R/C Naval Combat

Who won the battle of Jutland, and why?  What did this show?

Knight said that "The Battle of Juttland proves that a heard of lambs lead by a lion will defeat a heard of lions lead by a lamb.  The Germans had the better ships, but did not use them to thier advantage."

Why didn't they use them to their advantage?

How apt is the description of the British as a "herd of lambs led by a lion?"

I am currently reading all three of these for probably the 5th time...

1) Jutland an analysis of the fighting by John Campbell

2) Castles of steel by Robert Massey

3) Jutland the german perspective by V.E Tarrant

I hate to use Wikipedia as a source or reference, but the assessment section of the battle is pretty much on the ball.

I think you will hear opinions for both sides having won form different people. If anything in the overall scheme of things I believe a draw or stalemate was achieved.

 I just thought this over... I have a new conclusion.

I do not know who knight is off the top of my head, but he sounds american or british (if the name was Ritter I'd think differently) Remember history is written by the winner, in the case of WWI the general history was of course anglo/american in nature & I'm appalled by the one sidedness of our memory.

The lamb/lion descriptions could be more aptly applied to those further up the food chain, but not to the men involved in the action itself, and I would NEVER disrespect the sailors of either side with the moniker sheep. (nor were Jellicoe, Scheer, Beatty or Hipper  for that matter) these were brave men doing their duty for their countries not only looking at death by consequences of war but by the unforgiving sea on top of that.

That being said, lambs lead by a lion did NOT defeat lions lead by a lamb. (which is a ridiculous comment anyways)

I've been studying this battle for about 15 years, and i just had an epiphany.

The german fleet was looking to spring a trap on an isolated part of the british navy, not "take complete control of the seas" just whittle away at it bit by bit, (which they did)  whereas the Grand fleet's intentions were to more or less destroy the entire German fleet. (which they did not)

One cannot say "well, Great britain still holds the majority of the seaways, or the british fleet was in better shape the next month, so they won the battle... as that would relate to a post battle situation & an overall strategic outcome that was still 2 years off

The British ships came home to Jeers & were derided by even the dockworkers for "losing" whereas the German ships came home to rousing parades, marching bands & the adoration of the people.  The British were SUPPOSED to win & the Germans were SUPPOSED to lose... this simply did not happen on the eyes of the people in their respective countries. if there were a PR trophy you had to give it to Scheer & Hipper.

So as far as the BATTLE of Skagerrak or Jutland  itself, Tactically... the only conclusion must be that the high seas fleet "won" the contest!  With fewer ships lost, lower tonnage lost &  much lower casualties. These stats DO NOT LIE.

 The British battleships could withstand a hell of a beating, like Warspite, Barham, Malaya,  So could the battlecruisers like Lion & Tiger which took  terrific punishment & survived. British ships were also more comfortable for the crew, were fast & handy. It appears that In this particular battle, the better protected more accurately aimed ship had the advantage. If you compare each ship class side by side you will see the qualitative parity of the german ship making up for it's numerical disadvantage. As is often the case though, it was also a war of numbers, the same as  in WWII where the "unofficial" way to kill a Tiger or Panther was to take 5 Shermans & swarm it. WWI as well as WWII were both examples of "quantity has a quality all it's own". 

The british shells tended to break up at angles & often did not explode which cost them many damaging blows, just as Lutzow was firing CPC & not APC which would have been devastating in the early part of the battle. This brings up all the "what if's". There were so many in this battle that there is no way to accurately guess what would have happened if things were PERFECT for each side. (although that would be interesting to see!)

As far as lambs &  lions go, I think the only lambs were again the people above both Jellicoe & Scheer. The kaiser was afraid to lose his capital ships & wacky Jackie & winston were expected to "win or don't come home" 

in a nutshell, if I had a choice of what ships "I" would rather be in in a battle, look at my avatar.

Hochseeflotte Harry

Posted By Anachronus on 12 Sep 2009 12:52 PM
I tend to go for a German Tactical win but a Grand Fleet strategic win.

Hard to argue with that. The fact that the German fleet spent essentially the rest of the war in port refusing to engage the British is a pretty significant point.

Jutland was logically a tactical victory for the Germans, but a resounding strategic victory for the British. The ships the British lost had no impact on the tactical employment of the Grand fleet. Sure three BCs are a steep price to pay, but honestly, they were replaced in short order and with better ships

You might also make the arguement that losing the Lutzow, was proportionally a more significant blow to the fighting power of the 1st scouting group (and the High Seas Fleet) then was Queen Mary, Invincible and Indefatigable to the BCF, not to mention the near loss of Seydlitz. After the battle, 1st scouting group was operationally a shell of itself, where as the BCF could still field 6 fully operational battlecruisers, not counting Lion, Renown or Repulse or the Courageous class large light cruisers (light battlecrusiers) and operate as a powerful force.

Hipper's 1st scouting group was by far the most useful component of the High Seas Fleet. Jutland decimated it operationally for months. Without it, the High Seas Fleet had nothing it could truly risk as bait to isolate a significant portion of the Grand Fleet.  The inability to of the High Seas fleet to isolate smaller portions of the Grand Fleet left the only choice all-or-nothing battle, a fight the High Seas fleet COULD NOT win.

Posted By Kotori87 on 24 Sep 2009 01:28 AM
I actually don't think the 1st Scouting Group was as badly weakened as you might think, especially if the Germans had re-organized their fleets. The most modern German battleships were significantly faster than the Grand Fleet's warships, and could have been integrated into the 1SG to augment their firepower. This would create a fast, powerful force that could outrun the Grand Fleet, and pummel the BCF. Imagine what Hipper could do with both his battlecruisers and a handful of Koenigs and Kaisers

 Unless of course Beatty gets to keep the 5 QE's to offset the Konigs and Kaisers.  You can also throw the 24 knot Canada to the BCF.  Lessons learned will improve cordite handling proceedures, so the chance for turret flash is significantly decreased.  Shooting will probably be improved.  6 (5 if you discount Warspite due to damage) fast battleships plus the BCF is still more then von Hipper will be able to handle with his 1SG should they attempt to regorganize a fast raiding wing around their 23 knot BBs + the tattered remains of the 1SG.


Endgame is still the same; the HSF simply did not have the numbers or ships to compete with the Grand Fleet.