From:     "Edward J. Rudnicki" (FSAC-SID) <erudnick@pica.army.mil>
Subject:  Re: Jutland
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 16:08:52 GMT


From     "Edward J. Rudnicki" (FSAC-SID) <erudnick@pica.army.mil>


Steve Barber writes:
#ii) After Jutland, the German fleet never ventured to sea again.

Not true. The High Seas Fleet made a major sortie in 1918 against a
Norway-UK convoy (which wasn't there) in an effort to lure out the
British battle cruiser force, a la Jutland. This was aborted when
SMS MOLTKE lost a propeller and the turbine overspeed trip failed.
The resulting engine room casualty left her DIW, requiring a battleship
to tow her home.

#Germans had apparently had a very narrow escape at the Battle of Dogger
#Bank earlier in the war and had made modifications to overcome the problem.

SMS SEYDLITZ took a hit which basically wiped out Caesar and Dora turrets
and would probably have destroyed the ship if the magazines had not been
flooded.

# The British weren't aware of the problem prior to Jutland, so no
#modifications.  Boom!  Oh, look, there goes another battlecruiser...

They bloody well should have been, with HMS LION left DIW at Dogger Bank :)






John Livesey writes:
#Actually, that's not quite right.   There was an initial *claim*
#from Germany that it had been a British defeat, but this claim
#was in no sense an objective assessment: it was a propaganda
#claim intended to direct attention away from the German flight
#from the battlefield.
#
#In any case, was immediately and widely ridiculed by people
#who pointed out, correctly, as you also did, that the Royal
#Navy was ready to fight again, and the German Navy was
#not.   Also, when you say "marginal British victory", you
#may be understating the case.


It was not "immediately and widely ridiculed".

One can look at the results of Jutland in a couple of ways.

In terms of ship count, it was a clear-cut German victory: 6 British
major units lost (3 battle cruisers, annd 3 armored cruisers -
denigrate the latter if you wish; the fact remains they were still
large expensive ships with large crews) vs 2 German (with SMS LUTZOW
possibly having been saveable, in hindsight). Damaged ships are much
easier to repair than sunk ones are to replace.

Strategically, Jutland was a clear-cut British victory: the Grand Fleet
held the battlefield, so to speak, and was ready for more, while most
of the German major units needed at least some refitting, with some
not fit for action until October.

It is in the propaganda/public relations arena that things get interesting.
Both sides claimed victory (of course :), but the accuracy of claims,
and a few other factors, gave the PR win to the Germans for much of the rest
of the war: the Germans claimed six major British units sunk, and this
was confirmed. The British, however, claimed 4 or 5 battleships AND 4 or 5
battle cruisers sunk. When the truth, one each, became known, this fact
combined with the AUDACIOUS coverup caused extreme skepticism of the
Admiralty's claims. Additionally, the British public had expected a Nelsonian
decisive victory, which decidedly wasn't there. Notice how severely
Jellicoe was criticized for turning AWAY from the torpedoes after the second
fleet action, even though this was safer for his ships. One wonders if
he would have been equally criticized for turning the other way and taking
hits from the torpedos.

Only after the war was the strategic result of Jutland really appreciated.
You can see a lot of that in the flurry of books on the subject from the
1919-1921 period.


Ed Rudnicki     erudnick@pica.army.mil     All disclaimers apply
"War must be looked upon as a business, and subject, like any other business,
to business principles. War is the business of destruction of life and
property of an enemy.....The most deadly and destructive implements of war
are the most humane, and the producers of them may justly be looked upon as
humanitarians."     ----- Hudson Maxim (the other Maxim)

Newsgroups: sci.military