Today marks the centenary of the first day of what was arguably the largest naval battle ever to have taken place.
The Battle of Jutland (or in German, Skagerrakschlacht [the Battle of the Skagerrak]) may or may not have been a victory for one side or the other, but the cost was tremendous. In the space of twenty four hours the British lost 6,094 killed and 674 wounded and the Germans 2,551 killed and 507 wounded. The losses in ships was also heavy.
British losses (totaling 113,300 tons):
To mark this day, there have been quite a few re-fights of the battle, one of the largest of which took place at the US Naval War College, Newport, Rhode Island. They used the rules and equipment (but not the models) that the US Navy used to re-fight the battle during the 1930s.
The following photographs of this re-fight are all copyright US Naval War College.
The Battle of Jutland (or in German, Skagerrakschlacht [the Battle of the Skagerrak]) may or may not have been a victory for one side or the other, but the cost was tremendous. In the space of twenty four hours the British lost 6,094 killed and 674 wounded and the Germans 2,551 killed and 507 wounded. The losses in ships was also heavy.
British losses (totaling 113,300 tons):
- Battlecruisers: Indefatigable, Queen Mary, and Invincible
- Armoured cruisers: Black Prince, Warrior, and Defence
- Destroyer flotilla leaders: Tipperary
- Destroyers: Shark, Sparrowhawk, Turbulent, Ardent, Fortune, Nomad, and Nestor
- Battlecruiser: Lützow
- Pre-Dreadnought: Pommern
- Light cruisers: Frauenlob, Elbing, Rostock, and Wiesbaden
- Destroyers: V48, S35, V27, V4, and V29
To mark this day, there have been quite a few re-fights of the battle, one of the largest of which took place at the US Naval War College, Newport, Rhode Island. They used the rules and equipment (but not the models) that the US Navy used to re-fight the battle during the 1930s.
The following photographs of this re-fight are all copyright US Naval War College.
.jpg)
Hi BOB- I think that the HMS Indefatigable was the sister ship to HMAS Australia. The 'Replay' Game looks huge- pity the Organisers did not use a Blue Ocean- the Checks look like a Grand Prix Stage...the models look excellent- wonder the Scale of the Ships? Thanks for posting. Regards. KEV.
ReplyDeleteKev,
DeleteThe Indefatigable was indeed Australia's sister ship.
The NWC used the same style of chequerboard cloth that the original 1920s and 1930s wargames were fought on. As to the models ... well they might be 1:1200th-scale, although I think that they might be 1:600th-scale, which is the scale used during the 20s and 30s.
All the best,
Bob
Spectacular.
ReplyDeleteService Ration Distribution (Hobby),
DeleteIt certainly looked it!
All the best,
Bob
...and I was not invited. So tonight I will stage my own, using MoBaS.
ReplyDeleteSteven Page,
DeleteTheir loss! Good luck with your own Jutland re-fight.
All the best,
Bob
That's a really smashing layout. That first picture is probably the pick of the bunch. Very atmospheric.
ReplyDeleteConrad Kinch,
DeleteI understand that they used the same room that was used for the wargames they fought during the 1920s and 1930s. I would love to be able to stage such a wargame!
All the best,
Bob
Quite brilliant, though the pattern of the tiles is slightly disorientating. Thank you for sharing.
ReplyDeleteMichael Peterson,
DeleteGlad that you enjoyed it!
One would expect that a checkerboard design would be of help to the players - and had the squares been of two different shades of blue I am sure that they would have been - but a large area of black and white tiles can be disorientating.
All the best,
Bob
Grown men playing with toy ships on the floor. That'll never catch on....
ReplyDeleteThese models look more like 1/600 to me.
Tim Gow,
DeleteI totally agree; it'll never catch on!
If the squares on the grid are 12-inch by 12-inch, the models are about 8 to 9 inches long, which makes them too big to be 1:1200th-scale and too small for 1:600th-scale. Possibly 1:900th-scale?
All the best,
Bob