Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Battle of Jutland...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Battle of Jutland...

    Anybody watch Dan Snow's documentary about the Battle of Jutland on BBC2? Very long winded way of saying our boats blew up because of cocking 'elf and safety a deaf 'un... in my 'umble opinion?
    I liked the part where they mucked about proving our ship design wasn't at fault in a giant paddling pool. But, as always, it was the cost in young lives that put everything else in the shade.

    The long toll of the brave
    Is not lost in darkness
    Over the fruitful earth
    And athwart the seas
    Hath passed the light of noble deeds
    Unquenchable forever.

  • #2
    Originally posted by Von Richter View Post
    Anybody watch Dan Snow's documentary about the Battle of Jutland on BBC2? Very long winded way of saying our boats blew up because of cocking 'elf and safety a deaf 'un... in my 'umble opinion?
    I liked the part where they mucked about proving our ship design wasn't at fault in a giant paddling pool. But, as always, it was the cost in young lives that put everything else in the shade.

    As always Von, As always. This comment puts into my mind again a bitter memory that the first wave on Sword beach was made up largely of teen and twenties that had never heard a shot fired in anger, like me been in the forces for less than a year. Don't let the 'Experts' tell you any different, I helped to gather the poor Bastards up from where they were still lying in the surf when the following waves came in. lcm1
    'By Horse by Tram'.


    I was in when they needed 'em,not feeded 'em.
    " Youuu 'Orrible Lot!"

    Comment


    • #3
      The RN, as it had for quite a while, put quantity ahead of quality when it came to ship design. It's as simple as that.
      For the RN, that made sense. When they had to engage another first rate navy they were going to take more casualties and ship losses. That's the trade off for numbers versus quality.
      In terms of defending a far flung empire of colonial possessions it was a reasonable choice, however high the losses might have been.

      Comment


      • #4
        Thanks for notification. Will watch it on Iplayer.
        "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
          The RN, as it had for quite a while, put quantity ahead of quality when it came to ship design. It's as simple as that.
          For the RN, that made sense. When they had to engage another first rate navy they were going to take more casualties and ship losses. That's the trade off for numbers versus quality.
          In terms of defending a far flung empire of colonial possessions it was a reasonable choice, however high the losses might have been.
          On the contrary the intention in ww1 was to build battleship and battle cruisers that were better than the likely enemy. it just didn't always work out that way.
          For example British ships usually had bigger guns and were faster.
          Last edited by Surrey; 31 May 16, 02:17.
          "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
            The RN, as it had for quite a while, put quantity ahead of quality when it came to ship design. It's as simple as that.
            For the RN, that made sense. When they had to engage another first rate navy they were going to take more casualties and ship losses. That's the trade off for numbers versus quality.
            In terms of defending a far flung empire of colonial possessions it was a reasonable choice, however high the losses might have been.
            The programme, as far as a tele documentary can, kind of disproved the quantity over quality, argument. One of the Hun ships took 24 direct hits and still made it back to port. Apparently this exploit has been used as an argument that their ships were better built than the RN's? Some Boffin made a scale model of one of Beattie's Battlecruisers and flooded it identical to that recorded for (think it was the Seydlitz?) the Hun ship... it stayed afloat just like the German one did. They concluded that build quality was neck and neck for both Navies, some Hun Dreadnoughts having one more watertight compartment than the RN's.

            The long toll of the brave
            Is not lost in darkness
            Over the fruitful earth
            And athwart the seas
            Hath passed the light of noble deeds
            Unquenchable forever.

            Comment


            • #7
              In case you missed this:

              The grand fleet, 1914-1916; its creation, development and work
              by Jellicoe, John Rushworth Jellicoe, Earl, 1859-1935

              I have this and What Happened at Jutland: The Tactics of the Battle, by Commander C.C. Gill, U. S. Navy

              Free downloads at archives.org.
              Hyperwar: World War II on the World Wide Web
              Hyperwar, Whats New
              World War II Resources
              The best place in the world to "work".

              Comment


              • #8
                Cordite. Germans also had Turrets penetrated, but used a different propellant (like everyone else) which burned a lot slower. Cordite burned so fast it flashed. Had the British used a nitro-cellulose propellant like most others, her ships would not have exploded (except maybe QUEEN MARY which probably had a shell penetrate to the magazine).

                Tuebor

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Tuebor View Post
                  Cordite. Germans also had Turrets penetrated, but used a different propellant (like everyone else) which burned a lot slower. Cordite burned so fast it flashed. Had the British used a nitro-cellulose propellant like most others, her ships would not have exploded (except maybe QUEEN MARY which probably had a shell penetrate to the magazine).

                  Tuebor
                  Most other navies used unstable propellent too, the French, Japanese, and Italian navies all used propellent that saw magazine explosions when not in action. Queen Mary was not lost due to a magazine penetration, it is clear from eyewitness testimony the ship was lost after turret hits. With Queen Mary we have survivors who saw guns off their trunions and water flooding up the hoists, plus people from New Zealand who observed the loss at close range. A magazine penetration at the range involved is almost impossible, the only ship where this could have taken place would have been Invincible, though in my opinion this is also most unlikely, Bill Jurens has posted about the chances of this in the past on Warships1.

                  With Indefatigable, it is almost anyones guess what happened exactly, as the initial fatal hits seem to have been towards the stern. She failed to make the next turn, and was apparently visibly sinking by the stern when more shells struck the fore turret and she blew up. The aft magazine did not seem to explode, but it is possible the shells blew out part of the hull bottom, we simply do not have much detail on that loss to tell us.

                  The armoured cruisers were very strange beasts, as the main turrets did have flash protection, but the wing turrets on the Defence had nothing, just open hoists and corridors to the magazines!

                  The Germans were lucky not to lose Seydlitz at Dogger Bank, and at Jutland had more flash protection in place, but even so lost turret and magazine crews in turret burnouts. The British BC's were almost certainly lost because the crews had removed the flash doors to increase the rate of fire, ironically the only fire officer to prevent this practice was on lion, where the officer demanding the higher rate of fire flew his flag!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Got it, ...

                    Originally posted by Surrey View Post
                    Thanks for notification. Will watch it on Iplayer.
                    http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode...-bloodiest-day

                    If you're not in the UK you'll need a usable Smart DNS (Unblock Us still works here, and it's free) or VPN to access.

                    No review other than don't simply accept it as Gospel, other than that watch it and judge for yourselves.
                    "I am Groot"
                    - Groot

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Terry Duncan View Post
                      Most other navies used unstable propellent too, the French, Japanese, and Italian navies all used propellent that saw magazine explosions when not in action. Queen Mary was not lost due to a magazine penetration, it is clear from eyewitness testimony the ship was lost after turret hits. With Queen Mary we have survivors who saw guns off their trunions and water flooding up the hoists, plus people from New Zealand who observed the loss at close range. A magazine penetration at the range involved is almost impossible, the only ship where this could have taken place would have been Invincible, though in my opinion this is also most unlikely, Bill Jurens has posted about the chances of this in the past on Warships1.

                      With Indefatigable, it is almost anyones guess what happened exactly, as the initial fatal hits seem to have been towards the stern. She failed to make the next turn, and was apparently visibly sinking by the stern when more shells struck the fore turret and she blew up. The aft magazine did not seem to explode, but it is possible the shells blew out part of the hull bottom, we simply do not have much detail on that loss to tell us.

                      The armoured cruisers were very strange beasts, as the main turrets did have flash protection, but the wing turrets on the Defence had nothing, just open hoists and corridors to the magazines!

                      The Germans were lucky not to lose Seydlitz at Dogger Bank, and at Jutland had more flash protection in place, but even so lost turret and magazine crews in turret burnouts. The British BC's were almost certainly lost because the crews had removed the flash doors to increase the rate of fire, ironically the only fire officer to prevent this practice was on lion, where the officer demanding the higher rate of fire flew his flag!
                      Wasn't it Defense that accidentally ran into most of the German fleet in the night? Don't think she would have stood much of a chance regardless how good her ammunition procedures were.
                      "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Surrey View Post
                        Wasn't it Defense that accidentally ran into most of the German fleet in the night? Don't think she would have stood much of a chance regardless how good her ammunition procedures were.
                        No, that was Black Prince. Defence was the one that lead the charge as the fleets deployed to try and sink the disabled Wiesbaden only to come into sight of the enitre van of the HSF. Not only did they make visibility much worse, they didnt even sink the ship that was their target. Defence was torn apart by what people described as successive explosions moving down the ship fore to aft. Black Prince little is known about, she was shot many times at close range, drifted off into the night and was never seen again. There were reports of ships seeing a ship ablaze end to end and glowing, but nothing else.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Everything I've ever read on the subject (and I'm an avid reader if only because I had a Grandfather who server on HMS Lion) put the failings of the RN on the day down to other issues other than design.

                          The primary issues as identified in the after action enquirer ports were:

                          1) Poor ammunition handling practices - earlier engagements had altered the Germans to the danger of choosing ease of delivery and speed of delivery over safety when it came to moving propellant charges and shells to the guns from the magazines;

                          2) Defects in shell construction

                          3) Poor communications.

                          The first two issues at least were quickly identified by the post battle broad of review. The last issue took longer to correct and wasn't wholly rectified till after the wars end - not that it mattered.

                          The main point is that IMO the design of the British BCs wasn't the issue, it was the concept of BC' s whole that was flawed. Simply put both sides BCs suffered when engaged by the enemies BBs. For example the SMS Defflinger was lucky to survive it's encounter with the British battle line at Jutland.

                          As has often been commented on the concept of fast but comparatively lightly amoured Battle Cruiser looks fine on paper because planners on both sides assumed that Battle-cruisers could and would evade contact with an enemies dreadnoughts during a fleet engagement. It has to be remembered that until Jutland no-one had tested a mixed fleets of BBs and BCs against one-another in a general fleet engagement. As a result planners on both sides failed to appreciate the impact that the 'fog of war' would have.

                          Basically any time during the battle that a BB blundered into the line of fire of an enemy Dreadnought it was at danger. The British were simply unlucky that it happened to them more often than it did to the Germans.

                          In the end of course it didn't matter. Despite their (on paper) 'victory' Scheer soon after was to recommend a shift to submarine warfare - having concluded that the High Seas Fleet couldn't defeat British at sea.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Beatty always seemed more into "elan" and the Charge of the Light Brigade than tactics and gunnery.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Monash View Post
                              The main point is that IMO the design of the British BCs wasn't the issue, it was the concept of BC' s whole that was flawed. Simply put both sides BCs suffered when engaged by the enemies BBs. For example the SMS Defflinger was lucky to survive it's encounter with the British battle line at Jutland.

                              As has often been commented on the concept of fast but comparatively lightly amoured Battle Cruiser looks fine on paper because planners on both sides assumed that Battle-cruisers could and would evade contact with an enemies dreadnoughts during a fleet engagement. It has to be remembered that until Jutland no-one had tested a mixed fleets of BBs and BCs against one-another in a general fleet engagement. As a result planners on both sides failed to appreciate the impact that the 'fog of war' would have.
                              I agree with most of your post, but the battlecruiser concept was perfectly sound, especially when you consider their origins and intended roles. The Invincible and Indefatigable are both lighter, faster versions of the equivelent battleship class, and were direct replacements for the older Armoured Cruiser type, of which Minotaur was the last. These ships were intended to run down enemy cruisers on overseas stations, to provide a fast scouting force for the battlefleet, and to take a place in the line of battle against the enemy battlefleet, as demonstrated by the Japanese use of their armoured cruisers in the Russo-Japanese war, as the Japanese navy was trained by RN personel to operate along RN lines. These ships were just as vulnerable to the older pre-dreadnought battleships fire, and proved very useful in their role.

                              Mostly the battlecruisers did avoid contact with enemy dreadnoughts, it was their own type that proved fatal to them - Indefatigable sunk by Von der Tann, Queen Mary sunk by Derfflinger, Invincible sunk by Lutzow, and Lutzow sunk by a combination of damage from Princess Royal, and the final fatal hits from Invincible. If anything the battleships of WWII have far more in common with the battlecruisers of WWI than of the original dreadnought battleships, the move to a true 'fast battleship' started by the time of Jutland, hood being a sort of halfway compromise, her protection was equal to the best dreadnought battleship, her speed and armament at least as good or better. What makes the progress hard to track is the break in naval construction after the Washington and London treaties, but in the run up to WWII no navy opted for a design with heavy armour and a speed lower than all but the Invincible class of thirty years earlier. The Iowa and Montana classes are a late example of the battleship and battlecruiser/fast battleship concept, especially as the belt on Iowa is only 0.2" thicker than on Hood. The name 'battlecruiser' became suspect after Jutland, but what was built owed far more to them than it did to their battleship counterparts.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X