Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Battle of Jutland

Options
  • 30-05-2016 7:51am
    #1
    pegasus1
    Registered Users Posts: 1,490 ✭✭✭


    After watching Ch4's new evidence of the Battle of Jutland...and now starting to watch the BBC's same new evidence...why couldn't they work together, split the costs, etc...
    Both Ch4 and the Beeb claim to be the first with mapping the sea bed and coming up with the new evidence....

    Great story of the different personalities of John Jellicoe and David Beatty, and shows the inadequate sea tactics of the day.

    Also we finally know that Beatty had the charts altered in his favour, to discredit Jellicoe.
    And why the British lost so many ships...again down to Beatty!


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    Skylinehead
    Registered Users Posts: 11,690 ✭✭✭✭Skylinehead


    pegasus1 wrote: »
    After watching Ch4's new evidence of the Battle of Jutland...and now starting to watch the BBC's same new evidence...why couldn't they work together, split the costs, etc...
    Both Ch4 and the Beeb claim to be the first with mapping the sea bed and coming up with the new evidence....

    Great story of the different personalities of John Jellicoe and David Beatty, and shows the inadequate sea tactics of the day.

    Also we finally know that Beatty had the charts altered in his favour, to discredit Jellicoe.
    And why the British lost so many ships...again down to Beatty!
    The British lost 3 battlecruisers because of dodgy shell-handling practices, mainly stacking cordite around the turrets and leaving hatches open in order to increase the rate of fire they could achieve. What blame does Beatty shoulder over that?


  • Options
    #3
    pegasus1
    Registered Users Posts: 1,490 ✭✭✭pegasus1


    Skylinehead wrote: »
    The British lost 3 battlecruisers because of dodgy shell-handling practices, mainly stacking cordite around the turrets and leaving hatches open in order to increase the rate of fire they could achieve. What blame does Beatty shoulder over that?

    Because he preferred to fire more shells than to do everything safely through the safe practice of continually opening and closing of the safety hatches..rarther he preferred to have every door/hatch open wide to allow the quick passage of shells and powder...
    This was done under the order from Beatty!


  • Options
    #4
    Skylinehead
    Registered Users Posts: 11,690 ✭✭✭✭Skylinehead


    pegasus1 wrote: »
    Because he preferred to fire more shells than to do everything safely through the safe practice of continually opening and closing of the safety hatches..rarther he preferred to have every door/hatch open wide to allow the quick passage of shells and powder...
    This was done under the order from Beatty!
    That's possible....I always assumed it was doctrine for the entire Royal Navy, not just the battlecruisers.

    Honestly though, the entire concept of the battlecruiser was a bit silly. Expected to go up against battleship-caliber guns with little armour, it happened again with Hood.


  • Options
    #5
    pegasus1
    Registered Users Posts: 1,490 ✭✭✭pegasus1


    Skylinehead wrote: »
    Honestly though, the entire concept of the battlecruiser was a bit silly. Expected to go up against battleship-caliber guns with little armour, it happened again with Hood.

    No it was not doctrine....Ch4's proramme is still on ch4 4 all4...

    http://www.channel4.com/programmes/jutland-wwis-greatest-sea-battle

    Plus have a read of this ...the advantage of a battecruiser over a battleship

    http://www.dcr.net/~stickmak/JOHT/joht39shipvscruiser.htm


  • Options
    #6
    Skylinehead
    Registered Users Posts: 11,690 ✭✭✭✭Skylinehead


    pegasus1 wrote: »
    No it was not doctrine....Ch4's proramme is still on ch4 4 all4...

    http://www.channel4.com/programmes/jutland-wwis-greatest-sea-battle

    Plus have a read of this ...the advantage of a battecruiser over a battleship

    http://www.dcr.net/~stickmak/JOHT/joht39shipvscruiser.htm
    I'll watch that when I get the chance....I did watch Clash of the Dreadnoughts a while ago which I think is C4 too, but it's quite old now.

    As for battlecruisers...I accept they might have had their place in the early days where accuracy was poor, but not in the main line of battle, their speed just doesn't make up for the lack of armour.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    purplepanda
    Registered Users Posts: 1,051 ✭✭✭purplepanda


    Admiral Beatty later Earl Beatty of Borodale Enniscorthy described himself "Essentially Irish" although born in England of Wexford parents and later attended Kilkenny College.

    He certainly had a fearless Irish temperament when leading his Battle-cruiser squadron straight into the German High Seas Battleship fleet.

    Seems that tactics hadn't changed much since the days of Nelson?

    RIP to all those seamen of both sides who perished 100 years ago.


  • Options
    #8
    tac foley
    Registered Users Posts: 5,504 ✭✭✭tac foley


    Skylinehead wrote: »
    The British lost 3 battlecruisers because of dodgy shell-handling practices, mainly stacking cordite around the turrets and leaving hatches open in order to increase the rate of fire they could achieve. What blame does Beatty shoulder over that?

    Not only that, but it is a sorry fact that the German shells worked as advertised, and the British ones didn't.

    It was the same with regard to the British torpedoes, too. The British invented them, but others were left to perfect them.

    tac


  • Options
    #9
    knucklehead6
    Registered Users Posts: 6,738 ✭✭✭knucklehead6


    About the only 'new' bit that I learned from the BBC documentary was the flooding experiment to the engineering model of the HMS Queen Mary's hull, flooding it to approximate same extent as SMS Seydlitz. I had always operated under the assumption that the RN battlecruisers just weren't as well compartmentalised.

    And i was somewhat disappointed that they didn't mention anything about the 5th battle Squadron apart from to say they missed the flag signals from HMS Lion, and Jellicoe's timing to get the Grand Fleet into Line of battle was an extraordinary feat of seamanship and timing.


  • Options
    #10
    pegasus1
    Registered Users Posts: 1,490 ✭✭✭pegasus1


    knucklehead6 wrote: »
    About the only 'new' bit that I learned from the BBC documentary was the flooding experiment to the engineering model of the HMS Queen Mary's hull, flooding it to approximate same extent as SMS Seydlitz. I had always operated under the assumption that the RN battlecruisers just weren't as well compartmentalised.

    And i was somewhat disappointed that they didn't mention anything about the 5th battle Squadron apart from to say they missed the flag signals from HMS Lion, and Jellicoe's timing to get the Grand Fleet into Line of battle was an extraordinary feat of seamanship and timing.

    IMO the Ch4 Programme was by far way better...even with it being 17 minutes shorter in length...


  • Options
    #11
    knucklehead6
    Registered Users Posts: 6,738 ✭✭✭knucklehead6


    pegasus1 wrote: »
    IMO the Ch4 Programme was by far way better...even with it being 17 minutes shorter in length...


    time for a 4OD check later on this evening so! :)


  • Advertisement
Advertisement