"Jutland/Tsushima where do they rank in Naval History?" Topic

Since this is the 100th Anniversery of Jutland I thought this would be a good time to ask this where does it rank amongst other Naval Battles in History?

Tsushima which this month is the 111th Anniversery of that great Naval Battle so you could say this would be a joint question.

Throughout history there's been many large Naval Battles including Jutland and Tsushima as well as Trafalgar,Glorious First of June to name a few so I'd to hear what you think.

where does it rank amongst other Naval Battles in History?

Rank in what way?

If we're allowed to use subjective rankings I'd place Tsushima at a Wowza! and Jutland as a HolyCarp!

In all seriousness, though, both are very significant, but in all honesty, I'd rank Jutland below Tsushima. Jutland was a huge battle, but tactically a mixed bag and strategically a failure for the Germans. After Jutland nothing really changed for the Germans as the British were able to keep them bottled up for the rest of the war. It wasn't a war winner, and the British didn't sink the German fleet, requiring the former to keep enough ships on station to deal with the threat.

Tsushima was the first really modern large fleet action involving big gun battleships, and proved an up an coming navy can put itself on the stage as an equal quite quickly (yes, I know the battles of Santiago and Manila Bay, but both were relatively small actions in all honesty). It put Japan on the map as a force to be reckoned with, marked the beginning of the end for Tsarist Russia and created a whole lot of worry for powers around the world as the balance of power in the Pacific changed.

Sorry to disagree with you Timothy but after Jutland everything changed as submarine warfare was brought to the fore amongst many other things.

Tsushima is rightly up there alongside Jutland.

Tsushima created a decisive result that all "big gun" admirals wanted to duplicate, so it dictated the nature of design and building until the big guns were proven to be secondary. It was essentially a war winner and helped bring on the 1905 revolution.

Jutland was bigger but utterly indecisive for either side. While JimDuncanUK is correct that the Germans emphasized submarine action after Jutland they did not mothball the fleet or stop building. Further I would contend that the strategic victory by Jellicoe did nothing to change the nature of the war on land, which is where the war would now be won or lost. However a German victory, however fanciful, would have radically changed things. But it didn't happen so Jutland must rank well below Tsushima.

I think Tsushima had a bigger impact on the world than Jutland did.

and Jutland as a HolyCarp!

Why the sacred fish?

One was decisive. The other wasn't.

Because the Mackerel is of greater significance. :)

I stand by my assertion. Jutland was big in size, but not as big in impact as Tsushima. However, if you asked me to game either I'd be there and play any side. Both are great battles to game.

Tsushima shaped the Japanese naval thinking for the next 50 years. The one great battle thinking led to Midway which doomed Japan in WW2.
Jutland was meant to be the one great battle but settled very little as to the outcome of WW1.

My 2 cents worth.
Jim

Did Tsushima change naval thinking – I've always felt that it rather unfortunately convinced everyone that big gun ships in line of battle actually had a future, in many ways it generated stagnation.

Jutland was not the cataclysmic battle the public expected but it was decisive, never again did the HSF seriously think it had a chance to penetrate the blockade and instead naval doctrine looked elsewhere leading to the development of all out submarine war.

Zippee just because the High Seas Fleet never sought battle again doesn't make Jutland decisive.

Tsushima was decisive since it destroyed or captured the bulk of the Russian Baltic Fleet.

Kapitan – we differ in our opinion of what decisive means then. If you achieve your ends then your ends have been achieved. I was answering the claim that it "settled little as to the outcome of WW1", it did settle matters – the HSF never sortied again in force, objective accomplished.

I don't think you'll find where I said Tsushima wasn't decisive, I remain to be convinced that it changed naval doctrine rather than embedded it.

Tsushima was decisive and influential. Sadly, Jutland did not live up to its promise, especially for the Royal Navy.

the HSF never sortied again in force

Sure it did, at least 3 times (and a fourth attempt in 1918 was thwarted by mutiny). The German strategy of unrestricted submarine warfare was undertaken precisely because Jutland had been inconclusive, and further attempts at the same Riskflotte strategy had proved fruitless.

- Ix

Indeed. The High Seas Fleet was ultimately a white elephant.

It was Scheer himself who shortly after proclaiming victory in public, was advising Wilhelm in private that 'it was not possible by fleet action to eliminate Britain's superiority and force it to terms within a reasonable time. He advised that only unrestricted submarine warfare could achieve these results.' (Stephenson)

Would the United States have come into the war when it did without unrestricted submarine warfare? I would say that in itself makes Jutland decisive strategically, especially how 1917 turned out on land for the Allies.