Talk:Battle of Jutland/Archive 3

message: Is it me, or does the article fail to mention the destruction of HMS Invincible?  I've tried to locate the passage where it is described but can't find it anywhere...  On the other hand, the article does imply that HMS Princess Royal was sunk - which, of course, she wasn't... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Getztashida (talk • contribs) 23:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry! I've found it now - I take it back, although the comment about the Princess Royal stands... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Getztashida (talk • contribs) 23:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I had inserted a small blurb clarifying the survival of Princess Royal, but the most recent round of revisions stripped it back out. I will re-insert it, but I don't want to get into a revision war with someone who is doing much more thorough work on this piece. Horologium 19:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A rather significant omission!

message: I found an interesting book on German battlecruisers (Osprey New Vanguard series "German Battlecruisers 1914-18") which gave be some precise details on how quickly the Seydlitz was reapaired after Jutland.  Apparently the Repairs were completed in October and she was officially bck in full service in November 1916 - meaning she took about five months to repair.  I've added this information to the "Outcome" section of the article as I beliveit gives us a clearer picture of how long it took the German fleet to recover.  Getztashida 02:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Repairs to the German Fleet

message: I have recently aquired some reference material which lists the High Seas Fleet's sorties after Jutland.  The First was in August 1916 - only two months after the battle - and ended in an indecisive destroyer clash.  A subsequent sortie in force was obliged to turn back after the Molkte threw a prop and suffered engine damage.  Certainly this belies the common perception that the High Seas Fleet remained "bottled up" in harbour for the rest of the war.  Unfoertunately I'm, typing this from work and do not have the book to hand to cite, but as soon as I am able I intend to add a sentence about this to the "Aftermath" section and add the appropriate references. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Getztashida (talk • contribs) 12:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With reference to my previous comment, the book is "The Battle of Jutland, 1916" by George Bonney.  It states that the High seas Fleet sortied again on the 18th August 1916 and the Grand fleet sailed to meet them, but both sides returned to base without sighting the enemy.  The High Seas Fleet sorted again in October 1916, but withdrew after the Westfalen was torpedoed.  Getztashida 15:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: German activity post-Jutland

message: I'm working up the U.S. Battleships (they were simply wretched) and noticed while going through Norman Friedland's book on the subject a design evolution that has caused me to wonder about Jutland over and over.  This isn't my field so I don't want to presume anything.  U.S. Battleship design up till the Nevada class didn't take into account plunging fire.  In fact, most of the classes before that assumed fire at 10,000 to 12,000 yards.  So they were designed with very thick belts and two stage deck armor, one to set AP shells off, and an under deck to catch any splinters thus preservering the hull and machinery.  Obviously this isn't going to work so well if a 12" shell plunges into the deck from a steeper angle.  After looking at some of the pictures it appears to me that the RN's turret roofs were being pierced and the tops being blown off.  While detonation of the magazines finished the ship this would seem to be a very serious failure of the armor suite.  It probably would have happened in earlier U.S. ships (pre-Nevada) also had they been there.  They were simply designed for a closer fight.  Technology improved after they were built.  But I don't see this brought up in this article.  I sure don't have the answer I am not an expert on British Battleship design but is this possible? Tirronan 17:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, that's probably a picture of the Seydlitz.  Although the Seydlitz's turrets were penetrated, they're roofs were not blown off.  Instead, after beaching her in near sinking condition on the Horns Reef, The Germans cut the roofs off and removed the guns (amongst other things) in order to lighten and refloat her.  Getztashida 19:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Questions on deck and turret armor suite

message: On 22 April new user JT Swe deleted the image Grand_fleet_jutland.jpg from the article, without giving reasons; I reverted him, as the source of the image states that it is the GF at Jutland. JT Swe has now provided evidence on my talk page (reproduced below), which appears convincing, that the image is actually of the Austro-Hungarian fleet on maneouvers in the Adriatic (the article in the Austrian Mint's magazine, "die münze", in particular shows part of this picture). So I have reverted my reversion and removed the image from the article. This does raise questions about the accuracy of other pictures similarly sourced from http://pubpages.unh.edu/~jpsabol/jutland/. -- Arwel (talk) 21:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Image:Grand_fleet_jutland.jpg

message: Would inexperience not be a better word, given how inexperienced some of the British crews were.
Please sign your comments.  I can answer this one!  The British had and challenge/reply by signal light that was easy to copy and in fact was by the HSF.  The Germans used a sequence of colored lights that were rapidly given for recognition at night.  The Germans were well practiced at night fighting and had a tactical plan they practiced and fought to, while the GF did little more than lip service to it, the results were evident.  There were multiple cases of the GF challenging and the HSF responding with the correct code.  Further when the HSF didn't see a sequence of rapid colored lights it had to be GF and all they needed to do was open fire. Tirronan
*Don't forget the British Fleet were backlighted against the horizon... a tremedous factor! // FrankB 16:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, at dusk it would actually have been the HSF who were lit up against the hoizon as they were to the west of the GF at this time.  similarly, by dawn, the HSF had broken through to the east and would have been visible against the Horizon at dawn.  However, as most of the night action was fought in pitch darkness, the relative positions of the fleet to the horizon made little difference at this stage of the battle. Getztashida 08:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: deficiencies in night-fighting

message: my list - need references
*Elimination of shell trap from armour decks (Breyer, ADM, DK Brown)
*Use of single, thick armour decks in place of multiple thin ones (as Tirronan, also Brown)
*British Cordite explodes, doesn't burn (Brown)
*British AP shells inadequate (Brown, Preston, Campbell)
*Long range firing, hence horizontal protection more important than vertical, rangefinder accuracy important, fire control important (Brown, Campbell)
*Torpedoes, mines less of a threat than was feared (?)
*Importance of RT (Cambpell)
*Signal flags too slow to control modern battleline (Campbell)
Greglocock 04:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That list was a work in progress, I'm sorting out references at the moment. The shell trap is the result of a feature that was introduced by White in about 1880. The armor deck is angled down to support the belt below the waterline. At Jutland this was revealed to be a very bad feature - any shell that pentrated the upper deck bounced along the armour deck and then bounced back into the angled well, off the belt. It then found itself in a constrained box, formed by the angled deck, the belt, and the upper deck, and consequently blew out the entire deck. That's why (most) post WW1 designs use a flat armor deck going to the TOP of the belt - the shell hopefully skids along the armor deck and out the other side, or at least when it explodes it merely blows out the side of the hull. I've got a great paper on this(* Admiralty report CB 04039(2) Immune zone analysis of Tirpitz, KGV, Nelson, and QE). Immune Zone theory was developed in about 1929, by the USN. British cordite was proven to explode, due to some chemical oddity. 06:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually we were both right and wrong.  The cordite used in WW1 did explode, while the cordite I watched in that video was cordite SC developed from RP C/12 that didn't explode.  I've included a section at the bottom of the page that explains it.Tirronan 21:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Be aware that the shell trap appears to be a British design element (and that is more than fine) but we need to be careful where it applies to other nations BB designs.  That was not in US BB's not that they didn't have their own problems the mid level armor on the sponson mounted guns was shared by British designs complete with a magazine for the 5" guns to be available to be set off with a major gun round that could penetrate.  I think I remember Barnham almost blowing to this at Jutland. Tirronan 16:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I must have explained it badly, it was near universal (for good reasons) in WW1 designs, eg New Mexico, Bayern, Dante Alighieri, to pick the first 3 I came across in Breyer. Greglocock 22:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah!  I know of which you speak!  That stopped in the Nevada Class and above of which the New Mexico was a sucessor class to Nevada with a all or nothing thick deck connected to the main belt.  Yes the only result of the 2" deck with a splinter catcher under it was to ensure you had a huge crater in the hull.  So that the New York and below had the same issues for the same reasons including the thin turret tops. Tirronan 01:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Effect of Jutland on the Design of Battleships, their Armament, and Operation

message: I honestly think we need a whole new article, anyawy just in case here's some diagrams
With a predread, Dreadnought, or Bismarck typ armour scheme a shell can penetrate the upper armour deck and bounce along between the upper and main armour decks before bouncing back off the main or upper belt and exploding. The explosion is contained by the armour, and so takes the path of least resistance, wiping out the entire deck
After Jutland the ineffective upper armour deck was removed and the main armour deck was thickened. The upper belt and the shell trap were removed. The shell bounces off the main armour deck, and either emerges out the other side of the hull, or explodes agianst the hull plating, which does not magnify the pressure, and so there is less damage. As an aside the armour layout now strongly resembles an American Civil War monitor! plus ca changeGreglocock 00:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Shell Traps

message: The layout is TERRIBLE.  The text of the lede is squeezed into an inch-wide column for me.  The TOC needs to be moved down, with no text squeezed in next to it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me.  Also, if you have some decent sources to work with, you might want to review and/or replace the entire article's citations, as almost none of them are cited in the article text. MrZaiustalk 12:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Floating TOC 

message: This article contains a lengthy reference list, but there are several large and significant sections that don't make a single citation.  All of the references currently listed in the section were entered manually, and are not tied back into the article using the traditional citation templates.  This article should be reviewed to make sure that the cited references actually are used, and where.  Those not explicitly mentioned in the article should be stricken, at least long enough to have the relevant section do a proper citation. Please note that, barring an improvement, it may be warranted to seek a review of the article's FA status.  No peer review has apparently taken place since '04. MrZaiustalk 02:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: The simplest thing to put in the box is what it is indisputable, that the result of the battle was inconclusive.  Perhaps the Germans had slightly the better of the tactical outcome, but it wasn't a terribly clear-cut tactical victory, and the strategic outcome was pretty much nil - the strategic situation after the battle was pretty much precisely the same as that before.  Why argue about this when there's a simple way to handle it - to simply say that the battle was indecisive, and had no clear victor.  More detail can be brought out in the article text. john k 20:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the wargamer's fallacy. Real battles are fought to attain objectives, not adding up who lost the most points. Neither side attained any reasonable proportion of their long term objectives, and in the short term, within a week, the tactical and strategic position was where it was before. So far as outcomes go, probably the main effect was the (longer term) decision by the Germans to switch their energies to U boat warfare, and in the extreme long term the effect that the damage done had on BB design and tactics. Greglocock 22:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The British needed to keep the naval blockade in place which was in place both before and after the battle.  The Germans needed to destroy a large part of the British battle fleet to break that blockade and while the loss of 3 BC's was a blow, it did nothing to change the balance of power. This in spite of the fact that a Dreadnought had been lost to a mine as well.  The grim fact of the matter was that the entire BC force could have been destroyed without effect so long as the BB line was whole.  Jellico was in position not once but twice to reach a conclusion.  The High Seas Fleet was determined not to reach that decision at sea.  Given that both fleets had the same speed no decision could be reached unless both sides were determined to have at each other. This was not a Trafalger and it never could have been as one side was determined not to have a gotterdamrung and was not trapped, therefore the battle accomplished nothing except to waste lives. Tirronan 23:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: More than twice as many British lives as German lives actually. It is curious that the article contains the statement that I already cited: "For the British, the outcome was a slim tactical defeat". Shouldn't that be removed? Stammer 10:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Results