Jump to content
Free downloads from TNA ×
The Great War (1914-1918) Forum

Remembered Today:

The Battle of Jutland - 31st May 1916


Seadog

Recommended Posts

Good to see there are no "political" parts to your post Darren, but just in case some of it gets removed, as previously, I have taken a copy! Your post is long and well considered, and I couldn't hope to add much. But I will say this: apparently it doesn't matter who was the winner on the day of the battle, it is the "strategic" effect that counts. Using this theory the Germans never won a battle, because in 1945 they were conclusively defeated, strategically that is. As I have said you will never convince either side of the holes in their arguments, not in the first 100 years anyway. But you are all giving me a good laugh!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whom ever actually "won" at Jutland the fact is the German Navy based their strategy from then on on the lessons they apparently had learned from the battle.

This strategy of maintaining a Fleet in Being and concentrating on U-Boats for the main offensive action had the consequence of being a factor in bringing the USA into the war. This in turn along with other events in the East which freed up reserves of troops forced or enabled the German Army to use up its reserves in an attempt to finish the war before the USA could make a major contribution.

In some ways, because of this, Jutland is a more important battle than Trafalgar, by October1805 Napoleon had already started to move his army against the Austrians reducing any threat of invasion of the UK .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Michael,

Last night rather came to pieces and I didn't get the time to check, but watch this space....

sJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remembering

Stoker 7798S John Redmond Sharp HMS Queen Mary

Who perished at the Battle of Jutland aged just 18

He was the son of Leonard and Sophia Sharp of 29 Pioneer Terrace

Erimus Thornaby on Tees

9017326568_d048d861ea_c.jpg

regards Ray

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What an excellent memorial and so very detailed, This is an original photo of the Dunnottar Castle (On the left and as spelt on the photo) with the Arundel Castle in Cape Town Dock taken in the 1890`s. Dunottar Castle became HMS Caribbean (Correct spelling) the ship that Stoker William Arthur Wright age 21 was lost on when she foundered and who is remembered on the memorial..

1418136580_0483d63283_z.jpg

Link to the image on Flickr which can be enlarged if required.

http://www.flickr.co...57601801015469/

Click on the two silly little arrows on the right and select "View all sizes"

Norman

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Appreciate link to full version of 'Jack Cornwell'- thanks Norman.

Sea Jane- welcome reference for the poem whenever you are ready. Grateful for your help.

Can I just say that this is a fascinating thread on Jutland -the pictures of related material and the overall discussion have been fascinating.

As already stated, I am particulary interested in how Jutland was viewed by the British public, but a lot of the posts have made me want to re-consider my view of Jutland.

Regards,

Michael Bully

If anyone is looking for the complete poem of Jack Cornwell VC it is here on my Flickr photostream.

http://www.flickr.co...157603654398542

Norman

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Appreciate link to full version of 'Jack Cornwell'- thanks Norman.

Sea Jane- welcome reference for the poem whenever you are ready. Grateful for your help.

Can I just say that this is a fascinating thread on Jutland -the pictures of related material and the overall discussion have been fascinating.

As already stated, I am particulary interested in how Jutland was viewed by the British public, but a lot of the posts have made me want to re-consider my view of Jutland.

Regards,

Michael Bully

I think one has to be able to accept multiple concurrent and sometimes contradictory views of this battle, and recognise that all of them have some basis in reality. Seems to me George Orwell was being simplistic when he described 'Doublethink'.

It was a substantial event with results in several directions.

Regards,

MikB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"A substantial event" yes indeed it was with thousands killed. My simplistic view is that after Jutland the German High Sea Fleet were never again brought to battle and the subsequent British naval blockade of Germany contributed greatly to the Germans seeking an armistice in 1918, like I say I prefer the "keep it simple" approach to history.

Regards

Norman

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"A substantial event" yes indeed it was with thousands killed. My simplistic view is that after Jutland the German High Sea Fleet were never again brought to battle and the subsequent British naval blockade of Germany contributed greatly to the Germans seeking an armistice in 1918, like I say I prefer the "keep it simple" approach to history.

Regards

Norman

Well, they hadn't wanted or expected to be brought to battle at Jutland either - leastways not against the whole Grand Fleet. To them it started as another attempt to defeat a subcomponent of the GF in detail, and so reduce its numerical superiority.

I don't know if Darren's view that a decisive defeat of the HSF would've made the U-boat campaign impossible or ineffectual can be justified; it might be that the GF couldn't've contained the U-boats even if they had heavily depleted the HSF at Jutland. The effect might as easily have been to accelerate and intensify the U-boat campaign and possibly have brought the US in earlier.

But the men who fought the battle fought it with what they stood up in - ships, crews, training, knowledge and vision all included. They didn't have any gift of prophecy or clairvoyance (or hindsight !), and the parameters of naval warfare were changing under them and above them in ways whose outcome wasn't yet as clear and historically laid-out as it is now. In some respects it was already a Battle Of The Dinosaurs - but we can only see that from its future.

Let's remember with respect those who were lost doing what they could for what they believed in.

Regards,

MikB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael,

Got it.

The poem first appeared in Underneath the Water (London: Macmillan, 1968).

seaJane

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 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.

It was driven home, hence the order the the battlecruisers to draw the fire of the Grand Fleet as the battleships ran for cover and to Scheer's break through and get to Horn's Reef before dawn orders. Certainly there was no instant crushing of the HSF, but that was far more to do with the light than to any superiority of German ships or tactics.

The defence of the German war effort was not helped by a fleet that sat in port mostly for two years as all the best officers transferred to the U-boat arm and then mutinied when ordered to sea at the end of the war. Germany had spent a vast fortune on a navy that proved incapable of challenging the GF successfully for control of the seas and that could have funded fortifying the entire western front with complexes like Metz - and yes I do have the figures. A fleet in being did not need to be so big, the role of the HSF was explicitly outlined by Tirpitz and it failed in that role.

Scheer certainly did not want the battle renewed in the morning and was determined to avoid it happening even if it did mean abandoning damaged ships to their fate, and he had no plans to decide in the morning, that is completely false. Scheer had already retired into the mouth of the mine channel by dawn so unless you imagine he was somehow going to be able to turn a strung out fleet around in a narrow channel in the face of the enemy, his own actions prove you wrong here. Jellicoe did actually pursue, though not by the most direct route because of the poor intelligence received early in the day and significant lack of information overnight, and did still sortie to the Horn's Reef area before retiring on 1st June. The GF was in one group and not split, the BCF was not part of the GF and did not have a night steaming formation within that body, so all was as expected.

I believe you will find his words were 'even if we were to achieve a similar result' or words to that effect, not that he could guarantee such a result, otherwise there is no reason at all for the HSF to avoid seeking battle constantly, as if the GF can be removed from the scene the blockade will fail and Germany can impose a blockade of her own with surface units and thus not irritate the US into joining the war.

Jellicoe knew the shells had failed and that the cordite was dangerous and that little could be done about this within a year or so. This is the reason for armouring the magazine crowns and the development of 'Greenboy' shells. He did not advocate that the GF would not be able to win the war by maintaining its existing strategy.

Britain occupied the same position it had when Germany spent a vast fortune on the HSFand if the HSF is incapable of changing the ability of the GF to impose a blackade upon Germany that is because the HSF is not capable of winning. A victorious HSF can challenge the blockade and do so with surface ships, a defeated HSF cannot challenge the blockade and Germany must seek other means to do so. I will leave it to others to decide what German actions post Jutland indicate.

The German leadership thought the USW campaign would starve Britain out of the war as rationing would prove impossible politically in Britain, and do so before the likely intervention of the US could make itself felt. The surface fleet by and large played no role whatsoever in the USW campaign. At the wars end the RN was still the largest in the world and the UK was still the No1 merchant fleet, I am not at all sure where you are getting your figures from but they are not correct.

The GF did go to sea again after Jutland and frequently patrolled the norther North Sea as they had done prior to the battle, short of somehow fitting the battleships with tracks and using them as huge tanks there is no way the fleet could go on the offensive, the blockade was in place and maintained whilst the German fleet was contained in the sothern North Sea where it could do little harm. Even the notorious 'tip and run' raids on coastal towns were not attempted post-Jutland, why do you imagine that was? It was possible for Germany to use both the surface fleet and the U-boats, not only the U-boats to attempt to win the war, the HSF's heavy units were mostly inactive for the last two years of the war for some reason and I really doubt it was because they were worried about winning too much or couldnt find any task they were capable of.

People also use the throwaway line that British loses were quickly replaced with the great battlecruisers HMS Renown & HMS Repulse and so forth .....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.

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.

It isnt a throwaway line, there were significant forces to be considered. Royal Sovereign was not taken out only because Jellicoe wanted her to spend a week longer with the crew becoming fully acquainted with the ship, so she spent the battle at morrings in Scapa Flow. Emperor of India was in dock having a refit and rejoined the GF shortly after Jutland as did Australia after her time in dockyard hands after her recent collision. We also have the rest of the Royal Sovereign class to consider, as although their building was not a priority they could have entered service far sooner had they been needed. We could then consider ships like Dreadnought, Renown and Repulse if you wish as all were better than the German pre-dreadnoughts. So yes, the British could and did make good the losses of Jutland almost instantly.

On a hull for hull basis they were, but after Jutland they were outnumbered almost 2-1. This does not change the situation after Jutland as the German battlecruisers did not seem overly keen to prove their superiority for some reason.

The same raids that had not taken place since Jutland and the abortive August sortie of the HSF that led to one side deciding to avoid battle. Jellicoe wanted more ships and like so many other service chiefs presented a worst case scenario to attempt to get them. He also said Britain would be defeated unless the army took Zeebrugge in the 3rd Ypres battle, so maybe you believe Britain lost the war and Germany won?

An unthinkable suggestion if you believe the HSF had won at Jutland. What Jellicoe wanted was more faster ships, he knew he had plenty of dreadnought to deal with the HSF should it risk battle. More fast ships were needed because it wa appreciated that the Germans would always attempt to evade battle and that the only way to enforce a conclusive battle would be to have a fleet fast enough that it was impossible to run away from.

Pairs of ships on covering operations within reach of home bases at all times. There was no attempt to use the capital units offensively. This is simply answered, list the offensive operations in the North Sea undertaken by the HSF between September 1916 and November 1918. Not exercises behind the minefields or covering minelaying forces, real honest attempts to do something offensive. Preferably with capital units, but boost it with the smaller ships if you need to do so.

The only way to permanently defeat the U-boats was to mine them in, but with the HSF operating in a fleet in being role defeating it was impossible unless it could be lured out to do battle. Its existence made it too dangerous for light forces to go close to the German bases, but it did not have to leave harbour to have that effect and the Germans knew it. If the HSF came out and lost the U-boats would be mined in quickly, if it stayed in its bases it could not be defeated and the U-boats could continue their work.

There is a concise account of the battle here, needless to say it does not match your description;

If hiding behind a protective minefield and refusing to leave that protection against the lightest capital ships Britain had (Repulse, Courageous, glorious etc) is a victory then it would appear the HSF 'victored itself to death' during WWI. A long list of notable battles, the First Battle of Hiding, the Third Battle of Refusing to Leave Protective Minefelds etc?

With regards to the blockade ad how effective it was before the US decided all those items it had insisted were not contraband of war whilst the US was neutral were now suddenly contraband once the US was involved, then yes it was obviously less effective, although the German list of 'ersatz' materials and the efforts to produce them indicate the blockade was effective from early on. The one notable event that illustrates its effectiveness is the so-called 'Turnip Winter' and to look at when this was.

All of this is beyond the ability of a naval battle to achieve against a land power. In Nelson's day the blockade took twenty years to work well, in WWI it did its job in four. The events of WWI ensured the US would be a major influence in the world because of all the money spent there during the war, the ability of a small nation like Britain to remain the richest merchant nation can be dismissed by pointing out the vast resources in the US and Russia would ensure those two overtook her, millions of soldiers were needed in the armies because the Germans had millions of soldiers in her armies and as these were supportable for some time the effects of a naval battle were not instantly felt by them. The closest they got to feeling it was in much reduced rations and variety of food, and the digging up of water pipes in Germany to make bullets would not doubt have had an effect too, not to mention hungry relatives and a lack of 'roof rabbits' and dogs in some areas by the end of the war.

If the HSF won at Jutland it can only be seen as the most damning indictment that it did not capitalise on that victory and allowed its nation to collapse without any meaningful attempt to exploit that victory. On the other hand we can assume the German naval command were realists and knew what had happened and gave up on the surface fleet as a means of achieving anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've not got it to hand but Robert K Massie in his magisterial 'Castles of Steel' points out that though the Germans 'won' on a tally ships lost and casualties inflicted, the plain fact is that while German ships such as the Seydlitz went in for repairs the British simply deployed other ships that more than made up the difference...

The strategic balance remained unchanged on a fleet v fleet basis.

Bernard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've not got it to hand but Robert K Massie in his magisterial 'Castles of Steel' points out that though the Germans 'won' on a tally ships lost and casualties inflicted, the plain fact is that while German ships such as the Seydlitz went in for repairs the British simply deployed other ships that more than made up the difference...

The strategic balance remained unchanged on a fleet v fleet basis.

Bernard

In that it was balanced heavily in favour of the British nothing did change. However, look at the fleet details in 1918 to see how many new ships the British added and compare that to how many the Germans added. In my previous post I forgot to include Queen Elizabeth as one of the ships to join the GF very soon after Jutland. This means the RN lost 3 battlecruisers and 3 armoured cruisers at Jutland (the 'I's were really AC's also but lets not worry on that too much) but have 3 battleships and one battlecruiser ready almost instantly and then Repulse and Renown too, whilst the Germans lost one BC but have Prinzregent Luitpold, Baden, Bayern, and Hindenburg as the only additions for the rest of the war. The British have the other two Royal Sovereigns and also the US ships too when needing to look at what else needs counting, not to mention all the far better cruisers of the C and D classes.

Jutland was probably far too late to alter things in the favour of the Germans, but even a result where little went right for the RN did not give a result that led Scheer to have any hope in altering the balance ever by further attempts. Massie, Marder, Campbell etc all conclude that the result of Jutland was to leave the RN in control of the seas and the HSF seeking other methods to attempt to resolve their problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(the 'I's were really AC's also but lets not worry on that too much)

Although I agree with practically everything else you've said, you ain't gettin' away with that ! :D

There were some elements of design copied from the ACs, but the ships were originally specifically designed to outclass ACs in both speed and armament, and the running-down of von Spee's squadron by two 'I's was held up as an exact justification of their construction.

Blucher was designed as a counter to these ships before the Germans knew the actual details of their capabilities - she actually looked much more like a German BC than an AC - and she proved both too slow and too lightly-armed to either escape or fight at Dogger Bank, and offhand I think she was probably the largest AC ever built.

Regards,

MikB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although I agree with practically everything else you've said, you ain't gettin' away with that ! :D

There were some elements of design copied from the ACs, but the ships were originally specifically designed to outclass ACs in both speed and armament, and the running-down of von Spee's squadron by two 'I's was held up as an exact justification of their construction.

Blucher was designed as a counter to these ships before the Germans knew the actual details of their capabilities - she actually looked much more like a German BC than an AC - and she proved both too slow and too lightly-armed to either escape or fight at Dogger Bank, and offhand I think she was probably the largest AC ever built.

Regards,

MikB

The 'I' were designed as the next generation of AC's, indeed they were first called 'Dreadnought Armoured Cruisers' which was obviously a rather long term, and this continued until the advent of the Lion class (and Admiralty order in 1911) when the term 'Battlecruiser' was first officially applied to ships in the 20thC - the 'Powerful' class had also been called this decades earlier. They were certainly designed to outclass all previous AC's but then so were the Minotaur class AC's, and the role didnt really alter as the original role of the AC was to be part of the battle line in need and to run down lighter enemy units that threatened trade. Some have suggested that the battlecruisers really began when the ships surpassed the battleships in tonnage (Lion vs Orion) and that is probably the clearest defining point for a specifically new type of ship. To be fair the Invincible class were probably as obsolete as the Dreadnought by the time of Jutland and it was only their speed that kept them with the main fleet.

Blucher was a very odd ship, a real hybrid, not at all helped by the British adopting the 12" gun rather than the 9.2". That was one of the lessons from Tsushima and one the Germans really should have learned faster as even their tests had already shown larger guns were more accurate at longer ranges as well as most naval staff thinking that future battles would be fought at higher ranges.

Regards

Terry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 'I' were designed as the next generation of AC's, indeed they were first called 'Dreadnought Armoured Cruisers' which was obviously a rather long term, and this continued until the advent of the Lion class (and Admiralty order in 1911) when the term 'Battlecruiser' was first officially applied to ships in the 20thC - the 'Powerful' class had also been called this decades earlier. They were certainly designed to outclass all previous AC's but then so were the Minotaur class AC's, and the role didnt really alter as the original role of the AC was to be part of the battle line in need and to run down lighter enemy units that threatened trade. Some have suggested that the battlecruisers really began when the ships surpassed the battleships in tonnage (Lion vs Orion) and that is probably the clearest defining point for a specifically new type of ship. To be fair the Invincible class were probably as obsolete as the Dreadnought by the time of Jutland and it was only their speed that kept them with the main fleet.

Blucher was a very odd ship, a real hybrid, not at all helped by the British adopting the 12" gun rather than the 9.2". That was one of the lessons from Tsushima and one the Germans really should have learned faster as even their tests had already shown larger guns were more accurate at longer ranges as well as most naval staff thinking that future battles would be fought at higher ranges.

Regards

Terry

Well, the commonly accepted definition of a Battle Cruiser is a fast ship with Battleship-calibre main armament, and in that respect the 'I's were definitely outside the class of Armoured Cruisers.

There's often some question about what to call a new category of warship when it appears - witness the 'Through-Deck Cruisers' of the late 1970s which most would regard as a type of Aircraft Carrier and which usually exceeded any kind of Cruiser except Battle Cruisers in tonnage.

The 'I's normally operated as part of Battle Cruiser formations along with the later classes. Certainly by the time of Jutland the distinction of the type was clear, and the 'I' were in it.

Regards,

MikB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you Mik in that they were called battlecruisers by the time of Jutland and were used like them, but their purpose when built was very different to that of the Lion class which had progressed beyond hunting down enemy cruisers to specifically dealing with the enemy battlecruisers that had emerged since Invincible. The Invincibles are overgrown cruisers with battleship guns, but with cruiser protection and speed, the Lions are more closely battleships with slightly reduced protection, one less turret, and greatly enhanced speed courtesy of the several thousand ton advantage over the Orions - the original designs were far better, effectively being Orions retaining all turrets but with a far greater speed, but turned down on grounds of costs like so many other good ideas.

Entire books have been written about the battlecruisers and the popular impression is that all the ships from Invincible were of that type, but they overlook that the type and their mission had become very different by WWI from what was intended at the time they were built. At Jutland there were really only two significant losses - other than the appalling loss of lives - Lutzow and Queen Mary, the rest were pretty much obsolescent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Entire books have been written about the battlecruisers and the popular impression is that all the ships from Invincible were of that type, but they overlook that the type and their mission had become very different by WWI from what was intended at the time they were built. At Jutland there were really only two significant losses - other than the appalling loss of lives - Lutzow and Queen Mary, the rest were pretty much obsolescent.

And the fatal damage to Lutzow was probably inflicted by 8 hits from Invincible. Armoured Cruiser? Oh, please. :D

Regards,

MikB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the fatal damage to Lutzow was probably inflicted by 8 hits from Invincible. Armoured Cruiser? Oh, please. :D

Regards,

MikB

The fatal damage to Lutzow was from five hits from Invincible (No's 12,13,14,15,16) in conjunction with damage from two earlier hits from Princess Royal (No's 3,4) but either way the fatal damage arose from 12" and 13.5" projectiles, not from a ship type, not to mention that the range favoured Invincible. Presumably the 15" guns on the battlecruisers Repulse and Renown would have been more effective than the 15" guns on the Large Light Cruisers Courageous and Glorious? You cannot define a ship purely by the guns she carries.

Cheers

Terry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the fatal damage to Lutzow was probably inflicted by 8 hits from Invincible. Armoured Cruiser? Oh, please. :D

Regards,

MikB

I know what ifs don't count for much but I believe that the Falkland Island Battle may have had a different outcome if Von Spee had chosen to turn and cross the T of Sturdee's ships. The German very accurate 8.1 inch guns could have caused a lot of damage when fired in broadsides. The Battle Cruisers were only marginally better protected than the WW2 ship named in honour of the German Admiral and she (Graf Spee) was seriously damaged by 8 & 6 inch shell from Harwood's squadron off the River Plate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fatal damage to Lutzow was from five hits from Invincible (No's 12,13,14,15,16) in conjunction with damage from two earlier hits from Princess Royal (No's 3,4) but either way the fatal damage arose from 12" and 13.5" projectiles, not from a ship type, not to mention that the range favoured Invincible. Presumably the 15" guns on the battlecruisers Repulse and Renown would have been more effective than the 15" guns on the Large Light Cruisers Courageous and Glorious? You cannot define a ship purely by the guns she carries.

Cheers

Terry

Bringing Curious and Spurious into the argument ain't never gonna work as evidence that the 'I's were ACs !

The nicknames they were given is evidence enough that - despite the stillborn plan they were intended to facilitate - nobody really knew what on earth they were.

Regards,

MikB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mik

I only mentioned them because they offer a suitable comparison to obvious battlecruisers armed with the same guns. When you noted the fatal damage to Lutzow you seemed to be indicating that such damage could only really be put down to them being battlecruisers rather than armoured cruisers with 12" guns. I am simply illustrating very different types of ships can carry very similar guns.

As to what Courageous and Glorious were intended for, the key is in the government prohibiting further capital ship production early in the war. Even after Repulse and Renown were authorised there were spare 15" mountings and as the ban only applied to capital ships the best way to get these mounts to sea was to put them on an overgrown cruiser hull. The Baltic Plan aspect or shallow water requirement was less specific about quite how they were to be used, really they were ships looking for a plan to be used in, but at least they got the guns to sea.

Cheers

Terry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mik

I only mentioned them because they offer a suitable comparison to obvious battlecruisers armed with the same guns. When you noted the fatal damage to Lutzow you seemed to be indicating that such damage could only really be put down to them being battlecruisers rather than armoured cruisers with 12" guns. I am simply illustrating very different types of ships can carry very similar guns.

As to what Courageous and Glorious were intended for, the key is in the government prohibiting further capital ship production early in the war. Even after Repulse and Renown were authorised there were spare 15" mountings and as the ban only applied to capital ships the best way to get these mounts to sea was to put them on an overgrown cruiser hull. The Baltic Plan aspect or shallow water requirement was less specific about quite how they were to be used, really they were ships looking for a plan to be used in, but at least they got the guns to sea.

Cheers

Terry

This just gets more bizarre. Most writers say that, far from the LLCs being a way to consume surplus 15", the Renown class only got six guns because there weren't enough in the pipeline.

Describing the 'I's as ACs that just happened to have 8 heavy calibre guns is not the way most people I've ever read or spoken to would put it.

They may've been initially publically described as large armoured cruisers, but this was intended (i) to facilitate development from existing designs and (ii) to mislead rival nations in much the same way as the early tanks were so described.

Initially, it worked, and Blucher was the reply.

To say that ACs is what the 'I's actually were is like asserting that water-reservoirs is what the early tanks actually were.

I don't want to continue this particular debate.

Regards,

MikB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually MikB, to say that Blucher was the reply is just as bizarre as what Terry is saying about Invincible being and armored cruiser. Blucher was just a further development of Scharnhorst with two funnels instead of four. Prinz Adalbert and Yorck had a broadside of 4x8.2 inch, this increased to 6x8.2 inch with Scharnhorst and then 8x8.2 inch with Blucher. Blücher was never designed as a "reply".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...