Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ

Wars and ConflictsΒ  permalink

Jutland, why not apply the criterion of land victory?

• Message 1.Β 

  Posted by wyn8126 (U2577714) on Friday, 17th March 2006

  Being a history lover who works in the fine country of Oman, I sometimes check out the History Channel website just to see what I am missing.
  
  Did so this evening and saw that a program on Jutland was soon to be televised. In the final sentence it said that Jutland was a defeat.
  
  Hopw so??: The High Seas fleet never left port in earnest again...why not apply the criterion of land victory...that he who owns the battlefield after the combat is the victor??
  
  If Beatty hadn't screwed it up, it would have been another Trafalgar, not a strategic victory.

  Link to this forum: Jutland, why not apply the criterion of land victory?

  Report message1

• Message 2

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Friday, 17th March 2006

  wyn8126,
  
  Sorry, I've just finished wiping my beverage of choice off the screen.
  
  Are you serious? Jutland, a defeat?, for whom? Who is this person who claims Jutland was a defeat for either side?
  
  I'm with you, Jutland proved nothing (except someone should have beaten some sense into Beatty about his policy of keeping blast proof doors open. (They were there for a reason).
  
  Cheers AA. (If someone is calling Jutland a defeat for either side then they also need to have some sense installed, AA walks away muttering and shaking his head).
  
  P.S. How is the weather in Oman?

  Link to this forum: Jutland, why not apply the criterion of land victory?

  Report message2

• Message 3

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Friday, 17th March 2006

  If you look at it on the basis of ships sunk then its a loss. If you look for the end result which is does the IGN come out out to play any more than its a victory.

  Link to this forum: Jutland, why not apply the criterion of land victory?

  Report message3

• Message 4

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Saturday, 18th March 2006

  A cautious stragegy allowed Jellicoe to achieve what was necessary - drive the High Seas Fleet back into port whilst more importantly keeping the Grand Fleet more or less intact.
  
  Of course the Germans celebrated their 'Victory of the Skegarrak' and the Kaisar scattered decorations like confetti, and purely on loss for loss, well they might. But they had not achieved their aim - naval supremacy.
  
  Meanwhile at home the heavy losses (especially of the Battlecruisers, which - however useless they were - were the glamour queens of the Royal Navy) and Beatty's talent for self-promotion led to a sense that Britain had lost. There was no clear cut victory, although strategically Britain had the best of it.
  
  An American newspaper of the time probably summed it up best:
  
  "The Germans cry aloud 'We've won!'
  But surely 'tis a curious view,
  When those are vanquishers who run,
  And those the vanquished who pursue"

  Link to this forum: Jutland, why not apply the criterion of land victory?

  Report message4

• Message 5

  , in reply to message 4.

  Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Saturday, 18th March 2006

  Hi,
  Fourteen British and eleven German ships were sunk. It could be argued that in not accomplishing their goals the Germans turned to U-boat warfare. That was devastating for the U.K. This lesson in turn was carried foreword into WW2 with the same results. So Jutland not a German Victory, I'm not sure. It should have been a massive RN triumph, but they were out Admirald.
  
  Cheers, Matt.

  Link to this forum: Jutland, why not apply the criterion of land victory?

  Report message5

• Message 6

  , in reply to message 2.

  Posted by LittleHill (U3038272) on Saturday, 18th March 2006

  AA
  
  I was born in Oman and it sometimes reaches 40C
  if u come it will be boiling not like England in the summer
  
  cheers blood
  

  Link to this forum: Jutland, why not apply the criterion of land victory?

  Report message6

• Message 7

  , in reply to message 2.

  Posted by wyn8126 (U2577714) on Saturday, 18th March 2006

  Weather in Oman a balmy 29 this afternoon....I live in Salalah, close to Mirbat of SAS fame.... here it rarely get above 36/37, and it rains all the way through June, July, and August.
  
  I disagree ahout Jellicoe being out-admiraled....it was Beatty's failure to inform Jellicoe of the German position and directions, as well as his stupid mis-use of 5 BS that cauysed tyhe problems.
  
  Jellicoe crossed the T twice.

  Link to this forum: Jutland, why not apply the criterion of land victory?

  Report message7

• Message 8

  , in reply to message 7.

  Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Saturday, 18th March 2006

  The projected high today in South Texas 31C. Please send me some of that rain.
  
  Matt.

  Link to this forum: Jutland, why not apply the criterion of land victory?

  Report message8

• Message 9

  , in reply to message 8.

  Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Saturday, 18th March 2006

  wyn,
  What is left of the bat house of the Mirabat Gun fame?
  
  Matt.

  Link to this forum: Jutland, why not apply the criterion of land victory?

  Report message9

• Message 10

  , in reply to message 7.

  Posted by LittleHill (U3038272) on Saturday, 18th March 2006

  wyn8126
  
  i was joking i was born in oman, i was born in Libya but now fotunatley i am in manchester

  Link to this forum: Jutland, why not apply the criterion of land victory?

  Report message10

• Message 11

  , in reply to message 5.

  Posted by CliffS (U3481245) on Saturday, 18th March 2006

  Buckskinz - The 14-11 "scoreline" re. Jutland smacks of the "bodycount" policy from Vietnam. The US won on the scoreboard, but lost the strategic battle - as did the Germans in WW1. The RN had a "Two-Navy" policy at the time: it was required to be able to engage & defeat any TWO navies in the world! The RN made good their losses within 48 hours & continued their blockade of German ports. The Germans never ventured out of port again during the war. But it spelled the end of major battlefleet engagements. The "glamour queen" battlecruisers proved just as much a liability in WW2: of the 3 RN ships, only one survived (Renown - a very lucky ship). Cheers. CliffS. Hi,
  Fourteen British and eleven German ships were sunk. It could be argued that in not accomplishing their goals the Germans turned to U-boat warfare. That was devastating for the U.K. This lesson in turn was carried foreword into WW2 with the same results. So Jutland not a German Victory, I'm not sure. It should have been a massive RN triumph, but they were out Admirald.
  
  Cheers, ²Ρ²Ή³Ω³Ω.Μύ

  Link to this forum: Jutland, why not apply the criterion of land victory?

  Report message11

• Message 12

  , in reply to message 9.

  Posted by wyn8126 (U2577714) on Saturday, 18th March 2006

  Not too much mate...I also notice that here the engagement is downplayed....guess because some of the Adoos are still around....
  Must say Sultan Qaboos has done a good job tho'
  
  As I speak the new purchase of F 16's are flying circuits and bumps, practising night flying. wyn,
  What is left of the bat house of the Mirabat Gun fame?
  
  ²Ρ²Ή³Ω³Ω.Μύ

  Link to this forum: Jutland, why not apply the criterion of land victory?

  Report message12

• Message 13

  , in reply to message 12.

  Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Saturday, 18th March 2006

  wyn,
  That was one heck of a fight until the air cover showed up. By no means a major battle, but for sure a profile of professionalism by a handful of guys. The Miribat gun is in some museum in London, I can't recall the name.
  
  Cheers, Matt.
  

  Link to this forum: Jutland, why not apply the criterion of land victory?

  Report message13

• Message 14

  , in reply to message 3.

  Posted by jesw1962 (U1726423) on Monday, 20th March 2006

  If you look at it on the basis of ships sunk then its a loss. If you look for the end result which is does the IGN come out out to play any more than its a victory.Β 
  
  
  backtothedarkplace: I have always thought that Jutland was a strategic victory for England and a tactical victory for England.
  
  IMO the whole military history of Western History can be boiled down to the battle of Jutland. If Germany had been able to cripple the British High Seas fleet, WWI would have been over with Germany and its allies winners. Everything military that we take for granted today would be completely different

  Link to this forum: Jutland, why not apply the criterion of land victory?

  Report message14

• Message 15

  , in reply to message 14.

  Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Monday, 20th March 2006

  If you look at it on the basis of ships sunk then its a loss. If you look for the end result which is does the IGN come out out to play any more than its a victory.Β 
  
  
  backtothedarkplace: I have always thought that Jutland was a strategic victory for England and a tactical victory for England.
  
  IMO the whole military history of Western History can be boiled down to the battle of Jutland. If Germany had been able to cripple the British High Seas fleet, WWI would have been over with Germany and its allies winners. Everything military that we take for granted today would be completely differentΒ 
  
  Jutland is one of those great whatifs. For a start both admirals seem to have been more worried about what would happen if they lost then how to win. If you ever get a chance they have re printed the "The Fighting at Jutland" gives the damage reports for the surviving warships. The damage involved is fairly horrendous, and thats without your battlecruisers blowing up at the drop of a hat. If the battle had gone on much longer then I think at least one of the battle ships would have been sunk.

  Link to this forum: Jutland, why not apply the criterion of land victory?

  Report message15

Back to top