Battle of Jutland and its effects

well, if the High Seas Fleet woudl have repeated J�tland a few times, then eventually Britain would have run out of ships... I mean the Romans at Cannae also held the battlefield...dead on the ground. how many RN ships are still there, claiming their victory on the bottom of the Northern Sea?

Originally posted by Temujin well, if the High Seas Fleet woudl have repeated J�tland a few times, then eventually Britain would have run out of ships... I mean the Romans at Cannae also held the battlefield...dead on the ground. how many RN ships are still there, claiming their victory on the bottom of the Northern Sea?

Originally posted by gcle2003 So if I were to fight Mike Tyson and jump out of the ring, thereby gaininig my strategic objective of staying alive, I would have won the bout?

Edited by Justinian - 18-Oct-2007 at 06:45

Originally posted by gcle2003 Jutland proved there was absolutely no chance of the German fleet beating the British in the North Sea. There was obviously a possibility that the German fleet might sortie and trap a few smaller ships, as they did at the beginning of Jutland. But, as at Jutland, the Grand Fleet itself was a different matter, and the Germans had the sense to realise they could do no more than run from it. And cross their fingers, since the Grand Fleet was faster, bigger, and heavier-gunned.

I do not agree that Jutland 'proved' that, or much of anything in fact.  The Germans were outnumbered, and outgunned to some extent.  That was well realized before the battle.  The Battle of Jutland made no difference in that regard.  The fact is that there was a constant 'debate' between those that wanted to 'do something' and those who believed in the 'fleet in being' theories to the extent that they believed that the navy was 'more effective' safe in port as a 'potential threat' to the enemy (whether that makes any sense or not is a matter for debate of course).  The plan which lead to the Battle of Jutland was for the Germans to 'pounce' on a part of the British fleet (Battlecruisers in particular) and destroy it before the main British fleet could intervene.  In that the Germans were somewhat successful.  The British hoped to make any sortie by the Germans costly enough to reduce or eliminate the threat posed by the German navy.  In that they were somewhat successful in that they did some damage and somewhat 'evened the score' in terms of losses and made it clear that there was at least a 'risk' of the Germans getting 'caught' when they sortied.  A 'decisive' victory for the British would have involved inflicting much heavier losses on the Germans.  A 'decisive' German victory would have involved the destruction of more Battlecruisers and fewer losses on their side (i.e. a much more favourable attrition rate).  Both sides failed to achieve a 'decisive' result.  The Germans achieved some measure of 'tactical' success (in terms of the losses).  The British achieved some measure of 'strategic' success (threatening to 'catch' the Germans and demonstrating the 'risk' in any sortie by the German fleet). 


Edited by deadkenny - 18-Oct-2007 at 15:15

I put down the failure of the RN to anhilitate the Germans to three reasosn -

The loss of three capital ships vs one is telling.

The RN did go forth, but the fact is that they kept their distance and no action (apart from a few isolated shots) developed