[Documentary] WWI - Battle of Jutland

[adwinistrator]

The Battle of Jutland (Vimeo)

A full account of the Battle of Jutland narrated by Admiral Jellicoe’s grandson as part of the Jutland Centenary Commemorations. The 24 minute animation gives the viewer an overview of the major “chapters” of the battle – the opening battle cruiser action, the Grand Fleet deployment, the Turn Away and the Night Destroyer actions. Additionally the 1917 submarine campaign is explained as a consequence of Scheer’s decision not to risk another Fleet-to-Fleet encounter. Graphics, animation, animated maps and contemporary photography illustrate key points.

A really well made animated mapping of the battle, I thought you all might enjoy this. I've probably listen to Dan's BfA episode on this 3 times, and always had difficulty imagining the scale, speed, and maneuvers of these fleets. It certainly was one of the strangest periods in naval warfare, and doesn't really fit with how you'd expect an earlier or a later sea battle to play out.

[Okeefenokee]

Good show.

[Smitty-48]

It wasn't that different from earlier sea battles, it was still Ships of the Line, forming line and attempting to bring their guns to bear, broadsides, tactically similar to the Age of Sail, the difference was simply speed, range, and firepower.

In terms of the blockade and being cautious about risking the fleet, Trafalgar notwithstanding, that's actually the same concept of operations which the British had employed against Bonaparte in the previous world war.

[Montegriffo]

It wasn't that different from earlier sea battles, it was still Ships of the Line, forming line and attempting to bring their guns to bear, broadsides, tactically similar to the Age of Sail, the difference was simply speed, range, and firepower.

In terms of the blockade and being cautious about risking the fleet, Trafalgar notwithstanding, that's actually the same concept of operations which the British had employed against Bonaparte in the previous world war.

Almost a return to the pre Nelson tactics in fact. Nelson at least tried to change thing up breaking the line and getting behind it.
Too much emphasis on rate of fire which actually cost the RN more ships sunk despite them scoring more hits on the Germans.

[Smitty-48]

It wasn't that different from earlier sea battles, it was still Ships of the Line, forming line and attempting to bring their guns to bear, broadsides, tactically similar to the Age of Sail, the difference was simply speed, range, and firepower.

In terms of the blockade and being cautious about risking the fleet, Trafalgar notwithstanding, that's actually the same concept of operations which the British had employed against Bonaparte in the previous world war.

Almost a return to the pre Nelson tactics in fact. Nelson at least tried to change thing up breaking the line and getting behind it.
Too much emphasis on rate of fire which actually cost the RN more ships sunk despite them scoring more hits on the Germans.

Trafalgar was a bit of a one off though, all or nothing gambit, I mean, the fleet was destroyed in the process, so; only to be done in extremis. Charging head on into the broadsides for an all or nothing decisive engagement at point blank, generally going to be a one way trip. Yes, you can sink the enemy fleet at a single stroke, but you'd better get all of them, because you're not going to be doing much fighting after.

Some serious iron will required, to execute a Trafalgar, see how the Germans tried that manuever at Jutland, and the captains started turning in the face of the firestorm without being ordered to, if the ladies had been for turning at Trafalgar, Nelson and Co would have been massacred.

They were massacred of course, by the storm which blew in on their crippled ships right after, but by that point, the French had already been anihilated.

The victory of Jutland, was entirely coincidental, when it caused the Germans to switch to submarines which drew the Americans into the war, but otherwise, seeking a Trafalgar-esque decisive engagement with the German fleet would be a strategic blunder, because the blockade was already winning the war, slowly but surely, so no need to risk an all or nothing gambit, could have backfired massively, if Jellicoe hadn't been so cautious; if Jellicoe had pulled a Nelson at Jutland, the Germans could have won the war.

[Montegriffo]

I think the thing which was most decisive about Jutland was the images of battered German warships limping into harbour. Because of the British folly of keeping the cordite in the corridors between the magazines and the gun turrets the British were spared these images because their ships went down.
The German people and leaders saw the mangled men and ships and were convinced of their failure despite sinking more ships.

[Smitty-48]

Moreover, it simply hastened the British to modernize their fleet as well, the Battlecruisers being a disaster, was a blessing in disguise, bring on the age of the Destroyer, the age of the big guns was over in any case, Jutland simply sealed the deal.

[Montegriffo]

Moreover, it simply hastened the British to modernize their fleet as well, the Battlecruisers being a disaster, was a blessing in disguise, bring on the age of the Destroyer, the age of the big guns was over in any case, Jutland simply sealed the deal.

Too little armour on the decks of cruisers, this was rectified latter but as you say their day was over. Even destroyers were screwed once submarines and warplanes came properly into the mix.
There was a place for big guns though, softening up shore defences before amphibious landings.

[Smitty-48]

Moreover, it simply hastened the British to modernize their fleet as well, the Battlecruisers being a disaster, was a blessing in disguise, bring on the age of the Destroyer, the age of the big guns was over in any case, Jutland simply sealed the deal.

Too little armour on the decks of cruisers, this was rectified latter but as you say their day was over. Even destroyers were screwed once submarines and warplanes came properly into the mix.
There was a place for big guns though, softening up shore defences before amphibious landings.

The age of the decisive engagement on the high seas, Trafalgar style, was over, Jellicoe was damn right to be wary of the German Destroyers and potential mines and torpedoes aboard them, drawing the other side over your mines and torpodoes, was already the way to win.

In terms of softening things up for an amphibious landing? Didn't really work, plenty of big guns at Gallipoli after all, 18 Battleships in fact.

[Montegriffo]

Gallipoli was a failure to advance and take the high ground, the landing was not really opposed in the same way as Normandy. The hesitance of the British Generals should take the blame not the Navy.
I was thinking more of the Pacific campaign with big guns effective enough to change the Japanese tactics in favour of fighting inland rather than on the beaches.