Re: Dogfight Bismark

On Jun 29, 11:27 pm, "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 09:43:33 -0700, deemsb...@xxxxxxx wrote:
On Jun 29, 12:31 pm, Vince <fire...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
deemsb...@xxxxxxx wrote:
On Jun 29, 11:42 am, Vince <fire...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
TMOliver wrote:
"Vince" <fire...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote...
Warspite wrote:
Rich Johnson ha scritto:
I really wasn't impressed with the ad for the next program
coming on, "How the Brits lost the Battle of Jutland"
Did we now. Wonder why Scheer and Hipper turned away twice and
then ran home.
Why did B-17s turn around and run home after a Berlin mission ?
naval and air battles are not the same as land battles. Everybody
goes home.
Who "won" at Jutland depends entirely on your frame of reference.
The smaller fleet fought the bigger fleet, inflicted greater damage
than it suffered and successfully disengaged.
in narrow "battle" terms the Germans come out sort of ahead.
The Brits were unable to convert their massive advantage into
decisive victory
neither side accomplished its mission that day ,so it's kind of a
draw. However all Britain needed was a draw
Draw?
Let's examine that contention.....
Side B, the German High Sea Fleet enters port, never again gets
underway in a fleet evolution, and eventually mutinies, perhaps not
causing the war to end, but certainly contributing to a loss of
national (or Imperial or military) will. Other than submarines, no
major German warship plays any real part in the rest of the war
nonsense
they operated freely in the Baltic

http://www.richthofen.com/scheer/scheer16.htm

Side A., the RN, dispatches fleet units within 24 hours a to resume
its constant patrolling and other activities in the North Sea. Even
during the engagement, the units of the RN assigned to ops in the
Channel and in other theaters operate normally. While the expression
"Takes a licking and keeps on ticking." might apply, the losses and
damage appear to have not altered any RN operational efforts.
Side B did not accomplish its mission, to engage and weaken Side A to
gain the psychological advantage of a victory and to weaken Side A
to the extent that Side B might be better able to carry out future
operations.
Side A did not "destroy" Side B, out-Trafalgaring Trafalgar, but
since Side B was never again seen at sea, we folk of less broad
horizons would claim a victory.
Now, obviously, had the High Sea Fleet been led by a armed merchant
cruiser flying the Irish flag and crewed by chanting Socialist
stokers and gunners, the battle might have reached a Vicnean
conclusion.
Germany's strategic position at sea was hopeless before during and after
the battle.

The German fleet's only mission is to force Britain to expend excessive
resources on a larger fleet.

If Britain can crush the German fleet, they can divert navy resources to
the land war.

It was a draw

But the stated purpose of the HSF was to defeat the RN and lift
the blockade.

They couldn't
Geography was against them

It might have been an unrealistic purpose, but it was still their
purpose. Jutland was the result of their attempting to do so.

No.

Jutland was the result of an attempt by the HSF to whittle the GF down
to size.

Well, they couldn't do it all at once....

--
"You don't win a war by dying for your country, you win a war by
making the other poor *** die for his country."
- George Smith Patton, Jr.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


.

Quantcast