Jutland tonnage numbers. Are these accurrate? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

The First World War (1914-1918).
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
User avatar
By Siberian Fox
#13419901
Shouldn't be too difficult to check:

Ships lost at Jutland.

No victorious fleet was ever chased back into port be their defeated foe. Jutland maintained the status quo in terms of fleet ratios, which was a strategic victory for Britain.

The German fleet faired better tactically because their ships were more compartmentalised and ammunition handling was safer. With hindsight, the British were reckless in their use of battle-cruisers (which accounted for their worst losses). Of course, this is a generalisation of a massive complicated battle.
By pugsville
#13420215
Absolute Victory for the British Fleet, the German fleet was destroyed as a effective fighting force. The German Navy basically gave up after Jutland and did not seek engagement with the British fleet. The German fleet retreated because they believed they would lose badly a major fleet encounter. Jutland was put up or shut up, The Germans shut up. The Royal navy mastery of seas over a long period rested a lot on attitude and belief, British Navy commanders who did not closely engage the enemy were liable to be stripped of command. The Graf Spree incident in the next war was an example. The Germans sought challange the British navy and when push came to shove they turned tail.
User avatar
By Siberian Fox
#13420635
pugsville wrote:The Royal navy mastery of seas over a long period rested a lot on attitude and belief, British Navy commanders who did not closely engage the enemy were liable to be stripped of command.


Rear Admiral Ernest Troubridge is a good example. For not engaging the light cruiser SMS Breslau and battle-cruiser SMS Goeben with his armoured cruisers he was court marshalled and never had another command at sea.
By cowofzot
#13421167
Actually what they did after beating the British at Jutland was pursue a more cost effective Submarine war campaign.
By Smilin' Dave
#13421179
Actually what they did after beating the British at Jutland was pursue a more cost effective Submarine war campaign.

? The Germans lost. They switched to submarines because their battle fleet didn't have a chance of winning round two. If they had won, they wouldn't have had to do this. Even if the tonnage of British ships lost is higher, their fleet was much bigger, so they could afford the losses. Further having failed at Jutland the Germans were still back where they started, blocked in. To apply a metric from land warfare, the British still held the 'battlefield' after the battle... so they won. The subsequent success of the blockade against Germany only goes to reinforce this point.
By cowofzot
#13421901
They switched when they discovered it was more effective & less expensive after besting the British in the battle itself deciively.
User avatar
By MB.
#13421934
The figures appear accurate or close to accurate. 171,700 tons were sunk at Jutland.

The smaller German fleet proved superior in guns and armor.


This statement is too broad and basically meaningless.
By cowofzot
#13422017
Not really if on examines the "armor" subject. British philosophy was fast less armored ships were the way to go as they were very successful in other engagements vs other opponents. German ships had more armor & could take a better hit.
User avatar
By MB.
#13422034
cowofzot wrote:British philosophy was fast less armored ships were the way to go as they were very successful in other engagements vs other opponents. German ships had more armor & could take a better hit.


This statement is at once inarticulate, inaccurate and meaningless. I submit that the ships which were sunk at Jutland were not sunk for reasons of improper or inadequate armoring for their class, nor were German warships exceptionally over-armored in comparison to British counterparts in class.
By cowofzot
#13422091
Er, no it was articulate, accurrate & unmeaningless.

After Jutland, we see these developments as regards armor.

Only the United States, which got into the battlecruiser business late (there was a general prejudice against high speed in the USN), went whole-hog for the "Fisher-ite" conception of the battlecruiser, designing the enormous, thin- skinned LEXINGTON class. These were much modified in the light of British experience, as transmitted to the USN by visiting constructor Stanley (later Sir Stanley) Goodall, and a lot of armor was added.

The "pure" (Fisher-ite) battlecruiser as a viable tactical conception was discredited at Jutland, and now the terminology gets rather strained. After the First World War, Britain finished HMS HOOD to a much modified design, with much heavier armor -- she was more of a fast battleship than a battlecruiser, but the original name stuck. Likewise, magnificent, never-built G3 class "battlecruisers" were more heavily protected than any existing battleship

http://www.gwpda.org/naval/bcs001.htm



Here's a good article about the propellants used on both sides.

http://jutland.wikia.com/wiki/Damage
User avatar
By MB.
#13422163
Fascinating.
By Smilin' Dave
#13422272
cowofzot wrote:They switched when they discovered it was more effective & less expensive after besting the British in the battle itself deciively.

This logic doesn't follow. I can't imagine the German high command said "well, we decisively defeated the British navy using our surface fleet... so we are going to quietly shelve it for the rest of the war in favour of submarines, which in the prelude to Jutland were a complete non-event". AFAIK the Germans considered Jutland to be a defeat, so what makes you think it wasn't? Apparently tonnage without reference to any strategic consideration.
By cowofzot
#13424370
Germans considered it a victory historically speaking. They realized that they had not enough ships to keep doing it, so they intelligently celebrated their victory whilst moving forward with the more cost effective strategy of submarine warfare.


the Kaiser claimed a German victory.


First Official German Statement on the Battle of Jutland, 31 May-1 June 1916
Berlin, June 1, 1916

During an enterprise directed to the northward our high sea fleet on May 31st encountered the main part of the English fighting fleet, which was considerably superior to our forces.

During the afternoon, between Skagerrak and Horn Reef, a heavy engagement developed, which was successful to us,

http://www.firstworldwar.com/battles/jutland.htm
By Smilin' Dave
#13424722
Your source is a piece of propaganda aimed at the general public, it proves nothing. Admiral Scheer, the commander of the High Seas Fleet, apparently thought the 'victory' so significant that he argued instead for submarine warfare. If submarines were simply the intelligent option, why didn't they just do that in the first place, and why was Scheer's suggest opposed? If the High Seas Fleet was victorious, why did it never effectively challenge the blockade?
By cowofzot
#13424737
Was this aimed at the public?

Scheer was offered a knighthood for his leadership at Jutland by German Kaiser Wilhelm II



Why didn't they just do submarines in the 1st place. War is learned "en-process" The British learned at Norway for example their navy was no match for the Luftwaffe. Scheer was intelligent enough to see through experience that submarine warfare offered very good results at less expense and risk. Simple tactics & strategy
By pugsville
#13424795
Jutland was a strategic defeat. It did nothing to stop the British blockade or command of the sea, name one strategic objective achieved by this "victory".

As for Battle Crusiers they were designed to run down raiders and and they were great in that role, as major componets of a battle line in a major fleet engagement they performed less well, it was not what they were designed for. Fisher didnt intend to have a fleet entirely of battle crusiers. I dont think here was a design flaw, the flaw was tactical usage.
By cowofzot
#13425893
To win the battle by sinking more enemy ships by a decisive margin. Objective achieved. We are well versed on the blockade which failed to stop Subs, which left command of the sea uncommanded by the British, thanks for reminding.



On 22-Sep-1914 the U 9 under command of Kapitanleutnant Otto Weddigen sank the British light cruisers Abourkir, Hogue and Cressy in the English Channel. The problem here is that both sides soon refused to put their warships at risk by cruising the high seas. The great naval build-up of the last decade may have been one of the most monumental wastes of money of all time - both fleets spending the majority of the war at their home bases with the notable exception of Jutland.

http://www.worldwar1.com/arm012.htm




The German fleet's intention was to lure out, trap and destroy a portion of the Grand Fleet, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jutland


They did that too, British lost 14, Germans 11. But British still had too many, so it was not cost effective compared to Sub warfare, Germans had not enough surface ships to continue this endlessly. They did achieve to a degree some of their objective-s however.
User avatar
By Oxymoron
#13425931
Well if the Germans invested their resources into subs instead of Dreadnoughts the results could have been very different for the Allies.
By cowofzot
#13426441
Donitz learned this in WW 1. Wolfpack tactics, surface attacks etc. The Z Plan was stupid.

Isn't oil and electricity bought and sold like ev[…]

@Potemkin I heard this song in the Plaza Grande […]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

The "Russian empire" story line is inve[…]

I (still) have a dream

Even with those millions though. I will not be ab[…]