According to a list which he added to his report of June 18, 1916, Admiral Jellicoe endeavoured to exaggerate our losses in the following manner:

BATTLESHIP OR BATTLE-CRUISERS Correct facts
2 Battleships, "Dreadnought" type (certain) none
1 Battleship, "Deutschland" type (certain) one
1 Battleship or Battle-cruiser (probable) one
1 Battleship, " Dreadnought " type (probable) none
LIGHT CRUISERS 4 Light cruisers (certain) four
1 Large ship or light cruiser (certain) none
TORPEDO- BOAT DESTROYERS 6 Torpedo-boat destroyers (certain) five
3 Torpedo-boat destroyers (probable) none
SUBMARINES 1 Submarine (certain) none
3 Submarines (probable) none

With regard to the submarines he was totally mistaken, as none took part in the battle. I sent my final impressions of the battle in a written report of 4/7/16 to H.M. the Emperor as follows:

" The success achieved is due to the eagerness in attack, the efficient leadership through the subordinates, and the admirable deeds of the crews full of an eminently warlike spirit. It was only possible owing to the excellence of our ships and arms, the systematic peacetime training of the units, and the conscientious development on each individual ship. The rich experience gained will be carefully applied. The battle has proved that in the enlargement of our Fleet and the development of the different types of ships we have been guided by the right strategical and tactical ideas, and that we must continue to follow the same system. All arms can claim a share in the success. But, directly or indirectly, the far reaching heavy artillery of the great battleships was the deciding factor, and caused the greater part of the enemy's losses that are so far known, as also it brought the torpedo-boat flotillas to their successful attack on the ships of the Main Fleet. This does not detract from the merits of the flotillas in enabling the battleships to slip away from the enemy by their attack. The big ship€" battleship and battle-cruiser€"is therefore, and will be, the main strength of naval power. It must be further developed by increasing the gun calibre, by raising the speed, and by perfecting the armour and the protection below the water-line.

" Finally, I beg respectfully to report to Your Majesty that by the middle of August the High Sea Fleet, with the exception of the Derfflinger and Seydlitz, will be ready for fresh action. With a favourable succession of operations the enemy may be made to suffer severely, although there can be no doubt that even the most successful result from a high sea battle will not compel England to make peace. The disadvantages of our geographical situation as compared with that of the Island Empire and the enemy's vast material superiority cannot be coped with to such a degree as to make us masters of the blockade inflicted on us, or even of the Island Empire itself, not even were all the U-boats to be available for military purposes. A victorious end to the war at not too distant a date can only be looked for by the crushing of English economic life through U-boat action against English commerce. Prompted by the convictions of duty, I earnestly advise Your Majesty to abstain from deciding on too lenient a form of procedure on the ground that it is opposed to military views, and that the risk of the boats would be out of all proportion to the expected gain, for, in spite of the greatest conscientiousness on the part of the Chiefs, it would not be possible in English waters, where American interests are so prevalent, to avoid occurrences which might force us to make humiliating concessions if we do not act with the greatest severity."


Points of interests is that Admiral Jellicoe immidiately 'boosted' German losses for the public, appearantly seeking excuses for the results started right after the battle. It was followed by many others, some are just silly propaganda phrases, like the 'left the battlefield', 'attacked the jailor', others being claims and creative use of statistics.

From the German POV, it seems they got drawn the correct conclusions, that even with a loss ratio favouring the High Seas Fleet by 3 : 1, nothing really changed in the big picture. Big ships went out, fired at each other, got damaged, sailed home. Submarine warfare was realized as an effective way of waging naval warfare. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who here is English ? certainly not me.

Hide behind statistics mate, it doesnt change the fact that the Royal Navy won and continued to starve Germany of raw materials, food and equipment ensuring its ultimate defeat.


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif Hande Hoch ! Kaiser Bill

mynameisroland
06-01-2006, 09:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by csThor:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kernow:
I don't think anyone disputes that the Germans sank more tons at Jutland, but, in Scheer's words, '...enabling the battleships to slip away from the enemy by their attack.'

Victorious fleets do not disengage from the enemy and never put to sea again. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


You're missing the context here. It wasn't the target to get into a massive battle with the British Grand Fleet, but to draw out some of its forces and destroy this part. Scheer knew well enough that he could not take on the whole Grand Fleet (this strategy had been developed well before the war, the Doggerbank Engagement a while before the "Battle of Skaggerak" [as it is known in Germany] was a similar attempt).

And the reason why the High Seas Fleet never left its harbor again is simply that Emperor Wilhelm II prohibited its use as he feared losses would damage Germany's prestige (and pretty much his own). Additionally submarines had a greater range and were more successful against Britain's merchant shipping. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you look at the Royal Navy's roster of availible ships the following morning show that the Royal Navya strength ratio of sea worthy ships had actually increased. In otherwords severe damage to a large part of the German fleet resulted in months of repairs.

Some quotes

"The German Fleet has assaulted its jailor, but it is still in jail."
Comment in an American newspaper
1916

Source 2:
"Our Fleet losses were, despite the luck that smiled on us, severe, and on 1st June 1916 it was clear to every knowledgeable person, that this battle must be, and would be, the only one"
'Berliner Tageblatt', a German newspaper
December 1918, after the end of the war.

Source 3:
"Will the flag-waving German people get any more of the copper, rubber and cotton their government so sorely needs? Not by a pound. Will meat and butter be cheaper in Berlin? Not by a pfennig (German penny). There is one test, and only one, of victory. Who held the field of battle at the end of the fight?"
'The Globe', a British newspaper
Four days after the Battle of Jutland.

Source 4:
"The Grand Fleet, the Germans realised once the early excitement had died down, was simply unconquerable and control of the sea would remain in British hands. Consequently, the German hopes increasingly turned to 'unrestricted' submarine warfare as the decisive weapon, with the High Seas Fleet carrying out a supporting role."
V.E Tarrant
Jutland: The German Perspective (1995).

Source 5:
"Should future operations take a favourable course, we should be able to inflict serious damage upon the enemy. Nevertheless, there can be no doubt that even the most successful outcome of a further battle will not force England to make peace.... A victorious end to the war within a reasonable time can only be achieved through the defeat of the British economic life - that is, by using the U-boats against British trade.... It is my duty to advise Your Majesty that in British waters, where American interests are strong, it will be impossible to avoid incidents, however conscientious our commanding officers may be.... "
Admiral Reinhard von Scheer
Confidential report on the Battle of Jutland to the Kaiser, 4th July 1916.

csThor
06-01-2006, 09:12 AM
Well ... if you leave aside the snide propaganda of both sides it should be very obvious that Battle Fleets such as the High Seas Fleet and the Grand Fleet (and Battleships per se) were usually more of a propaganda weapon than an "everyday-weapon" winning wars. Wilhelm II had the fleet built because he wanted to bring Imperial Germany into the same class as Great Britain - not because he expected it to defeat the British Grand Fleet. In the early 20th Century a massive Fleet meant political influence.

Most of the dirty work at sea was done by submarines and smaller vessels, rarely anything larger than a destroyer. The economical war was the key element at sea even before WW1 so seeing the Battleships as more than a massive amount of steel and national pride is hardly correct http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. The only time when an engagement between Battleships decided a war was in 1905 when Togo butchered the Russian Baltic Fleet at Tsushima - and that merely enabled the Japanese to mount an invasion of Port Arthur (which decided the war). Even later in WW2 Battleships were prime targets but hardly war-winning machines.

Bewolf
06-01-2006, 09:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Lucius_Esox:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Well, that is pure speculation, let's stay at what we have, kay? Else I fear this will degrade to a "what if" slaughter. I really think "strategical" and "tactical" are the two most important factors to judge here. Now strategic victory certainly is more important, so I give that to you.
But please, pretty please with sugar on top, don't try to do some word twisting and wannebe analysis of "would bes" and rather downlooking comments like "running away" over what was an objective descision based on what was known to the german command rather then some cowardly retreat the way it sounds with your wording.

Bewolf
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Point taken http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Bewolf,
Although in matters this serious it's probably not appropiate to "wind up" the "other side" it is an old hobby of the English and Germans to do it to each other,,, Fawlty Towers!!! Don't mention the War http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

If by chance England and Germany end up facing each other in the coming world cup finals the English tabloids front pages will be a sight to behold...........


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL, ok, granted. But what did english footballer Gary Lineker once say?

"football is a simple game in which 22 players run around after a ball and in the end Germany always wins"

So you tommies, bring it on http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

and now, back to topic, hehe.

ploughman
06-01-2006, 09:24 AM
5-1 ring any bells? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Interestingly Togo did exactly what Evan Thomas did at Jutland, turned his line in succession thus allowing the enemy to range on the point of turn. Togo got away with it because the Russians were just terrible. Evan Thomas got away with it because the captain of the Malaya wasn't an idiot.

Bewolf
06-01-2006, 09:25 AM
Bah, excections proving the rule http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

JtD
06-01-2006, 09:46 AM
So the side which sets up a trap for the other, suffers more losses and lets the victim escape is the victorious one?

stathem
06-01-2006, 10:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by csThor:
Well ... if you leave aside the snide propaganda of both sides it should be very obvious that Battle Fleets such as the High Seas Fleet and the Grand Fleet (and Battleships per se) were usually more of a propaganda weapon than an "everyday-weapon" winning wars. Wilhelm II had the fleet built because he wanted to bring Imperial Germany into the same class as Great Britain - not because he expected it to defeat the British Grand Fleet. In the early 20th Century a massive Fleet meant political influence.

Most of the dirty work at sea was done by submarines and smaller vessels, rarely anything larger than a destroyer. The economical war was the key element at sea even before WW1 so seeing the Battleships as more than a massive amount of steel and national pride is hardly correct http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. The only time when an engagement between Battleships decided a war was in 1905 when Togo butchered the Russian Baltic Fleet at Tsushima - and that merely enabled the Japanese to mount an invasion of Port Arthur (which decided the war). Even later in WW2 Battleships were prime targets but hardly war-winning machines. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Beg to differ...

cite:

21st October 1805

1st/2nd August 1798

Another continental enemy defeated because they couldn't control the sea, and were blockaded. Control of the Sea comes first in a world war, like control of the air does now.

Ruy Horta
06-01-2006, 10:39 AM
Jutland was a German tactical victory, but it did not bring any strategic gains.

It was not a strategic victory for the British, because the HSF could not threaten the blockade even it had a free hand.

Jutland changed nothing.

HOWEVER, the RN did suffer a tactical defeat and in many ways a moral one.

It did not teach the Germans a lesson in seamanship, it did not repeat Trafalgar nor would it dare to repeat a Copenhagen.

It was the last great naval set piece battle for the RN and it did not end in glorious victory. It was in fact the beginning of the end as the greatest naval power.

Overal the HSF appears to have outgunned and outmaneuvred the RN, no mean feat by itself.

Blutarski2004
06-01-2006, 10:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ruy Horta:
Overall the HSF appears to have outgunned and outmaneuvred the RN, no mean feat by itself. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... If you want to compare Hipper versus Beatty, I agree completely. But Jellicoe deserves high credit for his deployment and handling of the GF battleline.

Two British fleets fought at Jutland. The GF under Jellicoe and the BCF under Beatty. Although the BCF was under Jellicoe' overall command, IMO it really was a separate organization under Beatty, who tried to function as Jellicoe's stand-apart equal rather than as his subordinate. The BCF was not the equal of the GF in terms of training, combat efficiency, or tactical leadership.

This of course is strictly my opinion.

Top_Gun_1_0_1
06-01-2006, 11:18 AM
when we sum up all the variables,It can be a draw http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

csThor
06-01-2006, 11:40 AM
It's ironic to see how Beatty and Jellicoe began pointing fingers at each other just after the battle ended. Jellicoe considered Beatty a mindless, agressive gambler while Beatty accused Jellicoe of being overly cautious. And an even greater irony is to see Beatty's style of leading the Grand Fleet once he was promoted (as was Jellicoe) - he was just as careful not to risk losses as his predecessor had been.

But this dispute between the most prominent figures of the RN indicates that the RN didn't exactly consider the battle a victory. Why argueing when you've won? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ploughman
06-01-2006, 11:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ruy Horta:
Overall the HSF appears to have outgunned and outmaneuvred the RN, no mean feat by itself. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... If you want to compare Hipper versus Beatty, I agree completely. But Jellicoe deserves high credit for his deployment and handling of the GF battleline.

Two British fleets fought at Jutland. The GF under Jellicoe and the BCF under Beatty. Although the BCF was under Jellicoe' overall command, IMO it really was a separate organization under Beatty, who tried to function as Jellicoe's stand-apart equal rather than as his subordinate. The BCF was not the equal of the GF in terms of training, combat efficiency, or tactical leadership.

This of course is strictly my opinion. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Quite, and that cretin Evan-Thomas deserves special mention for his turn in succession order however, Scheer had his T crossed twice and that's no mean feat neither.

This graphic shows the mess the Germans found themselves in.

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y289/mctomney/jutland.jpg

It's to their credit that they made off whilst only losing one major fleet unit. Hardly a testament to inferior RN manouvering though.

leitmotiv
06-01-2006, 12:02 PM
But for disastrous maneuvering and cordite handling in the Battle Cruiser Fleet under Beatty the odds were that Hipper's First Scouting Group (the five German battlecruisers) would have been sunk. The latest research by the naval historian Nicholas Lambert found that, in order to move cordite to the guns faster, all safety mechanisms and procedures in the BC Fleet were completely discarded. Magazine doors were removed, and cordite was stacked in the open from the magazines all the way up the ammunition supply chain to the big guns. Thus, a penetrating turret or barbette hit lit the cordite like a fuse to the magazine and blew the ship to pieces. All evidence points to this happening to the three battlecruisers lost by Beatty that day. This became apparent to both Beatty and Jellicoe soon after the Battle. Beatty was crushed---doubtlessly he expected his career to end in ignominy, but Jellicoe spared him and suppressed the evidence of the negligence for the good of the Service. Beatty repaid Jellicoe when he became First Sea Lord by blaming the escape of the German fleet solely on Jellicoe. In addition to his cordite handling policy disaster, Beatty mishandled the four behemoth QUEEN ELIZABETH class super dreadnoughts he had been given to support his battlecruisers which resulted in his combustible battlecruisers engaging the German battlecruisers alone---with unpalatable results. Jellicoe maneuvered the Grand Fleet superbly, placing it between Scheer and his home port. The battleships of the Grand Fleet, extremely well-drilled, shot brilliantly (unlike Beatty's inadequately trained battlecruisers)---his own flagship battered KONIG severely in just a few minutes. The shot-up High Sea Fleet escaped due to the Grand Fleet's poor night tactics---and a generous helping of good luck. 1 June 1916 dawned with thick fog---chances were slim of a conclusive battle even if the Grand Fleet had cut off the Germans. The German battlecruisers did very well against the English battlecruisers, but were crushed by the QUEEN ELIZABETHs. Scheer established a record for faulty fleet handling by driving his ships into the ring of Grand Fleet battleships a second time after narrowly escaping them once before. Scheer had demonstrated his true ability in his planning which, had the zeppelin scouts been available and the submarines luckier, might had resulted in better results than actually achieved. The Grand Fleet controlled the North Sea the morning after the battle---the battered German fleet was unable to go to sea again for several weeks.

StellarRat
06-01-2006, 12:58 PM
Kurfurst - My grandmother nearly starved to death during WW I due to the ineffective "loser" Royal Navy. Toward the end, she was lucky to get ONE potato a day to eat.

If we were to use your analysis of equipment and battles during the two world wars I would expect to be speaking German and saluting Hitler's grandson about now.

Blutarski2004
06-01-2006, 02:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by csThor:
It's ironic to see how Beatty and Jellicoe began pointing fingers at each other just after the battle ended. Jellicoe considered Beatty a mindless, agressive gambler while Beatty accused Jellicoe of being overly cautious. And an even greater irony is to see Beatty's style of leading the Grand Fleet once he was promoted (as was Jellicoe) - he was just as careful not to risk losses as his predecessor had been. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Beatty was without question brave, charismatic, and a strategically sound thinker. He was also a favorite of both Churchill (great story how they met) and the Royal Family. But he was also highly egotistical, insecure, and a poor tactical commander at sea.

Beatty's reaction to the post-war Harper Report on the Battle of Jutland is a good example of some of the less attractive aspects of his personality in action.

Blutarski2004
06-01-2006, 02:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
But for disastrous maneuvering and cordite handling in the Battle Cruiser Fleet under Beatty the odds were that Hipper's First Scouting Group (the five German battlecruisers) would have been sunk. The latest research by the naval historian Nicholas Lambert found that, in order to move cordite to the guns faster, all safety mechanisms and procedures in the BC Fleet were completely discarded. Magazine doors were removed, and cordite was stacked in the open from the magazines all the way up the ammunition supply chain to the big guns. Thus, a penetrating turret or barbette hit lit the cordite like a fuse to the magazine and blew the ship to pieces. All evidence points to this happening to the three battlecruisers lost by Beatty that day. This became apparent to both Beatty and Jellicoe soon after the Battle. Beatty was crushed---doubtlessly he expected his career to end in ignominy, but Jellicoe spared him and suppressed the evidence of the negligence for the good of the Service. Beatty repaid Jellicoe when he became First Sea Lord by blaming the escape of the German fleet solely on Jellicoe. In addition to his cordite handling policy disaster, Beatty mishandled the four behemoth QUEEN ELIZABETH class super dreadnoughts he had been given to support his battlecruisers which resulted in his combustible battlecruisers engaging the German battlecruisers alone---with unpalatable results. Jellicoe maneuvered the Grand Fleet superbly, placing it between Scheer and his home port. The battleships of the Grand Fleet, extremely well-drilled, shot brilliantly (unlike Beatty's inadequately trained battlecruisers)---his own flagship battered KONIG severely in just a few minutes. The shot-up High Sea Fleet escaped due to the Grand Fleet's poor night tactics---and a generous helping of good luck. 1 June 1916 dawned with thick fog---chances were slim of a conclusive battle even if the Grand Fleet had cut off the Germans. The German battlecruisers did very well against the English battlecruisers, but were crushed by the QUEEN ELIZABETHs. Scheer established a record for faulty fleet handling by driving his ships into the ring of Grand Fleet battleships a second time after narrowly escaping them once before. Scheer had demonstrated his true ability in his planning which, had the zeppelin scouts been available and the submarines luckier, might had resulted in better results than actually achieved. The Grand Fleet controlled the North Sea the morning after the battle---the battered German fleet was unable to go to sea again for several weeks. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

..... A very good summation.

Blutarski2004
06-01-2006, 03:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ploughman:
Quite, and that cretin Evan-Thomas deserves special mention for his turn in succession order however. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Don't think too poorly of Evan-Thomas. He turned 5BS in succession only because he was specifically ordered to do so by Beatty.

See Marder, Dreadnought to Scapa Flow, Vol III, pg 64 -

"Eight minutes later (4.48), as the two squadrons were coming abreast of each other on opposite courses, Beatty hoisted a flag signal direct to the 5th Battle Squadron to turn back 16 points in succession to starboard."

Then the signal was not hauled down (i.e., made officially executive) by Beatty until 4.57 - 9 minutes later!

GerritJ9
06-01-2006, 04:34 PM
I have to disagree about the R.N.'s battlecruisers being excellent ships. They were not. Overlooked by nearly every publication is the simple fact that at Dogger Bank, "Lion's" armour was repeatedly pierced by German 11"shells and the ship disabled in short order- and the "Lions" had the thickest side armour of the British battlecruisers at 9" (together with "Tiger")- a thickness which only Germany's first battlecruiser, S.M.S. "Von der Tann", had. Even with a six to five superiority initially, Beatty's force would have been chopped to pieces by Hipper, but for the 5th Battle Squadron. As it was, Beatty's force was very lucky to get away with it.
I have always maintained that Scheer made the greatest blunder of all at Jutland by not increasing his speed when Hipper reported first contact, then action, with Beatty. He kept plodding along at 16 knots, instead of ordering the "Kaiser" and "K¶nig" class ships to increase speed to 22 knots and form a line on a more northwesterly course, and ordering the remaining battleships to increase speed to their maximum while maintaining their current course, creating the possibility to trap Beatty and Evan-Thomas between two lines. The pre-dreadnoughts could have caught up later, their presence would not have been decisive in the clash between the BCF and 5th BS on one hand, and the 1st SG, the "Kaiser/K¶nig" and "Helgoland/Nassau" squadrons on the other.

MB_Avro_UK
06-01-2006, 05:08 PM
Hi all,

Having started this thread,I would like to post my grandfather's WW1 serving Royal Navy views on the Battle. He passed away years ago but his response was something similar to, 'They didn't try it again, did they?'.

He was not in any way present at the Battle as he was being sea-sick elsewhere but maybe his comments have value?

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

leitmotiv
06-01-2006, 10:07 PM
John Campbell in his book on English and German battlecruisers and his near definitive book on Jutland atomizes the effects of shell hits in detail as does John Roberts in his superb book on the English battlecruisers. LION received one penetration of her 9" belt in both battles (and a great many other hits of lesser severity which caused heavy casualties and bad fires). This hit would have had little consequence had it not led to the cutting of a water feed pipe which caused LION to come to a dead halt (she had to be towed back to port). This consequence falls within the realm of "damned lucky" and is typical of things that can go wrong when Mr Murphy is around---other classic examples: the torp hit on BISMARCK's stern which ruined her rudders, the hit on HOOD which blew her to pieces, RODNEY's fortuitous salvo which destroyed BIS's principal aloft director and killed her chief gunnery officer right as he was likely to have crunched R after straddling her, and WARSPITE's lucky ultra long range hit on CAVOUR which caused the Italian admiral to call it a day at Cape Spartivento. The English battlecruisers sacrificed heavy armor for big guns, high sustainable speed, and superior seakeeping. The German battlecruisers had thicker belt armor in some cases but their thin barbette armor below the weather decks led to SEYDLITZ' near destruction at D Bank, and to the loss of turrets. The German battlecruisers could not match the English battlecruisers in speed (partially due to poor quality coal)---at the start of the battlecruiser action they were plodding at 18 knots while Beatty was doing 25. The German BCs were also squatters, low in the water, and this did for LUTZOW after she took several hits on her deck forward which flooded her and eventually sank her. There is no denying the German BCs took a horrendous thrashing and four remained afloat. Both the German and English design philosophies were interesting---neither quite worked out as intended.

Kurfurst__
06-02-2006, 01:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by csThor:
Well ... if you leave aside the snide propaganda of both sides it should be very obvious that Battle Fleets such as the High Seas Fleet and the Grand Fleet (and Battleships per se) were usually more of a propaganda weapon than an "everyday-weapon" winning wars. Wilhelm II had the fleet built because he wanted to bring Imperial Germany into the same class as Great Britain - not because he expected it to defeat the British Grand Fleet. In the early 20th Century a massive Fleet meant political influence.

Most of the dirty work at sea was done by submarines and smaller vessels, rarely anything larger than a destroyer. The economical war was the key element at sea even before WW1 so seeing the Battleships as more than a massive amount of steel and national pride is hardly correct http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. The only time when an engagement between Battleships decided a war was in 1905 when Togo butchered the Russian Baltic Fleet at Tsushima - and that merely enabled the Japanese to mount an invasion of Port Arthur (which decided the war). Even later in WW2 Battleships were prime targets but hardly war-winning machines. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

100% agree. Battleships were already dinosaurs by WW1, mounting the high-tech technology of the era (big guns, large armor etc.), but strategically they proved to be so undecisive, that one could be perfectly well without any of those hugely expensive ships, something they found out after WW2. Jutland merely proved that the big ships can achieve virtually nothing, both fleets returned to ports, and spent the rest of the war doing nothing - sidenote, all this talk about the HSF rotting on anchor, hmm, the Royal Navy did the very same.

Submarines and smaller vessels did the bulk of the jobs, and this was not influenced by what the capital ships do; subs sank many, many greater ships than all capital ships combined, and their strategical influance was far greater, so much that by summer 1917 Jellicoe had to report that if the losses remain on present level, the supply of the army could not be sustained within 3 months, and asking for an armstance shall be neccesary. In the month of April, u-boats had sunk almost one million tones of merchant shipping that was bring men, food and ammunition to England. One out of every four ships that left England's ports never returned. By the end of April, there was only a six-week supply of food left in all of England. The British Naval Chief, Lord Jellicoe stated "it is impossible for us to go on with the war if losses like this continue."

The crisis was evaded by increased ship building capacity etc., but the example shows how U-boots could achieve within a year what the great ships of the line could not. And besides, they were hell of a lot cheaper.

leitmotiv
06-02-2006, 04:07 AM
Three corrections to the above: (1) The big difference between the Grand Fleet and the High Sea Fleet was that throughout the war the Grand Fleet was at sea on regular sweeps and not in Scapa, Cromarty, or Rosyth constantly---and in 1917-18 the GF was escorting convoys to Norway regularly. This is not to say the billet was exciting, but the GF was not a prisoner behind minefields like the HSF. Even the HSF was not completely hemmed-in---it was used to blockade the Russian Baltic fleet, and later to support amphibious operations against the Russians in 1917. The GF never had a depression of morale as happened to the HSF after Jutland, and which led to successful communist mutiny in 1918. The GF was actually disappointed when the HSF submitted to internment without a fight after the 1918 armistice. (2) Regarding those quotes from Jellicoe who was First Sea Lord at the time---they were, fortunately for the English, in error. Jellicoe was adamantly against convoys, had run out of ideas, and was panicking (the man was burned out). Lloyd-George, in what was one of the few positive actions of a politician in the English war effort, over-ruled Jellicoe, and convoys were implemented, which put an end to the threat of the U-boats. Jellicoe was sacked at the end of 1917. (3) The English battleship fleet was decisive. It succeeded in doing what it was intended: to enforce the blockade by distant support of the vessels that patrolled the North Sea, and, later, by supporting the minelayers which once and for all sealed up the German navy in port, including the U-boats. Without the Grand Fleet the Germans would have been able to use their ships for raiding the sea lanes to England. As Churchill wrote, Jellicoe, as head of the GF, was the one man who could have lost the war in an afternoon if he had let the GF get destroyed. The dreadnought awaited radar to overcome the restrictions forced on it by visibility. By the time the dreadnoughts had realized their full potential in WWII they were vulnerable to mass air attacks in the day. At night they still were extremely valuable as surface combatants and bombardment vessels, as demonstrated by the Guadalcanal campaign. TIRPITZ and SCHARNHORST tied down enormous resources in ships until they were destroyed.

stathem
06-02-2006, 04:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
Three corrections to the above: (1) The big difference between the Grand Fleet and the High Sea Fleet was that throughout the war the Grand Fleet was at sea on regular sweeps and not in Scapa, Cromarty, or Rosyth constantly---and in 1917-18 the GF was escorting convoys to Norway regularly. This is not to say the billet was exciting, but the GF was not a prisoner behind minefields like the HSF. (2) Regarding those quotes from Jellicoe who was First Sea Lord at the time---they were, fortunately for the English, in error. Jellicoe was adamantly against convoys, had run out of ideas, and was panicking (the man was burned out). Lloyd-George, in what was one of the few positive actions of a politician in the English war effort, over-ruled Jellicoe, and convoys were implemented, which put an end to the threat of the U-boats. Jellicoe was sacked at the end of 1917. (3) The English battleship fleet was decisive. It succeeded in doing what it was intended: to enforce the blockade by distant support of the vessels that patrolled the North Sea, and, later, by supporting the minelayers which once and for all sealed up the German navy in port, including the U-boats. Without the Grand Fleet the Germans would have been able to use their ships for raiding the sea lanes to England. As Churchill wrote, Jellicoe, as head of the GF, was the one man who could have lost the war in an afternoon if he had let the GF get destroyed. The dreadnought awaited radar to overcome the restrictions forced on it by visibility. By the time the dreadnoughts had realized their full potential in WWII they were vulnerable to mass air attacks in the day. At night they still were extremely valuable as surface combatants and bombardment vessels, as demonstrated by the Guadalcanal campaign. TIRPITZ and SCHARNHORST tied down enormous resources in ships until they were destroyed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Seconded. Particularly in regard to the Grand fleet's patrolling, I recently read a book, Scapa Flow (sorry can'r remember the authors) about, well, Scapa in the 2 wars, and it mentions the same; ie the GF (or parts thereof) out on very regular patrols.

luftluuver
06-02-2006, 06:30 AM
Now Kurfurst can post what stats he wants about the battle but

"material losses" were only greater on the British side if you count ONLY ships sunk, not the ones damaged and out of service. Here is a simple fact that demonstrates that the British carried the day clearly and the Germans in fact suffered the greater material losses: The British fleet was intact and ready for fight 12 hours after returning to base, while the German fleet was not fit for action for over two months.

The day after the battle Jellicoe reported that he had 26 battleships, 6 battlecruisers, and 30 cruisers that could go to sea on four hours notice. The Germans could make no such claim, as they only 12 battleships, no battlecruisers, and 6 cruisers ready for sea the next day. The Royal Navy had a greater advantage after the battle, a 3-1 ratio of capital ships, than they had before the battle.

posted by Bob Henneman, http://p069.ezboard.com/falltheworldsbattlecruisersfrm1...e?topicID=2288.t opic (http://p069.ezboard.com/falltheworldsbattlecruisersfrm1.showMessage?topicI D=2288.topic)

Kurfurst__
06-02-2006, 07:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
Three corrections to the above: (1) The big difference between the Grand Fleet and the High Sea Fleet was that throughout the war the Grand Fleet was at sea on regular sweeps and not in Scapa, Cromarty, or Rosyth constantly---and in 1917-18 the GF was escorting convoys to Norway regularly. This is not to say the billet was exciting, but the GF was not a prisoner behind minefields like the HSF. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

One just wonders if the HSF was "prisoner behind minefields" as you claim, how the heck they managed to came out regularly and bombard the souther shores of Britain, as happened before and after Jutland. Speaking of Jutland, how did they get there in the first place, being prisoners and all such...? Why were battleship escorts neccesary for convoys, with the enemy fleet so totally and utterly neutralized as you claim?

Obviously, your story stinks.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The GF never had a depression of morale as happened to the HSF after Jutland, and which led to successful communist mutiny in 1918. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Depression of morale..? According to whom, the British still trying to nicen the events, making up things? and why on earth would the HSF be depressed in morale, since after all, they considered themselves victors of the battle and beyond doubt bested the Royal Navy tactically.

Now as for the communist mutiny, you try to mix up things and blend it into some kind of alternate history what was happened, but I am afraid we are all too familiar that the events that preceded the mutiny in the marines, namely that peace talks were already under way, the war was obviously lost after the spring offensive failed, and despite all that they were to be sent on a pointless mission with no real military goal. It's little wonder sailors did not want to take part in their officer's dream of going down with the ships.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Regarding those quotes from Jellicoe who was First Sea Lord at the time---they were, fortunately for the English, in error. Jellicoe was adamantly against convoys, had run out of ideas, and was panicking (the man was burned out). Lloyd-George, in what was one of the few positive actions of a politician in the English war effort, over-ruled Jellicoe, and convoys were implemented, which put an end to the threat of the U-boats. Jellicoe was sacked at the end of 1917. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In what ways was Jellicoe in error that the Uboots succeeded far further than either great surface fleets went, getting England within a few weeks of starvation? This has nothing to do with the successfull implementation of the convoy system, rather than to sweeten the sour.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The English battleship fleet was decisive. It succeeded in doing what it was intended: to enforce the blockade by distant support of the vessels that patrolled the North Sea, and, later, by supporting the minelayers which once and for all sealed up the German navy in port, including the U-boats. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again I ask, what universe are you living? For all these stories about sunken morale, a fleets and Uboots sealed up in port, but then tell me who the Grand Fleet was fighting at Dogger Bank and Skagerrak, and what on earth sunk so many merchant ships, if both the HSF and Uboots were locked up in harbor?

Appearantly, the only historical version you can accept is primary school textbook bravado, Rule the waves unopposed and such sillyness. The British seem to have a hard time coping with the pass of time, which is evident to me not only from the creativity showed by them to nicen some less glorious events, but also from such phrases as the known joke of a fictional dialoge between the USN and the RN, the former having far eclipsed the latter, and asking 'How does it feel to be the second biggest navy in the World', and the reply 'How does it feel to be the second best', shows the attitude.

The story of Jutland is quite similair, the literature of British excuses, arguements, studies, wishful thinking for why they actually won the battle fills whole libraries - facts on the other hand speak for themselves, and don't need lenghty commentaries. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Without the Grand Fleet the Germans would have been able to use their ships for raiding the sea lanes to England. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They used submarines instead, which achieved far greater results with the fraction of the cost. The undecisive nature of the clash of titans at Jutland helped the to find the correct method sooner, as pointed out by Scheer.

JtD
06-02-2006, 08:11 AM
WRT the quality of the British and German battlecruisers there is no doubt in my mind that the Germans were the better designs - mainly because the insufficient protection of the British ships. I am not necessarily talking about armor thickness and distribution, but mainly about underwater protection. It was generally poor with the British ships of that time, but the battlecruiser were disastrous in that respect. The German ships were much different and a lot better.

Also, the speed of the German battlecruisers in general was not inferior to the British coutnerparts. I think it was Seydlitz which managed in excess of 29kn on trials and I doubt there was a British BC short of Renown/Repulse that could exceed that speed. From my reading I am under the impression that the British and Germans were very much on par speedwise.

And leitmotiv, your postings are quite interesting to read, but please, press Enter once in a while to make a paragraph here and there.

leitmotiv
06-02-2006, 08:50 AM
The last time the German fleet bombarded the English coast was in 1916 before Jutland. There was only one fleet foray into the North Sea in 1917 and none in 1918. The collapse of the morale of the German fleet is a well-known historical fact, as was the mutiny, and the later communist take-over of the fleet (sailors were the shock troops of the revolutionaries who tried to seize Berlin). A recent biography of Hipper comments on the slowness of the German battlecruisers and their bad coal. Trial speeds are famous for not being reflective of service speeds. US Navy Commander Frost's famous 1930's analysis of Jutland notes Hipper's comparatively slow speed. Track charts show Beatty's battlecruisers maintaining a lead on Hipper throughout the BC action.

luftluuver
06-02-2006, 09:42 AM
Sure Kurfurst what ever you say. You accuse other of living in a dream world http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif?

1917
February, 781,500 tons
March, 885,000 "
April, 1,091,000 "
May, 869,000 "
June, 1,016,000 "
July, 811,000 "
August, 808,000 "
September, 672,000 "
October, 674,000 "
November, 607,000 "
December, 702,000 "

1918
January, 632,000 "
February, 680,000 "
March, 689,000 "
April, 652,000 "
May, 614,000 "
June, 521,000 "
July, 550,000 "
August, 420,000 "
September, 440,000 "

After Jutland, the U-boat sinking tonnage decreased.

Freights rose considerably. In May, 1915, they were double what they had been in January; in January, 1916, they had risen on an average to ten times the amount they had been before the war (January, 1914).

Scheer

Blutarski2004
06-02-2006, 10:41 AM
Yes, the HSF had problems with coal. Germany has immense resources of coal, the vast majority being lignite with a small fraction of bituminous and a smaller fraction of anthracite. Although it is likely that much of the bituminous and anthracite production would have been reserved for use by the navy, overall German coal availability was clearly inferior to that of Great Britain, which had ample resources and access to higher quality anthracite and bituminous coal.

I do not know what variety of coal was used to conduct German navy speed trials, but I'm allowing for the best anthracite steam coal. If the Germans were using a mix of lignite and better coal at Jutland, I'll take a WAG and speculate that the relative btu factor of this mixture would have been about 3/4 that of typical British steam coal. If the net power produced varies directly with the btu input of the fuel, then the German BC's would have been able to achieve only about 90 percent of their maximum speed. Assuming clean bottoms and machinery in good order, that would mean about 25-25.5 knots as a VERY broad guess.

But I do not think that Hipper's relatively leisurely speed in the Run to the South was necessarily due to inferior coal alone. Consider the tactical situation during the Run to the South -

(1) Gunnerywise, the 1SG is giving a good deal better than it is getting.

(2) Hipper knows that Beatty is unsupported and likely to remain so for at least a few hours.

(3) Hipper knows that he has the main body of the HSF close by to the south of him.

(4) Hipper knows Beatty to be extremely aggressive.

I'd suggest that Hipper might havepurposely kept a modest speed to encourage Beatty to press southward in pursuit. If Beatty repeated the conduct which he displayed at Dogger Bank, he would press southward to overtake Hipper and attempt to cut him off from his line of retreat to Heligoland.

At that point, Beatty would run headlong into the approaching main body of the HSF (which he did) and must himself run. But, at that point Beatty could find himself between two fires, with 1SG to his north and the HSF rapidly approaching from his south or southwest.

Over and above that, the modest speed of 1SG meant that no high speed vibration problems would interfere with their fire control. By comparison, the very high speed of Beatty's ships
would have caused real vibration problems. Don't discount the influence of ship vibration; it posed a real problem to range-taking, especially for British coincidence-type range-finders.

.....

Who won the Battle of Jutland? The answer depends upon what aspect the battle is viewed.

From the German perspective, they succeeded in bringing a superior force to bear against an isolated fraction of the GF and destroying 3 important British capital ships in exchange for the loss of one. This was a favorable exchange given the force ratios which existed at the time. Unfortunately, that exchange ratio was insufficient to also overcome the consistent additions of new capital ships to the GF battle-line. The net result was that the superiority of numbers of the GF over the HSF continued to grow.

From the point of view of Great Britain, they clearly lost the first half of the battle tactically speaking. They clearly won the second half of the battle in tactical terms, but were unable to reap any real benefit in terms of German capital ships destroyed.

IMO, after thirty five years of studying this fascinating and unique engagement, the fairest conclusion I can draw is that the, however fortuitously, the HSF scored a tactical victory which ultimately proved meaningless in strategic terms.

Was all this cavorting around the North Sea by fleets of expensive dreadnought ultimately a waste of time and valuable national resources?

No.

The Royal Navy guaranteed command of the sea for Great Britain. Quite apart from maintaining a naval blockade of Germany, command of the sea ensured strategic mobility and maintenance of the logistically essential supply route network to the rest of the Empire and to North America. Without command of the sea, the Entente IMO would have collapsed.

Perhaps Germany could have wrested control of the sea lanes, at least around Great Britain and the Atlantic coast of France, if they had devoted greater resources to the submarine arm. But it would have to have been a very fine balancing act, as the surface fleet was ultimately the guarantor of the safety of the bases from which those submarines operated.

For whatever that's worth.

leitmotiv
06-02-2006, 12:12 PM
Concur, Admiral B. For a long time I believed Hipper took it easy because he was avoiding the vibration which resulted from high speeds in dreadnoughts which affected fire control apparatus, but Tobias R. Philbin's excellent ADMIRAL VON HIPPER: THE INCONVENIENT HERO changed my mind. He goes into the problem of bad coal which was a problem from the start of the war in the Imperial Navy. On pages 56-7 he describes the problems bad coal posed at Jutland: excessive smoke, engines unable to develop design horsepower, and metal grates in the furnaces collapsing due to the heavy stones in the bad coal. The coal-fired torp boats were given the best coal because their engines were intolerant of the bad coal used by the dreadnoughts. DERFFLINGER reported in 1915 that she was unable to make max speed unless using the kind of coal provided to the torp boats. SEYDLITZ reported the same problem.

JtD
06-02-2006, 12:28 PM
WRT speed again: I do trust you that the coal used in the German ships would reduce their performance, the question however would be by how much?

Getting back to the Seydlitz trial, it's designed powerplant was good for 67000 hp and 26.5 kn, but it would do 90000 hp and 29 kn. I don't know much about the testing procedure, so maybe you can fill in the gaps. If I had to subtract 10%, from which figure? I have also read that these trials were not performed under war time conditions, however they are defined...what would the difference be?

Also, assuming your guess of 25-25.5 knots would be correct, wouldn't that figure put the Germans on par with the most of the British BC's? If I am not mistaken all German BC's were capabable of similar speeds whilst the British had to settle with the slowest speeds of all BCs involved...the Invincible wasn't faster than that.

leitmotiv
06-02-2006, 12:59 PM
I think the documented speeds we have for the German First Scouting Group at Jutland speak volumes, JtD. The German battlecruisers were, indeed, well subdivided but all had an Achilles heel---the spaces they devoted to the underwater torp tubes forward---one tube fitted to shoot forward and one on each beam. The beam tube compartment was big enough to drag the bow down if flooded and this happened to SEYDLITZ and LUTZOW---in the case of the latter, with fatal results. The German dreadnoughts were terrifically sound vessels---I'm fond of all of them---I'm not a Royal Navy zealot, but I agree with John Roberts that the English battlecruisers have been rubbished unfairly for decades. Their biggest flaw was when their captains threw out centuries of sound propellant handling procedures to embrace unscientific assumptions about the supposed safety of modern cordite.

Blutarski2004
06-02-2006, 01:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
WRT speed again: I do trust you that the coal used in the German ships would reduce their performance, the question however would be by how much?

Getting back to the Seydlitz trial, it's designed powerplant was good for 67000 hp and 26.5 kn, but it would do 90000 hp and 29 kn. I don't know much about the testing procedure, so maybe you can fill in the gaps. If I had to subtract 10%, from which figure? I have also read that these trials were not performed under war time conditions, however they are defined...what would the difference be?

Also, assuming your guess of 25-25.5 knots would be correct, wouldn't that figure put the Germans on par with the most of the British BC's? If I am not mistaken all German BC's were capabable of similar speeds whilst the British had to settle with the slowest speeds of all BCs involved...the Invincible wasn't faster than that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... I have the trials speeds for all the British and German BC's at home. What follows is coming from a not always perfect memory. The Invincible and Indefatigable class BC's could make 26-26.5 knots with everything in good order; the Lion Class and Tiger 28-28.5 knots. The top speeds for the German BC's ranged from 27-27.5 knots for Von der Tann up to 28-28.5 knots for the later classes.

As I mentioned earlier, my evaluation is based upon a lot of assumptions:

(1) that the trials speeds of the German ships were obtained using best quality steam coal.

(2) that the coal in use by the German BC's at Jutland was a 50/50 mix of poor lignite and better bituminous.

(3) that horsepower at the prop varies approximately as the amount of btu's provided by the fuel

Note - This btu issue is pretty complex because the btu yield will vary with the nature of the steaming.

(4) that the amount of net horsepower to propel a warship of this sort varies as the 3rd power of the speed.

Let's assume that the engines of our sample battlecruiser will produce 100,000 net horespower with best quality coal as fuel for its steam boilers. That 100,000 hp will propel the ship 20 28 knots.

The same ship now must steam using poor coal with only 75 pct of the btu content of the good quality coal and her engines can only produce 75,000 hp.

75,000 hp is of course 75 pct of 100,000 hp. The cube (3rd) root of 0.75 = 0.91.

0.91 x 28 knots = 25.5 knots.

But, as I mentioned before, I'm working from a lot of assumptions.

Meanwhile, IIRC, British records indicate that LION reached 28.5 knots and I think that NEW ZEALAND made something like 26.5 knots. I would need to go back and check my books to give completely accurate numbers here, though.

Blutarski2004
06-02-2006, 01:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
Concur, Admiral B. For a long time I believed Hipper took it easy because he was avoiding the vibration which resulted from high speeds in dreadnoughts which affected fire control apparatus, but Tobias R. Philbin's excellent ADMIRAL VON HIPPER: THE INCONVENIENT HERO changed my mind. He goes into the problem of bad coal which was a problem from the start of the war in the Imperial Navy. On pages 56-7 he describes the problems bad coal posed at Jutland: excessive smoke, engines unable to develop design horsepower, and metal grates in the furnaces collapsing due to the heavy stones in the bad coal. The coal-fired torp boats were given the best coal because their engines were intolerant of the bad coal used by the dreadnoughts. DERFFLINGER reported in 1915 that she was unable to make max speed unless using the kind of coal provided to the torp boats. SEYDLITZ reported the same problem. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... ADMIRAL VON HIPPER: THE INCONVENIENT HERO sounds like a book I need to procure.

Blutarski2004
06-02-2006, 01:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
I agree with John Roberts that the English battlecruisers have been rubbished unfairly for decades. Their biggest flaw was when their captains threw out centuries of sound propellant handling procedures to embrace unscientific assumptions about the supposed safety of modern cordite. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... I'd indict the service in addition to the captains. Apart from the over-enthusiasm for rapid rates of fire which produced lax ammunition handling procedures, cordite was bundled into silk bags with black powder primer disks on both ends of the bags, which were then stored in non-flash tight containers. Service testing of cordite was cursory; no tests were conducted to evaluate behavior under confinement in an elevated pressure environment, which was what caused the massive explosions.

leitmotiv
06-02-2006, 02:35 PM
Absolutely, B. I had to get Philbin from inter-library loan because, as I recall, it was privately published by Philbin, a US Navy officer, in Holland. Of course I shamelessly photocopied most of it---if you can read German, the bibliography is a ruddy gold mine. Here is the complete citation:

ADMIRAL VON HIPPER THE INCONVENIENT HERO. Tobias R. Philbin. B.R. Gruner Publishing Company, Amsterdam, 1982.

Have you read this gem?

""Our Bloody Ships' or 'Our Bloody System'? Jutland and the Loss of the Battle Cruisers, 1916". Nicholas A. Lambert. THE JOURNAL OF MILITARY HISTORY. Jan 1998. Pages 29-56.

Herein Lambert reveals the full story of the propellant fiasco, Beatty's responsibility, and how Jellicoe quashed the investigation which would have ruined Beatty. An incredible story, and one unlikely to be swept under the carpet by that egregious Andrew Gordon!

ploughman
06-02-2006, 03:02 PM
I do hope you two don't take this to PMs. It's fascinating. Keep going please.

leitmotiv
06-02-2006, 03:12 PM
<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre"> </pre> http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Blutarski2004
06-02-2006, 04:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
Absolutely, B. I had to get Philbin from inter-library loan because, as I recall, it was privately published by Philbin, a US Navy officer, in Holland. Of course I shamelessly photocopied most of it---if you can read German, the bibliography is a ruddy gold mine. Here is the complete citation:

ADMIRAL VON HIPPER THE INCONVENIENT HERO. Tobias R. Philbin. B.R. Gruner Publishing Company, Amsterdam, 1982.

Have you read this gem?

""Our Bloody Ships' or 'Our Bloody System'? Jutland and the Loss of the Battle Cruisers, 1916". Nicholas A. Lambert. THE JOURNAL OF MILITARY HISTORY. Jan 1998. Pages 29-56.

Herein Lambert reveals the full story of the propellant fiasco, Beatty's responsibility, and how Jellicoe quashed the investigation which would have ruined Beatty. An incredible story, and one unlikely to be swept under the carpet by that egregious Andrew Gordon! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Yes, I've read that article by Lambert. One of his better efforts IMO. I felt that his book on Fisher was rather too heavily overburdened by the aura of Sumida. It seemed like two out of three of Lambert's citations related to work by Sumida.

luftluuver
06-02-2006, 04:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ploughman:
I do hope you two don't take this to PMs. It's fascinating. Keep going please. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>For sure. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Much better than the goose stepping thumping of of Kurfurst's hobnailed boots.

GerritJ9
06-02-2006, 05:13 PM
The popular version of history is the the HSF never ventured to sea after Jutland. However, the HSF did carry out two major sorties in the North Sea, on Aug. 19th 1916, and in April 1918 when the HSF steamed north to intercept one of the Scandinavia convoys. German intelligence was one day out and the convoy was missed. During the voyage home "Moltke" lost a propeller and the overspeeding of the turbine resulted in flooding of the affected engine room.
The Scandinavia convoys were escorted by a battlecruiser squadron following two successful raids on earlier convoys in 1917, one by destroyers and one by the minelaying cruisers "Bremse" and "Brummer". Had the HSF sailed one day earlier or later, the convoy would have been located and destroyed- and so would its battlecruiser escort.

Blutarski2004
06-02-2006, 05:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GerritJ9:
The popular version of history is the the HSF never ventured to sea after Jutland. However, the HSF did carry out two major sorties in the North Sea, on Aug. 19th 1916, and in April 1918 when the HSF steamed north to intercept one of the Scandinavia convoys. German intelligence was one day out and the convoy was missed. During the voyage home "Moltke" lost a propeller and the overspeeding of the turbine resulted in flooding of the affected engine room.
The Scandinavia convoys were escorted by a battlecruiser squadron following two successful raids on earlier convoys in 1917, one by destroyers and one by the minelaying cruisers "Bremse" and "Brummer". Had the HSF sailed one day earlier or later, the convoy would have been located and destroyed- and so would its battlecruiser escort. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Correct.

JtD
06-03-2006, 02:34 AM
I wouldn't want to say the the British BC were failures, but I do think the the German ones made better use of tonnage. However, the British ones have proven their value more than once, i.e. around the Falkland island and around Helgoland in 1914. They have also proven a considerable amount of toughness, even in the battle of Jutland which has put them in really bad light. Some of them took a lot of heavy hits, but remained in fighting condition or at least afloat.

You (or the vast amount of books you read) claim that all three of the GF BC's lost were lost due to improper ammo handling. However, I always was under the impression that "Queen Mary" exploded with hardly any delay after being hit. Thus a direct hit into the magazines would be more likely. I am not too keen on studying all the books you did, so could your clear that one up? Also, how do you know the exact effects of a hit if noone survives to tell you?

And, on a whole new topic, I have always wondered how they put 12" belts or so into the ships. Were there any joints or were they built in one piece?

Is this a good link for info about Jutland? http://webpages.charter.net/abacus/news/jutland/cont.htm

Bewolf
06-03-2006, 03:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ploughman:
I do hope you two don't take this to PMs. It's fascinating. Keep going please. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>For sure. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Much better than the goose stepping thumping of of Kurfurst's hobnailed boots. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kufürst has not posted for quite a while now, so could you please let those ppl go on with their discussions without sideremarks? It's highly interesting and I enjoy every bit of it without ppl like you or Kurfürst or anybody else not able to talk without getting personal interrupting.

Special respect and thanks to Blutarksi in this regard, I am learning tons here!

luftluuver
06-03-2006, 04:52 AM
He will be along Bewolf. It gets quite tirersome hearing the continiuous thumping of hobnailed boots. Will he get the message, very doubful.

His 1st words in this thread, pg1:
Well the only extreme opinions I can see here is that of two notorious nationalists from England, appearantly not being able to accept anything else than english primary school history class bravado about Jutland, the Sea Battle Gloriously Won by His Majesty Royal Navy...Well the only extreme opinions I can see here is that of two notorious nationalists from England, appearantly not being able to accept anything else than english primary school history class bravado about Jutland, the Sea Battle Gloriously Won by His Majesty Royal Navy, and the same place's version of the Battle of Waterloo, which was single handely won by the bonny prince Wellington, who streamrolled over that poor idiot Napoleon. Quatre Bras never was, and who was Blucher...? An Allied victory, not ENGLISH alone, what a BLASPHEMY!

These kind of guys are so allergic to nitty details that they start foaming in the mouth even before their nationalistic version is questioned, but we rest just ignore these clowns and learn history as it was.

Did you make a comment? Didn't see one. Why not?



JtD, the armour was put on in several pieces. I would have to go through my Campbell Jutland book but iirc at least one shell hit at a joint on one ship.

If one wants to read about the evolution of the British BBs get the 2 books by RA Burt, (ISBN 0-87021-863-8, ISBM 0-87021-061-0)

JZG_Thiem
06-03-2006, 04:57 AM
imnot too much into this detailed tech stuff, throwing around millions of small numbers - which prolly make you lose the big picture.

so my point of view about german and UK Bcs is that they -obviosly - followed different goals.
UK: speed is protection (Fisher). scarifice mostly armor for speed and keep gunnery.
GE: surviability /stamina is still primary objective/ reduce it as less as possible. try to gain enuff speed over BBs.

Falkland and jutland seem to prove both of those designs. The british Bcs, were absolutely superior to any non-BB, but maybe not that useful for fighting "in the line", since in major engagements with many capital ships theres just to big chances that youll be hit by large calibers, which the UK BC were not designed to withstand.
Ther german BCs would have been less superior in and falkland like scenario, but their good protection and layout made it possble to have them fighting in the line to a certain degree.

JtD
06-03-2006, 05:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:

JtD, the armour was put on in several pieces. I would have to go through my Campbell Jutland book but iirc at least one shell hit at a joint on one ship. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't worry, the link I posted above seems to be Campells Jutland book. By now I also found the line where he mentions a hit joint.

Bewolf
06-03-2006, 05:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
He will be along Bewolf. It gets quite tirersome hearing the continiuous thumping of hobnailed boots. Will he get the message, very doubful.

His 1st words in this thread, pg1:
Well the only extreme opinions I can see here is that of two notorious nationalists from England, appearantly not being able to accept anything else than english primary school history class bravado about Jutland, the Sea Battle Gloriously Won by His Majesty Royal Navy...Well the only extreme opinions I can see here is that of two notorious nationalists from England, appearantly not being able to accept anything else than english primary school history class bravado about Jutland, the Sea Battle Gloriously Won by His Majesty Royal Navy, and the same place's version of the Battle of Waterloo, which was single handely won by the bonny prince Wellington, who streamrolled over that poor idiot Napoleon. Quatre Bras never was, and who was Blucher...? An Allied victory, not ENGLISH alone, what a BLASPHEMY!

These kind of guys are so allergic to nitty details that they start foaming in the mouth even before their nationalistic version is questioned, but we rest just ignore these clowns and learn history as it was.

Did you make a comment? Didn't see one. Why not?



JtD, the armour was put on in several pieces. I would have to go through my Campbell Jutland book but iirc at least one shell hit at a joint on one ship.

If one wants to read about the evolution of the British BBs get the 2 books by RA Burt, (ISBN 0-87021-863-8, ISBM 0-87021-061-0) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No need to go down to the same level, is there?

Blutarski2004
06-03-2006, 05:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:

JtD, the armour was put on in several pieces. I would have to go through my Campbell Jutland book but iirc at least one shell hit at a joint on one ship. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't worry, the link I posted above seems to be Campells Jutland book. By now I also found the line where he mentions a hit joint. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... If you could only have one book on Jutland, Campbell's book would be a good candidate. I treasure my copy.

luftluuver
06-03-2006, 05:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bewolf:
No need to go down to the same level, is there? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I see what side of the fence your standing on since you did not attempt to stop his ugly comments. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

leitmotiv
06-03-2006, 06:49 AM
Excellent point, JtD, regarding how can you make a judgment on what destroyed the battlecruisers. In the case of INVINCIBLE we know exactly: someone in the foremast spotting top actually saw the hit on the turret, and, strange as it may appear, there was one survivor from the turret despite it being the focus of a massive magazine explosion which destoyed the center of the ship. In the cases of INDEFATIGABLE and QUEEN MARY, the evidence is not as clear. INDEFATIGABLE was observed by people on other ships to be hit aft by the sternmost turret. A small explosion was observed , and the ship was sinking by the stern. Then she was hit by her forward turret and after an interval she blew up. There exists a photo which shows the ship heeling to port and underwater aft, and another which shows the smoke cloud after she blew. Two survivors in the foremast thought she had been torpedoed because she sank so fast. Unfortunately the wreck was heavily salvaged and had been reduced practically to the sea bed. QUEEN MARY has much anecdotal evidence, little of which appeared validated by examination of the wreck. What is known is that the bow was blown to pieces and the ship rolled over and sank. The remaining part of the ship rests upside down on the seabed. The long and the short of it is that we likely will never know the exact sequence of events which sank INDEF and QM. What we do know is the behavior of German shells, the probably areas of impact, and what the shell was most likely capable of doing. The consensus among naval architecture experts is that in each case they were detonated by the cordite piled in their turrets and ammunition trains to their magazines. Considering the range and the unstellar performance of German armor-piercing shells, a direct hit on their magazines was not likely. The easiest path to the mags was via a turret or barbette hit, and heavy armor need not have been pierced---the turrets might have been entered through sighting ports or the ports for the guns themselves. In sum, we will likely never know the exact reason. There exists a mass of evidence from the hits on the other English ships---all cataloged by Campbell in his JUTLAND---and there is a duke's mixture of near-death experieces---for example one of the heavily armored QUEEN ELIZABETHs was nearly blown up by an out-of-control secondary battery cordite fire which nearly got to the secondary magazine. The English methods of propellant packing were poor and their cordite was unstable, but that is a huge subject of its own.

Blutarski2004
06-03-2006, 06:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
I wouldn't want to say the the British BC were failures, but I do think the the German ones made better use of tonnage. However, the British ones have proven their value more than once, i.e. around the Falkland island and around Helgoland in 1914. They have also proven a considerable amount of toughness, even in the battle of Jutland which has put them in really bad light. Some of them took a lot of heavy hits, but remained in fighting condition or at least afloat.

You (or the vast amount of books you read) claim that all three of the GF BC's lost were lost due to improper ammo handling. However, I always was under the impression that "Queen Mary" exploded with hardly any delay after being hit. Thus a direct hit into the magazines would be more likely. I am not too keen on studying all the books you did, so could your clear that one up? Also, how do you know the exact effects of a hit if noone survives to tell you? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... There actually were about 20 survivors of the loss of QM. Nevertheless, the details behind her loss are incomplete. The general opinion is that the fatal hit occured on A or B turret, causing an explosion which was followed shortly by detonation of the magazine. But QM suffered a number of hits (5?) in a short span of time and, ultimately, it is not perfectly certain what the true cause of her loss was.

If the account of the hit forward on A or B turret is accurate, I would guess it most likely that there was a holing or penetration of the roof or barbette of A or B turret which casued an ammunition (cordite propellant) fire that rapidly reached the magazine. Once the magazine had been reached it would require only a short period of time for the pressure of burning gases to build up to the point where the stored cordite exploded in its entirety.

According to the statements of surviving gunner's mate Francis of Q turret, the crew of his turret was very anxious to maintain a rapid fire, rushing their duties to the point where they made a mistake in the loading sequence and had to be calmed down. If this same attitude prevailed among other turret and gun crews, there is a good likelihood that excessive amounts of cordite propellant were open and exposed in the turrets and handing rooms - a recipe for disaster as they say.

Campbell gives a good description of the sequence of events which led to QM's loss on pages 63 and 64 of his book.

As to the subject of weak armoring of British BC's -

The armor suites of the Invincible and Indefatigable class BC designs were designed to give protection against medium caliber guns at ranges 10,000 yards and under. They were never intended to give protection against attack by heavy caliber guns or against long range plunging fire. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that both of the "I" class BC's were lost to sudden cordite explosions. If these ships had been using the far safer German types of propellant (German ships also suffered a number of turret and barbette hits, but none exploded), both would in all likelihood have survived.

QM's 9-inch armor protection was arguably sufficient against attack by German 11 and 12-inch guns. Campbell claims that 9-inch British armor was only penetrated once by German shells during the battle. I think that this somewhat begs the issue because a lot can happen without a clean penetration of the armor. Simply holing the armor may do quite nicely. To make the distinction, a penetration can be considered to have occured when the projectile passes completely through the armor and detonates inside the ship; holing occurs when the projectile breaks a hole through the armor but explodes while doing so. One way or another, the QM was sunk by German shells and the LION nearly so by the hit on her Q turret.

Again it goes back to the issue of volatile propellant. It is very unlikely that any German shell physically reached and exploded within a British magazine. With less volatile and more stable propellant aboard, the QM also should have survived.

Bewolf
06-03-2006, 09:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bewolf:
No need to go down to the same level, is there? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I see what side of the fence your standing on since you did not attempt to stop his ugly comments. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hrsn. Look, I do not think anything can stop Kurfürst from doing what he does. I do think he is a knowledgeable person who indeed has a lot to contribute, but his way of personal attacks is way out of line.
I got at you this way cuz I measured you with other/higher standarts. That is the same reason why I critique the US when they break international law, but not Iraq, Iran, or North Korea, cuz everybody expects them to break the rules anyways. Just to give something to compare.
There are others here who are extremly lacking in social copetence as well, making this board a complete kindergarten. There are reasons why I hardly ever comment, even though I am a member (with other acounts) from longe before even the IL2 demo got released. But when it comes to rather civilized and extremly knowledgeable threads like this one I rather want to read it wihout this childish behaviour here and there.

GerritJ9
06-03-2006, 10:26 AM
N.J.M. Campbell's "Warship Special 1: Battlecruisers" (ISBN 0 85177 130 0) is well worth obtaining if you can, although it was published in 1978 and is probably no longer available from the publishers. Although only 72 pages, it has quite a lot of useful information.
Regarding German propellant charges, they consisted of a fore charge and a main charge. The main charge was in a brass case, as was the igniter. The fore charge was not fitted with the black powder igniters the R.N.'s quarter charges had. Furthermore, the propellant was much more stable than the R.N.'s- no German ship was lost through magazine explosions, whereas the R.N. lost several major ships under non-combat conditions through unstable cordite- most notably "Vanguard" and "Bulwark".
The "QE" that was nearly lost due to a cordite fire at Jutland was "Malaya".

leitmotiv
06-03-2006, 02:01 PM
Here is a site on the big ship wrecks of Jutland with information on how to order a videotape of the wrecks:

http://tinyurl.com/q8dp6

GerritJ9
06-03-2006, 02:42 PM
I am surprised that commercial salvage of ANY of these wrecks was permitted or even tolerated- surely they are all recognized as war graves?????????

leitmotiv
06-03-2006, 03:00 PM
As odd as this may seem, apparently the salvage was done on the sly---something that beggers the imagination. I suspect that in the '50's and '60's nobody that knew about it gave a hoot. Here is another site on the wrecks:

http://www.divernet.com/wrecks/jutland1000.htm

leitmotiv
06-04-2006, 07:28 AM
Campbell's BATTLECRUISERS is definitely a must, GerritJ9. I couldn't get it even in 1985---had to order it from inter-library loan and photocopy it at Kinko's! Strange it was never reprinted---it was a classic. Terrible English cordite was the second major ingredient in the loss of so many big ships at Jutland, not to mention the in-port explosions which took such a toll. The Japanese Navy had a similar run of in-port magazine explosions---including Togo's MIKASA right after the R-J War.

WOLFMondo
06-04-2006, 01:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GerritJ9:
I am surprised that commercial salvage of ANY of these wrecks was permitted or even tolerated- surely they are all recognized as war graves????????? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tirpitz was scrapped despite allot of sailors dying when it capsised after the tallboys hit.

csThor
06-04-2006, 01:56 PM
In the case of the Tirpitz (and Blücher BTW) it was probably the fear of environmental pollution by the oil still inside the ship. In the 90s the Norwegian government ordered a pretty costly operation to pump all remaining fuel out of Blücher's tanks as fishermen had begun to report oil stains over the ship's grave. I guess it was the same reason in the Tirpitz case.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I am surprised that commercial salvage of ANY of these wrecks was permitted or even tolerated- surely they are all recognized as war graves????????? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

After WW2 neither the german authorities nor companies cared about war graves. Germany was still pretty much in ruins despite the economical growth and high-quality steel was badly needed by the industry. And where can one get a good amount of high-quality steel (including Wotan-hart)? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

leitmotiv
06-04-2006, 02:10 PM
Same thing being done (so far unsuccessfully) to ROYAL OAK in Scapa Flow because of fear of massive oil pollution. Royal Navy was to the contemporary eye incredibly insensitive about the wreck of VANGUARD which blew up at anchor in 1917. It was broken up with hundreds of dead on board.

GerritJ9
06-04-2006, 02:33 PM
I seem to recall reading somewhere that the Norwegian company that scrapped "Tirpitz" after the war made a killing by selling the machinery that was recovered from the wreck- not so much the main propulsion turbines but the diesel generators, turbogenerators, boilers, pumps etc which were hard to get at that time.
I did not know that "Vanguard" had been scrapped- I was under the impression that she is still at the bottom of Scapa Flow. Most of the HSF were scrapped, buit there were no bodies in them and therefore not war graves. An interesting read on the salvaging of the HSF is "Jutland to Junkyard".
Far more men were lost when "Queen Mary" blew up than in the "Royal Oak" sinking, or "Repulse" and "Prince of Wales" for that matter- yet "RO" is a war grave (as are PoW and Repulse) and "QM" isn't??????????? (Not to mention the other British Jutland wrecks). Something is wrong here- UK board members should take this up with their MPs.

leitmotiv
06-04-2006, 03:22 PM
A strange business, GerritJ9.

MB_Avro_UK
06-04-2006, 03:57 PM
If these had been WW2 or WW1 aircraft wreak sites, would they have been protected?

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

Stuntie
06-05-2006, 06:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bewolf:

"football is a simple game in which 22 players run around after a ball and in the end Germany always wins"
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's a good job they didn't decide to settle Jutland on penalties...

JZG_Thiem
06-05-2006, 08:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It's a good job they didn't decide to settle Jutland on penalties... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


they didnt?
why did we win 3:1 then? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

leitmotiv
06-05-2006, 08:36 AM
If Jutland had been an American football game, all the linemen on the German team would have been powerful but stubby dwarves. The quarterback could throw long and accurately but the receivers all had bad knees. The running backs were big bruiser Siegfieds. The English linemen were giants but they hated hitting or, worse, hated being hit. The quarterback had a beautiful throwing arm, could throw long, but he couldn't see diddles beyond ten yards. The receivers could go like hell, but had butterfingers. The running backs were giants but they also hated being hit---in fact they would run into the sidelines to escape being hit. The stadium's lights didn't work so the second half had to be played in pitch dark which suited the German team well because they had cat's eyes. The entire English team suffered from night blindness and suddenly developed laryngitis.

The game was notable for the sidelining of all the English receivers and the first and second string quarterbacks were both killed by dwarf blitzes. The German backs scored early but were almost all sidelined by being crushed by English linemen who tripped over them while trying to get out of the way. The German team was so mauled by falling English lineman they were barely able to score in the pitch black last half.

Score: 10 England, 4 Germany

As a French general said about the Charge of the Light Brigade: "It is magnificent but it is not war."