Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bradclark1
No, actually the Germans were far more advanced. The German navy would have won if they'd have fought. They were better trained in gunnery. Their ship design of their modern ships were better armored and safer. Great Britain's destroyers however was of better quality. Brtish shells were junk and just bounced off. As Beatty said "Their is something wrong with our ships" (close enough quote). GB had the Kaiser to thank for being too scared to put his expensive ships in danger. Luck won the naval battle, not skill.
|
The Germans weren't neccesarily better trained at gunnery. They used a different type of range finder (stereoscopic as opposed to telescopic) which allowed them very accurate opening salvoes, however it had the draw back of tiring the operators eyes and often causing headaches. So this efficiency dropped off as RN effficiency increased over time during an engagement.
Many British shells failed to explode or shattered rather than penetrating fully at Jutland, however, this problem was rectified soon after.
It is true that Geraman capital ships were very well constructed and armoured. But the losses of RN battle cruisers had more to do with the fact they ended up tangling with German BCs and dreadnoughts (plus the BC fleets obssesion with rapid fire and the relaxing of safety regulations to attain this). Some RN ships suffered quite a number of main armament hits and survived the battle.
The High Seas fleet could not match the Grand Fleet in a fleet engagement like Jutland and I would argue that the Germans lost both tactically and strategically at Jutland. If they had not turned away when they did, the numbers of German ships sunk would have been much higher.
The German Navy knew this as their entire strategy was to lure out the Grand Fleet in small groups and defeat each one in turn. It never ventured out again to any great degree as it had discovered at Jutland that it was out gunned and out matched.