Comments by "doveton sturdee" (@dovetonsturdee7033) on "Destroyers v Battleships in Total Darkness - Jutland Night Battle Documentary" video.

@joegatt2306 'I re-consulted the book and discovered that I missed out totally the tables on pages 349 and 352!' I rather thought that you had. Actually, statistics can be twisted to suggest whatever someone wishes them to say. In point of fact, the stats. are as follows :- Rounds Hits % BCS 1 & BCS 2 1469 21 1.43 BCS 3 373 16 4.29 BS 5 1099 29 2.64 BS 1, BS 2 & BS 4 1593 57 3.58 Total 4534 123 2.71 1st Scouting Group 1670 67 4.01 1st, 2nd, & 3rd Battle Squadrons 1927 57 2.96 Total 3597 124 3.44 The inference from this is that the Rosyth based BCS 1 & 2, which had not had any opportunity for regular gunnery practice, and had a commander who was foolish enough to regard rate of fire as more important than accuracy, dragged down the efficiency of British gunnery statistics to a remarkable. Especially when the figures for Hood's BCS 3, which had been transferred to Scapa Flow precisely for exercises are viewed, as they suggest what a properly trained Battlecruiser Fleet might have achieved. In terms of the main fleets, the Grand Fleet & the High Seas Fleet, the three RN Battle Squadrons demonstrated themselves markedly superior to Scheer's Fleet. No wonder, then, that Scheer reported to Kaiser Bill that the HSF should not be risked in such a manner again, and that unrestricted submarine warfare was the only way forward. However, catastrophic that eventually turned out for the All Highest and his Empire.
2
'Jellico did everything not to fight at night because he knew his crews were ill trained & equipped to fight the more capable Germans.' Nonsense. He wished to avoid a night action because he had no need to risk one. His control of the North Sea was, and remained, unchallenged.
1
Perhaps because the High Seas Fleet spent almost the rest of the war swinging around cables in the Jade, and aborted two sorties when warned that the Grand Fleet was approaching? Perhaps because the British Northern Blockade starved Germany into malnutrition, rebellion, & mutiny, whilst the HSF did precisely nothing to alleviate the situation?
1
Why stop there? Why not look at the phase of the battle between 1900 hrs and 2039 hrs? Hits on British capital ships :- 2. Hits on German capital ships :- 36.
1
@joegatt2306 I have a source which confirms my figures. Interestingly, it is also "Jutland: An Analysis of the Fighting", by John Campbell. In detail, he records hits as follows :- 1548 - 1654. On RN Battlecruisers :- 42 On BS5 Battleships :- 2 On German Battlecruisers :- 20 1654 - 1815. On RN Battlecruisers :- 5 On BS5 Battleships :- 13 On German Battlecruisers :- 14 On German Battleships :- 5 1815 - 1900. On RN Battlecruisers :- 7 On BS5 Battleships :- 13 On German Battlecruisers :- 13 on German Battleships :- 10 1900 - 2039 On British Battleships :- 2 On German Battlecruisers :- 24 On German Battleships :- 14 ( I had not included the two hits on Pommern and Schleswig-Holstein in my first post. I apologise for that). Or, during the whole action hits were as follows :- On British Battlecruisers :- 54 On British Battleships :- 30 On German Battlecruisers :- 71 On German Battleships :- 29 On of us is, I suggest, in error.
1
@joegatt2306 I know what I wrote. I took the details directly from Campbell's analysis. I thought that you claimed the same? In detail, in the period between 1900 & 2039, according to Campbell, the hits were as follows:- British Battleships;- Colossus : 2. German Battlecruisers :- Lutzow : 5 Derfflinger : 8 Seydlitz : 10 Von der Tann : 1 German Battleships :- Konig : 1 Grosser Kurfurst : 7 Markgraf : 1 Kaiser : 2 Helgoland : 1 Pommern : 1 Schleswig- Holstein : 1 Why do you claim that Campbell's figure, for the comparatively brief period that the two main fleets were in action, are 'absurd?' The only error which I acknowledge is failing to include the two hits on Mauve's pre-dreadnoughts in my first post. You might not like it, but that is what Campbell wrote. It is, by the way, substantiated by Geoffrey Bennett's account. Why would you claim him as your source if you then disagree with his analysis?
1
It's you.
1