MikB Posted 26 June , 2013 Share Posted 26 June , 2013 I dont know if Sheer was aware of the lack of nightfighting ability in the GF, if he did he missed a great opportunity to develope a pell mell night action between individual or small numbers of ships were he would have the advantage in tactics, training and better night fighting capabilities of the german ships. Perhaps the tenacity of the British Destroyer Flottilas gave him the impression that the GF new how to fight at night. Good post IMO. Those units of Scheer's fleet still in fighting condition certainly did find they had an advantage. Off the top of my head I think Westfalen savaged several destroyers and maybe other ships as she broke through the tail of the British line to maintain course for home. Scheer can't have had a very detailed picture of the state of his ships, other than the clear knowledge that many of Hipper's BCs were heavily damaged and probably unable to fight opponents of similar size - Seydlitz being a case in point that presented more than one chance for British capital ships to finish her off. The need to maintain signals security prevented free communication on Scheer's side at least as much as it did on Jellicoe's, so coordination of offensive night action would have been doubly difficult. I think Scheer's insistence on holding course was probably the best he could reasonably do in the circumstances. Regards, MikB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiegeGunner Posted 26 June , 2013 Share Posted 26 June , 2013 Tyrwhitt took the Harwich Force to sea on his own initiative and might well have been able to get in behind the HSF, or attack it in the flank as it headed for home, but he was ordered to return to port. An opportunity missed, or a massacre averted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ATM Posted 26 June , 2013 Share Posted 26 June , 2013 One thing to remember is that the tenacity of the light forces in the night action applied only to a limited number of ships. As was earlier mentioned the Southampton engaged when others didn't. When the British light forces they did engage they put up a good fight, it is just a pity that not all ships did so. MikB, you are right about the Westfalen, it contributed to a chunk of the destroyer losses at Jutland, about 3 or 4 if I remember. The Germans had an advantage no doubt in the searchlights and in a night action they would have pummelled the British dreadnoughts. However I think in a full scale night melee the British light forces would have all engaged and the Germans savaged as well. I can imagine it would have got very confused and very messy. The German battle cruisers would have certainly been sent to the bottom. It also poses the question as siege gunner brought up, would the Harwich force been invaluable if it had linked up with the GF, especially in a night action. I wouldn't say what ifs are pointless as if we didn't what if we wouldn't be able to evaluate the British and German performances without what might have been. Just need to make sure that we don't get into the realms of fantasy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill24chev Posted 27 June , 2013 Share Posted 27 June , 2013 MikB I appreciate that once darkness fell it was probably impossible for Sheer to co-ordinatea a night action. However if the Germans did have the intelligence about RN nightfighting capabilities operational orders and procedures could have incorporated some orders for a fleet night action by individual ships. Sieg gunner mentions the Harwich force and it would have possibly been able to contribute but as Iunderstand it the Admiralty signal ordering Thwyriytt back to port mentioned that they may be needed to relieve GF light forces the next day on the assumption that battle would contionue on the 1st June. bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikB Posted 27 June , 2013 Share Posted 27 June , 2013 MikB I appreciate that once darkness fell it was probably impossible for Sheer to co-ordinatea a night action. However if the Germans did have the intelligence about RN nightfighting capabilities operational orders and procedures could have incorporated some orders for a fleet night action by individual ships. "A fleet night action by individual ships" ? Hmmm... The issue there would be how to pass command down to small battlegroups, when he couldn't easily know which ships still had some fight left in 'em. There'd have to be some pre-planning for such an eventuality, which was a long way from German expectations at the outset - it would've had to be somewhere around Plan F or beyond in relation to those. As so often happens in human projects and especially battles, the outcome was hugely different from what either side expected. Jellicoe thought he had the HSF contained away from its base and he and all his subordinates behaved as if this were true and they could finish the job in the morning. The HSF certainly showed greater adaptiveness to the circumstances as they developed, but were also enormously fortunate in that British unwillingness to fire on known, damaged, enemy heavy ships allowed so many to escape. Trying to second-guess all the possible threads in such a garden of forking paths would have given individual commanders a cats-cradle of priorities to try to sort out on darkened ships in radio silence. I think the outcome for the HSF was exceptional, and the reasons were as much to do with factors they couldn't calculate (effectively luck) as with their undoubted greater flexibility compared with the GF during the hours of darkness. Regards, MikB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ATM Posted 27 June , 2013 Share Posted 27 June , 2013 Just browsing the wiki article on 3rd Battle Squadron. It claims that the reason that the Harwich force was recalled was due to it being needed to escort the 3rd Battle Squadron + Dreadnought that was based in the Thames. Did the 3rd BS put to sea at all that day? I have never heard of it. The Harwich force and the 3rd BS combined would have been a very valuable reinforcement to the GF. Going back to the night action there was indeed a great amount of luck. The Seydlitz was almost begging to be sank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiegeGunner Posted 28 June , 2013 Share Posted 28 June , 2013 Dreadnought herself was refitting and I don't think there was ever any intention to deploy the 3rd BS's pre-dreadnoughts, so their need for destroyer escorts seems something of a red herring. From memory, Tyrwhitt acted on the assumption that orders for the Harwich Force to put to sea had either been overlooked or had failed to get through, and therefore took the flotilla out on his own initiative. Unfortunately, my memory does not extend to remembering who recalled him and why. Perhaps someone could remind me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melliget Posted 29 June , 2013 Share Posted 29 June , 2013 I just noticed the article below in passing and thought it might be of interest. It's from The Argus (Melbourne), 9 Apr 1921. The book referred to is available in both English and German via Open Library. KIEL AND JUTLAND by Commander Georg von Hase (First Gunnery Officer of the "Derfflinger") English version: http://www.archive.o...age/n7/mode/2up German version (Die zwei weissen völker! / The Two White Nations!): http://www.archive.o...age/n5/mode/2up Martin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikB Posted 29 June , 2013 Share Posted 29 June , 2013 Excellent material, Martin - thanks very much for posting ! Regards, MikB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wingerdave Posted 30 June , 2013 Share Posted 30 June , 2013 Where was Revenge during all this? There seems to be mention of almost all the other ships !!!! Just that that was the ship my grandfather was serving on (since the sea trails) Dave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikB Posted 30 June , 2013 Share Posted 30 June , 2013 Where was Revenge during all this? There seems to be mention of almost all the other ships !!!! Just that that was the ship my grandfather was serving on (since the sea trails) Dave. Acting as flagship of Vice Admiral Burney of 1st Battle Squadron, after Marlborough took a torpedo and had to slow down. Fired on Derfflinger during the fleet action - don't know the result offhand, but Revenge had no damage or casualties. One of Revenge's turret training rings is still serving on board the Jodrell Bank radio telescope! Regards, MikB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wingerdave Posted 30 June , 2013 Share Posted 30 June , 2013 Acting as flagship of Vice Admiral Burney of 1st Battle Squadron, after Marlborough took a torpedo and had to slow down. Fired on Derfflinger during the fleet action - don't know the result offhand, but Revenge had no damage or casualties. One of Revenge's turret training rings is still serving on board the Jodrell Bank radio telescope! Regards, MikB Thanks mate, Useful information about Jodrell Bank !!! Dave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melliget Posted 1 July , 2013 Share Posted 1 July , 2013 Where was Revenge during all this? Dave. You can find mentions of Revenge in the Admiralty's Battle of Jutland Official Despatches: http://www.archive.o...age/n5/mode/2up See Captain's Report HMS Revenge, p.83 http://www.archive.o...age/82/mode/2up She appears to have done very well to avoid a torpedo attack: 7.35 p.m. - "Revenge" altered course to port to avoid two torpedoes. One passed about 10 yards ahead and one about 20 yards astern. Would have liked to have been a fly on the wall when Captain Kiddle handled that manoeuvre! Try the "Search inside" option at the top (it takes a minute or two). Plenty of mentions of Revenge. regards, Martin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seaJane Posted 1 July , 2013 Share Posted 1 July , 2013 Thanks for that link Martin. Have been reading up on BARHAM lately - she certainly took a battering (see p.570). sJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Sapper Posted 3 July , 2013 Share Posted 3 July , 2013 Catching this thread in passing made me go look at my The Great war Magazine Volume 7 - where there are at least 4 Chapters on the 'Glorious Battle of Jutland Bank'. Not my research scene but still very interesting for n old 'craphat'. http://search.ancestry.co.uk/Browse/BookView.aspx?dbid=34980&iid=00003547 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnboy Posted 4 July , 2013 Share Posted 4 July , 2013 I have ben reading The First World War by Hew Strachan. It is more about the politics, command and economics. There are a few pages about Jutland.The author states that British Intelligence had the German Fleet code books but only passed on some of the info to Jellicoe. He reckons Jellicoe and Sheer both had a self preservation attitude. He also blames the bad weather conditions. The Battle engaged 100,00 men in 250 ships and lasted 72 hrs. The royal Navy lost 14 ships and had 6784 casualties. The German Fleet lost 11 ships and had 3058 casualties. 10 of Sheers ships suffered heavy damage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wendus Posted 7 August , 2013 Share Posted 7 August , 2013 I'm sorry to show my total ignorance of all things naval, but I wonder if someone could help me please. I'm helping a friend with her family history, and she said that her grandfather served on HMS Hood and was at the Battle of Jutland, where he received injuries following a bomb blast. I managed to find mention of the grandfather's service record, but HMS Hood isn't listed anywhere on it, and it seems he was on a vessel called Wallington from 6th November 1915 to 14th July 1916, this wouldn't have been at Jutland would it? It would appear that grandfather might have been telling porkies, but could someone please confirm my suspicions before I go ahead and break the news to my friend. Very many thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Saunders Posted 7 August , 2013 Share Posted 7 August , 2013 Hi - HMS Wallington was a trawler/converted boom vessel. She wasn't at Jutland. HMS Hood was a post-war battlecruiser. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnboy Posted 7 August , 2013 Share Posted 7 August , 2013 The history of The Hood is given here http://www.warship.org/no21987.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keithmroberts Posted 7 August , 2013 Share Posted 7 August , 2013 As Jonathan pointed out HMS Hood is post war. She was commissioned in 1920. A quick Google will give you her history. Keith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bart150 Posted 8 August , 2013 Share Posted 8 August , 2013 I'm not sure that HMS Wallington was necessarily a vessel. Warlow's reference book, which is not ideally clear unfortunately, seems to say that HMS Wallington was the auxiliary patrol base at Immingham. There was an earlier HMS Hood in the first few months of the war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Saunders Posted 8 August , 2013 Share Posted 8 August , 2013 I'm not sure that HMS Wallington was necessarily a vessel. Warlow's reference book, which is not ideally clear unfortunately, seems to say that HMS Wallington was the auxiliary patrol base at Immingham. There was an earlier HMS Hood in the first few months of the war. I think the stone frigate was from sometime in 1917 and after the period Wendus gave, but more than happy to be corrected. Regards, Jonathan S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Mills Posted 8 August , 2013 Share Posted 8 August , 2013 As Jonathan pointed out HMS Hood is post war. She was commissioned in 1920. A quick Google will give you her history. Keith Isn't there also an HMS Hood off Portland? I think she was sunk as a blockship in 1914 and is now off-limits to divers because she is now considered unsafe... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikB Posted 8 August , 2013 Share Posted 8 August , 2013 Isn't there also an HMS Hood off Portland? I think she was sunk as a blockship in 1914 and is now off-limits to divers because she is now considered unsafe... Yes, turned turtle on the bottom of one of the entrances to Portsmouth harbour to stop U-boats getting in late in 1914 - one of the old long-pre-dreadnought 'Royal Sovereign' class with side-by-side funnels, 1893 IIRC. Regards, MikB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Saunders Posted 8 August , 2013 Share Posted 8 August , 2013 I think if someone made the comment "I served on HMS Hood", then they only mean one ship, or they were being deliberately misleading. Regards, Jonathan S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now