A look at The Battle of Jutland 100 years on

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

A look at The Battle of Jutland 100 years on

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> A look at The Battle of Jutland 100 years on

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

A look at The Battle of Jutland 100 years on - 5/3/2016 7:50:08 AM

warspite1

Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

Gents and Lady

This is the intended thread for the planned discussion on the Battle of Jutland. Please feel free to add comments, questions etc.

Who knows, if there is enough interest shown maybe a games maker will decide to make a proper Jutland game

Some of the burning questions that still divide historians:

- Who won the battle?
- Why did three British battlecruisers blow up (with huge loss of life)?
- How were the Germans allowed to pass the British on their way back home without a response from the big guns?
- Were British shells defective?
- Whose fault was it that the British did not achieve their "second Trafalgar"?
- Was Jellicoe right to prioritise not "losing" the battle over "winning" the battle given that it was for the Germans to wrest control of the North Sea?
- Who made the most/least mistakes Jellicoe or Scheer? Beatty or Hipper?

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

Post #: 1

RE: A look at The Battle of Jutland 100 years on - 5/3/2016 10:01:59 AM

Jagdtiger14

Posts: 1686
Joined: 1/22/2008
From: Miami Beach
Status: offline

As for a WWI naval game, I would like to see a WWI version of Fighting Steel by SSI (1999). Perhaps something more strategic/operational where the Germans try to gain control of the North Sea...damage British installations/bombard cities and vice versa...perhaps getting involved with the land battle close to the sea. See the use of subs (Aces of the Deep) and torpedo boats. Perhaps a what if with the US fleet vs the British (US rejecting British blockade of Germany).

As for your questions...you and I already have had some debate on this I think:
1. Who "won"? I think you have to be a bit more specific since most believe Germany won tactically and Britain won strategically. Is this a poll question?
2. Bad design on the part of the British. Germans had a much better design philosophy.
3. Germans proved to be the better sailors. The turns they made were bold, unexpected, and perfectly executed. The bold use of subs and torpedo boats kept the big ships at bay.
4. I did read there was a defect concerning the shells. If not defective, then just wrongly designed.
5. I don't think it was a fault as to why the British didn't achieve a Trafalgar, but more of the Germans didn't allow it to happen. There is no comparison to the type of opponents faced in the two battles. At Trafalgar you had very poor quality crew vs Elite crew. There was no boldness about the SP/FR fighting style...Nelson was innovative. I would say Scheer/Hipper were more like Nelson than Jellico/Beatty were.
6. I think Jellico made sense in his over all strategy...it wasn't very sexy, but it was war winning.
7. I really think the villain of Jutland was Beatty. Jellico gets a bad rap. There was some political BS going on there, and I don't think Beatty was qualified to be in the position he was in...did Churchill have a hand in some of this?

Just to add something here...the British Battle Cruisers were weird looking ships. I'm no expert, and looks have nothing to do with effectiveness, etc... Just an observation, and probably a useless one.

< Message edited by Jagdtiger14 -- 5/3/2016 10:11:23 AM >

_____________________________

Conflict with the unexpected: two qualities are indispensable; first, an intellect which, even in the midst of this obscurity, is not without some traces of inner light which lead to the truth; second, the courage to follow this faint light. KvC

(in reply to warspite1)

Post #: 2

RE: A look at The Battle of Jutland 100 years on - 5/3/2016 4:34:29 PM

Rodwonder

Posts: 193
Joined: 12/7/2013
Status: offline

Has anybody checked out or played Atlantic Fleet on Steam? This game is great! And IMHO it would be, maybe, a good engine for a Jutland type game.

(in reply to Jagdtiger14)

Post #: 3

RE: A look at The Battle of Jutland 100 years on - 5/3/2016 5:20:16 PM

Aurelian

Posts: 3916
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline

Who won? Depends on how you look at it.

In terms of tonnage sunk, and casualties, the Germans won. Though IMHO it was an empty victory. And it was the HSF that ran for home after all.

In the broader strategic sense, it didn't change anything.

The Grand/Battlecruiser Fleets were still larger, had far superior firepower, and still ready to go the next day or so.

_____________________________

If the Earth was flat, cats would of knocked everything off of it long ago.

(in reply to Rodwonder)

Post #: 4

RE: A look at The Battle of Jutland 100 years on - 5/3/2016 7:16:27 PM

warspite1

Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14

As for a WWI naval game, I would like to see a WWI version of Fighting Steel by SSI (1999). Perhaps something more strategic/operational where the Germans try to gain control of the North Sea...damage British installations/bombard cities and vice versa...perhaps getting involved with the land battle close to the sea. See the use of subs (Aces of the Deep) and torpedo boats. Perhaps a what if with the US fleet vs the British (US rejecting British blockade of Germany).

As for your questions...you and I already have had some debate on this I think:
1. Who "won"? I think you have to be a bit more specific since most believe Germany won tactically and Britain won strategically. Is this a poll question?
2. Bad design on the part of the British. Germans had a much better design philosophy.
3. Germans proved to be the better sailors. The turns they made were bold, unexpected, and perfectly executed. The bold use of subs and torpedo boats kept the big ships at bay.
4. I did read there was a defect concerning the shells. If not defective, then just wrongly designed.
5. I don't think it was a fault as to why the British didn't achieve a Trafalgar, but more of the Germans didn't allow it to happen. There is no comparison to the type of opponents faced in the two battles. At Trafalgar you had very poor quality crew vs Elite crew. There was no boldness about the SP/FR fighting style...Nelson was innovative. I would say Scheer/Hipper were more like Nelson than Jellico/Beatty were.
6. I think Jellico made sense in his over all strategy...it wasn't very sexy, but it was war winning.
7. I really think the villain of Jutland was Beatty. Jellico gets a bad rap. There was some political BS going on there, and I don't think Beatty was qualified to be in the position he was in...did Churchill have a hand in some of this?

Just to add something here...the British Battle Cruisers were weird looking ships. I'm no expert, and looks have nothing to do with effectiveness, etc... Just an observation, and probably a useless one.

warspite1

No this isn't a poll. These were just some of the points of contention, and is designed to give a flavour of the myriad of discussion points and to get the ball rolling and invite comment.

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

(in reply to Jagdtiger14)

Post #: 5

RE: A look at The Battle of Jutland 100 years on - 5/3/2016 8:09:16 PM

Jagdtiger14

Posts: 1686
Joined: 1/22/2008
From: Miami Beach
Status: offline

quote:

In terms of tonnage sunk, and casualties, the Germans won. Though IMHO it was an empty victory. And it was the HSF that ran for home after all. In the broader strategic sense, it didn't change anything. The Grand/Battlecruiser Fleets were still larger, had far superior firepower, and still ready to go the next day or so.

Absolutely correct. The Germans hoped to have a Trafalgar like victory over the first part of the British fleet, rinse and repeat until numbers were about even.

The HSF had no other option than to flee once it was known the entire British fleet had shown up. So, I wouldn't put "running for home" a strike against them, they still had the option to do something again when they were ready and perhaps under a different plan...which they did...just not in the mass of Jutland proportions.

As for the British, losing the manpower sucked of course, but as for losing the ships that they did seems to me to not have been of much consequence. More so for the Germans as a propaganda victory.

Battle cruisers: Their stated intent (plus strengths/weaknesses) seems to not have been a good fit for the British other than maybe cost savings. The best use for them would be as surface raiders as the Germans used them in WWII.

_____________________________

(in reply to Aurelian)

Post #: 6

RE: A look at The Battle of Jutland 100 years on - 5/4/2016 6:12:25 AM

warspite1

Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

First off I will provide the Order of Battle for the British and German fleets. Note: Already I am seeing the usual differences between sources. I will continue updating as and when I find new reliable info. I am particularly unhappy at the destroyer detail at present.

Note: as a starting point, and to save typing out, this has come directly from Wikipedia and is being amended to make it more readable.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
British Forces

The Grand Fleet (GF)

Commander-in-chief, Grand Fleet: Adm Sir John Jellicoe onboard HMS Iron Duke
Second in Command, Grand Fleet: VAdm Sir Cecil Burney onboard HMS Marlborough

The Grand Fleet's 28 available battleships were organized into four Battle Squadrons.

2nd Battle Squadron: VAdm Thomas Jerram

1st Division: VAdm Jerram
HMS King George V (flagship): Capt Frederick Field
HMS Ajax: Capt George Baird
HMS Centurion: Capt Michael Culme-Seymour
HMS Erin: Capt the Hon. Victor Stanley

2nd Division: RAdm Arthur Leveson
HMS Orion (flagship): Capt Oliver Backhouse
HMS Monarch: Capt George Borrett
HMS Conqueror: Capt Hugh Tothill
HMS Thunderer: Capt James Fergusson

4th Battle Squadron: VAdm Sir Frederick Sturdee

3rd Division: RAdm Sir Alexander Duff
HMS Iron Duke: Capt Frederic Dreyer
HMS Royal Oak: Capt Crawford Maclachlan
HMS Superb (flagship): Capt Edmond Hyde Parker
HMS Canada: Capt William Nicholson

4th Division: VAdm Sturdee
HMS Benbow (flagship): Capt Henry Parker
HMS Bellerophon: Capt Edward Bruen
HMS Temeraire: Capt Edwin Underhill
HMS Vanguard: Capt James Dick

1st Battle Squadron: VAdm Sir Cecil Burney

Fifth Division: RAdm Ernest Gaunt
HMS Colossus (flagship): Capt Alfred Pound
HMS Collingwood: Capt James Ley
HMS St. Vincent: Capt William Fisher
HMS Neptune: Capt Vivian Bernard

Sixth Division: VAdm Burney
HMS Marlborough (flagship): Capt George Ross
HMS Revenge: Capt Edward Kiddle
HMS Hercules: Capt Lewis Clinton-Baker
HMS Agincourt: Capt Henry Doughty

3rd Battle Cruiser Squadron: RAdm the Hon. Horace Hood

HMS Invincible (flagship): Capt Arthur Cay
HMS Inflexible: Capt Edward Heaton-Ellis
HMS Indomitable: Capt Francis Kennedy

1st Cruiser Squadron: RAdm Sir Robert Arbuthnot

HMS Defence (flagship): Capt Stanley Ellis
HMS Warrior: Capt Vincent Molteno
HMS Duke of Edinburgh: Capt Henry Blackett
HMS Black Prince: Capt Thomas Bonham

2nd Cruiser Squadron: RAdm Herbert Heath

HMS Minotaur (flagship): Capt Arthur D'Aeth
HMS Hampshire: Capt Herbert Savill
HMS Shannon: Capt John Dumaresq
HMS Cochrane: Capt Eustace Leatham

4th Light Cruiser Squadron: Cdre Charles Le Mesurier

HMS Calliope: Cdre Le Mesurier
HMS Constance: Capt Cyril Townsend
HMS Comus: Capt Alan Hotham
HMS Caroline: Capt Henry Crooke
HMS Royalist: Capt the Hon. Herbert Meade

Light cruisers attached

HMS Boadicea: Capt Louis Woollcombe (attached to 2nd B.S.)
HMS Active: Capt Percy Withers (attached to Fleet Flagship)
HMS Blanche: Capt John Casement (attached to 4th B.S.)
HMS Bellona: Capt Arthur Dutton (attached to 1st. B.S.)
HMS Canterbury: Capt Percy Royds
HMS Chester: Capt Robert Lawson

Commodore, Destroyer Flotillas, Grand Fleet: Cdre James Hawksley onboard the light cruiser HMS Castor (11th Destroyer Flotilla)

4th Destroyer Flotilla: Capt Charles Wintour

HMS Tipperary (flotilla leader): Capt Wintour
HMS Spitfire: Lt Cdr Clarence Trelawney
HMS Sparrowhawk: Lt Cdr Sydney Hopkins
HMS Garland: Lt Cdr Reginald Goff
HMS Contest: Lt Cdr Ernald Master
HMS Owl: Cdr Robert Hamond
HMS Hardy: Cdr Richard Plowden
HMS Mischief: Lt Cdr the Hon. Cyril Ward
HMS Midge: Lt Cdr James Cavendish
HMS Broke: Cdr Walter Allen
HMS Porpoise: Cdr Hugh Colville
HMS Unity: Lt Cdr Arthur Lecky
HMS Achates: Cdr Reginald Hutchinson
HMS Ambuscade: Lt Cdr Gordon Coles
HMS Ardent: Lt Cdr Arthur Marsden
HMS Fortune: Lt Cdr Frank Goodrich Terry
HMS Shark: Cdr Loftus William Jones
HMS Ophelia: Cdr Lewis Gonne Eyre Crabbe
HMS Christopher: Lt Cdr Fairfax Moresby Kerr
HMS Acasta: Lt Cdr John Ouchterlony Barron

7th Destroyer Flotilla: Cdr Harold Ernest Sullivan

HMS Ossory: Cdr Harold Dundas
HMS Martial: Lt Cdr Julian Harrison
HMS Magic: Lt Cdr Gerald Wynter
HMS Minion: Lt Cdr Henry Rawlings
HMS Mystic: Cdr Claud Allsup
HMS Mons: Lt Cdr Robert Makin
HMS Mandate: Lt Cdr Edward Lawrie
HMS Michael: Lt Cdr Claude Bate
HMS Kempenfelt (flotilla leader): Cdr Sullivan
HMS Marne: Lt Cdr George Hartford
HMS Milbrook: Lt Charles Naylor
HMS Manners: Lt Cdr Gerald Harrison
HMS Moon: Cdr William Irvin
HMS Mounsey: Lt Cdr Ralph Eyre
HMS Morning Star: Lt Cdr Hugh Fletcher

12th Destroyer Flotilla: Capt Anselan Stirling

HMS Faulknor (flotilla leader): Capt Stirling
HMS Obedient: Cdr George Campbell
HMS Mindful: Lt Cdr John Ridley
HMS Marvel: Lt Cdr Reginald Grubb
HMS Onslaught: Lt Cdr Arthur Onslow
HMS Maenad: Cdr John Champion
HMS Narwhal: Lt Cdr Henry Hudson
HMS Nessus: Lt Cdr Eric Carter
HMS Noble: Lt Cdr Henry Boxer
HMS Marksman (flotilla leader): Cdr Norton Sullivan
HMS Opal: Cdr Charles Sumner
HMS Nonsuch: Lt Cdr Herber Lyon
HMS Menace: Lt Cdr Charles Poignand
HMS Munster: Lt Cdr Spencer Russell
HMS Mary Rose: Lt Cdr Edwin Homan

Other ships attached

HMS Abdiel: Cdr Berwick Curtis (destroyer-minelayer)
HMS Oak: Lt Cdr Douglas Faviell (destroyer)

Battle Cruiser Fleet (BCF)

Commander, Battle Cruiser Fleet: VAdm Sir David Beatty onboard HMS Lion

Battlecruiser Fleet Flagship
HMS Lion: Capt Alfred Chatfield

1st Battlecruiser Squadron : RAdm Osmond Brock

HMS Princess Royal (flagship): Capt Walter Cowan
HMS Queen Mary: Capt Cecil Prowse
HMS Tiger: Capt Henry Pelly

2nd Battlecruiser Squadron: RAdm. William Pakenham

HMS New Zealand (flagship): Capt John Green
HMS Indefatigable: Capt Charles Sowerby

5th Battle Squadron: RAdm Hugh Evan-Thomas

HMS Barham (flagship): Capt Arthur Craig
HMS Valiant: Capt Maurice Woollcombe
HMS Warspite: Capt Edwardy Phillpotts
HMS Malaya: Capt the Hon. Algernon Boyle

1st Light Cruiser Squadron: Cdre Edwyn Alexander-Sinclair

HMS Galatea: Cdre Alexander-Sinclair
HMS Phaeton: Capt John Cameron
HMS Inconstant: Capt Bertram Thesiger
HMS Cordelia: Capt Tufton Beamish

2nd Light Cruiser Squadron: Cdre William Goodenough

HMS Southampton: Cdre Goodenough
HMS Birmingham: Capt Arthur Duff
HMS Nottingham: Capt Charles Miller
HMS Dublin: Capt Albert Scott

3rd Light Cruiser Squadron: RAdm Trevylyan Napier

HMS Falmouth (flagship): Capt John Edwards
HMS Yarmouth: Capt Thomas Pratt
HMS Birkenhead: Capt Edward Reeves
HMS Gloucester: Capt William Blunt

13th Destroyer Flotilla: Capt James Farie onboard HMS Champion (light cruiser)

HMS Obdurate: Lt Cdr Cecil Henry Sams
HMS Nerissa: Lt Cdr Montague Legge
HMS Moresby: Lt Cdr Roger Alison (detached to escort HMS Engadine)
HMS Nestor: Cdr the Hon. Edward Bingham
HMS Nomad: Lt Cdr Paul Whitfield
HMS Nicator: Lt Jack Ernest Mocatta
HMS Onslow: Lt Cdr John Tovey (detached to escort HMS Engadine)
HMS Narborough: Lt Cdr Geoffrey Corlett
HMS Pelican: Lt Cdr Kenneth Beattie
HMS Petard: Lt Cdr Evelyn Claude Thomson

9th Destroyer Flotilla: Cdr Malcolm Lennon Goldsmith

HMS Lydiard: Cdr Goldsmith
HMS Liberty: Lt Cdr Philip King
HMS Landrail: Lt Cdr Francis Hobart
HMS Moorsom: Cdr John Hodgson (from 10th D.F.)
HMS Laurel: Lt Henry Stanistreet
HMS Morris: Lt Cdr Edward Graham (from 10th D.F.)
HMS Turbulent: Lt Cdr Dudley Stuart (from 10th D.F)
HMS Termagant: Lt Cdr Cuthbert Blake (from 10th D.F)

1st Destroyer Flotilla: Capt Charles Donnison Roper onboard HMS Fearless (light cruiser)

HMS Defender: Lt Cdr Laurence Palmer
HMS Acheron: Cdr Charles Ramsey
HMS Ariel: Lt Cdr Arthur Tippet
HMS Attack: Lt Cdr Charles James
HMS Hydra: Lt Francis Glossop
HMS Badger: Cdr Charles Fremantle
HMS Lizard: Lt Cdr Edward Brooke
HMS Goshawk: Cdr Dashwood Moir
HMS Lapwing: Lt Cdr Alexander Gye

Attached vessel

HMS Engadine: Lt Cdr Charles Robinson (seaplane tender)

< Message edited by warspite1 -- 5/5/2016 6:46:47 PM >

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

(in reply to Jagdtiger14)

Post #: 7

RE: A look at The Battle of Jutland 100 years on - 5/4/2016 6:22:15 AM

warspite1

Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

Note: as above, as a starting point, and to save typing out, this has come directly from Wikipedia - however I will amend the presentation in due course - including adding details of the ships key technical data and moving some of the positions within the list to make this more understandable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
German Forces

High Seas Fleet (HSF)

Commander-in-Chief: VAdm Reinhard Scheer onboard Friedrich der Grosse

3rd Battle Squadron (Geschwader): RAdm Paul Behncke

5th Division: RAdm Behncke
SMS K�nig (flagship): Capt Friedrich Br�ninghaus
SMS Grosser Kurf�rst: Capt Ernst Goette
SMS Kronprinz: Capt Constanz Feldt
SMS Markgraf: Capt Karl Seiferling

6th Division: RAdm Hermann Nordmann
SMS Kaiser (flagship): Capt Walter Frhr von Keyserling
SMS Prinzregent Luitpold: Capt Karl Heuser
SMS Kaiserin: Capt Karl Sievers
SMS Friedrich der Grosse: Capt Theodor Fuchs

1st Battle Squadron (Geschwader): VAdm Ehrhard Schmidt

1st Division: VAdm Schmidt
SMS Ostfriesland (flagship): Capt Ernst-Oldwig von Natzmer
SMS Th�ringen: Capt Hans K�sel
SMS Helgoland: Capt Friedrich von Kameke
SMS Oldenburg: Capt Wilhelm H�pfner

2nd Division: RAdm Walter Engelhardt
SMS Posen (flagship): Capt Richard Lange
SMS Rheinland: Capt Heinrich Rohardt
SMS Nassau: Capt Robert K�hne
SMS Westfalen: Capt Johannes Redlich

2nd Battle Squadron (Geschwader): RAdm Franz Mauve

3rd Division: RAdm Mauve
SMS Deutschland (flagship): Capt Hugo Meurer
SMS Hessen: Capt Rudolf Bartels
SMS Pommern: Capt Siegfried B�lken

4th Division: RAdm Frhr Gottfried von Dalwigk zu Lichtenfels
SMS Hannover (flagship): Capt Wilhlem Heine
SMS Schlesien: Capt Friedrich Behncke
SMS Schleswig-Holstein: Capt Eduard Varrentrapp

4th Scouting Group (Aufkl�rungsgruppe): Kom Ludwig von Reuter

SMS Stettin (flagship): Cdr Friedrich Rebensburg
SMS M�nchen: Lt Cdr Oscar B�cker
SMS Frauenlob: Cdr Georg Hoffman�
SMS Stuttgart: Cdr Max Hagedorn
SMS Hamburg: Lt Cdr Gerhard von Gaudecker

Torpedo Boats (the equivalent of British destroyers)

First Leader of Torpedo-Boats: Cdre Andreas Michelsen onboard the light cruiser SMS Rostock flagship 1st Leader of Torpedo-Boats): Cdr Otto Feldmann

1st Torpedo-Boat Flotilla (I. Torpedoboots-Flottille)
1st Half-Flotilla (1. Halbflottille): Lt Conrad Albrecht
SMS G39 (lead boat, half-flotilla): SLt Franz-Ferdinand von Loefen
SMS G40: Lt Richard Beitzen
SMS G38: Lt Hermann Metger
SMS S32: Lt Hermann Froelich

3rd Torpedo-Boat Flotilla (III. Torpedoboots-Flottille): Lt Cdr Wilhelm Hollmann
SMS S53 (lead boat, flotilla): Lt Friedrich G�tting
5th Half-Flotilla (5. Halbflottille): Lt Theophil Gautier
SMS V71 (lead boat, half-flotilla): SLt Friedrich Ulrich
SMS V73: Lt Martin Delbr�ck
SMS G88: Lt Hans Scabell

6th Half-Flotilla (6. Halbflottille): Lt Cdr Theodor Riedel
SMS V48 (lead boat, half-flotilla): Lt Friedrich Eckoldt
SMS S54: Lt Otto Karlowa
SMS G42: Lt Bernd von Arnim

5th Torpedo-Boat Flotilla (V. Torpedoboots-Flottille): Lt Cdr Oskar Heinecke
SMS G11 (lead boat, flotilla): Lt Adolf M�ller
9th Half-Flotilla (9. Halbflottille): Lt Gerhard Hoefer
SMS V2 (lead boat, half-flotilla): Lt Gerhard Hoefer
SMS V4: Lt Armin Barop
SMS V6: SLt Hans Behrendt
SMS V1: SLt Hans R�thig
SMS V3: Lt Manfred von Killinger

10th Half-Flotilla (10. Halbflottille): Lt Friedrich Klein
SMS G8 (lead boat, half-flotilla): SLt Ernst Rodenberg
SMS V5: SLt Paul Tils
SMS G7: Lt Johannes Weinecke
SMS G9: Lt Hans Ansch�tz
SMS G10: SLt Waldemar Haumann

7th Torpedo-Boat Flotilla (VII. Torpedoboots-Flottille): Lt Cdr Gottlieb von Koch
SMS S24 (lead boat, flotilla): Lt Max Fink

13th Half-Flotilla (13. Halbflottille): Lt Georg von Zitzewitz
SMS S15 (lead boat, half-flotilla): SLt Christian Schmidt
SMS S17: Lt Hans-Joachim von Puttkammer
SMS S20: Lt Albert Benecke
SMS S16: Lt Walter Loeffler
SMS S18: Lt Bruno Haushalter

14th Half-Flotilla (14. Halbflottille): Lt Cdr Hermann Cordes
SMS S19 (lead boat, half-flotilla): SLt Georg Reimer
SMS S23: Lt Arthur von Killinger
SMS V189: SLt Wilhelm Keil

Scouting Force
Commander, Scouting Forces (Befehlshaber die Aufkl�rungsstreitkr�fte): VAdm Franz Hipper

1st Scouting Group (I. Aufkl�rungsgruppe): VAdm Hipper
SMS L�tzow (flagship): Capt Victor Harder
SMS Derfflinger: Capt Johannes Hartog
SMS Seydlitz: Capt Moritz von Egidy
SMS Moltke: Capt Johannes von Karpf
SMS Von der Tann: Capt Hans Zenker

2nd Scouting Group (II. Aufkl�rungsgruppe): RAdm Friedrich B�dicker
SMS Frankfurt (flagship): Capt Thilo von Trotha
SMS Elbing* : Cdr Rudolf Madlung
SMS Pillau: Cdr Konrad Mommsen(GE)
SMS Wiesbaden*: Cdr Fritz Rei߆

Second Leader of Torpedo-Boats: Cdre Paul Heinrich
SMS Regensburg (Light Cruiser): Second Leader of Torpedo-Boats): Cdr Bruno Heuberer
2nd Torpedo-Boat Flotilla (II. Torpedoboots-Flottille): Cdr Heinrich Schuur
SMS B98 (lead boat, flotilla): Lt Theodor Hengstenberg

3rd Half-Flotilla (3. Halbflottille): Lt Cdr Heinrich Boest
SMS G101 (lead boat, half-flotilla): Lt Rudolf Schulte
SMS G102: Lt von Barendorff
SMS B112: Lt August Claussen
SMS B97: Lt Leo Riedel

4th Half-Flotilla (4. Halbflottille): Lt Cdr Adolf Dithmar
SMS B109 (lead boat, half-flotilla): Lt Victor Hahndorff
SMS B110: Lt August Vollheim
SMS B111: Lt Heinrich Schickhardt
SMS G103: Lt Fritz Spiess
SMS G104: Lt Georg von Bartenwerffer

6th Torpedo-Boat Flotilla (VI. Torpedoboots-Flottille): Lt Cdr Max Schultz
SMS G41 (lead boat, flotilla): Lt Hermann Boehm

11th Half-Flotilla (11. Halbflottille): Lt Wilhelm R�man
SMS V44 (lead boat, half-flotilla): Lt Karl von Holleuffer
SMS G87: Lt Siegfried Karstens
SMS G86: Lt Kurt Grimm

12th Half-Flotilla (12. Halbflottille): Lt Rudolf Lahs
SMS V69 (lead boat, half-flotilla): Lt Robert Stecher
SMS V45: Lt Martin La�mann
SMS V46: Lt Bruno Krumhaar
SMS S50: Lt Philipp Recke
SMS G37: Lt Wolf von Trotha

9th Torpedo-Boat Flotilla (IX. Torpedoboots-Flottille): Lt Cdr Herbert Goehle
SMS V28 (lead boat, flotilla): Lt Otto Lenssen

17th Half-Flotilla (17. Halbflottille): Lt Hermann Ehrhardt
SMS V27 (lead boat, half-flotilla): SLt Hartmut Buddecke
SMS V26: Lt Hans K�hler
SMS S36: Lt Franz Fischer
SMS S51: Lt Werner Dette
SMS S52: Lt Wilhelm Ehrentraut

18th Half-Flotilla (17. Halbflottille): Lt Cdr Werner Tillessen
SMS V30 (lead boat, half-flotilla): SLt Ernst Wolf
SMS S34: Lt Otto Andersen
SMS S33: Lt Waldemar von M�nch
SMS V29: Lt Erich Steinbrinck
SMS S35: Lt Friedrich Ihn

Leader of Submarines (F�hrer der Unterseeboote): Capt Hermann Bauer in SMS Hamburg
The following submarines were deployed to attack the Grand Fleet in the North Sea during the period of the Battle of Jutland

Off Terschelling:
U-46: SLt Leo Hillebrand
U-67: SLt Nieland
Off the Humber estuary:
UB-21: SLt Ernst Hashagen

Off Flamborough Head, Yorkshire:
UB-22: SLt Putzier

Off the Firth of Forth, Scotland:
U-52: SLt Hans Walter
U-24: SLt Rudolf Schneider
U-70: SLt W�nsche
U-32: SLt Baron Spiegel von und zu Peckelsheim
U-51: SLt Rumpfel
U-63: SLt Otto Schultze
U-66: SLt von Bothmer

Off Peterhead, Scotland:
U-47: SLt Metzger

Off the Pentland Firth (between the Orkneys and the Scottish mainland):
U-44: SLt Wagenf�her
U-43: SLt J�rst

< Message edited by warspite1 -- 5/5/2016 7:09:47 PM >

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

(in reply to warspite1)

Post #: 8

RE: A look at The Battle of Jutland 100 years on - 5/4/2016 6:33:56 AM

warspite1

Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

Note: Once again this is directly from Wikipedia (but by adding the seaplane carrier the totals look correct) purely in the interests of time, but will be amended and expanded upon in due course.

At-a-glance comparison of forces

Dreadnoughts
British = 28 (see post 25 for a closer look at these vessels)
German = 16 (see post 28 for a closer look at these vessels)

Pre-Dreadnought Battleships
British = 0
German = 6 (see post 29)

Battlecruisers
British = 9
German = 5

Armoured Cruisers
British = 8
German = 0

Light Cruisers
British = 26
German = 11

Destroyers/Torpedo Boat equivalents
British = 79
German = 61

Seaplane Carrier
British = 1
German = 0

Total
British = 151
German = 99

< Message edited by warspite1 -- 5/7/2016 2:03:32 PM >

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

(in reply to warspite1)

Post #: 9

RE: A look at The Battle of Jutland 100 years on - 5/4/2016 5:20:56 PM

Capt. Harlock

Posts: 5358
Joined: 9/15/2001
From: Los Angeles
Status: offline

quote:

In terms of tonnage sunk, and casualties, the Germans won. Though IMHO it was an empty victory. And it was the HSF that ran for home after all.

In the broader strategic sense, it didn't change anything.

The Grand/Battlecruiser Fleets were still larger, had far superior firepower, and still ready to go the next day or so.

I would not agree that Jutland didn't change anything. Though, even if it hadn't, it would still count as a strategic victory for the British. As one English journalist wrote, "The German fleet has assaulted its jailor but remains in jail." The sea blockade of Germany remained in place, with eventual devastating consequences for the Central Powers' economies and war effort.

But although the British losses in sunk ships and men were higher, in the aftermath of Jutland, the Grand Fleet actually increased its margin of superiority. Many more German ships returned to port damaged and not fit for further action until repaired. To the best of my knowledge, British construction, and eventual American additions made sure the High Seas Fleet never came as close to parity in serviceable ships as on May 31, 1916.

And there was one important factor that was never repaired -- morale. The sailors of the High Seas Fleet had believed that the superiority of their training, discipline, and ship design rendered them a match for the Grand Fleet. Previous to Jutland, many of the German crews (I would say the majority) were looking forward to Der Tag, the day when the two fleets would clash. But when it happened, they saw with their own eyes just how much larger the Grand Fleet was. And more than one German ship came home with 15-inch holes, at a time when there was not an active German warship mounting anything bigger than 12-inch (305 mm). I believe that it was this blow to morale that caused the mutiny of 1918, which in turn led immediately to the outbreak of revolution and governmental collapse across Germany.

_____________________________

Civil war? What does that mean? Is there any foreign war? Isn't every war fought between men, between brothers?

--Victor Hugo

(in reply to Aurelian)

Post #: 10

RE: A look at The Battle of Jutland 100 years on - 5/4/2016 7:02:46 PM

Aurelian

Posts: 3916
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Capt. Harlock

quote:

In terms of tonnage sunk, and casualties, the Germans won. Though IMHO it was an empty victory. And it was the HSF that ran for home after all.

In the broader strategic sense, it didn't change anything.

The Grand/Battlecruiser Fleets were still larger, had far superior firepower, and still ready to go the next day or so.

I would not agree that Jutland didn't change anything. Though, even if it hadn't, it would still count as a strategic victory for the British. As one English journalist wrote, "The German fleet has assaulted its jailor but remains in jail." The sea blockade of Germany remained in place, with eventual devastating consequences for the Central Powers' economies and war effort.

But although the British losses in sunk ships and men were higher, in the aftermath of Jutland, the Grand Fleet actually increased its margin of superiority. Many more German ships returned to port damaged and not fit for further action until repaired. To the best of my knowledge, British construction, and eventual American additions made sure the High Seas Fleet never came as close to parity in serviceable ships as on May 31, 1916.

And there was one important factor that was never repaired -- morale. The sailors of the High Seas Fleet had believed that the superiority of their training, discipline, and ship design rendered them a match for the Grand Fleet. Previous to Jutland, many of the German crews (I would say the majority) were looking forward to Der Tag, the day when the two fleets would clash. But when it happened, they saw with their own eyes just how much larger the Grand Fleet was. And more than one German ship came home with 15-inch holes, at a time when there was not an active German warship mounting anything bigger than 12-inch (305 mm). I believe that it was this blow to morale that caused the mutiny of 1918, which in turn led immediately to the outbreak of revolution and governmental collapse across Germany.

So what changed then? HSF broke out into the Atlantic? Blockaded Britain? Controlled the Channel?

Did the HSF suddenly get larger than the RN? Did it suddenly get more firepower that the RN? Was it ready to fight a day or so later?

< Message edited by Aurelian -- 5/4/2016 7:10:04 PM >

_____________________________

If the Earth was flat, cats would of knocked everything off of it long ago.

(in reply to Capt. Harlock)

Post #: 11

RE: A look at The Battle of Jutland 100 years on - 5/5/2016 4:42:40 AM

Jagdtiger14

Posts: 1686
Joined: 1/22/2008
From: Miami Beach
Status: offline

The Germans (including crews) knew how big the British fleet was...no demoralization due to that factor...in fact the opposite as mentioned (Der Tag).

The blow to German morale happened when near the end of the lost war the Kaiser wanted to sortie out one more time to use this asset (use it or lose it)...the crews didn't take too kindly to the Kaisers disregard for their lives. This is what led to the mutiny.

A couple months after Jutland the German newest Battleship Bayern came on line with 15 inch guns. There was an aborted fleet advance into the North Sea in August and again in October. The Brits had cracked the High Seas Fleet code earlier in the war and the Germans were too stupid to change it frequently...so those two attempts came to naught.

What I don't get is how or why the German Zeps were not more effective...as aerial scouts. At Jutland the weather hampered them, but after (Scheer was disappointed with them being so off in their recon at the August action)? Also, the subs lying in wait...if they had hit something as the fleet was steaming south it might have given Scheer extra time with Beatty. A sub sinking the Nottingham in the August action caused a 3 hour delay. The HSF with 3 more hours with Beatty...

< Message edited by Jagdtiger14 -- 5/5/2016 5:40:36 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Aurelian)

Post #: 12

RE: A look at The Battle of Jutland 100 years on - 5/5/2016 6:30:19 AM

warspite1

Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14

.... A sub sinking the Nottingham in the August action caused a 3 hour delay. The HSF with 3 more hours with Beatty...

warspite1

In the context of why the two sides were at sea that day, where they were, what they planned, and what would need to happen for the HSF to have "3 more hours" with Beatty, this comment makes no sense to me.

However, I will not debate this now but when the thread moves on to the opening phase of the British and German sorties I will come back to this point as I am intrigued (if more than a little confused) as to what you have in mind.

As for the subs, that should be no surprise given the newness of the technology and the failure rate of attacks in WWI. Even in WWII when navies tried similar things, how many times did it actually work? E.g. the Germans tried it during the Norwegian Campaign, the Japanese tried it. It was no easy thing for a sub to kill a heavily escorted, reasonably fast moving capital ship - even when they know roughly where the enemy will be coming from.

< Message edited by warspite1 -- 5/5/2016 6:43:45 AM >

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

(in reply to Jagdtiger14)

Post #: 13

RE: A look at The Battle of Jutland 100 years on - 5/5/2016 7:21:25 AM

Jagdtiger14

Posts: 1686
Joined: 1/22/2008
From: Miami Beach
Status: offline

quote:

As for the subs, that should be no surprise given the newness of the technology and the failure rate of attacks in WWI. Even in WWII when navies tried similar things, how many times did it actually work? E.g. the Germans tried it during the Norwegian Campaign, the Japanese tried it. It was no easy thing for a sub to kill a heavily escorted, reasonably fast moving capital ship - even when they know roughly where the enemy will be coming from.

I agree. Even when injured and limping they were hard to hit...Warspite returning from Jutland had a 3 torpedo spread shot at it.

However, the U-52 did sink the HMS Nottingham 19 August, 2016 early in the August Action, and there was the HMS Falmouth sunk in that same action by two subs. Also, in that action the SMS Munchen was damaged by the British sub E38 (and SMS Westfallen by E23).

I'll come back as to what I mean concerning the three hours when appropriate (Jellico leaving and moving through the German sub picket).

< Message edited by Jagdtiger14 -- 5/5/2016 7:26:09 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to warspite1)

Post #: 14

RE: A look at The Battle of Jutland 100 years on - 5/5/2016 8:50:19 AM

Speedysteve

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline

Very interesting battle!

My view is strategically it was a victory for the British but tactically a victory for the Germans. I feel that the better 'leadership' was displayed by Scheer and Hipper over the course of the battle. Never been a massive fan of Beatty. He may have been inspirational and was brave but he didn't take note of the fine details or (in my opinion) the bigger Strategic side (for example rushing ahead and not waiting for for the QE's).

Fault for the British shells must lay with The Admiralty and also partly Jellicoe as he was aware of this potential problem for years before.

Never had a massive bone to pick with Jellicoe overall. He was the Cautious, studious type admiral who was very aware of the bigger strategic picture and importance of The Fleet. As such I can understand his decision to not force the action.

From a personal perspective the battle always feels like a bit of an anti-climax though due to it being The Moment for surface vessels vs surface vessels but relatively (not to dismiss the immense loss of life!) little was lost ship wise.

< Message edited by Speedy -- 5/5/2016 8:57:22 AM >

_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to Jagdtiger14)

Post #: 15

RE: A look at The Battle of Jutland 100 years on - 5/5/2016 9:35:05 AM

Orm

Posts: 22154
Joined: 5/3/2008
From: Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

My view is strategically it was a victory for the British but tactically a victory for the Germans.

I do not want to argue with you about this since it is the accepted view.

I do, however, want to say that I do not understand the concept 'strategic victory'.

If I got 'strategic victory' right. Then, in this battle, anything but a 'strategic victory' for Germany would be a British 'strategic victory'. A draw, as I see it, was not possible with this definition of 'strategic victory'.

Another trouble I have with the concept of 'strategic victory' is that it, sort of, redefines the result of a battle depending on what happens after, and sometimes long after the actual battle.

For example. If there had been another major battle between the main fleets after the Battle of Jutland then the Battle of Jutland would, I think, be considered inconclusive. And if the German side, at the time when the Battle of Jutland ended, already planned for the next attempt at a major sea battle with the British, and then abandons that idea because of the US entry into the war. Then it was the US entry into the war that changed the German plans and not the battle of Jutland. So should not the US entry into the war then be the 'strategic victory'?

_____________________________

Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb -- they're often students, for heaven's sake. - Terry Pratchett

(in reply to Speedysteve)

Post #: 16

RE: A look at The Battle of Jutland 100 years on - 5/5/2016 12:21:23 PM

Speedysteve

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline

Hi Orm,

Taking the Battle of Jutland on its own I view it as a British Strategic victory since the Germans retreated and were still in the same position after this. For them to have achieved strategic victory I view them as needing to have severely depleted the Grand Fleet so that they had more flexibility and freedom to operate than what they did. In short I agree with you that a draw/status quo at Jutland doesn't change the Strategic position and as such can only be seen as a British Strategic Victory. Again just my 2p

< Message edited by Speedy -- 5/5/2016 1:03:30 PM >

_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to Orm)

Post #: 17

RE: A look at The Battle of Jutland 100 years on - 5/5/2016 3:54:22 PM

Aurelian

Posts: 3916
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline

http://webpages.charter.net/abacus/news/jutland/cont.htm

Well worth the read .(Bought the book back in the 1980s.)

_____________________________

If the Earth was flat, cats would of knocked everything off of it long ago.

(in reply to Speedysteve)

Post #: 18

RE: A look at The Battle of Jutland 100 years on - 5/5/2016 4:51:34 PM

Capt. Harlock

Posts: 5358
Joined: 9/15/2001
From: Los Angeles
Status: offline

quote:

A couple months after Jutland the German newest Battleship Bayern came on line with 15 inch guns.

A couple of months after is still after. In the meantime, British construction was going on at a much higher rate. By the end of the war the Germans had just two 15-inch-gunned ships. The British had ten 15-inch dreadnoughts, plus two or three 15-inch battlecruisers.

_____________________________

Civil war? What does that mean? Is there any foreign war? Isn't every war fought between men, between brothers?

--Victor Hugo

(in reply to Jagdtiger14)

Post #: 19

RE: A look at The Battle of Jutland 100 years on - 5/5/2016 5:18:17 PM

Jagdtiger14

Posts: 1686
Joined: 1/22/2008
From: Miami Beach
Status: offline

Thank you Aurelian for the link. I found it very useful, especially Chapter 18 (Summary and discussion).

Here is a link to Scheer's memoir "Germany's High Sea Fleet in the World War":

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

_____________________________

(in reply to Capt. Harlock)

Post #: 20

RE: A look at The Battle of Jutland 100 years on - 5/5/2016 5:22:45 PM

Jagdtiger14

Posts: 1686
Joined: 1/22/2008
From: Miami Beach
Status: offline

quote:

A couple of months after is still after. In the meantime, British construction was going on at a much higher rate. By the end of the war the Germans had just two 15-inch-gunned ships. The British had ten 15-inch dreadnoughts, plus two or three 15-inch battlecruisers.

I highly recommend you read the link from Aurelian....especially Chapter 18. There are other important things besides the caliber of gun (rate of fire, shell, etc...) Also, the Germans employed their secondary guns far more than the British.

_____________________________

(in reply to Capt. Harlock)

Post #: 21

RE: A look at The Battle of Jutland 100 years on - 5/5/2016 7:18:08 PM

warspite1

Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

As I'm going through the OOB its interesting to see some familiar names - junior officers that would hold higher rank in the next war e.g. Messrs Pound and Tovey and names of German captains and admirals that would have pocket-battleships, cruisers and destroyers named after them e.g. Messrs Scheer, Hipper, Steinbrinck and Ihn.

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

(in reply to Jagdtiger14)

Post #: 22

RE: A look at The Battle of Jutland 100 years on - 5/5/2016 8:16:50 PM

Speedysteve

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline

Canaris was also aboard one of the light cruisers sunk off South America IIRC

_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to warspite1)

Post #: 23

RE: A look at The Battle of Jutland 100 years on - 5/5/2016 8:21:41 PM

warspite1

Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Speedy

Canaris was also aboard one of the light cruisers sunk off South America IIRC

warspite1

He was on the Dresden - she was scuttled later off the coast of Chile and the crew interned there.

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

(in reply to Speedysteve)

Post #: 24

RE: A look at The Battle of Jutland 100 years on - 5/5/2016 8:22:07 PM

warspite1

Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

Royal Navy

The top table below shows the key data for the 28 Battleships that took part in the Battle of Jutland. The bottom table shows the battleships available to the British during WWI but that were unavailable for a variety of reasons. These are shown to give a complete picture of the capital ship position by May 1916.

The next table shows the same information for the battlecruisers that fought at the battle and those unavailable in May 1916.

Source: Conways All The World's Fighting Ships 1906-1921

Attachment (2)

< Message edited by warspite1 -- 5/7/2016 5:52:02 AM >

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

(in reply to warspite1)

Post #: 25

RE: A look at The Battle of Jutland 100 years on - 5/5/2016 8:22:36 PM

warspite1

Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

One of the (many) great controversies of Jutland surrounds the 5th Battle Squadron (5BS). The 5BS was commanded by Rear-Admiral Hugh Evan-Thomas, who had under his command four ships of the Queen Elizabeth-class - the most powerful ships at Jutland.

HMS Queen Elizabeth was in the dockyard at the time but her sisters Barham, Warspite, Valiant and Malaya (paid for by the colony hence her name) were ready for action.

The squadron had been longingly eyed for some time by Vice-Admiral David Beatty, the commander of the Battlecruiser Fleet (BCF), who wanted this powerful force to supplement his own battlecruisers. He finally got his wish - albeit only temporarily - when the 3rd Battlecruiser Squadron (3BCS) was ordered from her base at Rosyth to Scapa Flow for firing practice. The 5BS was ordered south to replace the 3BCS.

Why the 5BS? Well from Beatty's point of view the reasons were obvious; the ships were designed for 25 knots (although in practice could manage about 23 comfortably) and this made them in theory, ships that could operate with the fast battlecruisers. In addition, their powerful 15-inch guns would provide huge hitting power to Beatty's force.

Jellicoe was reluctant to hand these ships to Beatty because a) their actual top speed, when this became apparent, made them less useful to the BCF than was expected, but also b) Jellicoe feared that with these mighty vessels, Beatty would attempt to take on the German High Seas Fleet (HSF) on his own!

Why is the 5BS surrounded by controversy? Well we will come to that, but in the meantime lets enjoy the sight of these strikingly beautiful warships.....

HMS Barham - she was the Flagship of Rear-Admiral Evan-Thomas at Jutland. She mounted eight of the excellent 15-inch guns in four twin turrets.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by warspite1 -- 5/7/2016 1:57:22 PM >

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

(in reply to warspite1)

Post #: 26

RE: A look at The Battle of Jutland 100 years on - 5/5/2016 8:22:47 PM

warspite1

Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

Draft Incomplete

As the Victorian age drew to a close, so the British Empire had pretty much reached its zenith. Oh there was still the odd land grab to come as the "Scramble for Africa" reached its frenzied peak, but in terms of British industrial might and share of the world's output, there were new kids on the block - the USA and Germany chief amongst them - and Britain's industrial lead was being eroded.

However, Britain and its huge empire was still the power and that power was personified by the might of the Royal Navy. The navy had been unchallenged since Trafalgar, and since that stunning victory over the French and Spanish, had both grown in size and been at the forefront of technological change. The Royal Navy did well and truly rule the waves, ensuring its lifeblood - maritime trade - was able to circulate freely.

But then in 1906 along came a warship that suddenly, in one leap, put that numerical superiority in the scrap bin. It was a bold - and risky manoeuvre; yes, with the launching of the battleship HMS Dreadnought the British maintained its technological lead, but other countries were sure to quickly follow - and Britain would then need to work twice as hard (with the associated cost implications) to maintain their numerical lead.

Things became complicated pretty much straight away when Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany decided he wanted a navy to challenge to British....

< Message edited by warspite1 -- 5/24/2016 6:53:48 AM >

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

(in reply to warspite1)

Post #: 27

RE: A look at The Battle of Jutland 100 years on - 5/5/2016 8:23:06 PM

warspite1

Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

German Navy

The top table below shows the key data for the 16 Battleships that took part in the Battle of Jutland. The bottom table shows the battleships available to the Germans during WWI (The Sachsen-class not included as they were never completed) but that were unavailable at Jutland. These are shown to give a complete picture of the capital ship position by May 1916.

What is readily apparent from these basic details is a) the numerical advantage the British had, and b) their firepower advantage, but c) the Germans were far better armoured.

The next table shows the same information for the battlecruisers that fought at the battle and those unavailable in May 1916 (again I have not included the Mackensen or Ersatz Yorck-classes as these were not completed (and in some cases not even laid down)).

Source: Conways All The World's Fighting Ships 1906-1921

Attachment (2)

< Message edited by warspite1 -- 5/9/2016 6:42:17 PM >

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

(in reply to warspite1)

Post #: 28

RE: A look at The Battle of Jutland 100 years on - 5/5/2016 8:23:20 PM

warspite1

Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

One of the decisions that Admiral Scheer made in May 1916, and that leaves him open to criticism today, is the decision to take six pre-dreadnought battleships to sea. The ships, from the Braunschweig and Deutschland classes, formed Rear-Admiral Mauve's 2nd Battle Squadron.

These ships were obsolete even while being built - and were considered so useless by the end of the war that the German Navy was allowed to keep them post Versailles....

More to the point in terms of Jutland was that any advantage they provided (by adding numbers to Scheer's High Seas Fleet) was negated by their slow speed. If the Germans needed to chase the enemy - or more worryingly flea from them - the pre-dreadnoughts would simply be a hindrance to Scheer (and in the latter case a potentially fatal one).

SMS Deutschland with a top speed of only 18 knots, belt armour protection of less than 9-inches and a main armament of only four 11-inch guns (2 x 2) guns....

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by warspite1 -- 5/24/2016 6:27:46 AM >

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

(in reply to warspite1)

Post #: 29

RE: A look at The Battle of Jutland 100 years on - 5/5/2016 8:23:37 PM

warspite1

Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

Draft Incomplete

The naval historian Eric Grove describes the German battlecruisers as "excellent combinations of speed, power and protection. I think when looking at what happened at Jutland one cannot help but agree with that description. German battleships were no different.

The German capital ships sacrificed size of gun and some speed for defensive armour. Water tightness through significant levels of compartmentalisation was another feature; a feature that was to save more than one German ship during the battle.

In his book Jutland: An Unfinished Battle Nick Jellicoe provides a brief paragraph that gives an immediate indication of the defensive effort that German ship designers put into their designs. He compares two contemporary battlecruisers: HMS Queen Mary and Seydlitz.

The British ship displaced 27,000 tons. 3,900 tons of which was armour - 14%
The German battlecruiser displaced 24,600 tons. 5,200 of which was devoted to armour protection - 21%

The German navy, effectively starting from scratch, built wider docks that allowed their ships a broader beam which allowed a better armour layout and made them a more stable gun platform. Again taking contemporary battleships and battlecruisers (beam in feet):

Battleships:
Iron Duke - 90
Konig - 97

Battlecruisers
Lion - 88
Derfflinger - 95

< Message edited by warspite1 -- 5/24/2016 6:21:55 AM >

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

(in reply to warspite1)

Post #: 30