It's Neil Day!

[grumbler]

The 100th Anniversary of the Battle of Jutland.

And, 100 years later, the debate still rages over who "won!" 

[KRonn]

Happy Jutland Festivus! 

[Valmy]

The British won. They crossed the German 'T' twice and totally freaked them out. The battle for control of the North Sea was over.

The fact the British Battlecruisers had a bad day does not change that fact.

[Tamas]

The British won. They crossed the German 'T' twice and totally freaked them out. The battle for control of the North Sea was over.

The fact the British Battlecruisers had a bad day does not change that fact.

Absolutely.

Although I found the BBC morning show saying "the battle that turned war around" as highly over the top

[grumbler]

The British won. They crossed the German 'T' twice and totally freaked them out. The battle for control of the North Sea was over.

The fact the British Battlecruisers had a bad day does not change that fact.

The Germans set out to attrite the Grand Fleet, and did so.  The myth that the Germans never came out again is also wrong.  The British just never found them again (nor the Germans the British).

I'd argue that the battle was a tactical German victory that wasn't enough to make a difference in the successful British campaign.  Ten such battles, with the same outcome, would have made a big difference in the German's chances of success.  The chances of ten such battles, though, were about nil.

[Berkut]

The British won. They crossed the German 'T' twice and totally freaked them out. The battle for control of the North Sea was over.

The fact the British Battlecruisers had a bad day does not change that fact.

The Germans set out to attrite the Grand Fleet, and did so.  The myth that the Germans never came out again is also wrong.  The British just never found them again (nor the Germans the British).

I'd argue that the battle was a tactical German victory that wasn't enough to make a difference in the successful British campaign.  Ten such battles, with the same outcome, would have made a big difference in the German's chances of success.  The chances of ten such battles, though, were about nil.

Given that there was no chance of ten such battles, and the Germans likely knew this (as did the Brits) then the outcome of THIS battle is a strategic win for the British, right? The fundamental calculus, which is resulting in Germany losing the war and starving, is unchanged, which is what they want, and what Germany is trying to adjust.

I liken it to the Ardennes offensive. Sure, the German inflicted a pretty crushing blow, but it didn't change anything at all, and hence is a failure, even if there was some tactical successes. Maybe not a great analogy though, since there was no possible way Ardennes could have achieved the goals it needed to achieve to effect a meaningful difference, whereas I assume Jutland could have, had it gone really well for the Germans, at least partially reduced the effects of the blockade?

[Berkut]

Honest question, btw - at least in that it isn't rhetorical...

What was Germany trying to accomplish? Break the blockade? Support some other operation?

I always assumed it was just an effort to bring the British Navy to a fight, hopefully achieve a decisive (if improbable) victory, and ease the blockade.

[grumbler]

Given that there was no chance of ten such battles, and the Germans likely knew this (as did the Brits) then the outcome of THIS battle is a strategic win for the British, right? The fundamental calculus, which is resulting in Germany losing the war and starving, is unchanged, which is what they want, and what Germany is trying to adjust.

I liken it to the Ardennes offensive. Sure, the German inflicted a pretty crushing blow, but it didn't change anything at all, and hence is a failure, even if there was some tactical successes. Maybe not a great analogy though, since there was no possible way Ardennes could have achieved the goals it needed to achieve to effect a meaningful difference, whereas I assume Jutland could have, had it gone really well for the Germans, at least partially reduced the effects of the blockade?

We know in hindsight that there would be no ten such battles, but the two navies at the time did not know it.  The Germans didn't expect to win a decisive battle, they just wanted to inflict disproportionate losses.  Which they did.  The British wanted to win a decisive battle, so as to free up ships for employment elsewhere, which they didn't do.  The Germans always planned to turn and go home once the British fleet united, so that "retreat" wasn't a measure of British success.

However, what the Germans learned from this operation was that they wouldn't get the hoped-for results from their submarines laying in wait for the Grand Fleet, and so shifted those subs to the Battle of the Atlantic.  The Germans only conducted two more surface/submarine operations against the Grand Fleet, and relied instead on unrestricted submarine warfare.  The latter wasn't going to break the blockade, however.  Nothing would, even another German indecisive victory like that at Jutland.

[grumbler]

Honest question, btw - at least in that it isn't rhetorical...

What was Germany trying to accomplish? Break the blockade? Support some other operation?

I always assumed it was just an effort to bring the British Navy to a fight, hopefully achieve a decisive (if improbable) victory, and ease the blockade.

They wanted to whittle down the Grand Fleet until they could hope to engage it straight-up.

A futile hope, almost certainly, but the High Seas Fleet existed and it had to pretend their was some chance of a campaign success, or see all of its men drafted away to more useful tasks.

[Valmy]

We know in hindsight that there would be no ten such battles, but the two navies at the time did not know it.  The Germans didn't expect to win a decisive battle, they just wanted to inflict disproportionate losses.  Which they did.  The British wanted to win a decisive battle, so as to free up ships for employment elsewhere, which they didn't do.  The Germans always planned to turn and go home once the British fleet united, so that "retreat" wasn't a measure of British success.

The Germans planned to ambush a detachment of the British fleet in an ambush and then race back to port. That would have been a decisive victory. The sudden appearance of British Fleet scared the shit out of them and they very nearly faced disaster. So yes it was a British success. The idea that Jutland was what the Germans had in mind is just nonsense.

The Germans set out to attrite the Grand Fleet, and did so.

Only if you define the German plan VERY broadly. The plan was to ambush and destroy some British ships, not to engage and attrite the Grand Fleet. Putting the fleet in existential danger was certainly not the German plan.

The myth that the Germans never came out again is also wrong.

I never said this. But thanks for the info.

I'd argue that the battle was a tactical German victory that wasn't enough to make a difference in the successful British campaign.  Ten such battles, with the same outcome, would have made a big difference in the German's chances of success.  The chances of ten such battles, though, were about nil.

The British knew the Germans were coming and laid a trap and just fucked it up. In ten such battles the Germans would not be so lucky.

[grumbler]

The idea that Jutland was what the Germans had in mind is just nonsense.

Sorry.  I didn't mean to introduce my "just nonsense" on an issue that you already had the ironclad answer to.  I've been put in my place and will stop now.

[derspiess]

With my masterful knowledge of all things naval history, I'd call it a tactical win for the Krauts but strategically a draw.

[Maladict]

As much as I like all things naval, I'm finding the BBC's fixation and chest beating over Jutland a bit much this week. Even by British standards.

[Jaron]

grumbler salty AF in this thread.