Total lack of interest mystery

[Mayerling]

I have to admit that it wasn't until after midnight last night I realized, this weekend was the 100th anniversary of the greatest naval battle in World War I (and the greatest involving "dreadnoughts") the battle of Skaggarak or Jutland. It's normally considered a British victory because the German navy returned with the British in pursuit to their home ports, but the British were the ones who lost more men and capital ships (British casualties were over 8,000 men while German closer to 5,000). The commanders on both sides are not household names now (Jellicoe and Beatty on the British side, Scheer and Von Hipper on the German) possibly because of the mixed results of the battle. If anything, despite German losses of ships, the sinking of three major British Dreadnoughts (Queen Mary, Indefatigable, and Invinceable) in the battle (for a total of almost 3,600 men in those three ships alone) demonstrated that the German warships were better constructed to withstand the punishment of the battle.

In the next ten days it will also be the 100th Anniversary of the sinking of HMS Hampshire off the Orkney Islands by a submarine mine, and the death of most of her company (there were about 18 survivors). On board were a party headed for Archangel in the Russian Empire for a state visit to Tsar Nicholas II's court - this party was lead by the War Minister, Horatio, Lord Kitchener. Kitchener and his staff died in the sinking, and there were later rumors of sabotage by his enemies (both domestic and foreign) connected to his death.

Despite these anniversaries, very little is being said about these events in the current news - no documentaries here about them. Yet last month there were several here about the Easter Rebellion in Dublin a month prior to Jutland.

Jeff

[Elamarna]

I have to admit that it wasn't until after midnight last night I realized, this weekend was the 100th anniversary of the greatest naval battle in World War I (and the greatest involving "dreadnoughts") the battle of Skaggarak or Jutland. It's normally considered a British victory because the German navy returned with the British in pursuit to their home ports, but the British were the ones who lost more men and capital ships (British casualties were over 8,000 men while German closer to 5,000). The commanders on both sides are not household names now (Jellicoe and Beatty on the British side, Scheer and Von Hipper on the German) possibly because of the mixed results of the battle. If anything, despite German losses of ships, the sinking of three major British Dreadnoughts (Queen Mary, Indefatigable, and Invinceable) in the battle (for a total of almost 3,600 men in those three ships alone) demonstrated that the German warships were better constructed to withstand the punishment of the battle.

My dear Jeff,

I question the statement that the German ships were better constructed.
The main issue appears to have been the British habit of have more bags of cordite(propellent) out of the protective metal cases than needed, this in an effort to speed up firing.
In addition, to obtain the same result of fast firing, the British kept the flash doors on the ammunition hoists open, instead of shutting them.

The result was a hit on a turret, caused the cordite to ignite, the resultant flash travelled down the ammunition route, because the blast doors were not shut, and this in turn ignited more cordite and the main magazines, in the case of Queen Mary 13.5 inch shells and 12 inch for the other two battlecrusiers.

None of the lost ships were battleships, they were the folly called battlecrusiers, the same guns as their big brothers, but much less armour, which allowed the turrets to be penetrated in the first place.

Of the 3, only Queen Mary was modern the others were early battlecruisers.

It must be remembered that the 3 british ships were not sunk due to flooding, they exploded!

There is no doubt that the Germany handling of ammunition was far superior, hence their ships did not exploded although taking far more hits, and many being badly flooded.

In the next ten days it will also be the 100th Anniversary of the sinking of HMS Hampshire off the Orkney Islands by a submarine mine, and the death of most of her company (there were about 18 survivors). On board were a party headed for Archangel in the Russian Empire for a state visit to Tsar Nicholas II's court - this party was lead by the War Minister, Horatio, Lord Kitchener. Kitchener and his staff died in the sinking, and there were later rumors of sabotage by his enemies (both domestic and foreign) connected to his death.

Despite these anniversaries, very little is being said about these events in the current news - no documentaries here about them. Yet last month there were several here about the Easter Rebellion in Dublin a month prior to Jutland.

Jeff

In Britain the remembrance ceremony was screened live on tv yesterday from Orkney, the main British naval base in 1916.

The BBC did a good documentary about why the British ships sunk at the weekend. i suppose you may get that at some stage.

great you brought this up.

steve

[Graham]

In modern warfare (i.e., since about 1900) serious wars have never really been won or lost by way of surface naval engagements. In both WW1 and WW2, the real naval battle was between submarines and merchant vessels, and the means of detecting and destroying the former. The Battle Of Jutland was a huge affair, granted, with terrible loss of life, but it really proved or disproved very little. Only in 1944, at the Battle Of Leyte Gulf, did the victory of one side (the USA) over the other (Japan) materially assist the end-result of the war. Japan's ability to control its overseas 'empire' was seriously compromised, as what was left of its surface fleet was unable to operate for serious fear of being destroyed almost at will by the Americans. Earlier, at the Battle Of Midway, the US Navy had sowed the seeds of the destruction of Japanese Naval power by effectively destroying its heavy battle fleet, a blow from which it never recovered.

We Brits do like our naval victories and heroes, it has to be said, but I don't think Admirals Jellicoe or Beattie of Jutland 'fame', so-called, has ever really been rated as one of them. It was all down to an attempt by the German High Seas Fleet to break the British blockade of German ports. The Royal Navy were aiming to keep the German fleet out of Britain's shipping lanes. Neither side achieved either aim.

Rule Britannia!

Graham

[Elamarna]

In modern warfare (i.e., since about 1900) serious wars have never really been won or lost by way of surface naval engagements. In both WW1 and WW2, the real naval battle was between submarines and merchant vessels, and the means of detecting and destroying the former. The Battle Of Jutland was a huge affair, granted, with terrible loss of life, but it really proved or disproved very little. Only in 1944, at the Battle Of Leyte Gulf, did the victory of one side (the USA) over the other (Japan) materially assist the end-result of the war. Japan's ability to control its overseas 'empire' was seriously compromised, as what was left of its surface fleet was unable to operate for serious fear of being destroyed almost at will by the Americans. Earlier, at the Battle Of Midway, the US Navy had sowed the seeds of the destruction of Japanese Naval power by effectively destroying its heavy battle fleet, a blow from which it never recovered.

We Brits do like our naval victories and heroes, it has to be said, but I don't think Admirals Jellicoe or Beattie of Jutland 'fame', so-called, has ever really been rated as one of them. It was all down to an attempt by the German High Seas Fleet to break the British blockade of German ports. The Royal Navy were aiming to keep the German fleet out of Britain's shipping lanes. Neither side achieved either aim.

Rule Britannia!

Graham

Graham

After Jutland, the Germany surface fleet did not leave base again until the surrender in 1918. To that extent the British fleet did achieve the aim.

The shame for Jellicoe is that he could have pulled off a decisive victory, he crossed the German T, however his fear of losing ships, particularly to phantom submarine attacks lead him to be over cautious. the result being that when the High Seas Fleet (Germany) did a battleturn at near to full seed , The Grand Fleet (Brits) turn away as well to avoid reported torpedo attacks.

he suffered from the idea, that he was the only man on either side who could lose the war in a day, and that obviously played on his mind.

However the submarine fleet was a completely different matter, and brought Britain close to defeat, of course such attacks were also partially responsible for the USA entering the war.


Steve

[sdreid]

True that I heard no mention of this. There was some coverage here Sunday of the French/German commemoration of the Battle of Verdun which was ongoing 100 years ago. I wonder if Petain came up.

[GUT]

And some mention here of the sinking of the Bizmark.

[Mayerling]

My dear Jeff,

I question the statement that the German ships were better constructed.
The main issue appears to have been the British habit of have more bags of cordite(propellent) out of the protective metal cases than needed, this in an effort to speed up firing.
In addition, to obtain the same result of fast firing, the British kept the flash doors on the ammunition hoists open, instead of shutting them.

The result was a hit on a turret, caused the cordite to ignite, the resultant flash travelled down the ammunition route, because the blast doors were not shut, and this in turn ignited more cordite and the main magazines, in the case of Queen Mary 13.5 inch shells and 12 inch for the other two battlecrusiers.

None of the lost ships were battleships, they were the folly called battlecrusiers, the same guns as their big brothers, but much less armour, which allowed the turrets to be penetrated in the first place.

Of the 3, only Queen Mary was modern the others were early battlecruisers.

It must be remembered that the 3 british ships were not sunk due to flooding, they exploded!

There is no doubt that the Germany handling of ammunition was far superior, hence their ships did not exploded although taking far more hits, and many being badly flooded.





In Britain the remembrance ceremony was screened live on tv yesterday from Orkney, the main British naval base in 1916.

The BBC did a good documentary about why the British ships sunk at the weekend. i suppose you may get that at some stage.

great you brought this up.

steve

Hi Steve,

Checking Wikipedia after I started this thread today, I discovered that there was a Jutland Memorial Service a few days ago, that Prime Minister Cameron attended, as well as Germany's President (a fairly descent action to the representative of the ancient foe's leadership). I'm glad to see that the Kitchener tragedy was also noted.

When I mentioned better construction, I recall reading not only about that flaw you described that allowed internal explosions of the three largest British casualties, but I remember reading the German's concentrated on double skin battle ships - British ships did not a second skin despite the lesson of the Titanic disaster.

That British ship flaw would still be around in 1941 when Bismarck destroyed Hood - in their exchange of fire one of Bismarck's shots hit the Hood in the same way the three at Jutland were hit - which helped destroy Hood quickly and assisted in the nearly total death toll (although the really icy waters of the Denmark Strait did not help survivors of the sinking).

Jeff

[Mayerling]

In modern warfare (i.e., since about 1900) serious wars have never really been won or lost by way of surface naval engagements. In both WW1 and WW2, the real naval battle was between submarines and merchant vessels, and the means of detecting and destroying the former. The Battle Of Jutland was a huge affair, granted, with terrible loss of life, but it really proved or disproved very little. Only in 1944, at the Battle Of Leyte Gulf, did the victory of one side (the USA) over the other (Japan) materially assist the end-result of the war. Japan's ability to control its overseas 'empire' was seriously compromised, as what was left of its surface fleet was unable to operate for serious fear of being destroyed almost at will by the Americans. Earlier, at the Battle Of Midway, the US Navy had sowed the seeds of the destruction of Japanese Naval power by effectively destroying its heavy battle fleet, a blow from which it never recovered.

We Brits do like our naval victories and heroes, it has to be said, but I don't think Admirals Jellicoe or Beattie of Jutland 'fame', so-called, has ever really been rated as one of them. It was all down to an attempt by the German High Seas Fleet to break the British blockade of German ports. The Royal Navy were aiming to keep the German fleet out of Britain's shipping lanes. Neither side achieved either aim.

Rule Britannia!

Graham

Hi Graham,

The failure of Jellicoe and Beattie to maintain their status as historical figures after the 1930s (both died before World War II began) was due to their lack of really overwhelming successes in World War I. Beattie had been the victor at Dogger Bank in January 1915, and that victory was not really very total either. As the naval historian Richard Hough mentioned in his history of the naval war in 1914 - 1918, there were critical signaling failures at Dogger Bank that had not allowed for more than the pounding and sinking of the obsolete German ship "Blucher", while the rest of the German ships fled quickly back. These signaling problems were not really solved by the time of Jutland, nearly 18 months later - a shocking failure of work by the British navy in terms of correction and improvement. And Beattie was still in charge at the time.

It is usually the verdict of naval historians that the figure from the Great War's naval operations who merits comparison to Nelson, Rooke, Drake, and earlier naval heroes was Reginald Keyes, who was behind special naval operations, and in particular the Zeebrugge Raids of 1918. Keyes would still be at work in World War II.

"When Britain really ruled the waves...."

Jeff

[Mayerling]

And some mention here of the sinking of the Bizmark.

Hi GUT,

I imagine that there would have been more discussion of the World War II battles on land (the New Guinea campaign, for example) or the naval ones (like Coral Sea) than Jutland. Last year, the centennial of Galipoli, certainly would have been of more interest due to the involvement of the Anzacs there. Similarly, I imagine next year's centennial of the Battle of Vimy Ridge will be of serious interest to Canada, which had major casualties at that battle on the Western Front.

Jeff

[GUT]

Hi GUT,

I imagine that there would have been more discussion of the World War II battles on land (the New Guinea campaign, for example) or the naval ones (like Coral Sea) than Jutland. Last year, the centennial of Galipoli, certainly would have been of more interest due to the involvement of the Anzacs there. Similarly, I imagine next year's centennial of the Battle of Vimy Ridge will be of serious interest to Canada, which had major casualties at that battle on the Western Front.

Jeff

G'day mate

You can imagine Galipoli was the big one. Many Aussies see ANZAC day as basically Australia's coming of age. A fair bit lately about the rats of Tabrook too.

Last week was also the anniversary of our troops moving from Galipoli to Europe so a bit of chatter about that.

Just been reading about a relative who just missed out on Galipoli, they caught in he was underage, it took him about four attempts to get into the army because he had some health issues as well.

I wonder if kids his age would make so much effort today.

[Rosella]

Yes, indeed Gut, Gallipoli is THE really big one for Australia, at least today, I don't know what the population in Australia thought back in 1915-18, because of course we suffered one heck of a lot of casualties, (especially considering our small population at the time,) on the Western Front in France and Belgium. Gallipoli was our first 'blooding' though, in a major European War.

Princess Anne was in full naval rig with many veterans at the Commemoration Service for Jutland. I saw photos of that service.

It is odd that there are few to no documentaries on the naval battle. It may be because the result at Jutland seems so ambiguous, with high losses on both sides, no clear winner.

I do agree though, that the British naval blockade in WW1 played a vital role in lowering German morale and thus hastening the end of the conflict. Also, the Grand Fleet did remain in its home harbours after Jutland, not venturing out to challenge the Royal Navy in any notable way again.

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

Checking Wikipedia after I started this thread today, I discovered that there was a Jutland Memorial Service a few days ago, that Prime Minister Cameron attended, as well as Germany's President (a fairly descent action to the representative of the ancient foe's leadership). I'm glad to see that the Kitchener tragedy was also noted.

When I mentioned better construction, I recall reading not only about that flaw you described that allowed internal explosions of the three largest British casualties, but I remember reading the German's concentrated on double skin battle ships - British ships did not a second skin despite the lesson of the Titanic disaster.

That British ship flaw would still be around in 1941 when Bismarck destroyed Hood - in their exchange of fire one of Bismarck's shots hit the Hood in the same way the three at Jutland were hit - which helped destroy Hood quickly and assisted in the nearly total death toll (although the really icy waters of the Denmark Strait did not help survivors of the sinking).

Jeff

Jeff

The real problem was that Battlecruiser were never designed to take part in battleship actions, however at Jutland two of the British ship lost were sunk by Germany battlecrusiers.

The actual damage to both fleets is well worth looking at, both fleets battlecruisers took heavy hits, however the Germans far better control of ammunition meant although their several of their big ships were close to sinking, only one did, and even that did not explode.


The British also lost very large armoured cruisers which again were never meant to take part in battlefleet actions. very poorly armoured. and badly commanded.

Hood is indeed related in many ways.

She was herself designed as a Battlecruiser, but after Jutland changes were made to increase her armour before launch.
This lead her to be regarded as a fast battleship, which was a mistake, she was just an improved Battlecruiser.

Her Deck armour remained dangerously thin, and while the forward armour over the magazines was increased between the wars the aft was not.

It would seem that a shell from Bismark, penetrated the aft deck armour and exploded probably in the secondary magazine, this in turn ignited the aft main magazine, now the flash burst along the again open hoists to reach the forward magazines too.

In this instant it was an inferior design, that of battleship v battlecrusier, and a degree of bad luck, examination of Hoods rudders at the wreak site show she was part way throgh a turn which would have protected this weak deck armour and exposed her far stronger side armour to the shots from the Bismark, if the shell had missed, by the time of the next salvo from Bismark hood would have been much much safer.

Interestingly enough if the ship against the Bismark that day had been the Warspite, the deck armour would have prevented the shell penetrating and the result would have been a different battle.

I say Warspite as she took more damage at Jutland than any other British ship, but survived or course she was a battleship.

In 1916 she and her sisters of the Queen Elizabeth class were arguably the best in the world. The fact that all served in WWII speaks volumes.
The only weak spot being a vulnerability to torpedo attack, ( we have the famous film of Barham, one of the sisters, listing badly, before turning over and exploding on the surface to demonstrate this) this however was true of all battleships to varying degrees.

very interesting subject


steve

[Mayerling]

G'day mate

You can imagine Galipoli was the big one. Many Aussies see ANZAC day as basically Australia's coming of age. A fair bit lately about the rats of Tabrook too.

Last week was also the anniversary of our troops moving from Galipoli to Europe so a bit of chatter about that.

Just been reading about a relative who just missed out on Galipoli, they caught in he was underage, it took him about four attempts to get into the army because he had some health issues as well.

I wonder if kids his age would make so much effort today.

G'day GUT,

I can give you another close one - actually far more close than I care to think. In March 1945 my father got his draft notice. He was sent to the Pacific, to be trained for the potential invasion of Japan. Then came Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and the surrender on the Missouri. Dad rose to the rank of Sergeant while stationed in Hawaii (which he liked) until 1948. Then he was mustered out.

I keep thinking that as the proposed Japanese homeland invasion would have made Saipan, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa look like walks in the park by comparison, Dad was very fortunate - and by extension so was I.

Jeff

[Pcdunn]

The Battle of Jutland is covered in this book, held by my campus library:
Massie, Robert K. Castles of Steel: Britain, Germany, and the Winning of the Great War at Sea, c.2003.

http://www.worldcat.org/title/castles-of-steel-britain-germany-and-the-winning-of-the-great-war-at-sea/oclc/51553670&referer=brief_results

[GUT]

Yes, indeed Gut, Gallipoli is THE really big one for Australia, at least today, I don't know what the population in Australia thought back in 1915-18, because of course we suffered one heck of a lot of casualties, (especially considering our small population at the time,) on the Western Front in France and Belgium. Gallipoli was our first 'blooding' though, in a major European War.

Princess Anne was in full naval rig with many veterans at the Commemoration Service for Jutland. I saw photos of that service.

It is odd that there are few to no documentaries on the naval battle. It may be because the result at Jutland seems so ambiguous, with high losses on both sides, no clear winner.

I do agree though, that the British naval blockade in WW1 played a vital role in lowering German morale and thus hastening the end of the conflict. Also, the Grand Fleet did remain in its home harbours after Jutland, not venturing out to challenge the Royal Navy in any notable way again.

Even then it was pretty big.