StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I have seen several arguments on the net that the German performance at Jutland in terms of gunnery was notably bur not massively superior to British gunnery and that German Battleships and Battlecruisers were more survivable and harder to put out of action. Also brought up is British Command bungling up a bit more than the HSF.

The occasional conclusion is that had it been fought to the death, the outcome would have been fairly close, possibly even favoring the HSF.


So here is my question. What if Jutland is fought to the near death, and afterwards, 2 German Battleships and 1 German Battlecruiser sail for home while 3 British Battleships and zero Battlecruisers sail for home.

However, the HSF only has one BC and one Battleship actually make it to port while the British have two of its Battleships make it to port. But one of them is a total write off. The Germans on the otherhand, can have the surviving Battlecruiser sea worthy in two months and fully battle ready in three. The Battleship will not be sea ready for four months but do to the way it was damaged, it will also be battleready by that time.

So four-five months after Jutland, Germany has numerical parity with Britain or superiority in terms of capital ships.

Assume similar brutal casualties among the lesser classes.


You can use different numbers, like 4 to 5 either way makes it to port and isnt written off etc.

The essential point is, that 90-95% of both fleets participating have been annhilated to the point of Germans being within single digits of British numbers, slightly exceeding in one or two cases.

What is the political and strategic fallout of this?

What would be the fallout of a tactical houdini where the HSF outnumbers the surviving Grand Fleet and would continue doing so for the next six months and be fully repaired by that time?


It just came accross my mind as the exact moment where Germany might have had a chance at a strategic coup vie superior battle tactics aside from all other factors.

How would it be possible to force either fleet to fight in a disadvantagous situation? The Germans at least have something to gain; the British can only lose an advantage they already had.

Maybe the fleets will pair off like in football and slug each other to death like in a war game?

Dominarch's Hope wrote:I have seen several arguments on the net that the German performance at Jutland in terms of gunnery was notably bur not massively superior to British gunnery and that German Battleships and Battlecruisers were more survivable and harder to put out of action. Also brought up is British Command bungling up a bit more than the HSF.

The occasional conclusion is that had it been fought to the death, the outcome would have been fairly close, possibly even favoring the HSF.

This conclusion is bereft of any reality. I take the word of Admirals Scheer and Hipper over any theory which claims this. The fact is that the Hochseeflotte escaped destruction by a very slim margin. It had almost no ammo left and a lot of damaged vessels which struggled to make Wilhelmshafen. Had it not been for good damage control teams and a sturdy construction Jutland might very well ended up with having equal numbers of ships lost.

A much better point to consider would be what would have happened had Beatty (who had operated detached for some point during the war) blundered into the HSF. Which did happen nearly twice during the war. Even so, a total wipe of Beatty's forces would merely have evened the odds, not give the HSF an outright advantage.

Dominarch's Hope wrote:What is the political and strategic fallout of this?

Politically, heads roll in the British admiralty.

Strategically, Britain just continues with the distant blockade which the High Seas Fleet cant do anything to stop. Britain also has dreadnoughts and pre-dreadnoughts that were not involved in Jutland, such as HMS Dreadnought and HMS Queen Elizabeth, and the ability to make more ships quicker than the Germans. Ships like the Admiral-class have also started construction, several Revenge and Renown class ships will also be finished within at most a year.

Thanas wrote:

Dominarch's Hope wrote:I have seen several arguments on the net that the German performance at Jutland in terms of gunnery was notably bur not massively superior to British gunnery and that German Battleships and Battlecruisers were more survivable and harder to put out of action. Also brought up is British Command bungling up a bit more than the HSF.

The occasional conclusion is that had it been fought to the death, the outcome would have been fairly close, possibly even favoring the HSF.

This conclusion is bereft of any reality. I take the word of Admirals Scheer and Hipper over any theory which claims this. The fact is that the Hochseeflotte escaped destruction by a very slim margin. It had almost no ammo left and a lot of damaged vessels which struggled to make Wilhelmshafen. Had it not been for good damage control teams and a sturdy construction Jutland might very well ended up with having equal numbers of ships lost.

Indeed. As Scheer stated in his official report (not even unofficial memiors) "we must not do this again, they will destroy us." My understanding is that the German fleet essentially got lucky in that Beatty's battlecruiser fleet was very lax in gunnery training and so took disproportionate losses. When the Grand Fleet turned up along with the 3rd Battlecruiser Squadron, the marksmanship increased substantially.

Also, despite all the criticism levelled at Jellicoe afterwards, Scheer made some cock ups too. He ordered his entire battle fleet to turn back under the enemy's guns and sent his battlecruisers charging at the British line in a sacrificial attack in order to rescue the crew of one light cruiser. That right there could have gotten the HSF wiped out.

Eternal_Freedom wrote:Indeed. As Scheer stated in his official report (not even unofficial memiors) "we must not do this again, they will destroy us." My understanding is that the German fleet essentially got lucky in that Beatty's battlecruiser fleet was very lax in gunnery training and so took disproportionate losses.

No, they took disproportionate losses due to crappy design and bad magazine handling.

Also, despite all the criticism levelled at Jellicoe afterwards, Scheer made some cock ups too. He ordered his entire battle fleet to turn back under the enemy's guns and sent his battlecruisers charging at the British line in a sacrificial attack in order to rescue the crew of one light cruiser.

That is false. Scheer sent his battlecruisers on the attack to buy time for his dreadnoughts to escape. It worked.

Sorry, I should have phrased that better. Instead of "took dissproportionate losses" I should have said "failed to inflict comparable losses." Which was down to shit gunnery.

As for the battlecruiser sacrifice, hmm, did he not also turn his battle squadrons towards the British line? I could swear he did. If he didn't then ok, kudos to him for making the hard choice and kudos to Hipper for going along with it.

Eternal_Freedom wrote:Sorry, I should have phrased that better. Instead of "took dissproportionate losses" I should have said "failed to inflict comparable losses." Which was down to shit gunnery.

Not at all - the battlecruiser fleet and 5th BS both hit the German battlecruisers hard. Luzow later sank as a result of that damage (she wasn't involved in the death ride). The problem was that after Seydlitz was nearly lost at Dogger Bank, the Germans refitted their ships and instituted much handling procedures in the magazines, which protected them from the magazine flashes that destroyed QM, Indy and Invincible and nearly destroyed Lion and Malaya.

As for the battlecruiser sacrifice, hmm, did he not also turn his battle squadrons towards the British line?

No. The battlecruisers charged the Grand Fleet's line specifically to draw their fire and cover the battleships as they executed the battle turn (which was far more difficult than the first had been - FdG had to make her turn to port, rather than to starboard, to make room).

Captain Seafort wrote:

Eternal_Freedom wrote:Sorry, I should have phrased that better. Instead of "took dissproportionate losses" I should have said "failed to inflict comparable losses." Which was down to shit gunnery.

Not at all - the battlecruiser fleet and 5th BS both hit the German battlecruisers hard. Luzow later sank as a result of that damage (she wasn't involved in the death ride). The problem was that after Seydlitz was nearly lost at Dogger Bank, the Germans refitted their ships and instituted much handling procedures in the magazines, which protected them from the magazine flashes that destroyed QM, Indy and Invincible and nearly destroyed Lion and Malaya.

Exactly, one sunk rather than the three blown up. Although I have plenty of respect for the sturdyness of German battlecruisers.

As for the battlecruiser sacrifice, hmm, did he not also turn his battle squadrons towards the British line?

No. The battlecruisers charged the Grand Fleet's line specifically to draw their fire and cover the battleships as they executed the battle turn (which was far more difficult than the first had been - FdG had to make her turn to port, rather than to starboard, to make room).

Oh yes. That's where my confusion came from. Conceded then.

Eternal_Freedom wrote:Exactly, one sunk rather than the three blown up. Although I have plenty of respect for the sturdyness of German battlecruisers.

My point was that the difference was due to design and handling procedures rather than gunnery.

Thanas wrote:

Dominarch's Hope wrote:I have seen several arguments on the net that the German performance at Jutland in terms of gunnery was notably bur not massively superior to British gunnery and that German Battleships and Battlecruisers were more survivable and harder to put out of action. Also brought up is British Command bungling up a bit more than the HSF.

The occasional conclusion is that had it been fought to the death, the outcome would have been fairly close, possibly even favoring the HSF.

This conclusion is bereft of any reality. I take the word of Admirals Scheer and Hipper over any theory which claims this. The fact is that the Hochseeflotte escaped destruction by a very slim margin. It had almost no ammo left and a lot of damaged vessels which struggled to make Wilhelmshafen. Had it not been for good damage control teams and a sturdy construction Jutland might very well ended up with having equal numbers of ships lost.

A much better point to consider would be what would have happened had Beatty (who had operated detached for some point during the war) blundered into the HSF. Which did happen nearly twice during the war. Even so, a total wipe of Beatty's forces would merely have evened the odds, not give the HSF an outright advantage.

As to the bold, didnt know that. I do know that A severely disproportionate amount of hits upon the German ships oocured when they were sailing into the British Fleet.

atg wrote:

Dominarch's Hope wrote:What is the political and strategic fallout of this?

Politically, heads roll in the British admiralty.

Strategically, Britain just continues with the distant blockade which the High Seas Fleet cant do anything to stop. Britain also has dreadnoughts and pre-dreadnoughts that were not involved in Jutland, such as HMS Dreadnought and HMS Queen Elizabeth, and the ability to make more ships quicker than the Germans. Ships like the Admiral-class have also started construction, several Revenge and Renown class ships will also be finished within at most a year.

Ah, so evening the odds or coming out relatively even simply makes the numbers lower, but doesnt change the strategic situation in regards to Capital ship numbers enough to matter. Ok.


As to the battle ending up so badly, that isnt the main question I am asking, it just ties into it. The British Battlecruisers being made of explodium and being under Beatty's command is just another issue. Assume that Sheer performs a more successful death ride straight through the British Line and putting himself between the the North Sea and the British Fleet, forcing a showdown. Or something.

And the fact that they escaped the historical battle when the British had more ships and faster ships is the best example of Scheer's skill.

To Im guessing that in order for the strategic situation to be really threatened, the Germans would have to come away with 4-5 more ships floating with both of the entire fleets in need of dire repair, with some British ships being essentially scrap or not even making it home, skewing the odds further.

As to the OP, what about international fallout and American opinion? French morale?

Captain Seafort wrote:

Eternal_Freedom wrote:Exactly, one sunk rather than the three blown up. Although I have plenty of respect for the sturdyness of German battlecruisers.

My point was that the difference was due to design and handling procedures rather than gunnery.

A lower hit rate on the British ships would probably have meant fewer magazine explosions, though; you can't score a 'critical hit' on a target you can't hit in the first place. So... combination of factors- if German gunnery had been worse, the British ships' fragility would not have mattered.

Dominarch's Hope wrote:Ah, so evening the odds or coming out relatively even simply makes the numbers lower, but doesnt change the strategic situation in regards to Capital ship numbers enough to matter. Ok.

If anything it makes it worse. At the time of Jutland, the British had 32 dreadnoughts, 10 battlecruisers, and 33 pre-dreadnought battleships (all at least ten and some as much as 25 years old, but still).

The Germans, meanwhile, had 17 dreadnoughts, 5 battlecruisers, and 24 pre-dreadnoughts (of similar ages).

Having a large chunk of the two fleets commit murder-suicide isn't going to help. For example, the British have 32 dreadnoughts to the Germans' 17. If the British lose half their fleet, and the Germans manage to lose ONLY 3 ships for every four British losses, then the British will now have 16 dreadnoughts while the Germans have five.

That's right, even with a favorable casualty ratio, the Hochseeflotte still goes from being outnumbered 2:1 to being outnumbered 3:1. In battlecruisers they are now outnumbered 5:2 or 5:1 (from 2:1). In pre-dreadoughts, the ratio is totally unchanged, since they were outnumbered 4:3 in the first place.


Note that this makes an interesting point about the Anglo-German arms race- once the British started all-out construction in the dreadnought era, they were winning by a very large margin. It is sometimes argued that the dreadnought revolution was bad for Britain because it made their pre-dreadnought fleet obsolete. I would argue the opposite: it allowed the British to 'surge' enough new construction of totally new ships to outclass any older fleet, no matter what the older fleet was armed with.

And the fact that they escaped the historical battle when the British had more ships and faster ships is the best example of Scheer's skill.

There's more to it than that. Look at the strategic situation. Look at the British commander, Jellicoe.

Jellicoe knew that the situation was totally in Britain's favor. And that a fleet action between the full German surface fleet and the full British fleet would result in Scheer getting his ass kicked. When he sailed to Jutland, he had to be thinking: "This is bloody stupid, the Germans have to know they'll get their asses kicked if they pit their 17 modern battleships against my 32. There's got to be a catch."

What might that catch be? Perhaps the Germans had a secret weapon, some kind of super-armor-piercing shell or incredibly accurate rangefinder that really WOULD let them sink 2 or 3 British dreadnoughts for every loss of their own. Perhaps the Germans were plotting an ambush, planning to lure the whole British line of battle into a nighttime ambush with submarines or destroyers, to shoot Jellicoe's ships full of torpedoes.

After Beatty got the measure of the German surface ships' strength, Jellicoe could be sure the Germans had no secret weapon on their battleships, if he'd ever wondered about that in the first place. But there was still the question of torpedoes and ambush. And Jellicoe was right to worry about that- but it also meant he'd be foolish to chase the Germans all the way back to the Heligoland Bight, literally walking his ships right into torpedo alley.

So Scheer's position gave him a natural advantage in breaking off the fight, because his enemy was (logically) worried about an ambush or trick, because (logically) no one would be daft enough to do what Scheer had done WITHOUT having an ambush planned.

To Im guessing that in order for the strategic situation to be really threatened, the Germans would have to come away with 4-5 more ships floating with both of the entire fleets in need of dire repair, with some British ships being essentially scrap or not even making it home, skewing the odds further.

Nope. See my calculation above- the Germans can sink 20 British ships to 13 or 14 of their own and still lose.

Simon_Jester wrote:A lower hit rate on the British ships would probably have meant fewer magazine explosions, though; you can't score a 'critical hit' on a target you can't hit in the first place. So... combination of factors- if German gunnery had been worse, the British ships' fragility would not have mattered.

All it takes is one lucky hit. QM was only hit five times, whereas Tiger was hit 18 times. Tiger survived, QM didn't. If it hadn't been for the changes after Dogger Bank QM might have destroyed Seydlitz with one of her first two hits - it started exactly the type of turret fire that was responsible for the British battleruiser losses.

In pre-dreadoughts, the ratio is totally unchanged, since they were outnumbered 4:3 in the first place.

Unlikely. In the event of heavy losses to the HSF, the predreadnoughts in the fleet would probably have suffered badly - one of them was lost at Jutland to a single torpedo hit in the night action. The RN, in contrast, didn't have a single predreadnought present.

That last sentence didnt actually answer the statement. You suppose that if British Gunnery were better, they would have been ok.

But in reality, Germany gunnery was superior and their ships tougher. They were getting hits on target quicker than the British and there ships kept firing for longer even after getting hit. What this means is that the number of British ships to fire at will decrease at a faster rate than than German ships. The more this happens, the more focused German gunnery is on fewer targets. But the British numbers mean that atleast at first and for the rest of the battle, they can fire at every German ship and most of them twice over.


47 vs 75. Breaking it down, we have to consider that German Battlecruiser survivability was on par Dreadnoughts and if anything, German Dreadnoughts were simply even tougher. The Guns were essentially equal in damage out put per ship with superior German shells making up for the slight size difference.

17 vs 32 Dreadies. Essentially equal armament. Possible durability towards the German side.

5 vs 10 Battlecruisers. Again, comparable armament. Severe survivability advantage to the German side. Gunnery also favoring the German side. The British Battlecruisers can be nearly written off, due to the fact that they can easily explode to just a handful of solid hits while the German BCs can take a fairly brutal pounding and keep returning fire. And the Germans would be getting hits in sooner. In an exclusive BC fight, its easily possible for the British to outright lose 2 ships before a single German ship is unable to fire back, possibly three. But the British suffer worse due to loss of fire saturation. It could easily go 10-5 9-5 8-4 7-4 6-4 5-3 4-3 3-2.5 2-2. Then the British BCs get murdered.

In fact, considering German BC durability, count them as Dreadies.

Although a possible factor is that as British fire saturation dwindles, they can more easily see where there shells are landing.

My suggestion is that the British lose out 2 to 1 for German ships sunk until it gets into the low teens which brings to German favor.

My main fascination is that this is the one moment in 20th century where tactical advantage could have equaled strategic advantage. Had just a little more gone Scheer's way and the British Fleet was illuminated and the sun in their eyes or he catches Beatty by surprise or some of the earlier actions end up with full confrontations and gone heavily in German favor. Or the German Fleet and British Fleet dont catch sight of each other until Scheer has ended up with a t-crossed upon a major British Battleline, by chance or stroke of genius.

So what WOULD the international fall out be, immediate and possible long term?

Dominarch's Hope wrote:My main fascination is that this is the one moment in 20th century where tactical advantage could have equaled strategic advantage.

Forgetting the Brotish capitol ships elsewhere, and their ability to outproduce Germany: Even if the High Seas Fleet sunk every British ship at Jutland without a single loss, it doesn't have the range to stop the distant blockade the British had between the Greenland-iceland-Faeroes gaps. That is the strategic advantage the British had.
IIRC the High Seas fleet was designed with the expectation that any British/French blockade would be a close blockade like the days of the age of sail. The Brits decided not to play ball...

Political fallout for the rest of the world? It either makes American entry easier or harder depending on how the public can be swayed. Easier if they get convinced to help the allies 'before the Hun takes over the world', harder if they get convinced it'll be all over soon. The French would wail and probably have to shift some of their fleet from the Med... Might make it easier for the Austrian fleet to leave its port for once but not sure what else would happen.

Ironically the German use of their BC squad was almost textbook use of BC, and it didn't stop a century of 'historians' getting it wrong.

And seriously saying THIS WAS THE ONE MOMENT OMG is pretty simpleminded. It - like every other moment in history - is 'the moment' when all the conditions and decisions and pressures that existed came together to create 'the moment'. This process is still ongoing. Singling out 'the moment' is just ignoring all the other 'moments' that already happened and made the one you're talking about largely fixed. Its far more interesting to consider how those preconditions came about and what that tells us about what happened.

But wtf 'CROSS THE T BY LUCK'? Worst case, the RN does a simultaneous 180 and runs away, using light craft and the BCs to cover the escape. They're not just going to sit there like lawn darts and get sunk or charge like the light brigade.

Stark wrote:Ironically the German use of their BC squad was almost textbook use of BC

Not really. If anything counts as such it was the Falklands.

It's not a goddamn competition. They used their fast screen elements as a fast screen; their guns meant they couldn't be ignored as light cruisers could be or destroyed like destroyers. What happened in the Falklands doesn't change that at all (and since those BC weren't operating with a battlefleet the comparison strikes me as pretty dumb).

My point was that the HURF DURF BATTLECRUISERS WEAK AND SUCK nonsense for 100 years just ignored the utility that fleets got from their BC squads in WWI. So thanks for... something?

Stark wrote:It's not a goddamn competition. They used their fast screen elements as a fast screen; their guns meant they couldn't be ignored as light cruisers could be or destroyed like destroyers.

Point taken, although using them in such a role wasn't really their strong suit - light cruisers were still faster, and were effectively below the resolution of the big guns (Wiesbaden aside). Battlecruisers were big enough to attack heavy-calibre fire without being tough enough to take it, German or not.

What happened in the Falklands doesn't change that at all (and since those BC weren't operating with a battlefleet the comparison strikes me as pretty dumb).

That's the point. Invincible and Inflexible were used in the role they were originally intended for - hunting down and destroying armoured cruisers, not as a glorified recce force.

atg wrote:

Dominarch's Hope wrote:My main fascination is that this is the one moment in 20th century where tactical advantage could have equaled strategic advantage.

Forgetting the Brotish capitol ships elsewhere, and their ability to outproduce Germany: Even if the High Seas Fleet sunk every British ship at Jutland without a single loss, it doesn't have the range to stop the distant blockade the British had between the Greenland-iceland-Faeroes gaps. That is the strategic advantage the British had.
IIRC the High Seas fleet was designed with the expectation that any British/French blockade would be a close blockade like the days of the age of sail. The Brits decided not to play ball...

Are you saying they dont have the range to reach Britain? Because while I beleive the total curbstomp to be extremely unlikely to the point of nigh on impossible, the point would not be to end the blockade on Germany, the point would be to put a blockade on Britain. Something which Britain cannot survive. And even if the HSF is so short legged as to be unable ot do constant patrols of thr UK, it would mean that Uboats now have drastically better odds in a close blockade of Britain. But they wouldnt be relevant anymore as Britain would throw in the towel immediately with anything approaching such a catastrophe happening.

Political fallout for the rest of the world? It either makes American entry easier or harder depending on how the public can be swayed. Easier if they get convinced to help the allies 'before the Hun takes over the world', harder if they get convinced it'll be all over soon. The French would wail and probably have to shift some of their fleet from the Med... Might make it easier for the Austrian fleet to leave its port for once but not sure what else would happen.

Was the Austrian Navy any good? And one of the possible reasons that the US may have less support for the British is renewed fears that Britain would be unable to pay back unsecured loans and such.

Would the Italians switch sides again to try a joint Austrian/Italian breakout and link up? Are the French good enough to beat them both? Id guess that the French could beat them.

The reason I am pointing this out with some exaggeration is that German Industrial output wasnt nearly so inadequate against the British(UK and non India Commonwealth) as the Japanese were against the Americans. Which means that however unlikely, that a German victory at Jutland or German Victories leading up to Jutland would possibly mean something instead of a mere timedelay.

You cannot blockade Britain from Germany without using subs. There is no way to blockade the British main ports (located in the channel and the west) from Germany simply because reinforcements to such a blockade would have to drive all the way around Scotland. An impossibility.

Captain Seafort wrote:Point taken, although using them in such a role wasn't really their strong suit - light cruisers were still faster, and were effectively below the resolution of the big guns (Wiesbaden aside). Battlecruisers were big enough to attack heavy-calibre fire without being tough enough to take it, German or not.

For sure, which is why I think the Jutland thing is a better example of BC use than the made-up nonsense like 'be in line of battle and get sunk and die because have less hitpoints'. They gave Scheer some tactical flexibility through their combination of speed and guns, and he used it to extricate his fleet. Construction project : justified.

I'm just bitter about bad BC rap. :V

That's the point. Invincible and Inflexible were used in the role they were originally intended for - hunting down and destroying armoured cruisers, not as a glorified recce force.

Right, but I was trying to highlight the historical BC role in cooperation with the battlefleets. Being faster than cruisers and having way better guns helps too.

It also should be pointed out that Germany designed her BCs to be able to stand in the line of battle, with them carrying more armour than their British counterparts. As such, they fulfilled more the role Navies designed fast battleships for in the interwar period than the classical BC role of countering armored cruisers. Heck, they almost had 25% more armour than their British contemparies (the british had larger guns and were slightly faster).

You saying that German ships dont have the range? And why couldnt they just sail through the channel?


Note: I only suggested the classic non-sub blockade as a response to the absurd suggestion of a complete British disaster and loss for no German casualties. Which would mean that the Germans could rotate ships in and out to seek out British surface anti uboat vessels or seek out the French fleet for a showdown. Which would mean that the Austians get to come into play.

The suggestion of a total British catastrophe with zero German losses is outright insane. I dont support it, I was just responding to it.


Now, with British surface vessels being so sdrastically reduced, Uboats could be more effective, but it isnt relevant.


The other issue, and more annoying one, is scenarios of American responding to the blockade with an immediate Embargo but yet, certain people just assume that the effect on the Entente would be minimal. Same people I have seen in certain places also assume that even if America declared war immediately, Germany would still lose and the Entente would be perfectly fine.


The worst was one that had a fairly detailed and understandable story of a reversal of the Great Rapproachement happening starting from 1900 which built up anti-British sentiment etc. Not only did the USN magically get smaller as a result, but somehow they also decide to send the entire fleet to attack the UK immediately and gets destroyed. No explanation.

Dominarch's Hope wrote:You saying that German ships dont have the range?

Range is not the matter. Creating a blockade that far away from their homebases, under constant harass, mines and skirmishing actions is. Any ship that gets seriously damaged is a write-off. This they cannot afford.

And why couldnt they just sail through the channel?

Mines, loads of pre-dreads, loads of subs, destroyers, LCs etc. Also, any ship damaged in there is most likely a loss as well.

I don't really care about the rest of the post.