Talk:Battle of Jutland/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

The Effects of the Battle of Jutland

There would seem to be a pretty clear line of decisions arising from this battle that led to America declaring war and tilting the balance and ending the war. While the battle itself was pretty inconclusive the long term consequent were pretty damn important. Should this also be included in the article?Tirronan (talk) 02:12, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The US did not declare war the first time they were provoked by submarine attacks, I would judge because they were not ready. If they were ready post-Jutland, then maybe an excuse would have been found whether submarine attacks resumed or not. I am presuming it is the switch to sub attacks on merchant shipping you mean? Wasnt there a zimmerman telegram which demonstrated German attempts to get mexico to attack the US which brought the US into the war? Sandpiper (talk) 22:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

German destroyers

I'm confused about the presence or absence of destroyers of the German High Seas Fleet in this article. The introductory Infobox makes no mention of German Destroyers either in Strength or Casualties tables, yet the Order of Battle table later on mentions 61. Curiously, the Order of Battle section wording does not mention these German destroyers, although they are described later in the description of the action at various points. My copy of the WW1 Data Book (John Ellis & Michael Cox) lists the names of 61 German destroyers as participating in the battle and shows 5 of these as lost, so I'm inclined to believe that their omission is an error. Should the relevant sections of the article be amended accordingly? Inspeximus (talk) 12:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

What you're seeing is the fact that the Germans called the vessels in question torpedo boats instead of destroyers. These are included in the infobox. Perhaps a note clarifying this issue is in order? Parsecboy (talk) 12:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt answer to this point, which after re-reading the article with this new understanding makes a whole lot of sense. Might I suggest that what the article actually lacks by referring to these craft variously as Torpedo-boats then as Destroyers is not so much a note but rather consistency of terminology throughout. Mixing the terms between one table and another and between one section and another makes matching the details difficult for an "amateur" like me who would, I suggest, represent the level of background knowledge of the average Wikipedia reader!

I beleive that the Allied forces themselves used the term "Torpedo-boat" for quite different type of craft - although I may be mistaken in this. But if this is the case, then for the purposes of comparison in the article, would the term "Destroyer" for a German ship that corresponded to the British "Destroyer" not be the better option, regardless of what the Germans actually chose to call their ships themselves?Inspeximus (talk) 15:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, the German term and an explanatory note should be included somewhere. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the original explanation of this is that the germans built torpedo boats, ie boats designed to fire torpedos at the enemy. The british built torpedo boat destroyers, ie boats designed to attack torpedo boats. In practice both sorts carried torpedoes, but the destroyers were larger and better armed with guns. Now, off hand I am not certain if this distinction actually held on the day, because both sides naturally had been building larger, better boats over the years to try for an advantage. The destroyer was a new class of ship introduced by Fisher and I think originally designed by Yarrow. Sandpiper (talk) 21:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

That's mostly correct. The German ships were primarily sea-going torpedo boats that had at least some gun armament (many were given a two or three 8.8cm or 10.5cm guns along with a few smaller guns, some later boats had up to four 15cm guns). Many wartime British destroyers carried three 4" guns, so in gun armament they were fairly close. In addition, they were about the same size (most around 1,000 tons). To say that Fisher introduced destroyers as a warship type is a bit of a stretch though; he oversaw the design of the Daring and Havock classes in the early 1890s, the first ships officially classed as torpedo-boat destroyers in the RN, but proto-destroyers had been appearing in several navies for about a decade by the time those ships entered service. Sort of like saying Fisher invented the dreadnought. Parsecboy (talk) 00:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

You would be correct that this development was occurring around the world. The 1st US torpedo boat was designed in 1886 and were developing into recognizable destroyers by 1889 all quite independent of Lord Fisher.Tirronan (talk) 01:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

What I'm trying to do is to produce an understanding of the German term "torpedo boat", as distinct from the British torpedo boat or British destroyer, that would be meaningful to an average Wikipedia reader.

Having read more on this topic at websites, notably at http://www.german-navy.de/hochseeflotte/ships/torpedoboats/index.html, http://www.cityofart.net/bship/destroyers.html and http://www.steelnavy.com/NNTB98.htm I've come to the conclusion that in the British Navy, the early torpedo boat concept diverged resulting later in small torpedo boats and much larger torpedo boat destroyers, later known simply as "destroyers". In Germany this distinction was never made becase the divergence did not happen, torpedo boats did get larger particulary during the war itself, but they took on the dual role of torpedo boats and torpedo boat destoyers themselves.

If this is correct, would it be fair to say that for the purposes of the note of clarification: In the years leading up to and during WW1, the German Navy did not distinguish the role of torpedo boat from that of the destroyer but produced warships that carried out both functions. They were midway in size between the two British types of vessel, eventually reaching up to 1,000 tons. Although the German Navy continued to use the single term "torpedo boat" for this class of ship, throughout this article the term "destroyer" has been used for the sake of consistency and for ease of comparison with British ships.

I've probably not got this quite right but thought someone shoud have a first stab at the wording! Inspeximus (talk) 11:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

where these vessels are involved I would introduce them with the German title eg Grosses torpedoboot followed by a parenthical statement "(a vessel of similar size and capability to British destroyers)" and then a link to a footnote which contains text "eg the Großes Torpedoboot 1913 class torpedo boat, of which a number were at Jutland". GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

To quote the "Note" from the beginning of the Royal Navy's translation of the German Official History of Jutland: 'The terms "destroyer" and "torpedo boat," although denoting practically the same type of vessel, are used in the original to denote British and German craft respectively.' I don't see why Wikipedia can't do the same. —Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 13:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with that either; we should have a note at the first mention of torpedo boats explaining that they were largely identical to the British destroyers, but that should be fine. Most English works I've come across use "torpedo boat" - off the top of my head, the only one that calls them destroyers is Paul Halpern's A Naval History of World War I.

FWIW, all of the articles on the German capital ships and cruisers at Jutland use "torpedo boat" rather than "destroyer" (I know because I wrote them). A reader going from this article to one of those might be confused by references to German destroyers here and torpedo boats there (for instance, the account of Hipper taking SMS G38 from Lützow to Moltke). Parsecboy (talk) 13:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm concened about use of the German term Grosses torpedoboot since it appears to me that of the 61 craft involved in this battle only some were of this type, and some were earlier torpedoboot that were significantly smaller and differently armed. I do not wish to split hairs but I do not see how these two sub-types can be easily distinguished in either tables or text without a lot of additional work. If the established naval works generally make use of the term 'torpedoboat' for all of these German vesels, and other related Wikipedia articles do likewise. then this seems to me to be an attractive way ahead.

I suggest that the impact of adopting this convention throughout this article would then be to:

1. Insert an extra row in the table in the Order of Battle section - so that British Destroyers and German Torpedo Boats each have their own row.
2. Insert a note in this section (which I beleive is the first place where these German boats are mentioned) explaining that the term 'torpedo boat' is used to desrcibe Germand vessels, and 'destroyer' for British.
3. Change the wording in this section and all subsequent sections to replace 'destroyer' with 'torpedo boat' where the reference is to German vessels.

Comments? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inspeximus (talk • contribs) 15:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

In practice the German Torpedo Boat had more Torpedoes, and less a gun or two, the British Destroyer had a few more guns 1 to 2, there was just that to really distinguished them . This seems like an awful lot of talk that really amount to next to nothing. I don't mean to offend but they were used the same way and had about the same results. I just don't see it worth making a fuss about it.Tirronan (talk) 02:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I guess we who are familiar with the subject dont see a problem because the terms are largely interchangeable. I do see that a stranger coming here might find it confusing that one section talks about torpedo boats and then the next about destroyers. The natural puzzle for the reader would be are these a different lot of ships joining in. When I first read it I found the battle big and complicated to understand. At a quick hunt I think the german ships are probably called destroyers more often than they are called torpedo boats, and in describing a battle it becomes ridiculous to say a destoyer-torpedo boat engagement rather than just destroyer engagement. On the other hand, authors do tend to distinguish german torpedo boats and British destroyers, because that is what they called them. I dont see a need to have separate rows in the force table for destroyers and torpedo boats, making them the same row does hint that they are equivalent. If we are to be that picky, even the battlecruisers had slightly different design criteria, and the younger ones tended to be more powerful, etc. I dont object to an explanatory note somewhere but we dont want too much of a digression on the history of the things.Sandpiper (talk) 11:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, points taken, so how about making just one simple change to the article, a note along the lines:- "Throughout this article the terms "destroyer" and "torpedo boat" are used interchangeably to refer to the same class of vessels in the German High Fleet."? Inspeximus (talk) 13:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Surely all that's needed is, the first time the term "Torpedo Boat" is used, for the article to note "which were functionally identical to British Destroyers." Thereafter, Destroyers and Torpedo Boats can be referred to collectively as "Light Forces" wherever typing ourt Destroyers and Torpedo Boats would be clumsy. Getztashida (talk) 14:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't feel qualified to make statements about "functional equivalance" so have gone for the simplest option of just inserting an explanatory note referring to the interchangeable use of terminology in this context throughout the article - which is what several people have observed was already the case. Inspeximus (talk) 17:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Torpedo boats vs. destroyers

I recognize that the Germans used the term "torpedo boat" and "destroyer" interchangeably, but shouldn't the infobox say "destroyers"? That's what they were. They were not what we think of today as torpedo boats, and its misleading to the readers, or those that don't read the note. Overall, we should keep the note in place, but use the term "destroyer".--RM (Be my friend) 20:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Stöwer painting

While researching Willy Stöwer, I came across a color painting of this battle from Die deutsche Flotte in großer Zeit; captioned: Die Seeschlacht vor dem Skagerrak. Die Nachtschlacht. Vernichtung des englischen Panzerkreuzers "Black Prince". (The Battle of Jutland. The night battle. Destruction of the British battle cruiser "Black Prince"). A decent copy can be found here: http://billerantik.de.www35.your-server.de/gallery2/main.php/d/8263-1/03_Nachtschlacht.jpg
Note: this image might need cropping; if interested, I have a slightly better copy that I could upload to a web album (I don't have WP upload access). This would be PD (Stöwer died in 1931). ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 20:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

There's a slight problem with using Stöwer's paintings on en.wiki: it has to be PD in the US (since that's where the servers are located), which does not use the author's death date for works published before 1978. So for the painting to be in the public domain, it has to have been created before 1923. The image you linked to is too small for me to make out the year in his signature - can you tell what it is in your better version? Parsecboy (talk) 21:03, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm... There might be a problem: the book is (c)1926; first publication for the book might be earlier -- I'll check. Not certain of the signed date, but he often did paintings contemporaneously (accompanied fleets in action). Slightly better image (no mat or caption): from Imagekind

Proof of publication is mandatory; uploaders making a "public domain" claim on (a reproduction of) an artwork are required to prove with verifiable details that the work was first published before 1923, or first published after 2003 with an artist who died more than 70 years ago. From: Wikipedia:Public_domain#Artworks -- oops!

~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 22:22, 18 May 2012 (UTC) Update: Found a 1st edition -- 1926 -- oh well. ~E 22:54, 18 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.76.225.106 (talk)

Link the Skagerrak in the introduction?

The German name of the battle, Skagerrakschlacht, is explicitly set as not to be a link. But for a reader who doesn't know what the Skagerrak is, the German name is confusing. So why not link it directly? --KnightMove (talk) 12:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Added two paragraphs to the Outcome section

At the risk of courting considerable controversy, I have added a couple of paragraphs to the beginning of the outcome section briefly explaining the German claim of a tactical victory and why Jutland effectively ended surface actions in the North Sea. I have done so because the outcome section is currently weighted entirely towards the "British Strategic Victory" perspective with five paragraphs explaining that position, but had no content at all indicating why the Germans might have thought they had won. I will start referencing it properly this evening because I'm editing from work at the moment. Obviously I'm happy to have my edit worked on, but can we try and include at least something explaining the "German tactical victory" position in the outcome section please. Getztashida (talk) 14:13, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

On a fundamental level, Jutland did not end surface actions in the North Sea. The sortie on 18–19 August did; note that Jellicoe issued orders after that operation that the Grand Fleet would not steam south of the line of Horns Reef unless the Germans were in the Thames or something equally dramatic. When Scheer came out again on 18 October, Jellicoe remained in Scapa. Parsecboy (talk) 16:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

You are, of course, right - and I think I explained that better in my revision than I did summarizing my edit here. My main point is that we need to give the German Victory perspective at least some attention. I have no problem the British victory perspective getting more screen time - it's a more subtle point and requires more explanation - but prior to my edit no attempt was made to explain why the German victory perspective has value and persisted to this day beyond a simple accounting of tonnages sunk and lives lost qualified with a statement that the RN "held the field." My objective is to give those numbers some context, explaining that the Germans were specifically looking to "hit hard and bug out" so Jutland can be considered a successful operation - if only by the skin of it's teeth. The purpose of the second paragraph is to explain that the Germans realized it was a close run thing and decided not to chance it again when it became clear that they couldn't sortie without the Grand Fleet coming out. Getztashida (talk) 17:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The British strategy post-19 August is laid out perfectly clear here: if the Admiralty thought there was a good chance the Germans could be brought to battle then they would be given the go ahead, although they fully recognised that the Germans ran the same risks as themselves in the North Sea.

I trust you'll find a source to specifically back up such statements such as "retaining control of the site of the battle had no significance to the German strategy." Surely it would have made more sense to make what you yourself admit are controversial additions when you were in possession of your sources? —Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 17:28, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Done - I wouldn't have said it if I couldn't cite it, although have changed the text to be a bit closer the original so as to avoid issues regarding original research or synthesis. 86.129.38.78 (talk) 19:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

This is an extremely well written article in my opinion. Only thing is, I think its shows slight favoritism to Jellicoe and slightly unjustified criticism of Beatty. Still though, a wonderful read. Arthur Longshanks (talk) 04:14, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I Think this article would require a major revision to comply with Wikipedia's 21st century standards. Most of the article is written from the British point of view and resembles more prosaic than scientific approach. The title is about the "battle" not "war" thus the almost century old British explanation of a "strategic victory" should be put in quotes and referred to as 20th century propaganda. As far as it comes to a single engagement i.e. the battle, I'm not aware of a single naval academy (outside the British common wealth) where the victory of the Battle of Jutland was not credited for the Germans. This is, after all, one of the classical examples of "loosing a battle but winning the war" like (in the article) mr. Churchill has via a contradiction well noted.

Most importantly, the German victory in Jutland is widely considered to be the decisive factor, which led the 3rd Reich's Kriegsmarine to be built around battleships of various sizes without launching even a single air craft carrier (ACC Graf Zeppelin was never launched). This strategic shortcoming confined the Kriegsmarine onto merely "coastal" operations in WW2 and gave great advantage for the Royal and allied Navy with marine air power. Some strategists consider the lack of air craft carriers as the most critical shortcoming of the 3rd Reich's resources which shortened the WW" in Europe with several years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.156.149.114 (talk) 07:57, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Plenty of historians view Jutland as a British strategic victory - because that's what it was. The blockade remained in effect and Germany stopped bombarding the British coast. Most importantly, the Germans decided to go back to unrestricted submarine warfare, which quickly brought the United States into the war and guaranteed Germany's defeat.

And that assessment is so laughably bad I'm curious who these "strategists" are. Certainly not reputable historians, that's for sure. Parsecboy (talk) 09:59, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

"28" British battleships

This figure appears to be the British Grand Fleet's total strength in harbor the day before battle, not the number present at the battle (24) and seems an unusual number to choose when comparing opposing forces at the battle. In any other article regarding historical battles, the locally present forces are used: total available forces are only used when discussing campaigns, not battles. This figure also suggests that the battle was more one-sided than it actually was (albeit that 24 battleships to 16 is still a strong numerical advantage). I propose correcting the number to 24 in the info box and the table lower in the article. Audigex (talk) 10:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, there were only 24 battleships in the main fleet, but you're forgetting the four QEs in Evans-Thomas' 5th Squadron, which was attached to Beatty. Parsecboy (talk) 11:57, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Tactical German victory/ Strategic British Victory

Not to dredge up old arguments, but we all know that there is a rather rigid defining line between tactical and strategic. The British in this encounter were throughly thrashed, which makes this a German tactical victory. But since this victory puts them in no better position than they were before, this can be considered a German strategic defeat and an English strategic victory. Source to reinforce this conclusion (Simply search tactical victory or the like) Abattoir666 (talk) 04:53, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

It would appear, that since was the relative conclusion the debaters here had come to two years ago, it is safe to alter the outcome of the battle. Abattoir666 (talk) 05:12, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

There's a difference between Hipper thrashing Beatty (which certainly happened) and Scheer thrashing Jellicoe (which most certainly did not happen). You're also badly misreading Butler. In any event, please do not change a highly controversial statement without having a discussion first.

Please also note that new threads go at the bottom. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 19:34, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Remembrance: Celebration vs. Commemoration

It's only one word, but I feel it's very important to discuss and in my opinion, edit. As reads currently, the last sentence of the Remembrance section says,

"In 2016, Orkney will host the 100th Anniversary celebration of the Battle of Jutland."

Should this not read,

"In 2016, Orkney will host the 100th Anniversary commemoration of the Battle of Jutland."

The official proceedings in the UK are described as commemorations. The use of celebration is an easy-to-make error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.68.143.164 (talk) 23:56, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Map of the Battle of Jutland, 1916.svg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Map of the Battle of Jutland, 1916.svg will be appearing as picture of the day on May 31, 2016. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2016-05-31. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:59, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Picture of the day

A map of the Battle of Jutland, a naval battle fought by the British Royal Navy's Grand Fleet against the Imperial German Navy's High Seas Fleet during the First World War. The only full-scale clash of battleships in the war, the Germans intended it to lure out, trap and destroy a portion of the Grand Fleet, as the German naval force was insufficient to openly engage the entire British fleet. Fourteen British and eleven German ships were sunk, and more than 8,000 people were killed. Both sides claimed victory, and dispute over the significance of the battle continues to this day.Map: Grandiose

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Battle of Jutland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150111072209/http://www.warship.org:80/loss_of_hms_hood__part_3.htm to http://www.warship.org/loss_of_hms_hood__part_3.htm#68
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111231042936/http://www.periscopepublishing.com:80/images/Jutland%20gallery%20pages/Jutland%20exhibition.htm to http://www.periscopepublishing.com/images/Jutland%20gallery%20pages/Jutland%20exhibition.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120206012150/http://www.divernetxtra.com/news/items/ships290601.htm to http://www.divernetxtra.com/news/items/ships290601.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:42, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Casualties

With the centenary there is a lot of news coverage of the battle. I noticed that BBC and ultimately the National Archive put the figure of British casualties at 6,097 KIA[1][2] or three more than stated in the article. On the other hand, German KIA are sometimes reported as 2545, or six less than in the article. Maybe somebody could elaborate on the difference in numbers? ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 05:02, 31 May 2016 (UTC) If you have access to it, page 338 of Campbell's book has 177 POWs and other casualty stats. Keith H99 (talk) 11:41, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Strategic/Tactical victory

Why is no mention of the battle being a German tactical victory allowed in the infobox? There are a look of academic sources that call it such, and since the British sustained much greater losses it naturally fits the definition. --Steverci (talk) 02:31, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Have you read the previous discussions in the archives of this talkpage? GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:39, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Essentially, user Blablaaa provided a ton of sources confirming this is a tactical German victory and no guideline argument was made against it but lots of users cried WP:IDONTLIKEIT until he couldn't take it anymore: "lost my interest in this. My research show clearly that more books say german tactical victory. Editors here want tactical inconclusive. Not willing to fight this till bitter end. Put your inconclusive in the box."

So it seems previous discussions came to "tactically inconclusive" though WP:POLL of people with WP:BIAS. I've noticed an overwhelming amount of academic sources call it a German tactical victory which is what should determine what goes on the article, not selective voting. --Steverci (talk) 15:00, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

However, Parsecboy offers equally compelling arguments in the same thread countering this view, including deploying arguably superior sources. I am seeing no bias, and I was not a participant of that discussion. Irondome (talk) 15:25, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Most of his sources just call the battle inconclusive overall, which is true. It doesn't make any sense to call the battle a strategic British victory but not call it a tactical German victory. Blablaaa provided 90 sources and Parsecboy provided 5. Of those 5, 4 simply called it indecisive overall, and the fifth did not name a tactical or strategic victor, as Blablaa noted Parsecboy left out the latter. --Steverci (talk) 15:48, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Steverci - you missed the point. No one disputes that the battle was a strategic British victory, so by default, if one calls it inconclusive, one is referring to the tactical side of the equation. Additionally, while blablaaa did provide a larger number of sources, many of his were completely unrelated to the battle. Tell me what kind of experts on Jutland wrote books titled War, peace and international relations: an introduction to strategic history, The complete idiot's guide to World War I, or The Nordic way: a path to Baltic equilibrium? Parsecboy (talk) 16:22, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

The majority of them were on the war and naval history during this period. --Steverci (talk) 20:20, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

There are actually very few on the naval history of WWI included in his list. Most of the books only tangentially relate to the topic at hand. As I pointed out in that discussion, books that actually cover the war in the North Sea lean towards tactically inconclusive. We should be following the lead of experts on the battle, not those who refer to it in passing. Parsecboy (talk) 20:44, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Fighting the Great War: a global history, Power at Sea: The age of navalism, 1890-1918, A Companion to World War I, Researching World War One, The nation and the navy: a history of naval life and policy, History in Dispute: World War I, first series, Germany and the Central Powers in the World War, 1914-1918, The naval strategy of the World War, etc

And a reminder that you didn't provide a source that calls it "tactical incnclusive". Here is a book about Jutland by Daniel Allen Butler, who seems to be a really solid source, that says the most widely held view for 9 decades was that it was a German tactical victory (it was made in 2006). --Steverci (talk) 16:32, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Do include the following "or at most a draw", otherwise you might be accused of being misleading. —Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 18:38, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Even in that list, I see only two books on the naval component of WWI. Simply because a book covers the war in general does not make the author an expert on this specific topic.

Wrong again, Steve. As I said in that discussion, Tarrant's Jutland: The German Pespective states "From the tactical point of view, since neither fleet was able to inflict a crippling blow on the other, Jutland belongs to the series of inclusive battles". Simon pointed out that Marder makes the exact same comment in his history. Parsecboy (talk) 19:27, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

My name isn't Steve. And as Blablaaa pointed out, you are once again leaving out an important part: "since neither fleet was able to inflict a crippling blow on the other, Jutland belongs to the series of inconclusive battles or partial victories which are the rule in naval warfare". --Steverci (talk) 01:50, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I left it out to avoid muddying the waters for those of us who can't follow context. He's clearly not saying that the Germans won a tactical victory.

Other expert sources:

• Jutland: World War I's Greatest Naval Battle: "...the inconclusive encounter between the two battle fleets." (after a section that discusses the strategic situation - he's clearly talking about the tactical scale here)
• Fleet tactics: Theory and Practice: "Jutland may have been tactically inconclusive, but the battles of Coronel and the Falkland Islands were certainly not."
• "Bennett's The Battle of Jutland: "by comparison with the Nile...Trafalgar...Tsushima..., the battle was indecisive. But 'victory is measured not by a comparison of losses and casualties, not by tactical incidents in the battle, but only by results [emphasis in original]"
• Dreadnought: The Ship that Changed the World: "so he turned away and Jutland became an inconclusive stalemate."
• Jutland, 1916: "If the action on 31 May was inconclusive, could the Royal Navy have achieved a second Glorious First of June the next day?"
• "Jutland: An Analysis of the Fighting, perhaps the definitive work on the subject: "Yet, unlike Trafalgar, this great fleet action in the North Sea at the end of May 1916 spawned great controversy from the moment the firing stopped, and because it was superficially indecisive, it will continue to fascinate naval historians." One can safely read "superficially indecisive" as "tactically indecisive".

If we widen our net to non experts, there are plenty who also refer to the battle as inconclusive/indecisive/a draw:

• Kaigun: "This tactical dilemma had led to a drawn battle [at Jutland]"
• The need for an Australian aircraft carrier capability: "The best known battle, Jutland, was inconclusive in tactical terms..."
• International Journal of Maritime History, Volume 17, Issue 2 - "...the inconclusive outcome of the Battle of Jutland in 1916 was a result of Admiral Jellicoe's over-centralization of tactical command."
• Our admiral: a biography of Admiral of the Fleet Earl Beatty: "Nor was this the only way in which Jutland, though in terms of battle inconclusive, produced tremendous effects."

This is just a sampling of Google Books results, but it is by no means exhaustive. Parsecboy (talk) 13:51, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

So 5/6 (or 8/10) call it inconclusive overall, not from a tactical perspective. And Fleet tactics: Theory and Practice doesn't sound any more reliable than a book on the whole war. Is this all the most you can find from any kind of academic source? Blablaaa's finding of almost 100 shows which view has the most weight. --Steverci (talk) 02:44, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Stop playing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I've already made the point that no one argues the battle was inconclusive strategically, or that Germany won a strategic victory. That automatically means that if an author refers to the battle as inconclusive, they are talking about the tactical scale. And you can be especially sure of that fact when their assessment includes a section that describes the strategic victory won by the RN...which I have already pointed out.

And no, Blablaaa's list does not include almost 100 academic sources. His list is a joke, and you would do well to stop treating it like a trump card. here is the list you with all the non-expert sources stricken out (I left the German-language sources untouched, since I don't know enough to evaluate them, but most are probably unrelated or non-academic [and even then, likely to err on the side of pro-German bias, obviously]). And no, as I clearly said, This is just a sampling. Parsecboy (talk) 12:40, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

What's misleading? He's saying the most due weight view is that it's a German tactical victory, but a minority view is a draw. --Steverci (talk) 01:50, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Ironic that you should accuse me of selective editing when you actually are doing that... Parsecboy (talk) 13:53, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

No that's what interpreting "superficially" as tactically is. --Steverci (talk) 02:44, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Seems you don't know what "selective editing" means. Parsecboy (talk) 12:40, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

The concept and definition of tactical victory interested me more. How do we define it? Greater material loss as a single indicator would seem insufficient. Irondome (talk) 15:53, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Second definition of a tactical victory: A tactical victory may refer to a victory that results in the completion of a tactical objective as part of an operation or a victory where the losses of the defeated outweigh those of the victor.

According the the article: the High Seas Fleet's strategy was to whittle away the numerical advantage of the Royal Navy by bringing its full strength to bear against isolated squadrons of enemy capital ships whilst declining to be drawn into a general fleet battle until it had achieved something resembling parity in heavy ships. --Steverci (talk) 16:12, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

So in that sense, the sortie was a failure as no major RN heavy units were sunk, apart from the BC's whose very existence in the line of battle was questionable. Also interesting is the second part of the battle, if it can be so defined, in which the HSF was repeatedly threatened by the GF manoevreing to advantage. It looked an interesting discussion..Irondome (talk) 16:30, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

It's not our place to determine if this was a tactical victory though (which seems to be the root of the issue). We determine what most academics agree on, which is that it was a German tactical victory. --Steverci (talk) 20:20, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

but what we also dtermine is the prominence. See below

Gravuritas (talk) 11:20, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I've always thought it odd and wrong that the result has been listed as "tactically inconclusive." It is, in my view, notable that no other major Wiki seems to take the position that the battle was anything other than a tactical German victory. When that is the case, it suggests (to me at least) that the sticking point on the English Wikipedia is nothing but national bias. And I say that as an anglophile who wishes the result had been more favorable to the British. I've avoided throwing in my oar on debates like this in the past to avoid "stirring the pot" on a tired subject, but it should be clear that there is substantial dissent among editors from the result currently displayed. Jrt989 (talk) 17:19, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

This is why I felt the need to bring this up. Even though there has evidently been a lot of discussion in the past, it's still an issue because the article contains noticeable POV. It should either be just simply Inconclusive or British/Strategic and German/Tactical. --Steverci (talk) 20:20, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

It is hard for me to say tactical victory when the Germans were far more interested in breaking away and surviving than in fighting. I don't think we have a survivor tag though.Tirronan (talk) 21:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

It could be described as a narrow German tactical victory, but that wasn't of much significance at the time and so that doesn't deserve huge prominence. Given Germany's control of the continent, the Royal Navy could never win the war, but it could lose it. What was the British fleet for? to help enforce the blockage of Germany (a success at Jutland for the RN) and to prevent significant elements of the German fleet being able in future to get through to the Atlantic (a success at Jutland for the RN). What was the German fleet for? To break the blockade or break through/ prepare the ground for breaking through to the Atlantic (complete failure on both counts at Jutland). The German strategy was to inflict more losses than they suffered, and while that happened at Jutland, it wasn't by a sufficiently large margin, so the strategy failed. The importance of Jutland can be viewed by imagining the opposite result: suppose there had been a few more German ships sunk than British ones? The military outcome (ignoring a bit of publicity spin on either side) would have been exactly the same- and that's why the strategic outcome is important, that's why those who wish to describe this a German tactical victory with any prominence are suffering from a major misunderstanding. Any seabattle in these circumstances that could remotely be described as "inconclusive" was a strategic victory for the RN, so "inconclusive" is not appropriate.

For an interesting comparison, try the blockade of St Petersburg in the Crimean war. Offensive action by the RN was ineffective, and could even be described as a failure- but it was a major strategic win for Britain as this blockade was the cause of Russia suing for peace.

Gravuritas (talk) 16:43, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

From a strategical view the battle had not decided much. England could still maintain its blockade violating international law, while controlling the passages north and south, on the other hand the greatest sea power could not engage, where victory was decided.

The "Baltic project" of Jackie Fisher, an invasion of british ships in Pomerania to help Russia, had to be abandoned. The ships were already being built, flat-built shallow battle cruisers which were then mothballed (some later being converted to aircraft carriers, like the 'Glorious'). The german fleet remained the threat it had been as a 'fleet in being', it was successful in blocking the baltic sea for british warships. When Russia crumbled and had its revolution, all german forces could be diverted towards the west. The capability of the german fleet forced England to fight a land war they were not used to, and it was finally the intervention of the USA in Europe, which decided the war. From statistics alone, it indeed WAS a german tactical victory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.130.14.131 (talk) 12:41, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

The "Baltic project" was never realistic. If the High Seas Fleet could have been utterly destroyed in one battle, it may have had some slim chance of success, but landing troops far from Britain, on Germany's own coast, with long lines of communication etc sounds like folly, and I'm pretty sure it was abandoned after the failure of the Dardanelles (which had a much greater chance of success). "England" (actually Britain) was "forced to fight a land war" not because of the "capability of the german fleet" but because the German Empire was fighting a land war in France. Britain had raised a very large army and deployed it to France, and preparations were being made for the Battle of the Somme at the time of Jutland (I suppose you call it Skagerrak). They were fighting a land war, regardless of Jutland. They would have been fighting it even if the German Navy had been wiped out. Germany would not have had to sue for peace if their battle fleet was destroyed. The failure of the German navy to lift the blockade left the German economy and war effort to suffer slow strangulation. Why keep a "fleet in being"? Do you honestly think Britain could have landed enough troops on Germany's Baltic coast and given them enough logistical support to defeat German forces, or even destabilise another front? All these flanking attempts essentially failed in that they tied up large numbers of allied troops for no real benefit. A Baltic landing, or even one on North Sea coast would have faired worse. Finally, the USA didn't win the war. The U-Boats had failed by 1918. And the German spring offensive had failed before the Americans entered the battle in any numbers. They also played a minor part in the 100 days - which is why Pershing opposed the Armistice! By 1918 Germany was running dangerously short of essential raw materials (failure of the German fleet to break the blockade - why have one then?), and with the Americans beginning to arrive, the German High Command essentially bet everything on one last role of the dice. Namely they could break the British 2nd Army, over run France, and win the war before the American armies were established. It failed. The only way you can seriously claim the "capability of the german fleet" force Britain to fight a land war is that it was Germany's decision to build a fleet to intimidate Britain led to Britain seeing Germany as a dangerous threat (a blockade of Britain would have led to mass starvation as they imported 70% of their food) which led them to ally with France and then Russia, and ultimately to intervene in the War in Europe. That being the case, you could argue the german fleet was actually a major diplomatic and strategic blunder. Now on the basis of losses, you could, possibly, claim a minor German tactical victory. But you'd have far better cause to call the Battle of Coral Sea a Japanese tactical victory (the balance of losses was more lopsided), but I haven't heard that. Or to put it in a German context. The Battle of Arras in 1940. Far more German's were killed than allied troops (roughly 4 times as many), but Arras is not regarded as an allied victory. It wasn't pressed home; Rommel stopped their attack; and it didn't impede the victorious Wehrmacht advance to the coast. A mere body count isn't enough to claim tactical victory, otherwise the Wehrmacht won tactical victory on the Eastern Front in World War Two.

A little aside in here, the 'large light cruisers' were put into use once commissioned - you don't build a ship during a war and then leave it lying around gathering dust (or barnacles). except Furious was already being turned into aircraft carrier during the war. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:01, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

A tactical victory results in the capture of the battlespace, a tactical victory can be won with heavier losses on the winning side. The German fleet retreated from the battlespace, therefore tactically they lost the battle. Adding to the fact the German fleet failed to achieve any of its objectives I cannot see how this can be described as a tactical German victory. However considering the British fleet sustain such heavy losses it is not a clear cut victory for the British, so I think inconclusive is the best possible descriptionThecitizen1 (talk) 11:10, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

The victor in any battle is the side which achieves its objectives. At Jutland the German objectives were to damage the GF such that Britain's stranglehold on the North sea would be broken; the British objectives were to damage the HSF so that it could no longer pose a threat to Britain's naval dominance. The respective "losses" are largely irrelevant - they would only have mattered if they'd been heavy enough to cripple the British fleet - and they didn't. By any reading, (except perhaps in propaganda terms) the battle was a British victory, albeit a pyrrhic one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.199.236.88 (talk) 16:12, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

The battle was in no way a pyrrhic victory, a phrase thrown around all to often without an actual understanding of what it means. Parsecboy (talk) 16:34, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

A major point which has not been touched on is the post-battle ship repair times for the opposing fleets. The GF would have been able to sortie in full strength again much sooner than the HSF, whose major units were under repair in some cases for months. Purnell's History of the Great War at Sea I recall had a good analysis of this. My copy is in storage with most of my library unfortunately. This aspect would call into question a core part of German strategy which was continuous sorties to trap and destroy isolated and numerically inferior units of the GF and gain advantage by attrition. Irondome (talk) 14:56, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

For what it is worth... We had the same "how many angels can dance on a pinhead" type of arguments going on over at the war of 1812. Mostly Canadians and a few other Commonwealth types that wanted to see it as a British (or even more strangely Canadian victory) The answer after years and year and years of discussion was to put it as stalemate/British Victory disputed. We also listed the various outcomes. It stopped the arguing. Since the outcome is still disputed it worked out.Tirronan (talk) 20:12, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

The Grand Fleet went out to destroy the much weaker Hochseeflotte, because they got known where to meet her. The Hochseeflotte herself did not expect the whole Grand Fleet at all, but only some squadron or alike, which would have been defeated easily. When she got aware of the trap ("Crossing the T") she escaped sucessfully ("Gefechtskehrtwende"). You may call that a tactical victory, because the British failed with their ambition, not the Germans. The Germans indeed got what they had aimed for by reducing the number of the Grand Fleet, although with quite unexpected heavy own losses. Strategically the situation was the same before and after the battle, in this respect the result is undecisive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.187.96.255 (talk) 18:16, 31 May 2016 (UTC) (80.187.96.255 (talk) 18:22, 31 May 2016 (UTC))

The Germans didn't sink a single dreadnaught. As for the knowing where to meet the Hochseeflotte, there was faulty intelligence. They were told they were underway, but then the signals were back in the Jade - as if they'd gone back to port! It wasn't like Midway, where the Americans had a fairly clear idea of the Japanese intentions. Also Beatty failed to keep his commander properly informed. Scheer got away because it was close to night (this is an era before radar), but he didn't get away cleanly, and ran into them again. It is possible to call it a German tactical victory, but if you call it that, you'd have to call it a British strategic victory as well. The actions of the German fleet during the war IMHO calls into question why the German Government made the provocative step of building such a force in the first place. They didn't make that much of an effort to break the blockade, and none of any significance after Jutland. It was the blockade that threatened the German war effort, not the existence of the British Battle Fleet itself.

The claim the battle was a strategic British victory is imo a bit daft as well. The British simply maintained the status quo and said status quo was that they had a numerically superior fleet in a geostrategically advantageous position with open global sealanes. They could have kept their ships at port the entire war and would have scored the same strategic victory by merit of their fleet existing. You don't score a strategic victory because you were stupid enough to risk the very ships that can make you lose that strategic victory for a glorious battle. Note, that doesn't mean the British didn't win the naval war and thus astrategic victory but that was due to the entirety of the war and more against the U-boat threat, not due to what they did at Jutland. They could have strategically won Jutland by not participating. 82.135.67.153 (talk) 11:17, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

That's not true. If they'd kept their ships in port the whole War, there would have been no blockade. And the blockade WAS of major import to the end of the war. The fact is that the High Seas Fleet sailed away once they realised what they were up against (although Scheer blundered into them again briefly - his conduct wasn't spotless either), and they never tried to challenge the Grand Fleet for the remainder of the War. Nor were there any more (as far as I can remember) any more of Hipper's shelling of British coastal towns to try and draw out a proportion of the Grand Fleet. It seems as if the German Naval Command gave up on trying to weaken the Royal Navy's battle fleet after Jutland, and with it any attempt to directly challenge the blockade, there after trying a counter, submarine blockade (which ultimately failed). That's where the claims of Strategic Victory come from.

Beatty, Jellicoe, wreck positions identified: update needed

Programme on TV in the UK and Jellicoe's grandson's book suggest that, not only was Beatty laying a smokescreen with some of his description of the battle, he actively tried to get the subsequent battle charts amended in such a way that his account was given more credence. Recent identification of the locations of the wrecks, these sources suggest, shows that Jellicoe's account was correct and Beatty's wasn't. Anyone know sufficient about this to make the necessary amendments to the article? Gravuritas (talk) 16:49, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't surprise me in the least. It's been known for several generations that Beatty (who was First Sea Lord for most of the 1920s, and who was popular with Churchill who wrote an influential first draft of the history and who was an important politician again by the 1920s) told, or encouraged the telling by his admirers of, a few porkies to enhance his own role at the expense of Jellicoe (who was politically out of favour after his sacking as First Sea Lord at the end of 1917). There is a brief chapter on this in my old copy of Geoffrey Bennett "Naval Battles of the First World War" which I read as long ago as 1983 and recently tracked down, and in umpteen other books as well. The French had a very similar "Battle of the Memoirs" spat between supporters of Joffre and Gallieni over the Marne, all largely forgotten now. They are all, alas, on the long list of things I shall write about in more detail if I live to be 100.Paulturtle (talk) 12:47, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Beatty was a capable officer (let's not bash him too much), but he was responsible for a number of blunders. One, he failed to keep Jellico informed properly as to the German High Seas Fleet location and bearing - that was his job BTW. All the more credit for Jellico in being able to cross the T. Second, he didn't use his wireless sets to issue orders, relying on flag signals, which resulted in Even-Thomas's squadron being left behind. Third, he didn't have his crews train in gunnery anywhere near as much as he should have. Fourth, his insistence on high rates of fire, led to the ammunition doors being kept open to facilitate rapid fire - this resulted directly in the loss of 3 of his battle cruisers (yes, I know Invincible was with the Grand Fleet, but she was normally part of Beatty's force, and operated under his orders). Fifthly, he should not have allowed the distance between him and the Grand Fleet to open up as much as it did. This last one is problematic. It may have meant that the Germans would have retreated rather than fight - and it would still have been late in the day. But that would have given the British a similar strategic result without the cost. Otherwise the battle may have been fought the following day, with far less chance for a German escape. We'll never know, of course. As it was, Beatty eventually used the superior range of his guns to inflict heavy damage on Hipper's Battle Cruisers later in the battle, and force them out of their scouting position so they couldn't keep Scheer informed properly.

Basically Beatty looked the part: "dashing" etc. He also was very gung ho. Additionally, at the time, the damage to his ships led the public to imagine he'd born the brunt of the fighting (true to an extent) and that therefore Jellico had somehow left him out to dry (not true at all). Really I think much of it was the contrast between Beatty's headlong charge, and Jellico turning his ships away from the High Seas Fleet in response to the torpedo fire. The idea was Jellico was "overly cautious" with "Beatty chaffing" at the inaction. Truth is Beatty didn't act recklessly when he took command of the Grand Fleet either. But this was overlooked. He never made contact with the German battle fleet, therefore this was never publically revealed. He did, however, back the plan to use carrier air craft to attack the High Seas Fleet in Wilhelmshaven, but the war ended first (the plan was later put into action against the Italians at Taranto). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.68.243.82 (talk) 16:42, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

The man had his failings but... It was Beatty that authorized and championed Captain Grants' investigation on cordite handling, magazine and shuttle designs, and Beatty who complained so much about the BC's lack of gunnery practice. Further, as Home Fleet he demanded changes to shells so we have the green boy shells that actually worked. He further made the Grand Fleet practice night fighting and battle turns. On top of which as commander he insisted that his sub-alternates take more command authority. Whatever can be said of the man's failing at the Battle of Jutland he certainly learned from his mistakes and formulated or had formulated answers. It must be remembered that no meeting of battleships in fleets this size had ever happened before, and would never happen again. Jellico brought what he knew to a battle but his command structure was far too rigid and the officer environment sniffled initiative whatever else might be said. Jellico knew his shells were faulty and never followed through to get that corrected though he started to do so. That said crossing the T twice made him quite the tactician.Tirronan (talk) 15:23, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

German victory

WP:NOTFORUM: this is not the place to discuss the UK's status as a superpower
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The result was clearly a great victory for the German navy as they destroyed the myth of the Royal Navy being invincible. (165.120.240.214 (talk) 14:42, 9 October 2016 (UTC)) The Blockade was not lifted and the High Seas Fleet retreated to their port and remained there for the duration of the war. The battle was inconclusive officially, and unofficially a strategic victory for the Royal Navy and/or a material victory for the Kaiserliche Marine. While the German fleet DID prove its superiority against the Royal Navy's ships (looking at you Beatty), it was certainly no second Trafalgar as anyone had hoped and the blockade remained in place. Vami IV (talk) Deus Vult, Gott mit uns! The blockade was illegal under international law. It was not possible to have decisive naval victories like Trafalgar in the 20th century due to modern technology. (81.153.133.147 (talk) 14:14, 11 October 2016 (UTC)) Irrelevant firstly and incorrect secondly. --Vami IV (talk) 14:56, 11 October 2016 (UTC) Non Nobis Domine The battle was clearly a German victory as they destroyed the Royal Navy. Britain was no longer a superpower after World War I. (81.153.133.147 (talk) 15:27, 11 October 2016 (UTC)) Aaannnnddd...we've entered the realm of science fiction. Parsecboy (talk) 15:55, 11 October 2016 (UTC) World War I was a pyrrhic victory for both the UK and France. The Anglo-Irish War, the Chanak Crisis, the withdrawal from Egypt, the Washington Naval Treaty etc all showed the UK was no longer a superpower after 1918. (81.153.133.147 (talk) 16:12, 11 October 2016 (UTC)) That is beyond the scope of this article. The Outcome section clearly addresses everything you've said, so unless you have specific, sourced changes you'd like to propose, this is an entirely unnecessary discussion (per WP:NOTFORUM). clpo13(talk) 16:22, 11 October 2016 (UTC) Given that the Royal Navy performed so badly in the battle, with far greater losses than the German navy, the result should be changed to German victory. The British were only able to continue the war by using an illegal blockade to starve civilians to death. (81.153.133.147 (talk) 16:33, 11 October 2016 (UTC)) Funnily enough, the term "superpower" was coined in 1944 to refer to the US, USSR, and UK, nearly 30 years after the UK supposedly lost that status. Go figure. You have an interesting idea of what constitutes a very bad performance, not to mention what "far greater losses" are. While Kaiser Bill might have agreed with you, naval historians do not. Parsecboy (talk) 16:37, 11 October 2016 (UTC) Appeasement showed very clearly the UK was no longer a superpower after World War I. The UK was only able to continue fighting after the Fall of France due to Lend-Lease from the US. The British lost far more ships and men at Jutland. (81.153.133.147 (talk) 17:02, 11 October 2016 (UTC))

Infobox questions on inclusion of Australia and Canada

Among the RN sailors in the battle, there were Canadian and Australian nationals. This is usually not taken in battle articles as grounds for inclusion of said nation as an active belligerent in the infobox. There also appears to be (per the vaguely ref'd footnote) members of the RCN and RAN within the British fleet (and indeed among the casualties). I have seen on other battle sites the reasonable decision that nations are not included as infobox belligerents unless national "unit level" entities participate. E.g., one RCN or RAN ship, or perhaps even gun crew? I don't know am just asking. 'Twere a Moravian liaison lieutenant have been serving on a British ship during the battle would we include Moravia in the infobox? Juan Riley (talk) 01:04, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Do I need to edit the article, i.e. remove from the edit box the Canada and Australia, to get a response? Juan Riley (talk) 00:56, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I must agree, and have edited the infobox accordingly. The removed sources are primary documents, which list 9 individuals serving on a handful of ships, all RN units. I do not think this justifies a mention in the infobox. If there had been detached fleet units from the mentioned countries in the GF during the action, I would have left it. However, this just seems undue. Obviously with all respect to those killed. Happy to discuss as always. Irondome (talk) 01:11, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Irondome. Concerning your (and my) respect for the dead: It may be appropriate for someone to add these commonwealth causalities in the discussion of battle casualties. Juan Riley (talk) 16:35, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Done. I have added the numbers of those killed and their allegiance to the Losses section. I used the original referencing material. (War Graves Commission document). Cheers Juan. Irondome (talk) 17:10, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Not to nitpick but...The ref indicates two RAN and one RCN. The others listed are Australian but RN. (Was thinking of adding myself but was distracted when I looked at your user page and saw my favorite Hopper...which just makes me stare at it for lengthy nostalgic moments. :))Juan Riley (talk) 17:18, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Not at all..good spot. Slight attack of cockup on my part. Glad you like the Hopper! Cheers Juan. Simon. Irondome (talk) 17:26, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Irondome for the edit and for wasting the rest of my Sunday: am now flipping thru Hoppers and remembering late night cups of coffee in the west village. Juan Riley (talk) 17:32, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Savour the nostalgia! Beats work ;) Irondome (talk) 17:36, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Prior to the end of World War II all Australian, Canadian, and other 'Empire' citizens all had the same nationality - they were British subjects, i.e., they were technically British citizens. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.50.145 (talk) 10:42, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Restoring Citation Needed

Per WP:UNSOURCED, there is no provision in our rules for removing Citation Needed requests for reasons such as that somebody thinks the person who placed the CN "doesn't understand".

Relevant extract from WP:UNSOURCED.

---

start of extract

All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.[2]

Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article. Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate). See Citing sources for details of how to do this.

Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.

---

end of extract

In this instance material has been challenged. Therefore it needs a supporting Reliable Source. Otherwise it can and eventually probably will be removed, after a reasonable period of time to allow for a source to be found. That is all. Tlhslobus (talk) 07:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I've added another source and your tag is removed. Just a suggestion that the next time instead of lecturing you might simply have searched for a source of reference yourself. All hail bureaucracy. More than a bit high handed there...Tirronan (talk) 21:10, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Direction

"At 15:48, with the opposing forces roughly parallel at 15,000 yd (14,000 m), with the British to the south-west of the Germans (...)"

According to the map the British were west of the Germans, slightly to the North all the time. They were not a bit in a southern position than the Germans ever were at this phase of the battle. I think "with the British to the north*-west of the Germans" would be the right phrasing or simple "to the west of the Germans".

--Andreas P 15 (talk) 15:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Make sure you're looking at the right numbers on the map. Beatty's forces (the light blue) were indeed to the southwest of Hipper's at that time. Parsecboy (talk) 16:18, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, there are two kind of blues and I was looking only for the dark. Thanks for the quick answer.

--Andreas P 15 (talk) 16:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Question re section on shells

The section of the page about the different shell designs of the two sides leaves me somewhat confused.

As it stands, the section clearly implies that the German penetrating shell design was superior to the 'archaic' British shells, which tended to explode on contact, and therefore do less damage. Technically this is true; however…

In the battle of Tsushima in 1905, the Russians used the more modern penetrating shells, while the Japanese fleet, largely patterned after the Royal Navy (and with British advisors), naturally used the British-style shells. Yet the more 'modern' Russian penetrating shells were a major factor in their losing the battle. The shells would penetrate the Japanese armor, and cause substantial damage inside, but the impact (basically just a hole) could not be seen from a distance by artillery spotters under the chaotic battle conditions. The result was that the Russian gunners, who in fact had been targeting quite well, thought they were missing and kept "correcting" their aim, making it worse.

By contrast, the Japanese gunners using the British-style shells could clearly see when they had the range vs. when they needed to correct their fire, because the impacts on the Russian ships were clearly visible.

I'm not claiming the opposite of what the Wikipedia article now says -- i.e. I'm not saying that the surface-explosion shells were better. I'm simply saying that the issue of the two types of shells is much less clear-cut than what I'm currently seeing in the article. Depending on the range, weather conditions, and other visibility issues, either type of shell might be better in some circumstances. Ascribing the whole thing to British old-fashioned "conservatism" seems rather simplistic to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.70.94 (talk) 05:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Frankly, that sounds like a load of nonsense. Any gunner with an IQ over about 5 could determine that no shell splash = a hit. Japanese gunnery was better because they trained to a much higher standard than the Russians did, they had significant recent combat experience, and they had better rangefinders. The advantage the Japanese shells provided was they tended to set the Russian ships on fire, which then burned uncontrollably from the coal they had piled up on their decks.

Had the British been using German shells, Seydlitz, Derfflinger, König, and probably Von der Tann would be at the bottom of the North Sea right now. It's really as simple as that. Parsecboy (talk) 13:51, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

In fact some of the British shells were exploding on the armor instead of inside the armor. This was either the shell fragmentation on impact, fuse malfunction, or the pyric acid explosive filler sensitivity. This one doesn't fly very well ole boy.Tirronan (talk) 16:41, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

No, sighting shell splashes, while standard, only works under certain conditions. If there's enough shells from multiple sources and other stuff flying around, it's hard to tell what causes what. You can call the Russian survivors' explanations excuses, but I tend to believe them. The point about coal piled up on the Russian decks is valid -- they were denied access to coaling ports en route and had to carry it all -- but the relationship between shell types and gunnery sighting may also have been a factor.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Jutland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161222042140/http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/war-graves-plymouth-sailors-looted-industrial/story-29306819-detail/story.html to http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/war-graves-plymouth-sailors-looted-industrial/story-29306819-detail/story.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:44, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Result

How about writing "Indecisive, see Outcome section" in the Result field (Or something similar)? Because right now, even of i am just looking for a short result, i have to read through the article. --Flo122 (talk) 17:17, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

The battle was clearly more of a German victory. (5.81.223.50 (talk) 19:48, 11 March 2017 (UTC))

No it wasn't. You clearly have no concept of how battles were evaluated.--81.153.7.114 (talk) 14:11, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Germany easily won the battle and in the process destroyed the reputation of the Royal Navy. (81.132.226.150 (talk) 16:33, 15 May 2017 (UTC))

. They may of won in terms of material losses, but that was it. The Germans failed in their primary objectives. The RN had a damaged but certainly not a "destroyed" reputation post-Jutland (the RN's reputation being damaged is not disputed in the article, and the severity of the damage is demonstrated in the public and political fallout). Further more, if you want to look at Naval Strength, the RN made up for their losses in a very short amount of time. This info is all contained within the article.--81.153.7.114 (talk) 15:44, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Germany did not have any overseas colonies after 1914 so they could not take resources from other countries. The British could, which is how they could easily make up the heavy losses they suffered at Jutland. (86.158.163.123 (talk) 10:14, 17 May 2017 (UTC))

Which is irrelevant. And Germany was in itself one giant colony of several different states joined together ;) --81.153.7.114 (talk) 11:29, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

The UK was also a colony of different states. The point is that the Germans not being able to easily replace their losses is irrelevant to the battle itself. (86.158.163.123 (talk) 12:32, 17 May 2017 (UTC))

Incorrect. As a historian, speaking for 95% of the historian community, the results/outcome of the battle are VERY relevant to the battle itself. Germany, like Japan in WW2, did not have the raw materials to replace their naval losses - every ship was precious.HammerFilmFan (talk) 21:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

So your logic is that the South actually lost The Wilderness and The Seven Days, etc, because in the long run they couldn't make the losses good and the North could? Because that appears to be exactly the logic you're applying here. No one said the results/outcome of a battle isn't important; they are claiming this is a case of winning the battle but loosing the war. And I'm somewhat inclined to agree with them. I think if the British hadn't won the war, people would be explaining how Jutland ultimately led to their defeat in the long run, just like they say about Germany now. It's all hindsight distorted by who the eventual victor of the war was.

Find someone who doesn't know how the war ended (theoretically), tell them the details of the battle, and ask them who they think won it, they probably aren't going to say "Britain".AnnaGoFast (talk) 05:29, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

It was not so much that Britain had external colonies but that it had relatively easy access via shipping from anywhere to its ports. Germany on the other hand only had access via the Baltic Sea (which gives access to a very small list of countries). Any other attempt (via the North Sea or English Channel) could only work if you could get past the RN. Submarines could get past & caused great damage, but submarines don't carry much in the way of cargo. The same is true of WW2. In the modern era (last 150 years), to defeat Britain, you have to invade from the east (over water) and blockade from the west (preferably both at the same time). Its been nearly a thousand years since anyone has managed to invade from the east & no one so far has managed to blockade from the west enough to bring Britain to a halt. It did not matter how much money Germany paid, nobody would risk sending their ship past the RN to deliver to a German port. Hence Germany was very much restricted to its own resources, whereas Britain had access to the rest of the world.144.139.103.173 (talk) 14:20, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Arguing with "true believers" I have found to be a waste of time. But, here goes. Germany didn't have the ability to have the Navy of the size needed to truly challenge the Grand Fleet. All Scheer was attempting was to trap a battle squadron or two and whittle down the Grand Fleet so that a final battle could take place. In point of fact when the whole of the Grand Fleet showed up Scheer's only option was to run back to port with as few losses as possible. This Scheer did with all credit due to both his leadership and the toughness of the construction of his Dreadnoughts. Of course the fact that the Grand Fleet went to battle with armor piercing shells that didn't work helped greatly. The Germany Navy did not break the blockade so nothing of value changed. Germany would continue to starve from both lack of potash to grow crops and lack of material to fuel its war machine. Tirronan (talk) 21:01, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia should only reflect what reliable sources say was the outcome. Also, WP:NOTAFORUM. (Hohum ^@) 00:05, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Risk teory, sub campain

Just started and already I see nothing at all about Risk Theory, and pre-war German strategy tat influenced the later fleet and battle. I also see it says something about how the Germans "agreed to not attack ships without warning, and neutrals not at all, which is missing the crucial qualifier "unless they were sailing in convoy. Any ship in convoy, under military escort, was fair game for sudden torpedo attack. Just opening the doors to all neutrals who wish to carry material to Britain isn't smart policy. AnnaGoFast (talk) 05:38, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Risk theory has little if anything to do with the battle - it wasn't tactics or even strategy but grand strategy. The strategy the Germans adopted before the war (which was wholly different from the one they were forced into from August 1914 onward) was not one based on Tirpitz's theory, but standard naval doctrine of the age.

Convoy operations are even less relevant to this article, as the British weren't running them in the Atlantic. This article is about the Battle of Jutland and it should be tightly focused - we don't need to go off on tangents about naval warfare of World War I in general. Parsecboy (talk) 13:45, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

"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)