Battle of Jutland - still a no show in WOWS

[G01ngToxicCommand0]

Date: 31st of may to 1st of June 1916:

Location: The North Sea approximately 100 nm west of the coast of Jutland.

 

250 ships, of which are 44 dreadnought type battleships, 14 battlecruisers, 6 pre dreadnought battleships, 8 armoured cruisers, 37 light cruisers and 139 torpedoboote and destroyers plus 1 minelayer and 1 seaplane tender, engage in the largest ever battleship battle in the history of mankind leaving more than 8.500 dead in its wake.

That sounds like a pretty monumental and important historic event.

 

Another year has passed by and still Wargaming has not made any events or campaign related to the largest battleship battle in the history of mankind - but the Battle of Midway and Sink the Bismarck gets rerun after rerun...

 

Wargaming: Can't you be bothered to commemorate this monumental naval battle or do you deliberately keep world war one battles out of World of Warships? I mean there must be a reason for not to commemorate this important and massive naval battle because it is not due to ignorance of history so why no event related to this battle?

 

 

 

[StoneRhino]

No russians were involved. No Relevance for history. Da!

[TheCinC]

Would be an easy way to get rid of a lot of BBs as well, make it easier for the matchmaker.

[RUSSIANBlAS]

WG commemorates Jutland every day these days, have you seen the queue in Random Battles? 

 

No Dunkirk or Jutland event feels bad, instead it's Midway again...

[avenger121]

No russians were involved. No Relevance for history. Da!

 

настоящий

[mike_864]

For those who remember, last year i did the Battle of Jutland Centenary competition to commemorate the 100th year since the battle, to the winners i gave away some plaques that i made with some teak from HMS Valiant, the competition was very well received and i had some help from MrConway formatting the whole thing as my computer skills leave a lot to be desired.

 

I was hoping to do the same thing this year ( with a different format as we now have German BBs and RN Cruisers in the game ) and i had approached a Youtuber about hosting the competition, alas, real life got in the way and i was unable to go ahead with the plan.

 

Even though i don't understand why WG did not mark the anniversary with some kind of mission, i did approach them with my idea some time before the battle date and to be fair MrConway agreed to help again and also add some WG goodies as extra prizes..!

 

The upside is i still have the teak from Valiant and will try and do another competition next May and also maybe when the RN Battleships finally arrive in WOW's ( my guess is Sept/Oct )

 

So, yes, it's a shame the Anniversary passed without a mention.

 

Regards,

 

Mike.

[iFax]

I'm waiting for WG to comemorate this little historical gem that involved Russian BBs.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogger_Bank_incident

[anonym_u5USg8CcK96I]

I'm waiting for WG to comemorate this little historical gem that involved Russian BBs.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogger_Bank_incident

 

 "More serious losses to both sides were only avoided by the extremely low quality of Russian gunnery, with the battleship Oryol reportedly firing more than 500 shells without hitting anything"

 

After Naval Legends, Wargaming needs to make a new video series called Naval Potatoes with Russian battleship Oryol as it's prime candidate

[fallenkezef]

Britain won Jutland (well it was a no score draw) and the Russians hate Britain so no event for us!

 

[eliastion]

 

 "More serious losses to both sides were only avoided by the extremely low quality of Russian gunnery, with the battleship Oryol reportedly firing more than 500 shells without hitting anything"

 

After Naval Legends, Wargaming needs to make a new video series called Naval Potatoes with Russian battleship Oryol as it's prime candidate

 

That would fit WoWs so well...

[1MajorKoenig]

Britain won Jutland (well it was a no score draw) and the Russians hate Britain so no event for us!

 

Britain clearly lost the battle. But the HSF victory was not decisive enough at end. Germany had only 50-60% of the naval strength of England to begin with so even the victory in the battle didn't turn the tide.

[avenger121]

Britain won Jutland (well it was a no score draw) and the Russians hate Britain so no event for us!

 

If we can leave the bias aside, I always wondered why there is even a need to discuss this. Battles happen on the tactical level, and the Britains clearly lost far more ships. That this tactical victory was absolutely useless on the operational and strategic level is another cup of tea.

 

Saying that the Brits won Jutland is like saying Rome didnt lose Cannae

[anonym_u5USg8CcK96I]

It was clearly a British victory. Isn't a battle about who wins and controls the battleground? The battleground in this case being the North Sea, from which the German Navy was routed.

The High Seas Fleet fled back to Germany as fast as they could with the Grand Fleet in hot pursuit. Is that the actions of a victorious navy? A victory is not about how many casualties are taken.

For example, the Soviets took many more casualties at Stalingrad than the Germans. Does that mean the Soviets lost the Battle of Stalingrad?

I rest my case.

[Leo_Apollo11]

HI all,

 

For me the best description of Jutland is, as one American journalist remarked:

 

“The German fleet has assaulted its jailor, but is still in jail”

 

 

Leo "Apollo11"

[philjd]

 

If we can leave the bias aside, I always wondered why there is even a need to discuss this. Battles happen on the tactical level, and the Britains clearly lost far more ships. That this tactical victory was absolutely useless on the operational and strategic level is another cup of tea.

 

Saying that the Brits won Jutland is like saying Rome didnt lose Cannae

 

::cough cough:: lets see, Cannae - Roman army annihilated, Hannibal master of Italy for a couple of years, although achieved nothing with it. Jutland, Germans sink more RN ships than they lose themselves but flee the field, pyrrhic victory for the RN.

But I think the New York times headline is the most appropriate  (previous post).

[krautjaeger]

NA had this, I got a flag for it over there. Not a huge event really, just a nod.

[eliastion]

 

Britain clearly lost the battle. But the HSF victory was not decisive enough at end. Germany had only 50-60% of the naval strength of England to begin with so even the victory in the battle didn't turn the tide.

 

 

If we can leave the bias aside, I always wondered why there is even a need to discuss this. Battles happen on the tactical level, and the Britains clearly lost far more ships. That this tactical victory was absolutely useless on the operational and strategic level is another cup of tea.

 

Saying that the Brits won Jutland is like saying Rome didnt lose Cannae

 

Battles DON'T happen "on the tactical level" - at least not if "tactical level" means "decided by who suffers more losses". When a battle happens, each side has their goals. If one side fails at completing their goals and the other does complete them, the victor is pretty unambiguous. To give a perhaps easier to understand example: if an army sets off to conquer a city, it doesn't matter if they manage to kill many defenders while suffering limited casualties themselves - if the city doesn't fall, the attackers lose. On the other hand, if a task force is dispatched to destroy some strategically important installation, all die in the process BUT manage to blow the thing up - they're clearly victorious, even if they're also dead.

 

Claiming that the side that accomplished nothing of what they wanted/needed to achieve is victorious - sorry, but that's beyond ridiculous.

 

Or, to put it in more WoWs friendly terms: it's nice that they got all these kills, but the enemy clearly won by points  

[Jethro_Grey]

Well, not sure why you guys keep bitching about an event the EU doesn't get.

WG NA has both events, which is perfectly fine since Jutland is located at the east coast of the 'United States of-all-your-locations-belong-to-US'. 

Like any other location on this effin planet, according to WGs world map which is used to determine which region gets which events.

 

And since WWI and WWII were wars that affected the USA only more or less, why would WG EU give a flying frak about historical events - totally unrelated to EU - where a bunch of hillbillies got keked.

 

Get your $hit straight, stop asking for things and leave WG alone with your pointless whining. Allow them to cater to our needs, which is ripping us stupid filthy EU cash cows off  and giving us events and missions that are endless grind fests for our enjoyment. Isn't that enough for you? Which other company deigns themself to put astonishingeffort into creating grind fests which only a minority of the player base can achieve like the Clash of the Elements event. 

 

Know thy place, filthy EU cash cows, know thy place.

[triumphgt6]

I think the Germans could claim the victory, but the end result was that the HSF did not venture out again in force except to surrender. But it really doesn't matter now, though it clearly mattered a lot then. Both sides fought bravely and the Germans were quite lucky, as was the Warspite. It is likely that poor safety practices in the Royal Navy, trying to increase the rate of fire, accounted for a number of the losses. Once the RN battleships are out, a re-enactment in the training room could be interesting. I dare say Hood will have to represent all the Battlecruisers!

 

[iFax]

 

If we can leave the bias aside, I always wondered why there is even a need to discuss this. Battles happen on the tactical level, and the Britains clearly lost far more ships. That this tactical victory was absolutely useless on the operational and strategic level is another cup of tea.

 

Saying that the Brits won Jutland is like saying Rome didnt lose Cannae

Err... No...

 

Look at Jutland from a different perspective, the prisoners broke out of jail, assaulted the jailors and then went back to their cells ASAP.  The HSF lost Jutland and never recovered, but worse was to come. This began the road to mutiny, revolution and the end of the war.

[cracktrackflak]

NA and RU have both issued a Jutland flag (it happens to resemble an RN "Battle Ensign", so looks great on RN ships), and both more or less gave it away. Very odd that EU didn't do the same.

[1MajorKoenig]

Err... No...

 

Look at Jutland from a different perspective, the prisoners broke out of jail, assaulted the jailors and then went back to their cells ASAP.  The HSF lost Jutland and never recovered, but worse was to come. This began the road to mutiny, revolution and the end of the war.

 

Hahaha you have clearly no clue. GF lost three modern capital ships, HSF one. The victory question is pretty obvious. But as said not decisive enough to change the overall situation in the North Sea. And Germany was still in a too comfortable situation by that time to risk the fleet which would have been needed.

 

Had the the German leadership known how the situation would deteriorate in the coming two years they would have been more likely to take the risk and wear down the GF. Many more Jutlands would have been needed to weaken the GF enough to break the blockade which was the long term objective. 

 

And as you were talking objectives - the objective of the HSF for Jutland was not to break the blockade in one decisive action but to lure out and destroy a part of the GF to get towards numerical parity. Once achieved the big battle would have taken place. So yes, the HSF was successful with regards to the objective, lost less ships and got back to port.

 

[Procrastes]

NA and RU have both issued a Jutland flag (it happens to resemble an RN "Battle Ensign", so looks great on RN ships), and both more or less gave it away. Very odd that EU didn't do the same.

 

There was a 'Battle of Jutland' commemorative flag added to some kind of Jutland Warspite bundle last year. It looks quite nice, and it does somewhat resemble the British battle ensign. Perhaps it's the same flag?

Incidentally, this was also the flag that taught me I can't have more than one flag flying at the same time... 

[iFax]

 

Hahaha you have clearly no clue. GF lost three modern capital ships, HSF one. The victory question is pretty obvious. But as said not decisive enough to change the overall situation in the North Sea. And Germany was still in a too comfortable situation by that time to risk the fleet which would have been needed.

 

Had the the German leadership known how the situation would deteriorate in the coming two years they would have been more likely to take the risk and wear down the GF. Many more Jutlands would have been needed to weaken the GF enough to break the blockade which was the long term objective. 

 

And as you were talking objectives - the objective of the HSF for Jutland was not to break the blockade in one decisive action but to lure out and destroy a part of the GF to get towards numerical parity. Once achieved the big battle would have taken place. So yes, the HSF was successful with regards to the objective, lost less ships and got back to port.

 

 

Thank you for pointing out I have no clue.

 

Just a couple of questions.

 

Did Germany effectively reduce the size of the GF? No.

Could the HSF operate in the North Sea after the battle? No.

Did the HSF control the area after the battle? No.

Was the HSF battle ready in 48 hours? No.

Was the RN able to get it's fleet into battle readiness in 48 hours? Yes.

 

Yep, you're quite right, the RN lost.

[1MajorKoenig]

 

Thank you for pointing out I have no clue.

 

Just a couple of questions.

 

Did Germany effectively reduce the size of the GF? No.

Could the HSF operate in the North Sea after the battle? No.

Did the HSF control the area after the battle? No.

Was the GF battle ready in 48 hours? No.

Was the GF able to get it's fleet battle into battle readiness in 48 hours? Yes.

 

Yep, you're quite right, the RN lost.

 

Capital ships reduced by three. Yes. And no it was not the decisive battle a lot of ppl (and apparently yourself) expected.