Warspite and Bismarck having a more antagonistic relationship compared to Iowa and Bismarck makes sense, considering the former two actually fought against each other's respective navies. Warspite even fought against Germany's twice!
The Royal Navy was the one that really got bloodied back at Jutland (Beatty's battlecruiser action and Warspite being the punching bag came Windy Corner)
The Royal Navy was the one that really got bloodied back at Jutland (Beatty's battlecruiser action and Warspite being the punching bag came Windy Corner)
True. Britain lost more ships, yet Germany failed to break the blockade. So they both claimed victory, but really it was a stalemate.
"Still angry about hearing news of Hood dying then, dummkopf?!"
"Still not getting over the fact that we clobbered the bloody hell out of your navy during Jutland which I was present, you bitch?!"
Yeeeeeah no. While it was - without any doubt - a strategical defeat for Germany, from a purely tactical point of view Jutland was a German victory. The Royal Navy marched in with more than half again the ships the German had brought, and still managed to get more losses.
Yeeeeeah no. While it was - without any doubt - a strategical defeat for Germany, from a purely tactical point of view Jutland was a German victory. The Royal Navy marched in with more than half again the ships the German had brought, and still managed to get more losses.
Uh not really, when you total up the losses the difference is minor. Britain lost three capital ships, Germany two. Four light cruisers for Germany and Three Armored cruisers for Britain and eight DDs for Britain and five for Germany. Inflicting marginally greater, but still ultimately exceedingly minor losses on a force much larger then you during a full blown rout where in you fail in all your stated objectives is not a tactical victory.
It's somewhat odd that naval combat seems to be the ONLY area where getting mauled and failing all your objectives, but managing to inflict slightly more losses on the winner is somehow constructed as some manner of victory. For instance you would never hear someone try to argue that an infantry unit forced to abandoned a position it was ordered to hold in the face of a determined enemy attack was 'tactically victorious' because it inflicted slightly more losses then it took before fleeing in failure.
Uh not really, when you total up the losses the difference is minor. Britain lost three capital ships, Germany two. Four light cruisers for Germany and Three Armored cruisers for Britain and eight DDs for Britain and five for Germany. Inflicting marginally greater, but still ultimately exceedingly minor losses on a force much larger then you during a full blown rout where in you fail in all your stated objectives is not a tactical victory.
It's somewhat odd that naval combat seems to be the ONLY area where getting mauled and failing all your objectives, but managing to inflict slightly more losses on the winner is somehow constructed as some manner of victory. For instance you would never hear someone try to argue that an infantry unit forced to abandoned a position it was ordered to hold in the face of a determined enemy attack was 'tactically victorious' because it inflicted slightly more losses then it took before fleeing in failure.
Naval assets are much more valuable and take significantly longer to replace.
And well, the Germans' main tactical objective was to inflict damage on the Grand Fleet, which they did anyway.
(The strategic objective of breaking the blockade is another story.)
I'd think Akatsuki may think that she shouldn't bother to be a lady having seen the Grand Old Lady herself.
Untill the shipgirl hits the Kai Ni level, she still thinks, every so often, that under the right circumstances she could be the most elegant lady in the world. Akatsuki used to feel this way, too, but then she ran into Warspite. In a way, this was liberating. She no longer has to worry about being the most elegant lady in the world. The position is taken.
Standing here I realize You are just like me Trying to make history But who's to judge The right from wrong When our guard is down I think we'll all agree That violence breeds violence BUT IN THE END IT HAS TO BE THIS WAY
Yeah, but saying it was 3-2 would be wrong. Britain lost 3 buttlecruisers (Indefatigable, Invincible, Queen Mary) and Germany lost 1 battlecruiser (Lützow) and a pre-dreadnought battleships (Pommern). Main armament of those ships was 8 343mm guns for Queen Mary, 8 305mm guns for Indefatigable, Invincible and Lützow and 4 280mm guns for Pommern.
Tk3997 said: Uh not really, when you total up the losses the difference is minor. Britain lost three capital ships, Germany two. Four light cruisers for Germany and Three Armored cruisers for Britain and eight DDs for Britain and five for Germany. Inflicting marginally greater, but still ultimately exceedingly minor losses on a force much larger then you during a full blown rout where in you fail in all your stated objectives is not a tactical victory.
Don't forget the human cost= about 3000 German casualties to over 6700 British.
Yeah, but in retrospect despite the appalling losses, Jutland was an unambiguous British victory.
Sorry for the wait, Bismarck!Paper cupTeabagAnother wicked one came desu...Please enjoy this cup of authentic British black tea!✩You call this "authentic British tea"?
Looks rather cheap, doesn't it?
Leave a comment