sign in sign up
<<
Home , George Callaghan, High Seas Fleet, Reinhard Scheer, SMS Moltke, SMS Moltke (1877), SMS Seydlitz

BRITISH AND GERMAN : THEIR DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATIONS PDF, EPUB, EBOOK

Michele Cosentino,Ruggero Stanglini | 256 pages | 14 Mar 2016 | Pen & Sword Books Ltd | 9781848321847 | English | Barnsley, United Kingdom A Century After the : Lessons from the

When Women Pray Hardcover T. Jakes Christian Inspirational No ratings or reviews yet. Save on Nonfiction Trending price is based on prices over last 90 days. You may also like. British Nonfiction Books in German. British Books. Personal Development Books. Dieting Personal Development Books. Personal Development Hardcover Books. German Magazines. But Scheer evaded the British once more and the German fleet disappeared into the mist, firing off torpedoes at its pursuers. Jellicoe followed his pre-battle plans for such a situation and turned away to avoid the torpedoes. By the time he could turn back and pursue the Germans, they had effectively escaped. As night fell, there were some small clashes that lasted through into the next morning. By then, the opportunity to inflict any real damage on the High Fleet had been lost and Jellicoe was unwilling to engage in serious night fighting. In the confusion and darkness, the German fleet managed to get away. Jellicoe has been criticised for the outcome of the Battle of Jutland. It was felt that he was too cautious in his dealing with the Germans and should have taken a more aggressive approach. His defenders, however, note the significant risk of losing the fleet — a vital aspect of Britain's wartime defence — as explanation for his calculated restraint. In November , Jellicoe was appointed First Lord and never again took part in operations at sea. He died in and was buried at St Paul's Cathedral. Franz Hipper joined the Imperial German in After holding several commands and serving around the world, he was put in charge of all German scouting forces in Vice Hipper was an excellent tactician, who commanded effectively during the Battle of the Dogger Bank in As of the I Scouting Group of battlecruisers, Hipper played a key role in putting Admiral Scheer's plan into effect at Jutland. Not long after 2pm on 31 May, Hipper and Beatty's forces made contact with each other. Hipper turned south, hoping to draw the British towards the rest of the German fleet. It worked, and Beatty followed him. The two opposing battlecruiser forces soon opened fire on each other. The gunners on Hipper's battlecruisers had the advantage. The British ships were clearly visible against the skyline, whilst the Germans were less distinct targets. The Germans were able to capitalise on this, and achieved a better accuracy and range of fire during the fight between the battlecruisers. The Germans followed and soon met the British . Invincible exploded and all but 6 of her crew of 1, were lost. At one stage in the battle, Hipper had to transfer to a new flagship, SMS Moltke , as his had sustained too much damage and eventually sank. Under increasing pressure from the Grand Fleet, as night fell the Germans disengaged and turned for home. Hipper's force sustained some damage in the night fighting that occurred as the desperately tried to get home intact. Despite this, he and his remaining battlecruisers managed to return to their bases in Germany. Hipper's role at Jutland was judged to have been carried out well, as his battlecruisers decisively won the initial clash with Beatty's force. He retired from the a few months later. He died in Commercial shipbuilding output jumped thirteen-fold from , ensuring that Beijing has largely reached its goal of becoming the world's leading shipbuilder. Yet progress is uneven, with military With Cutler Dawson at the helm for the last fourteen years, Navy Federal Credit Union, the world's largest credit union, has quadrupled the size of the organization and made it an industry leader in customer service. It is now one Two years before the atomic attacks on Hiroshima and helped bring a quick end Two years before the atomic attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki helped bring a quick end to hostilities in the summer of , U. In , U. Army Special This memoir of a CIA operations officer captures the spirit of the early years of This memoir of a CIA operations officer captures the spirit of the early years of the Agency, a period sometimes described as its finest hours. Using the name St. Naval Institute Press. Battle of Jutland | National Records of Scotland

A few salvoes were enough to cause her to explode, capsize and rapidly sink, taking with her 1, officers and men. During this phase of the battle Beatty deployed his , which clashed with German boats. Beatty's were late in turning away and lucky to escape with non-critical damage, but they continued to strike the chasing German battleships as they raced north. She lost 1, officers and men. Despite this disaster and the poor visibility, Jellicoe handled his overwhelming force of battleships brilliantly. The German came off worse, and turned away again to the west. As night fell, Jellicoe tried to cut Scheer off from his home ports, but intermittent skirmishes and sightings through the night did not lead to the hoped-for final contact. The German dead amounted to 2,, but British losses were 6,, of whom more than half died on the three battlecruisers that were sunk. The battle affected some communities as badly as the worst land battles of the war. In peacetime most were fishermen and all were seamen in the Royal Naval Reserve who were called up in to man the warships. All but two were married, and they left 13 widows and 33 fatherless children. The loss of 15 sailors on a single day compares with the 38 others from the town who were lost at sea at other times during the war. The analysis in these examples is clear enough, as are its ramifications, but are such trenchant criticisms really deserved? Was the actually as devoid of technological understanding, competent leadership and broader strategic and tactical thinking as these judgements assert? In recent years a good deal of new scholarship has emerged, much of which paints a very different picture of the Royal Navy and its leadership in the run-up to the First World War. Although the history of British naval policy in this period is now a highly contested area, with wide differences of opinion evident in recent analyses of the direction and intent of Admiralty thinking, much of this historiography is nonetheless in agreement about the assiduity, thoughtfulness and realism with which the service and its leaders prepared the ground for war in general and for a naval war against Germany in the in particular. To begin with, John Beeler and Iain Hamilton have conclusively established—admittedly on very different grounds—that the Royal Navy of the mid- and late Victorian era was far from the reactionary and sleepy instrument of popular caricature. Shawn Grimes, for example, has shown that serious preparations for such a conflict began at the very start of the twentieth century. The institutional focus for this was the creation of the Naval War Staff, a subject that has been analysed in detail by Black. Nowhere was this clearer than in the and manoeuvres, which, as he explains, drove a serious effort to provide Britain with strategic options for the anticipated conflict. Even those who disagree with the substance of the above arguments accept the broader point that the Admiralty was an organisation which sought innovative solutions to the many strategic and tactical problems that it faced. This thesis claims that the Admiralty planned to bring about a quick victory in a war with Germany by collapsing the global economy and so severing the sinews of the German war effort at the very outset. However, as the views of Murray Williamson cited above clearly demonstrate, this convergence of opinion among historians studying the Royal Navy has so far had limited traction in the wider literature. Possibly it has been masked by the intricacy and intensity of the debate over the actual policy adopted by the Admiralty, the tone of which can easily obscure the bigger picture. Alternatively, it could be that, although there is broad agreement on the characterisation of the Navy as a thinking organisation in the decade before the outbreak of the war, broader acceptance of this is slowed by the want of a comprehensive picture of the state of the Navy on the very eve of war. Here questions still remain. How and to what extent had all the changes that had taken place been assimilated? How willing were these people to embrace change and drive forward technical, materiel and tactical improvements? How effective was the Navy in translating technical and tactical innovation into credible strategic options for politicians? Unlike the Army, the General Staff of which appraised military problems at an annual conference, neither the Admiralty nor the Naval War Staff held a regularly scheduled meeting to undertake an equivalent exercise. However, perhaps aware of what the sister service did, in April the Navy timetabled its own ad hoc meeting, at which it was intended that a wide-ranging discussion of such issues should take place. In many respects, this was a logical culmination of the discussions and concerns that had been shaping naval thinking for several years. These had been very revealing but also very expensive, and as a result the decision had been taken that in a less costly, but no less necessary, exercise would be held in the form of a test mobilisation. This decision would prove to be highly significant in early August , as it meant that, despite a certain amount of dispersal, a significant proportion of the fleet was in a heightened state of readiness at the very moment when the European powers rushed headlong into war. While this could not have been predicted in April , the test mobilisation had been identified as having a quite different benefit. This was an opportunity not to be missed. As the First Lord of the Admiralty, , realised, it enabled the holding of a conference that could be attended by all thirty-three of the and commodores commanding the various home fleets and squadrons, as well as by the Sea Lords, the chief planning officers in the War Staff and also any senior naval officers in charge of shore-based commands that they chose to invite. This gathering—consisting of all the designated wartime leaders of the Royal Navy in home waters—could then air and discuss the pressing issues, as they saw them, faced by the naval forces at that moment. Although the European crisis that erupted at the very moment when the conference was supposed to take place ensured that it was never held, all the naval leaders who were due to participate had previously been invited to identify for the conference agenda those issues that they felt were most urgently in need of being addressed. This involved not only the removal of topics considered unworthy of discussion, but also the addition of some unrequested topics, including those of particular concern for the War Staff. Naturally, the editing process casts a useful light on the priorities of the Admiralty. Equally helpful is the fact that, while this final list was being created, the Admiralty commissioned short position papers in the form of summaries of the main lines of argument on the topics selected for discussion. These were produced either by the proposers of the topics in question or by relevant expert authorities within the Admiralty or, occasionally, both. Intended for prior circulation and as prompts for the discussions, some were printed verbatim and included with the conference agenda, while others were extensively edited, and others, although written, mysteriously never saw the light of day. While this proposed event has been known to historians for some time, with several scholars referring to it in general terms or discussing particular aspects of it, to date no one has undertaken a systematic analysis either of the conference as a whole or of its implications for the historiography on the Admiralty as a reflective institution in As such it offers an excellent, even unparalleled, perspective on the state of naval thought at the time. The conference agenda reveals that, far from being technophobic, resistant to change, inflexible, unimaginative or unaware of the nature of modern warfare, the Royal Navy leadership showed a remarkable degree of prescience about the challenges that a war with Germany would present, even if it did not always have ready solutions to the anticipated problems. This list was quickly whittled down. The paperwork was sent to Churchill for comment and on 19 June he passed judgement. He approved the strategical and tactical topics in toto , albeit with a few minor changes of wording and emphasis. However, he had considerable reservations about the other sections. Three issues had been proposed regarding personnel. Churchill removed these in their entirety, thereby reducing the number of section headings from five to four. The section on materiel fared slightly better in that only 60 per cent of the topics were struck out. Once again, no more explanation was provided than their lack of suitability, although in some cases one might surmise that the relative narrowness of the points at issue might have prompted the deletion. Also deleted was the topic suggested by Sir Douglas Gamble, the vice-admiral commanding the Fourth Battle Squadron, about improving the fighting efficiency of earlier dreadnoughts—one that Callaghan had especially promoted. On 12 July, despite the fact that position papers on all the topics had already been commissioned and in some cases set in type, six of the nine topics in Section A, all of which related to bases on the east coast, were removed. Section D, already the shortest, was left untouched. Thenceforth this would remain the format of the conference. This arrangement, which was doubtless administratively convenient, obscures the underlying reality that, excluding a few random issues, the questions raised fell overwhelmingly into four key areas—areas that just happened to correspond with some of the most testing problems that the Navy would soon face and for which they have been criticised extensively. Rather, it took the easy option of referring to a series of memoranda already issued by Sir George Callaghan that outlined the C. Home Fleets, a policy which was endorsed by the Admiralty, was one of defined command flexibility. As he explained:. In an action with a large fleet, fast divisions, and flotillas, numerous cases will arise for individual action on the part of divisional . It is therefore considered that a more defined idea should exist as to what extent and under what circumstances junior flag officers should take the initiative, without waiting for orders or signals from the Commander-in-Chief. None of this, it should be stressed, was intended to lessen the role of the fleet commander. That the leadership structure did not conform to this ideal at the Battle of Jutland is a matter that has generated much historical discussion and controversy over the years. Indeed, a flexible leadership style with subordinates not waiting for explicit orders but willing to act intuitively on the known desires of the C. Whether Callaghan, had he remained as C. However, it is clear that he intended to do so and that he was supported by other senior naval leaders, which suggests that there was no structural impediment to a more decentralised approach to fleet command and control. The second key area of interest, judging by the frequency with which it was raised for discussion, concerned the effective integration of new technologies, ship types and materials into the Royal Navy. Specific questions were tabled about the possible use of aircraft to replace cordons and patrol flotillas; about the role of submarines; about the extension of oil fuel to additional categories of vessel; about new designs of mine and their possible deployment; and about the value of light craft in protecting the fleet against submarine attack. In none of these cases was the thrust of the question that the Royal Navy should stand in the way of progress or seek to frustrate the development of new inventions. Rather, the point was to see what use could be made of innovation to enhance the efficacy of British maritime power. The issue of submarines is a case in point. Submarines featured twice on the agenda. In the first instance, it was in a strategic question about their potential to influence the course of a war with Germany. When a position paper on the topic was first requested, the Office of the Commodore S , the head of the submarine service—a post then held by Roger Keyes—provided a ten-page printed summary of British submarine development since The dating of this document suggests that it was an already existing memorandum not specifically written for the proposed conference. Over-long, massively detailed and manifestly unsuited as a spur to discussion, the decision was quickly taken to reduce it to something more manageable. Unfortunately, faced with an unwieldy and lengthy exposition, the Admiralty went to the other extreme of cutting the entire text, leaving only a table containing the dimensions and particulars of four of the latest British submarine designs. However, as specifications were provided for the E class and the improved E class submarines—boats that were both considered suitable for reintroducing a blockade of the German coast 45 —as well as for the experimental steam submarines, Swordfish and Nautilus , but not for the knot steam-powered submarine designed by the Director of Naval Construction in late , one might reasonably infer that the reintroduction of blockade rather than the integration of submarines into the battle fleet was the priority, at least until the two experimental types had proven themselves. This would have been in line with existing Board decisions. What was true of submarines was also true of aircraft. The proposer of this topic held that the then current range of aircraft and the limitations of available wireless telegraphy sets restricted existing aircraft to supporting the reconnaissance roles of cruisers and patrol flotillas. They were thus seen as an addition to, rather than a substitution for, current floating assets. He argued forcefully that, whatever were its current limitations—and he accepted that these existed—air power would soon be exercising a considerable influence on naval warfare. Without commenting at all on how planes would deal with the difficulty of long-distance navigation over wide bodies of water, he maintained that they would soon be able to perform similar functions further out to sea. Enhanced engine reliability and the provision of special ships to carry, launch and recover such aircraft out at sea would, he suggested, materially enhance their suitability for this role. However, it was not just their capabilities as scouts that excited Sueter. Although the topic as tabled only asked about this one specific role, he suggested that the value of planes would soon be extended by virtue of their capabilities as a potent weapons-delivery system. As he argued:. The power to carry and use a vital weapon from craft of this speed and comparative cheapness of construction will have far-reaching effects. Seaplanes are now being built, which will carry the service inch torpedo, and have a radius of action of several hundred miles, and it is confidently expected that they will be able to discharge them either when resting on the water or when flying close above the water. A third important area of concern was the protection of British maritime commerce. Because he never lost sight of the role of the fleet, each of its ships the Grand Fleet at Jutland was the product of a technological innovation that aimed at strategic results. Adapting technology to strategic needs and then using technological development to subdue an opponent is the great lesson that Jutland provides. First, Jutland demonstrated the need to ensure that platforms are used for their proper role. The result was that Britain lost three battlecruisers. Second, Jutland reaffirmed the importance of engaging in sustained combat, despite the major offensive capability of large combat vessels. Jutland emphasized the importance of traditional sustained combat, despite advances in offensive technology. Fisher emphasized complete and rapid modernization throughout his career in the Royal Navy. He even scrapped older ships to free up sailors and funds for newer vessels, especially after the was launched. Today, the U. Navy, and more broadly all American military services, have accepted that unmanned systems will play a major role in military operations in the near future. In particular, the sea services frequently discuss pairing manned and unmanned platforms in various combat roles and using unmanned systems to multiply the combat power and range of manned assets. John Davis this past week. However, praising innovation does not equal rapidly and effectively disseminating new technologies in a strategically relevant manner. Deploying the carrier-launched drones in limited numbers, giving submarines the ability to launch drones , or linking unmanned and manned helicopters together for anti-submarine warfare missions do not have significant strategic implications. They do not go far enough. They do not embrace a revolution in military technology, as construction of the Dreadnought in did. If the U. Navy and the U. Jutland provides lessons on officer selection to modern strategists that are directly relevant in an increasingly globalized strategic environment. Both British and German commanders, John Jellicoe and , had a superb grasp of the strategic goals of their countries. Jellicoe understood the need to preserve British naval supremacy in the North Sea, even at the cost of ceding the tactical initiative at certain times to the High Seas Fleet. Jellicoe also understood the need for constant preparation for a fleet action to ensure that a major sortie would not catch the British by surprise. If the German political situation had been slightly different, Scheer may have been handed another chance to draw out portions of the Grand Fleet or harass it with submarines, thereby evening the odds for a fleet action. Jutland teaches that having commanders with an iron grasp of grand strategy is invaluable for maximizing assets and limiting damage over time. Finally, it is critical to have commanders with a firm grasp of strategic goals, especially at sea, where recovering losses is extremely difficult. Jutland provides critical lessons for today, on strategy, technological development and integration, and command. However, the most enduring lesson of Jutland is the consistently random nature of combat. No matter how thorough the strategies, how well-developed the technologies, and how decorated the commanders, warfare still boils down to a small number of decisive moments where chance dictates the life and death of thousands. The wrong choice would have turned his line parallel to its German counterpart, leading to an extended duel between the two fleets. Who Were The Key Personalities In The Battle Of Jutland? | Imperial War Museums

Surprised by the declaration of war, she steamed to the and joined Turkey. Officially integrated into the , she made he new career until fighting the Russians in the Black Sea. She was officially renamed Yavuz Sultan Selim and served until Illustration of the Moltke in Design Derived from the German battlecruisers of the Moltke class, Seydlitz differed in many respects. She had a revised hull with three successive steps, and a singular configuration, but with the same arrangement of artillery, again a revised protection, plus three thousand tons more in displacement. Despite of it she was more powerful and faster. Probably the most modern battlecruiser ever owned a Nation in , SMS Seydlitz proved the excellence of her fire control system at the famous battle of Jutland , taking torpedoes and perhaps 25 hits without sinking, whereas British cruisers blew up at the first salvo. Repaired, she back into service only to hit a mine in and again repaired. At the Battle of Jutland, she was hit by two torpedoes from the destroyers HMS Petard and Turbulent, and above 22 hits including 16 from the British latest fast dreadnoughts mm. Managing to survive miraculously, she barely made it to the German coast, beaching with more than 5, tons of seawater its bulkheads. Again repaired, she reached like the rest of the Hochseeflotte after the armistice, scuttled it in , and was raised, resold and BU in The was probably the best and most scarred veteran of German battlecruisers by then. Illustration of the Seydlitz. Specifications Dimensions: x 28,5 x 9,2 m Displacement: 24,t, 28,t FL Crew: Propulsion: 4 shafts Parsons turbines, 27 Schultze-Thornycroft boilers, 88, hp, Design and development Last prewar Germans battle cruisers on the drawing board, they were completed after the war broke up , they are considered among the best. For the first time, a flush deck was preferred to the three bridges system used by Seydlitz. Their prismatic shape was accentuated, and they had good manoeuvrability. For the first time these ships were given height mm guns, which at the time still feeble compared to the caliber adopted by Royal Navy equivalents. Therefore, these were still were out-ranged in addition to be out-gunned. Central battery was a bit low and prone to spray, and their protection and compartmentalization under the waterline was not excellent. The Derfflinger in action The Derfflinger began her tests in March but underwent teething turbine problems. They managed to achieve The Derfflinger fought at the Dogger Bank, conceding three hits, but at Jutland it was another matter: The Queen Mary was hit 11 times by Derfflinger, but she took herself 21 hits particularly pounded by Revenge mm guns , knocking off the two rear turrets. She managed to return in , was repaired, but stayed inactive until out to sail to Scapa Flow, and to her fate. She was salvaged and broken up in Due to the war indeed, the yard was deserted, so she was operational only two months before Jutland. She managed to send HMS Invincible to the bottom conceding two hits herself and badly damaged HMS Defence before succumbing to a withering fire from other ships, taking 24 impacts of large caliber. Destroyer G38 torpedoes eventually finished her off as she refused to sink. Both were quite formidable German battlecruisers and they proved it time and again. Armor: Battery , citadel , turrets , belt , blockhaus , mm. Much more powerful she was a knot faster. The ammunition loading system was also revised and more efficient. Like other ships in the German navy, she run with a mixed of coal and oil. In November, she was accepted into service. Her career thus barely spanned a year. She did a few raids in the Baltic, but remained mostly inactive until the surrender, and sailed to Scapa Flow to be scuttled in June In an official Royal commission of Engineers moved to the ship for a comprehensive study. It was then realized the excellence of her protection, ammunition management systems, modern communication and advanced fire control system. She was probably the most well-thought and refined of all German battlecruisers, a true precursor of fast battleships of the s. Hindenburg specifications Dimensions: ,8 x 29 x 9,4 m Displacement: 26,t, 31,t FL Crew: Propulsion: 4 shafts Parsons turbines, 18 Schultze-Thornycroft boilers, 72 hp, Mackensen class design. These German battlecruisers would have differed from the others in having a full length forecastle deck and a return was made to twin instead of tandem rudders. They would have been handsome ships with tripod foremast and 2 funnels. Mackensen was laid down under the programme, Ersatz Freya under the War estimates and the others were ordered in April It was originally hoped to complete them from the summer of to the autumn of , and their 35 cm guns would have made them formidable antagonists. The 5 TTs would have been arranged with one in the bows and two on either broadside forward and aft of the torpedo bulkhead. The 12in main belt ran from 10ft forward of the fore turret to 10ft abaft the after one and tapered to 6-in at the lower edge and 9-in at the upper deck. Forward and aft the armour stopped short of the ends and was respectively 4in and 4in. The barbettes were reduced to 4 in Ersatz A 6in behind the battery armour and to 3-in behind the main belt, while the turrets had The armour deck did not extend outboard of the torpedo bulkhead amidships where it was 2. The upper deck was 1-in over the main belt and the forecastle deck 2in-lin over the battery. The torpedo bulkhead was 2in increased to 2. The boilers comprised 24 single-ended coal-fired and 8 double-ended oil- fired and were smaller than in the previous ships. Leak pumps were increased to 8 from 5 in Hindenburg. Displacement: 31, t — 35, t fully loaded Dimensions: m x Originally ordered in April as units of the Mackensen class, the design was altered in January in an attempt to produce a battlecruiser with cm guns using machinery already ordered. Appearance would have been quite distinct with the uptakes trunked into a single large funnel. The bow TT was retained with one on either beam aft of the boiler rooms and thus within the area of the torpedo bulkhead. The turrets were to have 12in faces, 10in sides, 11 in rears and 10in-6in roofs, while the armour deck was 4in Construction of Ersatz Yorck was halted after tons of steel had been assembled. Your email address will not be published. This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed. Skip to content. SMS Seydlitz in action at Jutland All this had nothing to do with some secret brillant technology from the Germans, either super shells, higher velocity or superior accuracy. Tertiary armament: The ubiquitous 8,8cm This famous light caliber gun, used over time in many variants, anti-TB and anti-air, had a better muzzle velocity at each iteration, notably due to increased barrel length. Be the first to write a review. Best Selling in Nonfiction. Bill o'Reilly's Killing Ser. When Women Pray Hardcover T. Jakes Christian Inspirational No ratings or reviews yet. Save on Nonfiction Trending price is based on prices over last 90 days. You may also like. British Nonfiction Books in German. British Books. Personal Development Books. The Germans pursued him and he led them straight into the path of Jellicoe and the entire British Grand Fleet. His battlecruisers now joined with the rest of the fleet as the battle continued to rage. Beatty's role in the battle now came to a close and he took no real part in the night fighting that followed, as the Germans turned for home. It was a frustrating encounter for Beatty, who never managed to gain an advantage over the Germans. His independent nature led to a difficult working relationship with his commander, Jellicoe, which caused problems at Jutland. Confusion, poor visibility and a lack of communication within the British fleet all contributed to the disappointing outcome of the battle. After Jutland, Jellicoe was given a non-operational role and Beatty stepped in to replace him in command of the Grand Fleet. In , he became First Sea Lord, a position he held until After he retired, his health steadily declined and he died in in A quietly confident, unassuming man, Jellicoe joined the Royal Navy in His polite, studious nature and attention to detail ensured he steadily advanced through the naval promotion system and he was second in command of the Home Fleet as war approached. He was 54 years old when he was made commander of the Grand Fleet as war broke out in August He was reluctant to take up the post, however, and only did so after some intervention from the First Lord of the Admiralty, Winston Churchill. Jellicoe's cautious and considered style of leadership was the opposite of Beatty's dashing boldness. On 30 May , he learned that the Germans were planning something in the North Sea and ordered the fleet out of its bases. Initially, Jellicoe did not rush to meet the German force, as he lacked specific information on its movements, strength and plans. This hampered his decision-making throughout the battle. Once Beatty reported contact with Hipper's ships in the early afternoon of 31 May, Jellicoe ordered his force to advance at full speed. As the battle between Beatty's and Hipper's battlecruisers intensified, Jellicoe — and the bulk of the Grand Fleet — rapidly approached. Beatty turned away and led the Germans straight towards Jellicoe's fleet , which was assembled in a line. This was the naval term for a manoeuvre which essentially meant the British had a firing advantage over the Germans. Scheer now decided to turn away and the German fleet managed to escape the British guns. Jellicoe ordered the British to bear south and soon came into contact with the Germans, again managing to 'cross the T'. But Scheer evaded the British once more and the German fleet disappeared into the mist, firing off torpedoes at its pursuers. Jellicoe followed his pre-battle plans for such a situation and turned away to avoid the torpedoes. By the time he could turn back and pursue the Germans, they had effectively escaped. As night fell, there were some small clashes that lasted through into the next morning. By then, the opportunity to inflict any real damage on the High Seas Fleet had been lost and Jellicoe was unwilling to engage in serious night fighting. In the confusion and darkness, the German fleet managed to get away. Jellicoe has been criticised for the outcome of the Battle of Jutland. It was felt that he was too cautious in his dealing with the Germans and should have taken a more aggressive approach.

British and German Battlecruisers: Their Development and Operations | Naval Historical Foundation

Jellicoe ordered the British to bear south and soon came into contact with the Germans, again managing to 'cross the T'. But Scheer evaded the British once more and the German fleet disappeared into the mist, firing off torpedoes at its pursuers. Jellicoe followed his pre-battle plans for such a situation and turned away to avoid the torpedoes. By the time he could turn back and pursue the Germans, they had effectively escaped. As night fell, there were some small clashes that lasted through into the next morning. By then, the opportunity to inflict any real damage on the High Seas Fleet had been lost and Jellicoe was unwilling to engage in serious night fighting. In the confusion and darkness, the German fleet managed to get away. Jellicoe has been criticised for the outcome of the Battle of Jutland. It was felt that he was too cautious in his dealing with the Germans and should have taken a more aggressive approach. His defenders, however, note the significant risk of losing the fleet — a vital aspect of Britain's wartime defence — as explanation for his calculated restraint. In November , Jellicoe was appointed First Sea Lord and never again took part in operations at sea. He died in and was buried at St Paul's Cathedral. Franz Hipper joined the Imperial German Navy in After holding several commands and serving around the world, he was put in charge of all German scouting forces in Hipper was an excellent tactician, who commanded effectively during the Battle of the Dogger Bank in As commander of the I Scouting Group of battlecruisers, Hipper played a key role in putting Admiral Scheer's plan into effect at Jutland. Not long after 2pm on 31 May, Hipper and Beatty's battlecruiser forces made contact with each other. Hipper turned south, hoping to draw the British towards the rest of the German fleet. It worked, and Beatty followed him. The two opposing battlecruiser forces soon opened fire on each other. The gunners on Hipper's battlecruisers had the advantage. The British ships were clearly visible against the skyline, whilst the Germans were less distinct targets. The Germans were able to capitalise on this, and achieved a better accuracy and range of fire during the fight between the battlecruisers. The Germans followed and soon met the British Grand Fleet. Invincible exploded and all but 6 of her crew of 1, were lost. At one stage in the battle, Hipper had to transfer to a new flagship, SMS Moltke , as his had sustained too much damage and eventually sank. Under increasing pressure from the Grand Fleet, as night fell the Germans disengaged and turned for home. Hipper's force sustained some damage in the night fighting that occurred as the High Seas Fleet desperately tried to get home intact. Despite this, he and his remaining battlecruisers managed to return to their bases in Germany. Hipper's role at Jutland was judged to have been carried out well, as his battlecruisers decisively won the initial clash with Beatty's force. He retired from the Imperial German Navy a few months later. There were several battlecruiser operations during WW I, but the major test came at Jutland in The authors conclude that battlecruisers lasted until WW II most notably the Hood , but those sunk at Jutland caused the utility of the design to be questioned. There is no mention of the controversial Alaska -class battlecruisers, often referred to as large cruisers. Cosentino and Stanglini rate the German Derfflinger -class the best of those commissioned before Overall, the battlecruisers completed the roles and missions for which they were envisioned and designed. They were eventually replaced by the fast concept best exemplified by the Iowa -class. In such a well-done and overall well written volume, there are some minor errors. Words are either missing pp. Your email address will not be published. Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment. Leave Comment Cancel reply Your email address will not be published. As night fell, Jellicoe tried to cut Scheer off from his home ports, but intermittent skirmishes and sightings through the night did not lead to the hoped-for final contact. The German dead amounted to 2,, but British losses were 6,, of whom more than half died on the three battlecruisers that were sunk. The battle affected some communities as badly as the worst land battles of the war. In peacetime most were fishermen and all were seamen in the Royal Naval Reserve who were called up in to man the warships. All but two were married, and they left 13 widows and 33 fatherless children. The loss of 15 sailors on a single day compares with the 38 others from the town who were lost at sea at other times during the war. The 6, British deaths at Jutland can be compared to overall British losses of 44, during the war at sea. Copyright, North of Scotland Newspapers. After their return to base crews were granted leave, while the many wounded were taken to the naval hospitals at South Queensferry, and also to the Royal Infirmary in where on 16 June the King spoke to all the hundred or so wounded men reported to be receiving treatment. Having survived the battle, on 1 July Leading Stoker James Quinn was involved in a motor bus accident, contracted gangrene and died four days later in hospital at South Queensferry. The twenty six year-old from Dundee was buried at Dalmeny nearby. These sister ships, each armed with six 15 inch guns went into active service in August and September respectively.

https://static.s123-cdn-static.com/uploads/4644555/normal_6020b65ec2363.pdf https://static.s123-cdn-static.com/uploads/4638990/normal_601ebeea97116.pdf https://uploads.strikinglycdn.com/files/e342e8f5-ab81-4160-b9b1-91cab223f08e/grundriss-der-gesamten-chirurgie-ein-taschenbuch-fur- studierende-und-aerzte-305.pdf https://files8.webydo.com/9591827/UploadedFiles/72DD2BD7-2C09-BD07-791D-26188ABD8E09.pdf