german tactical victory, british had way higher losses
operational stalemate, british did not inflict enough losses on the german navy to prevent them from being a fleet in being but the germans didnt break the blockade on germany
but it was a strategic failure on the germans, because not breaking the blockade would prove disastrous for their economy (not necessarily a success for the british, but a big loss for the germans)
>British perform poorly, but numbers make up for deficiencies >Germans perform well, but outnumbered >Germans fail to inflict significant damage to British Home Fleet >Germans retreat under impossible odds >forced back to port for rest of war >have to resort to submarine warfare >never dare to engage in large scale engagements again
The last is telling, had it really been felt a German victory, follow up engagements would have been sought, but the Germans feared further action; Germany struggled to make good their losses, whilst Britain was churning out warships. British victory, but ignoble and messy.
Germany won the battle but achieved nothing by doing so. Some celebrations and medals did not change the overall situation between the RN and KM. The Germans were still mostly bottled up in their home waters.
And the British learned many lessons they put into practice, meaning that any other large engagement would likely result in RN victory as they fixed their ammunition handling practices and deficiencies with shells.
That said, the Germans won my heart because their WW1 ships are dope.
The German navy left port, sank more ships than they lost, returned to port, and then remained there until the end of the war. All the while, the British continued to blockade Germany.
I don't know what it is about this turn of phrase, but it makes me suspect that everyone in this thread learns all they know from the same set of youtube essays
NAYRT but the way it is used by most plebs, it can be twisted to explain nearly every lost battle >Kyiv: tactical defeat, strategic Russian victory, territory gained >Syria: tactical defeat, strategic Syrian victory, rebels stalled >Praying Mantis: strategic victory, US invasion prevented >Vietnam: strategic victory, Communist domino stopped >Korean War: strategic victory, US invasion stopped >Burma 1942: strategic victory, India defended >France 1940: strategic victory, Luftwaffe decimated >Dunkirk: strategic victory, BEF rescued
All it takes is for the narrator to give their interpretation of the strategic objectives in order to claim victory. And these are usually loosely defined or downright manipulated.
I agree with
https://i.imgur.com/xsvzBYT.jpg
>tactically, a victory >strategically, a loss
I don't know what it is about this turn of phrase, but it makes me suspect that everyone in this thread learns all they know from the same set of youtube essays
, it is the plebbiest of battle assessments
Even reddit would do better
https://i.imgur.com/SUwWeyH.jpg
So who really won at the Jutland?
Unquestionably the Royal Navy. They contained the threat with acceptable losses and proved to the German admirals that their hopes for outfighting the RN were unlikely to come true. No doubt the loss of morale contributed to the mutiny that followed much later.
It was not the unquestionable victory that is gained from visible losses favouring the victor, and that's why it generates so much controversy.
It is moronic. What is the tactical advantage of fleeing the field of battle and getting bottled in port for the rest of the war?
The best you could say of the battle from the German perspective is that it was indecisive.
was it really a german victory if they never won strategically(didnt break the embargo) or tactically (most british losses were battlecruisers, and germans couldnt replace their lost battleships).
the soviets lost more men and material at stalingrad and is still considered to have tactially and strategically won the battle
The Bongs? They trapped the Germans for the entire war and blockaded the country. What the frick kind of question is that? >b-b-b-ut they did more d-damage and and
And? They were forced to withdraw and then were harried and trapped. They lost. Can't even claim a 'tactical victory' because they were forced to leave.
A messy and blueballing British strategic victory, since the blockade was of war-winning importance and the battle allowed it to remain in place for the rest of the war.
Not a proud victory but a victory nonetheless
K/Dgays need not apply
In strategic terms it as a decisive british victory, the germans never dared sortie in force, indeed the order to do so caused the Kiel mutiny and sparked the revolution and final collapse of the german war effort. The fact that the germans refused to sortie meant the blockade remained in place and this had a massive impact on Germanys ability to sustain its war effort
Tactically indecisive. the germans won the battlecruiser skirmish in the opening phase, but just as clearly lost the main fleet action albeit with lower losses due to the immediate decision to run like hell. at the end of the days fighting the british had control of the seas, the germans were contained in port and the ratio of combat capable ships actually favoured the british more after the battle than before as while the germans had fewer outright losses, many more of their ships had sustained heavy damages, indeed Seydlitz only made to to port ith the assistance of 2 pumpships and a tug.
Probably the side who took less than half the losses the other side did, and which accomplished its operational goal (inflicting higher relative losses - lost enemy tonnage vs. total enemy tonnage - than losses suffered - lost tonnage vs. total tonnage).
Brainlets who think the Germans planned to win the war in a single battle should be drowned in the north sea
>the germans never dared sortie in force
It did so twice after Jutland in 1916 alone. The Royal Navy declined to show up.
The reality is that the EN effectively surrendered the North Sea after Jutland.
It was just less important than the atlantic.
The British.
However, it's only really a win as a result of cumulative surface fleet victories by the Allies as a whole.
Whilst the Germans were forced back to their ports, it ultimately tied up a portion of the RN to keep them there. If situations across the globe put strain on the RN, it might have resulted in the Germans being able to leave their ports and continue operating.
Jellicoe was able to report a fully operational fleet within a day of Jutland. The German fleet was generally weakened even if the K/D was impressive in the actual battle. The real question is how tf Beatty managed to get promoted after such a god-awful performance.
Strategically? Bongs and it's not even close >Tfw the German navy refused to leave port for the rest of the war and when ordered to do so instantly mutinied
Germ goals >Kill the British BCs >Keep as much of our shit as we can intact
British Goals >Keep blockade going >Destroy germ BCs and any other capitals to prevent future raiding
Well they both accomplished most of their goals so uh YES.
germanys naval goal was to draw out and destroy a portion of the grand fleet, they didnt realise that the british had decided to sortie en masse or not at all.
the british goals were essentially preserve the fleet and blockade as primary objectives, and kill as many germans as they could.
strategically the british achieved their goals the germans did not.
Brits.
german tactical victory, british had way higher losses
operational stalemate, british did not inflict enough losses on the german navy to prevent them from being a fleet in being but the germans didnt break the blockade on germany
but it was a strategic failure on the germans, because not breaking the blockade would prove disastrous for their economy (not necessarily a success for the british, but a big loss for the germans)
The Germans, they just didn't win hard enough to make a difference.
Not the Home Fleet or the British people.
the fish
we got back at them though
>we
Jutland was a conspiracy by Big Chippie
>British perform poorly, but numbers make up for deficiencies
>Germans perform well, but outnumbered
>Germans fail to inflict significant damage to British Home Fleet
>Germans retreat under impossible odds
>forced back to port for rest of war
>have to resort to submarine warfare
>never dare to engage in large scale engagements again
The last is telling, had it really been felt a German victory, follow up engagements would have been sought, but the Germans feared further action; Germany struggled to make good their losses, whilst Britain was churning out warships. British victory, but ignoble and messy.
Germany won the battle but achieved nothing by doing so. Some celebrations and medals did not change the overall situation between the RN and KM. The Germans were still mostly bottled up in their home waters.
And the British learned many lessons they put into practice, meaning that any other large engagement would likely result in RN victory as they fixed their ammunition handling practices and deficiencies with shells.
That said, the Germans won my heart because their WW1 ships are dope.
Thanks anon - any relevant books on the German WW1 ships, fleet and battles you would recommend?
Castles of Steel by Massie. Talks about shup designs, admiral personalities, and goes particularly in-depth about the events of Jutland.
The fishies
Look at the mustache bottom left
How do I grow facial hair like this bros
Tactically, Germany. But they failed to achieve their strategic objectives. So a strategic British victory.
TEVTONIA
Prisoner attacked the guard, but after a scuffle, got put back in his cell. Even if guard got few bruises, its pretty obvious who won and who lost
*looks aside* What did he mean by this, chat?
The German navy left port, sank more ships than they lost, returned to port, and then remained there until the end of the war. All the while, the British continued to blockade Germany.
Aircraft.
>tactically, a victory
>strategically, a loss
I don't know what it is about this turn of phrase, but it makes me suspect that everyone in this thread learns all they know from the same set of youtube essays
Cool, now explain how it's wrong.
NAYRT but the way it is used by most plebs, it can be twisted to explain nearly every lost battle
>Kyiv: tactical defeat, strategic Russian victory, territory gained
>Syria: tactical defeat, strategic Syrian victory, rebels stalled
>Praying Mantis: strategic victory, US invasion prevented
>Vietnam: strategic victory, Communist domino stopped
>Korean War: strategic victory, US invasion stopped
>Burma 1942: strategic victory, India defended
>France 1940: strategic victory, Luftwaffe decimated
>Dunkirk: strategic victory, BEF rescued
All it takes is for the narrator to give their interpretation of the strategic objectives in order to claim victory. And these are usually loosely defined or downright manipulated.
I agree with
, it is the plebbiest of battle assessments
Even reddit would do better
Unquestionably the Royal Navy. They contained the threat with acceptable losses and proved to the German admirals that their hopes for outfighting the RN were unlikely to come true. No doubt the loss of morale contributed to the mutiny that followed much later.
It was not the unquestionable victory that is gained from visible losses favouring the victor, and that's why it generates so much controversy.
It is moronic. What is the tactical advantage of fleeing the field of battle and getting bottled in port for the rest of the war?
The best you could say of the battle from the German perspective is that it was indecisive.
The rest of the world
>projecting this hard
We learned about Pyrrhus in school, zoom zoom.
It was a mild German victory which had no impact on the war.
was it really a german victory if they never won strategically(didnt break the embargo) or tactically (most british losses were battlecruisers, and germans couldnt replace their lost battleships).
the soviets lost more men and material at stalingrad and is still considered to have tactially and strategically won the battle
The battle didn't really change the strategic situation very much, which pre-battle favoured the British.
The Bongs? They trapped the Germans for the entire war and blockaded the country. What the frick kind of question is that?
>b-b-b-ut they did more d-damage and and
And? They were forced to withdraw and then were harried and trapped. They lost. Can't even claim a 'tactical victory' because they were forced to leave.
A messy and blueballing British strategic victory, since the blockade was of war-winning importance and the battle allowed it to remain in place for the rest of the war.
Not a proud victory but a victory nonetheless
K/Dgays need not apply
In strategic terms it as a decisive british victory, the germans never dared sortie in force, indeed the order to do so caused the Kiel mutiny and sparked the revolution and final collapse of the german war effort. The fact that the germans refused to sortie meant the blockade remained in place and this had a massive impact on Germanys ability to sustain its war effort
Tactically indecisive. the germans won the battlecruiser skirmish in the opening phase, but just as clearly lost the main fleet action albeit with lower losses due to the immediate decision to run like hell. at the end of the days fighting the british had control of the seas, the germans were contained in port and the ratio of combat capable ships actually favoured the british more after the battle than before as while the germans had fewer outright losses, many more of their ships had sustained heavy damages, indeed Seydlitz only made to to port ith the assistance of 2 pumpships and a tug.
Probably the side who took less than half the losses the other side did, and which accomplished its operational goal (inflicting higher relative losses - lost enemy tonnage vs. total enemy tonnage - than losses suffered - lost tonnage vs. total tonnage).
Brainlets who think the Germans planned to win the war in a single battle should be drowned in the north sea
>the germans never dared sortie in force
It did so twice after Jutland in 1916 alone. The Royal Navy declined to show up.
The reality is that the EN effectively surrendered the North Sea after Jutland.
It was just less important than the atlantic.
>least delusional Germ
You're making the Anglos look good, please reconsider.
The British.
However, it's only really a win as a result of cumulative surface fleet victories by the Allies as a whole.
Whilst the Germans were forced back to their ports, it ultimately tied up a portion of the RN to keep them there. If situations across the globe put strain on the RN, it might have resulted in the Germans being able to leave their ports and continue operating.
But, it didn't come to that, so it's a victory.
Jellicoe was able to report a fully operational fleet within a day of Jutland. The German fleet was generally weakened even if the K/D was impressive in the actual battle. The real question is how tf Beatty managed to get promoted after such a god-awful performance.
The side that didn't spend the rest of the war under blockade.
I did, sorry.
Tactically? Germans by a ballhair
Strategically? Bongs and it's not even close
>Tfw the German navy refused to leave port for the rest of the war and when ordered to do so instantly mutinied
Germ goals
>Kill the British BCs
>Keep as much of our shit as we can intact
British Goals
>Keep blockade going
>Destroy germ BCs and any other capitals to prevent future raiding
Well they both accomplished most of their goals so uh YES.
germanys naval goal was to draw out and destroy a portion of the grand fleet, they didnt realise that the british had decided to sortie en masse or not at all.
the british goals were essentially preserve the fleet and blockade as primary objectives, and kill as many germans as they could.
strategically the british achieved their goals the germans did not.