PDA

View Full Version : Jutland: WW1's Greatest Sea Battle



Naharaht
05-16-2016, 09:15
On Saturday 21st May, Channel 4 television in the U.K. will be showing a new documentary entitled 'Jutland WW1's Greatest Sea Battle' at 8 p.m.. It claims that it will reveal the truth about the battle.

It will be repeated one hour later on Channel4+1 (Freeview channel 13). It will also be repeated on Sunday 22nd May at 8 p.m., Monday 23rd May at 3.45 a.m. and on Friday 27th may at 2.55 a.m.. They also have an 'On Demand' service.

Hjl
05-16-2016, 09:26
I wonder if this will be broadcast in the US

Dr.Maturin
05-16-2016, 12:02
I will be very interested to see what 'new' evidence they have to show us the 'truth'. I have read many accounts of this battle, written from both sides, and I don't know what else there is to learn. But then I'm always open to new scholarly interpretation!

Herkybird
05-16-2016, 12:34
Advertising is spin, I hope for the best, but expect little! I hope I am wrong!

Naharaht
05-16-2016, 12:34
The trailer indicates that they have been studying the wrecks of the ships, Reg.

I do not know whether it will be broadcast in the U.S.A., Hugh. If you can access Channel 4's 'On Demand' service, you will be able to watch it there. http://www.channel4.com/

I suppose that it may make it onto Youtube eventually.

Hjl
05-16-2016, 12:50
Channel 4 is region locked unfortunately.

Union Jack
05-17-2016, 06:12
Cheers for the pointer David. Record option set.

Capn Duff
05-17-2016, 09:13
Yes thanks for this, will tape it.

Bligh
05-17-2016, 09:18
Thanks for the Heads up Dave.
One not to miss whatever the state of play.
Rob.

Broadsword56
05-18-2016, 09:38
Channel 4 is region locked unfortunately.

Just FYI, it's not hard in the USA to stream the on-demand streaming services of all the main UK channels, as well as the CBC in Canada and ABC in Australia.

You need an iPad. Then you have to get a VPN app (I use Tunnelbear). You set the VPN to the country you want, then establish a new Apple user id and give an address in that country, like a hotel. That sends you to that country's App Store, where you download the channel's app and install it. After that one-time setup, you just switch on your VPN, pick your country, launch your channel and you're good to go.

Herkybird
05-18-2016, 12:42
...or you could just have a short break in the UK while its sunny and warm-ish! :drinks:

Bligh
05-18-2016, 13:28
Our weather not reached Northumberland yet then Richard.:wink:
Rob.

David Manley
05-18-2016, 13:57
I know some of the people involved in making this (and the BBC programme that is going out on the 31st).

It will be interesting to see what lines they finally decided to take in each of them

Kentop
05-22-2016, 08:32
The US Naval War College will be posting a video on their site on May 31st of the war game they played a couple of weeks ago. They found in their archives the original game pieces and instructions from the 1920s and recreated them. At the museum site, you can see some of the tools used during the game.

You can read about it here: https://www.usnwc.edu/About/News/May-2016/Naval-War-College-reenacts-Jutland-wargame.aspx

Bligh
05-22-2016, 13:48
Thanks for the heads up Ken.
Rob.

Dr.Maturin
05-22-2016, 17:35
Well, recorded it yesterday and watched it this evening after a hard days Napoleonic Naval warfare at Partizan.
I thought that the start was interesting when they showed an official admiralty chart showing the positions of all ships during the battle which supposedly had not seen the light of day for nigh on 100 years, but later in the program were talking about it as if everybody was already aware of it. The program skipped large parts of the battle and not withstanding the new side scan sonar images of some of the wrecks, not all the wrecks as one had been lead to believe, I found that it did not add materially to my knowledge of the engagement and left me disappointed.

Kentop
05-22-2016, 18:41
Photographic evidence being what it is, the German navy banned any cameras aboard their ships during the battle of Jutland. That included submarines.So, the only "pictures" you see are from the British side. Anything else is faked. In 1916 the camera had the newly invented 120 film and folding cameras with manual set shutters, Yet the sinking of the four english battle cruisers are beautifully captured at the moment of their destruction. No camera jiggling, no spoiled negatives, just perfect shots taken in broad daylight, without smoke, fog effects, or any movement from the camera from the most steady seaman photographer?. Really?

Naharaht
05-22-2016, 19:51
I too was disappointed. All that finding the 100 year old chart and the wreck positions to support it has done is to provide evidence that Beatty attempted to whitewash his actions.

Bligh
05-23-2016, 02:48
Thanks for all the advanced warning chaps.
When i watch it I will now do so with an open mind.
It was very good to have your company yesterday Reg.
Rob.

Dr.Maturin
05-23-2016, 11:12
I too was disappointed. All that finding the 100 year old chart and the wreck positions to support it has done is to provide evidence that Beatty attempted to whitewash his actions.

Which we already knew!

Dr.Maturin
05-23-2016, 11:14
Thanks for all the advanced warning chaps.
When i watch it I will now do so with an open mind.
It was very good to have your company yesterday Reg.
Rob.

Thanks Rob the feeling is reciprocal. I feel you will be dissapointed with the documentary as was I.
There is a Dan Snow Jutland documentary coming soon on the BBC. One can but hope for something better from that.

Union Jack
05-23-2016, 11:27
Sunday 29th May BBC2 9pm Dan Snow on Jutland.
Apologies to all but I found the last programme informative and interesting as I had no knowledge that Beatty whitewashed the outcome report. So the fact that it was bad practice on the British side that led to the loss of the two battlecruisers and bad.luck that Black Prince was lost. However it did prove just how much damage the German flagship took in comparison, some 26 hits to the British battlecruisers 2-3. Pity they didn't learn from their mistakes but then again Beatty doctored the report.

Herkybird
05-23-2016, 12:33
I agree wholeheartedly, it was a waste of programming. :bleh:

Bligh
05-23-2016, 13:10
Thanks Rob the feeling is reciprocal. I feel you will be dissapointed with the documentary as was I.
There is a Dan Snow Jutland documentary coming soon on the BBC. One can but hope for something better from that.

Cheers Reg.
If it's Dan Snow we at least have a chance of a good documentary.
Rob.

David Manley
05-23-2016, 13:57
However it did prove just how much damage the German flagship took in comparison, some 26 hits to the British battlecruisers 2-3. Pity they didn't learn from their mistakes but then again Beatty doctored the report.

This bit hacked me off, as Innes was rather disingenuous here. The British BCs took rather more of a pounding than casual observers give them credit for. Lion for example - 17 hits including a magazine fire. True, if the "2-3" German shells entered a turret top it was bad news for a BC, but not because the ships were weak (it was mentioned early on in the documentary, Beatty saying "there's something wrong with our bloody ships today - he was wrong". And he was, it was the ammunition handling practices - and the highly reactive cordite propellant - that was the issue. The much vaunted German flagship was effectively sunk by two salvoes from Invincible which hit forward and caused extensive flooding,bringing her bow down and ultimately causing the loss of the ship. In an event echoing the loss of Bismarck in 1941 she was scuttled whilst in a sinking condition, her propellers clear of the water and her focsle submerged (Seydlitz was in a similar situation, she was fortunate that when mass exceeded buoyancy and she sank by the bow she was over a sand bar which caught her and allowed her to be saved). It is worth noting that Derrflinger's gunnery officer wrote after the battle that when she was hit on her aft turret and a massive propellant fore occurred in her barbettes (IIRC both turrets aft were hit - BC turrets of both sides tended to act as shell magnets that day) that, had she been using British propellant the ship would surely have blown up and he and hs shipmates would have been killed.

It was also rather naughty to suggest that the same poor magazine handling practices used in the BC force were also used in the battle squadrons of the Grand Fleet. There is no evidence for this, in fact quite the reverse. And as far as "lessons learnt" were concerned, they were - orders reinstating full explosive handling practices in the BCs were in place days after the battle, whilst the relatively poor performance of British large calibre shells (which tended to detonate on impact with the target's armour rather than as they passed through) was identified and a programme put in place to develop more effective replacements - this leading to the introduction of the famous "Greenboy" shells of 1918 which were amongst the most effective large calibre armour piercing shells used by any battleship anywhere through to the end of the battleship era.

All in all I was extremely disappointed, there was a great opportunity to dispel some of the inaccurate myths of Jutland and WW1 warship design, all sadly missed. I've been involved on the periphery of the Dan Snow programme coming this weekend, I've not seen the end result and I'm hoping that this one has taken heed. So I await the BBC's offering with baited breath.

David Manley
05-23-2016, 14:12
Cheers Reg.
If it's Dan Snow we at least have a chance of a good documentary.
Rob.

If they use half the material and other stuff I provided to the production team properly it will be :happy:

Bligh
05-23-2016, 14:47
If they use half the material and other stuff I provided to the production team properly it will be :happy:

Thank goodness for that Dave.
I hope that I said the right thing.:wink:
Rob.

Capn Duff
05-23-2016, 17:23
I watched the programme Sunday evening, was somewhat dissapointed as it really said very little about Jutland but seemed to emphasise more on Beatty whitewashing his actions and Jellicoe having his ations justified, not what I was expecting.
As others have said lets hope the next programme is a little better.

Kentop
05-23-2016, 21:52
Doctoring reports was standard operating procedure at the time. Everybody tried to influence the report, but Beatty was in the perfect position to do so. The insular politics of the Royal Navy at that time meant that Admirals weren't picked by their merits. They were picked by their connections. Beatty was a damn the torpedos, don't bother me with details kind of guy. Jellicoe was a strictly by the book guy whose days were numbered after Churchill took over the admiralty. Beatty made quite a few mistakes during the battle. His first mistake was leaving behind four super dreadnoughts in his haste to meet with the enemy. He literally gave away his advantage. His next mistake, and he should have been reprimanded for it, was that he was supposed to keep Jellicoe informed. Instead, he didn't even tell Jellicoe where or which way the Germans were going. That was his main purpose, to be Jellicoe's eyes. Jellicoe isn't blameless either. The german admirals actions were, frankly, flawless and their actions saved their fleet that day. Unlike the germans, the brits really were not cooperating or even talking to each other very much. As a result, there was no real commitment by them to actually finish off the germans. Wether or not they were simply making their routine sweep of the north sea, or actually set out to find and destroy the german fleet from the beginning became moot once they ran into each other.

David Manley
05-23-2016, 23:52
I wouldn't say the German commanders were flawless, collectively they showed a lack of awareness and failed to realise that their enemy was doing exactly what they had said they would do to bring about a fleet action. And the second battle turn away, directly back to where the enemy had been only a few minutes earlier, exposed the leading battleships and the battlecruisers to another bout of quite effective incoming fire that they didn't need to have faced. Where was the GF supposed to have magically disappeared to in those few minutes?

The impression that we have of the British commanders being a bunch of tradition-bound duffers whilst their enemies were flawless geniuses draws from the same source as for the same impressions when comparing Allied and German commanders on land - historians working mostly in English have concentrated on the "easy targets" whilst giving their harder-to-research opponents something of a free ride.

As to "no real commitment to finish off the Germans" - I guess if there hadn't Jellicoe wouldn't have pursued the HSF towards the Jade (but he did). Although in fact he had no need to "finish them off" since he knew the strategic context in which he was working, and what constituted "victory" in that sense. The more I read about the events of and surrounding May /June 1916 the more I see that Jellicoe was one of the few people that really, really "got" the strategic vision in the North Sea. He was also just about the only one who understood the immense difficulty in operating a fleet as big as the GF with the technological and environmental limits in which it operated (too may historians and writers see WW1 naval warfare in the same light as WW2 without appreciating the vastly different (and seriously inferior) command and control capabilities of the 1910s and 1920s) The Admiralty didn't get it. The British people didn't get it. Which I guess leads to one area where the Germans definitely did score over the British; better management of PR.

David Manley
05-24-2016, 00:02
Doctoring reports was standard operating procedure at the time.

True, everyone from every nation was doing it (and it has been so throughout the ages and continues to be so). Of course the art is being good at it. Which Beatty wasn't.

Kentop
05-24-2016, 09:05
And the second battle turn away, directly back to where the enemy had been only a few minutes earlier, exposed the leading battleships and the battlecruisers to another bout of quite effective incoming fire that they didn't need to have faced. Where was the GF supposed to have magically disappeared to in those few minutes?

The impression that we have of the British commanders being a bunch of tradition-bound duffers whilst their enemies were flawless geniuses draws from the same source as for the same impressions when comparing Allied and German commanders on land - historians working mostly in English have concentrated on the "easy targets" whilst giving their harder-to-research opponents something of a free ride.

As to "no real commitment to finish off the Germans" - I guess if there hadn't Jellicoe wouldn't have pursued the HSF towards the Jade (but he did). Although in fact he had no need to "finish them off" since he knew the strategic context in which he was working, and what constituted "victory" in that sense. The more I read about the events of and surrounding May /June 1916 the more I see that Jellicoe was one of the few people that really, really "got" the strategic vision in the North Sea. He was also just about the only one who understood the immense difficulty in operating a fleet as big as the GF with the technological and environmental limits in which it operated (too may historians and writers see WW1 naval warfare in the same light as WW2 without appreciating the vastly different (and seriously inferior) command and control capabilities of the 1910s and 1920s) The Admiralty didn't get it. The British people didn't get it. Which I guess leads to one area where the Germans definitely did score over the British; better management of PR.

I always felt that the second turn towards to GF served a couple of purposes. One was to get their torpedo boats close enough to the GF so that they could make Jellicoe turn away. Another problem was that it was still daylight and the germans needed the cover of night to be able to make a break for it. The second turn towards the GF bought them more time. You are correct that Jellicoe "got" the strategic vision. He obviously understood that you do not risk material if you have nothing to gain from it. I cannot help but think that Jellicoe felt that he was not getting the support he needed to pursue the germans. Beatty must have had Nelson's advice about getting as close as possible as fast as possible pounding in his ears when he closed with the germans instead of standing off and using their one big advantage against them. If I had Beatty running amok under my command, I would have been reluctant to engage in further action, too.

Herkybird
05-24-2016, 13:14
I concur mightily with our esteemed Mr Manley! I have often wondered what would have happened if the GF had got the battle it wanted, would the German High Seas Fleet have been neutralised? I think not. The German ships were well built and crewed, and would have broken off if things got bad in a firefight. As it was, they went to 'plan' and with luck and some good planning managed to extricate themselves from a probable losing position.
Neither side scould see the period of long naval battle lines was over, its only with hindsight we can see with crystal clarity!

...assuming I am not just talking rubbish here!!!! :embarass::hmmm:

Kentop
05-28-2016, 16:10
You're not talking rubbish. The controversies created by the battle of Jutland started immediately after the battle. I have read many different accounts from both sides of the channel. The earliest accounts are the most incorrect. Early reports were censored on both sides and were tainted with racial hatred of the Bosch (on the British side) and an almost NAZI like superiority by the Germans. During the 1920's and 30's you get the British squabbling over whether Beatty or Jellicoe made more mistakes. Character assassination and outright lies fired the polemics publicly in newspapers. It wasn't until 1932 that Jellicoe wrote a very telling article for the papers entitled, "Errors made in the battle of Jutland". He not only rakes Beatty over the coals, which he deserves, but he admits to his own mistakes. Beatty never, ever said that he did one thing wrong at Jutland. At least, I have never seen anything written by him involving a "mea culpa". Finally, over the years, the archives of both navies become available and things such as dispatch records between the ships involved on both sides and even the zeppelin messages that the British Admiralty intercepted and didn't bother to transmit to Admiral Jellicoe became available to naval historians.

The best and most accurate account of the Battle of Jutland that I have read was written in 1966 by Arthur J. Marder entitled, "From Jutland to Scapa Flow, Jutland and after, vol III" He managed to actually get the British Admiralty to give him access to the records they showed nobody else. In his account, you will learn that Jellicoe's decision not to engage the main battle fleet at night (a crap shoot if there ever was one) was a tactical decision, not a strategic decision. His battle cruisers and torpedo boats were the weapons of choice at night (They could get in closer). His big battleships did not have the gear to fight successfully at night and he had to have time to regroup his fleet anyway for an attack the next morning. The British Admiralty knew exactly what the German High Seas Fleet was doing and where they were going, but they failed to tell Jellicoe. By the time Jellicoe found out, it was too late. The germans had escaped. The important thing Marder did was to end the divisive Beatty versus Jellicoe debate. Both Admirals did a lot more good during that battle than they did bad. Beatty, in his actions after the battle, attacked his boss, pulled strings and dirtied the water, including changing the after action reports to cover up his mistakes. His actions after he returned to port showed exactly what kind of man he was (your typically insufferable British naval officer). Beatty replaced Jellicoe. It had everything to do with his relation to Winston Churchill and nothing to do with Jutland. That's how naval officers advance in the British navy. Even now, Prince Andrew gets to do whatever pops into his head. He's like Beatty, his connections and money let him take whatever job he wants in the royal navy. If he really didn't want to fly rescue helicopters, he wouldn't be there. His grandpa is Prince Phillip, who is married to Queen Elizabeth II. When Phillip was 21 years old, he was 1st lieutenant of the HMS Wallace, probably the youngest second in command ever of a destroyer in the navy. Beatty didn't even have the minimum time in grade to be promoted from captain to admiral. When he was promoted, he was the youngest admiral in the navy and passed over the heads of every other captain. It still takes skills to be promoted. Prince Andrew and Beatty both are/were talented enough to be promoted. But they didn't need to be. Their connections would have carried them anyway in the British Navy.

Again, you are not talking rubbish. Your strategic take definitely influenced Jellicoe. The more you dig into the history, the more you will be proven right.

David Manley
05-28-2016, 16:50
10/10 for that except the Prince Andrew bit, he's not active in the RN and wouldn't be able to do anything along lines you suggest. He was a bloody good helicopter pilot though (a few of my work colleagues flew with him) and he saw combat in the Falklands Conflict (flying Exocet decoy, ASW and rescue missions).

David Manley
05-28-2016, 16:56
Anyway, we have our first Jutland refight tomorrow at HMS Flying Fox. Up early for an 0830 start, and I have my dice rolling bowl (actually an ashtray) made from teak taken from the deck of Jellicoe's flagship ready and waiting :happy:

Kentop
05-29-2016, 11:31
10/10 for that except the Prince Andrew bit, he's not active in the RN and wouldn't be able to do anything along lines you suggest. He was a bloody good helicopter pilot though (a few of my work colleagues flew with him) and he saw combat in the Falklands Conflict (flying Exocet decoy, ASW and rescue missions).

Prince Andrew did what he wanted to when he was in the navy. He wanted the tough and dangerous missions. Usually, royals are protected by being placed in safe assignments so that they don't get hurt or die, thus upsetting the succession to the throne. His job now is probably a compromise to his family. Beatty actually turned down a command at sea and requested an assignment with the home fleet. He was told flat out NO, the admiralty will assign you where THEY need you. If the Admiralty had assigned Prince Andrew to missions in Afghanistan without his or royal approval, heads would have rolled.

Kentop
05-29-2016, 11:31
10/10 for that except the Prince Andrew bit, he's not active in the RN and wouldn't be able to do anything along lines you suggest. He was a bloody good helicopter pilot though (a few of my work colleagues flew with him) and he saw combat in the Falklands Conflict (flying Exocet decoy, ASW and rescue missions).

Prince Andrew did what he wanted to when he was in the navy. He wanted the tough and dangerous missions. Usually, royals are protected by being placed in safe assignments so that they don't get hurt or die, thus upsetting the succession to the throne. His job now is probably a compromise to his family. Beatty actually turned down a command at sea and requested an assignment with the home fleet. He was told flat out NO, the admiralty will assign you where THEY need you. If the Admiralty had assigned Prince Harry to missions in Afghanistan without his or royal approval, heads would have rolled.

Herkybird
05-29-2016, 16:17
Just watched the BBC offering, it was essentially a discussion of why the RN battlecruisers blew up, and using archaeological experimentation showed what we already knew, that it was lax safety procedures around the turrets and magazines that was at fault, and not the ship designs.
A very good programme for correcting the misconceptions of the 20th century accounts.
Not so interesting for wargamers, apart from allowing 'what ifs' refighting the battle if Beatty had not been so bothered about weight of shot and more about careful aiming!

Worth watching though, and far better than channel 4's.

I think they must have listened to Mr Manley, after all! :thumbsup:

David Manley
05-29-2016, 16:35
Prince Andrew did what he wanted to when he was in the navy. He wanted the tough and dangerous missions.

Sorry, but thats just guff. He was in a unit that unexpectedly went to war. What would you have had him do? Not go with his comrades because it would be dangerous? In fact the Admiralty did want to keep him home but the Queen insisted that he should have no special treatment. Its a pity some of our other leaders don't have the same backbone

David Manley
05-29-2016, 16:38
Just watched the BBC offering, it was essentially a discussion of why the RN battlecruisers blew up, and using archaeological experimentation showed what we already knew, that it was lax safety procedures around the turrets and magazines that was at fault, and not the ship designs.
A very good programme for correcting the misconceptions of the 20th century accounts.
Not so interesting for wargamers, apart from allowing 'what ifs' refighting the battle if Beatty had not been so bothered about weight of shot and more about careful aiming!

Worth watching though, and far better than channel 4's.

I think they must have listened to Mr Manley, after all! :thumbsup:

Much better than last week's although the usual "we can reveal" stuff that has been known for almost a hundred years :)

Interesting though if you hadn't much in the way of prior knowledge, the last bit on the human effects of the blockade were interesting to me as its not something I've read on in detail before.

Herkybird
05-29-2016, 16:46
Much better than last week's although the usual "we can reveal" stuff that has been known for almost a hundred years :)

Interesting though if you hadn't much in the way of prior knowledge, the last bit on the human effects of the blockade were interesting to me as its not something I've read on in detail before.

Yes, me too, quite disturbing! One of the nasty sides of war.
My Grandad did mention that as a POW in Germany they lived on very little and returned home very malnourished. Like most of his war memories, though, he did not want to talk about it much. I didn't blame him for that!

Naharaht
05-29-2016, 18:20
The experimental demonstrations were interesting in the Dan Snow programme but as has already been said, there were no new conclusions.

Kentop
05-30-2016, 01:14
Sorry, but thats just guff. He was in a unit that unexpectedly went to war. What would you have had him do? Not go with his comrades because it would be dangerous? In fact the Admiralty did want to keep him home but the Queen insisted that he should have no special treatment. Its a pity some of our other leaders don't have the same backbone

Which proves my point. The Admiralty wanted to keep him safe but the Queen insisted. That means that the Queen and not the Admiralty decided where and how her prince should be assigned. I have nothing but respect for prince Andrew and, for that matter, the entire royal bunch who have served and are serving in the armed forces. The royals are bred to be true leaders. Nobody in England expects anything less from their monarchs. But don't pretend that their military assignments aren't foregone conclusions.

David Manley
05-30-2016, 03:48
The point was the Admiralty were being prissy, had there been an operational reason for him not to go then fair enough, but not "because it would look bad". their military assignments aren't "foregone conclusions" of course, far from it.

David Manley
05-30-2016, 03:49
I think they must have listened to Mr Manley, after all! :thumbsup:

LOL, I did just about write the script for them on the engineering side, and they picked a good deal of it up :happy:

Dr.Maturin
05-30-2016, 09:43
Just watched the Dan Snow Jutland Documentary and as somebody else commented above there was nothing new. They did spend quite a lot of effort showing the effects of cordite explosions and poor shell handling practice and presented it as if it was new but we already knew all about that and the Admiralty had very quickly figured out the shell handling problems and taken measures to stop the bad practices. Also nothing was mentioned about the British shell quality which had a nasty habit of exploding on first contact and not like the German shells which managed to penetrate before exploding. Surely a major factor in Seydlitz taking 23 hits and staying afloat and Queen Mary taking only 7 before blowing up.

David Manley
05-30-2016, 16:33
Surely a major factor in Seydlitz taking 23 hits and staying afloat and Queen Mary taking only 7 before blowing up.

Not a factor at all since QM was lost to a shell that penetrated her turret top and caused a propellant flash that propagated into the magazine. German turrets were equally as vulnerable to these kind of hits with several of them hit and burned out (along with their crews, which typically numbered 70-80). The difference was their magazine doors, like those of the GF battleships, weren't left open.

Shell penetration was not what we would expect to have seen in later years, fuses were unreliable and the shells would generally detonate just inside the structure that was penetrated. I recall there was only one shell hit that penetrated deeply, HMS Warrior I think, and that shell passed right through the ship without exploding. IIRC she was hit over 20 times (including 15 hits from 11" guns) and survived the battle, but foundered on her way back to Britain.

Bligh
05-31-2016, 02:07
I look forward to watching my recording of the Documentary forearmed with your information gentlemen.
Thanks.
Rob.

Naharaht
05-31-2016, 07:18
For anyone who missed it, BBC2 is repeating it tonight (Tuesday 31st May) at 23.15 BST and it is available on BBC iPlayer.

Kentop
05-31-2016, 08:58
The point was the Admiralty were being prissy, had there been an operational reason for him not to go then fair enough, but not "because it would look bad". their military assignments aren't "foregone conclusions" of course, far from it.

The blind spot British subjects have for their monarchs has always puzzled me, and most Americans for that matter. The Royal Family members have done quite all right over the years in the command structure of the British military forces. Except maybe HRH the Duke of Wessex. But even he is aide de camp to Her Majesty, and all he did was wash out of marine training!

David Manley
05-31-2016, 13:54
No blind spot, I do actually work in this business so I see it first hand.

Dr.Maturin
05-31-2016, 17:21
The blind spot British subjects have for their monarchs has always puzzled me, and most Americans for that matter. The Royal Family members have done quite all right over the years in the command structure of the British military forces. Except maybe HRH the Duke of Wessex. But even he is aide de camp to Her Majesty, and all he did was wash out of marine training!

From memory I think that both Edward (VIII) and George VI ( when they were just Princes) were both on Battleships at the Battle of Jutland.

Comte de Brueys
06-01-2016, 11:37
Interesting thread.

Seems the Royal Navy had a good fight with the Kaiserliche Marine. :wink:

Before buying a single book about the Skagerrak Schlacht I'll get an overview with this one:

Kentop
06-01-2016, 12:35
From memory I think that both Edward (VIII) and George VI ( when they were just Princes) were both on Battleships at the Battle of Jutland.

ZOOM! Right over your heads.

Bligh
06-01-2016, 12:53
ZOOM! Right over your heads.:clap:

How hard do you find it when trying to get a beer at the bar Ken?:wink:
Rob.

Kentop
06-01-2016, 13:16
It's apparently easier than making a point here!:beer:

David Manley
06-01-2016, 13:31
Maybe its just not a good point

Kentop
06-01-2016, 13:58
Maybe its just not a good point

Don't let your bias decide what a good point is. Royal military careers are fore drawn conclusions. Royals allow the admiralty to assign them duties. They only have to say the word and the admiralty will fold like a cheap card table.

Herkybird
06-01-2016, 14:28
Pointless arguments are rarely won, but its easy for both sides to lose. Opinions on the Royals have been divided since the institution of monarchy!
The Americans rejected the British government and Monarchy in the 18th century, if you want it back, please ask! :takecover:

David Manley
06-01-2016, 14:46
Don't let your bias decide what a good point is. Royal military careers are fore drawn conclusions. Royals allow the admiralty to assign them duties. They only have to say the word and the admiralty will fold like a cheap card table.

So what you are saying is that Royals do what they are told by the Admiralty unless they don't want to in which case they tell the Admiralty what they want to do and it happens? Thats a bit weird.

In fact their active careers aren't that different to those of more "regular" serving officers. They have to be, since no-one is going to let them put personnel and expensive kit at risk. Or put them in positions where they would be expected to make decisions that would be beyond their capabilities. And thats no different to any other serving officer. We don't routinely let numpties drive SSNs or MCMVs or steer the research programme. Ceremonial positions are different of course but by that stage they are effectively beyond the regular armed services anyway.

So like I said, I really don't see what the point is.

Unless of course the point is that the Head of State is prepared to allow serving members of their family face the same dangers in action that any other family in the country would do. In which case I'd agree, and suggest that politicians should be encouraged to do the same, since it may make them think a bit more before they embark on the latest military "adventure"

Kentop
06-01-2016, 15:03
Boy, are you naive, David. The system is rigged. You seem to think that people with privilege would forego it in order to serve their country. In actuality, people with privilege always exercise their privilege, otherwise, they lose it. That's your blind spot right there. You seem to think that royals are just regular blokes.

Herkybird
06-01-2016, 15:04
Spot on David! As usual, you are quite correct. :thumbsup:

Kenneth, I have to say you are the naive and misinformed one, PLEASE, let it go!

David Manley
06-01-2016, 15:14
Spot on David! As usual, you are quite correct. :thumbsup:



Please inform my wife, she is convinced this is NEVER the case :happy:

Kentop
06-01-2016, 16:38
And You wonder why people make fun of the brits.

If a head of state is prepared to allow members of their family to serve as their subjects do, then they are exercising their privilege to say so. If she had said no, he would not have gone. Your queen exercised her privilege concerning her prince's assignment. You can bet that she talked to her prince about it first. No prince is going to simply take orders from someone who got their position at the admiralty by using their own privileges and connections. They know how the game is played. You are simply making excuses for their behavior.

Bligh
06-01-2016, 16:54
I am now going to play the politics card Gents.
Let us agree to differ on this matter and pass on if you please.
Rob.

Kentop
06-01-2016, 16:55
Works for me.

Bligh
06-01-2016, 16:57
Thanks Ken.
Rob.

Nightmoss
06-01-2016, 20:01
US Naval War College documents pertaining to the original post are now digitally available online in case you all didn't realize it.

http://www.usnwcarchive.org/exhibits/show/nwc-battle-jutland

Of special interest to me and possibly other wargamers is No 3. Gaming the Battle of Jutland.

http://www.usnwcarchive.org/exhibits/show/nwc-battle-jutland/gaming-the-battle

The promised video of the battle is not what I expected unless they plan on releasing a more comprehensive one?

https://www.facebook.com/NavalWarCollege/videos/vb.88133954392/10154243275714393/?type=2&theater

David Manley
06-01-2016, 22:18
I am now going to play the politics card Gents.
Let us agree to differ on this matter and pass on if you please.
Rob.

Since I still have no real idea what Ken's beef is I'm happy too.

David Manley
06-01-2016, 22:33
US Naval War College documents pertaining to the original post are now digitally available online in case you all didn't realize it.

http://www.usnwcarchive.org/exhibits/show/nwc-battle-jutland

Of special interest to me and possibly other wargamers is No 3. Gaming the Battle of Jutland.

http://www.usnwcarchive.org/exhibits/show/nwc-battle-jutland/gaming-the-battle

The promised video of the battle is not what I expected unless they plan on releasing a more comprehensive one?

https://www.facebook.com/NavalWarCollege/videos/vb.88133954392/10154243275714393/?type=2&theater

Nice to see Admiral Cox there :happy:

Naharaht
06-02-2016, 00:55
Is it possible that the programme makers 'dumbed it down for the consumption of the general British public, who had probably never heard of the Battle of Jutland, and in so doing made it lose its appeal to people like us?

David Manley
06-02-2016, 10:42
That's exactly what happened, and it is fairly common in TV. Programmes like this are aimed at the "avwrage" viewer rather than those with a deeper knowledge on a sibject

fredmiracle
06-02-2016, 12:31
The promised video of the battle is not what I expected unless they plan on releasing a more comprehensive one?

https://www.facebook.com/NavalWarCollege/videos/vb.88133954392/10154243275714393/?type=2&theater

Yes, they don't seem to understand that what we really wanted was an AAR!!! :happy:

Bligh
06-02-2016, 12:49
Nice one Fred!
Rob.:clap:

David Manley
06-03-2016, 16:56
My latest blog entry is a brief report on the Naval Wargame Society's refight of Jutland at the National Museum of the Royal Navy on May 31st, also a few shots from inside the NMRN's Jutland exhibition, which includes the ship's bell from HMS Hood


http://dtbsam.blogspot.co.uk/2016/06/jutland-100-portsmouth.html


https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-vv3-CTvE_0Y/V1H6MQmKMVI/AAAAAAAACFs/dFpkHBotwiEB1-VnzqxGUwWLe7SNfR3OACKgB/s1600/2016-05-31%2B10.16.57.jpg

Nightmoss
06-04-2016, 09:39
Thanks for the link and photo.

Comte de Brueys
06-04-2016, 12:34
Nice.

When I imagine that those battleships shoot at each other with hughe calibers over incredible distances... :erk:

(Did they play it historical or was there room for new tactics?)

Herkybird
06-04-2016, 12:35
I wondered if any little ships got stood on!!!!:question:

Comte de Brueys
06-04-2016, 12:37
(Did they play it historical or was there room for new tactics?)

Ok, I read it in your blog, David.

Interesting.

I would like to visit this exhibition. :please:

David Manley
06-04-2016, 16:18
Nice.

When I imagine that those battleships shoot at each other with hughe calibers over incredible distances... :erk:

(Did they play it historical or was there room for new tactics?)

Vaguely historical, but the light forces were used far more aggressively in the early phase of the battle.

David Manley
06-04-2016, 16:18
I wondered if any little ships got stood on!!!!:question:

None at all :happy:

Comte de Brueys
06-14-2016, 02:05
I read a report about the Skagerrak/Jütland battle now.


Seems the German fleet had a lucky day.


Again England had hacked German radio operations. :Arrrr:


What I wonder about is: The Germans try to lure parts of the British home fleet into the North Sea. I think they tried to destroy Beatty's battlecruiser division and his battleship division that was not stationed in Skapa Flow.

Why did the complete British Home Fleet left for the battle? :question:



Now I understand why everyone favours battlecruisers in my SF literature (Jack Campbell / David Weber / etc.). Fast ships - heavy artillery - first to go - famous commanders.

David Manley
06-14-2016, 11:45
Why did the complete British Home Fleet left for the battle? :question:

Because the German "isolate part of the fleet and destroy it" plan was pretty obvious.