The Battle of Jutland - 31st May 1916

[Seadog]

Remembering today all those who fought and those who died in the battle.

THE BALLAD OF JACK CORNWELL VC

By Charles Causley

(Part)

Suddenly around me

The Gunnery Jacks all spoke

Their terrible words of gunpowder

And sentences of smoke.

The deck blew up like a candle,

I heard the Gunner's Mate say,

It looks more like November the fifth

Than the thirty-first of May.

But the catherine wheels were made of iron,

The stars were made of steel,

And downward came a scarring rain

The sun will never heal.

Death came on like winter

Through the water-gate.

All I could do by the forecastle gun

Was stand alone, and wait.

LEST WE FORGET

Norman

[Bernard_Lewis]

A real clash of the titans!

I was looking today at a local newspaper (Swansea based) and its coverage of the battle. Very upbeat and seeing it as a clear British victory. It overestimated German losses too. That said it was also very optimistic about 1 July 1916 'results' expecting the number of major injuries to be low (the report was on 7 July)...presumably that didn't include the dead. Contemporary press coverage is hopelessly skewed towards seeing 'good' in all Allied efforts and 'disaster' in all enemy actions. Very much of its time, I suppose...

Bernard

[Kitchener's Bugle]

Remembering 3 souls from my home town who died on the Battle Cruiser HMS Queen Mary.

Henry Howard K/25656 Stoker Ist Class

George Mills SS/116953 Stoker Ist Class

Richard Richmond K/30524 Stoker Ist Class

RIP

[seaJane]

Norman, a minor point, but the wonderful Jack Cornwell poem was by Charles, not Jack, Causley.

Remembering my great-great-uncle George Lewis who came safe out of Jutland, and the boys of HMS Barham who did not.

[MichaelBully]

Remembering all those who died with honour.

As I am collecting Great War at sea poetry, was interested to read THE BALLAD OF JACK CORNWELL VC.,thank you for posting.

Also found a photo of his grave here

http://www.flickr.com/photos/barryslemmings/130359975/

Regards,

Michael Bully

[Seadog]

Norman, a minor point, but the wonderful Jack Cornwell poem was by Charles, not Jack, Causley.

Remembering my great-great-uncle George Lewis who came safe out of Jutland, and the boys of HMS Barham who did not.

Thanks .....Corrected

Norman

[Seadog]

Here is a personal account of the battle from the internet which may be of interest (I have lost the link).

Norman

THE BATTLE OF JUTLAND – 1916

A Personal account of the naval engagement of 31st May 1916

by Chief Yeoman of Signals J. R. HEMSTED onboard HMS Iron Duke.

The Battle Fleet were standing in a south easterly direction on the 31st in the usual formation - 6 divisions in line abreast with the cruisers screening ahead and Destroyers acting as submarine screen just ahead of the divisions. The first real intimation we had was the signal "Prepare for immediate action" being hoisted in the early afternoon. Immediately the hands were piped to tea (it being then about 3:10 p.m.) and Quarters was sounded at 4:00 p.m. A signal was made stating that our Battle Cruisers were engaging the German Battle Cruisers and afterwards the German High Seas Fleet which were being driven in a Northerly direction which was toward our Fleet. We heard afterwards that the four Dreadnoughts of the Queen Elizabeth class namely Barham (Rear Admiral), Malaya, Valiant and Warspite (the Queen Elizabeth was refitting), were with the Battle Cruisers under Vice Admiral Beatty.

We first heard heavy firing about 70 green which we supposed to be some distance away and blown in our direction by a breeze from the Southward, but shortly afterwards the Battle Cruiser Fleet were made out steaming across our bows firing well on an extreme bearing to Starboard. Just before our Battle Cruisers were sighted our Cruiser-screen (stationed about 10 miles ahead) were seen to be firing at something we could not see, as the weather was very misty. The Battle Cruisers were Lion, Princess Royal, Queen Mary, Tiger and New Zealand, and shortly afterwards the 5th Battle Squadron came obliquely across toward the Battle Fleet from the Starboard Wing.

The Battle Fleet altered course in succession to starboard, about three points, then deployed to port into line of battle, the Battle Cruisers being ahead and the 5th Battle Squadron on the rear end of the line. Just at this time we sighted a large amount of steam on the starboard beam which was made out to come from a three funnelled German Cruiser badly damaged and sinking. The Battle Cruisers on passing put a few more salvoes into her and the Iron Duke, to clear the bores of her guns, fired two salvoes but no hits were observed. All other ships within range were potting at her especially a Cruiser of the Shannon class which got in front of our Battle line, made a terrific quantity of smoke and obscured everything on the firing side. She eventually drew off toward head of line. We then sighted 3 or 4 German battle ships of the "Konig" class which appeared in the mist about 68 green. The error given by the range finding plot was 500 yards, the actual range being 11,000 yards. We then opened fire on one of them it being 6:26 p.m. The first salvo fell short, the second straddled, the third - one hit, and, the fourth - three hits, all before the foremast. She then altered course about twelve points to starboard and was lost in the mist. Two more salvoes were fired and appeared to fall short. We checked fire and saw an object in the water on the starboard bow which was believed to be a zeppelin but was a ship cut in two amidships with only her bows and stern showing vertically.

The destroyer Badger was picking up survivors of which there were dozens swimming and clinging to the sunken ship, and there were numerous mangled bodies in the water. On passing and asking Badger who the ship was, she replied Invincible (Flagship of Read Admiral Hood). Shortly afterwards the mist lifted and we sighted what appeared to be a battle ship, very much like our Queen Elizabeth, but it was evidently an enemy ship, as several of our own ships were firing at it. We therefore opened fire at it at a range of 16,000 yards but the inclination was judged to be toward instead of away from us and our shots fell a long way to the right and by the time the deflection was corrected and in all 4 salvoes were fired, she was out of sight as the mist lowered again. When last seen she apparently had a number of German Destroyers around her. Fire was checked and shortly afterwards another Battleship came in sight but before fire could be opened she was obscured by smoke. Her bearing was 93 green. Nothing happened for some time after this, but eventually a Destroyer attacked developed against us. we opened fire with our 6 inch guns. These fired continuously for about 10 or 15 minutes but the results were not seen. The turrets were then directed onto the destroyer and one salvo was fired and the Director Gunner is convinced that we hit her. After smoke lifted the target was nowhere to be seen. No firing was then carried on by us. This was the last occasion of engaging the enemy.

Heavy firing was observed on the Starboard bow and the Light Cruiser, Comus was seen to be hit amidships and flash lit up the whole of the main deck. However she continued to proceed. When it got dark, course was altered to the south and we appeared to have got well ahead of the High Sea Fleet. During the night firing was observed at intervals right away to the Starboard Quarter, and huge red glares were seen, and a few star shells, at long intervals. (In the morning this turned out to be a successful attack carried out by our Destroyers). We appeared to be in a very favorable position for a Fleet action in the morning. Of course a strict look-out was kept all night, all hands closed up at actions stations At 2:00 a.m. Quarters was sounded again. Just before 3:00 a.m. a Zeppelin was sighted coming astern. Her range (which was very difficult to get) was about 20,000 to 21,000 yards which was well out of range. Some ships opened fire on her for a few minutes but Iron duke did not as it was a waste of ammunition. She then disappeared and, I suppose, piloted the enemy into harbour as they were seen no more. Iron Duke fired in all 18 rounds per turret.

Marlborough was hit by torpedo during the action but continued to proceed at 17 knots and left the Fleet in the evening for her base. The Vice Admiral, Second-in-Command shifted his Flag to Revenge. Defence also blew up on our Starboard Quarter in the early part of the action. She was the Flagship of Read Admiral Arbuthnot of the First Cruiser Squadron.

Many other incidents and brave deeds all happened of course, as in all engagements, which were not seen, and more which it would take too long to recount, but next time we mean to teach them the biggest lesson they've had.

GOD SAVE THE KING !

Note: HMS Iron Duke – 30,380 tons, Ten 13.5 in Guns, Twelve 6 in Guns, Four Torpedo Tubes. Maximum speed 21 knots

[T8HANTS]

To the crew of H.M.S. Cochrane 2nd Cruiser squadron, who had the good fortune to be on a ship that never fired a shot during the whole battle, ensuring I am here to write this. Especially my Grandfather, and his blackgang of fellow stokers.

[Bombadier]

My grandfather served on HMS Blanche which also never fired a shot at Jutland. He joined as a boy and retired in the 50s as a lieutenant commander. He apparently had not held the rank for long enough so he only had a lieutenant's pension. He rarely talked of his service.

Remembering all his colleagues who were not so lucky.

Nigel

[Wdragon]

Aside from HMS Caroline there is a second relic of Jutland in Ireland. This museum - http://www.dun-laoghaire.com/profile/maritime/ has the battle ensign that HMS Dublin wore at the battle. It is on the first floor in a glass topped case.

My great uncle, stoker Tom Edwards served on her for over three years. When she returned to Queensferry after Jutland and made fast the first thing they did was take the wounded ashore, then the ship was coaled, only when this was complete did they take her dead ashore.

David

[MichaelBully]

It's a great to see more posts about Jutland. The battle may not have been the 'Trafalgar' that the British public wanted at the time but if the course of the Great War could have been very different if the Royal Navy had been defeated.

I remember reading an account that sailors returning to Britain after Jutland were treated with derision from a crowd of spectators at a port, which must have been terrible for them.

Regards

Michael Bully

[Signals]

Had they lost their Fleet at Jutland Britain would also have lost their Empire, and Germany would have been the strongest manufacturer and dominant financial country in Europe. Jutland was without doubt the greatest Naval Failure in British History, and the British have been in denial about it ever since with every new historian trying his new twist of clever words to try and claim it is a British victory with the passing of time. The fear of losing is the reason after Jutland they never actively pursued engagement with the High Seas Fleet again, and historians claiming it was the Germans who did not want to play are hiding the true fact of who wasn't playing. Losing their Fleet at Jutland, or letting their enemy sail into Scapa Flow undefeated.

Edited 10 June , 2013 by Keith Roberts
Modern political comment mremoved.

[bill24chev]

The Kais, with prompting from Tirpitz, chose to build a fleet that would challenge the Royal Navy and protect their "place in the sun".

The High Seas Fleet, an oxymoron if ever there was one, failed to protect the German colonies in Africa and the Pacific. In the only confrontation between the two fleets Admiral Sheer chose to run away once he realized he was in contact with the whole of the Grand Fleet. Sheer's fleet still suffered much damage and as a fleet was not capable of further sorties for some time. On the few occasions when the High Seas Fleet came out it scurried back to its bases at the mere wiff that the Grand Fleet was out in force.

The current powerful economic position of Germany was not a result of Jutland or even WW1 but was a consequence of WW2. Aid under the Marshall plan provided the funds to rebuild the German industry with modern equipment whereas the UK, because it was not as damaged by WW2 entered the post war era with industry from prewar and heavily in debt to the USA.

the UK could no longer afford to maintain an Empire and there was a moral obligation to grant independence to India following the support provided during WW2 by the sub-continents martial races.

[MichaelBully]

Can anyone tell me from which Charles Causley collection/anthology THE BALLAD OF JACK CORNWELL VC is from? Many Thanks, Michael Bully

[MikB]

Had they lost their Fleet at Jutland Britain would also have lost their Empire, and Germany would have been the strongest manufacturer and dominant financial country in Europe. Jutland was without doubt the greatest Naval Failure in British History, and the British have been in denial about it ever since with every new historian trying his new twist of clever words to try and claim it is a British victory with the passing of time. The fear of losing is the reason after Jutland they never actively pursued engagement with the High Seas Fleet again, and historians claiming it was the Germans who did not want to play are hiding the true fact of who wasn't playing. Losing their Fleet at Jutland, or letting their enemy sail into Scapa Flow undefeated, .

That's just clever verbiage around the facts. Their T was crossed at least twice and they turned tail, and the HSF that sailed into Scapa Flow certainly didn't do so as victors.

Edited 10 June , 2013 by Keith Roberts
Quoted text edited to reflect removal of polictical comment

[Theletterwriter]

Had they lost their Fleet at Jutland Britain would also have lost their Empire, and Germany would have been the strongest manufacturer and dominant financial country in Europe. Jutland was without doubt the greatest Naval Failure in British History, and the British have been in denial about it ever since with every new historian trying his new twist of clever words to try and claim it is a British victory with the passing of time. The fear of losing is the reason after Jutland they never actively pursued engagement with the High Seas Fleet again, and historians claiming it was the Germans who did not want to play are hiding the true fact of who wasn't playing. Losing their Fleet at Jutland, or letting their enemy sail into Scapa Flow undefeated,.

It would have been a somewhat difficult task for the Grand Fleet to actively pursue engagement with the High Seas Fleet which remained for the vast majority of the time from 2 June 1916 to the end of the war in port. No way can Jutland be called a British victory but more importantly, it was not a resounding and potentially catastrophic defeat although the battlecruisers, in particular, suffered horrendous losses. I have always felt that the roles were reversed in the Naval war when compared with the Western Front. On the Western Front, it was the Allies, in the main, who were on the offensive and the Germans were content to hold defensive positions. In the Naval War after Jutland, the Royal Navy only needed to keep the German Fleet bottled up. The use of blockade also caused great shortages for the German people. If the High Seas Fleet were that confident of their chances, I would suggest that it was up to the Germans and not the Grand Fleet to actively pursue engagement.

Douglas

Edited 10 June , 2013 by Keith Roberts
Quoted text edited to remove political comment.

[TeeCeeCee]

the UK could no longer afford to maintain an Empire and there was a moral obligation to grant independence to India following the support provided during WW2 by the sub-continents martial races.

Did the Empire fund the fleet we needed to defend the Empire or is it just co-incidence that they both disappeared around the same time?

[Gary Charles]

The German Fleet wasn't bottled up, they ranged as far away as the U.S. coast, unless you don't count the U-Boats as part of the fleet. And the so called blockade had less to do with the Navy than with political measures, and was not effective until after the war in 1919, when Germany was truly cut off because she was unable to defend herself.

It is nice to see the controversy bubbling away, even today, with each side firmly entrenched in their own views, unable to tolerate any suggestions that don't fit their neat little models. It doesn't surprise me that the spin of the 30's is repeated on this thread, good work!

[Theletterwriter]

Victory

You are correct re the U-Boats. However, I am not aware of the capital ships that fought in Jutland ranging far and wide after the Battle. However, always willing to learn from the forum. The very nature of U-Boats would have made it difficult for the Grand Fleet to actively pursue engagement, I would suggest. More the other way round.

Douglas

[bill24chev]

Did the Empire fund the fleet we needed to defend the Empire or is it just co-incidence that they both disappeared around the same time?

It is perhaps a bit of a "egg or chicken" conundrum but I think that this discussion would be outside the scope of this forum.

[MikB]

Did the Empire fund the fleet we needed to defend the Empire or is it just co-incidence that they both disappeared around the same time?

It wasn't coincidence, but even if Britain was funding the fleet from other sources - and I doubt you could ever disentangle the funding sources in any meaningful manner - the dismantling of Empire and fleet would obviously run approximately concurrently, unless government and people were content to continue to finance a hugely expensive resource with no remaining objective...? Regards, MikB

[seaJane]

Can anyone tell me from which Charles Causley collection/anthology THE BALLAD OF JACK CORNWELL VC is from? Many Thanks, Michael Bully

It's certainly in both "Collected poems 1951-1975" (London: Macmillan, 1975) and "Collected poems 1951-2000" (London: Macmillan, 2000), though I can't tell which of the individual collections it first appeared in - could be any of these:-Farewell, Aggie Weston (1951) Survivor's Leave (1953) Union Street (1957) Johnny Alleluia (1961) Underneath the Water (1968).I might be able to find out later tonight.

[MichaelBully]

Sea Jane- that's great, have tried websearches to answer my question re 'The Ballad of Jack Cornwell VC' first appearence but not got very far. If you can locate its publication , would appreciate your help. Thanks.

[Terry Duncan]

Had they lost their Fleet at Jutland Britain would also have lost their Empire, and Germany would have been the strongest manufacturer and dominant financial country in Europe. Jutland was without doubt the greatest Naval Failure in British History, and the British have been in denial about it ever since with every new historian trying his new twist of clever words to try and claim it is a British victory with the passing of time. The fear of losing is the reason after Jutland they never actively pursued engagement with the High Seas Fleet again, and historians claiming it was the Germans who did not want to play are hiding the true fact of who wasn't playing. Losing their Fleet at Jutland, or letting their enemy sail into Scapa Flow undefeated.

This is a rather strange view of Jutland and indeed the entire naval war in WWI. The RN were at sea and ready for battle on 1st of June, and in the sortie of the HSF some weeks later both sides were again at sea, as they were in the well known attempt by the HSF to raid the Scandinavian convoys. In all cases it was the HSF that decided its best chances lay in the safety of its harbours. The results of naval battles are not really decided by casualty figures or losses of ships, such methods are simplistic and an incorrect measure, they are decided by who controls the seas afterwards. The navies of all states exist to control the sea areas that are strategically important to them, or to contest control of those seas via a fleet in being role. Before Jutland the North Sea and therefore access to the oceanic areas was controlled by Britain with the occasional threat from German surface ships, after Jutland the surface threat had diminished significantly, and the balance of power had shifted decisively to Britain, who could make good the losses at Jutland almost immediately whereas the Germans could not.

A clear indication of who won at Jutland is Scheer's own report to the Kaiser that stated there was no hope of a decisive victory at sea that would help the German cause, and the subsequent USW campaign that proved so counter-productive. We could also consider that Jutland permitted possibly one of the most decisive weapons of the war to continue (but maybe also the hardest to gauge also), namely the blockade.

Jutland may not have been a decisive tactical victory for the British, but strategically it was decisive.

[Signals]

After Nelson 100 years of dominance, growth of Empire, wealth, no challengers who would again rise 20 years later, and that is exactly how it should be after his strategic Victories, and proof England's wealth & fortunes rode on the back of a dominate successful navy, surely no one doubts this point as they were brilliant. So I'm afraid if we want to talk facts you must ask what happened that reversed all this which is something that is exactly what has happened, touchy subject but it has happened ? Pre-war, the aim was to build a fleet the size of the next 2 navies’ combines, so post war the result was parity with US, and 20 years later there were 2 navies capable of defeating the RN on their own. This was largely due to the mass building of ships that were of little use at the end of the war. In 1920 the British Cabinet was being told with the possible exception of HMS Hood, (and I do not she simply blew up), there was no current ship in the Royal Navy that had been built with tumultuous lessons learnt at Jutland incorporated in their design, so Jutland does seem to be the pivotal point, and they were saying they need to build new ships to give the Navy confidence again, big words. On top of this, there was a clearly inferior underwater protection system in British ships in comparison to their German counterparts in a world where mines and torpedos were such a dominate weapon in all naval operations, the Dardanelles in 1915 & the Goeben in 1918 as examples of how they could affect operations. When you see everyone talking of the wonder ships of the QE Class battleships, again the truth is they were only a single or double mine or torpedo hit away from being a very ordinary design, reflected post war with their bulge reconstruction and the removal of QE from the Dardanelles risk. Now add doggy cordite, and a belief their armour was a cause of ships simply blowing up with a single hit, you can see what they chose not to fight and force the issue. In other words, they had in their possession a Fleet in 1916 that was unable, in their minds, to fight and force the issue with Germany which undoubtedly allowed the war to drag on and on, this aspect therefore in the end was therefore as catastrophic as a defeat as I mentioned as post war they did in effect not have the tools to grow their empire and protect what they had against 2 rising navies. The British therefore had a choice post war, build a whole new Fleet, scrap the obsolete vessels, reconstructed significant units of the navy. This was done in varying forms but the result was to hand parity to the US, and yet this parity was one wartime excuse for not fighting & forcing the issue with Germany.

Comparing the war on the Western Front to the Naval War, sure, I have many times, can you imagine the Allied armies getting to the Hindenburg Line, sitting back & declaring it now blockaded? I have always maintained, someone had to do the hard bloody fighting and the Grand Fleet had decided it was not going to be them.

I never see the point of continually throwing the line of successfully crossing the T as it is meaningless when you don’t drive this advantage home. We tend to forget the moment Jellicoe turned up it became the defence of Germany and their war effort, and the Germans did in fact achieve this, they headed to the safety of Horn’s Reef with the priority of getting there first so as they expected the battle to be renewed at dawn, and in the right position they could then decide to fight if favourable or retire through the protected channel, but Jellicoe fleet was split he had decided some time before this he would not pursue. Scheer said he could achieve the results of Jutland again, Jellicoe said he could not guarantee it would not happen again so they both agreed on the result and shows where Jellicoe's head was. Scheer also went out again after Jutland, but after August 1916 Jellicoe decided not to play the Germans game anymore as he believed he could lose a few Battlecruisers without getting a shot off as he just had 2 cruisers picked of by U-boats, Scheer said winning more Jutland's would not change the situation, and this is also due to the geographical position of England as well, the switch to U-boats was a combined effort of the HSF & U-Boat arm to economically ruin England not to stave them and this campaign did damaged England and knocked them off their perch as the #1 Merchant fleet in the world could not have been done without the HSF, and they were only stopped by the end of the war. People say the Grand Fleet was ready to go again straight after Jutland which is another throwaway line, Scheer does he not ask, if they did win why did they not follow it up. Why did they not go on the offensive?? It was the Germans who went on the offensive was it not? They may have switched weapons but it was them on the offensive. People also use the throwaway line that British loses were quickly replaced with the great battlecruisers HMS Renown & HMS Repulse and so forth, but these same people to not tell their audience Jellicoe was telling cabinet these 2 particular ships were unfit for battle and liable to explode with a single hit, that the German battlecruisers were better ships, that by 1917 the Royal Navy was unable to protect their east coast against battlecruiser raids and were pleading with the Japanese to hand over 2 of their 14" ships in exchange for 4 modern dreadnoughts.

The HSF was actually constantly out supporting the Minesweepers as far out as Dogger Bank and were not in port and that is supported by the logs of the German ships, the comment they stayed in port, well that is another old line churned out on a consistent basis that does not have the support of the German Log Books, this is why Beatty went on to say in 1918 he gave higher importance to the destruction of the HSF then the U-Boats, as without the HSF the U-Boats would not be getting out, hence the reason we saw the 2nd Battle of Helgoland. As they were out in the Bight on a consistent basis and not in Port and engagement with units of the HSF was there for the offering. At the 2nd Battle of Helgoland, which is wrongly described by historians as inconclusive the German big ships were there, the cruisers fell back on their guns and they advanced for engagement but the British were on their way home. That actual battle was a German Victory, as their task was to protect the Minesweepers of which they were successful and operations were continued, the battle from a British point was then in fact a failure, not inconclusive.

The Blockade I agree with Victory in his post, that laying claim that it was only the Royal Navy that made this work in the end & their main claim to fame for their strategic victory is a very wrong tact to take. The war had been going for years and the Blockade was not having the effect that is alluded to, it did not affect the enemy’s ability to fight the war as they expected and Churchill clearly wrote this in a letter to cabinet in mid-1917 not me. The reason for this he says is they chose a distant blockade, this allowed Germany to continue to trade with the neutrals like Holland, Sweden, Denmark, Norway and the war continued. Germany was getting supplies even from America via this back door. There was only once choice to complete the Blockade and that was to take on the HSF which they did not, it is something Beatty clearly states as the only way of really stopping the U-Boats was to defeat the HSF and ring the U-Boats in at their bases. As for trade, the completion of this ring in mid-1918 was achieved through diplomatic channels via the US and their aggressive stance they took to cease supplying the neutrals, this was done in mid-1918 then it had the effect of a true blockade and things quickly fell apart in Germany. The British admit the America's entry into the war had an immediate effect on the war, they do not lay claim that it was solely the work of the Grand Fleet, they do basically say the Americans finished the good work the Royal Navy Started, it is historians blurring this aspect to give all credit to the Royal Navy which is wrong. Before this the British say the through efforts of the German government they had actually increased food production early 1918 and they had found alternative building materials, strange that. Closing these neutrals was only way the war could be brought to an end, in 1916 they Russians were pleading for the Royal Navy to relieve the pressure and force an action with the HSF, this would involve a thrust towards the Sound, but it was stated then this cannot be done as they have been unable to gain command of the sea from the Germans, and the truth is, this never happened until the HSF sailed into Scapa Flow, of which it should be noted I did not say they sailed in as victors, but they were undefeated because the Royal Navy was unwilling to take them on and that is fact, and when you are the numerically superior force, that was your job to bring a war to a quick end, that is what having and building such a vast navy was supposed to be for. This inaction Churchill claimed prolonged the war, and he is right as it was a dangerous policy to take and risky not to them but their continental Allies, sitting back England knew they could not lose a war, they would not be invaded, but there was a possibility to bring them to the table so Germany could keep some gains, and had the US not entered the war this could very well have happened as no matter what people write on this forum, the British admit that in early 1918 Germany had actually gained a position of war winning strength, so how does 3 and a half years of Royal Navy Blockading allow this to happen? The inaction of the Gran Fleet led to the HSF playing a huge role in knocking Russia from the war, with America's entry into the war the Germans turned east, captured large areas of Russia's bread basket, and before they could extract benefits from these gains Germany needed the continuation of the Neutral back door, but America stopped this, they began to starve the neutrals by not supplying them.

Scenarios of had the Grand Fleet forced the issue in 1916 and were victorious are quite interesting and worthy of noting to highlight the actual failing on not doing so. No US on the world stage and involved, Russia not knocked from the war, millions of soldiers not killed on the battlefields in 1917/1918, and England remaining the greatest merchant nation on the planet, and it goes on.