Talk:Battle of Jutland/Archive 2

message: The side box calls the battle a tactical German victory, the text calls it a minor British tactical "gain". Which is correct is, I'm sure, a matter for debate (British losses were much higher but the Germans fled the "field" which could be interpretted as a tactical, rather than strategic defeat). I don't want to make the edit without consensus, but one way or the other the article should be internally consistant). Epeeist smudge 07:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This battle is really a case where it depends on what you consider a "victory". I like to say you've won when you are better of after the battle than you would have been if you hadn't fought (e.g. evaded) it. Basically the battle was a draw, neither side gained anything. The strategic situation after the battle was exactly the same as if the battle hadn't happened at all. The british fleet was still strong enough to uphold the blockade and even with half their fleet under repair the Germans could still block access to the baltic. Tactically the British succeeded in crossing the German T twice and forcing the Germans to run, on the German side we have two successful escapes from their T being crossed and succeeding to escape by outmaneuvering the british fleet between them and their base.-- Nevfennas 21:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I fully agree that who is the victor is debatable. The issue for me is that the article is inconsistant. The side bar doesn't agree with the text. I'd be inclined to put some sort of neutral words (contested or something smilar) in the side bar where brevity is neccessary and have the discussion on who "won" in the text (which is largely there already). Any views? Epeeist smudge 10:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm of the opinion that the article should reflect the generally stated view that Jutland was marginal tactical victory for the Germans, but that the Royal Navy maintained the Strategic advantage overall.  The fact that the Germans spent much of the battle in retreat is irrelevant to the eventual outcome.  During WWII the American army spent most of the Battle of the Bulge in defeat, but that doesn't mean the Germans were the victors of that particular engagement...  The High Seas fleet managed to out maneuver and evade the Grand Fleet, despite being twice caught in a disadvantaged position, and at the same time inflicted more damage than they received.  Tactically, that sounds like a victory to me.  Getztashida 16:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tactical victor? 

message: This is in here now: "The German U-boats were completely ineffective; they did not sink a single ship and provided no useful information as scouts." I think this is a non-sequitur. A U-boat could be somewhat effective/somewhat ineffective if it damaged a ship, broke up a formation, delayed the advance, etc. The "sunk or nothing" thing doesn't work for me. Can anyone add some insight here?--Thatnewguy 00:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Submarine details? 

message: nothing about the germans making three combat turnarounds in battle? a manouver seldom executed. it sure is worth mentioning--85.180.6.63 23:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Combat Turnaround /gefechtskehrtwende) 

message: This is an FA article with no inline citations. Someone want to insert some before this page gets stripped of its FA status? - Vedexent 15:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No inline citations 

message: Took out bolded part of "But at Jutland they were not used in this fashion — and indeed, British fire control was not sufficiently developed to permit them to be so used — but instead closed recklessly with enemy battleships (Please cite references for this, as the British battlecruisers did not at any time in the battle close German battleships and engage them!) while lacking the armour to stand up to the pounding they received." Belongs here, not in the article. Clarityfiend 05:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no reference to cite, suggest a change.  The same applies to -- Beatty used his battlecruisers in a manner for which they were not designed. They had been intended for use as cruiser-destroyer, rather than for a direct attack on larger and better armored dreadnought battleships. A battlecruiser is disadvantaged in a slugging match against a dreadnought battleship – the entire statement seems superfluous and incorrect discourse, not relevant to Beatty’s actual action of his six battlecruisers against Hipper’s five, all eleven of roughly equivalent tonnage.--Gamahler 01:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No reaction - will remove passages in question.--Gamahler 01:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dirty laundry 

message: The german flag displayed in the table is the jack, and not the naval Reichskriegsflagge (war ensign). See this link: http://flagspot.net/flags/de1871~'.html or take the german article as reference. 80.171.81.242 21:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done --Gamahler 20:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Germany's flag in the table 

message: Removed  – Beatty's battlecruisers shot poorly due to lack of adequate gunnery practice (because there were no facilities at the battlecruisers' base in the Firth of Forth) – an absurd statement; two years into the war, ships of the greatest naval power of the time were not unpracticed and did not lack facilities!--Gamahler 03:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Practice