90th anniversary of Jutland.

[timshatz]

Thanks Delcyros, good read, good link.

[delcyros]

Thank You.

[delcyros]

I had always my problems to understand why Britain sticked to their shelldesign when Germany, Austro-Hungary and even Russia already shifted to the hardcapped and delay fuzed shells. They knew the specifications for them but it wasn´t until very late 1918, in other words after end of ww1, that Britain began to introduce a decent APCBC design.
With what happened at Jutland, Scheer could be statisfied. Other circumstances would see a decisive british victory...

[timshatz]

Originally Posted by delcyros

I had always my problems to understand why Britain sticked to their shelldesign when Germany, Austro-Hungary and even Russia already shifted to the hardcapped and delay fuzed shells.

I think part of it is the natural, cautious approach that Fleets (across the world) take towards changing anything. While "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" may not quite cover it, a perspective of "It works ok and we know that while the new jobby has flaws we don't know about" might be closer to it. Admirals rarely change a perspective until the object is proven to be a loser. They may think the product is less than effective but it works to a certain extent. So get on with the job using what you have.

The point at which you realize the product is a loser is a relative one. Lack of use is generally the most common reason why nobody finds our a weapon doesn't work well (aka, American Torpedoes in the begining of the Pacific War) while other nations may've taken a more interested, costly and time intensive approach to developing the weapon.

Similarly, and again I am just putting out my .02 on this thing, the Japanese at Tsushima (only 11 years earlier) did not have rounds that penetrated while the Russian rounds did, for the most part. At least that was what I have heard. The British Admirals may've heard the same thing. Hence, bursting wasn't as big a deal versus the penetration. As long as the round hit, that might've been more important.

[delcyros]

Originally Posted by Renrich

It was my understanding that the Crews in Indefatigable, Queen Mary and Invincible may not have been following the latest procedures regarding flash proof doors between the handling rooms and magazines. I don't know how anyone could know for sure under the circumstances.

That, as far as I can see, is a directed opinion. It was not without reason. While beeing attrective as an explenation, it also implies that no german shell penetrated into any british BC vitalia. I personally believe, that´s why these thesis are so widespread, You may trace them down to the early 20´s.
I am not going to say that this hadn´t happened nor that these relaxed procedures didn´t played a role (I firmly believe they did) but records are giving another image:

In all cases the explosion followed beeing hit, in no case the explosion was without a recorded hit at turret/barbette or close to them on the hullstructure.

I will now look how probable penetrations are:
The germans fired in all cases either 11"/50 (Von der Tann: 11"/45), 305 Kg APC or 12"/50, 405 Kg HE projectiles. The distances of the fatal hits are given with:

A) Indefategable
At 16:04 Von der Tann achieved successive hits (using 11"/45), one beeing close to or at X-barbette below the upper deck, the following violent explosion destroyed the ship. The distance according to Campbell was ~15.500-16.000 yards.
The target angle according to the battle charts was in between 15 and 20 deg (I assume 20 deg for Target angle).
B) Queen Mary
At 16:26 Queen Mary was hit by several impacts from either Seydlitz (using 11"/50) or Derfflinger (using 12"/50) or both. The sources give either A or B barbette /turret and a hit on Q turret with a subsequent explosion of the forward magazines and a cordite fire in Q handling rooms (which did not reached the magazine) When Queen Mary blew up, Seydlitz gunnery report gives a range of 14.750 yards, Derfflinger, which also fired at Queen Mary (with 12"/50), logged a range of 14.400 yards. The target angle was probably the same, something in between 15 and 20 degrees (I use 20 degrees).
C) Invincible
At 18:32, one or more 12" shells from either Lützow or Derfflinger or both hit the Q turret or in it´s vicinity at only 9.800-9.600 yards. Several hits are believed to have occured earlier in between 10.400-9.600 yards. The target angle was quite low according to most battle charts (I use 10 deg. TA).

As You may see, the diffculty to achieve penetration is in reversed order. The most difficult one belongs to Indefatigable, it was at longest distance and with the less powerful gun.

Indefatigables main belt had a thickness of 6" (laminated over 4" wood and 0.5" non armour grade construction steel) over the magazines + an additional shielding of 2.5" behind the main belt (the torpedo bulkhead), sufficiant to stop even heaviest fragmentation.
At the given distance the ballistics for Von der Tann´s 666lbs main projectiles reveal a striking velocity of ~1300 fps (taken into account an average gunwear) and an angle of fall of 17.2 deg. The netto impact obliquity therefore is 26.15 deg. Our computations show that under such circumstances, 6" of armour are piercable with the given APC-round. The projectile remains 309 fps velocity behind the plate, the windscreen and AP-cap will be stripped off and there is some probability that the lower body of the projectile undergoes damage (defusing the projectiles), altough the estimated probability is ~33%. However, even an intact projectile usually would fail to defeat the 2.5" torpedo bulkhead behind (433 fps are needed to do so). A simple belt penetration into magazines therefore seems to me unconvincing.
Another possibility is a deck penetration of the 1" weather deck followed by the 2" armour deck:
The weather deck get´s penetrated with a remaining velocity of 1180 fps, the projectile looses windscreen (but not AP-cap), get´s deflected downwards by some1.5 degrees and remains otherwise intact. The fuze will be set (35.4ft. to go at 0.03 s. normal fuze delay).
Even the lower 2" main armour deck get´s defeated with 762 fps remaining velocity. The projectile therefore will have enough time to move deep into the magazines before exploding.

So I conclude, yes- a direct magazine penetration (by deck), even at those comparably long distances, has a convincing probability. In this case any precautious measures couldn´t have helped.

[timshatz]

Great post.

[renrich]

delcyros seems to have a lot of data on naval matters which makes his posts always interesting. The British BCs gunnery seemed to have been deficient compared to their battleships. Another factor about the effectiveness of the British gunfire that has been pointed out is that their bursting charges in the AP shells was lyddite which proved to be unstable and caused the charge to explode prematurely. The German shells used another explosive I believe called trotyl which was more stable and more effective.

[renrich]

I believe it was Beatty who was supposed to have said to Lion's captain after he thought(mistakenly) that Princess Royal had blown up " something seems to be the matter with our bloody ships today, steer two points closer to the enemy" probably a myth but this was before the third BC the Invincible had blown up.

[renrich]

The reason given for the charmed life of New Zealand during the battle(I believe she received not a single hit) was that her captain was wearing a Maori skirt which had been given him by those tribesmen and the skirt bestowed it's luck on the ship. To me the decisions, conduct and actions of Hipper and his battle cruisers deserve all of the praise possible for meritorious and effective behavior during the battle. I can only compare their fortitude and bravery to the actions of the small boys and jeep carriers at Leyte Gulf.

[timshatz]

Originally Posted by renrich

The reason given for the charmed life of New Zealand during the battle(I believe she received not a single hit) was that her captain was wearing a Maori skirt which had been given him by those tribesmen and the skirt bestowed it's luck on the ship. To me the decisions, conduct and actions of Hipper and his battle cruisers deserve all of the praise possible for meritorious and effective behavior during the battle. I can only compare their fortitude and bravery to the actions of the small boys and jeep carriers at Leyte Gulf.

Very true about Del's postings. A treasure trove of facts and information. Very good to read.

Heard the same thing about the New Zealand. Of the 6 BCs in that line, she was the only one to get away without any casualties.

Think Hipper's BC squadron was thrown away. Scheer could've done a better job of handling them. The "Death Ride" was a panic move. Probably could've gotten them home (for the most part) in one piece. And the turn back towards the Brits the second time, what was he thinking? Read plenty of it but still have no clue.

On the other hand, Jellicoe made sound decisions throughout the battle. Ended up getting the short end of the stick from the Admiralty while the guy who screwed up most of his decisions (Beatty) ended up being promoted.

Go figure. Probably a lesson in making sure you make friends in high places when getting promoted.

[Henk]

German Navy could have won taht they if they just cept on fighting. No one actualy won the battle, but if you take losses the Germans won the battle that they lost the least men. The German Navy were never used again in a major Naval battle again. I wish I could see some of those German and British Battleships. Oh, and were the Baden class there it would have been great.

[trackend]

Good Post Del

Originally Posted by Henk

German Navy could have won taht they if they just cept on fighting. No one actualy won the battle, but if you take losses the Germans won the battle that they lost the least men. .

In my opinion the German Fleet would of lost had they not withdrawn.
My take is that although the German fleet inflicted heavier casualties they failed to acheive the original objectives in fact all it proved was that they could not take on the British and hope to take command of the sea
It was the German fleet that withdrew to port so I say they lost as they no longer commanded the ground.

[timshatz]

Agree with Trackend on this one. The High Seas fleet was only under the guns of the Grand Fleet for a relatively short time. In terms of numbers, that is where they were most vulnerable. The British Battleships could and did stand the shelling very well. An example of this is the damage done to the Warspite. She survived in spite of being targeted by almost every gun on the German Battleline (for a short time). The Brits had a larger number of larger guns. Brits built their battleships to shoot then survive. The Germans built theirs battleships to survive then shoot.

I think the Germans did ok, as did the British. True, it was not a total victory for either side. But, if I had to make a decision on it, I would give it to the Brits on Points. The Germans did come out of port again later in the war, but they did not have any great affect as a fleet. They were not a threat to British trade.

The German High Seas Fleet was a failed weapon (IMHO). Tirpitz idea of being a threat but not being able to destroy the opposition was a failed strategy. The results of his theory was the creation of a fleet that made an enemy of the British (who were not one before). The fleet never paid for itself strategically and, in fact, was one of the causes of the eventual German defeat.

[delcyros]

As to whom won, Jutland was inconlusive, something unexpected by the admirality of both navies. The concept of battlefield possession as pointed out above by trackend, was uncommon in naval theories and put forward exclusively by historians. Altough it must be said that the battlefield possession of the GF directly lead to the scuttling of the CL´s ROSTOCK & ELBING in the next morning and to a lesser degree may have played a role in the scuttling of SMS LÜTZOW (Not wanting to say that she could make port otherwise but without having the GF that near, Lützow wouldn´t have driven to unadvisable high speed as she did historically. The main reason why the weakened principal transverse bulkhead (forward) gave way at about midnight).
Jutland was a minor tactical victory for the HSF but not the decisive they were seeking for. In the meantime, it was a bad lesson for the GF but without suffering real substantial losses, so that they could keep up the tight blockade over Germany. True, the GF seeked for a second Trafalgar and the way things developed were not favourable but in the end, the GF chased the HSF, and that´s what counts.
I think that both, Scheer & Jellicoe did a hell of a job out there with the limits in communication in mind.

Regarding the ability of the QE´s to survive in the battleline, WARSPITE might not be the proper example. The events of her steering gear jam made a spectacular story but this is not reflected by the damage inflicted. She was withdrawn because her buoyancy and stability was compromised (caused by some flooding aft), along with a significant limitation in speed. Her combat factors were not that much imited. Other QE´s suffered more in the brief engagement with the van: Placed as the last ship of the line, MALAYA did not waited until WARSPITE finished her turn and turned together with her out of sight from the german van. MALAYA received seven major calibre hits in this event, suffering 63 dead and 68 wounded (much more than WARSPITE), with her whole secondary starboard 6" artillery out of action following two contemporary hits. She was lucky to survive the turn as smoldering fragments defeated the main armour deck via ammunition hoists and landed on cordite bags of the shell handling rooms. The prompt action of PO Day and L/S Watson prevented the disaster, they removed the debris. If these cartridges had ignited, there is little doubt that the forward 6" magazine (located above the shell rooms and in open condition with it) would have exploded and as this magazine was adjacent to the forward 15" magazine, as pointed out by Campbell, the loss of the ship must have followed. A diving shell also caused some flooding so that MALAYA technically was in a far worser state than was WARSPITE, developing 4 degrees list. Even BARHAM suffered from more losses (28 dead, 46 wounded) by only 4 major calibre hits than did WARSPITE.

[renrich]

At the time of Hipper's Death Ride, Scheer had only 4 effective BCs and, I believe, only16 dreadnoughts, whereas Jellicoe had 24 dreadnoughts, 3 super dreadnoughts, and either 5 or 6 BCs at his disposal. The HSF was so heavily outnumbered I don't see how, short of some miracle, they could have prevailed. Jellicoe was truly the only man on either side who could lose the war in one day and his handling of the GF, all things considered, was quite good. I would give Jellicoe an A, Hipper an A plus, Beatty a B minus and Scheer a C. Scheer was fortunate to get back to the Jade with as few losses as he had. Another point is that the GF was ready for battle just a few days later whereas the HSF was not ready to answer bells for some months.