Did the Battle of Jutland Really Matter?

[decaro]

from War is Boring:

"A century ago, the two greatest fleets of the industrial age fought an inconclusive battle in the North Sea.

"The British Grand Fleet and the German High Seas Fleet fielded a total of 58 dreadnought battleships and battlecruisers, ships over the twice the size of most modern surface combatants. Including smaller ships, the battle included 250 vessels in total.

"The two fleets fought to a draw, with the Germans inflicting more casualties, but still being lucky to escape alive. The Grand Fleet could very easily have annihilated the Germans, an outcome which, however tragic, would not have moved the needle on the rest of the war...."

https://warisboring.com/did-the-battle- ... .yrgiz2gxt

[Capt. Harlock]

The Grand Fleet could very easily have annihilated the Germans, an outcome which, however tragic, would not have moved the needle on the rest of the war...."

I have to disagree on that one. Even if the Allies were still not able to successfully invade Germany proper, the destruction of the High Seas Fleet would have opened up several possibilities. It could have accomplished what the Dardanelles Campaign failed to do: open a supply route to Russia. A close blockade might have throttled the German submarine campaign, making the decision to wage unrestricted submarine warfare irrelevant. No U. S. entry into the war, and no Russian revolution, and the world would look rather different today.

On the other hand, a German victory would have created immense problems for Great Britain. It was true that the German capital ships were not suitable for raiding, but there were a number of cruisers that were. A handful of Confederate raiders crippled U. S. merchant shipping during the Civil War. Why couldn't German surface raiders and submarines have starved the British war effort into collapse if the High Seas Fleet could open the way for them? Certainly the Admiralty saw this as a real danger, for they described Jellicoe as "the only man who could lose the war in an afternoon".

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: Capt. Harlock

... Why couldn't German surface raiders and submarines have starved the British war effort into collapse if the High Seas Fleet could open the way for them? Certainly the Admiralty saw this as a real danger, for they described Jellicoe as "the only man who could lose the war in an afternoon".

But did Germany have enough subs in WW I?

In 1901, Adm. von Tirpitz had dismissed subs as a waste of money. So when war broke out, the British had three times as many subs as did the Germans.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/ane ... rine-1914/

[catwhoorg]

A Royal Naval Victory would have had relatively little effect I think.

As Capt. Harlock covered, a High Seas fleet Decisive victory, would have had huge ramifications.
Jellicoe, needed to "not lose" far more than he needed to win.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Capt. Harlock

The Grand Fleet could very easily have annihilated the Germans, an outcome which, however tragic, would not have moved the needle on the rest of the war...."

I have to disagree on that one. Even if the Allies were still not able to successfully invade Germany proper, the destruction of the High Seas Fleet would have opened up several possibilities. It could have accomplished what the Dardanelles Campaign failed to do: open a supply route to Russia. A close blockade might have throttled the German submarine campaign, making the decision to wage unrestricted submarine warfare irrelevant. No U. S. entry into the war, and no Russian revolution, and the world would look rather different today.

warspite1

I would agree with this. I also wonder what effect it would have on morale at home - not least the Kaiser's mind-set given his attachment to his fleet. I am only talking about a real slaughtering of the battlefleet here.

As a land power, the German navy of course did not have the same meaning (or importance) to the German people that the RN did to the British, but a massive defeat coming two years into a war in which there is no end in sight? You never know.

[sullafelix]

The number of submarines didn't matter it is what they were used for.

Some powers thought that they should be used against other naval forces.

The Germans were the first ones to think of using them against merchant fleets.

Germany and Austria-Hungary starve tom death in WWI, if Jellicoe lost no more blockade.

[CV60]

Shameless plug here: To illustrate the use of wargames to teach, I'm doing an AAR refighting the war in the North Sea, using the Steam and Iron campaign game. The AAR is here:
http://grogheads.com/forums/index.php?topic=16935.0

[E]

ORIGINAL: Joe D.
Did the Battle of Jutland Really Matter?

I believe it definitely made some monetary difference for MANY game companies. If the battle had not been fought, who would've bought all those incarnations of games across multiple platforms. From backyards to living room floors to dining room tabletops to computers to electronic leashes*?

* - Oops, I think you people call them "cell phones."

[wworld7]

Yes

[Capt. Harlock]

But did Germany have enough subs in WW I?

Yes, they did. Perhaps not in 1914-1915, but they produced more, and in April 1917, they sank over 800,000 tons of Allied merchant shipping. To the best of my knowledge, this exceeds any monthly total that Hitler's U-boats managed in WWII.

[Speedysteve]

It also exceeded monthly Allied production and was a major concern....

[Ostwindflak]

By this point I would say Gun Boat Diplomacy was at an end. The British could have obliterated the German navy, but it would have never forced them into a peace agreement. So the assessment that it would have made little difference I feel holds true.