Talk:Battle of Jutland

scoring a hit on...

Spinney Hill Please don't keep taking "on" out of the phrase scoring a hit on. '"scoring a hit Von..." doesn't make sense. Cheers, Tony Holkham (Talk) 11:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry I admit making mistakes. This is illustrates the danger of half reading things and jumping to conclusions hgastily. I read this as something completely different. You are quite my version didnt make sense. However having said that I do question the use in this article of "scoring hits" which has connotations of sport. War is definitely not a game.Spinney Hill (talk) 12:29, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that. We all make mistakes. Don't hesitate to discuss such things on the talk page before reverting others' edits more than once, though. WP is a happier place as a consequence. I tend to agree about your "scoring" comments; but to many (at the time) war was seen as a (deadly) game. A pity. Best wishes, Tony Holkham (Talk) 12:37, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

"Stayed in port for the rest of the war"

Obviously not remotely true. Can we please let this myth die? Parsecboy (talk) 19:37, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

the main fleet stayed in port for 99% of the rest of the war and fought no more major battles. (there was indeed a one-day operation on 19 August 1916 that avoided the British fleet.) In my opinion the main problem is that the opening lead meanders too much & takes forever to suggest the result. That means when someone googles the topic they get an excerpt that consists of the first few sentences and learn too little to be useful. That is: anyone looking for quick info will get useless details (eg names of commanders). I suggest we keep the needs of readers in mind in the lead. Rjensen (talk) 22:55, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

That's all well and good, but it has the minor flaw of being completely false. The Germans sortied in August and October 1916 (the Grand Fleet also broke off pursuit in August when U-boats attacked and didn't even get steam up for the latter operation - shall we point that out too?), not to mention conducted the largest amphibious operation of the war in 1917 and sortied again in April 1918. The decision to abandon the North Sea was not a solely German decision, and in fact, Jellicoe and Beatty came to that conclusion before Scheer did. The idea that Jutland locked up the German fleet for the remainder of the war is a flat out falsehood, and is basically British propaganda. Parsecboy (talk) 00:14, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

The Battle of Jutland was clearly a German victory and the Imperial German Navy continued to operate out of port for the remainder of the war. (ManyMoonsoons (talk) 00:38, 11 September 2018 (UTC))

I wouldn’t go that far, but they did indeed continue to operate in the North Sea after Jellicoe and Beatty decided to give up the game. Parsecboy (talk) 01:16, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Before Jutland the High Seas Fleet sortied with the intention of seeking action; after they did so only if they were sure they could avoid it.

Presumably the thinker above who thinks this was a German victory will also be heading over to the battle of the Coral Sea page, to mark that down as an American defeat. They lost more stuff, so that proves it.

Either Massie or Gordon says it best: Hipper defeated Beatty, then Jellicoe defeated Scheer (other than trading two torpedo-boats, all the HSF's losses were to Jellicoe). Tirailleur (talk) 17:11, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

What were the Germans trying to do in August and October 1916 or April 1918 if they were not seeking action? Pleasure cruises? Parsecboy (talk) 17:28, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Before Jutland they sortied intending to try to cut off and destroy a squadron of heavy ships (Beatty was thought stupid enough probably to walk a squadron into that trap). After having their T crossed twice at Jutland, they realised this was an existentially dangerous strategy for the returns available. Later HSF sorties occurred only on the basis that the Grand Fleet was not at sea. If it was, the sortie was instantly abandoned. If they managed to pick off a cruiser they'd be happy.

This is why claims that 'the High Seas Fleet never left port again' are constructively, if not literally, accurate. A fleet that sorties only when it's completely, definitely sure the other side is still in port, and that retreats instantly if that changes, is one that is to all intents and purposes confined by its enemy to port, which is job done.Tirailleur (talk) 10:54, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

This is a view that has been expounded for some time by observers who wanted to make Jutland more than it was (i.e., the losses sustained at Jutland had to be for something), and who fundamentally misunderstood the German navy. It's also a decidedly Britain-centric framing - ask the Russians on Osel, Moon, and Dago if the Germans stayed in port for the rest of the war. Or the Russians in Finland. In any event, Scheer continued to hope to cut off and destroy a portion of the Grand Fleet for the entire war. He only gave up the game in late 1916 when it became clear that the British wouldn't play it with him, and the risk of British submarines had become too high (incidentally the same reason Beatty and Jellicoe decided to abandon the southern North Sea). Why do you think Scheer ordered the April 1918 operation to attack a Norwegian convoy? Because the cruiser raids he had been launching against them had prompted the British to send a battle squadron to escort the convoys, and the possibility of surprising a squadron of battleships outweighed the risk of British submarines. And the Germans always ran from superior forces - if Ingenohl hadn't been so afraid of Wilhelm, he might have actually achieved the German aim during the Scarborough raid, but he was convinced Warrender had the whole Grand Fleet behind him.

Jutland did not mark a serious change in German naval strategy - that came later, and it was not a result of the bloody nose Jellicoe had given Scheer. Parsecboy (talk) 13:04, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

What is not being said here with the charges of British centric opinion is that the geography of the area favored mines and submarines. It was not, in short, the open sea and rushing vast fleets into an area known to be both mined and with prowling subs was not a bright idea for either side. Correct me if I am wrong but there were Baltic sea operations going on by the HSF no? I also remember that on another occasion that one of the HSF main units ran into a mine on another operation not long after leaving port. This is not the sort of thing that encourages fleet deployments. From the actions and deployments of both fleets to my eyes if no others the area had simply become to dangerous to operate in.Tirronan (talk) 14:23, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

That's exactly my point - that is what convinced both Jellicoe and Scheer to abandon large scale fleet operations unless there was a possibility that the reward outweighed the risk (as in the April 1918 sortie by the HSF), not Jutland. If anything, the August 1916 operation was far more influential on strategy than Jutland was.

Yes - the Germans were active in the Baltic - the largest operations being the Gulf of Riga in 1915 and again in 1917 (Operation Albion). Moltke was torpedoed at the former and Baden struck a mine at the latter. Parsecboy (talk) 12:47, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

When I was in the US Navy we operated in that area twice. What I remember most is how shallow that bathtub is. Subs were hellishly hard to detect because of all the crap on the bottom. I don't even want to think on how hard bottom laid mines would be. Given the primitive tech of WW1 tethered mines wouldn't have been a bit easier.Tirronan (talk) 08:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Skagerrak map

Τhe map showing „the throat of the Skagerrak” is not the best one here. It suggests, that the strait would be only the piece of water between the coasts of Norway and Sweden, but geographically it stretches also between the Norwegian and Danish coasts – between Lindesnes and Hanstholm – as well (and maybe in other terms a bit farther to the Southwest. Τo use this map from Commons would be a better option. A contemporary map with the old borders would be appropiate. --Andreas (talk) 20:32, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

"battle fought by"

This is the opening sentence of the article:

The Battle of Jutland (German: Skagerrakschlacht, the Battle of Skagerrak) was a naval battle fought by Britain's Royal Navy Grand Fleet under Admiral Sir John Jellicoe, against the Imperial German Navy's High Seas Fleet under Vice-Admiral Reinhard Scheer during the First World War.

In my view it skews the entire perspective of the battle to the Anglo-American side of the war, as if the Germans had no real or legitimate role in fighting other than to provide the British with an opportunity to display their military superiority. What if we did it like this(?):

The Battle of Jutland (German: Skagerrakschlacht, the Battle of Skagerrak) was a naval battle fought by the Imperial German Navy's High Seas Fleet under Vice-Admiral Reinhard Scheer against Britain's Royal Navy Grand Fleet under Admiral Sir John Jellicoe, during the First World War.

It would seem to be equally accurate. I suggest changing it to my version. Dynasteria (talk) 07:03, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

If 'fought by X against Y' is insufficiently neutral, reversing it is still insufficiently neutral by the same lights, so has no merit as a solution to the neutrality concern. I'd suggest that 'fought between X and Y' would be better than 'by'. I am not sure if there is a convention about which side then gets named first. Tirailleur (talk) 14:10, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I doubt there is a convention as well. Using "between" sounds good to me. The German WP article uses "zwischen" (between), which only seems fair. My comment above was meant to be somewhat tongue in cheek. Thanks for taking the issue under consideration. Dynasteria (talk) 20:43, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done Tony Holkham (Talk) 21:36, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Casualties

Within the official "History of the Great War - Naval Operations", volume 3 authored by Sir Julian S Corbett, Appendices F & G are casualty statistics of the British and German navies respectively. This has been published online by and can be accessed via the following link http://www.naval-history.net/WW1Book-RN3b.htm#F

This has been reproduced on page 338 of N J M (John) Campbell's "Jutland, an Analysis of the Fighting" (Conway Maritime Press, London, 1986) and on the North East Medals website too. Keith H99 (talk) 14:50, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Capitalization of titles

@Parsecboy: Yes, "Director of Operations Division" is a title. But WP does not capitalize titles, in general. See MOS:JOBTITLES: "Offices, titles, and positions such as president, king, emperor, grand duke, lord mayor, pope, bishop, abbot, chief financial officer, and executive director are common nouns and therefore should be in lower case". In this usage, "Director of Operations Division" has not become part of Admiral Jackson's name, so it does not qualify for an exception. For that matter, it could well be argued that "Operations Division" is not a proper name, either. There are lots of operations divisions in lots of organizations, but for now I will settle for lower case for "director". Chris the speller ^yack 15:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)