Subscribe
Notify of
guest
25 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Sam

The navy learned a lot of war at Jutland and the Dardanelles…..Prizing a ships prestinely clean decks over combat ability got thrown out, safer ammunition storage and handling proceedures were brought in and finally the fact British style Battlecruisers were deeply flawed when deployed in fleets (Huge ships with little armour but good guns and high speed) when the German Battlecruisers focused on Speed and Armour and they didnt blow up easily.

Anthony D

Sam, I think the vulnerability of the grand fleet had more to do with its focus on high rates of fire at the expense of using the flash doors; as well as superior accuracy of the German high seas fleet. At least that’s what various documentaries have indicated. Exacerbated by some poor Comms and tactics, particularly by beatie’s battle cruiser squadron. Anyway, like the article says a strategic victory if not a tactical one. But with an awfully high cost in men, ships and reputation.

Sam

Yes definitely 🙂

Iqbal Ahmed

Respect to all the sailors, soldiers and airmen who lost their lives in the Great War. I don’t think I’d risk my own neck like that unless someone actually made a landing in our country. So all the more respect to their courage and steadfastness in the face of the horrors in the trenches.

I don’t agree with a war between racist Empires that enriched war profiteers and kept in place a rigid social hierarchy that was based on birth rather than merit. However, I accept that many of those who died did not see it that way. And Britain, France and the US were marginally better than Germany in terms of respect for personal, human and political rights.

Rick

How about the racist Ottoman Empire which systematically exterminated 1.5 million Armenians, you sanctimonious little prick.

Grubbie

Whataboutery and head problem

Airborne

Ah more gibberish from the crusty track suit commando.

Iqbal Ahmed

Rick, agreed. All Empires are bad. They rely on invading other peoples land and taking their resources. Genocide and mass killings are a byproduct of this. Just as Britain was responsible for the Bengal famine in WW2 as Churchill ordered food to be sent to feed troops and other regions.

Btw, why would you randomly mention the Ottomans. It wouldn’t be because I’m Muslim would it?

Airborne

No, he mentioned it because your a bell-end!

SilentMajority

Respect the fallen.

Don’t feed the troll, today of all days.

Anthony D

The famine wasn’t caused by the the Indian administration but the war did affect its ability to mitigate this latest one.

We have to bear in mind the Japanese had overrun Burma and the British and Chinese armies were holding on by their finger tips.

While nobody would suggest empire is a morally superior form of government to democracy, we must bear in mind it had been the reality for most of human history and there is a big difference between liberal British empire and the regimes it confronted in both world wars.

It’s much more complicated than good guys and bad guys.

Airborne

Pretty much reckon you wouldn’t risk your neck at all, as its always easier for you keyboard specials to let others do the fighting, while you do the collaborating! Guaranteed you would be the one pointing out some peoples hiding place to your new occupying mates…….

Grubbie

Actually civilians usually account for the majority of casualties in war. They also have have to pay for weaponry and deal with the broken and bereaved.Having been in the forces dosnt infer any special right to pontificate on the rights and wrongs of war.Your handle is a bit SAS wannabe.

Airborne

Er yes it does you moron as being in the forces means while you pontificate from the safety of your council house, we the professionals, repeatedly deploy to that said war and implement the government of the days direction and aim. We, who have actually seen combat have a more informed opinion than those who have not, and in fact are the first to think diplomacy is allways the preferred option. Gosh you are pretty dim, and is that the best jibe you can think of? Oh dear, you must try much harder.

Grubbie

Stores?

Airborne

Still weak, 2 out of 10, do try harder son.

Iqbal Ahmed

‘Pretty much reckon you wouldn’t risk your neck at all,’

The truth is that no man fights harder than when he is protecting his home and family.

Not for abstract ideas like nation, religion or ideology.

I’m not a pacifist. I just think that we need to balance allocation of resources to the armed services commiserate to the threat we face, which is very low at the moment from conventional threats.

We need to put money into fighting hybrid threats, cyber and border security. Large and heavily armed warships don’t figure in that hugely.

Airborne

I cannot be bothered to give you much of a reply, and I presume that fighting theory of yours is one you have read about, and never actually experienced! Not always true but I’m sure you know better eh! And as for the not needing large and heavily armed warships, oh dear you have noticed we are an island and 90% of our trade comes by sea! Oops how silly of you!

David Graham

Couldn’t put it better myself, Airborne. ‘fraid we’re stuck with the prattling classes.

Anthony D

I do find the we are an island, 90% by sea, 70% world’s surface is water argument slightly misleading. Countries that aren’t Islands can still be heavily reliant on shipping and i suspect alot of our shipping is short transit cross channel. Plus the whole world is surrounded by air and space so why not an RAF first strategy. So for me, none of these arguments sell the importance of an effective BLUE water navy. It’s also not mindful that we are part of NATO, so it’s not all down to us.

However, I’m all for a maritime posture for our armed forces because as part of NATO it’s an area of strength for us to contribute, the russian submarine threat is re emerging, naval force can be used for strategic effect in lots of ways, it is versatile and has worldwide reach, we cannot sustain large and effective field armies.

Grubbie

Germany finally collapsed largely because of the naval blockade.Germany is not an island.

Anthony D

In terms of strategic effect you could argue the naval blockade was key because it was the German public rather than army that had has enough.

Airborne

Not quite true, so history is another subject your clueless on, damn at least you are consistent.

Grubbie

Well that was enlightening

Jack

The BBC posted quite a good link about the surrender of the German High Fleet In 1918 after the Armistice. One of the greatest victories in the Royal Navy but one that is now so well known as it should be. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-46273928