Talk:Battle of Jutland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Battle of Jutland is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 12, 2005.
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This History article has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Battle of Jutland as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the German or Swedish language Wikipedias.
Portal:Germany
 Germany Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

I changed the result from "Germany victory" to "German tactical victory; British strategic victory." I believe this is what it was before, and this is obviously a more accurate and more NPOV than to state that Jutland was a German victory.

Good - let's hope it stays that way! Viv Hamilton 09:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

---

The text of this article seems to be solidly within the British point of view - no German naval officers are named, for example. It would be interesting to find out how the German sailors involved undertook the battle. - user:Montrealais

This article has been defaced.

It seems to me that the orders of battle should be moved to a seperate list due to the huge number of ships involved in this battle. Just a thought. Gentgeen 09:54, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Good idea. What i said on Cleanup (excessively for the location) was
Battle of Jutland Thorough, 2800 word article, w/ 58 word intro. I want to know if Jellico was considered a hero, but the outcome is summarized as " After an inconclusive encounter both sides claimed victory." How about an Overview section after ToC, say several hundred words (including, if i grasp correctly, "kept the German fleet from affecting the outcome of the war" and the Churchill quote abt the "over-cautious" admiral being the only one who could have lost the war in an hour or an afternoon or whatever. --Jerzy
but those 2800-and-some words are just the running text, and the orders of battle are additional. --Jerzy 12:10, 2004 Feb 7 (UTC)
There's no value to the reader in separating the OB - it's at the end, nothing "hidden" by being after it. It does need tweaking; for instance, we don't need detailed stats for each capital ship, that's why we have links to ship articles, and the minor ships can be comma-separated lists of names after each division. Stan 13:44, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
No value to the users who matter, but still, take pity on those of us still on dial-up. Most readers of the article will not even glance at OB, important tho it is to full coverage, but have to sit thru its loading time. --Jerzy 21:31, 2004 Feb 7 (UTC)

It doesn't seem an unreasonable request to me, and the effort to click on Battle of Jutland (order of battle) doesn't seem an undue effort for people who want to study it. Would it cause offense if I split it this way?Dandrake 00:35, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

I can live with it. Battle of Jutland, order of battle is a little better I think, the "()" misleadingly suggests a disambiguator. Jutland order of battle is also sufficiently clear, less wordy, and reads better. Stan 01:19, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that this article is the object of some active interest. Does anyone know that it's on Featured Articles, but is about to lose that status? I'm the guilty party who raised an objection to its retention; read about it at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/Index/June 2003 to January 2004#Battle of Jutland. Since no one else has done anything, I'm now trying to copy edit the article to the point that I can remove my objection. Everyone else is welcome to join, especially those who know more about naval history than I do.

By the way, here's what happened: it got on the FA list back when there was no particular procedure to put things there. After a procedure was adopted, everything that was already on the list came up for review; many articles were challenged on various grounds. There seems to have been a flaw in this process: old articles were never flagged so that people seeing them would know that they were Featured, or that they were under challenge. Dandrake 21:27, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)


Trying to clarify the text for people who aren't sure what crossing the T is, or (like me) have never heard of the Jade [Estuary]. Any interested parties please keep an eye on my historical accuracy, as well as whether I'm mangling the prose. Dandrake 00:01, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)

Query:was it our bloody ships or our bloody battlecruisers with which something was wrong that day? I'd always heard the latter version. Dandrake 00:32, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)

"Ships" in all the quotes I've heard" Arwel 00:37, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I've tried to clarify both the paragraph on Jellicoe's decision to deploy in line astern and the one on why the ships blew up. I don't think I've messed up the sense. In the latter, I changed references to naval "culture" into "doctrine", which makes it more a formal decision than an unexamined assumption; I submit this to review by people who know the history better. Dandrake 21:07, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother commenting, but this page is up for Featured Article status. I think this page has a definite POV toward paying more attention to the British side. I deleted one case where the text said "unfortunately", but there are many more similar wordings. Problems for the British are "worrying", and the "overview" of the battle focuses entirely on one British man. I will point out or fix more things I find POV later, but this is more of a statement about the sum total of the article than specific statements. DanKeshet 19:44, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)


Well, it was worrying to him! (Reminiscent of how NPOV it is to report on the fact that some people believe in [fill in favorite conspiracy theory or whatever].) But you're right, of course. Was anything at all going on in the minds of the German commanders? We really need someone who has read about it in German, since this sort of material is probably a bit scarce in English. Dandrake 20:13, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
Unfortunately I've not been able to find anything written from the German POV in English, and a search of Amazon.de for "Reinhard Scheer" and "Franz von Hipper" doesn't show anything either, so I suppose they didn't write any memoirs, surprisingly, or more likely they're not in print. -- Arwel 19:28, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Scheer's book, published in 1920, was Germany's High Seas Fleet in the World War; available online at [1]. Gdr 16:47, 2004 Oct 20 (UTC)

As the article stands now, it seems to imply that the 2003 diving expedition revealed the reasons for the explosions of so many British cruisers. But the reasons were already known decades ago, the diving expedition merely confirmed them. Perhaps the article should be reworded to make this clear?

Also, the section on British naval intelligence could be slightly expanded: While Room 40 did know that the Hochseeflotte was out of the barn, a mistaken discussion with a naval officers lead the Admiralty to believe that the Scheer's battle fleet was _not_ moving, and there was merely a large cruiser operation underway. (The success of Room 40 was marred by the fact that the Admiralty constantly managed to misunderstand, misinterpet and just plain ignore a lot of data coming out of there)

Naval battles of The First World War by Geoffrey Bennett (published in -68, IIRC) both mentions the listed reasons for why the British ships had a tendency to explode, as well as discusses the failures of the Admiralty staf to properly exploit the data received from Room 40. User:GNiko 2005 Aug 14


Contents

[edit] Featured article status again?

Could this be a featured article again? I think it could, but it needs

  • Some more from the German perspective
  • Some quotes from eye-witness accounts
  • To be more specific about the Jellicoe controversy: who actually attacked him and in what words?
  • A general map of the North Sea showing fleet movements from 30 May to 1 June
  • More about the night action
  • A snappier lead section

Gdr 15:30, 2004 Oct 20 (UTC)

Last time it was proposed, it was opposed on the grounds of too little from the German perspective, which is why I was asking if anyone knew of any books from the German POV. It doesn't appear that there are any. -- Arwel 16:44, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
See the External links and References section of the article. Gdr 16:47, 2004 Oct 20 (UTC)
It's looking very nice! :) -- Arwel 17:31, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] German plan prompted by Verdun?

I cut the following sentence from the article:

In 1916 the failure at the Battle of Verdun and the increasing effectiveness of the economic blockade led the German government to try to break (or at the least to weaken) the control of the Royal Navy.

Is this true? Scheer's memoirs contain no mention of Verdun or any particular event as a trigger for the operation that led to Jutland. He views it as following from his general strategy. So I replaced this sentence with a quote from him. If someone can provide evidence that Verdun or the blockade affected the timing of Jutland, then we could put this back. Gdr 20:42, 2004 Oct 22 (UTC)

[edit] A note from one of the article's original contributors

Hi All, I decided to check this article again almost exactly a year after I first wrote the heart of the battle description. It didn't occur to me that it would've been viewed and edited, let alone discussed, to the extent that it has. But I guess I shouldn't really be surprised, given how Jutland has always been a favorite among military history experts and amateur buffs. In case you didn't know, as early as 1930 one prominent naval historian commented on Jutland: "Never has a single naval engagement spilt so much ink." Well, the oceans of ink have only continued to flow since then, and now in the Internet age, it appears this enthusiasm is carrying over to cyberspace.

On the issue of sources: it's true they're Anglo-centric. Then again, so is most of the war history as we read it in the West, given that the Germans lost both world wars. However, I'm pretty sure that either Scheer or Hipper, if not both, did write memoirs, and there's at least one biography of Hipper that I know of. The problem is that translations to English aren't readily available, though I admit I haven't looked around in quite a while.

Overall, I'd say the reason Jutland's so hotly discussed for such an inconclusive battle is how much potential it had that wasn't fulfilled, as the main engagement was so wickedly brief. Never before or since have so many capital ships been pitted against each other all at once - if my own calculations are correct, nearly 1 of every 4 battleships and battlecruisers ever built in the dreadnought era (1906-1946) were present at Jutland. The battle was so immensely complex as is, yet it could've been so much more.

A translation of Scheer's memoirs is available on the web; see the External links section. Is there in fact much bias remaining in the article? (The German commanders are named; their strategy and plans are discussed, backed up by a quote from Scheer; their movements are given and justified. The account of the battle agrees with eye-witness German accounts. The external links and references have accounts from both sides.) The only place I can see where there might be bias is in the extensive discussion of British reaction in section 4 and little on the German reaction. Gdr 20:54, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)
Surely the reason that all writing is so inconclusive, is that the battle was inconclusive. Two fleets, with vastly different objectives, met in circumstances where the technology and strategy of the times was immature, met in poor visibility, stumbled around, and lost each other, mainly in fear of torpedo attacks that never happened. Massive equipment failures on one side (British AP shells, exploding charges on BCs) meant that both sides drew the wrong conclusions for many years. As a vague question, does anyone deny that Campbell's acccount is fair? Greglocock 12:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Battlebox

There appear to be two different Battleboxes in use for "Naval Campaign of World War I", e.g. that used in the Falklands article and the one in this one. Is anyone aware of a sensible reason for this? Grant65 (Talk) 10:33, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

The Battle of the Falkland Islands was using an old battlebox design, made before the introduction of templates. (Template:Infobox Battles is a templatized version of the same design). Template:Battlebox is a new design, using templates and having a campaign. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Battles/archive0002#Battle before/Battle after for the discussion that led to the new design (indeed, the discussion was prompted by this very article). You are welcome to update articles using the old design when you find them. Gdr 13:24, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)

[edit] Battlecruisers

This doesnt seem right to me:

"They were intended to be faster than battleships, with superior fire control, and able to pound enemy battleships at ranges at which the enemy could not reply"

As far as I know battlecruisers were never designed to fight battleships, they were to fight the cruisers of the scouting forces and were armored only against cruiser-sized guns (at least the british battlecruisers).

They were supposed to be protected against the heavy battleship-guns by their ability to outrun them. Of course that concept ran into trouble once the battlecruiser faced a battlecruiser, a scenario the british apparently forgot when designing their battlecruisers (as no other navy had them at the time).

Nevfennas 21:11, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good catch! -- Arwel 21:33, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The battlecruisers were designed to engage in combat with armored cruisers. They were successful in doing so at the Battle of the Falklands, but the British battlecruisers were massacred at Jutland by German battlecruisers and battleships. They probably would've survived the battle had the crews not removed doors that prevented flash fires in the magazines. -Ben

[edit] British targeting in the opening phase

Instead of engaging in a line, one British ship engaged with one German, there was a mistake on the British part. Derfflinger was left unengaged and free to fire without disruption while Lützow drew fire from two battlecruisers.

This sounds like a confusion with the Battle_of_Dogger_Bank, where such a mistake did indeed happen. At Jutland 6 British Battlecruisers faced 5 German Battlecruisers, thats why the leading British ships doubled up on Lützow. I will correct that if nobody protests. Nevfennas 07:28, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Nevfennas, you are mistaken. See this link for a diagram and description of why Derfflinger was left unfired upon. http://www.worldwar1.co.uk/jutland2.htm
The books about the battle I've read all say the same thing. See the problem was the captains of Queen Mary and Tiger were supposed to fire on their opposites starting from the back of the lines, instead they counted from the front.
Hussian 04:33, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

According to the diagram it was Moltke not Lützow that received extra fire as a result of that mistake. It should be clarified that two German Battlecruisers received double fire.

[edit] Von Hipper

User:Kosebamse changed every instance of "Hipper" to "von Hipper", with the edit comment ""von" is an integral part of German names and should not be left out". This would be more convincing if (a) the German article on this battle didn't use "Hipper" freely and repeatedly, and (b) the German cruiser Admiral Hipper were named Admiral Von Hipper. So I reverted. Gdr 17:55:10, 2005-08-12 (UTC)

Being German, I can assure you that von is indeed an integral part of a German surname and it is incorrect (and in personal contact, rude) to call someone "Hipper" when the name is "von Hipper". I am not specifically knowledgeable in in the details of this article, but if that officer's name was indeed "von Hipper" then both instances that you cite are incorrect in their usage of the name. Kosebamse 19:26, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think your rule about "von" can be true in all cases. In the German Wikipedia, plain "Hipper" is used in de:Gefecht auf der Doggerbank and de:Skagerrakschlacht. Another example is de:Otto von Bismarck, almost always referred to as plain "Bismarck". On the other hand de:Werner von Braun is always "von Braun", never just "Braun"; and you can see that it is the same in the English article Werner von Braun.

Can you give a reference for the rule about "von"? Gdr 20:27:22, 2005-08-12 (UTC)

I happen to know it for a fact, but would have to search to find it codified. Give me some time and I'll try to find an online reference.
The rule as such is quite simple: nobility should be referred to with their title, and for a German named "von X" (which would be roughly equivalent to "Baron X" elsewhere) the correct way would be to speak of "von X" in an encyclopedic article, and of "Herr von X" in a personal or formal setting. Addressing Mr. von X as "Herr X" in a personal communication would be outright rude. The only formal exception I can think of would be that in a circle made up exclusively of noblemen/-women one might address someone else without expressly including the title (but even there, Count Y might prefer to be addressed as "Count Y" by Mr von X).
In practice however, things look different. Firstly, in egalitarian societies, most people (including Wikipedians) may not be familiar with these seemingly obsolete forms or may deliberately choose to ignore them. Secondly, the titles of nobility of highly popular figures such as Bismarck (who was, by the way, promoted to Graf, then Fürst, then Herzog) are often ignored for the sake of simplicity, especially in casual parlance and journalism. Kosebamse 21:25, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
http://www.ledebur.de/startframe.htm
Here is page (in german, sorry) that deals with the use of "von". The problem is (among other things) that there are two "von":One is the "Adelprädikat" (nobility stub?) used by nobility, this von may be shortened in offical documents to "v." as it is part of a title.
The other "von" does not belong to nobility, it came from adding ones origin to the surname. So the nobleman Otto Fürst von Bismarck (Otto Prince of Bismarck) could leave it away, the mere citizen Werner von Braun could not.(technically at least, in spoken language conveniance often overruled the law).
Franz von Hipper himself however was not part of the nobility, until he was knighted for his actions at Jutland and became Franz Ritter von Hipper (Scheer was offered the same but declined, so at least Admiral Scheer should have been named Admiral von Scheer) 85.176.64.26 20:59, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Correction: Scheer never was a "von" Scheer, he was born simply as Reinhard Scheer and died as such. Sorry for the mistake 85.176.94.58 07:53, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

If Hipper was indeed a non-noble "von" who was later nobilitated, then it would probably be correct to refer to him using the name that he bore at the time of his death. Kosebamse 21:33, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Hipper, as a bavarian national (the Empire was de jure a confederation of serveral monarchies under the Emperor) was awarded the military cross of the Max-Josef Order. This order goes along with the title "Ritter von". It was comparable to the british KBE and was NOT hereditary. So Hipper's children (if he had any) were just plain "Hipper" again. I happen to know this because a relative of mine is a collector of this award. This order was the bavarian equivalent of the Pour le Merite, and was awarded generally under the same circumstances for bavarians as a Prussian for Pour le Merite (but the latter could also be awarded to non-Prussians). While the pour le Merite was the higher reputed award (as prussia was the leading state of the Empire), it did NOT go along with a noble title.


Generally german nobility is divided into old (medieval), middle (before 1871) and newer (considered not noble at all by the older ones;)). Most "von" bearers today are the latter, their ancestors being awarded the title of Reichsfreiherr during the empire, which was the lowest hereditary form of nobility. Use of it was about as profligate as KBE, but in contrary to KBE it IS hereditary. But after 1920 noble titles have no importance other than being namesJCRitter.

I see that the English Wikipedia has an article at von. If I understand the above correctly Franz von Hipper could still be referred to as "Hipper" in June 1916, but after his enoblement it was obligatory to call him "von Hipper". So this article, and the one at the German Wikipedia, are OK. Gdr 21:53:08, 2005-08-12 (UTC)

Scheer normally is not written with a von in german sources at all, maybe he was created after Skagerrak by the emperor. I have my doubts wether he ever was created noble or not. Seems to be a "von Paulus" chase. Here's a picture of his grave in Weimar: http://www.100megsfree2.com/jjscherr/scherr/images/ScheerTombstone.jpg. Generally, as discussed above, famous germans are normally referred to with just their names. Nobody needs to remind anyone of Bismarck's status while a Meier is something different than a von Meier,). An example was that in Austria, the "von" has been abolished in 1919, and the only ones affected were the small and unknown nobles for whom it was their source of pride and status. A Habsburg, Starhemberg or Eszterhazy would still be recognized.
"Admiral Reinhard Scheer" JCRitter

Since Franz Hipper was knighted only AFTER the battle, the debate ist rather moot. While serving at Jutland, he was plain and simple Franz Hipper. Cosal 04:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LinkFix Dump

See also: User:Ambush Commander/LinkFix dump

Added here for posterity, it's pretty small, so I'm going to take a crack at it myself.

LinkFix dump for "Battle of Jutland", no edits made:

Flags % Flag
Searchlights % Searchlight
Flag signals ! Disambiguation Page
HMS Southampton ! Disambiguation Page
Light Cruiser % Light cruiser
Armoured cruiser % Armored cruiser
Jackie Fisher, 1st Baron Fisher % John Fisher, 1st Baron Fisher
Grand Fleet % British Grand Fleet

Finish what was started a bit back. — Ambush Commander(Talk) 02:49, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Done. — Ambush Commander(Talk) 02:56, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Beatty Controversy

Something doesn't seem correct:

"Most of the British losses in tonnage occurred in Beatty's squadron. The three capital ships the British lost that day were all under the command of Beatty."

This is confusing considering that according to the "Losses" section, the only ships lost in Beatty's Battle Cruiser Fleet were Queen Mary (27000t), Indefatigable(18500t), Nestor (1000t), Nomad (1000t) and Turbulent (1000t), adding up to roughly 48,500 tonnes. Of the 111,000 total tonnes lost by the British, this appears not to be "most" of it. Furthermore, the Order of battle at Jutland, clearly states that the 3rd Battle Cruiser Squadron under R. Adm. Hood was temporarily attached to Adm. Jellicoe's Grand Fleet. Thus his flagship, the Invincible, was not subject to Beatty's command, and its loss cannot be blamed on him. Therefore the statement "The three capital ships the British lost that day were all under the command of Beatty." is either an ambiguous statement or incorrect. Roger 21:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Jellicoe ordered Hood's 3BCS forward to join Beatty, and it was under Beatty's command, in line ahead of 1 and 2 BCS when it encountered Lützow and Derfflinger at about 18:20. Gdr 11:56, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


"A battlecruiser in a slugging match against a dreadnought battleship was at a decisive disadvantage." This statement is out of place! Beatty engaged German battlecruisers, not dreadnoughts. That action was well within tactical doctrin. The statement creates the false impression of Beatty deliberatly engaging the German dreadnoughts and should be removed. 213.191.70.226 12:58, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

The British battlecruisers lost were, as far as I know, all sunk by German battlecruisers, not by battleships. So the criticism of Beatty that he fought a superior enemy seems rather misplaced.Cosal 03:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 11 inch gun

All sources I know refer to the German 11 inch gun as a 280 milimeter weapon (more common 28 cm). I've never heard of 279 mm, unlike the 381mm for 15 inch guns. Nevertheless the 11 inches are referred to as 279mm in this article. Is there a source for this or has someone simply calculated the conversion and rounded it to 279? 213.191.70.226 10:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Yep, 280 mm is the correct one. Darkone 23:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Skagerrakschlacht

Perhaps it should be mentioned at some point that in German, the Battle of Jutland is referred to almost exclusively as the Skagerrakschlacht. The German edition of the article touches upon this. Incidentally, Jutland is spelled Jütland (not Jütlan) in German. (Roger2dc 10:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC))

I've changed the introduction back to more or less how it was before Neutrality's edits on 19 December, since it's never known as the "Battle of the Skaggerak" in English, either. -- Arwel (talk) 13:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Largest naval battle ever

Since this naval battle is still the largest in the history of men I added it in the intro.

And since it's not, I took it out again. See largest naval battle in history. Gdr 18:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Radio vs. Flags and Searchlights

Also signals made with flags or searchlights from the flagship (usually placed at the head of the center column) could be seen by many ships. In a single column it would often take 10 minutes or more for a signal to be passed from the flagship at the front of the column to the last ship at the end, since smoke from the funnels often made it impossible to identify signals on ships behind the one directly ahead or behind, so every ship had to repeat the signal for the following one to understand. The time required for this was often doubled as most signals had to be confirmed by every ship before they could be executed.

I thought everything was wireless at this point. Were flags perhaps used in order to maintain radio silence? Were flags or searchlights actually used in this battle? (The explanation is pretty long if not.) Tempshill 01:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, flags and signal lights were used for tactical orders. Radio was used very sparingly (e.g. Beatty to Jellicoe reporting the German position). Partly this was due to fear of interception and partly due to conservatism of British signal doctrine. Andrew Gordon has a lot to say about the latter in The Rules of the Game, and the explanation is, as you surmise, pretty long. Gdr 13:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] removed reference to German superiority in fire control systems

While it is fully worth mentioning the superior number of hits the German gunners achieved, it is clear that their success in this vital measure of battle was not attributable to a technical advantage over the Royal Navy. The claim removed mentioned that the British adopted an inferior system of fire control. I surmise that this was an allusion not to the comparative virtues of British versus German systems, but to the relative merits of the Dreyer tables the Royal Navy employed and A. H. Pollen's Argo systems they chose not to acquire.

The primary reasons for the German performance advantage were attributable to disparities in degree and freshness of drill on the part of the opposing gunnery officers and men involved in the Run to the South and in the visibility conditions during that period. Both of these favored Hipper's ships. If a German advantage in any element of the many pieces of equipment that constitute a fire control system can fairly be claimed, it would be that their stereoscopic rangefinders were better than the Royal Navy's coincidence rangefinders at ranging on ships enwreathed in smoke in conditions of fading light.

To touch briefly on the Argo versus Dreyer issue I felt was reflected in the stricken phrase, the opinion that Argo equipment would have served the Royal Navy better at Jutland is a widely-held view emanating from an infuential 1989 work by Prof. Jon Sumida: "In Defence of Naval Supremacy". This little-studied and intricate field of study has long relied on this single impression because it defies casual approach and examination. Luckily, the topic enjoys renewed debate in the recent publication of John Brooks's "Dreadnought Gunnery at the Battle of Jutland". With luck, more researchers will lend their own mind to the topic over time, as its richness certainly invites a number of viewpoints.

Having said all that....

One aspect that does perhaps remain relevant to comparisons between the British and German fire control at Jutland is actually that the Dreyer system is more similar to the German methods of fire control than was the rejected Argo equipment in that the Dreyer systems, like those of Germany, were fundamentally friendly to incorporating the input of multiple rangefinders in their calculations of the solution, whereas Argo was cyclopic in this regard. This further undermines the inference that Dreyer equipment, as opposed to Argo equipment, could have contributed to a disparity in results between British and German accuracy at Jutland. If anything, the use of Dreyer as opposed to Argo gear would have tended to make British and German attainments in accuracy more similar.

[edit] Tactical victor?

The side box calls the battle a tactical German victory, the text calls it a minor British tactical "gain". Which is correct is, I'm sure, a matter for debate (British losses were much higher but the Germans fled the "field" which could be interpretted as a tactical, rather than strategic defeat). I don't want to make the edit without consensus, but one way or the other the article should be internally consistant). Epeeist smudge 07:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

germans were narrow tactical winners, but strategic loosers as they did not succeed in weakening the british fleet enough to even the balance--85.180.6.63 23:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It is hard to call Jutland a tactical German victory, given that the High Seas Fleet spent the overwhelming majority of the battle in head long retreat. In my opinion, the side box ought to make it apparent that the 'victor' of Jutland is a matter of fierce historical debate. InfectedWithRage 20:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

This battle is really a case where it depends on what you consider a "victory". I like to say you've won when you are better of after the battle than you would have been if you hadn't fought (e.g. evaded) it. Basically the battle was a draw, neither side gained anything. The strategic situation after the battle was exactly the same as if the battle hadn't happened at all. The british fleet was still strong enough to uphold the blockade and even with half their fleet under repair the Germans could still block access to the baltic. Tactically the British succeeded in crossing the German T twice and forcing the Germans to run, on the German side we have two successful escapes from their T being crossed and succeeding to escape by outmaneuvering the british fleet between them and their base.-- Nevfennas 21:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I fully agree that who is the victor is debatable. The issue for me is that the article is inconsistant. The side bar doesn't agree with the text. I'd be inclined to put some sort of neutral words (contested or something smilar) in the side bar where brevity is neccessary and have the discussion on who "won" in the text (which is largely there already). Any views? Epeeist smudge 10:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm of the opinion that the article should reflect the generally stated view that Jutland was marginal tactical victory for the Germans, but that the Royal Navy maintained the Strategic advantage overall. The fact that the Germans spent much of the battle in retreat is irrelevant to the eventual outcome. During WWII the American army spent most of the Battle of the Bulge in defeat, but that doesn't mean the Germans were the victors of that particular engagement... The High Seas fleet managed to out maneuver and evade the Grand Fleet, despite being twice caught in a disadvantaged position, and at the same time inflicted more damage than they received. Tactically, that sounds like a victory to me. Getztashida 16:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Submarine details?

This is in here now: "The German U-boats were completely ineffective; they did not sink a single ship and provided no useful information as scouts." I think this is a non-sequitur. A U-boat could be somewhat effective/somewhat ineffective if it damaged a ship, broke up a formation, delayed the advance, etc. The "sunk or nothing" thing doesn't work for me. Can anyone add some insight here?--Thatnewguy 00:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)



[edit] Combat Turnaround /gefechtskehrtwende)

nothing about the germans making three combat turnarounds in battle? a manouver seldom executed. it sure is worth mentioning--85.180.6.63 23:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Victory and Defeat again

An anonymous edit has changed the result box to make it inconsistent with the text. It seems to me that referrng to defeat and victory positively invites such inconsidered edits. So I've modified it to Tactical British failure, debatable strategic outcome. Viv Hamilton 07:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Yet the outcome down the bottom describes it as a marginal tactical victory; German fleet returned to port, RN ready again in shorter time... GraemeLeggett 18:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Although it does say that, and I will happily go along with whatever expert analysed that, one also needs to bear in mind that at the time the British felt it was a defeat. I think the words victory and defeat are just too strong to be used in the summary table, given the debatable nature of the outcome (marginal and pyrrhic at best). After all, the German intention was always to inflict asymmetric losses on the British and not hang around for a pitched battle with the main fleet - although they skirmished with the fleet, they achieved their objective. The British, on the other hand, intended to crush the German fleet, which they did not do, and their losses were much greater; shockingly so from the British perspective. But one could argue that it was a strategic victory for Britain because the British remained in command of the seas and the Germans remained in port! Viv Hamilton 18:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
reverted edit to table result as POV and inconsistent with content of article. Strategic German victory would have conveyed some long term benefit to the Germans. No such benefit is described in the article Viv Hamilton 08:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Whilst the Germans sank more tonnage than the British, the German High Seas fleet was effectively neutralised - it never took to sea in force again. I'd say whether it was any kind of German victory is debatable in itself - despite the fact that more ships were lost by the british, the considerably larger size of the Royal Navy meant that their losses were little more than a minor scratch. Consider calling the Battle of Stalingrad a german victory because the Russians lost more men! The idea is ridiculous. The German fleet was also on the retreat throughout the battle. Given that the battle did not benefit the Germans in any way, shape or form, but did away with the threat of the German Navy, I think there should be mention of a British Strategic victory, even if Pyrrhic [which it hardly was], in the 'battlebox.'

Sorry but I fail to see any significant strategic gain for the British here. Before the battle the Germans were controlling their side of the North Sea and blocking access to the Baltic (shortest supply route to Russia). After the battle they were still controlling their side of the North Sea and blocking access to the Baltic, even in the short time directly after the battle when most of their heavy units were repairing the battle damage. It was not neutralised, as it could have sortied any time and thereby forced the british to concentrate their forces in the North Sea. In fact it did sortie several times in the Baltic and fought several skirmishes against the Royal Navy as well. So after the battle it was more or less the same situation as before. Nevfennas 13:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok, we're probably never going to reach a consensus on this, but I must point out a few more things.
1. The intro of the article states "The intention of the German fleet was to break the British naval blockade of the North Sea and allow German mercantile shipping to operate again" and the article on blockades states that [the Blockade] "[was] one factor leading to Germanys Defeat in world war one." The blockade was not lifted, therefore the German mission failed, therefore one could say that TACTICAL victory goes to the British. The actual tonnage lost is irrelevant [but you weren't disputing that].
2. Whilst I'm not saying that it would not have been to the British advantage to open up the supply route to Russia, this was not the Grand Fleet's intention when they left port. I do take your point about neutralisation, though. I should have said that the German High Seas Fleet never again constituted a serious threat to the Grand Fleet. The 'small skirmishes' you mentioned were never a threat to british strategic planning, therefore the effect Jutland had on keeping the high seas fleet in port can be seen as a british strategic advantage. [by the by - the Naval Warfare in World War I page needs serious attention. it only mentions the blockade, the falklands, jutland, submarines and a cursory glance at the beginnings of carrier warfare. you seem to know your stuff regarding this area, so perhaps you could give it a look over? just a thought...] anyway:
3. the german failure to defeat the Royal Navy in one of the only significant naval engagements of the war could be seen as having been a direct cause of their decision to declare unrestricted submarine warfare, which in turn led to the USA allying against her - British strategic advantage.
4. The fact that the germans managed to keep the status quo in the baltic does not make Jutland a german victory, it makes it a stalemate.
I could go on, but we get the message - listing this battle as a 'German tactical victory' is both misrepresenting and over-simplifying a significant engagement. Your points are valid, but so are mine - there was more to Jutland than simply a greater loss of tonnage on the British side and I think this really ought to be reflected in the battle-box. You must be able to see where I'm coming from.
I think I am able to see were you are coming from and that I understand now why we are in disagreement here. The main point is that what you refer to as a tactical victory in point 1 is IMHO actually a strategic point. As stated in the article (section German plan) the German strategic goal was to destroy the Royal Navy. Because the Royal Navy was stronger they tried to employ a tactic of luring major british forces into the North Sea by attacking the blockade-forces at Shetland-Bergen passage, ambush and destroy them with their entire fleet and be gone before the british main-body arrived on the battlefield. Breaking the blockade was actually an unrealistic goal, because even if the Germans would have broken the blockade at Shetland, the british could have simply fallen back to the blockade-lines later used in WWII at Iceland, which were out of range of the German WWI ships. Anyway the Germans clearly failed here, but it's a strategic failure. Same for the Royal Navy, their goal of sinking enough German ships to assure that the German Navy would no longer pose a serious threat was not achieved, though they came close by crossing the T twice and then being between the Germans and their home base. Strategic failure on both sides -> strategic draw, nothing gained by the battle.
That the German High Command then decided to change the strategy and adopted another one (and with unrestricted submarine warfare they picked the worst of all possible alternatives) is at best an indirect consequence of the battle, because the strategy of destroying the Royal Navy had not suddenly become unfeasable by it's outcome (maybe one should rather say it had not become more unfeasable than it had been before). The Germans simply decided that after one close call they didn't want to risk another.
Those who consider Jutland a tactical German victory mostly refer to the sunk tonnage during the battle in relation to the size fleets) and the successful escape during the night. I agree that in the end that didn't matter as any gains were neglible at best. Personnally I consider the battle a draw, because from the consequences or rather the lack of them it might as well never have happened. Nevfennas 09:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I'd be willing to accept that. We just put 'stalemate' or 'draw' in the battlebox rather than 'tactical german victory' [which i think we've established is inaccurate]. Would anyone have any objections to this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Psidogretro (talk • contribs) 12:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

My only objection is that the majority of sources describe Jutland as a marginal Tactical victory to the Germans. Bearing in mind that the German objective was to inflict asymetrical losses on the Royal Navy, and that they most certainly achieved this, then I would contend that the High Seas Fleet did achieve it's tactical objectives (although possibly at a higher price then they were prepare to pay). The manner in which they achieved this is irrelevant, so fact that they spent much of the battle "in retreat" has no bearing on the outcome, their purpose from the outset had been to hit and run. Also, to describe the German Navy as "neutralised" because it didn't take to sea in force again is disengeneous. The High Seas Fleet actually remained in dock for much of the rest of the war because of the changes in German Naval Strategy. The German Navy could and did sail when required (Battle of Moon Sound anyone?) but unlike Royal Navy practice, ships stayed in dock and the crews lived in Barracks unless they were about to actively sortie. The German decision to switch to Unrestricted Submarine warfare meant that the High Seas Fleet became a reactive rather than proactive force. They had little to respond to after Jutland and sortied a correspondingly few times. Sometimes the High Seas Fleet is viewed as a spent force after Jutland as they were not significantly reinforced whereas the Grand Fleet received several new units. However,the switch to Unrestricted Submarine warfare also resulted in the cancellation of Dreadnought construction. Although the Germans had no way of matching British Ship production, the two extra Bayerns and the Mackensen class Battlecruisers could have been completed before the end of the war had the politcal will to do so existed. In short, the decline of the High seas Fleet post Jutland is more attributable to the switch in German Naval strategy than to the damage inflicted upon it at Jutland by the Grand Fleet. The wider point that those changes in strategy were informed by the outcome of the Battle of Jutland shouldn't be ignored, but the Royal Navy most certainly did not cripple the High Seas Fleet with Gunfire... Getztashida 17:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

What you say is true, and i must say you have almost talked me round. However, I still think that, despite what 'most sources' say, calling this a 'tactical german victory' is an oversimplification. There must be another way to concisely describe the outcome in the battlebox. Also, if it was the german intention to 'inflict asymetric damage' on the RN, then why does it say 'The intention of the German fleet was to break the British naval blockade of the North Sea and allow German mercantile shipping to operate again' in the intro? In every account i've read, the latter has been described as the primary objective, and this objective failed. This failure needs to be accounted for in the 'result' column of the battlebox, otherwise the battlebox is misleading. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Psidogretro (talk • contribs) 10:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC).
The Lifting of the Blockade was the High Seas Fleet's long term strategic aim, which they intended to achieve by whittling away the Royal Navies strength in small fleet engagements. I would be inclined to adjust the article slightly if it suggests that the High Seas fleet expected to break the blockade with a single decisive battle, as that was not the case. Getztashida 15:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
ok, then this needs to be reflected in the introduction.
Also, I'm sorry to go on about this, but I still think that the long-term failure of the High Seas Fleet to present a serious challenge to the Royal Navy needs to be reflected in the box. Even if it wasnt the goal of the Germans to break the blockade in one action, the fact stands that Jutland was the beginning of a strategic campaign against the blockade, and due to Jutland such action was cancelled and the German Navy resorted to other means. The blockade was arguably one of the greatest contributors to Germany's defeat in WWI. The Navy failed to break it, and thus there was a strategic gain for the British. One cannot deny that this battle must be seen in its wider Strategic context, rather than just in tactical terms, because the results were so far-reaching. Noone seems to be answering my point that to call this simply a 'German Tactical Victory' is an over-simplification [sorry to overuse this phrase]. Psidogretro 12:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree, to me the British had the strategic advantage before the battle and after the battle it was strengthened to the point where the Germans changed tactics. I think people change it to 'German Tactical Victory' just because of the number of ships lost on each side. CtrlDPredator 13:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

No arguments from me about the need to expalin that Jutland represented a strategic failure on the Part of German Naval strategy, although Jutland was not their first attempt to bring the Grand Fleet to battle under favourable conditions. The Battle of Dogger Bank was the result of similar aims (the Germans raiding the British coast in an attempt to draw out and annihilate small elements of the Grand fleet). However, none of this detracts from the fact that the Germans did achieve their tactical aims at Jutland (inflicting asyemtrical losses on the Grand fleet) where as the British didn't (inflicting a decisive victory on the High Seas Fleet). The fact that the Germans decided to change strategy - even in the light of apparent success at Jutland - tells us more about the Germans realising that their orinal plan was unrealistic. Anyway, in my opinion for the purposes of the infobox we should look at the battle in isolation, and in those terms the it was a marginal win for the Germans - they achieved their tactical objectives, which the Grand fleet did not, and sank more ships and killed more people into the bargain. Putting the battle in context - explaining that the Battle of Jutland did not materially effect the naval balance of power, and therefore the German naval strategy was a failure overall, is the job of the article proper - ideally in the introduction so that casual readers are made aware of the context immediately. Getztashida 14:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I dislike this "Force A lost more people than Force B, therefore Force B won". To me, this is a very narrow view of the battle, basically ignoring everything else and not putting the battle into a proper context. The British could and did absorb higher loses than the Germans and as a direct consequence of the battle, the British were in a stronger strategic position after the battle, irrespective of their operational plans and objectives for the battle itself. You can not simply dismiss the Germans aim to break the blockade as 'unrealistic' and yet stick the British to their aim of breaking the German navy. They are both ambitious plans. To me, the Germans inflicted more damage on the British than the British did to them, yet it had no strategic benefit after the battle and strengthened the British's hand. To me, the battle was a British Strategic Victory, even if they were not fully aware of the consequences of the battle at the time, which is supported in the article. I won’t object to it also having German Tactical Victory, yet that should be backed up in the article.CtrlDPredator 04:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay, how about we put "Inconclusive" in the info box and explain the various claims in the introduction? So long as it's made clear early in the article that both sides could, and did, claim victory we should be fine. Getztashida 13:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
"At the end of the battle the British had maintained their numerical superiority and had twenty-four dreadnoughts and battlecruisers still able and ready to fight while the Germans had ten." - thats not inconclusive to me CtrlDPredator 14:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Listen, I'm not the one flying in the face of ninety years worth of recieved wisdom. Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, not a place to conduct original research. If you want to go and prove that the Germans didn't achieve a marginal tactical victory at Jutland then there are other places for you to go and publish your essay. I have already laid out the reasons why the Germans could (and did) claim that they bested the Grand Fleet at Jutland and I have also explained why the British felt that they had "lost" the battle as well. We've also demonstrated that the Strategic balance of power was not in any way significantly effected by the battle. The Grand Fleet had always enjoyed an overwhelming numerical superiority over the High Seas Fleet. To claim that they "won" because they still did after the battle is to completely miss the point. If the Germans had destroyed five British battlecruisers (which they very nearly did) and not lost the Lutzow the Grand Fleet would still have enjoyed an overwhelming numerical superiority after the battle, but would you still be claiming that the Germans had not infilcted a tactical defeat on them? I've offered you a compromise with the "inconclusive" suggestion - do not mistake it for climb down. The onus is on you to discredit ninety years worth of original research and wrangling, not on me to support it... Getztashida 17:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
"At the end of the battle the British had maintained their numerical superiority and had twenty-four dreadnoughts and battlecruisers still able and ready to fight while the Germans had ten." - taken from the article, this lays out the strategic situation after the battle, a situation that has turned even further to the British's favour. I have stated before that if people wish for it to be a German Tactical Victory then that is ok, yet it should be backed up in the article itself.CtrlDPredator 04:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I dont think 'inconclusive' is accurate. the battle was far from inconclusive. there was a minor german tactical gain, ie. they sank more tonnage than the British, [noone is disputing this] but a clear British strategic gain [this seems to be the thorny side of this issue]. We really need to reach a consensus on this, because i think we all agree that 'german tactical victory' is unsatisfactory.
I propose we put 'Minor German Tactical Victory, British Srategic Victory (disputed)' in the battlebox. This seems perfectly reasonable to me. Any objections? Psidogretro 16:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that the "Disputed" is neccessary. There is no doubt that ultimately the Germans failed to achieve their strategic aim whether they "won" at Jutland or not. Getztashida 22:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Further to my last point, I suggest we word it something aong the lines of "Tactical German Victory but Strategic Faliure" as it sounds less self-contradictory. However, I'm still of the opinion that we should be looking at the battle in isolation... The Articles describing the Battle for France in WWII don't feel the need to point out that the although the Germans captured France and "won" ultimately they lost strategically because they lost the war. The Battle of Jutland was a single engagement which took place over one day. The High Seas Fleet inflicted a marginal defeated on the Grand Fleet. End Of Story, at least as far as the infobox is concerned. The Strategic implications of the battle (of lack of them) can be discussed until the cows come home in the article (or better yet, an article dedicated to the overall WWI naval war) but to suggest the Grand Fleet won because the Germans didn't kick their tails hard enough is preposterous. The Germans won the battle but lost the war, nobody is disputing that, but to claim the British won at Jutland is to mistake the War for the battle...

Incidentally, with reference to the "24 Dreadnoughts to 10" quotation - that rather overlooks the fact that the Germans had returned their fleet to full operational status with four months and the High Seas Fleet could have sailed with about 75% of it's fleet the following day if it had needed to. There were only a few vessels (most famously the Seydlitz) that were very seriously damaged. Had the Grand Fleet sought another battle immeadiately after Jutland some of their most powerful vessels (the fast battleships of the 5th Battle Squadron) were too heavily damaged to fight and they would have been obliged to sail without Scouts (most of the Battlecruisers were seriously damaged - if not actually sunk - and they had no Armoured Cruisers either) so the unspoken implication that the Grand Fleet was battle ready the following day but the High Seas Fleet was not is simply not true. Getztashida 23:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so you admit that there was a British strategic gain. I believe it was a considerable one. Why not mention it in the battlebox? I am not confusing the battle with the war - the fact that the Germans did not achieve their objectives IN THIS BATTLE meant that the blockade was never lifted, which arguably broke their back. When talking about 'strategic victories/defeats,' by definition one is talking about the bearing any battle has on the direction of the war. Jutland had a great bearing on the direction of WWI, being one of the only major naval battles, and thus i think the strategic advantage gained, or rather maintained, by the British is worthy of mention in the synoptic table.
Your point about the RN's readiness to fight is valid to a certain extent, but the fact remains that the British could still have fielded a far greater force than the Germans had there been immediate further engagements. I do not see how this is relevant to the matter in hand, however.
You said that the inclusion of 'disputed' in my suggestion was unnecessary. I dont want to seem impertinant or confrontational here, but you are disputing the British strategic gain right now! What exactly is your position, just to clarify? Psidogretro 05:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
My position? I would prefer the British Strategic gain to discussed in the article rather than the infobox but I am not opposed to it being there, in which case there is no need to include the disputed proviso, as I am not aware of anyone seriously disputing that point. However, I am dead set opposed to the removal of the German Tactical Victory part. I was disputing the notion that the British long term Strategic gains (which were only indirectly tied to the battle) somehow overode the fact that the Germans "won" at Jutland (if only by the slenderest margin). So, in short, I agree with you. Getztashida 09:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok, seems fair enough to me. One point however - i'm not in favour of the removal of the reference to a German Tactical Victory. There was a german tactical victory. My position is that if the German victory was significant enough to warrant mention in the battlebox, then surely the element of british victory is also great enough. given that the british arguably gained more out of this battle than the germans, i think it worthy of mention. But of course,there is the problem of sources - my historiography is worse than sketchy on WWI topics so i really couldnt provide a source that explores the idea of a British strategic victory. Perhaps someone more knowlegable than me could furnish us with some sources to that effect? Psidogretro 18:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
OK. In which case, how does this sound?
"German Tactical Victory but Strategic Failure"
That way it's clear that although the Germans claimed victory they achieved nothing through it, without the confusion of attributing Victory to both sides. Getztashida 01:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
There is NO confusion with different sides winning different aspects of a battle. Both sided claimed victory, not just the Germans. I dont like the use of 'but', nor that statement since it implys that the Germans overall won the battle, which again neither side can claim. British Strategic Victory or at least British Strategic Gain should be mentioned. CtrlDPredator 11:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Yup, sounds great. Ammend it, my negro. Psidogretro 02:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all, am I right in assuming that we have reached some kind of concensus, that being that the Infobox should attribute a tactical victory to the Germans, but acknowledge that the British enjoyed the major strategic gain?

If that's correct how would prefer to word it, CtrlDPredator? I would remind you that we are writing an article for laymen, and possibly school children, which is why I feel that the outcome should be described in terms of a single country ("British Stategic Success but Tactical Defeat" would amount to the same thing, for example). Getztashida 12:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

With reference to that, how does this sound?
"German Tactical Victory but overall British Strategic Gain"
Is that more to everyone's liking? Getztashida 12:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
German Tactical Victory; British Strategic Gain, no problem with that. There is no need to describe it in terms of one country, in fact I feel that by doing so would add some sort of bias towards whichever side was solely mentioned. Other battles mention both sides, for example the Battle of Timor. CtrlDPredator 20:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I have gone ahead and changed the Infobox accordingly.
On a related note. I intend to go over the article a make sure it is internally consistant - for example altering the section that Describes the the Battle as a British Tactical Victory. I'm aware that this is a rather sensitive edit so I will let you know once it's done and than hold my effort up to appropriate peer review. Are there any sections that you guys feel need attention while I'm at it. Getztashida 20:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, as threatened I've made a made a small edit to the introduction and the "outcome" section to remove it's inconsistancies with the Infobox. This has included a fuller explanation of the opposing side's objectives (in the introduction) and couple of adjustments to the text in order to make it flow a little better in the light of the other revisions.

Finally, I've changed the text regarding the operational readiness of the Grand fleet slightly - None of my reference material agrees that the Grand fleet could have sailed with 24 dreadnoughts in full fighting order immeadiately after the battle, but there is no clear consensus as to exactly how many ships they could put to sea. In the absence of a citable revised figure I have changed it to "over 20" dreadnoughts, which I believe still illustrates that the Grand Fleet retained their overwhelming numerical superiority, conceeds that at least some of their ships were temporarily taken out of action and doesn't saddle us with an artificially precise (and almost certainly inaccurate) number - it also softens the equally over-precise assertion that the Germans had only 10 operational Dreadnoughts after the battle. Getztashida 11:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Yey. I love a trolless agreement on topics such as this. So satisfying. It has been lovely having a sensible discussion with you gentlemen. Psidogretro 20:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No inline citations

This is an FA article with no inline citations. Someone want to insert some before this page gets stripped of its FA status? - Vedexent 15:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dirty laundry

Took out bolded part of "But at Jutland they were not used in this fashion — and indeed, British fire control was not sufficiently developed to permit them to be so used — but instead closed recklessly with enemy battleships (Please cite references for this, as the British battlecruisers did not at any time in the battle close German battleships and engage them!) while lacking the armour to stand up to the pounding they received." Belongs here, not in the article. Clarityfiend 05:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no reference to cite, suggest a change. The same applies to -- Beatty used his battlecruisers in a manner for which they were not designed. They had been intended for use as cruiser-destroyer, rather than for a direct attack on larger and better armored dreadnought battleships. A battlecruiser is disadvantaged in a slugging match against a dreadnought battleship – the entire statement seems superfluous and incorrect discourse, not relevant to Beatty’s actual action of his six battlecruisers against Hipper’s five, all eleven of roughly equivalent tonnage.--Gamahler 01:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
No reaction - will remove passages in question.--Gamahler 01:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Germany's flag in the table

The german flag displayed in the table is the jack, and not the naval Reichskriegsflagge (war ensign). See this link: http://flagspot.net/flags/de1871~'.html or take the german article as reference. 80.171.81.242 21:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Done --Gamahler 20:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Practice

Removed – Beatty's battlecruisers shot poorly due to lack of adequate gunnery practice (because there were no facilities at the battlecruisers' base in the Firth of Forth) – an absurd statement; two years into the war, ships of the greatest naval power of the time were not unpracticed and did not lack facilities!--Gamahler 03:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

They certainly had the facilities, but they were unpracticed. Gunnery drill was conducted at the discretion of the squadron Commander and Beatty, in line with Royal Navy Practice at the time, was more interested in rate of fire than accuracy. Royal Navy ships throughout the war (although especially in the early party) invariably were able to sling out an impressive number of shells over a given time period, but had a hard time hitting anything with them, (Dogger Bank being the classic example). Getztashida 17:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Little Idle Speculation

Famously, HMS Lion and Tiger both came perilously close to destruction at Jutland. In my opinion the loss of two more battlecruisers would have been unlikely to have masively effected the course of the actual encounter, but how do you think it would have altered the subsequent perception of battle and it's wider impact on the war? Even if the Germans had lost the Seydlitz as well as the Lutzow I don't think there would be much doubt that the Germans would have felt much more confident in the surface fleet after the battle and perhaps the decision to switch to unrestricted submarine warfare may not have been made... Getztashida 15:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A rather significant ommission!

Is it me, or does the article fail to mention the destruction of HMS Invincible? I've tried to locate the passage where it is described but can't find it anywhere... On the other hand, the article does imply that HMS Princess Royal was sunk - which, of course, she wasn't... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Getztashida (talk • contribs) 23:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

Sorry! I've found it now - I take it back, although the comment about the Princess Royal stands... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Getztashida (talk • contribs) 23:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Repairs to the German Fleet

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

[edit] German activity post-Jutland

I have recently aquired some reference material which lists the High Seas Fleet's sorties after Jutland. The First was in August 1916 - only two months after the battle - and ended in an indecisive destroyer clash. A subsequent sortie in force was obliged to turn back after the Molkte threw a prop and suffered engine damage. Certainly this belies the common perception that the High Seas Fleet remained "bottled up" in harbour for the rest of the war. Unfoertunately I'm, typing this from work and do not have the book to hand to cite, but as soon as I am able I intend to add a sentence about this to the "Aftermath" section and add the appropriate references. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Getztashida (talk • contribs) 12:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

With reference to my previous comment, the book is "The Battle of Jutland, 1916" by George Bonney. It states that the High seas Fleet sortied again on the 18th August 1916 and the Grand fleet sailed to meet them, but both sides returned to base without sighting the enemy. The High Seas Fleet sorted again in October 1916, but withdrew after the Westfalen was torpedoed. Getztashida 15:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/a/t/Talk%7EBattle_of_Jutland_9018.html"