Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: 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 >> RE: A look at The Battle of Jutland 100 years on Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: A look at The Battle of Jutland 100 years on - 5/5/2016 8:24:34 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
Draft - incomplete

The build-up to the battle

What were Jellicoe and Scheer trying to achieve at Jutland?

For Admiral Jellicoe the situation was quite straightforward. The British had control of the North Sea and were conducting a "distant" blockade of Germany. The blockade was working, the British had a numerical advantage in dreadnoughts and there was no reason for the British to take any stupid risks that would imperil that position.

Of course, if the Royal Navy could get an opportunity to destroy the enemy fleet then it would be taken; after all why would anyone not want to destroy the enemy fleet and so a) give German morale a huge dent b) give the Royal Navy one less thing to worry about c) freeing up shipping to support operations elsewhere and d) seriously mess with the Kaiser's fragile state of mind when it came to his precious shiny fleet! The caveat being that Jellicoe would not take any unnecessary risks. Indeed Jellicoe, on assuming command of the Grand Fleet from Admiral Callaghan at the start of the war, had told the Admiralty exactly this and this had been accepted by his superiors. What Jellicoe was specifically concerned about was falling foul of enemy submarines, mines and torpedo boats and Jellicoe had said that he would not go charging into such a potential trap with the Grand Fleet.

For Scheer (and his predecessors) the situation was very different. As said, the blockade was working - and was proving a problem at home. Having said no to unrestricted submarine warfare (for fear of bringing the US into the war) the Germans were not going to take the Commonwealth out of the war without victory in the field. This was not going to happen overnight - and so they had to try and end the blockade using the Kaisers surface fleet. Interestingly Norman Friedman states that the breaking of the blockade was NOT the reason for the German actions in the North Sea (and as per the criticisms of the German navy's approach voiced in the German naval history). Instead the German navy's raison d'etre was solely to break British naval superiority.... Fact is, either way, the German approach would likely have needed to be the same.

Because of the differential in size of the fleets, the Germans could not hope to win a head-on clash. What they could hope to do though was to attack isolated squadrons of the Grand Fleet if the opportunity arose and by so doing, whittle away at the British advantage.


Previous attempts to trap isolated British squadrons

Jutland was not the first time that elements of the two fleets had engaged in the North Sea since the outbreak of war in August 1914.

German operations to try and isolate units of the Royal Navy

- Yarmouth Raid (November 1914). The first offensive operation by the German surface fleet came on the 3rd November 1914. The Kaiser had set restrictions on the use of the fleet but Admiral von Ingenohl had got approval for what was ostensibly a minelaying expedition by four German light cruisers off the East Anglian coast. The operation also included a bombardment of the town of Great Yarmouth by three of Hipper's battlecruisers and the armoured cruiser Blucher (although Ingenohl was careful not to tell the Kaiser about this part of the plan). Two squadrons of battleships were to provide support for the retreating ships when the British responded.

The operation proved to be much ado about nothing. The British ordered three submarines to sea after the German ships were sighted, and one of these sank after hitting a mine. But there was no other reaction from the British. The German shells missed the town, hitting the beach instead, and the Admiralty - at that time taking in the news of the defeat at Coronel - ordered no further sorties. To compound the poor return for the Germans, the armoured cruiser Yorck, sailing in home waters, got lost in fog, struck a German mine and promptly sank.

- Scarborough, Whitby and Hartlepool (December 1914) This raid was a more interesting affair altogether. Not least because this month marked the high water mark for the German Navy - in terms of closeness to parity with the RN - in the entire war. The gap remained considerable of course but the reason for the Germans drawing closer was due to a number of factors: the loss from mining of the new battleship Audacious, the removal of three of Beatty's battlecruisers - Invincible, Inflexible and Princess Royal - in order to hunt down the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau in the South Atlantic, and no less than four of Jellicoe's battleships were in the dockyard for refits. The British had also begun reading German naval messages thanks to assistance from the Russians who obtained code books when the cruiser Magdeburg was lost in the Baltic. The codebreakers operated from Room 40 in the Admiralty building and was thus the name given to this operation (more of this when we discuss Jutland).

The operation began at 0300hrs on the morning of 15 December 1914. For this raid Vice-Admiral Hipper would have four battlecruisers - Seydlitz, Moltke, Von der Tann and Derfflinger plus the armoured cruiser Blucher. In support were four light cruisers: Strassburg, Graudenz, Stralsund and Kolberg (which carried mines) and eighteen destroyers. Later that day Admiral Von Ingenohl sailed with the main fleet to an area east of Dogger Bank to await the opportunity of catching an isolated British squadron should they take the bait.

As Hipper approached the English coast the weather remained horrendous and the smaller ships struggled to maintain position. The German admiral took the decision to send his light forces (except the mine carrying Kolberg) back to Germany by way of Ingenohl's main fleet. As it happened - and totally unknown to Hipper, Ingenohl (still fearful of falling foul of the Kaiser's order not to imperil the battlefleet) had already decided to turn for home without telling Hipper....

Hipper divided his forces; Derfflinger, Von der Tann and Kolberg headed first for Scarborough (Kolberg laid her mines off Flamborough Head) and then on to Whitby. The remaining three ships headed for Hartlepool where they discharged their ordnance. However this latter group were themselves attacked - first by four destroyers (one of whom got a torpedo away, although it missed) and also from shore batteries. All three ships were hit and nine men were killed on board Blucher. When Hipper's units had met up ready to head home at around 0930hrs, they left behind 86 dead civilians in Hartlepool and a further 29 in Scarborough and Whitby. A total of 525 civilians were wounded.

But what of Ingenohl's decision? Interestingly had he stayed around the Germans may have achieved the very thing they had hoped for in planning the operation - and proven Jellicoe right in the process....

While the codebreakers of Room 40 had successfully picked up that the battlecruisers were putting to sea, they missed out on a vital piece of intelligence; that Ingenohl was also putting to sea with his battleships. Armed with only half the story, the Admiralty decided that a force should sail south to destroy Hipper's fleet without the need for the entire Grand Fleet to sortie. Instead Jellicoe, who was far from happy at the order, was told on the evening of the 14th December to send the 1st Battlecruiser Squadron (1BCS) and the 2nd Battle Squadron (2BS) to sea. Unsure of exactly where Hipper would strike, he ordered a rendezvous point about 25 miles southeast of the Dogger Bank.

1BCS: Lion (FS Beatty), Queen Mary, Tiger, New Zealand
2BS: King George V (FS Warrender), Ajax, Centurion, Orion, Monarch, Conqueror

The 1st Light Cruiser Squadron (1LCS) Southampton (FS Goodenough), Birmingham, Falmouth, Nottingham and latterly the 3LCS Devonshire (FS Packenham), Antrim, Argyll, Roxburgh were also made available.

Further south, Commodore Tyrwhitt's Harwich Force of 42 destroyers, led by two light cruisers were ordered to sea off the East Anglian coast and eight submarines (and their two controlling destroyers) were sent to the coast of Holland.




In the corridors of the Admiralty the tension, the excitement, the expectation must have been palpable... Jellicoe had chosen the rendezvous point well and the German battlecruisers were caught in a trap - all that was needed was a bit of decent weather and a bit of luck...... Meanwhile for Ingenohl, blissfully unaware of the presence of the British capital ships, all he needed to do was continue on his present course with his 14 dreadnoughts, 8 pre-dreadnoughts and assorted cruisers and destroyers and he would fall upon the equally unsuspecting smaller British force.

And so on the morning of the 16th December, Beatty's four battlecruisers were sailing roughly 5 miles ahead of Warrender's 6 battleships. The two cruiser squadrons were either side - the Goodenough's light cruisers on Beatty's right and Packenham's armoured cruisers to the left.

At around 0500hrs that morning elements of the two fleets (essentially the German cruiser and destroyer screen and the British destroyer screen) clashed in a series of sporadic engagements in which the out-numbered British destroyers came off worst - but the Germans retreated. Ingenohl's reaction to the news that British destroyers were in this part of the North Sea can only be imagined - a) he assumed that this was a destroyer screen for the Grand Fleet, b) the destroyers would no doubt attempt a massed torpedo attack on his fleet, and c) he was running the risk of endangering the Kaiser's battleships against express orders to the contrary. His response was to make an about turn and he promptly left the scene and headed home - whether he gave Hipper another thought is unknown.

At around 0930hrs reports came in of Hipper's attacks on the three coastal towns. The two British Admirals headed toward home to cut off the Germans - Beatty and Goodenough about 10 miles ahead of Warrender and Packenham. There is a shallow area in the southwest of Dogger Bank that can be dangerous to shipping - Beatty sailed north of this and Warrender the south on their westerly course. The Germans meanwhile were heading east toward home with Hipper's light forces released earlier, some 60 miles ahead - straight into the path of the British.

At around 1100hrs the weather conditions changed dramatically for the worse - just as Goodenough, aboard HMS Southampton, spotted first the Stralsund and her escorting destroyers and then the other two German light cruisers that Hipper had earlier detached. Goodenough's four cruisers were fanned out ahead of Beatty and her sisters turned to assist their flagship as she and Stralsund exchanged fire. Goodenough reported the sighting of the Stralsund to Beatty - but did not make a further report upon seeing the other cruisers. This was the start of a number of errors that led, ultimately, to Hipper and his light forces getting away.

Quite what he thought one German cruiser was doing where she was is impossible to answer, but Beatty - unaware that Southampton had sighted two more cruisers - did not think that maybe Goodenough had sighted Hipper's advance screen. Instead, he got miffed that the other three light cruisers of his screening force were headed off in Southampton's direction and thus leaving Beatty's battlecruisers without a screen.

Enter Beatty's Flag Lieutenant Ralph Seymour (who we shall be hearing a lot more of......). Beatty wanted two of the light cruisers to resume station ahead of the battlecruisers. Unfortunately Seymour instructed the signalling of an ambiguous message that was interpreted as meaning all four ships of the squadron to resume station. Goodenough duly complied with the order of his senior officer and broke off the engagement with Stralsund.

The Germans ships headed south and Goodenough headed straight for a public humiliation from Beatty - although the poor man had simply followed orders. All should not have been lost however. Once the cruisers had resumed station Beatty's force continued west... at least until another report came in, this time from Warrender. Warrender was south of Beatty remember, and reported seeing what Beatty took to be the German cruisers previously seen by Goodenough. Beatty now made a decision that would prove to be Hipper's salvation. Thinking that Hipper must be close behind his screen, and fearing that they could out-run Warrender, Beatty turned his ships east to ensure he kept himself between Hipper and Germany....

We now leave Beatty and turn to Warrender and his second-in-command, Arbuthnot and another inexplicable episode, the type of which, was to be seen again at Jutland. When the men of the battleship Orion saw the German ships the gunnery officer requested permission from Arbuthnot to open fire. Arbuthnot refused. He would not open fire until given a direct order by Warrender. The German ships sailed into the distance...while Arbuthnot waited for the order. Why hadn't the order been given? When Warrender, about King George V sighted the German vessels he too did not fire. Instead he ordered his slow armoured cruisers to chase the German vessel, a chase that was never going to be won by the elderly British ships. Three German light cruisers had been in the sights of the six British battleships....and they were allowed to get away.

As for Hipper, he had been warned by the reports from Stralsund of the presence of the British capital ships and had sharply manoeuvred his ships north and then east to sail clear of the British trap.

There was plenty for the German High Command to be concerned about with their own performance, but on the other hand, the British had wasted a golden opportunity to destroy Hipper's fleet through poor communication and poor initiative, things that would come back to haunt them just over a year later....

The damage could have been worse if all the German ordnance had exploded



- Dogger Bank

- Other operations? Including early 1916

What were the German and British plans for Jutland?

Both the Germans and the British fleets were at sea on the 31st May 1916 thinking that they could catch the other in a trap.

The Germans were not meant to be at sea - at least not on this date and not in this location. They had planned for an operation earlier in the month, centred on another attack against an English East Coast city- this time Sunderland. However, for a number of reasons, one of them being the mining of the battlecruiser Seydlitz the previous month, the operation was postponed and ultimately cancelled. The cancellation - and replacement with the operation that led to Jutland - came about because of a) the U-boats, that had been placed on station in advance of the Sunderland operation, had to return to base by the start of June, and b) continued poor weather conditions meant that Zeppelin reconnaissance missions could not be flown.

As a result of the former an operation needed to be mounted by the end of May, and as a result of the latter, the Germans took the sensible decision to mount such, away from the UK.


Attachment (2)

< Message edited by warspite1 -- 5/21/2016 9:41:03 PM >


_____________________________

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



(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 31
RE: A look at The Battle of Jutland 100 years on - 5/5/2016 8:25:21 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
Draft - incomplete

Starting positions of the fleets prior to the battle.

30th May 1916

Royal Navy (see post 7 for the composition of each force)

The British forces sailed from three bases (see below). Well they actually sailed from a fourth but the light cruisers and destroyers that sailed from Harwich (S.E England) - Commodore Tyrwhitt's Harwich Force - were soon recalled. As we shall see later, this is yet another contentious decision...

Scapa Flow (Orkney Islands) - The Grand Fleet (less the 2nd Battle Squadron (2BS)) and with the 3rd Battlecruiser Squadron (3BCS) attached, sailed from the fleet anchorage.

Cromarty (Scotland) - The 2BS sailed from Cromarty on the Scottish East Coast

Rosyth (Scotland) - The Battlecruiser Fleet (BCF) with the 5BS attached sailed from their base north of Edinburgh. The battlecruisers had been based here in response to the German raids on English East Coast towns to provide better defence against future attack.

Harwich (England) -

Imperial German Navy (see post 8 for the composition of each force)

German U-boat forces

In the build up to, and as an integral part of, the original operation the German navy put to sea a large number of U-boats that would take up station roughly in a line west to east between Edinburgh and Lindesnes (Norway), and if successful, take a toll on the Grand Fleet as they sailed to make any interception attempts.

Ten U-boats were selected - and these sailed from their bases on the 17th/18th May:

U-24
U-32
U-43
U-44
U-47
U-51
U-52
U-63
U-66
U-70

An additional vessel, UB-27 was ordered to try and penetrate the Firth of Forth. UB-21 and UB-22 were also ordered out to watch over the Humber estuary, while the operation was completed by U-46 and U-67 operating off Terschelling.

Additionally, three mine-laying U-boats, U-72, U-74 and U-75, were also ordered to lay minefields off the Firth of Forth, the Moray Firth and to the West of the Orkneys. The results of these mine-laying operations were poor; U-72 had to return to base due to an oil-leak, while U-74 was lost with all hands (reasons for her sinking are unclear). Only U-75 claimed any success - it was one of her mines that claimed the cruiser HMS Hampshire (with Lord Kitchener aboard) on 5th June.

- Additional U-boats operating in the south?

Jade Basin (Germany) - The High Seas Fleet sailed from here preceded by the Reconnaissance Forces of the I and II AG.

< Message edited by warspite1 -- 5/16/2016 9:53:04 PM >


_____________________________

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



(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 32
RE: A look at The Battle of Jutland 100 years on - 5/5/2016 9:02:16 PM   
HighwayStar

 

Posts: 38
Joined: 11/9/2010
Status: offline
- Why did three British battlecruisers blow up (with huge loss of life)?

Indefatigable, Queen Mary, and Invincible all suffered catastrophic magazine explosions. The prevailing theory is that none suffered a penetrating hit in the actual magazine, but rather a flash fire due to a German projectile striking and destroying a main battery turret and then the flash traveling down the ammunition hoists to the magazine. There were flash doors installed to prevent this from happening, however, RN practice at the time placed emphasis on a high rate of fire during an engagement. These doors were generally left open to facilitate a higher rate of fire. Interestingly, the German battlecruiser Seydiltz had almost suffered the same fate at the battle of Dogger Bank (Jan 24, 1915) and the HSF learned their lesson and directed that the doors should not be left open. Beatty's flagship Lion was also hit at Jutland in Q turret and might have been destroyed had not Royal Marine Major Francis Harvey ordered the magazine flooded prior to his death, for which he was awarded the VC. You also had the issue of the shell and propellant being separate in the RN for larger caliber guns (the US Navy followed this practice). Having bags of highly explosive propellant facilitated a flash fire. The HSF used a single brass casing for the shell and the propellant.

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 33
RE: A look at The Battle of Jutland 100 years on - 5/5/2016 9:03:03 PM   
Aurelian

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

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.


The future King George VI was there too as a turret officer on HMS Collingwood.


_____________________________

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

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 34
RE: A look at The Battle of Jutland 100 years on - 5/6/2016 6:03:57 AM   
warspite1


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: HighwayStar

- Why did three British battlecruisers blow up (with huge loss of life)?

Indefatigable, Queen Mary, and Invincible all suffered catastrophic magazine explosions. The prevailing theory is that none suffered a penetrating hit in the actual magazine, but rather a flash fire due to a German projectile striking and destroying a main battery turret and then the flash traveling down the ammunition hoists to the magazine. There were flash doors installed to prevent this from happening, however, RN practice at the time placed emphasis on a high rate of fire during an engagement. These doors were generally left open to facilitate a higher rate of fire. Interestingly, the German battlecruiser Seydiltz had almost suffered the same fate at the battle of Dogger Bank (Jan 24, 1915) and the HSF learned their lesson and directed that the doors should not be left open. Beatty's flagship Lion was also hit at Jutland in Q turret and might have been destroyed had not Royal Marine Major Francis Harvey ordered the magazine flooded prior to his death, for which he was awarded the VC. You also had the issue of the shell and propellant being separate in the RN for larger caliber guns (the US Navy followed this practice). Having bags of highly explosive propellant facilitated a flash fire. The HSF used a single brass casing for the shell and the propellant.
warspite1

I put this down as one of the discussion points because what you describe above is not a universal view. There are still those that believe their tragic loss was caused by a hit on the magazine.


_____________________________

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



(in reply to HighwayStar)
Post #: 35
RE: A look at The Battle of Jutland 100 years on - 5/6/2016 4:23:50 PM   
HighwayStar

 

Posts: 38
Joined: 11/9/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: HighwayStar

- Why did three British battlecruisers blow up (with huge loss of life)?

Indefatigable, Queen Mary, and Invincible all suffered catastrophic magazine explosions. The prevailing theory is that none suffered a penetrating hit in the actual magazine, but rather a flash fire due to a German projectile striking and destroying a main battery turret and then the flash traveling down the ammunition hoists to the magazine. There were flash doors installed to prevent this from happening, however, RN practice at the time placed emphasis on a high rate of fire during an engagement. These doors were generally left open to facilitate a higher rate of fire. Interestingly, the German battlecruiser Seydiltz had almost suffered the same fate at the battle of Dogger Bank (Jan 24, 1915) and the HSF learned their lesson and directed that the doors should not be left open. Beatty's flagship Lion was also hit at Jutland in Q turret and might have been destroyed had not Royal Marine Major Francis Harvey ordered the magazine flooded prior to his death, for which he was awarded the VC. You also had the issue of the shell and propellant being separate in the RN for larger caliber guns (the US Navy followed this practice). Having bags of highly explosive propellant facilitated a flash fire. The HSF used a single brass casing for the shell and the propellant.
warspite1

I put this down as one of the discussion points because what you describe above is not a universal view. There are still those that believe their tragic loss was caused by a hit on the magazine.


Yes, too true, that's why I said "prevailing theory". The condition of the wrecks prevented any absolute cause from being determined.

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 36
RE: A look at The Battle of Jutland 100 years on - 5/6/2016 4:47:30 PM   
HighwayStar

 

Posts: 38
Joined: 11/9/2010
Status: offline
- How were the Germans allowed to pass the British on their way back home without a response from the big guns?

This has generated a lot of discussion over the years. Remember, this phase of the battle took place in the dead of night with visibility limited. Jellicoe had ordered his destroyers and several of the light cruiser squadrons to form up at the rear of the GF. One of the reasons given was to prevent the light forces from being mistaken for the enemy and fired on. But I suspect it was also to provide an obstacle to the HSF should they attempt to get to the east of the heavy units and thus closer to their bases. The British light forces put up a fierce fight, sinking and damaging several German ships but in the confusion, failed to report the situation to Jellicoe. One of the reasons given was they believed that if they could identify the HSF, its location and course, that the senior officers in the Battle Squadrons could too. The communication failures on the British side, here and earlier, had grave consequences.

(in reply to HighwayStar)
Post #: 37
RE: A look at The Battle of Jutland 100 years on - 5/6/2016 7:57:18 PM   
warspite1


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

ORIGINAL: HighwayStar

- How were the Germans allowed to pass the British on their way back home without a response from the big guns?

This has generated a lot of discussion over the years. Remember, this phase of the battle took place in the dead of night with visibility limited. Jellicoe had ordered his destroyers and several of the light cruiser squadrons to form up at the rear of the GF. One of the reasons given was to prevent the light forces from being mistaken for the enemy and fired on. But I suspect it was also to provide an obstacle to the HSF should they attempt to get to the east of the heavy units and thus closer to their bases. The British light forces put up a fierce fight, sinking and damaging several German ships but in the confusion, failed to report the situation to Jellicoe. One of the reasons given was they believed that if they could identify the HSF, its location and course, that the senior officers in the Battle Squadrons could too. The communication failures on the British side, here and earlier, had grave consequences.
warspite1

Again, will debate this further as we get to that point in the battle, but this was not the reason (from what I have read) that Jellicoe put the destroyers at the rear. Jellicoe made it quite clear he was NOT going to fight a night battle.

This for me is the second most contentious point (from the British side) of the whole battle.


< Message edited by warspite1 -- 5/6/2016 7:59:03 PM >


_____________________________

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



(in reply to HighwayStar)
Post #: 38
RE: A look at The Battle of Jutland 100 years on - 5/6/2016 8:29:30 PM   
loki100


Posts: 10920
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HighwayStar

- Why did three British battlecruisers blow up (with huge loss of life)?

Indefatigable, Queen Mary, and Invincible all suffered catastrophic magazine explosions. The prevailing theory is that none suffered a penetrating hit in the actual magazine, but rather a flash fire due to a German projectile striking and destroying a main battery turret and then the flash traveling down the ammunition hoists to the magazine. There were flash doors installed to prevent this from happening, however, RN practice at the time placed emphasis on a high rate of fire during an engagement. These doors were generally left open to facilitate a higher rate of fire. Interestingly, the German battlecruiser Seydiltz had almost suffered the same fate at the battle of Dogger Bank (Jan 24, 1915) and the HSF learned their lesson and directed that the doors should not be left open. Beatty's flagship Lion was also hit at Jutland in Q turret and might have been destroyed had not Royal Marine Major Francis Harvey ordered the magazine flooded prior to his death, for which he was awarded the VC. You also had the issue of the shell and propellant being separate in the RN for larger caliber guns (the US Navy followed this practice). Having bags of highly explosive propellant facilitated a flash fire. The HSF used a single brass casing for the shell and the propellant.


there is an enduring problem with British naval history of forgetting that ships going into battle should be uncomfortable - by that I mean everything unessential put away. 'Stuff' is easy to set on fire and too much 'stuff' leads to major fires. It seems as if the RN has to relearn this the hard way in every war - including the Falklands Campaign.

great thread btw

_____________________________


(in reply to HighwayStar)
Post #: 39
RE: A look at The Battle of Jutland 100 years on - 5/6/2016 8:52:09 PM   
HighwayStar

 

Posts: 38
Joined: 11/9/2010
Status: offline
Again, will debate this further as we get to that point in the battle

Oh, OK, I'm beginning to see the way you are organizing this thread. Mea culpa. I'll be standing by. And thanks for setting this up Warspite (can't imagine where you got that moniker ).

(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 40
RE: A look at The Battle of Jutland 100 years on - 5/7/2016 1:31:28 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
Whoops - posted in the wrong place....

< Message edited by warspite1 -- 5/7/2016 1:39:46 PM >


_____________________________

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



(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 41
RE: A look at The Battle of Jutland 100 years on - 5/7/2016 7:14:48 PM   
Speedysteve

 

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline
Great topic warspite. I may be able to help with deck armour thickness for HSF ships. I have a few books around. Let me have a look. If any joy I'll PM you

_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 42
RE: A look at The Battle of Jutland 100 years on - 5/7/2016 7:15:51 PM   
warspite1


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Speedy

Great topic warspite. I may be able to help with deck armour thickness for HSF ships. I have a few books around. Let me have a look. If any joy I'll PM you
warspite1

Thank-you! Not sure why Conways does not have this stat for the German ships.


_____________________________

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



(in reply to Speedysteve)
Post #: 43
RE: A look at The Battle of Jutland 100 years on - 5/7/2016 7:32:20 PM   
Orm


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

c) the Germans were far better armoured.

Was there a difference in armour quality as well?

_____________________________

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 warspite1)
Post #: 44
RE: A look at The Battle of Jutland 100 years on - 5/7/2016 7:37:30 PM   
warspite1


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

ORIGINAL: Orm

quote:

c) the Germans were far better armoured.

Was there a difference in armour quality as well?
warspite1

I read a line in Rules of The Game that British armour was in some respects better - no other details and that was something I've not heard before.

On a related point, of course what simple numbers don't say is that the internals of the German ships were better compartmentalised to further aid survive-ability in the event of flooding*.

See later - this has been disproven.....


< Message edited by warspite1 -- 2/1/2017 7:55:36 PM >


_____________________________

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



(in reply to Orm)
Post #: 45
RE: A look at The Battle of Jutland 100 years on - 5/7/2016 7:51:58 PM   
Orm


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

quote:

c) the Germans were far better armoured.

Was there a difference in armour quality as well?
warspite1

I read a line in Rules of The Game that British armour was in some respects better - no other details and that was something I've not heard before.

On a related point, of course what simple numbers don't say is that the internals of the German ships were better compartmentalised to further aid survivability in the event of flooding.


Thank you.

_____________________________

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 warspite1)
Post #: 46
RE: A look at The Battle of Jutland 100 years on - 5/7/2016 7:52:55 PM   
Speedysteve

 

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline
Agreed. I think it was (upon analysis) agreed that the German ships were generally better designed in terms of structural integrity (let alone the lessons learned at Dogger regarding explosions and the actions/upgrades taken because of it)

_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 47
RE: A look at The Battle of Jutland 100 years on - 5/7/2016 7:55:37 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
The Opening Moves

In post 31 we saw how the Germans, if they were going to mount an operation prior to the U-boats having to return home, needed to do so by the end of May.

An order was thus put out on the morning of the 30th for the High Seas Fleet to prepare to sail. As also seen in post 31, the British were ahead of the Germans in regard to signals intelligence, and as a result of the Admiralty's Room 40 reading this message, Jellicoe was ordered to put the Grand Fleet sea and a position 100 miles east of Aberdeen.

One source states Jellicoe was given this information by mid-afternoon, another states late afternoon. However it seems the timing here is not important. The Admiralty - and Jellicoe - were aware of the heavy U-boat presence. Jellicoe's fear was that if he left other than at night his force would be sighted by the enemy submarines and Scheer would recall his fleet. For this reason he would need to sail a night.

The problem with sailing at night however was that if he were to get his fleet to the Horns Reef (likely German route home), and in between the Germans and their base, he would likely only arrive late in the afternoon and probably too late to give battle. But those considerations would have to wait as first he would have to sail and then see how things panned out.

At some time around 1730hrs the Admiralty ordered Jellicoe to make steam - and this order was passed onto both Jerram at Cromarty and Beatty further south at Rosyth. In the last hours of the 30th May the ships of the Grand Fleet (GF) and the Battlecruiser Fleet (BCF) left their bases - some for what would be the last time - and headed in a roughly easterly direction. The ships totalled 151 in all, although the seaplane carrier Campania was not amongst them as apparently she was not given orders to sail - and when this was noticed Jellicoe decided he couldn't provide the destroyer escort at a time he was so short of such ships.


The plan called for the two British fleets to rendezvous, whereupon the 5th Battle Squadron and the 3rd Battlecruiser Squadron would swap positions and rejoin their respective fleets. Events overtook this plan however....




The German fleets - headed by Vice-Admiral Hipper's reconnaissance forces - left the Jade in the early hours of the 31st May for their journey north. The distance between the fleets was 60 miles.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by warspite1 -- 5/22/2016 7:26:08 AM >


_____________________________

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



(in reply to Speedysteve)
Post #: 48
RE: A look at The Battle of Jutland 100 years on - 5/14/2016 7:33:42 AM   
Speedysteve

 

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

Has anyone read and can recommend Andrew Gordon's book: "The Rules of the Game: Jutland and British Naval Command"?

_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 49
RE: A look at The Battle of Jutland 100 years on - 5/14/2016 7:54:38 AM   
warspite1


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Speedy

Hi All,

Has anyone read and can recommend Andrew Gordon's book: "The Rules of the Game: Jutland and British Naval Command"?
warspite1

Hi Speedy - I'm doing a review now - should be in the book thread this morning.


_____________________________

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



(in reply to Speedysteve)
Post #: 50
RE: A look at The Battle of Jutland 100 years on - 5/14/2016 9:22:04 AM   
Speedysteve

 

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

_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 51
RE: A look at The Battle of Jutland 100 years on - 5/14/2016 2:53:28 PM   
altipueri

 

Posts: 869
Joined: 11/14/2009
Status: offline
Churchill's "The World Crisis" has quite a bit on it.

"The ponderous, poignant responsibilities borne successfully, if not triumphantly, by Sir John Jellicoe during two years of faithful command, constitute unanswerable claims to the lasting respect of the nation."


Incidentally, if you are in the UK, I got my copy for £2 from The Works bookshop - new. 800 pages of brilliant writing even if you don't agree with everything Churchill says - and there's quite a bit on the Dardanelles.

(in reply to Speedysteve)
Post #: 52
RE: A look at The Battle of Jutland 100 years on - 5/16/2016 6:55:59 AM   
Speedysteve

 

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline
For those in the UK there's a program on Jutland on Channel 4 this Saturday at 8PM. No idea if it's going to be any good but thought I'd let you know!

_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to altipueri)
Post #: 53
RE: A look at The Battle of Jutland 100 years on - 5/16/2016 7:33:58 AM   
warspite1


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Speedy

For those in the UK there's a program on Jutland on Channel 4 this Saturday at 8PM. No idea if it's going to be any good but thought I'd let you know!
warspite1

Cheers - record button set

_____________________________

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



(in reply to Speedysteve)
Post #: 54
RE: A look at The Battle of Jutland 100 years on - 5/21/2016 1:53:51 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
The Fleets are underway and the first talking points are not long in making themselves known.

1. Intelligence and Reconaissance

a) HMS Campania. This seaplane carrier (which could have been vital) was not given orders to sail. When she got underway Jellicoe sent her back as he felt he could not spare the escorts required. Does anyone know how such an important ship was not given orders? Was it just an oversight (if so presumably because it was not realised how important her presence could prove to be?).

b) Room 40 and call sign DK (the German Flagship call sign). Whose fault was it that the British believed that the German battleships were in the Jade? A number of sources to quote from:

In his book Skagerrak, the author suggests that one or more low level officers came up with a ruse specifically for this operation (maybe others but it was not a frequently used ploy). Quite simply the fleet flagship and the wireless station of the III Entrance at Wilhelmshaven would exchange call signs for the duration of the operation.

Staff goes on to say that after the Grand Fleet had sailed - around noon of the 31st - the Director of Operations, Captain Jackson visited Room 40 to ask for the location of call sign DK. He was given the answer "In Wilhelmshaven". With that he left the room and passed the information on that the flagship was still in the Jade.

In his book Jutland The Unfinished Battle Jellicoe suggests that not only was this ploy widely used - at least it was used during the Scarborough and Lowestoft raids, but that Room 40 personnel knew about it. He maintains that Captain Thomas Jackson was not a well-liked individual - being described as insufferable, blustering, ridiculous and a buffoon who treated the Room 40 personnel with disdain. He supposedly entered Room 40, asked them "where were they picking up call sign DK?" and the response was an equally perfunctory "In the Jade" - to which there was no further enquiry or comment.

Given how important this information was, it would be nice to think this was just a misunderstanding but based upon descriptions of Jackson (e.g. by Andrew Gordon in The Rules of The Game) it is easy to believe that it was more than that. According to Gordon, Jackson was someone who believed that the workings of Room 40 and its personnel couldn't possibly contribute anything to naval operations.

As to the effects of this mistake, Gordon provides a view different to the likes of Professor Marder and Robert Massie who give greater weight to its effects. We shall look at this again later, but in the meantime as a result of being given the information that Scheer was in port, Jellicoe continued at a leisurely 15 knots in order to conserve fuel.


HMS Campania was commissioned in April 1915. She underwent a conversion between November 1915 and April 1916, at the end of which she was capable of carrying seven Short 184 floatplanes and three or four fighters in hangars. These aircraft could have proved vital at Jutland



Attachment (1)

< Message edited by warspite1 -- 5/21/2016 9:58:49 PM >


_____________________________

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



(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 55
RE: A look at The Battle of Jutland 100 years on - 5/21/2016 5:29:36 PM   
Capt. Harlock


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

as a result of being given the information that Scheer was in port, Jellicoe continued at a leisurely 15 knots in order to conserve fuel.

And of course, had the main fleet action begun an hour earlier . . .

_____________________________

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 warspite1)
Post #: 56
RE: A look at The Battle of Jutland 100 years on - 5/21/2016 9:17:37 PM   
warspite1


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Capt. Harlock

quote:

as a result of being given the information that Scheer was in port, Jellicoe continued at a leisurely 15 knots in order to conserve fuel.

And of course, had the main fleet action begun an hour earlier . . .
warspite1

That was my thinking, although one of Gordon's arguments is that there would not be an extra hour. I will explore that and his thinking in due course.


_____________________________

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



(in reply to Capt. Harlock)
Post #: 57
RE: A look at The Battle of Jutland 100 years on - 5/21/2016 9:40:40 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
2. Vice-Admiral Beatty and the 5th Battle Squadron (5BS)

One of the biggest areas of controversy surrounds Beatty's use of the temporarily attached 5BS once the two battlecruiser fleets found each other. However I think it worth leaving the North Sea and quickly going back to the build up to the battle as this controversy starts a good deal earlier.

Vice-Admiral Beatty made very clear his wish for the 5BS to be attached to his Battlecruiser Fleet (BCF) - indeed he went too far in one episode, writing to Jellicoe on the subject and copying in the Admiralty - something that earned him a reprimand from Jellicoe and led to Beatty having to issue an apology.

Jellicoe pointed out, not unreasonably, that the Queen Elizabeth's, which had not proved to be as fast as designed, would prove to be more of a hinderance than an asset to the BCF, whose main asset was its speed. It is fair to say too that it was not only Jellicoe - but also some on Beatty's own staff - that were worried about what the, far from cautious Beatty, would do if he had the power of the 5BS added to his fleet.

But as things turned out Beatty was to get his hands on the 5BS after all. The gunnery accuracy of the BCF had been causing concern for some time. There was no room for the ships of the BCF to practice in the confined waters around Rosyth and so it was agreed that the 3BCS (Invincible, Inflexible, Indomitable) would sail to Scapa Flow for 10 days in order to get some shooting practice in. Because of the recent damage to HMS Australia, that meant Beatty would be four ships down. For this reason Jellicoe agreed to transfer the 5BS to Beatty for that 10-day period and the squadrons would swap places again when they rendezvoused at the end of May (note Beatty would have the use of four ships: Barham, Valiant, Warspite and Malaya as the fifth vessel, Queen Elizabeth, would undergo a refit at that time).

What makes this story so relevant to the actual battle is what happened when the 5BS, commanded by Rear-Admiral Hugh Evan-Thomas, arrived at Rosyth. I believe that what happened next is a serious black mark against Vice-Admiral Beatty. Beatty was to subsequently lay blame at Evan-Thomas's door for his perceived failings during the battle, but as can be seen below, Beatty, at the very least, did not exactly help matters.

From the time that Evan-Thomas arrived at his squadron's new temporary home, there was not one meeting between he and his new boss. Apart from the fact that it was a time of war and the fleet could be called to sea at any time, there was to be a known fleet sortie at the end of the month. Therefore the enemy could be encountered at any time. Despite this, Beatty who had said previously "one hour's conversation is worth a volume of correspondence" did not consider it worth his while. As Andrew Gordon says regarding the importance of such a meeting, this is especially the case since Beatty was not someone who acted by the book, but expected initiative from his subordinates. For those subordinates to be able to show appropriate initiative surely they would need to know what their commander was thinking and to get on their wave-length?

But the problems caused by Beatty do not end there. Gordon confirms that in correspondence with Jellicoe, in making the case for the 5BS to be permanently attached to the BCF, the Vice-Admiral stated that the speed differential would not be too much of a hinderance and said the following in support:

If at the start of the engagement the fleet travels say 75 miles (three hours) then the 5BS would only be some 4.5 miles behind the battlecruisers even at the end of that chase - and thus still able to provide effective support.

Well quite, provided the 5BS started the engagement close to the battlecruisers it was supposed to support..... This is not what happened at Jutland as we shall see. Beatty's cruising deployment of the fleet that day seems to discount any thought that they may encounter the enemy before the rendezvous with Jellicoe. It all seems slapdash.

< Message edited by warspite1 -- 5/22/2016 9:08:15 AM >


_____________________________

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



(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 58
RE: A look at The Battle of Jutland 100 years on - 5/21/2016 11:42:35 PM   
Speedysteve

 

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline
I find it hard not to pipe up now on Beatty. I make no excuses in saying I'm not his biggest fan. I find his actions compulsive, ill thought out (more so instinctive and route one) and I think one of his biggest failing is in his lack of communication and that others assume they know what he means or should do. This failed him at Dogger Bank (Goodenough and blaming him afterwards) and at Jutland (Evan-Thomas and blaming him also). I think 'Flags' has a large burden to share for not behaving as he should do (although I won't push this too much as Beatty laid into him in the future and ultimately he committed suicide in his early 30's which is tragic).

_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 59
RE: A look at The Battle of Jutland 100 years on - 5/21/2016 11:48:14 PM   
warspite1


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

ORIGINAL: Speedy

I think 'Flags' has a large burden to share for not behaving as he should do (although I won't push this too much as Beatty laid into him in the future and ultimately he committed suicide in his early 30's which is tragic).
warspite1

Indeed, the man came to a sad end - and Beatty did not help (quite the reverse) . I am a huge believer in the Peter Principle - we get promoted to our level of incompetence. Seymour reached that level and Beatty was too blind to realise it. I never let Napoleon off the hook at Waterloo - he was let down by subordinates but he himself was responsible for appointing them in the wrong positions. Well equally, Beatty cannot escape blame for having the wrong man in the key role of Flag-Lieutenant.


< Message edited by warspite1 -- 5/21/2016 11:50:38 PM >


_____________________________

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



(in reply to Speedysteve)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> RE: A look at The Battle of Jutland 100 years on Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.344