Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've never read anything of great length about Jutland, mostly the short accounts one finds in the full war treatments. What I read caused me to conclude that it was a hollow tactical victory for Germany, and a hollow strategic victory for Britain. The former because the German fleet outperformed the Brits but achieved no critical blow which altered the balance of power, the latter because the aftermath was a return to the stalemate staus quo, which over time favored Britain.
I ask the expert if those are valid conclusions.
I'm not an expert on this, but I would offer that the British victory was not "hollow." Now, the German fleet was not sent to the bottom of the North Sea in a satisfying manner, but it might as well have, for it never mustered out again. So Jutland without question eliminated German naval power from being a factor in World War I. Interesting that Kaiser Bill devoted so much of his national resources and alienated Edwardian Britain in order to have dreadnoughts, but then never had the nerve to use them.
Robert Massie wrote two fascinating books on the subject, Dreadnought and Castles of Steel. One dealt with the naval arms race between Britain and German in the two decades before 1914, while the second dealt with the actual naval operations of both powers during World War I. It has been several years since I read both, but it seemed to be Massie's contention that Britain and Germany were actually natural allies against both France and Russia, what with the realtionship between the two countries' royal families, their natural antipathy against France, and the fact that Germany, a land power, posed no significant threat against England, a naval power.
But because Wilhelm II was insistent on having a large naval fleet for reasons that truly didn't extend beyond national prestige, he unwittingly drove Britain into the arms of the French and the Russians. Now, I'm certainly not saying that Britain would have fought on the side of the Central Powers in World War I. However, Britain might have chosen neutrality instead, such as they had done in the Franco-Prussian War. Interesting question to speculate.
History related? Vermont history, specifically of the Stowe/Waterbury area, the state railroads and trolleys, Lake Champlain, and some of the revolutionary involvement and early Indian history.
I think that you are referencing the Battle Off Samar, the last phase of Leyte Gulf.
The one I'm thinking of was a night action. U.S. destroyers vs larger Japanese ships. If what you're talking about happened at night, thats likely it. I used to remember these things better, but am growing older and dumber.
I'm not an expert on this, but I would offer that the British victory was not "hollow." Now, the German fleet was not sent to the bottom of the North Sea in a satisfying manner, but it might as well have, for it never mustered out again.
Bigbob, what are your thoughts?
I think you've nailed it. Along with the German navy being more of an ego thing. I mean how the hell are they going to get to the open sea? There's a big island in the way known as England. Who was THE sea power. This "problem" was to be repeated later with the Bismark. With much the same result. Britain lost, (Hood) but gave as much back, as in Jutland.
I just enjoy reading of the battle tactics employed. Never paid much attention to the politics other than what was pertinent to an individual action. Churchill had a big hand in the decision making at the time (Jutland). I think this was his stepping stone towards prime minister.
Speaking of politics, I recall reading that after Jutland, the ships were held in German ports. A mutiny of sorts involving the whole German navy occurred. Was it about pay or was it concerning lack of leadership from above. Don't recall. Maybe you remember.
The one I'm thinking of was a night action. U.S. destroyers vs larger Japanese ships. If what you're talking about happened at night, thats likely it. I used to remember these things better, but am growing older and dumber.
Then you are fusing together two different actions. The destroyers vs Japanese capital ships was definitely the Samar battle, but that took place in daylight. The capital ships vs capital ships was the Suriago Straights clash and that took place at night.
I think you've nailed it. Along with the German navy being more of an ego thing. I mean how the hell are they going to get to the open sea? There's a big island in the way known as England. Who was THE sea power. This "problem" was to be repeated later with the Bismark. With much the same result. Britain lost, (Hood) but gave as much back, as in Jutland.
"Hollow" was probably not the best descriptive for conveying what I had in mind.
The situation before Jutland was the German fleet bottled up at home, and the Royal Navy required to to keep a large percentage of their assets in home waters in case they attempted a breakout. After Jutland the situation was the German fleet bottled up and the Brits having to retain a large force nearby to keep an eye on them. So, the strategic victory for Great Britain was a retention of the status quo rather than any advantage gained. The status quo had favored Britain before Jutland, so that is what made it a strategic win, but it might be more appropriate to call it a failure to lose.
Britain's pre Jutland position was such that a win or a tie worked to their advantage. For the Germans, only a win would have justified their efforts.
There are two areas of expertise that override all else historical: Logic and Psychology. Historical events are performed by humans who behave according to the general principles of psychology. The cause and effect relationship of historical events behave according to principles of logic.
If you are not reasonably well-versed in these two fields, you cannot understand history, no how many details of it you have memorized. Conversely, a subsantial degree of logical and psychological acumen can make analysis of a historical event jump out at you, even from the briefest overview.
This is not to say that I have any particular expertise in either of these two disciplines, but I think it is important to not lose sight of their application to historical details. So I would say my area of expertise, to the degree that I have any, is there, rather than any particular region of history.
Speaking of politics, I recall reading that after Jutland, the ships were held in German ports. A mutiny of sorts involving the whole German navy occurred. Was it about pay or was it concerning lack of leadership from above. Don't recall. Maybe you remember.
Well if there's anyone who knows about turbo jet engines or prop jets...please let me know...
Although I know the basic function of them, no one has ever explained to me how the intitial rotation is began.
In other words, I know about the compresor blades, and the combustion chamber and the turbane blades that are attached to the propeller shaft....I know all that...
My question how is initial rotation built up in order for the whole process to begin?
Is there like an gas powered or electic powered auxilary motor attached to the shaft?
Kind like how a car has a starter engine to initially crank the shaft?
If anyone knows, please let me know...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
