Quote:
|
There's no question that German fire control directors... were superior
|
This is standard Jutland canon but factually incorrect. German stereoscopic rangefinders were superior in low-light conditions and found the range quicker but took far more operator training and proved very fatiguing for the range-takers. German range takers needed 20/20 vision in both eyes and so drew their operator pool from a relatively small manpower pool.
British coincidence rangefinders absorbed more light but were easier to use and did not require perfect operator vision. Coincidence range finding took longer but held the range better even in conditions of rapidly change rates of change in range.
By Jutland, only a handful of Grand Fleet capital ships had been fitted with the Arthur Pollen's "Argo Clock" fire control computer. This complex and advanced electro-mechanical computer was the basis of
all subsequent naval fire control computers and automatically compensated for roll and firing ships' course in addition to providing continuous target updates and predictions. During the two battle fleet engagements, totalling about twelve minutes, the Grand Fleet out hit Scheer's battlefleet some 27-hits to 2. This little factoid is often dropped down the memory hole or excused away by High Seas Fleet apologists. By 1918 virtually all of the Grand Fleet ships armed with 13.5" guns and larger had been refitted with the Argo Clock. The German Navy had nothing comparable until the 1930's.
Jellicoe's neglect of night fighting was a deliberate, Admiralty-approved fleet doctrine. A close range knife-fight with torpedo craft would virtually always favour the inferior force and so were to be avoided. Jellicoe's refusal to close and closely pursue as the light failed must be judged on this doctrinal basis. If you're the superior force, it is completely irresponsible to squander that superiority for a nebulous, short-lived and probably nonexistent tactical advantage.
Note as well that in night fighting in the Channel it was usually the Dover Patrol and or Tyrwhitt's Dreadnoughts who tended to come out on top. The Royal Navy trained for night fighting in situations that would benefit the naval war as a whole. A more legitimate critique might be aimed at the initial reliance on searchlights instead of starshells but this was soon corrected where it mattered.
Jutland books? Six winners are:
Arthur Marder's
From Dreadnought to Scapa Flow is hard to beat. I paid some $800 CAD for all five volumes but I think they are on Kindle for a fraction of that. Volume III is
Jutland and After.
Peter Hart's
Jutland 1916: Death in the Grey Wastes is an excellent single volume and benefits from sources that Marder did not have access to.
Keith Yates'
Flawed Victory: Jutland 1916 makes a solid case for why the attrition model of victory used by most Jutland authors is a poor model for the actual battle.
John Campbell's
Jutland: An Analysis of the Fighting is a great technical resource if a bit hard to read in a sitting.
Andrew Gordon's
Rules of the Game: Jutland and British Naval Command is an indispensable read if you want answers about the leadership of the Grand Fleet. Spoiler, he's pretty hard on David Beatty and others.
Recently reprinted is
The Jutland Scandal by Admirals John Harper and Reginald Bacon. Originally published as
The Harper Record in 1927 it was suppressed by David Beatty during his tour as First Sea Lord, it is a pretty damning indictment on his handling of the Battle Cruiser Fleet during the initial engagement and the Run to the South. It too fell down the Jutland memory hole until revived for the centenary of the battle.
Many people recommend Massie,
Dreadnought and
Castles of Steel but I do not. Robert Massie is a suburb narrator and the books present a wonderful narrative story but he is short on the technical and offers no useful original analysis whatsoever. If you only read one Jutland book, I would urge it not to be
Castles of Steel. I own both and occasionally refer to one or the other for some minor detail relating to who's and where's but find them both lacking in substance compared to the titles above.
-C