Asia Studios Massage

Centenary of the Battle of Jutland

Aardvark154

New member
Jan 19, 2006
53,761
3
0
Pause a moment today and remember the Battle of Jutland a century ago today, and those who lost their lives.
 

mandrill

monkey
Aug 23, 2001
80,148
104,057
113
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jutland

Relatively few casualties by the standards of World War One.

Jellicoe only had to keep the Grand Fleet intact to continue the British blockade on Germany which eventually resulted in the starvation of the German population. Von Scheer gambled on being able to hit and run and destroy part of the Grand Fleet with his Hochseeflotte in order to even the odds for future battles. In the event, the British concentrated successfully and drove the Germans back into port while the Germans inflicted greater losses - but not nearly enough to affect the far greater superiority of the Royal Navy.

Jellicoe played very cautiously - which was the correct approach. If Britain lost a large portion of the Grand Fleet, the Hochseeflotte could not only break the RN's blockade on Germany, but also erupt into the trans Atlantic sea lanes and blockade Britain.

German ship design was superior in some ways to the British and the best known quote of the battle is Vice Admiral Beattie exclaiming "Something is wrong with our ships today!" as his battle cruisers exploded one by one!
 

Insidious Von

My head is my home
Sep 12, 2007
41,079
8,122
113
Jellicoe was unfairly criticized by the Admiralty and the British Press for being too timid, but he knew the game. Had he pursued Von Scheer to port, the Royal Fleet would have come within range of The Big Berthas protecting Kiel. In WW II after the conquest of Norway, Allied Bombers destroyed the Hamburg - Kiel Canal.

Like the Battle of Kursk, Jutland was the last battle of it's kind. And further proof of Vincent Price's axiom that "man is a stumbling demented child king".

 

jgd

Member
Aug 30, 2004
250
4
18
Ontario
I read somewhere that the Battle of Jutland was the last naval battle fought where the ships on the two sides could physically see each other. Ever since planes have been sent to inflict the damage or submarines fought from underwater using only electronics and a periscope.
 

danmand

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
47,022
5,615
113

jcpro

Well-known member
Jan 31, 2014
24,571
6,768
113
I read somewhere that the Battle of Jutland was the last naval battle fought where the ships on the two sides could physically see each other. Ever since planes have been sent to inflict the damage or submarines fought from underwater using only electronics and a periscope.
Not the last one.
 

Aardvark154

New member
Jan 19, 2006
53,761
3
0
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today, Chatfield! (Beattie's Flag Captain on H.M.S. Lion)"

Indeed Oagre the same problem that killed H.M.S. Hood in 1941 inadequate deck armour which left the British Battlecruisers susceptible to plunging shells.
 

nottyboi

Well-known member
May 14, 2008
24,414
2,553
113
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today, Chatfield! (Beattie's Flag Captain on H.M.S. Lion)"

Indeed Oagre the same problem that killed H.M.S. Hood in 1941 inadequate deck armour which left the British Battlecruisers susceptible to plunging shells.
Actually that was not the cause. The reason was unsafe storage of cordite to increase rate of fire. They had the stuff stacked all over the place. So when the ship was hit, well ..we all know what happened.
 

nottyboi

Well-known member
May 14, 2008
24,414
2,553
113
I read somewhere that the Battle of Jutland was the last naval battle fought where the ships on the two sides could physically see each other. Ever since planes have been sent to inflict the damage or submarines fought from underwater using only electronics and a periscope.
well no, there were ship to ship gun battles in WWII as well. But consider that 100 years ago they were able to fire a 2 ton + projectile from over 20K yards from a moving platform and hit a moving target with NO ELECTRONICS. Wow ... that is crazy.
 

mandrill

monkey
Aug 23, 2001
80,148
104,057
113
Actually that was not the cause. The reason was unsafe storage of cordite to increase rate of fire. They had the stuff stacked all over the place. So when the ship was hit, well ..we all know what happened.
Both poor ammo handling drills and inferior armour protection led to the losses.
 

mandrill

monkey
Aug 23, 2001
80,148
104,057
113
I read somewhere that the Battle of Jutland was the last naval battle fought where the ships on the two sides could physically see each other. Ever since planes have been sent to inflict the damage or submarines fought from underwater using only electronics and a periscope.
There were some shoot em out big gun battles in the Pacific - some epic night battles between the IJN and the USN around Guadalcanal and then later around Leyte. But by and large, the big gun warship was obsolete in major fleet actions by 1941.
 

jcpro

Well-known member
Jan 31, 2014
24,571
6,768
113
Actually that was not the cause. The reason was unsafe storage of cordite to increase rate of fire. They had the stuff stacked all over the place. So when the ship was hit, well ..we all know what happened.
This plus the removal of wet screens in the amo transfer rooms that allowed flash to travel down into magazines. A lot of men died for want of the simplest safety precautions. Incidentally, the Germans followed the anti flash procedures to the letter and few of their ships that were hit really hard, like the SMS Saydlitz, survived the action.
 

tribunus

Terror Belli Decus Pacis
May 26, 2008
3,058
1,984
113
There were some shoot em out big gun battles in the Pacific - some epic night battles between the IJN and the USN around Guadalcanal and then later around Leyte. But by and large, the big gun warship was obsolete in major fleet actions by 1941.
Correct there were some big battleship/battlecruiser shoot outs in the Pacific. I would've been awesome if the Yamato & Musashi (largest battleships in the world) had the opportunity to engage the US fleet. Too bad US dive bombers took them out prematurely.

There were other battleship shootouts as well in WW2: Bismarck vs Hood, Bismarck vs Rodney & King George V, Scharnhorst vs Duke of York to name a few.
 

Aardvark154

New member
Jan 19, 2006
53,761
3
0
Both poor ammo handling drills and inferior armour protection led to the losses.
Turret Q of Bettie's own flagship H.M.S. Lion suffered a direct hit and had a flash fire due to stacked up propellant charges.

The turret commander Major Francis Harvey, Royal Marines, VC (substantive rather than customary rank [R.M. Captains were aboard ship always addressed as Major - so that there were never two captains]) who had been mortally wounded (and was in the magazine) ordered the magazine flooded. Which prevented Lion as well being lost. He was posthumously awarded the Victoria Cross.
 

Keebler Elf

The Original Elf
Aug 31, 2001
14,688
330
83
The Keebler Factory
Just out of interest, here are a couple of Wiki articles on the Guadalcanal naval battles. Interesting that at the beginning of the war, the IJN was technically superior to the USN.
Japan kicked ass at night fighting and their torpedoes were far superior to what the US had.
 

Aardvark154

New member
Jan 19, 2006
53,761
3
0
Japan kicked ass at night fighting and their torpedoes were far superior to what the US had.
True, not helped by the fact that the U.S. Mark 14 Torpedeo had several serious problems early in the war, not least of which was that the magnetic influence detonators (designed to detonate the torpedo as it passed under the ship - breaking its keel) were to put it mildly junk!
 
Last edited:
Toronto Escorts