Was the Battle of Jutland one of the most important moments in history to behold?

You ever read pic related? He goes into that at great detail.

>Those dreadnoughts might have been the cutting edge in naval tech of their day, but they were so expensive and such an investment of money, manpower, and national prestige that they couldn't be risked in any but the most dire of circumstances.

not entirely accurate, both sides were willing to accept a degree of risk, the germans broke off and ran when they did because crushing defeat was not a risk but a certainty given the tactical dispositions at the time (the british had crossed the germans T with their entire battle line)

the british for whom the battlefleet was a extremely important strategic piece of the war plan (the blockade of germany was a major factor in germanys defeat) executed a turnaway from torpedo attack to avoid losing major ships but did attempt to continue the engagement afterwards.

and its also noteworthy that the british battlecruiser force was willing to accept casualties in persuing its mission, they didnt break off action even when ships started blowing up.

the battle was not a massive all out engagement for sure, but both sides were willing to risk a engagement when presented with reasonable chances of success, and both fleets sailed seeking a engagement, the germans hoping to draw out a portion of the grand fleet and the british hoping to catch the high seas fleet in a all out battle line engagement.

the germans ran when it was clear that the whole fleet was out and thus the british had a overwhelming advantage, and its worth remembering that the german risk was actually lower than scheer thought it was as the british ammo was defective, had it not been so then german casualties would have been far higher

Last remaining ship that served at
Jutland,hms-caroline

But that's just it. It wasn't an all-out engagement, and as far as I know, it was the only engagement in all of WW1 where both sides committed dreadnoughts. And that's just 2 of the major powers involved. What about the French, Austrian, Italian, etc dreads?

Most actual naval combat in WW1 wasn't from these hulking ultra expensive ships, it was done by cruisers and u-boats, who turned out to be the actual weapons that the war was conducted with.

but one side at least did seek all out engagement, and the germans disengaging is not so much a unwillingness to tolerate risk, as a quite sensible decision to avoid certain annhilation.

both sides were willing to fight when the odds looked even, during the battlecruiser engagement, the fact that the germans broke off when they realised who badly they were outgunned and manuvered doesnt alter the fact that they were willing to engage a significant portion of the grand fleet even if they werent willing to fight the whole damn fleet.

if the germans won, the navel blockade would have been broken and the whole war might have changed

>In return for their useless fleet, which was always going to be blockaded into the North Sea by sheer geography, the Germans got Britain's hostility and its adhesion to the Franco-Russian alliance which already had German encircled.

This is some outdated historiography my man, by 1912 it was abundantly clear on both sides that the German Navy wasn't a threat to Britain, and Edward Grey was not as committed to the entente as you make him out to be.

Not really. For starters, even if the British suffer a beating at Jutland, they're still likely to have overall naval superiority. And if the Americans join in the war, which historically they'd do relatively soon, you'd add in an entire new fleet that's around as strong as the British.

And then you have the pitiful range of the German dreads, which make them unable to go much past the Irish coast before needing to re-coal. Which means you're going to have a hell of a time escorting in any merchant convoys, while the British can avoid your ships almost at will.

I wish I was at this battle

Who won? Germany killed more men but they didn't break the blockade and retreated from the Royal Navy

>Was the Battle of Jutland one of the most important moments in history to behold?

No, not at all. Britain had already managed a decline in relative sea power by not acknowledging the U.S in its two power standard, and Germany gave up on challenging British naval power when it became clear they couldn't have a naval arms race and a land arms race(with France/Russia) at the same time.

the british both on a tactical and strategic level, strategically because they maintained the blockade.

tactically because regardless of the performance of the battlecruiser forces the main force of the grand fleet proved more than capable of out manuvering the high seas fleet, the fleet also proved capable of inflicting far greater damage to the germans than the germans were capable of inflicting in return defective ammo simply saved the german fleet from annihilation, with many of the battleships being heavily damaged in the short engagement window the british had whereas even the most heavily hit british battleships were rapidly repaired

sure but it had gone from being more powerful than any 2 navies to being slightly less powerful than the 2 most powerful navies combined

They didn't mean to. They had been 2 years standing still doing nothing -there had been some sorties to shell the English coast, raid some ships and disrupt some traffic near the channel, but nothing big- until they finally decided to steam north with the bulk of the fleet andsee if they could bait A FRACTION of the British Home Fleet into battle.

Didn't happen and they encountered the bulk of the Home Fleet, although so ill-managed from a tactical point of view that what should have been the annihilation of the German fleet turned into the Great Cucking of the british battlecruisers. Then the Germans turned back to port and remained there for the rest of the war, because even with all those battlecruisers resting in the bottom of the North Sea, the British Navy was overwhelmingly stronger than the German Navy.

I think the Battle of Gravelines in 1588 was much more important, actually.

What is up with people thinking the closer an event is to their lifetime, the more important it is? Jeez, get some perspective.

>since Nelson defeated the franco-spanish navies at Trafalgar in 1805
But that's wrong. The US Navy not only challenged the British Navy during the War of 1812, they fucking sailed right up to the British isles and sacked a port or two. Hell, there was a naval battle between the US and Britain during the War of 1812 that killed more British sailors than Trafalgar did.

Also, even just looking at the wiki shows that the British were fucking AFRAID of the US Navy during the War of 1812. They were so afraid of the US Navy that they instituted a policy in which they refused to engage US ships unless they outnumbered the US ships by 3 to fucking 1.

>ollowing their earlier losses, the British Admiralty instituted a new policy that the three American heavy frigates should not be engaged except by a ship of the line or smaller vessels in squadron strength. An example of this was the capture of President by a squadron of four British frigates in January 1815. But, a month later, Constitution engaged and captured two smaller British warships, HMS Cyane and HMS Levant, sailing in company.[109]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812#Single-ship_actions

>MUH NAVAL SUPREMACY
>BRITANNIA RULES THE WAVES
Eat shit, red coats.

Hochseeflotte went back to ports and didn't leave them till the end of the war after Jutland.

British continued the blockade. While no side achieved crushing victory, it has shown that a major part of the Royal Navy is still too strong for the whole second biggest fleet in the world to handle, let alone smaller fleets.

That's because The US of A had a fleet of Aircraft carriers back then while british were all sails and shit.

That's only important to English and literally no one else.

>tfw the British were so impressed with the Great White Fleet that they wanted US naval protection for convoys even before the war broke out
Jokes aside, the US has always had a pretty good navy considering we didn't really have a standing military of any sort until the 20th century. I doubt the Great White Fleet could challenge the British fleet of the same period, but 20 years later you bet your tits we could have.

>sailed right up to the British Isles and sacked a port or two
>There was a naval battle that killed more british sailors than trafalgar

[CITATION NEEDED]

Not him, but John Paul Jones did it in 1778 by himself.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Paul_Jones#Ranger_attacks_the_British

I've never heard of any US raids during the War of 1812 though.

>On his first voyage as master of Chasseur in 1814, Boyle unexpectedly sailed east, directly to the British Isles, where he harassed the British merchant fleet.

>Boyle sent a notice to King George III by way of a captured merchant vessel that he had released for the purpose. The notice, he commanded, was to be posted on the door of Lloyd's of London, the shipping underwriters. In it he declared that the entire British Isles were under naval blockade by Chasseur alone.
absolute madman

Sailing a small squadron of mostly french ships, from french ports, with mostly french crews, in sorties to the coasts of potatoland with the aim of raiding 2 or 3 merchantmen and in the hopes of bothering the brits enough for them to dispatch some relevant naval force after him while the Franco-Spanish Fleets mass around the Channel, the Strait of Gibraltar and the Atlantic.

>le John Paul Jones kills the Brits

If the Spanish had successfully forced England to return to Catholicism, then the Puritans wouldn't have even been a thing. Without the Puritans, the whole history of North American colonization changes. It's also very likely that Britain doesn't end up powerful enough to colonize as much as they did. Without Britain as a leading colonizing force, the world is a very different place.

Maybe you don't understand how big a deal Spain was at the time.

>Without the Puritans, the whole history of North American colonization changes
But the majority of early colonists weren't even puritans. Only Rhode Island and Massachusetts were founded by Puritans.

>they didn't break the blockade and retreated from the Royal Navy

There you go then. Wars and battles are rarely won simply by killiing more of the the enemy than they kill of you.

Are you...minimizing the effect the Puritans had on North American colonization to the fact that they "only" founded two colonies?
And ignoring the fact that an England weakened by Spanish conquest would have less of an effect on the New World?
Stop being stupid.

US navy didn't challenge the Royal navy. US "navy" was basically a piracy outfit that couldn't stop the Brits from sailing right up the Potomac and burning down the white house (or sailing anywhere else for that matter).

>he doesn't know about the Chesapeake or literally any other heavy frigate the US used to routinely btfo the Royal Navy when they met
Jesus, there's even a link in the thread my dude

>routinely btfo of a smaller british frigate patrolling somewhere when they met

Fixed

>although so ill-managed from a tactical point of view

beattys handling of the battlecruiser action was poor, jellicoes handling of the bulk of the grand fleet was not, he crossed their T twice, the germans avoided annhilation because of poor ammunition and because the one manuver they were relentlessly drilled in was the turn away. the second time they also sent torpedo attacks in to force the british fleet to turn away to dodge torpedoes.

Jellicoe made few if any mistakes and had his ships not had defective ammo then there would be no debate at all about which side won, the germans would have lost 6+ battleships just from the 5 minute engagement when they first ran into the grand fleet, mostly the leading ships being lamed in the exchange.

Chesapeake is a really really bad example to use, she got btfo and crushed in a single ship action against a british frigate of the same size and firepower with a smaller crew.

the american fleet (such as it was) was composed of heavy frigates, frigates designed from the keel up to be that eras equivalent of battlecruisers, sure british frigates were warned to avoid single ship actions with them until the british built ships to match and deployed a few razees to the area, then the hunt was on.

also the USN was ultimately ineffectual in achieving any of its war aims despite winning some fights, it failed to significantly impede british commerce, to protect US commerce or to impede british freedom to conduct amphibious operations, and glorious failure is still failure