The Silent Watchers: England's Navy during the Great War: What It Is, and What We Owe to ItCopplestone, Bennet
History
The Silent Watchers: England's Navy during the Great War: What It Is, and What We Owe to It
Copplestone, Bennet
Great Britain. Royal Navy; World War, 1914-1918 -- Naval operations
“That is true,” said the Maker, “but the Great Silent Sea Service
loathes advertisement like the very devil, and it is right. The Service
would be ruined if senior officers tried to bid against one another for
newspaper puffs.”
“Yet I have known them do it,” said I drily, and then slid away from the
delicate topic. “Let us return to the first part of the action, and
examine the division of the Fleet between Jellicoe and Beatty. Was this
division, admittedly hazardous, a sound method of bringing the Germans
to action?”
The Gunner took upon himself to reply.
“It is not, and never has been, possible to bring the Germans to action
in the southern part of the North Sea except with their own consent.
There is no room. They can always break off and retire within their
protected waters. Steam fleets of the modern size and speed cannot force
an action and compel it to be fought out to a finish in a smaller space
than a real ocean. You must always think of this when criticising the
division of our fleets. Beatty was separated from Jellicoe by nearly
sixty miles, and strengthened by four fast Queen Elizabeth battleships
to enable him to fight an action with a superior German Fleet. He was
made just strong enough to fight and not too strong to scare the Germans
away. In theory, the division of our forces within striking distance of
the enemy was all wrong; in practice, it was the only way of persuading
him into an action. Both sides at the end of May, 1916, wanted to bring
off a fight at sea. Fritz wanted something which he could claim as a
success in order to cheer up his blockaded grumblers at home, who were
getting restive. We wanted to stop the projected German naval and
military onslaught upon Russia in the Baltic. The wonderful thing about
the Jutland Battle is that it appears to have achieved both objects.
Fritz, by sinking three of our battle cruisers, has been able to delude
a nation of landsmen into accepting a highly coloured version of a great
naval success; and we, by making a sorry mess of his main fleet, did in
fact clear the northern Russian flank of a grave peril. The later
Russian successes in the South were the direct result of Jutland, and
without those successes the subsequent Italian, French, and British
advances could not have been pushed with anything like the effect
secured. Regarded in this broad international way, the division of our
fleets justified by its results the risks which it involved. What I
don’t understand is why we suffered so much in the first part of the
action when Beatty had six battle cruisers and four battleships against
five battle cruisers of the enemy. He lost the _Indefatigable_ and
_Queen Mary_ while he was in great superiority both of numbers and of
guns. Then, when the German main fleet had come in, and he was carrying
out an infinitely more hazardous operation in the face of a greater
superior force, he lost nothing. If the _Indefatigable_ and _Queen Mary_
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account