HMS Black Prince, Warrior and Defence. I always wondered if their suicidal charge against the main German line of battleships was a leftover of the court martial of their Admiral after not attacking Goeben.
HMS Black Prince, Warrior and Defence. I always wondered if their suicidal charge against the main German line of battleships was a leftover of the court martial of their Admiral after not attacking Goeben.
@SuperAncientmariner Actually, the Germans inflicted more damage to the British than they received. The losses to the British were almost three times the lives lost by the Germans, and the British lost 3 battlecruisers and 3 armored cruisers. The Germans lost 1 battlecruiser, a predreadnought, and 3 light cruisers. I left out the destroyers, but here too there were more British losses. Evidently the Germans had superior armor and superior gunnery.
@FRAGIORGIO1 ...and still turned and ran for home leaving the British as tthe victors. It does not matter the damage that is inflicted or delivered, what matters is who is left standing so to speak
@SuperAncientmariner I fully agree. It was definitely a Strategic victory for the British (the more important) rather than a tactical one (the Germans). Unfortunately, the Admiralty did not know how to play it. They should have communicated that they had forced the High Sees Fleet back into harbor, winning the field. No propaganda sense then, I suppose. Wasn't Churchill First Lord then? I would have thought him more wise in wording and handled the communique himself. Regards.
@FRAGIORGIO1 I believe Winston did hold that position. I have read that public opinion was not favourable to the result. Our Navy was seen by the populace as being all powerful and incapable of anything less than an outright annihalationof the German fleet. So when the German communique was announced claiming a Victory, it did not help the cause , especially when the damages and losses were made public.
@SuperAncientmariner Inflicting more damage and extricating themselves from greater damage is a tactical victory --only. The Strategic (and psychological) victory by the British was more important. I do believe that the Germans and Scheer handled themselves quite well in the circumstances, and the same I would say for Jellicoe who twice crossed their T blocking the way to open waters!
The purpose of the German fleet was to annihilate the British fleet . to this purpose it failed. It also conceeded defeat by putting back to port, i.e quitting the field of battle. If any of you have ever served, you will know that, to achieve that over your enemy, losses are acceptable..
The aim of the British fleet was to nullify the German fleet. In this it succeeded
the high seas fleet shd hv just went to sea every week to tempt out britain's grand fleet...and let the subs pick em off one by one...week by week...just cuz it didnt work at jutland doesnt mean it wdnt work another day
@HoorayhiTler They did not have the stomach for it. And just because Weddigen managed 3 ancient cruisers doesn't mean the success rate would be repeated.
@HoorayhiTler They couldn't have gone out to sea week after week. It would have become predictable and the element of surprise would have been lost and possibly gravely affected the German fleet, but what you say about being picked off by the U-boot fleet was the German intention. It just didn't work out, perhaps fdue to Jellicoe's great caution (that was his fear) as I mention below.
@SuperAncientmariner Actually, I understood that the German objective, knowing their numerical inferiority, was to attract the Grand Fleet into open waters where German U-boots would torpedo them, while the battle fleet withdrew (cfr the "gefechtkehrtswendung nach steuerbort" =180 degree turn to starboard to retreat was so well practiced). The failing then would be of the German submarine fleet or perhaps of coordination. British dreadnoughts were vulnerable. HMS Audacious was sunk by 1 mine
according to what authority then? Hood was designed during the waning of the battlecruiser period, Bismarck had a 20 year head start in naval design. your dumb arrogance is almost as bad as your naval knowledge.
@HelmutVillam What? No authority, The proof lies in that the hood was literally obliterated by a much better warship, your kin were saying (as is usually Brit like Titanic and such) that no ship could sink the Hood, and it was. Boom! Now piss off!
@trevinboy Sorry mate but it was never said that the Hood was unsinkable. On the contrary, the RN was only too aware of the danger to her at long range from modern naval gunnery. And with a 20 year difference, I should hope the newer ship was better. It's like saying one of our missile equipped type 42s would have obliterated a Fletcher class. a silly statement to make.
@SuperAncientmariner Yes your right, at last someone with something intelligent to say.
Hood was a Battlecruiser, hence NOT suitable for combat with a battleship. A battle cruiser is basically a large heavy cruiser but with battleship sized guns. Ideal for destroying cruisers (as they were designed for) but outclassed against a battleship. Admiral Holland knew this and thats why he wanted to close the range as quickly as possible to limit the amount of danger to plunging fire.
@SuperAncientmariner No one ever claimed Hood or Titanic were unsinkable. Actually Hoods nickname in the navy was 'The 7 B's' which stood for Bloody Biggest, Bullshitingest, Bastard Built By Brown or something like that. All knew the risk of action with Bismarck, but we had no choice, as she had to be stopped. Papers misquoted Titanic as being unsinkable, H & W actually said ' She is as unsinkable as a ship could be'. NOT the same as unsinkable, almost tongue-in-cheek!
@admiraldma I know that, you know that, but Trevinboy made the remark that we were saying that no one could sink the Hood.and I just had to put him right..
Another nickname Hood had was "The biggest submarine in the navy" ( due to her very low freeboard aft. )
@SuperAncientmariner trevinboy is a fucking prick!! Correction on my last comment, 7 B's stood for Britains Biggest, Bullshittingest, Bastard Built By Brown. Ive just read his comment at the top. 'According to brits it was a better ship than Bismarck' What a tool!!
@admiraldma I'll drink to that buddy. I see he is in USA. Another planet!!
We thought so little of Bismark that we sent the home fleet after it.? Mind you the Yanks all say the Yamayo and Musashi were crap and no real threat. Look what they sent after those 2 ships.
@SuperAncientmariner Yeah thats right, they spout venom about how crap the Yamato design was and how it was inferior to the Missouri class, but it took hundreds of planes and around ten torpedo hits and several heavy bombs in about a couple of hours to sink both of them. For me they were the epitome of battleship design, but they were victims of a much more versatile opponent. Aircraft!! Why do these idiots never look into all the facts.
@admiraldma I think its an installed mind set. They are drilled from birth to believe that if it has USA on it /in it or about it then it is automaticaly the best, most powerfull, perfect world saving/beating thing ever. How to annoy them...just point out that the world owes much to their German scientists & the Russians German scientists. lol Or point out that without France, Holland and Spain, they would have lost the War of Independance
@tigerarmyrule Not sure about that one; the Germans examined the shell hits after returning to port and concluded that had the British shells not been faulty then the High Seas Fleet would have "faced utter ruin". By comparison the Royal Navy's losses were entirely preventable, having mostly occurred as a result of leaving deck hatches open to increase fire rate. It's therefore no wonder that the Germans didn't fancy taking on the Grand Fleet for a rematch.
The Royal Navy replaced its losses very quickly, and at the end of the battle it was the Royal Navy that had control of the seas and the German fleet was penned up again. Casualties and ship losses are not what mattered here it was for the freedom to operate within a certain sphere and in that respect the German fleet suffered a defeat.
@gortmundy01 Absoultely. The cruel truth is that the RN could afford to lose more ships because they had more, and more ships on the slips building too.
@batalion666 I take it back. You are right that the British government were so obligated to the Rotschilds that they promised a homeland for the Jews in Palestine after the war. But the UK didn't start fighting because of the Jews or the Rotschilds in particular nor did anyone else. You might say that some Jewish financial powers helped finance the war. The cause, however, was politics and territorial ambitions.
@FRAGIORGIO1 there are always milions of dead soldiers from french , british and special german or russian people and master of puppets like tsar , king , Hitler or Stalin but these people are just tools to make war to make bloodbath for goys power is where petrol is and big big money and who is winner of these wars ? Amazing that catholic church is the best friend of Jewish Mega power they didnt stop any war .Read about New Europe builder Rettinger no pope but smart polish Jew
@batalion666 You are saying that the Catholic Church is the "best friend of Jewish Mega power (that) they didn't stop any war" Is the Catholic Church of any weight in stopping an anti-Christian Hitler, a Lutheran Kaiser, a secular Clemenceau, an atheistic Stalin, a Protestant Britiish PM or US Presbyterian president such as Wilson from going to war??? That is so ridiculous as to be laughable (tautology). Pope Pius XII saved over 800,000 Jews according to one Jewish researcher, but that's it
FRAGIORGIO1 FARTS, "Pope Pius XII saved over 800,000 Jews according to one Jewish researcher, but that's it"
>Are you referring to that one labor zionist Jew, trader-to-his-people, researcher?
Why do you continue spreading lies for the antichrist papacy FRAGIORGIO1? Why not admit the universal truth that Pope Pius XII, as Cardinal Pachelli help mentor his Fuerher to power, to carry out the papacy's Nazi heretic oven burning 20th century "Holy" Inquisition, dubbed "holocaust"?
@SpencerBenedict2nd We can do without your vulgarity here. Moreover, I shall not permit you on my part to convert this into another diatribe spot against the Catholic Church as you have already done on at least 4 or 5 other sites. You are a hate troller. Leave those of us who love naval history alone and go atop a crag and shriek and howl. I have already answered you many times on those other spots, and I imagine you have been "blocked" from them. Get thee hence!
@FRAGIORGIO1 "You are a hate troller."-FRAGIORGIO1 #753
>INCORRECT. Reporting history does NOT constitute "hate". While i loathe atrocities perpetrated against human beings, i hate no one. So, think again. Why, i even love you.
Personally, I think that the British could have won the Battle outright with the 2 commanders, Jellico and Beatty, switched commands. Beatty was too aggressive with the Battlecrusiers, he salied off after Hipper before concentrating his forces, and his ships paid the nprice. Jellico deployed his ships brilliantly, but he was too cautious, thinking more about what the enermy could do to him rather than what he could do to them.
@UNSCForwardontodawn Possibly correct. Jellico was called "the man who could lose the war in an afternoon" and was probably affected by it. The battlecruisers were regarded as more "dashing" compared with the battleships and I'd guess that mindset made it's way into their seamanship.
nobody won both lost ;waste of life my grandfather was on princess royal at jutland dogger bank and heligoe bight and he told me some horror stories war is madness particularly as we are so similar to the great german nation should never have been a war between us
A sad day for all of those who lost there lives. And a bitter sweet memory for those who lived through it. My GF was there (I have his medal if proof be needed) and I would rather have him that a bit of bronze to be honest!
@TheStevewhelan Quite right, which is why I'm glad that Admiral Jellicoe chose not to pursue the HSF; though we could have finished them off it would have been at a huge price in blood for both sides. I'd say history vindicates him.
Its plain and simple, the Germans had better strategic planning and much better armament, all in all the English have always come second to the Germans as far as war is concerned, I wouldn't call the battle of Britain a victory for the British but holding off the Germans long enough to allow the Americans and Russians to either outmanufacture or bleed the Germans.
@trevinboy What would you call a 2 to 1 advantage in kills by aircraft, where the enemy withdrew? The Battle of Britain was a rare clear victory by an unprepared country with fewer aircraft, pilots and an archaic industrial infrastructure over a prepared country in war. Yet Britain won the Battle of Britain. It was a battle. they did win it. full stop.
the same happened at Jutland. Though The Germans killed 5000 British sailors, they ran. Because they knew they were outmatched.
We can only speculate what the outcome would have been if Jellicoe had pursued the German fleet the next day, which would have given us a definite winner. Since he didn't, it could be called a draw, with Britain suffering the most losses. I believe in Buchanan's theory: the Kaiser was incensed by the Naval Agreement that drastically restricted the size of Germany's fleet, hence the war. The German's might have won if Jellicoe pursued. A very close fight.
And when the Grand Fleet Intercepted the Hochseeflote Jellicoe had perfect position. This was by design. Jellicoe was a great officer with information Scheer did not have: Jellicoe knew that the Hochseeflote was at sea. Scheer knew nothing of the sort. The result was an exchange of fire that caused the Hochseeflot to retreat... let me say it TWICE. And recieve damage great enough that it could not put to sea for weeks afterwards.
2. Officers such as David Beatty and Ralph Seymour, his signals officer did their best through their incompetence to lose the battle. However Jellicoe was a cool tactician. He deployed the Grand Fleet in a manner such that it intercepted the Hochseeflote at precisely the right time and place.
1. The British Grand Fleet under jellicoe knew the German Fleet was out in force due to superior intelligence; and they sought to bring them to decisive battle.
2. The Royal Navy of the time was a mixed bag under a mixed set of officers. Their battleships generally had larger guns and were faster than the German ships. Some were like the Queen Elizabeths were better than the German ships. Some like the Invincible class were deathtraps that cost their sailors their lives.
@troopship12 Yet is successfully sinking millions of tonnes of ships in the Atlantic and Mediterranean, avoiding detection from both the RN and French fleet- successfully passing through the North Sea, because the German sailor must to reach these bodies of water, and the English Channel.
@smoochym I know how much it pains you when you have to rely on nothing but delusions of grandeur of the past to satisfy your ego about your nation, but this is all written down on the pages of history. I advise you pick up a book next time... like, as Blitz posted, von Haase's documentation of the battle as a senior artillery officer aboard the Derfflinger, the ship that sank the HMS Indefatigable in 90 seconds after blowing it apart. Maybe Jack Sheldon's "Jutland - Death in the Gray Wastes"?
I leave you to pontificate about one man trying to peddle a book, despite the thousands of other eyewitness testimonies and empirical conclusion of historians. Are you seriously trying to suggest one man on one ship knows more than thousands of other testimonies and a hundred years of empricial research?
" delusions of grandeur "
Sums up the German surface fleet perfectly, a fantasy.
Thousands of other eyewitnesses wrote testimonies about the outcome eh? Why is it, then, there are only a handful of reports like von Haase's on the battle from people who actually participated in it? We have roughly 23 surviving others from German sailors, 15 surviving accounts from the British, and 10 accounts from Danes who went out and had to bury the bodies that had washed up on their shore. This one was part of a gun crew that sank the HMS Indefatigable. Certainly gives him credibility.
Jellicoe fought this battle perfectly. Hipper fought this battle with an ineptitude that would have cost him many many more ships had the british shells not failed to penetrate armour and explode.
The question is a simple one.Whose fleet adorns the bottom of Scapa Flow? I'm not saying the British are today better off than Germany. Their shortsightedness and stupidity have ruined a once great country. But they did win the first world war. And the Germans lost it. At sea, on land and by air.
@112smosquito Jellicoe was the one who failed to understand that he'd been lured into a trap to begin with. Hipper wasn't the one in command, either, genius. It was Scheer. He's the one who told Hipper to start moving along the coast to get the British to come out of hiding in their ports- particularly the main body of the Grand Fleet at Scapa Flow. But that's exactly the point, the British shells DID fail in the end lol. They were technologically dated compared to the German ships.
@Friendo1231 We agree that the british cordite which was stabilised with vaseline and which exploded violently when heated even moderately was the major factor which caused the british to lose more ships and 3 times as many sailors at Jutland. Also the fact that the british shells were fitted with inferior, dated Krupp fuses caused them to explode before penetrating armour kept many german ships aflot that would otherwise have been sunk. However...
@Friendo1231 however, we definately disagree on the construction of the British ships. The British Queen Elizabeth class were far IN ADVANCE of any of the the ships in the battle. They were faster, had bigger guns and were more heavily armoured than anything afloat. The fact that Queen Elizabeth had her steering gear disabled and recieved 15 or 20 shells while spinning in a circle yet emerged pretty much unscathed says much. The Germans lost less ships only because British shells were so bad
@Friendo1231 Final Result: The 'capital' ships the german fleet destroyed with great loss of life were the british battlecruisers Invincible Inflexible and Queen Mary. These bad designs it is true. The armour was too thin, and bad practice and bad cordite exasperated the situation. 25 years later the same thing did HMS Hood. Again another lightly armoured battlecruiser. Altogether British Battlecruisers proved to be bad ideas.
But British battleships were capable. Final Result. You lost.
@112smosquito As far as the tactics go, we're just at a disagreement indeed. Not really a whole much we can do to credit or discredit that. Both sides made their mistakes. But on, he Hochseeflotte lost no capital ships. It lost a pre-dreadnought, SMS Pommern, laid down in 1904, that was inferior and dated to all Konig-class dreadnought battleships, and a medium battlecruiser, the SMS Lutzow, after the crew decided to scuttle it a day later.
@112smosquito Then there were light cruisers: Frauenlob, Rostock, Elbing, and Wiesbaden. The most modern one there that was sunk was the Wiesbaden from 1915. All others were from before 1905. They were quite dated, and were, by their very specifications, comparable to destroyers. They were only called light cruisers, because, just over 10 years before, they had been commissioned as light cruisers. Their losses were negligible because of how old they were and how cheap they were 10 years before.
@112smosquito Finally, there was the V48 torpedo boat that had been refitted to act as an escort destroyer for the battle. It was constructed in 1914 and finally entered service in 1915. V48 caused enough damage to the HMS Shark that it allowed her to be sunk by fire during the evening action. Again, a torpedo boat. Fairly modern, so a little more expensive than they had been 10 years before (to compare the time frame to when the old light cruisers were constructed), but not a big loss.
@112smosquito The Germans lost none of their capital ships which Scheer had designated. Konig, Derfflinger, Seydlitz (the one he was using as his flagship), Markgraf, Grosser Kurfurst, Kronprinz all survived, as well as the Helgoland and Nassau. If you want to consider cruisers as capital ships that were sunk, the British still lost more in value. Their ships Black Prince, Defence, and Warrior were all heavy-armored cruisers that were much newer than the old light cruisers the Germans used.
@112smosquito And while the German battleships did not have as large of guns as the British ships did, they still all had the first superfiring paired guns in the world, both fore and aft. The British used the limited "Q"-turret. The other surviving cruisers and battleships also still had considerably thicker armor and a better arrangement to the hull. The British used cork to help absorb the blasts in addition to steel armor; this failed because the cork would simply be blasted out of the way.
@Friendo1231 Your superfiring claim for Germany is incorrect. The first superfiring turrets were on the US South Carolina class of 1906, followed by the British Neptune and Orion in 1909. The first german superfirers were the Kaiser and Konig classes of 1911 &12
@112smosquito Really, the only serious casualty the Germans lost was the Lutzow, which they decided to scuttle themselves later. The unfortunate thing for the British battleships during the Second World War was that they were so dated. The Ark Royal's destruction by a submarine's torpedo salvo is a particularly good example. The British have been able in history to produce ships and planes and tanks (etc.) in large quantities, that much is true, but they never have focused much on their quality.
They're a bit like the Russians: they'll give you stuff that's not horrible, but it's not good either. And because it's not good, they'll pay for it in combat. German manufacturing always has focused on building ships for their quality, the vice versa downside being we haven't focused much on quantity. Our tacticians are always more than capable, they just don't always have the resources they need to do the job. But when they do... well, there's a reason why they call it "Deutsche's Diewut".
@Friendo1231 Well said, Germans have quality while Russians and English always stressed quantity. ie, in WWII I don't think there was a better warship than the Bismark, yet the British boasted that no ship could sink their capital ships such as the Hood, and we all the know the rest.
Sir, that is very wrong, at least in terms of ships. From 1815 to 1914, Britain not only built MORE warships, but LARGER and BETTER warships. This goes right back to the first ironclads. France built La Gloire, and thought it was pretty fancy, but then Britain bested it with HMS Warrior. For the entire battleship era, Britain was always the leaders in the field of naval shipbuilding, with ships like the Devasations, Royal Sovereigns Dreadnought, and Queen Elizabeths. They had plenty of quality.
@112smosquito Hence, why they demanded the Germans turn over all their ships to Scapa Flow. They wanted the technology. The Germans were well ahead of them on their turret mechanisms, loading mechanisms, armor systems, shell calibration systems, and gunnery systems. So we decided to play along then told them to go fuck themselves when we scuttled our ships lol. And what did the British do? They tried oh so desperately to stop them from sinking. They failed on all capital ships, however.
@Friendo1231 Also we disagree on tactics. Jellicoe knew the Hochseeflute was out there and wanted a battle, because he had superior intelligence. He found his enemy brought them to battle and crossed their tee twice. British shooting in the battle started off poor but improved. Director firing was a definate advantage in this case.
Actually, the Germans withdrew because it was decided that the uboats could mop up the mess. And the RN's fear of them caused them to also pull back to port. It was strategically a stalemate; tactically a German victory because they sank more ships than they lost (the few they did lose were old cruisers, except for the Lutzow, a pre-dreadnought- Pommern, and some torpedo boats and destroyers; the British lost battleships and cruisers with a few destroyers) and lost fewer men than the British.
Wiki claims "British dominance of the North Sea". This actually is not the case, despite what the egotists amongst them will tell you (I say that because they ignore the real outcome of the naval war yet act so confident and indeed convince people by projecting this confidence that they are correct). The Germans throughout the entire war patrolled the North Sea with torpedo boats and submarines, and indeed sank plenty of shipping there. The British hardly had control of the situation.
@smoochym Couldn't? Gross overstatement. The Hochseeflotte sent out crusiers, destroyers, torpedo boats, and submarines to patrol waters around Wilhelmshaven, Kiel, Lubeck, and Rostock. The claim that "British Dominance of the North Sea Maintained" is a dubious one because so many uboats and raiding party ships were still able to get out and sink enemy shipping. Actually, the Grand Fleet left after the action at Jutland because uboats were spotted in the area. The British were scared of them.
@smoochym Which still got through to deliver nitrogenous fertilizers which powered the German agriculture center and half the economy... which, again, the surface fleet still sent out ships to raid convoys. Torpedo boats, destroyers, and cruisers. Open confrontation was and still is a stupid move. The Germans were smart enough to understand this; the British not so much. Using stealth uboat tactics, they killed plenty of sailors and sank plenty of ships to keep the naval war in their favor.
@smoochym I read that the British government appealed to President Wilson to enter the war quickly because the losses of supply ships was so high that Britain could not afford another three months. If that is true, and the US had not entered the war, both sides would probably have agreed on an armistice and a lot of bloodshed and terrible political consequences in Central Europe and Russia would have been averted. The Austro-Hungarian Emperor-King Karl had proposed an armistice to Clemenceau.
@Friendo1231 No it was not not a strategic victory for Germany. The Royal Navy lost more ships, but it does not change the fact that the German Navy was blockaded in port for the rest of the war, effectively making them useless. Besides, the Germans retreated despite Admiral Beatty trying to keep them engaged. Therefore, the Royal Navy were still in control of the North Sea and the Germans had to revert to unrestrcited submarine warfare. Brittania still ruled the waves!
@LethalPenguin92 Absolutely correct. Sinking more ships is less important than the outcome of the battle: which is that the Germans never ventured out in fleet force again. Jutland was Germany's last, best chance at a naval victory with surface forces, because she could never outbuild the British, who by 1918 would have had 15 15" gunned capital ships.
Jellicoe was correctly described as the one man who could have lost the war in an afternoon.
@LethalPenguin92 Absolutely correct. Sinking more ships is less important than the outcome of the battle: which is that the Germans never challenged RN domination again. Jutland was Germany's last, best chance at a naval victory with surface forces, because she could never outbuild the British, who by 1918 would have had 15 x 15" gunned capital ships.
Jellicoe was correctly described as the one man who could have lost the war in an afternoon.
What a waste of good men and engineering! Why couldn't they just stop the war before 1918 and put their vast potential into furthering civilization???
@lilbrothaaa Among prominent figures, only Pope Benedict XV and Kaiser-Kiraly Karl of Austria-Hungary tried to encourage an armistice. Clemenceau refused Karl's secret proposals in 1917 and thus let thousands more of his own countrymen die, with mentioning those of other nations. Wilson, as a strict Presbyterian, paid no attention to the pope's appeal.
I really do not see how you can say that Jellicoe did not risk his fleet next day, they patrolled all night and scoured the seas but it became clear that the High Seas fleet had slipped away. Jellicoe had 148 ships and the High Seas Fleet 98/100? of which there were 16 Dreadnoughts and 5 Battle cruisers plus 6 old Battleships for the Germans, Jellicoe had 9 battlecruisers, 5 Fast battleships, 24 Dreadnoughts
Scheer got lucky to escape without heavier losses and he knew it
My one most consistant question is regarding German tactics. The design of German capital ships placed survivability before armement and speed yet at the Battle of the Falklands the Germans fled when their only chance of survival was to close to where the shorter range but more rapid rate of fire of their guns could have and impact. Similarly at Jutland The Germans failed to close when possible.
Jellicoe's main fear was submarine attack, not the German surface units. As for the victor........The German fleet fled the "field of battle" so by definition of victory it has to go to the RN.
BTW, both of Hipper's "Battle turn arounds" were executed because Jellicoe would have crossed his "T", so the German leadership was'nt that good from a tactical point of view. And by the next day the German fleet had fled, so therewas no risk. (easy to say with hindsight 94 years later )
The HSF achieved none of their objectives, took months to be combat ready again. The Grand Fleet retained Sea Supremacy, was ready for action within 48 hours, and the HSF only left harbour to meet the GF again to surrender
@Friendo1231 - How is it a glorious day for Germany? 2 points.
1. The RN were the only navy remaining at Jutland after the battle, and Germany retreated and never brought their navy out in mass again in WW1.
2. RN remained the World's number 1 navy till the end of the war due to the blockade of Germany.
And if im been patriotich here then so are you and others like you, because you must be celebrating the loss of British life and tonnage sunk at the battle, but there was no German victory.
you glorify a strategic defeat, and the end of any possibility of the Imperial Navy exerting any force in the North Sea and Atlantic, and the continuation of the blockade of Northern ports?
@HelmutVillam Funny kind of strategic defeat then, given that the British lost more sailors and more ships than the Germans (indeed, more important ones as well technologically on their own part) and ultimately failed to retain control over the North Sea- with uboats of the Kaiserliche Marine still roaming it and the Atlantic openly (sinking 8 million tons of shipping there alone, not counting their victories in the Mediterranean Campaign totaling another 5.5 million tons of shipping).
do you even know the meaning of the term 'strategic'? 'Killed more sailors, sunk more ships' is a purely TACTICAL term. Even with the loss off allied shipping due to USW, the allies still massively outnumbers the central powers with supplies, and as I mentioned, your ports remained blockaded, and the High Seas Fleet only ever left Kiel again in order to surrender. So get off your high horse, and come back again with a more enlightened view.
@HelmutVillam I'm wondering if you do, given that I discussed both the tactical aspect of the battle (which was a decisive German victory) and the strategic aspect as well (which was a British failure; dominance of the North Sea was not maintained; if it was, we wouldn't have been able to sink 8 million tons of shipping in the Atlantic). It would behoove you to pay attention next time. USW was a serious blow to the war effort, which the Entente and its affiliates were trying to keep together.
@HelmutVillam In 1917 alone, uboats sank over 6 million tons of shipping and killed nearly 7,000 people. April saw the loss of over 881,000 tons. If our ports were blockaded as well as you claim, the Hochseeflotte would not have been able to venture out FOUR MORE TIMES in 1916 alone, once later in June, once in August, and twice in September. Yet the Grand Fleet did nothing on any of these occasions to intercept them. In fact, when they first came out again in late June, they avoided them.
@Friendo1231 You' re well informed on the basic facts, and I compliment you on that, sir. But you draw faulty conclusions from them. Neither Britain nor Germany can claim a tactical victory. RN lost more ships, undeniable, but Germany withdrew from the battle without accomplishing her mission--to seriously weaken the RN. That did not happen. Therefore, Jutland cannot count as a tactical German victory, since the mission failed. RN lost more ships but was not weakened significantly.
@Friendo1231 RN's mission was to destroy the High Seas Fleet. Obviously, that didn't happen. The RN can't claim a tactical victory, even if she hadn't lost so many ships. Her mission failed too. But in strategic terms, it was a RN victory. The HSF was unable to challenge surface control of the North Sea, or the N Atlantic.
Your comment on USW disproving this contention is unsound. One does not counter subs with capital ships, but with ASW.
@Friendo1231 ...and yet by 1918, Germany was starving under a British naval blockade and the U-Boats effectiveness greatly dropped the year before with a change in merchant vessels defensive tactics. After Jutland the German fleet never ventured to sea again, because strategically they failed to win Jutland. If anything, Jutland was a bloody draw rather than a victory for either side.
Ultimately, the U-Boats success stopped once the British organised merchant vessels into fleets.
@HelmutVillam Nigel Steel and Peter Hart discuss that event in Jutland 1916: Death in the Grey Wastes, as do they the August event (p426). On the 19th, Scheer intended to shell the Sunderland. Transmission signals were picked up, however, and the Grand Fleet was ordered not to engage. Scheer, in response, turned the fleet around and sailed back to port (which was Wilhelmshaven, by the way; NOT Kiel). In October, Scheer reckoned that it would be better logistically if USW was resumed. It was.
@smoochym Six ships left undamaged? Hardly. For the Hochseeflotte at this battle, Hipper was ordered by Scheer to take 40 ships to sweep the Danish coast; Scheer brought an additional 54 warships, excluding the torpedo boats that showed up later to mop up the job during the night action.
The only ships that were hit (asides from the ones mentioned in this video that were sunk) were the Derfflinger, Seydlitz, Von der Tann, Konig, Grosser Kurfurst, Markgraf, Kaiser, Helgoland, Schleswig-Holstein.
@smoochym The problem with the British ships was that they were technologically inferior to the German ones, hence why they lost so many more ships and men than the Germans. Their shells, especially, were ineffective, as they often exploded before they even hit their target lol. One of the turrets aboard the HMS Lion that was lightly damaged by German shells also exploded because of faulty loading mechanisms inside for the shells themselves.
@ZoggelerUrs: Respectively, sir, I would disagree. They were sent packing with their tails between their legs, and scared shitless enough that they never again sortied out in force against the Grand Fleet for the remainder of the war. Mind you, they did come out the better in the battlecruiser engagement, but Jellicoe skillfully crossed their T twice during the main fleet engagement, and forced them to retreat as fast as they could steam both times.
How? they achieved none of their objectives, took months to be combat ready again. The Grand Fleet retained Sea Supremacy, was ready for action within 48 hours, and the HSF only left harbour to meet the GF again..to surrender
@ZoggelerUrs I beg to differ. Although the British lose more ships. There was clearly only one fleet left operational in the North Sea after 1st June and it was flying the white ensign of the British Royal Navy. Cheers.
A bit further study reveals some interesting facts, when the battlefleets clashed, the germans inflicted 2 shell hits on 24 british ships, (both on Colossus) the RN inflicted 26 including 10 on Konig
surprisingly older battlecruisers were shooting badly Moltke 359 shells, VdT 170 but New Zealand was not hit at all yet she fired420 shells VdT hit 4 times and Moltke also hit 4 times
Invincible was hit 5 times as were Q Mary and Indefatigable
The only thing the Germans can say is that it kept the Baltic free of the Royal navy but it was a close thing, 4 days later Sheer urged the Kaiser to go on unrestricted submarine warfare, he knew he had a lucky escape, he knew he would never beat the RN, his ships were wrecked, he lost a lot of newer cruisers and destroyers. German ships fired 3597 heavy rounds the RN 4,598 of which 25% were 15 inch, 100 hits recorded on the Germans 120 on the RN most on old cruisers Defence, Black Prince
The joke is that the Germans didn't really needed a fleet at this time and they only got one because Wilhelm II. wanted to have more prestige and respect in the world. what an idiot... at least we lost the war ;-)
As usual after the battle the RN Admiralty were brutally frank, the German Marine quite the opposite, the royal navy maintained the blockade so it had a result, the High Seas Fleet became the Wilhemshaven harbour patrol
I'm sorry to spoil the party, the US press made the comment 'the German navy has assaulted it's jailor, it is still in jail'
Even in 1916 the German economy was starting to fail, it took a huge effort to keep this fleet going esp when resources HAD to be given to the huge land armies, the new ships were not completed.
Remember too that tactically the High Seas fleet were condemned to slow speeds, Markgraf had a defective propulsion system, older ships could not make 21 knots all the RN could
@Gab1n0III Good question, the Germans sunk more British ships, however they turned, fled and never ventured forth again.
"The English fleet, by remaining a 'fleet in being', by its mere continued existence, had so far fully fulfilled its allotted task. The Battle of Skagerrak did not relax the pressure exerted by the English fleet as a 'fleet in being' for one minute.
Commander Georg von Hase, SMS Derfflinger, I Scouting Group, High Seas Fleet"
My late father knew a captain of a destroyer lost at Jutland. Even though the man did as he was told, he was permanently beached and his career ruined because he lost his ship.
I don't want to throw dirt on the memory of any fo these men, but a lot of the losses at Jutland (aka Skaggerrak) could have been avoided if both sides hadn't tried to use their battlecruisers as line ships, rather than scouting elements.
@vadmscheer You're right about that. The battlecruisers were designed for speed and firepower, but sacrificed armor. They were ideal for hunting down armored cruisers like the Battle of the Falklands, but ill suited for the battle line.
I remember reading that poor ammo storage practices contributed to the British casualties, and leads me to wonder "what if" the ammo had been stored correctly when the battlecruisers were hit.
as far as i know that armour of german BC's and ships of the first line have been nearly identical, the 28 cm Krupp fast loaders as well, the bunker capacity in german BC`s was less to incorporate more speed
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Oh look, it appears that my original post has been removed. Youtube censorship? For stating historical facts? Oh well.
In a nutshell, the free world, and particularly Europe, owes the British a lot. And although it's probably unfashionable to write this, I'm proud of my British ancestors, and I'm very proud that my immediate family served in the several RN actions WW1 and WW2.
Those were for steel mesh anti-torpedo nets. The Germans added "cutting teeth" to torpedos and eventually the British did away with the concept of netting.
"... there seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today," Admiral Beatty, after receiving the report of another battlship being blown up within the space of an hour or so.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Jutland was but a minor interlude as the RN continued to strangle Germany. The odd ship lost here or there is as nothing when viewed as part of the strategic war to starve the Germans into defeat.
HMS Black Prince, Warrior and Defence. I always wondered if their suicidal charge against the main German line of battleships was a leftover of the court martial of their Admiral after not attacking Goeben.
kirkoa 5 months ago
HMS Black Prince, Warrior and Defence. I always wondered if their suicidal charge against the main German line of battleships was a leftover of the court martial of their Admiral after not attacking Goeben.
kirkoa 5 months ago
The Queen Mary and Lützow were both so beautiful...
DeathOnSernpidal 7 months ago
A successful retreat . A running away from ones enemy. Is that what is termed as a tactical victory?
SuperAncientmariner 7 months ago
@SuperAncientmariner Actually, the Germans inflicted more damage to the British than they received. The losses to the British were almost three times the lives lost by the Germans, and the British lost 3 battlecruisers and 3 armored cruisers. The Germans lost 1 battlecruiser, a predreadnought, and 3 light cruisers. I left out the destroyers, but here too there were more British losses. Evidently the Germans had superior armor and superior gunnery.
FRAGIORGIO1 5 months ago
@FRAGIORGIO1 ...and still turned and ran for home leaving the British as tthe victors. It does not matter the damage that is inflicted or delivered, what matters is who is left standing so to speak
SuperAncientmariner 5 months ago
@SuperAncientmariner I fully agree. It was definitely a Strategic victory for the British (the more important) rather than a tactical one (the Germans). Unfortunately, the Admiralty did not know how to play it. They should have communicated that they had forced the High Sees Fleet back into harbor, winning the field. No propaganda sense then, I suppose. Wasn't Churchill First Lord then? I would have thought him more wise in wording and handled the communique himself. Regards.
FRAGIORGIO1 5 months ago
@FRAGIORGIO1 I believe Winston did hold that position. I have read that public opinion was not favourable to the result. Our Navy was seen by the populace as being all powerful and incapable of anything less than an outright annihalationof the German fleet. So when the German communique was announced claiming a Victory, it did not help the cause , especially when the damages and losses were made public.
SuperAncientmariner 5 months ago
@SuperAncientmariner Inflicting more damage and extricating themselves from greater damage is a tactical victory --only. The Strategic (and psychological) victory by the British was more important. I do believe that the Germans and Scheer handled themselves quite well in the circumstances, and the same I would say for Jellicoe who twice crossed their T blocking the way to open waters!
FRAGIORGIO1 5 months ago
The purpose of the German fleet was to annihilate the British fleet . to this purpose it failed. It also conceeded defeat by putting back to port, i.e quitting the field of battle. If any of you have ever served, you will know that, to achieve that over your enemy, losses are acceptable..
The aim of the British fleet was to nullify the German fleet. In this it succeeded
RN mauled but victorious.
SuperAncientmariner 7 months ago
@SuperAncientmariner
the high seas fleet shd hv just went to sea every week to tempt out britain's grand fleet...and let the subs pick em off one by one...week by week...just cuz it didnt work at jutland doesnt mean it wdnt work another day
HoorayhiTler 5 months ago
@HoorayhiTler They did not have the stomach for it. And just because Weddigen managed 3 ancient cruisers doesn't mean the success rate would be repeated.
SuperAncientmariner 5 months ago
@HoorayhiTler They couldn't have gone out to sea week after week. It would have become predictable and the element of surprise would have been lost and possibly gravely affected the German fleet, but what you say about being picked off by the U-boot fleet was the German intention. It just didn't work out, perhaps fdue to Jellicoe's great caution (that was his fear) as I mention below.
FRAGIORGIO1 5 months ago
@SuperAncientmariner Actually, I understood that the German objective, knowing their numerical inferiority, was to attract the Grand Fleet into open waters where German U-boots would torpedo them, while the battle fleet withdrew (cfr the "gefechtkehrtswendung nach steuerbort" =180 degree turn to starboard to retreat was so well practiced). The failing then would be of the German submarine fleet or perhaps of coordination. British dreadnoughts were vulnerable. HMS Audacious was sunk by 1 mine
FRAGIORGIO1 5 months ago
Comment removed
ganulu3 8 months ago
dumb cocky brits, according to them the Hood was a better ship than the Bismark, even if the Bismark obliterated that damn heap of junk!
trevinboy 9 months ago
@trevinboy
according to what authority then? Hood was designed during the waning of the battlecruiser period, Bismarck had a 20 year head start in naval design. your dumb arrogance is almost as bad as your naval knowledge.
HelmutVillam 8 months ago 2
@HelmutVillam What? No authority, The proof lies in that the hood was literally obliterated by a much better warship, your kin were saying (as is usually Brit like Titanic and such) that no ship could sink the Hood, and it was. Boom! Now piss off!
trevinboy 8 months ago
@trevinboy Sorry mate but it was never said that the Hood was unsinkable. On the contrary, the RN was only too aware of the danger to her at long range from modern naval gunnery. And with a 20 year difference, I should hope the newer ship was better. It's like saying one of our missile equipped type 42s would have obliterated a Fletcher class. a silly statement to make.
SuperAncientmariner 7 months ago
@SuperAncientmariner Yes your right, at last someone with something intelligent to say.
Hood was a Battlecruiser, hence NOT suitable for combat with a battleship. A battle cruiser is basically a large heavy cruiser but with battleship sized guns. Ideal for destroying cruisers (as they were designed for) but outclassed against a battleship. Admiral Holland knew this and thats why he wanted to close the range as quickly as possible to limit the amount of danger to plunging fire.
admiraldma 6 months ago
@SuperAncientmariner No one ever claimed Hood or Titanic were unsinkable. Actually Hoods nickname in the navy was 'The 7 B's' which stood for Bloody Biggest, Bullshitingest, Bastard Built By Brown or something like that. All knew the risk of action with Bismarck, but we had no choice, as she had to be stopped. Papers misquoted Titanic as being unsinkable, H & W actually said ' She is as unsinkable as a ship could be'. NOT the same as unsinkable, almost tongue-in-cheek!
admiraldma 6 months ago
@admiraldma I know that, you know that, but Trevinboy made the remark that we were saying that no one could sink the Hood.and I just had to put him right..
Another nickname Hood had was "The biggest submarine in the navy" ( due to her very low freeboard aft. )
SuperAncientmariner 6 months ago
@SuperAncientmariner trevinboy is a fucking prick!! Correction on my last comment, 7 B's stood for Britains Biggest, Bullshittingest, Bastard Built By Brown. Ive just read his comment at the top. 'According to brits it was a better ship than Bismarck' What a tool!!
admiraldma 6 months ago
@admiraldma I'll drink to that buddy. I see he is in USA. Another planet!!
We thought so little of Bismark that we sent the home fleet after it.? Mind you the Yanks all say the Yamayo and Musashi were crap and no real threat. Look what they sent after those 2 ships.
SuperAncientmariner 6 months ago
@SuperAncientmariner Yeah thats right, they spout venom about how crap the Yamato design was and how it was inferior to the Missouri class, but it took hundreds of planes and around ten torpedo hits and several heavy bombs in about a couple of hours to sink both of them. For me they were the epitome of battleship design, but they were victims of a much more versatile opponent. Aircraft!! Why do these idiots never look into all the facts.
admiraldma 6 months ago
@admiraldma I think its an installed mind set. They are drilled from birth to believe that if it has USA on it /in it or about it then it is automaticaly the best, most powerfull, perfect world saving/beating thing ever. How to annoy them...just point out that the world owes much to their German scientists & the Russians German scientists. lol Or point out that without France, Holland and Spain, they would have lost the War of Independance
SuperAncientmariner 6 months ago
@HelmutVillam well hood was rebuilt a bit between the wars w more armor added...i think diff engines too...thus it was basically a BB by ww2
HoorayhiTler 5 months ago
@trevinboy i thought the prinz eugen fired the fatal shell?
HoorayhiTler 5 months ago
Some good diving to be had at Scapa Flow, lots to see on the sea floor.
elanxx 10 months ago
Tactical German victory. Strategic British victory.
The battle lines were literally too strong to face each other without obliterating each other.
tigerarmyrule 11 months ago
@tigerarmyrule Not sure about that one; the Germans examined the shell hits after returning to port and concluded that had the British shells not been faulty then the High Seas Fleet would have "faced utter ruin". By comparison the Royal Navy's losses were entirely preventable, having mostly occurred as a result of leaving deck hatches open to increase fire rate. It's therefore no wonder that the Germans didn't fancy taking on the Grand Fleet for a rematch.
Rdeboer 6 months ago
So many glorious ships, so many brave men, on both sides. What a waste.
gortmundy01 1 year ago
The Royal Navy replaced its losses very quickly, and at the end of the battle it was the Royal Navy that had control of the seas and the German fleet was penned up again. Casualties and ship losses are not what mattered here it was for the freedom to operate within a certain sphere and in that respect the German fleet suffered a defeat.
gortmundy01 1 year ago 2
@gortmundy01 Absoultely. The cruel truth is that the RN could afford to lose more ships because they had more, and more ships on the slips building too.
wilmanric1 1 year ago
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today." Beatty
blastforth 1 year ago
Man, its scary how almost no one survived from the ships that were destroyed.
agatboi3000 1 year ago
@agatboi3000 Yea.. Most of the ships blew up or broke their backs and sank so quickly that hardly anyone could got out.
TWHTALMT 1 year ago
text shdnt scroll from middle like that, it looks stupid, but main problem w this vid is the phoney over-dramatic irish folk music
like the picts of the ships however
ChixRChattel 1 year ago
the german lost very simple they dint execute there plan they got cut by suprise
and run whit there taill tuck in thank to the submarine cuz they will never run away
MrPatbull 1 year ago
This was probably the most decisive battle of ww1
ostormbringero 1 year ago
jewish war makers
batalion666 1 year ago
@batalion666 That's an Idiotic comment. Were the German, British, French, Austrian, Russian, Italian, Turks, or Bulgarians Jews ??
FRAGIORGIO1 5 months ago
@FRAGIORGIO1 Rotschilds Murdoch Levi Strauss and points without meaning like me and you
batalion666 5 months ago
@batalion666 I take it back. You are right that the British government were so obligated to the Rotschilds that they promised a homeland for the Jews in Palestine after the war. But the UK didn't start fighting because of the Jews or the Rotschilds in particular nor did anyone else. You might say that some Jewish financial powers helped finance the war. The cause, however, was politics and territorial ambitions.
FRAGIORGIO1 5 months ago
@FRAGIORGIO1 there are always milions of dead soldiers from french , british and special german or russian people and master of puppets like tsar , king , Hitler or Stalin but these people are just tools to make war to make bloodbath for goys power is where petrol is and big big money and who is winner of these wars ? Amazing that catholic church is the best friend of Jewish Mega power they didnt stop any war .Read about New Europe builder Rettinger no pope but smart polish Jew
batalion666 5 months ago
@batalion666 You are saying that the Catholic Church is the "best friend of Jewish Mega power (that) they didn't stop any war" Is the Catholic Church of any weight in stopping an anti-Christian Hitler, a Lutheran Kaiser, a secular Clemenceau, an atheistic Stalin, a Protestant Britiish PM or US Presbyterian president such as Wilson from going to war??? That is so ridiculous as to be laughable (tautology). Pope Pius XII saved over 800,000 Jews according to one Jewish researcher, but that's it
FRAGIORGIO1 5 months ago
@FRAGIORGIO1
FRAGIORGIO1 FARTS, "Pope Pius XII saved over 800,000 Jews according to one Jewish researcher, but that's it"
>Are you referring to that one labor zionist Jew, trader-to-his-people, researcher?
Why do you continue spreading lies for the antichrist papacy FRAGIORGIO1? Why not admit the universal truth that Pope Pius XII, as Cardinal Pachelli help mentor his Fuerher to power, to carry out the papacy's Nazi heretic oven burning 20th century "Holy" Inquisition, dubbed "holocaust"?
SpencerBenedict2nd 1 week ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd We can do without your vulgarity here. Moreover, I shall not permit you on my part to convert this into another diatribe spot against the Catholic Church as you have already done on at least 4 or 5 other sites. You are a hate troller. Leave those of us who love naval history alone and go atop a crag and shriek and howl. I have already answered you many times on those other spots, and I imagine you have been "blocked" from them. Get thee hence!
FRAGIORGIO1 1 week ago
Comment removed
SpencerBenedict2nd 1 week ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd Well! No vulgarities this time. That's a relief. Peace to you too.
FRAGIORGIO1 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FRAGIORGIO1 "You are a hate troller."-FRAGIORGIO1 #753
>INCORRECT. Reporting history does NOT constitute "hate". While i loathe atrocities perpetrated against human beings, i hate no one. So, think again. Why, i even love you.
peace, brother
SpencerBenedict2nd 1 week ago
@batalion666 Ratzinger is Not Rettinger, nor Polish, nor a Jew, but he is smart, Yes!
FRAGIORGIO1 5 months ago
@FRAGIORGIO1 Read about Jozef Rettinger
batalion666 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FRAGIORGIO1
FRAGIORGIO1 FARTS, "Ratzinger is Not Rettinger, nor Polish, nor a Jew, but he is smart, Yes!"
>He is Nazi Hitler Youth all grown up! and grown into a roman papal Caesar antichrist, Yes!
SpencerBenedict2nd 1 week ago
I believe that @No1118117 not to have a clue...but no wonder he is a Brit ;p
The Krauts won...there's no two ways about it !
MrGodoon 1 year ago
major mistakes on both sides. should've used more rutland.
chicorider 1 year ago
Tactical german victory. Strategic britsh victory.
Britain could afford to lose seabattles like that. Germany couldnt afford victories like that.
Eric0816 1 year ago
I don't think the world would never see a battle like this ever again as the reign of Carrier's took over....
Spartanz1170 1 year ago
A great tribute to the men of a great battle.
Personally, I think that the British could have won the Battle outright with the 2 commanders, Jellico and Beatty, switched commands. Beatty was too aggressive with the Battlecrusiers, he salied off after Hipper before concentrating his forces, and his ships paid the nprice. Jellico deployed his ships brilliantly, but he was too cautious, thinking more about what the enermy could do to him rather than what he could do to them.
UNSCForwardontodawn 1 year ago
@UNSCForwardontodawn Possibly correct. Jellico was called "the man who could lose the war in an afternoon" and was probably affected by it. The battlecruisers were regarded as more "dashing" compared with the battleships and I'd guess that mindset made it's way into their seamanship.
wilmanric1 1 year ago
the letters in the beginning are going too fast
RytisM123 1 year ago
nobody won both lost ;waste of life my grandfather was on princess royal at jutland dogger bank and heligoe bight and he told me some horror stories war is madness particularly as we are so similar to the great german nation should never have been a war between us
TheWembleymod 1 year ago
Beattie was a fucker, just like the past premier of Queensland
DigbyCat 1 year ago
AAAARGH Won't someone make one of these vids without this bloody song?!
AvonSearider54 1 year ago
A sad day for all of those who lost there lives. And a bitter sweet memory for those who lived through it. My GF was there (I have his medal if proof be needed) and I would rather have him that a bit of bronze to be honest!
TheStevewhelan 1 year ago
@TheStevewhelan Quite right, which is why I'm glad that Admiral Jellicoe chose not to pursue the HSF; though we could have finished them off it would have been at a huge price in blood for both sides. I'd say history vindicates him.
Rdeboer 1 year ago
Its plain and simple, the Germans had better strategic planning and much better armament, all in all the English have always come second to the Germans as far as war is concerned, I wouldn't call the battle of Britain a victory for the British but holding off the Germans long enough to allow the Americans and Russians to either outmanufacture or bleed the Germans.
trevinboy 1 year ago
@trevinboy What would you call a 2 to 1 advantage in kills by aircraft, where the enemy withdrew? The Battle of Britain was a rare clear victory by an unprepared country with fewer aircraft, pilots and an archaic industrial infrastructure over a prepared country in war. Yet Britain won the Battle of Britain. It was a battle. they did win it. full stop.
the same happened at Jutland. Though The Germans killed 5000 British sailors, they ran. Because they knew they were outmatched.
112smosquito 1 year ago
Danke
qubla2 1 year ago
We can only speculate what the outcome would have been if Jellicoe had pursued the German fleet the next day, which would have given us a definite winner. Since he didn't, it could be called a draw, with Britain suffering the most losses. I believe in Buchanan's theory: the Kaiser was incensed by the Naval Agreement that drastically restricted the size of Germany's fleet, hence the war. The German's might have won if Jellicoe pursued. A very close fight.
JBC814 1 year ago
And when the Grand Fleet Intercepted the Hochseeflote Jellicoe had perfect position. This was by design. Jellicoe was a great officer with information Scheer did not have: Jellicoe knew that the Hochseeflote was at sea. Scheer knew nothing of the sort. The result was an exchange of fire that caused the Hochseeflot to retreat... let me say it TWICE. And recieve damage great enough that it could not put to sea for weeks afterwards.
112smosquito 1 year ago
2. Officers such as David Beatty and Ralph Seymour, his signals officer did their best through their incompetence to lose the battle. However Jellicoe was a cool tactician. He deployed the Grand Fleet in a manner such that it intercepted the Hochseeflote at precisely the right time and place.
112smosquito 1 year ago
1. The British Grand Fleet under jellicoe knew the German Fleet was out in force due to superior intelligence; and they sought to bring them to decisive battle.
2. The Royal Navy of the time was a mixed bag under a mixed set of officers. Their battleships generally had larger guns and were faster than the German ships. Some were like the Queen Elizabeths were better than the German ships. Some like the Invincible class were deathtraps that cost their sailors their lives.
112smosquito 1 year ago
Who was the naval power here?
The royal navy?.....I don't believe!!!
MrGodoon 1 year ago 6
The prisoner has assaulted his jailer but is still in jail
troopship12 1 year ago
@troopship12 Yet is successfully sinking millions of tonnes of ships in the Atlantic and Mediterranean, avoiding detection from both the RN and French fleet- successfully passing through the North Sea, because the German sailor must to reach these bodies of water, and the English Channel.
Friendo1231 1 year ago
I know it must be hard living in the shadow of British dominance, but please try and back up your opinion with more than just rabid envy next time.
smoochym 1 year ago
@smoochym I know how much it pains you when you have to rely on nothing but delusions of grandeur of the past to satisfy your ego about your nation, but this is all written down on the pages of history. I advise you pick up a book next time... like, as Blitz posted, von Haase's documentation of the battle as a senior artillery officer aboard the Derfflinger, the ship that sank the HMS Indefatigable in 90 seconds after blowing it apart. Maybe Jack Sheldon's "Jutland - Death in the Gray Wastes"?
Friendo1231 1 year ago
I leave you to pontificate about one man trying to peddle a book, despite the thousands of other eyewitness testimonies and empirical conclusion of historians. Are you seriously trying to suggest one man on one ship knows more than thousands of other testimonies and a hundred years of empricial research?
" delusions of grandeur "
Sums up the German surface fleet perfectly, a fantasy.
smoochym 1 year ago
Thousands of other eyewitnesses wrote testimonies about the outcome eh? Why is it, then, there are only a handful of reports like von Haase's on the battle from people who actually participated in it? We have roughly 23 surviving others from German sailors, 15 surviving accounts from the British, and 10 accounts from Danes who went out and had to bury the bodies that had washed up on their shore. This one was part of a gun crew that sank the HMS Indefatigable. Certainly gives him credibility.
Friendo1231 1 year ago
Well I agree with, german quality defeated brit. quantity.
bosselbi 1 year ago
Jellicoe fought this battle perfectly. Hipper fought this battle with an ineptitude that would have cost him many many more ships had the british shells not failed to penetrate armour and explode.
The question is a simple one.Whose fleet adorns the bottom of Scapa Flow? I'm not saying the British are today better off than Germany. Their shortsightedness and stupidity have ruined a once great country. But they did win the first world war. And the Germans lost it. At sea, on land and by air.
112smosquito 1 year ago
@112smosquito Jellicoe was the one who failed to understand that he'd been lured into a trap to begin with. Hipper wasn't the one in command, either, genius. It was Scheer. He's the one who told Hipper to start moving along the coast to get the British to come out of hiding in their ports- particularly the main body of the Grand Fleet at Scapa Flow. But that's exactly the point, the British shells DID fail in the end lol. They were technologically dated compared to the German ships.
Friendo1231 1 year ago
@Friendo1231 We agree that the british cordite which was stabilised with vaseline and which exploded violently when heated even moderately was the major factor which caused the british to lose more ships and 3 times as many sailors at Jutland. Also the fact that the british shells were fitted with inferior, dated Krupp fuses caused them to explode before penetrating armour kept many german ships aflot that would otherwise have been sunk. However...
112smosquito 1 year ago
@Friendo1231 however, we definately disagree on the construction of the British ships. The British Queen Elizabeth class were far IN ADVANCE of any of the the ships in the battle. They were faster, had bigger guns and were more heavily armoured than anything afloat. The fact that Queen Elizabeth had her steering gear disabled and recieved 15 or 20 shells while spinning in a circle yet emerged pretty much unscathed says much. The Germans lost less ships only because British shells were so bad
112smosquito 1 year ago
@Friendo1231 Final Result: The 'capital' ships the german fleet destroyed with great loss of life were the british battlecruisers Invincible Inflexible and Queen Mary. These bad designs it is true. The armour was too thin, and bad practice and bad cordite exasperated the situation. 25 years later the same thing did HMS Hood. Again another lightly armoured battlecruiser. Altogether British Battlecruisers proved to be bad ideas.
But British battleships were capable. Final Result. You lost.
112smosquito 1 year ago
@112smosquito As far as the tactics go, we're just at a disagreement indeed. Not really a whole much we can do to credit or discredit that. Both sides made their mistakes. But on, he Hochseeflotte lost no capital ships. It lost a pre-dreadnought, SMS Pommern, laid down in 1904, that was inferior and dated to all Konig-class dreadnought battleships, and a medium battlecruiser, the SMS Lutzow, after the crew decided to scuttle it a day later.
Friendo1231 1 year ago
@112smosquito Then there were light cruisers: Frauenlob, Rostock, Elbing, and Wiesbaden. The most modern one there that was sunk was the Wiesbaden from 1915. All others were from before 1905. They were quite dated, and were, by their very specifications, comparable to destroyers. They were only called light cruisers, because, just over 10 years before, they had been commissioned as light cruisers. Their losses were negligible because of how old they were and how cheap they were 10 years before.
Friendo1231 1 year ago
@112smosquito Finally, there was the V48 torpedo boat that had been refitted to act as an escort destroyer for the battle. It was constructed in 1914 and finally entered service in 1915. V48 caused enough damage to the HMS Shark that it allowed her to be sunk by fire during the evening action. Again, a torpedo boat. Fairly modern, so a little more expensive than they had been 10 years before (to compare the time frame to when the old light cruisers were constructed), but not a big loss.
Friendo1231 1 year ago
@112smosquito The Germans lost none of their capital ships which Scheer had designated. Konig, Derfflinger, Seydlitz (the one he was using as his flagship), Markgraf, Grosser Kurfurst, Kronprinz all survived, as well as the Helgoland and Nassau. If you want to consider cruisers as capital ships that were sunk, the British still lost more in value. Their ships Black Prince, Defence, and Warrior were all heavy-armored cruisers that were much newer than the old light cruisers the Germans used.
Friendo1231 1 year ago
@112smosquito And while the German battleships did not have as large of guns as the British ships did, they still all had the first superfiring paired guns in the world, both fore and aft. The British used the limited "Q"-turret. The other surviving cruisers and battleships also still had considerably thicker armor and a better arrangement to the hull. The British used cork to help absorb the blasts in addition to steel armor; this failed because the cork would simply be blasted out of the way.
Friendo1231 1 year ago 3
@Friendo1231 Actually USS South Carolina had first superfiring turrets
DBLCC 1 year ago
@Friendo1231 Your superfiring claim for Germany is incorrect. The first superfiring turrets were on the US South Carolina class of 1906, followed by the British Neptune and Orion in 1909. The first german superfirers were the Kaiser and Konig classes of 1911 &12
SuperAncientmariner 7 months ago
@112smosquito Really, the only serious casualty the Germans lost was the Lutzow, which they decided to scuttle themselves later. The unfortunate thing for the British battleships during the Second World War was that they were so dated. The Ark Royal's destruction by a submarine's torpedo salvo is a particularly good example. The British have been able in history to produce ships and planes and tanks (etc.) in large quantities, that much is true, but they never have focused much on their quality.
Friendo1231 1 year ago
They're a bit like the Russians: they'll give you stuff that's not horrible, but it's not good either. And because it's not good, they'll pay for it in combat. German manufacturing always has focused on building ships for their quality, the vice versa downside being we haven't focused much on quantity. Our tacticians are always more than capable, they just don't always have the resources they need to do the job. But when they do... well, there's a reason why they call it "Deutsche's Diewut".
Friendo1231 1 year ago 6
@Friendo1231 Well said, Germans have quality while Russians and English always stressed quantity. ie, in WWII I don't think there was a better warship than the Bismark, yet the British boasted that no ship could sink their capital ships such as the Hood, and we all the know the rest.
trevinboy 1 year ago
Sir, that is very wrong, at least in terms of ships. From 1815 to 1914, Britain not only built MORE warships, but LARGER and BETTER warships. This goes right back to the first ironclads. France built La Gloire, and thought it was pretty fancy, but then Britain bested it with HMS Warrior. For the entire battleship era, Britain was always the leaders in the field of naval shipbuilding, with ships like the Devasations, Royal Sovereigns Dreadnought, and Queen Elizabeths. They had plenty of quality.
somedude221 1 year ago
@112smosquito Correction: the Inflexible was not lost, but rather the Indefatigable.
FRAGIORGIO1 5 months ago
@112smosquito Hence, why they demanded the Germans turn over all their ships to Scapa Flow. They wanted the technology. The Germans were well ahead of them on their turret mechanisms, loading mechanisms, armor systems, shell calibration systems, and gunnery systems. So we decided to play along then told them to go fuck themselves when we scuttled our ships lol. And what did the British do? They tried oh so desperately to stop them from sinking. They failed on all capital ships, however.
Friendo1231 1 year ago
@Friendo1231 Also we disagree on tactics. Jellicoe knew the Hochseeflute was out there and wanted a battle, because he had superior intelligence. He found his enemy brought them to battle and crossed their tee twice. British shooting in the battle started off poor but improved. Director firing was a definate advantage in this case.
112smosquito 1 year ago
Actually, the Germans withdrew because it was decided that the uboats could mop up the mess. And the RN's fear of them caused them to also pull back to port. It was strategically a stalemate; tactically a German victory because they sank more ships than they lost (the few they did lose were old cruisers, except for the Lutzow, a pre-dreadnought- Pommern, and some torpedo boats and destroyers; the British lost battleships and cruisers with a few destroyers) and lost fewer men than the British.
Friendo1231 1 year ago 9
Wiki claims "British dominance of the North Sea". This actually is not the case, despite what the egotists amongst them will tell you (I say that because they ignore the real outcome of the naval war yet act so confident and indeed convince people by projecting this confidence that they are correct). The Germans throughout the entire war patrolled the North Sea with torpedo boats and submarines, and indeed sank plenty of shipping there. The British hardly had control of the situation.
Friendo1231 1 year ago
"The British hardly had control of the situation"
As compared to what? The Germans who couldn't even leave port?
smoochym 1 year ago
@smoochym Couldn't? Gross overstatement. The Hochseeflotte sent out crusiers, destroyers, torpedo boats, and submarines to patrol waters around Wilhelmshaven, Kiel, Lubeck, and Rostock. The claim that "British Dominance of the North Sea Maintained" is a dubious one because so many uboats and raiding party ships were still able to get out and sink enemy shipping. Actually, the Grand Fleet left after the action at Jutland because uboats were spotted in the area. The British were scared of them.
Friendo1231 1 year ago
"The British were scared of them"
Not as scared as the German surface fleet, or German shipping.
smoochym 1 year ago
@smoochym Which still got through to deliver nitrogenous fertilizers which powered the German agriculture center and half the economy... which, again, the surface fleet still sent out ships to raid convoys. Torpedo boats, destroyers, and cruisers. Open confrontation was and still is a stupid move. The Germans were smart enough to understand this; the British not so much. Using stealth uboat tactics, they killed plenty of sailors and sank plenty of ships to keep the naval war in their favor.
Friendo1231 1 year ago
@smoochym I read that the British government appealed to President Wilson to enter the war quickly because the losses of supply ships was so high that Britain could not afford another three months. If that is true, and the US had not entered the war, both sides would probably have agreed on an armistice and a lot of bloodshed and terrible political consequences in Central Europe and Russia would have been averted. The Austro-Hungarian Emperor-King Karl had proposed an armistice to Clemenceau.
FRAGIORGIO1 5 months ago
@Friendo1231 No it was not not a strategic victory for Germany. The Royal Navy lost more ships, but it does not change the fact that the German Navy was blockaded in port for the rest of the war, effectively making them useless. Besides, the Germans retreated despite Admiral Beatty trying to keep them engaged. Therefore, the Royal Navy were still in control of the North Sea and the Germans had to revert to unrestrcited submarine warfare. Brittania still ruled the waves!
LethalPenguin92 1 year ago
@LethalPenguin92 Absolutely correct. Sinking more ships is less important than the outcome of the battle: which is that the Germans never ventured out in fleet force again. Jutland was Germany's last, best chance at a naval victory with surface forces, because she could never outbuild the British, who by 1918 would have had 15 15" gunned capital ships.
Jellicoe was correctly described as the one man who could have lost the war in an afternoon.
wilmanric1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LethalPenguin92 Absolutely correct. Sinking more ships is less important than the outcome of the battle: which is that the Germans never challenged RN domination again. Jutland was Germany's last, best chance at a naval victory with surface forces, because she could never outbuild the British, who by 1918 would have had 15 x 15" gunned capital ships.
Jellicoe was correctly described as the one man who could have lost the war in an afternoon.
wilmanric1 1 year ago
The music sucks. A battle must be remembered with an epic music (a la Wagner, Mahler et al.), no with this fluffy songs.
micharkhsev 1 year ago
danke für diesem Historisch Film Möglich sehen können. . .Lied so Gut.
yvesguilland 1 year ago
What a waste of good men and engineering! Why couldn't they just stop the war before 1918 and put their vast potential into furthering civilization???
lilbrothaaa 1 year ago
@lilbrothaaa Among prominent figures, only Pope Benedict XV and Kaiser-Kiraly Karl of Austria-Hungary tried to encourage an armistice. Clemenceau refused Karl's secret proposals in 1917 and thus let thousands more of his own countrymen die, with mentioning those of other nations. Wilson, as a strict Presbyterian, paid no attention to the pope's appeal.
FRAGIORGIO1 5 months ago
I really do not see how you can say that Jellicoe did not risk his fleet next day, they patrolled all night and scoured the seas but it became clear that the High Seas fleet had slipped away. Jellicoe had 148 ships and the High Seas Fleet 98/100? of which there were 16 Dreadnoughts and 5 Battle cruisers plus 6 old Battleships for the Germans, Jellicoe had 9 battlecruisers, 5 Fast battleships, 24 Dreadnoughts
Scheer got lucky to escape without heavier losses and he knew it
caferacer56 1 year ago
Das waren schöne Schiffe. Schade das es nur noch drei Schiffe dieser Art auf der Welt gibt.
SuperSkeptiker 1 year ago
My one most consistant question is regarding German tactics. The design of German capital ships placed survivability before armement and speed yet at the Battle of the Falklands the Germans fled when their only chance of survival was to close to where the shorter range but more rapid rate of fire of their guns could have and impact. Similarly at Jutland The Germans failed to close when possible.
scottduncan44 1 year ago
Jellicoe's main fear was submarine attack, not the German surface units. As for the victor........The German fleet fled the "field of battle" so by definition of victory it has to go to the RN.
BTW, both of Hipper's "Battle turn arounds" were executed because Jellicoe would have crossed his "T", so the German leadership was'nt that good from a tactical point of view. And by the next day the German fleet had fled, so therewas no risk. (easy to say with hindsight 94 years later )
SuperAncientmariner 1 year ago
A glorious day for the Highseafleet I think
ZoggelerUrs 1 year ago 162
well a very glorious day ;)
bosselbi 1 year ago 2
@ZoggelerUrs Quite. And a glorious day for Germany, the German people, the German navy, and our German heritage.
Friendo1231 1 year ago 43
This has been flagged as spam show
@Friendo1231
@ZoggelerUrs
The HSF achieved none of their objectives, took months to be combat ready again. The Grand Fleet retained Sea Supremacy, was ready for action within 48 hours, and the HSF only left harbour to meet the GF again to surrender
gatepa 1 year ago
@Friendo1231 - How is it a glorious day for Germany? 2 points.
1. The RN were the only navy remaining at Jutland after the battle, and Germany retreated and never brought their navy out in mass again in WW1.
2. RN remained the World's number 1 navy till the end of the war due to the blockade of Germany.
And if im been patriotich here then so are you and others like you, because you must be celebrating the loss of British life and tonnage sunk at the battle, but there was no German victory.
OurManInMarrakessh 1 year ago
@Friendo1231
you glorify a strategic defeat, and the end of any possibility of the Imperial Navy exerting any force in the North Sea and Atlantic, and the continuation of the blockade of Northern ports?
HelmutVillam 1 year ago
@HelmutVillam Funny kind of strategic defeat then, given that the British lost more sailors and more ships than the Germans (indeed, more important ones as well technologically on their own part) and ultimately failed to retain control over the North Sea- with uboats of the Kaiserliche Marine still roaming it and the Atlantic openly (sinking 8 million tons of shipping there alone, not counting their victories in the Mediterranean Campaign totaling another 5.5 million tons of shipping).
Friendo1231 1 year ago
@Friendo1231
do you even know the meaning of the term 'strategic'? 'Killed more sailors, sunk more ships' is a purely TACTICAL term. Even with the loss off allied shipping due to USW, the allies still massively outnumbers the central powers with supplies, and as I mentioned, your ports remained blockaded, and the High Seas Fleet only ever left Kiel again in order to surrender. So get off your high horse, and come back again with a more enlightened view.
HelmutVillam 1 year ago
@HelmutVillam I'm wondering if you do, given that I discussed both the tactical aspect of the battle (which was a decisive German victory) and the strategic aspect as well (which was a British failure; dominance of the North Sea was not maintained; if it was, we wouldn't have been able to sink 8 million tons of shipping in the Atlantic). It would behoove you to pay attention next time. USW was a serious blow to the war effort, which the Entente and its affiliates were trying to keep together.
Friendo1231 1 year ago
@HelmutVillam In 1917 alone, uboats sank over 6 million tons of shipping and killed nearly 7,000 people. April saw the loss of over 881,000 tons. If our ports were blockaded as well as you claim, the Hochseeflotte would not have been able to venture out FOUR MORE TIMES in 1916 alone, once later in June, once in August, and twice in September. Yet the Grand Fleet did nothing on any of these occasions to intercept them. In fact, when they first came out again in late June, they avoided them.
Friendo1231 1 year ago
@Friendo1231 You' re well informed on the basic facts, and I compliment you on that, sir. But you draw faulty conclusions from them. Neither Britain nor Germany can claim a tactical victory. RN lost more ships, undeniable, but Germany withdrew from the battle without accomplishing her mission--to seriously weaken the RN. That did not happen. Therefore, Jutland cannot count as a tactical German victory, since the mission failed. RN lost more ships but was not weakened significantly.
wilmanric1 1 year ago
@Friendo1231 RN's mission was to destroy the High Seas Fleet. Obviously, that didn't happen. The RN can't claim a tactical victory, even if she hadn't lost so many ships. Her mission failed too. But in strategic terms, it was a RN victory. The HSF was unable to challenge surface control of the North Sea, or the N Atlantic.
Your comment on USW disproving this contention is unsound. One does not counter subs with capital ships, but with ASW.
wilmanric1 1 year ago
@Friendo1231 ...and yet by 1918, Germany was starving under a British naval blockade and the U-Boats effectiveness greatly dropped the year before with a change in merchant vessels defensive tactics. After Jutland the German fleet never ventured to sea again, because strategically they failed to win Jutland. If anything, Jutland was a bloody draw rather than a victory for either side.
Ultimately, the U-Boats success stopped once the British organised merchant vessels into fleets.
YellowStringStudios 1 year ago
@HelmutVillam Nigel Steel and Peter Hart discuss that event in Jutland 1916: Death in the Grey Wastes, as do they the August event (p426). On the 19th, Scheer intended to shell the Sunderland. Transmission signals were picked up, however, and the Grand Fleet was ordered not to engage. Scheer, in response, turned the fleet around and sailed back to port (which was Wilhelmshaven, by the way; NOT Kiel). In October, Scheer reckoned that it would be better logistically if USW was resumed. It was.
Friendo1231 1 year ago
I would hardly call 6 ships left undamaged a "glorious day". If you count glorious as the only time they actually came out of port, then maybe lol.
"Tactically inconclusive; British dominance of the North Sea maintained"
smoochym 1 year ago
@smoochym Six ships left undamaged? Hardly. For the Hochseeflotte at this battle, Hipper was ordered by Scheer to take 40 ships to sweep the Danish coast; Scheer brought an additional 54 warships, excluding the torpedo boats that showed up later to mop up the job during the night action.
The only ships that were hit (asides from the ones mentioned in this video that were sunk) were the Derfflinger, Seydlitz, Von der Tann, Konig, Grosser Kurfurst, Markgraf, Kaiser, Helgoland, Schleswig-Holstein.
Friendo1231 1 year ago
@smoochym The problem with the British ships was that they were technologically inferior to the German ones, hence why they lost so many more ships and men than the Germans. Their shells, especially, were ineffective, as they often exploded before they even hit their target lol. One of the turrets aboard the HMS Lion that was lightly damaged by German shells also exploded because of faulty loading mechanisms inside for the shells themselves.
Friendo1231 1 year ago
@ZoggelerUrs: Respectively, sir, I would disagree. They were sent packing with their tails between their legs, and scared shitless enough that they never again sortied out in force against the Grand Fleet for the remainder of the war. Mind you, they did come out the better in the battlecruiser engagement, but Jellicoe skillfully crossed their T twice during the main fleet engagement, and forced them to retreat as fast as they could steam both times.
somedude221 1 year ago
@ZoggelerUrs
How? they achieved none of their objectives, took months to be combat ready again. The Grand Fleet retained Sea Supremacy, was ready for action within 48 hours, and the HSF only left harbour to meet the GF again..to surrender
gatepa 1 year ago
@ZoggelerUrs I beg to differ. Although the British lose more ships. There was clearly only one fleet left operational in the North Sea after 1st June and it was flying the white ensign of the British Royal Navy. Cheers.
TWHTALMT 1 year ago
Tiger was hit 17 times yet needed no dry dock
Tiger was the best performing defender at Jutland, Derflinger hit 17 times was almost scrap
The more you look the luckier the germans were to escape
caferacer56 1 year ago
A bit further study reveals some interesting facts, when the battlefleets clashed, the germans inflicted 2 shell hits on 24 british ships, (both on Colossus) the RN inflicted 26 including 10 on Konig
surprisingly older battlecruisers were shooting badly Moltke 359 shells, VdT 170 but New Zealand was not hit at all yet she fired420 shells VdT hit 4 times and Moltke also hit 4 times
Invincible was hit 5 times as were Q Mary and Indefatigable
caferacer56 1 year ago
.Battle of Jutland was tactically, a german victory.
Strategically, England won, because the British blockade to Germany wasn't lifted or even damaged. I live in Brazil.
daltonagre 1 year ago
The only thing the Germans can say is that it kept the Baltic free of the Royal navy but it was a close thing, 4 days later Sheer urged the Kaiser to go on unrestricted submarine warfare, he knew he had a lucky escape, he knew he would never beat the RN, his ships were wrecked, he lost a lot of newer cruisers and destroyers. German ships fired 3597 heavy rounds the RN 4,598 of which 25% were 15 inch, 100 hits recorded on the Germans 120 on the RN most on old cruisers Defence, Black Prince
caferacer56 1 year ago
The joke is that the Germans didn't really needed a fleet at this time and they only got one because Wilhelm II. wanted to have more prestige and respect in the world. what an idiot... at least we lost the war ;-)
ThugCologne 1 year ago
As usual after the battle the RN Admiralty were brutally frank, the German Marine quite the opposite, the royal navy maintained the blockade so it had a result, the High Seas Fleet became the Wilhemshaven harbour patrol
caferacer56 1 year ago
Historybooks says...tactically it was a german victory.
Strategical a stalemate.
Wikipedia says the same
bosselbi 1 year ago
I'm sorry to spoil the party, the US press made the comment 'the German navy has assaulted it's jailor, it is still in jail'
Even in 1916 the German economy was starting to fail, it took a huge effort to keep this fleet going esp when resources HAD to be given to the huge land armies, the new ships were not completed.
Remember too that tactically the High Seas fleet were condemned to slow speeds, Markgraf had a defective propulsion system, older ships could not make 21 knots all the RN could
caferacer56 1 year ago
who won the battle of jutland ?
Gab1n0III 1 year ago
@Gab1n0III Good question, the Germans sunk more British ships, however they turned, fled and never ventured forth again.
"The English fleet, by remaining a 'fleet in being', by its mere continued existence, had so far fully fulfilled its allotted task. The Battle of Skagerrak did not relax the pressure exerted by the English fleet as a 'fleet in being' for one minute.
Commander Georg von Hase, SMS Derfflinger, I Scouting Group, High Seas Fleet"
Also, German battlecruisers were stronger.
StarTux 1 year ago
@StarTux
v. Haase was 1St Gunnery Officer, and if you quote him, please mention that he was of the oppinion the Grand fleet fled and avoided a shoot out
BlitzWotan 1 year ago
Britain may have bled Germany white in WWI, but at least in this battle the Germans drained Britain of its seamen.
cicero1453 2 years ago
Actually it didnt, the Royal navy grand fleet was fully manned and reshipped again months after Jutland.
chigaloo2 2 years ago
Dude, that was intended as a pun, not a serious comment.
cicero1453 2 years ago
i need the name of a dreadnought that came to ny in 1918 any how to find this??
zzzippo55 2 years ago
My late father knew a captain of a destroyer lost at Jutland. Even though the man did as he was told, he was permanently beached and his career ruined because he lost his ship.
mbabist01 2 years ago
great video
glasssoul86 2 years ago
I don't want to throw dirt on the memory of any fo these men, but a lot of the losses at Jutland (aka Skaggerrak) could have been avoided if both sides hadn't tried to use their battlecruisers as line ships, rather than scouting elements.
vadmscheer 2 years ago
@vadmscheer You're right about that. The battlecruisers were designed for speed and firepower, but sacrificed armor. They were ideal for hunting down armored cruisers like the Battle of the Falklands, but ill suited for the battle line.
I remember reading that poor ammo storage practices contributed to the British casualties, and leads me to wonder "what if" the ammo had been stored correctly when the battlecruisers were hit.
ScottB303 2 years ago
@ScottB303
as far as i know that armour of german BC's and ships of the first line have been nearly identical, the 28 cm Krupp fast loaders as well, the bunker capacity in german BC`s was less to incorporate more speed
BlitzWotan 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Oh look, it appears that my original post has been removed. Youtube censorship? For stating historical facts? Oh well.
In a nutshell, the free world, and particularly Europe, owes the British a lot. And although it's probably unfashionable to write this, I'm proud of my British ancestors, and I'm very proud that my immediate family served in the several RN actions WW1 and WW2.
mickyredmire 2 years ago
@micky
well, Youtoube censorship...because you must write true comments...not truthless propaganda ;)
bosselbi 2 years ago
Which part of my posting was "truthless propaganda"?
mickyredmire 2 years ago
Cant we all just get along??
TheZuikaku 2 years ago
Well it's never happened before ...
mickyredmire 2 years ago
Those were for steel mesh anti-torpedo nets. The Germans added "cutting teeth" to torpedos and eventually the British did away with the concept of netting.
ScottB303 2 years ago
What are the diagonal lines on the sides of those ships? What purpose do they serve? I'm an ol' cowpuncher, It might as well be outer space.
MikeofWyoming 2 years ago
"... there seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today," Admiral Beatty, after receiving the report of another battlship being blown up within the space of an hour or so.
blastforth 2 years ago
DEUTSCHE HOCHSEEFLOTTE > royal navy :)
bosselbi 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Jutland was but a minor interlude as the RN continued to strangle Germany. The odd ship lost here or there is as nothing when viewed as part of the strategic war to starve the Germans into defeat.
mickyredmire 2 years ago
Jutland is the largest modern naval battle of all time... nothing minor about it.
Axel88Flak 2 years ago