# Battle of Jutland.



## The Basket (Jul 30, 2020)

Issues that for the Royal Navy in the battle.

1, Beatty
2, Shells exploding to early
3, Beatty
4, Battlecruisers exploding to early.
5, Beatty
6, General comms failures.
7, Beatty.

Jellicoe was a million percent right. Don't go chasing victory. Don't follow onto a torpedo trap. The Germans want to think they won a battle by running away then let them.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 30, 2020)

The RN would have accomplished it’s mission.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 30, 2020)

The two navies had different victory conditions: the RN's was to drive the High Seas Fleet back into port and the HSF's was to break the RN's blockade. The HSF didn't meet its goals, although it did destroy more of the RN's capital ships than vice versa. This could make some people argue that the HSF won the battle, but German fleet did not break the blockade and never seriously challenged the RN's supremacy. 

I think the people who consider Jutland to have been a German victory are missing a few critical points. One is that the HSF was in a strategically offensive position; they needed to definitively defeat the Grand Fleet: they needed a Trafalgar-like victory where the HSF could destroy the RN blockade.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
8 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Jul 30, 2020)

Oddly they turned to the U-Boat next.

Had the Royal Navy operated in 100% then things could have been different

Beatty should have been keelhauled after Jutland. But no he gets promoted.

Go figure.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 30, 2020)

The Basket said:


> Oddly they turned to the U-Boat next.
> 
> Had the Royal Navy operated in 100% then things could have been different
> 
> ...



The German Navy had to both break the RN blockade of Germany and blockade Britain. It's surface raiders had pretty much been neutralized by Sept 1915. The German Navy had to do _something_ otherwise it would find its crews drafted into the army and its ships salvaged for artillery and steel.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jul 30, 2020)

Something else to consider regarding the HSF claiming a possible victory at Jutland. Between the Grand Fleet and the High Seas Fleet, who was fueled, oiled, armed and ready for another go within 48 hours of returning to port?

It sure wasn't the HSF. Much is made of the GF losing 3 battlecruisers explosively, but when you look at what the battle line of the GF did to the HSF, it was a right a$$ kicking.

Had Jellicoe been informed that the HSF was running for home behind him, or if one of his battleship captains had at least opened fire on the Germans and tipped him off, the First of June 1916 would have been very grim for the HSF indeed.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Capt. Vick (Jul 30, 2020)

"Battlecruisers exploding to early." - 

Maybe they shouldn't be exploding at all, but I don't claim to be a naval architect.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Jul 30, 2020)

One must risk if you are to win.

The exploding had nothing to do with naval architecture.

Oddly the Pommern also blew up with loss of all hands but hasn't come an example of stupidity. Like pre dreadnoughts in a dreadnought battle is not the height of stupid.

Oddly Pommern explodes with loss of all hands and Hannover gets away without a scratch. That's war for you.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Capt. Vick (Jul 31, 2020)

Well the battle-cruiser traded protection for speed and paid the bill at Jutland.


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 31, 2020)

Capt. Vick said:


> Well the battle-cruiser traded protection for speed and paid the bill at Jutland.



A major factor also seems to have been poor handling practice in the turrets, to increase rate of fire. While the cordite was a problem, and protection was marginal, there may have been also problems with bypassing or not having anti-flash measures.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 31, 2020)

My wife's great uncle was aboard this contraption (HMS defence) and lost in action when it was sunk. It is classified as an armoured cruiser.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Jul 31, 2020)

Arbuthnot has a lot to answer for.

3 of the class would go down. Black Prince, Warrior and Defence. Warrior was only saved by an out of control Warspite. So only 2 of the ships exploded instead 3. Warrior would sink later

Defence had no place taking on dreadnaughts so it was an undeserved end.

Basically Arbuthnot was not 100% but his zeal and authority was respected.

But he got his crew killed. For his own glory.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Aug 1, 2020)

The battle of Jutland was a material victory for the German simply because the Germans had better metallurgists and chemists. The German shells had less tendency to break up on impact and their explosives didn’t detonate prematurely. More importantly their propellant was far more stable. I can’t think of any German warship that blew up at anchor like Vanguard, Bulwak and Natal. At Dogger Bank the aft two turrets of Seydlitz burned out completely without exploding. The upper class twits who ran Britain were more interested in learning Latin and Greek than developing an understanding of science (Charles Rolls was a notable exception). The German educational emphasis on mechanics and science paid off during the war. The fact that the upper class twits gave away the chemical industry to Germany well certainly did help. Giving away vital industries to rival countries never pays.


----------



## The Basket (Aug 2, 2020)

A few points. For Germany, it was a tactical and strategic defeat.

A tactical defeat because they ran away. Don't win wars and battles by running. Yes they killed more men and sunk more ships but Royal Navy did have more ships to lose.

Strategic defeat because the British blockade was still there. Nothing changed from a week earlier. Scheer was like let's not do that again. And gave up on a big gun battle with the RN.

So I would say the whole Tirpitz risk theory or fleet in being was a disaster. It was folly to match the Royal Navy and Germany would have been better off following Jeune Ecole and building mines and submarines.

They spent a small fortune on a white elephant.

Pommern exploded so there's that. And German metallurgy didn't do Maximilian Von Spee any good.

Britain was not only building more battleships than Germany but also building ships for export at the same time. Britain could have out built and out performed German ships all day long. The Kaiserliche Marine did not have a battleship comparable to Warspite on the day.

Yes Invincible exploded but Warspite took shell after shell like a BeeHatch and was still kicking. So 2 examples of good and bad.

If Germany was defeated by upper class twits then don't say much for Germany then.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Aug 2, 2020)

Reluctant Poster said:


> The battle of Jutland was a material victory for the German simply because the Germans had better metallurgists and chemists. The German shells had less tendency to break up on impact and their explosives didn’t detonate prematurely. More importantly their propellant was far more stable. I can’t think of any German warship that blew up at anchor like Vanguard, Bulwak and Natal. At Dogger Bank the aft two turrets of Seydlitz burned out completely without exploding. The upper class twits who ran Britain were more interested in learning Latin and Greek than developing an understanding of science (Charles Rolls was a notable exception). The German educational emphasis on mechanics and science paid off during the war. The fact that the upper class twits gave away the chemical industry to Germany well certainly did help. Giving away vital industries to rival countries never pays.



I firmly believe that this is flawed in one very important way. The Battlecruisers blew up mainly because of unsafe and poor handling of the charges designed to speed up the rate of fire. Had the safe procedures been in place then most of the battlecruisers would have survived. This is often overlooked.
The German Battlecruisers were more accurate because the British Battlecruisers didn't get the Gunnery practice that the rest of the fleet received. HMS Warspite and her sister ships were only present at the battle because one of the Battlecruiser fleets had been detached for Gunnery practice, and they were the temporary replacements. As Main fleet modern fast battleships (the WW2 Iowa of the time) they were of course much better protected than the average Battlecruiser but also followed the main fleet operating procedures regarding the charges.

I do agree with the comments about Admiral Beatty. When he famously said '_there seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships. _ He should have said _there seems to be something wrong with my bloody leadership. _His appalling tactics, emphasis on rate of fire, lack of Gunnery practice and dreadful communication skills were evident in the final butchers bill, which had little to do with the design of the ships themselves.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
2 | Winner Winner:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Aug 2, 2020)

Blue Max for Beatty.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Aug 3, 2020)

Was about to post but realized that Basket and Glider have already said it better.

Reactions: Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Aug 3, 2020)

Reluctant Poster said:


> The battle of Jutland was a material victory for the German simply because the Germans had better metallurgists and chemists. The German shells had less tendency to break up on impact and their explosives didn’t detonate prematurely. More importantly their propellant was far more stable. I can’t think of any German warship that blew up at anchor like Vanguard, Bulwak and Natal. At Dogger Bank the aft two turrets of Seydlitz burned out completely without exploding. The upper class twits who ran Britain were more interested in learning Latin and Greek than developing an understanding of science (Charles Rolls was a notable exception). The German educational emphasis on mechanics and science paid off during the war. The fact that the upper class twits gave away the chemical industry to Germany well certainly did help. Giving away vital industries to rival countries never pays.



The Royal Navy was not a preserve of "upper class twits"; its officer corps had been serious professionals since at least the mid-18th Century. The British Army and Royal Navy (less effectively) also had paths for talented other ranks to progress. One problem was* that political favor and influence were highly important to promotion, leading to people with the right connections and social skills advancing more rapidly than less connected, equally or even more competent peers. 

---

* Political influence doesn't just mean influence outside the military; being related to a high-ranking officer is likely to help.


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Aug 4, 2020)

Glider said:


> I firmly believe that this is flawed in one very important way. The Battlecruisers blew up mainly because of unsafe and poor handling of the charges designed to speed up the rate of fire. Had the safe procedures been in place then most of the battlecruisers would have survived. This is often overlooked.
> The German Battlecruisers were more accurate because the British Battlecruisers didn't get the Gunnery practice that the rest of the fleet received. HMS Warspite and her sister ships were only present at the battle because one of the Battlecruiser fleets had been detached for Gunnery practice, and they were the temporary replacements. As Main fleet modern fast battleships (the WW2 Iowa of the time) they were of course much better protected than the average Battlecruiser but also followed the main fleet operating procedures regarding the charges.
> 
> I do agree with the comments about Admiral Beatty. When he famously said '_there seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships. _ He should have said _there seems to be something wrong with my bloody leadership. _His appalling tactics, emphasis on rate of fire, lack of Gunnery practice and dreadful communication skills were evident in the final butchers bill, which had little to do with the design of the ships themselves.


Sir David Beatty was the epitome of upper-class twitdom. He owed his position more to connections rather than merit. His upper-class distain for science and technology manifested itself in his cavalier attitude to gunnery training and safety practices. This attitude was quite pervasive throughout the navy. Engineers were ‘Greasers’ who never have much of a chance for promotion.

As I noted the British armour piercing shells were very much flawed. The shells were too brittle, the high explosive (Lyddite) was too sensitive and the fuse was poorly designed and prone to malfunction. The tragic part for the British is that they were aware of these flaws before the war and did nothing. In the event the actual performance in battle was even worse than the pre-war tests. The British finally took action and instituted a program to completely redesign them resulting in the so-called Green Boys. Shellite replaced Lyddite and the cases and fuses were redesigned.

Including the Pommern in this discussion is attacking a straw man. The Pommern was a completely outmoded warship that had no business being there. The Pommern had zero underwater protection and was struck by a torpedo in her 6.7” magazines. In any event this detonated the 6.7” shells not the propellant.

According to John Campbell in his book Jutland An Analysis of the Fighting:

The Seydlitz fire at Dogger Bank

“It is an often repeated error to state that as a result of this fire the Germans introduced flash precautions before Jutland. Actually, the principal step taken was to limit the number of charges out of their magazine cases or in opened cases, although too many were still present at Jutland in the Derfflinger’s two turrets in which fires occurred.

“If the Seydlitz had had British charges at Dogger Bank, she would unquestionably have blown up.”

Blucher at Dogger Bank

“…… the Blucher proved very hard to sink by gunfire and was eventually torpedoed. With British charges she would certainly have blown up.”

Jutland 

“If British propellant had been used in the German ships, the Defflinger certainly would have blown up as would in all probability the Seydlitz, and possibly the von der Tann.”

“The hit on the Konig below the water line, which completely destroyed one 5.9 in magazine and damaged a second, would have caused the ship to blow up with British charges.”


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Aug 4, 2020)

swampyankee said:


> The Royal Navy was not a preserve of "upper class twits"; its officer corps had been serious professionals since at least the mid-18th Century. The British Army and Royal Navy (less effectively) also had paths for talented other ranks to progress. One problem was* that political favor and influence were highly important to promotion, leading to people with the right connections and social skills advancing more rapidly than less connected, equally or even more competent peers.
> 
> ---
> 
> * Political influence doesn't just mean influence outside the military; being related to a high-ranking officer is likely to help.


Yes they had extremely talented professionals such as Jellicoe but that was counter balanced by the Beattys, the Arbuthnots , the Beresfords

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Aug 4, 2020)

So? Blucher was sank. Don't matter how. 

Pommern exploded. Don't matter how or why. 

I am sure that Warspite and Tiger and Lion had all the same issues but didn't explode. Maybe Tiger would have exploded if it had British charges.

Or maybe Warspite's 15 inch shells did no damage. 

The Germans ran away. There ships didn't explode but their morale did.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PFVA63 (Aug 4, 2020)

Hi,
For what its worth (not being an expert in anything remotely close to strategy, tactics or naval warfare) over the years as a layman I have come to look at the Battle of Jutland as follows:

Based on my limited understanding of the naval strategy of the opposing sides, (from various books and articles that I have read) from a strategic point of view it appears the the overall strategy for the RN (and its Entente allies) was to enforce (and maintain) a naval blockade of the Triple Alliance, while the strategy of the German Navy was to try and break this blockade. And since the naval blockade continued uninterrupted after this battle to me it would seem that it was a strategic success for the Entente while not being a strategic success for Germany (and it's Triple Alliance partners)
On an operational level it appears (from the sources I have read) that the Germans had hoped draw off parts of the overall larger Grand Fleet through a series of battles (such is this battle, and Dogger Bank, etc) in hopes of defeating small parts of the Grand Fleet to "whittle down" the RN's numeric advantage over the Germans. At this level, although the German's did in fact destroy more of its adversaries ships than the RN did at Jutland, in the aftermath of the battle the RN still enjoyed a numeric superiority over the Germans, with several additional ships coming on line fairly quickly to fill the void of the losses during the battle, while the German surface fleet appeared to be unprepared (and/or unable) to immediately put pressure back on the RN blockade. As such the battle did not appear to be overall operationally to the benefit of the Germans.
And finally on a tactical level
The early parts of the battle (with the battlecruisers scouting, making contact, and trying to lure each others forces towards their main fleets) seemed to unfold pretty much in a logical manner, with the main unexpected event being the relative fragility of the RN Battlecruiser forces.
After these early maneuvers though it appears from my readings that Admiral Jellicoe pretty muchly dominated how the battle unfolded for much of the day causing the Germans to execute at least two battle turns under smoke screen to try and evade the extensive RN battleline arrayed in front of the German forces.
Or put another way, in the battle between the main fleets the Germans tactically appeared to be more in a reactionary mode to the British maneuvers than the other way around during the day battle.

It does not appear that it was until late in the evening/early morning that of the next day that the German forces seemed to "have the initiative" (to use a wargaming term) in their operations and maneuver to evade the RN forces and break for home.

As such, although the German admiral (and many individual captains etc) appears to handled their ships and fleet extremely well in avoiding being cut off by the RN, in general they didn't really seem to ever "take command of the battlespace" or "take their battle to their enemy" or anything along those lines.

As such to me, although the Germans appeared to have handled themselves well, "given the hand that they were dealt", in general it appears to me to be kind of hard to term that as a victory, whereas for the RN/Entente regardless of their losses on that day they maintained their blockade, maintained control of the local sea, and forced their enemy to retire from the battlefield. So to me its hard not to see Jutland as a victory for the RN in particular (and the Entente forces in the overall grand scheme).

Pat

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Aug 4, 2020)

An excellent synopsis. 

But go deeper. The failure at Jutland led to the unrestricted submarine warfare campaign. This drew USA into the war. Then the next major operation of the high seas fleet was to mutiny against their officers.

Then to Scapa for interment and eventuall scuttling. It saddens me that such ships as Derfflinger should end up in such a way.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michaelmaltby (Aug 4, 2020)

The record of the German Navy, its _culture and traditions_, are not very deep as Britain's were and still are, IMO. Only the German U-boatmen created an indigenous submariner's culture - the hunter, the German Wolf. This they shared with fighter pilots and tankers.

The 'big ships' turned out -- for the most part, to be of very little value -- they _scared the hell out of everybody_ and they were beautiful, 'Germanic' ships, but, and I'm now speaking of WW2, the greatest consistent payback the German war machine ever got from the big ships was in the Baltic, after the collapse from Bagration (June 22, 1944). Again and again, the guns with their long reach helped the Herr maintain an 'orderly' withdraw on the Northern Front.
Other big German ships were held, unused, and destroyed at anchor by Britsh means; or roamed free briefly to be destroyed by the Royal Navy in blazing gun battles; using lesser ships.

It takes _generations_ to grow a Navy and its ships. Jutland, IIRC, was _the only _major naval engagement - test - the German Navy had experienced since Bismark pulled the whole puzzle together under the Kaiser -- who 'had to have a navy', just like his British and Russian cousins .

In _strategic_ terms, the only terms that matter to a fighting Navy, the Royal Navy _won_ the Battle of Jutland.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Aug 5, 2020)

michaelmaltby said:


> The record of the German Navy, its _culture and traditions_, are not very deep as Britain's were and still are, IMO. Only the German U-boatmen created an indigenous submariner's culture - the hunter, the German Wolf. This they shared with fighter pilots and tankers.
> 
> The 'big ships' turned out -- for the most part, to be of very little value -- they _scared the hell out of everybody_ and they were beautiful, 'Germanic' ships, but, and I'm now speaking of WW2, the greatest consistent payback the German war machine ever got from the big ships was in the Baltic, after the collapse from Bagration (June 22, 1944). Again and again, the guns with their long reach helped the Herr maintain an 'orderly' withdraw on the Northern Front.
> Other big German ships were held, unused, and destroyed at anchor by Britsh means; or roamed free briefly to be destroyed by the Royal Navy in blazing gun battles; using lesser ships.
> ...


^^^ This.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Aug 5, 2020)

Two boxers, one stands in the middle of the ring bloodied but gloves up and ready. The other slightly less bloodied refuses to get up off his stool and fight. Who won the boxing match.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Aug 9, 2020)

Look at where Von Hipper was born.

Weilheim in Oberbayern

thats like in deep Bavaria as far away from the ocean as you can get and still be in Germany! 

so there's that.


----------



## Snautzer01 (Aug 9, 2020)

michaelmaltby said:


> Other big German ships were held, unused, and destroyed at anchor by Britsh means; or roamed free briefly to be destroyed by the Royal Navy in blazing gun battles; using lesser ships.



You and not only you forget Ultra. Comes in very handy knowing what your opponent plans are minute by minute. How and even who is doing what.


----------



## buffnut453 (Aug 9, 2020)

Snautzer01 said:


> You and not only you forget Ultra. Comes in very handy knowing what your opponent plans are minute by minute. How and even who is doing what.



Errrrr...Ultra in 1916? I don't think so.


----------



## Snautzer01 (Aug 9, 2020)

buffnut453 said:


> Errrrr...Ultra in 1916? I don't think so.


Read his post.


----------



## fastmongrel (Aug 9, 2020)

No ULTRA in 1916 but Room 40 was reading German signal traffic just as fast.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mad Dog (Aug 9, 2020)

Reluctant Poster said:


> The battle of Jutland was a material victory for the German.....


 Material victories don't win wars unless they give you a strategic victory that puts you in a better position to ensure the defeat of your enemy. At the end of the Battle, the Imperial fleet ran back home, having not broken the Royal Navy's blockade, which mean the British carried on starving the German industry of strategic materials and the German people of food, ensuring the Allied victory.


Reluctant Poster said:


> .....simply because the Germans had better metallurgists and chemists.....


 No. The German _gunnery optics_ were superior, allowing them more accurate fire at long range whilst running away, and the _greater level of internal division bulkheads_ made the German ships superior in survivability, but their chemists and metallurgists were not more advanced. 


Reluctant Poster said:


> .....The German shells had less tendency to break up on impact and their explosives didn’t detonate prematurely.....


 Again, no. Against the RN's battlecruisers that was completely irrelevant, it was the thinness of the battlecruisers' armour that made them vulnerable, along with the poor standards of ammunition handling in the RN turrets. However, the RN maintained a higher rate of fire through those more risky storage methods, which meant that if they had managed to get the whole of the larger RN fleet to cross the T of the fleeing Germans then the Germans would have all been sunk in quick order.


Reluctant Poster said:


> ......More importantly their propellant was far more stable. I can’t think of any German warship that blew up at anchor like Vanguard, Bulwak and Natal. At Dogger Bank the aft two turrets of Seydlitz burned out completely without exploding.....


 Which ignore the fact the the Q turret commander on _HMS Lion, _despite being mortally wounded, quickly gave the command to flood the magazines and saved_ Lion. _And the German ships had greater internal division_ becasue _the pre-War Imperial fleet lost ships to accidental magazine fires _in peacetime_. the British didn't realise it was a bigger issue because they had better peacetime operational experience.


Reluctant Poster said:


> .....The upper class twits who ran Britain were more interested in learning Latin and Greek than developing an understanding of science (Charles Rolls was a notable exception). The German educational emphasis on mechanics and science paid off during the war. The fact that the upper class twits gave away the chemical industry to Germany well certainly did help. Giving away vital industries to rival countries never pays.


 And yet the British beat the Germans with superior aircraft and tanks, designed in Britain, and the Royal Navy kept the Imperial Navy bottled up and ineffective for the rest of War, whilst the German industrial base struggled and stagnated because the Germans simply didn't have the intelligence to realise their geopolitical situation at the start of the War meant they were doomed to lose. Not being geniuses, they repeated the exact same mistake in 1939, when - again - superior British designs (especially in aircraft) beat the Germans hollow.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Aug 11, 2020)

Mad Dog said:


> Material victories don't win wars unless they give you a strategic victory that puts you in a better position to ensure the defeat of your enemy. At the end of the Battle, the Imperial fleet ran back home, having not broken the Royal Navy's blockade, which mean the British carried on starving the German industry of strategic materials and the German people of food, ensuring the Allied victory.
> No. The German _gunnery optics_ were superior, allowing them more accurate fire at long range whilst running away, and the _greater level of internal division bulkheads_ made the German ships superior in survivability, but their chemists and metallurgists were not more advanced.
> Again, no. Against the RN's battlecruisers that was completely irrelevant, it was the thinness of the battlecruisers' armour that made them vulnerable, along with the poor standards of ammunition handling in the RN turrets. However, the RN maintained a higher rate of fire through those more risky storage methods, which meant that if they had managed to get the whole of the larger RN fleet to cross the T of the fleeing Germans then the Germans would have all been sunk in quick order.
> Which ignore the fact the the Q turret commander on _HMS Lion, _despite being mortally wounded, quickly gave the command to flood the magazines and saved_ Lion. _And the German ships had greater internal division_ becasue _the pre-War Imperial fleet lost ships to accidental magazine fires _in peacetime_. the British didn't realise it was a bigger issue because they had better peacetime operational experience.
> And yet the British beat the Germans with superior aircraft and tanks, designed in Britain, and the Royal Navy kept the Imperial Navy bottled up and ineffective for the rest of War, whilst the German industrial base struggled and stagnated because the Germans simply didn't have the intelligence to realise their geopolitical situation at the start of the War meant they were doomed to lose. Not being geniuses, they repeated the exact same mistake in 1939, when - again - superior British designs (especially in aircraft) beat the Germans hollow.


To be clear I am saying the Germans had a material victory in the sense that they destroyed more ships than the British. Jutland was undoubtedly a strategic victory for the British and also a tactical victory for Jellicoe. Jellicoe was unfairly criticized for not delivering a second Trafalgar when in fact he handled his fleet as perfectly as could be done given the communications systems available at the time. Other admirals did far worse in WWII with much better communication equipment. He out thought Scheer who main tactic was run away, run away. 
British ship could and did take tremendous punishment as long as their magazines remained intact.
As to the state of the British chemical industry (from A History of the Modern British Chemical Industry):
”in 1890 the U.K. dye industry employed some 1000 workers, one-twentieth of the number then employed by the five largest a German dye firms.”
”The abrupt cessation of these imports in August 1914 found the British dyers unable to carry on a large part of their business; they were not even in a position to dye the uniforms of the soldiers who were to fight Germany! So acute was the situation that Royal Warrants were issued to permit trading with the enemy, and for some time an exchange of dye intermediates was carried on in neutral Holland.” 
The dye industry was the foundation of the chemical industry. BASF, Bayer and AGFA all started in dyes. Britain pioneered the dye industry but gave it away.
http://www.professor-murmann.net/Murmann_OEEH.pdf
”Because of her leadership in organic chemicals, Germany by 1913 possessed the largest chemical industry in the world and also was the largest exporter with a 40.2% global share.”
I am curious as to what ships the Germans lost to magazine explosions pre WWI

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Aug 12, 2020)

Mad Dog said:


> *Not being geniuses*, they repeated the exact same mistake in 1939, when - again - superior British designs (especially in aircraft) beat the Germans hollow.


I think the "not geniuses" part is more critical than the "superior British designs" part to the outcome of the war. As neither an Anglophile nor a Teutonophile, I'm not convinced German designs were all that inferior, just that their arrogance and ideological fixations clouded their vision and impaired their tactics and strategy. For a nation whose long term goal was to subdue the vast steppes of USSR, not designing more range into their aircraft seems in hindsight rather short-sighted. Also, with their extensive electronics expertise, the failure to recognize the impact that radar and radar networks would have on aerial campaigns is particularly odd. And then there's the overconfidence in Enigma. And the curtailment of R&D work once the shooting started. And the lack of long term thinking in terms of personnel utilization, especially highly skilled assets such as Uboat and flight crews. The failure to acknowledge that the "short and sweet" war of conquest had devolved into a long term war of attrition.
Churchill&Co at least had a long term grasp of the demands of a war of attrition.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Aug 12, 2020)

I think I've said this several times, but it bears repeating: the major powers during WW2 were at comparable levels of technology, overall, with some having some particular areas of superiority to others, with those areas moving around during the war.

In neither WW1 nor WW2 were the Germans (the primary member of the Axis in WW2 and of the Central Powers in WW1) defeated by nothing but brute force and ignorance: in both wars, the German Navy, especially its surface fleet, was consistently out-fought at sea and, ultimately, their army was out-fought on land.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michaelmaltby (Aug 12, 2020)

"... defeated by nothing but brute force"
With the emphasis on 'brute' ... and _that _is why retaking Europe would have been such an impossible challenge had the Soviet's _not_ been prepared to bleed white to keep Russia red.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mad Dog (Aug 13, 2020)

michaelmaltby said:


> "... defeated by nothing but brute force"
> With the emphasis on 'brute' ... and _that _is why retaking Europe would have been such an impossible challenge had the Soviet's _not_ been prepared to bleed white to keep Russia red.


OK, let's assume Hitler doesn't attack Russia in June 1941. He doesn't declare war on the USA in December 1941 and leaves the Japanese to soak up US efforts and restrict the British Empire, meaning Hitler only has to fight the Commonwealth. It still leaves him unable to defeat the British Empire because his force is predominantly a European continental army with very limited navy and air transport. He also has an economy unable to produce the material, especially petrol/oil/lubricants, he needs for a long war, and his Romanian oilfields are vulnerable to long-range RAF bombers from the Middle East, especially as the RAF can still buy B-24s from the US under Lend-Lease in 1941. If Hitler doesn't invade Russia in June 1941, then he has to keep a massive force tied down in Poland to guard against a Soviet invasion, and another force tied down in Norway in case the Soviets decide to occupy all of Finland and push into Scandinavia. And, of course, another large force is already tied down in Occupied France in case the British invade across the Channel. The size of the Royal Navy ensures Britain can invade Europe pretty much wherever they wish, whilst the Germans have zero chance of invading the UK.
The US is still going to supply the British as they are allies in the war against Japan. So the British still get Lend-lease Grant and Sherman tanks, Mustangs and Thunderbolts, B-17s and B-24s, and second-hand USN escort destroyers for the Battle of the Atlantic. With the USA concentrated solely in the Pacific and not sending forces to Europe or North Africa, the Japanese get defeated faster, then all the USA's industrial focus will be on supplying the British to defeat Hitler.
The British will still defeat the Axis in Africa because the African continent is simply too big for Hitler to ever conquer, just as Russia was too vast, and Hitler doesn't have the ability to supply a massive force in Africa, whilst the British have established bases running all the way down to Cape Town and secure supply through West Africa and the Red Sea for shipments from the States. After defeating the Axis in North Africa, the British can invade Europe via the Balkans because they don't have any Tehran Conference agreement pegging them to invade France, allowing them to go the route Crete-Greece-Bulgaria-Romania and capturing those vital oilfields, putting a stranglehold on the Germany war industry. From Romania the British can then take the relatively open route to the north to Poland or go directly northwest to Germany, or the more mountainous west route through Transylvania to Hungary and Austria. Or they can simply hold Romania, suck in German forces, and then mount an invasion of Sardinia and then Southern France. There is actually not much reason to invade Italy as the Italians have relatively little industrial power and it's concentrated in the north, making it an easy target for RAF bombers, and without Romanian oil the Italians can be suppressed and then talked into a treaty.
The biggest bit the British would miss in Europe would be the strategic impact of the 8th AF day-bombers hitting German industry and their escorts chewing up the Luftwaffe. Britain would have to rely on Mosquito bombers for day raids into Germany. Of course, should the War drag on long enough, the Manhattan Project gives the British access to the nuclear bomb, and then it's curtains for Hitler and most of Berlin in one go.
So, a longer grind but no actual requirement for the Soviets to do anything other than look threatening, and the British would still have defeated Hitler.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Optimistic Optimistic:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Aug 13, 2020)

Mad Dog said:


> OK, let's assume Hitler doesn't attack Russia in June 1941. He doesn't declare war on the USA in December 1941 and leaves the Japanese to soak up US efforts and restrict the British Empire





Mad Dog said:


> The British will still defeat the Axis in Africa because the African continent is simply too big for Hitler to ever conquer


I'm not sure I buy this scenario. Without the huge resource drain of the eastern front, Germany can dominate North Africa, pulverize Malta, Gibraltar, Alexandria, and turn the Mediterranean into a Nazi lake. There goes Suez and access to Middle East oil. Turkey might find it expedient to cooperate in return for revival of its former Ottoman glory in the new world order. Germany doesn't have to conquer the entire African continent; with the Sahara as a barrier to the south, only the north coastal perimeter needs to be occupied and defended. If Gibraltar becomes Axis, Spain, Morocco, and Algeria will likely follow, extending the basing areas for U-boats and FW200s to interdict shipping in the Atlantic and threatening South America-Africa aircraft ferrying routes. With Egypt and Suez in Axis hands, U-boats can operate in the Indian Ocean, further interdicting Commonwealth shipping.
Methinks the British Empire would find this a tough row to hoe.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Aug 13, 2020)

The Germans had 11 inch and 12 inch guns and that wasn't buttering any parsnips in 1916. Also their gun range was limited.

So against Warspite the Germans had no reply. Had the 4 QE took on the German Battlecruisers instead of the British Battlecruisers then things may have been different.

Shipbuilding the British was muchly superior to the Germans.

And numbers are the key.

Not only could Britain outbuild Germany but it was building warships for other countries. Turkey, Japan and South America.

The Germans were behind in 15 inch guns and their radio codes were broken.


----------



## swampyankee (Aug 13, 2020)

I don’t buy the scenario, either: attacking east was intrinsic to Hitler’s ideology as exploitation of the resources and people of Eastern Europe was a key part of his vision for the future. Unrestricted submarine warfare brought the US into WWI; it would do so in WWII.

The other issue Hitler would have on this scenario is that his eastern flank would now have the opportunistic and ideologically dangerous USSR.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michaelmaltby (Aug 13, 2020)

I did not intend to _hijack_ this Jutland thread, my bad,  but interesting responses.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Aug 13, 2020)

michaelmaltby said:


> I did not intend to _hijack_ this Jutland thread, my bad,  but interesting responses.


Solo hijackers seldom succeed without willing accomplices.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 13, 2020)

The "no eastern front" scenario is covered in this thread 

No Eastern front. What next?


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Aug 13, 2020)

swampyankee said:


> The other issue Hitler would have on this scenario is that his eastern flank would now have the opportunistic and ideologically dangerous USSR.


With Hitler's greatly expanded Reich stretching from Algeria to Norway to Warsaw to Suez and the oilfields, his natural resources deficit is mostly eliminated. He can now designate his Turkish vassals to garrison and administer their former Mediterranean encircling empire so he can dedicate a now strengthened and updated Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe to intimidating and eventually subduing USSR. Given his overwhelming local superiority, he can probably convince the Swedes to supply the mineral resources he needs, if not to join up outright. Note, this entire program doesn't rely much on surface sea power, an acknowledged German shortcoming.


----------



## Mad Dog (Aug 16, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> .......Without the huge resource drain of the eastern front, Germany can dominate North Africa, pulverize Malta, Gibraltar, Alexandria, and turn the Mediterranean into a Nazi lake.......


 With what? The Italian merchant navy was too small to keep Rommel's _Afrikakorp_ and the Italian forces in Libya supplied, how do you think Hitler was going to magically ship the much larger amount of troops, material and supplies required to support the whole _Heer_ in Libya? Remember, no land route for Hitler to get to the Middle-East unless he goes through Russia or neutral Turkey. And even had he managed a deal with Turkey, he does not have the infrastructure to support such a long land supply-line, as was shown in Russia. His attempt to support the rebellion in Iraq failed exactly because there was very little he could do to help the Iraqis.
Hitler had only intended to bolster the Italians in the Desert theatre to protect his southern flank, he originally ordered Rommel not to attack the British in 1941, but Rommel ignored him. Hitler invaded Crete in 1941 instead of Malta for two reasons; firstly, he needed to prevent the RAF using Crete as a bomber base to hit those Romanian oilfields, and secondly, because he didn't have enough air transports, paratroops, and navy to attack Malta _and_ Crete, even with Italian assistance. When the B-24s were hitting Ploiesti in 1943 they were flying from Italy and from Egypt, which suggests the RAF could have used B-24s as night-bombers from Egypt to hit Ploiesti in 1941.
Meanwhile, the RAF and RN were sinking the Italian merchant navy in such numbers during 1941 and 1942 that it was projected to cease to exist by mid-1944, because the Italians simply didn't have a ship-building industry large enough to exceed the rate that they were losing ships. Whilst the Italian's loss of 2.1 million tons of merchant shipping in the Med seems tiny compared to the Allied losses in the Atlantic, the Allies not only had the merchant navies from Occupied Europe that had fled to safe harbours, they also had the much bigger ship-building industries of Britain and the USA to churn out replacements. Indeed, as the Italian fleet declined, the Allied merchant fleet actually grew. Worse, in an attempt to isolate Malta, Hitler had to move U-boats from the Atlantic to the Med, _because_ _he didn't have enough U-boat-building capacity to supply both naval theatres_.
The Germans couldn't produce any transport ships to help the Italians because they didn't have much of a fleet themselves, they didn't have enough steel to build ships and tanks, and because any ships had to be routed through the North Sea, down the Channel and then across the Bay of Biscay, past Gibraltar, and then along the Med past Malta to Italy - a suicide run! When the _Kriegsmarine_ moved E-boats to the Med, they sent them via the French canal system exactly because they knew they could not send them via the Atlantic and expect them to survive.
By 1942, the Italians were getting so little supplies through to Benghazi that the _Luftwaffe_ resorted to trying to fly fuel supplies in, only to find all the Ju52s and experienced crews they had lost in Norway, France and Crete meant they could not do the job, and Goering has been forced to concentrate on bombers and fighters and had neglected the transport arm even further. The lack of industrial capacity was one of the factors forcing Goering's hand. And so Rommel had to steal fuel from the Italians for his retreat from Alamein.
Ever wonder why there were so few Tiger tanks in North Africa? One of the reasons was because the Germans had nothing they could fly a Tiger in, so they had to go by sea, and Hitler realised that trying to ship Tigers to NA was a lottery with half of them expected to end up at the bottom of the Med. Hitler failed to supply his forces in Russia and that was a much simpler over-land supply-line, he would never have been able to supply the forces necessary to push down through Africa or northeast to the Persian oilfields, and Rommel would need to do _both_ to stop the British outflanking him from one side or the other. And even before that decision is made, Hitler couldn't send all his forces to the Desert because he had to keep an anti-invasion force in Poland to guard against the expected attack from Stalin.
So, no, Hitler could never have turned the Med into a Nazi lake.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Aug 16, 2020)

Er what?

Lieutenant Rommel bombing Malta? 

Was he on the Goeben?

I don't understand? Germany was in Africa? Is this to do with Lettow-Vorbeck?

Turkey? The Ottoman Empire? Poland is independent? 

None of this is making sense.

Isnt Hitler a Lance Corporal? Help me out here.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 16, 2020)

The Basket said:


> I don't understand? Germany was in Africa?


They did have four colonial possessions and there was even an interesting battle on Lake Tanganyica between elements of the Royal Navy and the Imperial Navy.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Aug 16, 2020)

The Basket said:


> Er what?
> 
> Lieutenant Rommel bombing Malta?
> 
> ...


It appears the Basket is still fighting WWI, while the rest of us thread hijackers have skipped ahead to WWII. I think he's calling us out.
Guilty as charged, Sir!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Aug 16, 2020)

Why is Germany helping our ally Italy and what is USSR?

Why are you flying tigers? Is this for a zoo?

Germany did have African colonies but...not for very much longer.

Our good friend and ally the Japanese will help us in the Mediterranean. I'm sure they will spare a Kongo. Need to keep an eye on the Austro Hungarian navy and their Tegetthoff battleships.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Aug 16, 2020)

Mad Dog said:


> So, no, Hitler could never have turned the Med into a Nazi lake.


With Malta gone, Spain cooperating, and both shores of the Straits of Gibraltar in Axis hands, RN in the Med is limited to what it can do from Alexandria, supplied up the Red Sea and Suez. This tremendously reduces support available to the Desert Army, especially if the supply train is going to also support RN Med ops. Attrition of Axis Mediterranean merchant shipping is drastically reduced, and with Malta as an intermediate base, aerial resupply can be enhanced and Luftwaffe effectiveness in NA much improved. In such a scenario, Alexandria couldn't hold out for long. Turkey might be induced to abandon her neutrality and join the "winning" side, especially at the prospect of regaining much of her former empire. With Axis control extending down into the South Atlantic, supply lines UK to Alexandria would require a lengthy circumnavigation or be subject to land based air attack. The Axis deficit in merchant hulls could be addressed by capturing and repurposing, rather than torpedoing, Allied and neutral shipping. With Spain cooperating and Gibraltar under control, Portugal wouldn't last long, opening a secure shipping route from Occupied Europe to the Med. The shipping deficit would be overcome, and the "Nazi Sea" would be secure.


----------



## Peter Gunn (Aug 17, 2020)

FLORIDA (AP) - An unspecified number of hijackers managed to gain total control of a thread discussing the World War I (1914-1918) Battle of Jutland (1916) and steer the conversation to the next war (World War II - ~1939-1945) with possible changes in historical outcome favorable to Germany. Reports indicate that the hijackers had significant help from current posters to the thread, possibly a case of "Stockholm Syndrome". Authorities are investigating.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
5 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Aug 17, 2020)

NEW YORK (UPI) Authorities investigating an alleged highjacking first reported in Florida have discovered on the grounds of The WWII Aircraft Forum the remains of an expired equine named "Jutland", displaying evidence of having been savagely kicked, to death, and for a significant time thereafter. Several forum members with apparent blood stains on their boots were observed in vehement discussion of The Forum's primary topic of study, WWII. Results of this investigation to date have been forwarded to State's Attorney's Office as well as to ASPCA.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Aug 17, 2020)

Some guys driving DeLoreans on this forum pumping up to 88mph.

Gotta be stopped or them Nazis be back.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mad Dog (Aug 19, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> With Malta gone, Spain cooperating...


 But Hitler had already asked Franco to join the War and take Gibraltar, and Franco declined because (a) Spain was still a wreck after the Civil War, and (b) Franco was not an idiot and realised the British would regroup, and then Spain could be the target of retaliation, and (c) he owed the Brits as MI6 was responsible for arranging his escape from exile in the Canary Islands and flying him to his loyal Rif troops in Spanish Morocco, which led to his victory against the Spanish Republicans. 


XBe02Drvr said:


> ......both shores of the Straits of Gibraltar in Axis hands, RN in the Med is limited to what it can do from Alexandria, supplied up the Red Sea and Suez...


 Actually, the majority of Commonwealth supplies took exactly that route (excepting aircraft, which took the overland route from Takoradi), because it was safer than going through the Med. The exceptions were the supply convoys to Malta from Gibraltar, and those could have been routed to Suez and then out from Alexandria. 


XBe02Drvr said:


> .....This tremendously reduces support available to the Desert Army...


 No it doesn't because the vast majority of supplies went round Africa to Suez.


XBe02Drvr said:


> .......Attrition of Axis Mediterranean merchant shipping is drastically reduced....


 How? The RAF and RN are still in North Africa, especially the submarines, and Malta is still there with her airbases and anchorage. And with Hitler shooting his airborne bolt in Crete, the Axis don't have the means to subdue Malta without pulling forces from Russia.


XBe02Drvr said:


> ......Luftwaffe effectiveness in NA much improved......


 You can improve the "effectiveness" of the _Luftwaffe_ all you like, but without (at least) quadrupling the available number of transport aircraft, plus a doubling of the amount of rolling stock in Italy available to carry supplies across the Alps, *you are never going to get enough supplies to Africa to support the existing Afrikakorps*, let alone all the forces used in invading Russia!


XBe02Drvr said:


> ..........Turkey might be induced to abandon her neutrality......


 More wishful thinking. Hitler tried bribes of military equipment and money, but the Allies simply paid larger bribes. The Turks hedged their bets, signed a Friendship Treaty with Hitler in 1941, but eventually realised that the Germans could not win the War, that is why they stayed neutral did not join the Axis. The Turks were very helpful to Germany, especially when it came to laundering gold and jewelry stolen from concentration camp victims, and in supplying chromium, but they did not want to go to war against Britain after their defeat and loss of the Ottoman Empire in 1918.


XBe02Drvr said:


> ......With Axis control extending down into the South Atlantic....


 Throughout the War, Germany never controlled any open sea because the _Kriegsmarine_ was to weak. Despite Germany having all the Atlantic coast from Norway to France, the RN still controlled the North Sea, Channel and Atlantic Approaches throughout the War. And the arrival of Catapult-Armed-Merchantmen and then escort carriers soon kept the _Luftwaffe_ threat to shipping to a minimum.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Aug 19, 2020)

Just as an aside, Napoleon had control of just about all of continental Europe, plus an on-and-off alliance with Russia. Of course, part of that control included an alliance with the unreliable Austrians and the suppurating wound that was occupied Spain.

Having control of much of Europe wouldn't grant Hitler invulnerability; it would just make everybody note that he was a far greater threat than the largely illusory one (beyond Eastern Europe) that was the USSR*.

------

* I mean specifically the USSR, as opposed to bolshevism. The threat from the latter was a matter of internal security. It was also conflated, by anti-liberal movements, with such concepts as civil rights and racial equality (by J Edgar Hoover, among others) and expanded suffrage.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Aug 19, 2020)

Mad Dog said:


> But Hitler had already asked Franco to join the War and take Gibraltar, and Franco declined


If Franco wouldn't respond to a nudge, he could have been subjected to a push (or even a putsch).


Mad Dog said:


> And with Hitler shooting his airborne bolt in Crete, the Axis don't have the means to subdue Malta without pulling forces from Russia.


Huh? The premise of this thread is no Barbarossa in 1941. Sure, he would maintain a force in being on the eastern front, but it wouldn't be the huge resource drain that the invasion was, and could be tapped for resources to support the Malta, Portugal, and Africa Corps operations. Remember, US forces not on scene yet, and even if Rommel hasn't triumphed by then, with Gibraltar closed off and west coast of North Africa in Axis hands, US arrival will be seriously complicated, if the time comes. Can Britain control an Axis surrounded Mediterranean with no Gibraltar and no Malta from Alexandria? I doubt it. Especially with an Axis controlled secure sea route from occupied Europe to the Med. Operation Drumbeat in the Med, hosted from Italy and Malta. Remember, this was before most of the later refinements in ASW were in place. This is not a surface navy scenario.


Mad Dog said:


> *you are never going to get enough supplies to Africa to support the existing Afrikakorps*, let alone all the forces used in invading Russia!


Russia again! No Barbarossa, remember? Russia will have to be dealt with eventually, but can wait until the Med is subdued. And as mentioned elsewhere in the thread, if Stalin attacks prematurely, Hitler has home court advantage, and Stalin's people have a purge-induced leadership deficit.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## Mad Dog (Aug 19, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> If Franco wouldn't respond to a nudge, he could have been subjected to a push (or even a putsch).....


 See Operation Felix for how that didn't pan out. In August 1940, Franco insisted the Germans had to invade the UK mainland before he would join them in attacking Gibraltar. Hitler knew he couldn't invade the UK, the _Kriegsmarine _was too weak to carry the _Wehrmacht_ across the Channel and the _Luftwaffe_ was busy losing the battle of Britain. And he couldn't wait until 1941 because he needed to attack the Soviet Union by mid-1941, because if he left it too late then Stalin would attack him. So, in 1940, Hitler couldn't risk getting tied up invading Spain and leaving himself open to an attack from Stalin. You need to write this down and read it before you consider this scenario further - no Barbarosa does not mean no threat of a Soviet attack in 1941!


XBe02Drvr said:


> .....Huh? The premise of this thread is no Barbarossa in 1941. Sure, he would maintain a force in being on the eastern front, but it wouldn't be the huge resource drain that the invasion was.....


  Oh yes it would be. Indeed, Hitler had to invade because his generals had already told him that it was very possible that Stalin would be able to defeat the Germans if they didn't strike first. The Soviets had *174 divisions* on the Polish front in 1941, which was more than the total number of all German divisions in all theatres! The Soviets also had more than four times as many tanks and three times as many aircraft. Hitler had to strike first to ensure survival. So, no Barbarosa _does_ still means a drain from tying down a massive German force defending the East in Poland, on the end of another long supply-line. Remember, Hitler has no defensive fortification in East Poland, no Siegfried Line or Maginot Line to enhance his defence, and it is wide-open tank country the Soviets already know well from fighting the Poles in 1920. Hitler can't build an Atlantic Wall in East Poland in time, so he has to match Soviet muscle with German muscle, and there is just not enough German muscle available to split off a bigger force for the Med.


XBe02Drvr said:


> .......and could be tapped for resources to support the Malta, Portugal, and Africa Corps operations.....


 Hitler did have to pull _Luftwaffe_ units from the Soviet Front to attack Malta in the winter of 1941-42, and it still wasn't enough because he was also having to supply Rommel's failed gamble in the Desert. But you're ignoring the fact Hitler still doesn't have either the navy, the merchant ships, or the air transport to actually mount an invasion of Malta. Just pulling more forces from Russia and piling them up in Sicily is not going to help invade Malta. No Barbarosa does not magically double the size of the Italian merchant navy.


XBe02Drvr said:


> .....Remember, US forces not on scene yet.....


 And Britain didn't need them. Until Operation Torch, all the ground forces in Africa are Commonwealth (and some Free French), and that is who stopped Rommel at El Alamein and then drove him back to Tunisia. Even without Torch, Rommel was doomed after El Alamein because Hitler cannot supply him with the reinforcements and material Rommel needs because Hitler doesn't have the necessary ships and planes in the Med (or anywhere for that matter).


XBe02Drvr said:


> .....and even if Rommel hasn't triumphed by then...


 Go back read again, *Rommel can never triumph in Africa.* Even if he drives the British back to the Suez Canal, he does not have the forces and would never have the logistical capability to push forward into the Middle East _and_ south towards the Sudan. If he does just Sudan, the British resupply their forces in Syria and Palestine from Iraq, India and South Africa, and attack Rommel's supply lines in Egypt, cutting off his forces and defeating him. If Rommel goes east into Palestine, the British resupply their forces in the Sudan and come back down the Nile Valley and cut off Rommel's forces, defeating him. If Rommel tries both routes of advance, the British simply wear him down whilst bombing his supply lines. All the British supplies that would have gone to Suez can go to Basra and/or Aden and/or Port Sudan, still safe from Rommel, whilst all Rommel's supplies are being pounded on by the RAF from the factories onwards. Every mile Rommel advances is stretching his supply lines whilst shortening those of the British.


XBe02Drvr said:


> .....This is not a surface navy scenario....


 Yes it is, because the size of the force Hitler can bring to bear and supply in Africa is directly related to the size of the merchant navy he has available. Hitler has no overland supply route, and nowhere near enough air transport. So, yes it very much is a surface naval scenario _because _the RN from Malta is part of the reason the Italian merchant navy is trending to zero. Even if you want to magically erase Malta, that doesn't remove the RN submarines form the Med, there are still ports in Palestine and Syria available, and the subs can still pass into the Med from the Atlantic because the _Kriegsmarine_ is too small to close even the Straits of Gibraltar, even if their ships could survive getting there from the RN-dominated Channel, North Sea and Atlantic Approaches. The _Bismark_ demonstrated that folly.


XBe02Drvr said:


> .....And as mentioned elsewhere in the thread, if Stalin attacks prematurely, Hitler has home court advantage....


 OK, just to try and make it as simple as possible, Hitler can only ever beat Stalin if Hitler manages to seize control of the USSR and puts Stalin's head on a spike. Just stopping Stalin's invasion in Germany is not enough, because the Soviets will resupply, reinforce and resume their offensive. Stalin really never cared about casualty rates, he would have happily used up all 174 divisions, down to the last man, to secure victory. And Hitler cannot win a long war because his industry is simply not up to matching that of the British Empire, let alone the Empire plus the Soviets, plus the USA. And the biggest risk of sitting back and letting Stalin attack is that Stalin won't just invade Poland and Germany, he will seize the rest of Romania he hungers after, including the Romanian oilfields, which is game over for Hitler.


XBe02Drvr said:


> ....and Stalin's people have a purge-induced leadership deficit.


 Which still managed to defeat Germany even after the Germans invaded and the Soviets lost 4.9 million casualties in Barbarosa alone.
No Barbarosa means either a long, slow war of attrition against the British Empire backed by the industrial might of the USA, which Germany will lose, or invasion by the Soviets and a quicker war Germany will lose.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Aug 19, 2020)

Associated Press and UPI? Fake news, the lot of you! Next!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EsUNOIYyKg

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Aug 20, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> If Franco wouldn't respond to a nudge, he could have been subjected to a push (or even a putsch).


I see what you did there, two thumbs up with a Zorro Snap. 



XBe02Drvr said:


> Huh? The premise of this thread is no Barbarossa in 1941.
> 
> *SNIP*
> 
> ...


Not to put too fine a point on it Wes but... I _thought_ this was a thread about "the World War I (1914-1918) Battle of Jutland (1916)" to quote the AP source above.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Aug 20, 2020)

Alright, folks! Uncle! Uncle! Knock it off! I yield! I even submit to the superior intellect of Mad Dog. You all can slink back to Skagerrak 1916. I'm outta here. Y'all have fun now, hear?


----------



## SaparotRob (Aug 20, 2020)

You guys must rule playing Risk.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## michaelmaltby (Aug 20, 2020)

and the rules and logic for COVID-19 are ignored .... haha ... herding cats

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Aug 21, 2020)

What Jellicoe needed was air recon. He had seaplane carriers in 1916, and they’ve had two years experience since the Dec. 1914 raids.








SaparotRob said:


> The RN would have accomplished it’s mission.


The people wanted a new Trafalgar, not a strategic win. A Trafalgar-like victory may have caused revolt against the Kaiser.


Capt. Vick said:


> "Battlecruisers exploding to early.“ Maybe they shouldn't be exploding at all, but I don't claim to be a naval architect.


That‘s why you have more than one, you’re supposed to expect and plan to lose some.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 21, 2020)

Battlecruisers traded armor for speed, so they were vulnerable to hits that a battleship/dreadnaught would have shrugged off.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Aug 22, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> Battlecruisers traded armor for speed, so they were vulnerable to hits that a battleship/dreadnaught would have shrugged off.


But can they actually hit anything at battleship ranges when utilising their vaunted speed? If not, the very concept seems flawed.


----------



## The Basket (Aug 22, 2020)

Talking about battle cruisers is a total box of frogs.

Cos we have the Tiger which is good and the Indefatigable which not so good. The Indefatigable was not ideal as a capital ship as it's armour was far too thin against 11 or 12 inch shells.

The main role was as a cruiser killer and in that role it did well. Against the Blucher, against Graf Spee's East Asia Squadron. When the Goeben ran from the Minotaur class and so on.

The Kongo class ship Hiei was badly damaged by cruiser fire and that showed the weakness of the bsttlecruiser concept. 

So battle cruisers are a six a one half dozen of the other so to say they are bad at some aspects is correct but they were not designed initially as battleships.

So they should not be slugging it out with battleship grade guns but that's in the perfect world.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Aug 22, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> Battlecruisers traded armor for speed, so they were vulnerable to hits that a battleship/dreadnaught would have shrugged off.


Not the German variety it seems. Their battlecruisers took Warspite-like damage and but for one scuttled by German destroyer torpedoes they all made it home from Jutland.

Here’s the German battlecruiser Seydlitz, hit by twenty-one heavy-caliber shells, twice by secondary battery shells, and once by a torpedo. By October 1916 the ship was repaired and operational once more.






Swap out Scharnhorst and Gneisenau at the Dec 1914 Battle of the Falklands with a single battlecruiser and I’d say Admiral Sturdee is in deep trouble.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 22, 2020)

The Battlecruiser was a good idea on paper, but then again, it was born of a time when the world's navies were looking for an upper hand against the other.

And if it weren't for the Washington treaty, several of those Battlecruisers would not have been converted to Carriers: IJN Akagi, USS Lexington, USS Saratoga, HMS Glorious and HMS Courageous, for example.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Aug 22, 2020)

Had British shells worked as advertised then very few of the German Battlecruisers are coming home. The shells were acting as HE and not AP.

Fair play to the Germans but it different. The German Battlecruisers were designed to go up against HMS Invincible so they had to be up armoured. Their guns were short on range and the 11 inch gun was found to be not up to scratch.

HMS Tiger took a few hits too and survived.

The four IJN carriers at Midway were all scuttled so dont matter. If it's on the bottom of the sea then that's a loss. Even if like Mutsui it blows up in port.

A kill is a kill. It weakens the enemy.

Had Von Spee had a Battlecruiser then the Battle of Coronel wouldn't have happened and the RN would have sent far more substantial forces in the first place.

May have gone via Africa rather than Cape Horn.

Glorious was never a Battlecruiser. It deserved a new designation. Overgrown tin can with oversized guns is a good name

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Aug 22, 2020)

I think it's been stated in the thread but I'll reiterate, battlecruisers were never designed nor meant to go head to head with battleships. They were a design concept to catch and destroy cruisers, generally with a main battery caliber of 8in or less. They had the speed to catch any cruiser they came across and the armor to shrug off most if not all the hits such a cruiser could land. The 12in gun was perfectly capable of destroying any 8in gunned cruiser from range... on paper.

In practice however, trying to lay your range finder through heavy coal and gun smoke from a vibrating platform atop a tripod mast at 25+ knots was not as easy as initially thought. We can pro and con all day long, in the end, Sturdee's two _*original*_ battlecruisers took out Von Spee's heavy cruisers (8in gun variety), so yes, the design concept was a sound one. With better range finding and gun laying, Von Spee's ships would never have lasted as long as they did.

And yes, German philosophy for battle cruisers was different than the Royal Navy, they were uparmored and could take punishment better ostensibly. Tiger and Lion were both hit pretty hard at Jutland (Lion 13 and Tiger 15), with Lion actually coming within a whisker of blowing up but for the quick thinking of the fellow that flooded the magazines when he knew they were in trouble. And while Tiger took 15 hits, she fairly shrugged them off and was in the fight from start to finish and ready to go again on June 1. Again, it's also entirely possible that poor shell/charge handling by the British battlecruisers was to blame for the three losses as much as any perceived design flaw.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Juha3 (Aug 22, 2020)

During the Battle of Dogger Bank SMS Seydlits had lost its rear turrets with their crews by one 13.5in hit because of an ammo fire, a last minute flooding of the rear magazines saved the ship. The Germans learned from this the importance of flash protection and acted on that, making mods and reminded the gun and ammo crews the importance of following anti-flash instructions. British learned the same only at Jutland.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Juha3 (Aug 22, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> But can they actually hit anything at battleship ranges when utilising their vaunted speed? If not, the very concept seems flawed.


They could and they hit.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Aug 22, 2020)

The Basket said:


> Glorious was never a Battlecruiser. It deserved a new designation. Overgrown tin can with oversized guns is a good name


The Courageous class were designed as fast, shallow draft monitors, intended to hit shore targets rather than fight other warships. They’re essentially the Erebus class (shown below) with twice the guns and twice the speed, but the same mission.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Aug 22, 2020)

Peter Gunn said:


> I think it's been stated in the thread but I'll reiterate, battlecruisers were never designed nor meant to go head to head with battleships.


Nor against other battlecruisers. 

Once the Germans switched over from building ACRs to battlecruisers with the laying down of SMS Von der Tann in 1907 (enters service in 1910) the British should have moved their focus to the fast battleship. So, the RN’s last battlecruisers should have been the Indefatigable class. Everything afterwards should be a fast battleship, essentially 25 knot capable, 13.5” armed mini-QEs.

BTW, a great resource is Haze Gray & Underway World Battleship Lists

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 22, 2020)

Here's a fantastic article about the evolution of the Battlecruiser and the events that revolved around it - including the IJN's Kongo.

The Battleship Kongo, Japanese Battleships

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Aug 22, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> Here's a fantastic article about the evolution of the Battlecruiser and the events that revolved around it - including the IJN's Kongo.
> 
> The Battleship Kongo, Japanese Battleships


You weren’t kidding. Great stuff!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Aug 22, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> Nor against other battlecruisers.
> 
> Once the Germans switched over from building ACRs to battlecruisers with the laying down of SMS Von der Tann in 1907 (enters service in 1910) the British should have moved their focus to the fast battleship. So, the RN’s last battlecruisers should have been the Indefatigable class. Everything afterwards should be a fast battleship, essentially 25 knot capable, 13.5” armed mini-QEs.
> 
> BTW, a great resource is Haze Gray & Underway World Battleship Lists


Oh boy! Lotsa’ good stuff here. I have a fondness for monitors.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Aug 22, 2020)

SaparotRob said:


> Oh boy! Lotsa’ good stuff here. I have a fondness for monitors.


HMS Saracen was one of my favourite books as a lad.


----------



## SaparotRob (Aug 22, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> HMS Saracen was one of my favourite books as a lad.
> 
> View attachment 592461
> [/QUOTE. Got to check that out.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Aug 22, 2020)

I recommend all of Reeman‘s (aka Alexander Kent) books.

Douglas Reeman's Official Website

This book is apt for us WW2 aviation fans....taking a FAA pilot into combat against the Germans and Japanese.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 22, 2020)

Beleive it or not, there is still a monitor type ship still in service with the Brazilian Navy.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Aug 22, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> Beleive it or not, there is still a monitor type ship still in service with the Brazilian Navy.


HMVS Cerberus should have been saved, same as Huascar.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Aug 23, 2020)

The British Battlecruisers that exploded at Jutland were hit by the German Battlecruisers Von Der Tann, Derfflinger and Lútzow not by battleships.

I find it extremely difficult discussing British Battlecruisers without writing a 5,000 word essay on the subject. And yes, Roman Triremes will be mentioned.

The Courageous class were Glass Cannons designed to be used for the British landings on the beaches of Pomerania to march to Berlin. Since their nonsense nature makes it very difficult to actually give them a designation. Three inches of armour isn't stopping a damn thing. 

Even Indomitable was better armoured and that had poor armour for a capital ship.

The plan unraveled when the Germans bombarded the British coast. Only the Battlecruisers were fast enough to catch them so they would have to operate alone against perhaps superior firepower. When it was pointed out that Rodney's guns all pointed forward, a British officer said that's the way it is because the Royal Navy doesn't run away.

Remember that Beatty was in positions of power at the end of the war so any report mentioning poor signalling or bad ammunition handling could be quashed and poor armour was the cause. 

It is very easy to slag off the Royal Navy and it's performance at Jutland. Plenty of faults for everyone to see.

But they didn't run away and they were in a far better position to fight next day. Seydlitz did sink. It just sank in port. And Seydlitz wasn't going to go for round 2 for a few good months yet.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Aug 23, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> By October 1916 the ship was repaired and operational once more.



Well, not really. It wasn't fully seaworthy until just before the Armistice. Its reconstruction took almost the rest of the war after Jutland. Seydlitz led the German ships into internment into the Firth of Forth on 21 November 1918. This was deliberate by the Germans as a snub, because the Brits had claimed they'd sunk the ship. 



The Basket said:


> I find it extremely difficult discussing British Battlecruisers without writing a 5,000 word essay on the subject.



Ah, the battlecruiser argument - so many individuals, research establishments, museums and military wargamers and strategists have expended so much time and effort analysing these ships and their use in action, but the reason behind their use during Jutland is often overlooked. Let's put it this way; you are an admiral-of-the-fleet and you have a large number of ships at your disposal, some of which are suitable, some of which are not. Your aim is to bring the enemy to battle at any cost because it could bring about the end of the war (or so they believed). You know that not all your ships are capable of matching the abilities in combat as the big battleships, but you bring them anyway. How can you refuse? they are armed with big guns, lots of them and firepower is everything. Numerical superiority of firepower is what the British had and in Jellicoe's case, how could he ignore these big ships and their enormous guns?

Its worth remembering that the Grand Fleet and Beattie's battlecruisers actually sailed before the German ships left the Jade River, owing to decrypts by Room 40 in the Admiralty. The British wanted to draw the Germans into a trap.

It's like Dowding in the Battle of Britain; not enough Spitfire and Hurricane squadrons, but there are Blenheim, Gladiator and Defiant squadrons too. They can't match the Bf 109 in combat, but they can shoot down bombers. Why leave them on the ground?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Aug 24, 2020)

If you look at the armour on the Queen Mary, it was about ballpark for Von Der Tann. So yes the loss of Indefatigable can be put down to lack of armour but not Queen Mary. In theory, if all the British battlescruisers were Tigers then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

The RN Battlecruiser did have line of battle duties but mainly scouting and chasing torpedo boats.

The Battlecruiser was much faster than a Battleship and offered versatility. Even Beatty in all his greatness did a quick 180 when the full High Seas Fleet appears.

So....had RN had proper shells and proper communication and fought a full on night action then the High Seas Fleet would be on the sea bed in 1916. 

Old saying in racing is that to finish first, first you have to finish. That wasn't the case here


----------



## Admiral Beez (Aug 24, 2020)

The Basket said:


> So....had RN had proper shells and proper communication and fought a full on night action then the High Seas Fleet would be on the sea bed in 1916.


And not piling charges around the turret in order to make a faster than spec ROF and thus canceling out the designed-in anti-flash features.

_"It was always suspected that the system of anti-flash doors would be compromised by an obsession with speed. Confirmed by divers’ inspections of the wrecks of the Queen Mary, the Invincible and the Indefatigable later in the century was that the silk cordite bags were brought up from the magazines and stacked in the passageways below the guns. "_
Battleship Design and Anti Flash | The Battle of Jutland - Centenary Initiative

Here's the way a RN BB/BC's guns are supposed to be served. I imagine had this been followed that Queen Mary might have survived.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Aug 24, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> And not piling charges around the turret in order to make a faster than spec ROF and thus canceling out the designed-on anti-flash features.
> 
> _"It was always suspected that the system of anti-flash doors would be compromised by an obsession with speed. Confirmed by divers’ inspections of the wrecks of the Queen Mary, the Invincible and the Indefatigable later in the century was that the silk cordite bags were brought up from the magazines and stacked in the passageways below the guns. "_
> Battleship Design and Anti Flash | The Battle of Jutland - Centenary Initiative
> ...


I always wondered how it worked inside those things.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Aug 24, 2020)

Poor quality but you get the gist.

Caseless ammo like the G11 or Chassepot. 

Shove in the big shell. Plenty bags of powder behind it and big boom. Nothing is left so nothing is coming out the Breech after firing.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michaelmaltby (Aug 24, 2020)

.... what a work environment ... under pressure in a ship-to-ship engagement .... big thumbs down for me ... I'd take my chances as a Tiger panzer gunner .. before I'd chose _that_ life. 
OTH, to hear such big shells roaring inland over your hard-fought positions must have felt like the Intevention of the Gods ... in Normandy in 1944, big Britsh shells flipped Tigers, hidden in woods, on their backs*
*source von Carius Otto Carius - Wikipedia


----------



## The Basket (Aug 24, 2020)

That's why corners were cut. Takes time to load. So having a few spares nearby save time.

But plenty of armour between you and the outside. Although if your locked in it not so good.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Aug 24, 2020)

Good vid of British battleships showing the cage. When HMS Lion’s X-turret exploded almost 100 men died - it’s hard to imagine over 100 men men working in and below these turrets.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Aug 24, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> Good vid of British battleships showing the cage. When HMS Lion’s X-turret exploded almost 100 men died - it’s hard to imagine over 100 men men working in and below these turrets.



That can’t be a fun place to work.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Aug 24, 2020)

SaparotRob said:


> That can’t be a fun place to work.


An interesting point, when the loaded the guns, they had to fire them. There’s no easy way to extract the shell and charges.

Looking at these two vids, I don’t see how piling charges below the guns would be on any use. They still need to get into the cage to get rammed into the breech.


----------



## SaparotRob (Aug 24, 2020)

Just checked out The Basket’s post #88. Maybe it is fun.


----------



## The Basket (Aug 25, 2020)

Better than the mud of the Somme.

That no lie.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Aug 25, 2020)

To some extent, Jutland was an ambiguous victory for the RN, in that they lost those battle cruisers without comparable losses in German capital ships. On the other hand, the German fleet failed in its objective, which was to break the RN blockade of Germany: the German fleet failed to meet its strategic goal for the battle; it's casuistry to claim otherwise.

While it wasn't an unambiguous, spectacular victory like Trafalgar, the German fleet failed to break the RN's control of the sea and, equally important, never tried to break it again during the war.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Aug 25, 2020)

The Basket said:


> Better than the mud of the Somme.
> 
> That no lie.


Absolutely. For starters, of all the battleships of the Grand Fleet at Jutland only one, HMS Colossus (commanded by the future Sir Dudley Pound) took any damage, when two 11” shells causes minor damage. Beatty‘s force took a lot of casualties, but nothing like a morning on the Somme. Service on a British dreadnought is mostly boredom, but you have a warm hammock and three meals a day.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Aug 26, 2020)

What ship you on?
HMS Vanguard.
Oh Bother.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Aug 26, 2020)

The Basket said:


> What ship you on?
> HMS Vanguard.
> Oh Bother.


Indeed. Apparently coal fires could remain undetected whilst they burned next to magazines. Though Mutsu blew up and was oil fired.


----------



## swampyankee (Aug 26, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> Indeed. Apparently coal fires could remain undetected whilst they burned next to magazines. Though Mutsu blew up and was oil fired.



Leaving aside the yellow journalism of the 1890s, the evidence is that this is how the USS _Maine _was lost.

Coal, especially coal which may contain pyrites, is prone to spontaneous combustion. This continues to be a serious problem with coal-fired powerplants.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Aug 26, 2020)

swampyankee said:


> Leaving aside the yellow journalism of the 1890s, the evidence is that this is how the USS _Maine _was lost.


Yes, reminds me of Colin Powell's big lie about WMDs, and the regional and global ramifications that malarkey brought forth for a generation or more. The US wanted a war with Spain and found an excuse, any excuse would do.

Category:Ships sunk by non-combat internal explosions - Wikipedia


----------



## SaparotRob (Aug 26, 2020)

As long as we’re talking about coal fires and yellow journalism, wasn’t there one burning in Titanic’s bunkers?


----------



## Admiral Beez (Aug 26, 2020)

When you watch this vid you realize how poor the communication and situational awareness was. Half the time Admiral Jellicoe didn’t know where the enemy was, and when British captains knew where the Germans were they didn’t tell Jellicoe.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Aug 27, 2020)

Couple of stuff

British Comms, night fighting and initiative was very poor during the battle. This was also something that needs fixing in later times. German ships were metres from British ones and the British ships never fired back do poor show.

Coal dust is quite explosive as the Russians found out at Tsushima.

Welsh coal burned very cleanly and powerfully giving the RN an advantage in speed. Coal bunkers were actually used as armour.

German coal was nasty and created a lot of detritus which gunked up their furnaces.

So during the battle, men working in what we would call Hell, full of fire and brimstone, were shovelling coal at a staggering rate.


----------



## ODonovan (Aug 28, 2020)

Whenever I hear about the Battle of Jutland, I remember something my father told me. He served on battleships during WWI and was on his first (training) cruise (to England) when the British ships came back into port after the battle. When he told me about it, some 60 years later, he was still shaking his head at what he saw. He described the British ships as having holes in them large enough to drive trucks through and said with disbelief, "And they said THEY won."

The US was still neutral at the time and my dad was a wide-eyed kid who had joined the Navy a few months prior, when his mother signed the papers for him to join just days after his 16th birthday (January 17, 1916). That cruise was his most memorable by far. Not only did he see what was left of the British fleet, but he got to stand in review for the King of England during that trip. His dress uniform was still new. Only the sailors with the best looking uniforms were selected for that detail.



-Irish

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Aug 28, 2020)

Anyone remember the “board game” by Avalon Hill “Jutland”?
Anyone have any friends who would play Jutland with you?
Anyone have access to a gymnasium floor to play it on?


----------



## The Basket (Aug 30, 2020)

Lets play another.

How could the Germans win the Battle of Jutland?

No aliens, Exocets, Superman, Radar or laser beams.

Purely 1916 and totally plausible.

Short answer is 100% nope. The Germans wouldn't even get out of port.

Maybe Zeppelins could direct on stragglers. Maybe get the Grand Fleet on a minefield surrounded by U-boats.

Maybe the RN would do a Black Prince and just get in formation.

Germans didn't win at Jutland coz they could never win in the first place.

A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Aug 30, 2020)

Global thermonuclear exchange!


----------



## SaparotRob (Aug 30, 2020)

Or was it global thermonuclear war?


----------



## The Basket (Aug 30, 2020)

I am war of attrition guy.

Don't like these big battles.

Would have failed in the IJN big time.

Maybe I would have not bothered with Jutland. Royal Navy is winning so why risk it? Any outcome could only be adverse. Let the Kaiserliche sail about.

My strategic aim is to blockade and business is good. No need to endanger the status quo. So charging after the High Seas Fleet don't sit right with I.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Acheron (Sep 12, 2020)

For a plausible German victory at Jutland, I like to consider not what the Germans could have done better, but what the British could have done worse.

From what I understand, gunnery training was MUCH worse during the late 19th century in the Royal Navy. I read that it was outright avoided, because it got the ships dirty. Once incident at Egypt I believe was quoted as an example on how atrocious British gunnery was.

Now, the British got their act somewhat together in the early 20th century. Imagine if they hadn't. Imagine if they had stuck to traditions and shiny appearances, relying on their reputation on anyone challenging them, until someone does and it turns out to be a house of cards.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Sep 12, 2020)

British gunnery and shells was very hit and miss if you pardon the expression.

So they certainly gave the Germans far more of a help than they should.

The British could out range the Germans but poor visibility meant that the extreme ranges were not possible and it was a very close engagement. The Germans with their shorter range, weaker guns were given a better opportunity.

The obvious example is with the Battlecruiser engagement where the Germans fired first when the RN easily outranged them. Why? Don't know. Said the RN rangefinding was faulty.

The Battlecruisers were bad with gunnery as they were based in the Forth and so couldn't fire their guns much. The rest of the Grand Fleet were based in Scapa in Orkney and so did have space for target practice. 

This led to Battlecruisers having to increase their rate of fire to try and walk to the target and led to the removal of safety procedures which led to the catastrophic failures.

The issue is that the Scheer did a runner as soon as he realised the predicament he was in. So how would you stop that? Even if RN never landed a shell he would have still have done a 180.

One trick could have been to catch Beatty's squadron and have time to have a full High Seas Fleet v Battlecruisers which is exactly what was Hippers and Scheers dream scenario.

In a nutshell, the Germans were very lucky to get away and the British were their own worst enemy as various failures came back to bite them. The British scored all sorts of own goals and still won.

In the perfect world, the RN should have annihilated the High Seas Fleet but didn't. So that's why Scheer didn't go for round 2.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Sep 13, 2020)

The Basket said:


> The Battlecruisers were bad with gunnery



The battlecruisers were bad at gunnery because Beatty didn't practise as much as he should have. Jellicoe knew this and the results speak for themselves. HMS New Zealand is an example; it is recorded that it had the highest rate of fire of all the British battlecruisers at Jutland, expending almost all of its ammunition, but it hit absolutely nothing.

It was no coincidence that Beatty's flagship was known as the Gin Palace.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Sep 13, 2020)

The Battlecruisers at Jutland that did have good gunnery such as Invincible were based at Scapa so it was to do with basing at Firth of Forth where gunnery was not practiced. The hardware was not at fault.

HMS Tiger had bad gunnery because she was a wartime ship that never got a good work up and so never got the kinks ironed out.

Even best case scenario is that gunnery is about the 10% hit rate so not exactly a high bar to begin with and will get progressively worse in bad visibility.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Sep 13, 2020)

The Basket said:


> Lets play another.
> 
> How could the Germans win the Battle of Jutland?
> 
> ...


1) Germans have better SIGINT and know their coded communications are being read.
2) Understand your enemy’s command and control limitations, including the lack of initiative from RN captains, poor gunnery practice, dodgy shells (this was known before Jutland, not yet fully acted on), and very poor ship to ship communications and overall terrible abilities to get and keep situational awareness.
3) All German ships great and small have wireless communications sets
4) Set the trap. Position two dozen U-Boats and every available torpedo boat destroyer off Jutland, and another dozen w/t equipped U-Boats (or whatever available) off Scapa and Rosyth.
5) Zeppelins, all the Zeppelins....”oh the humanity!”, deployed to the east of Jutland in advance, out of sight connected by wireless to the fleet. Zeppelins have been training with the fleet for this day.
6) Announce that the HSF is sailing for Jutland, and hit go....

That‘s the preparation work.... now to close the trap and make the kill. Jellicoe and Beatty set sail, U-Boats outside Scapa and Rosyth, using regular Morse code send wireless message pretending to be a neutral transport, but actually announces the fleet has sailed. First, the Zeppelins report the Grand Fleet has been spotted. The German torpedo boats race forward.

A lot of the above may seem unlikely, but what reality showed was that the Germans played to Britain’s strengths whilst ignoring their own. Germany was a leader in airships, radio communications, torpedo and submarine warfare, naval gunnery and munitions quality. Most of these advantages were known by the Germans, but instead they sailed an inferior-sized naval force straight into the Grand Fleet.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Creative Creative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Sep 13, 2020)

My answer and question to any strategy or idea is...cough....

'What happens when it all goes horribly wrong?'

And horribly wrong it will go.

The best strategy in any military situation is best summed up as...

'Brute force and ignorance!'

You have more battleships or tanks or men and you let fly.

Planning anything in the North Sea is totally impractical as the weather is a law upon itself. A Zeppelin is useless in poor visibility and U-boats were slow and often unreliable. In fact U-boats and Zeppelins were part of Jutland plans and did absolute zip. 

A kill zone kinda makes sense full of mines and subs and torpedo boats but the RN has to sail in it and that's a maybe. Never plan on what you enemy should do. It's not a good idea. The Japanese Navy in ww2 were full of ideas like that and it never really worked.

It's not happening. No way would the High Seas Fleet knowingly engage with the Grand Fleet. Never.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michaelmaltby (Sep 13, 2020)

"... The Japanese Navy in ww2 were full of ideas like that and it never really worked."

... except when they did.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Sep 13, 2020)

Generally speaking the British Grand Fleets standard of gunnery was very good but the BC fleet was poor as they didn't practice as much as they should have done. The German standards were arguably the best of the period and for those interested the USN standards were very poor.

After they declared war a number of the US BB's came to the UK and didn't do well in training shoots. The ships themselves were absolutely first class but they couldn't hit a thing.


----------



## SaparotRob (Sep 13, 2020)

Glider said:


> Generally speaking the British Grand Fleets standard of gunnery was very good but the BC fleet was poor as they didn't practice as much as they should have done. The German standards were arguably the best of the period and for those interested the USN standards were very poor.
> 
> After they declared war a number of the US BB's came to the UK and didn't do well in training shoots. The ships themselves were absolutely first class but they couldn't hit a thing.


I’m glad you brought that up Glider.
I was “studying up” on Jutland. Okay, watching Drachinifel, Jutland in time-lapse, etc. on YouTube. Drachinifel mentioned U.S. gunnery wasn’t up to snuff. Based on the posts here on RN gunnery, USN shooting must have been terrible.
Drachinifel also posted a Jutland “what if”. The U.S. battleships spouted heavy smoke and sparks from coaxing every last rpm of the coal burning engines. The U.S. sent coal burning ships to England for easier fueling. In his scenario these battleships had damaged their engines keeping up with RN ships.
How true might that be? Perhaps the USN ships weren’t so first class? At least the battleships sent over to England?


----------



## Acheron (Sep 13, 2020)

The British seemed quite afraid of submarines, some described the fear as "periscopitis". Didn't Beatty at one battle hold back his ships because he thought he saw a periscope?

Maybe submarines could have been utilized not with intend to make an actual kill, but by trying to make the most of the enemies fear out of it. An area denial strategy?


----------



## Admiral Beez (Sep 13, 2020)

Acheron said:


> The British seemed quite afraid of submarines, some described the fear as "periscopitis". Didn't Beatty at one battle hold back his ships because he thought he saw a periscope?


And as of this date, submarines hadn’t sunk anything.... with a torpedo. Mines yes.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MikeMeech (Sep 13, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> And as of this date, submarines hadn’t sunk anything.... with a torpedo. Mines yes.



Hi 
What date? Certainly before Jutland warships had been sunk by submarine torpedo, HMS Aboukir, Hogue and Cressy for instance.

Mike


----------



## Glider (Sep 13, 2020)

SaparotRob said:


> I’m glad you brought that up Glider.
> I was “studying up” on Jutland. Okay, watching Drachinifel, Jutland in time-lapse, etc. on YouTube. Drachinifel mentioned U.S. gunnery wasn’t up to snuff. Based on the posts here on RN gunnery, USN shooting must have been terrible.
> Drachinifel also posted a Jutland “what if”. The U.S. battleships spouted heavy smoke and sparks from coaxing every last rpm of the coal burning engines. The U.S. sent coal burning ships to England for easier fueling. In his scenario these battleships had damaged their engines keeping up with RN ships.
> How true might that be? Perhaps the USN ships weren’t so first class? At least the battleships sent over to England?



The smoke issues were common across most fleets and I see no reason to doubt that the UK ships were no different to the USN. Different coal would have made a difference but in the UK they would have used UK coal. However the UK were switching to oil as seen in the QE class and that made a huge difference. Literally the fog of war was lifted to a significant level and the sights would have been far more accurate as well as signalling. 

I have some numbers re the poor shooting of the USN Battleships (somewhere?) and will dig them out if I can.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Sep 13, 2020)

Glider said:


> The smoke issues were common across most fleets and I see no reason to doubt that the UK ships were no different to the USN. Different coal would have made a difference but in the UK they would have used UK coal. However the UK were switching to oil as seen in the QE class and that made a huge difference. Literally the fog of war was lifted to a significant level and the sights would have been far more accurate as well as signalling.
> 
> I have some numbers re the poor shooting of the USN Battleships (somewhere?) and will dig them out if I can.


Ian Buxton’s Big Gun Monitors reported that the RN was not impressed with the US 14” guns on the first of the WWI monitors

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Sep 13, 2020)

I had been under the impression that the British ships had oil fired boilers. I realize now I was thinking of the RN having steam turbines while the USN ships had triple expansion engines ( due to the older engines using coal).


----------



## Glider (Sep 13, 2020)

I have some of the numbers but not I admit the ones I was thinking of.

In June 1918 at a range of 18,000 yards the average USN spread of shot was approx. 800 yards.
At the same time the British R Class (15in) at 21,000 yards was averaging a spread of approx. 450 yards

This was by no means the worst. In June 1918 the New York and Texas had patterns of 1,043 and 1,086 yards at 18,600 and 16,950 yards.
It was decided that the 14in/50 Gun was particularly inaccurate as it was too 'loose' or flexible. 

The 12in gun was a lot better. The Florida and Delaware averaged spreads of 559 and 720 yards at 17,900 and 15,900 yards

The problem with the 14in was never really solved

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Sep 13, 2020)

MikeMeech said:


> Hi
> What date? Certainly before Jutland warships had been sunk by submarine torpedo, HMS Aboukir, Hogue and Cressy for instance.
> 
> Mike


True, I was thinking of battleships, but yes perhaps three cruisers being sunk in quick succession was on Jellicoe’s mind.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Sep 13, 2020)

Glider said:


> I have some of the numbers but not I admit the ones I was thinking of.
> 
> In June 1918 at a range of 18,000 yards the average USN spread of shot was approx. 800 yards.
> At the same time the British R Class (15in) at 21,000 yards was averaging a spread of approx. 450 yards
> ...


Did the USN develop a new 14” weapon for the standard battleships?


----------



## Admiral Beez (Sep 13, 2020)

SaparotRob said:


> Did the USN develop a new 14” weapon for the standard battleships?


I wonder who had the best 14” gun?

British-made 
14-inch (35.6 cm) Mark VII - NavWeaps
Russia / USSR 14"/52 (35.6 cm) Pattern 1913 - NavWeaps (intended for Russia)
United Kingdom / Britain 14"/45 (35.6 cm) Marks II, IV and V - NavWeaps
United Kingdom / Britain 14"/45 (35.6 cm) Marks I and III - NavWeaps
Japan 36 cm/45 (14") 41st Year Type - NavWeaps (including Japanese copies)

US-made
USA 14"/45 (35.6 cm) Marks 1, 2, 3 and 5 - NavWeaps
USA 14"/50 (35.6 cm) Mark 4 and Mark 6 - NavWeaps
USA 14"/45 (35.6 cm) Marks 8, 9, 10 and 12 - NavWeaps
USA 14"/50 (35.6 cm) Mark 7, Mark 11 and Mark B - NavWeaps

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Sep 13, 2020)

One issue is not clear is why fight the High Seas Fleet in the first place?

You have sea supremecy so battling the Germans means that things can only get worse.

Accuracy is a total bag of spanners but the range of the naval engagement was a lot closer than envisioned so long range accuracy is less important as you close the range. 

German gunnery could be laser beams but if your only shooting 11 inch shells then kinda defeats the purpose.

Coal is an awful fuel. Needs back breaking labour to shovel and can be very dirty.

Submarines and certainly in ww1 were no good in fleet actions as they were slower than capital ships. The Pre-dreadnoughts were faster.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Sep 13, 2020)

The Basket said:


> One issue is not clear is why fight the High Seas Fleet in the first place?


Because the North Sea and surrounding waters is Britain’s yard. Can you imagine the uproar in Britain if the HSF, after the Scarborough Raids, sailed out into the North Sea unopposed? Britons will be rightfully asking WTH they have a navy.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Sep 13, 2020)

The Basket said:


> One issue is not clear is why fight the High Seas Fleet in the first place?
> 
> You have sea supremecy so battling the Germans means that things can only get worse.
> 
> ...



Coal, generally, sucks as a fuel. Even in modern boiler systems, it is barely s
cost competitive when one throws in all of its secondary costs: much more difficult storage, expensive, high-maintenance pulverizers (accordong to Combustion Engineering and Babcock & Wilcox, which made the things, the leading cause of coal-fueled plant down time), increased boiler maintenance, and reduced boiler efficiency. That is without going into the costs of either pollution (not paid by the power plants, so they don't care) or pollution controls.


----------



## The Basket (Sep 14, 2020)

Britain ruled the waves before and after and we gained nothing. So from a strategic point of view we were no better apart from losing a lot of men and giving the Germans a propaganda victory.

Coal is bad. How ships were coaled is pretty much back breaking labour with all the coal dust your lungs could take.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Sep 14, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> I wonder who had the best 14” gun?
> 
> British-made
> 14-inch (35.6 cm) Mark VII - NavWeaps
> ...



Hopefully the version fitted to the KGV class was the best


----------



## Admiral Beez (Sep 14, 2020)

Glider said:


> Coal is bad. How ships were coaled is pretty much back breaking labour with all the coal dust your lungs could take.


It makes good armour backing though. See below, HMS Dreadnought's coal is intentionally placed between the belt and the machinery/magazine spaces. Coal is compressible and floating ash aside, flash resistant.






Whereas in Oil Fuel battleships, like WW2-era KGV class below, the fuel plays no part in the armour, so is kept below the waterline.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Sep 14, 2020)

SaparotRob said:


> I’m glad you brought that up Glider.
> I was “studying up” on Jutland. Okay, watching Drachinifel, Jutland in time-lapse, etc. on YouTube. Drachinifel mentioned U.S. gunnery wasn’t up to snuff. Based on the posts here on RN gunnery, USN shooting must have been terrible.
> Drachinifel also posted a Jutland “what if”. The U.S. battleships spouted heavy smoke and sparks from coaxing every last rpm of the coal burning engines. The U.S. sent coal burning ships to England for easier fueling. In his scenario these battleships had damaged their engines keeping up with RN ships.
> How true might that be? Perhaps the USN ships weren’t so first class? At least the battleships sent over to England?


The USN sent mostly first gen dreadnoughts that were coal burners, I've read there were two reasons. First the impression was that the UK was short of fuel oil so sending coal burning ships meant they would not put undue strain on oil requirements for the RN. The coal burners would mesh nicely with RN supply lines.

Second, I've read but am not positive that the U.S. kept the newer, more powerful ships in home waters because they were oil burners and being new, still getting up to speed so to speak but also pressure from coastal areas that the best ships be kept for home defense.

I wouldn't say the USN ships weren't first class, they went for armor and firepower over speed so were a few knots slower than most foreign contemporaries. And while I like drachfinel <sp?> no admiral (USN or RN) in his right mind is going to blow the engines on main units just to keep up with the fleet. Fleet speed would have been adjusted or, if the American BB's couldn't keep up, there would have been plans for them to achieve a different objective or if same objective, a heavier escort.

And yes, USN shooting was at best abysmal when the BB's reached Scapa Flow, that changed in time however, after all, practice makes perfect, or sort of anyway.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Sep 14, 2020)

I agree with almost everything you say and that the ships were first class apart from the shooting. What was interesting was the interaction between the fleets which sometimes was far from easy.
Gunnery Officers in then RN considered themselves the best and specialised in gunnery, whereas the USN gunnery officers whist having extra training in gunnery had a more rounded training with more time spent in other area's. As a result the often pompous RN considered the USN equivalents to be 'generalists' who couldn't hit a barn door, and the USN not unreasonably considered the RN gunnery officers to be arrogant and overbearing. When sensible Admirals from both navies knocked heads together they started to learn from each other recognising that I think it was the USN rangefinders were far better but the RN directors had significant advantages and when both sides saw this, everyone finally won.

USN training was also a problem as they tended to shoot when the weather was good, plus often practised the 'surprise' tests, in a rather similar to the RN Battlecruisers and we know how that went.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Sep 14, 2020)

The American battleships were running flat out in Drachinifel’s “what if scenario” so the older coal burners could join the fray. Those scenarios also included a banzai charge by the German battle line. Reality not included.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Sep 15, 2020)

Talk about losses.

The Germans put 6 Pre Dreadnoughts into the field of battle.

This was to make up numbers.

Scheer said never again so you're 6 down....off the bat. They lost one with Pommern anyway. So even if Jutland 2: Beatty Rides Again happened then the Germans are already facing a numerical disadvantage.

Plus QE and Emperor of India and HMAS Australia were back in action very quickly. Plus Renown and Repulse and Resolution so the RN has not only made up it's losses but getting better ships

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------

