Jutland Anniversary: 94 years ago

General naval discussions that don't fit within any specific time period or cover several issues.
User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Jutland Anniversary: 94 years ago

Post by Karl Heidenreich » Mon May 31, 2010 10:12 pm

It seems that, again, everybody in this US Navy fans' dominated forum has forgot about the GREATEST naval battle involving dreadnought fleets. May 31st, 1916 two fleets in real capacity to hurt each other and with the potential to change the strategic scene of a World War colided at the North Sea. None of the fleets was USN but German and British. Despite the numerical superiority of the Royal Navy the Germans had their chance, in a heavy difference to the other "big gun" battle at Leyte, at the other world war, where the US cannot lose from the very begining.

Thousands of sailors died, fighting bravely, in an encounter that carried danger to both sides. If all the rest have forgotten, I do not: I offer a prayer to the brave sailors of both fighting fleets, maybe their ships do not carry a "battle star" for never fighting another dreadnought, but History will still regard their combat as the greatest one.

Rest in Peace and your deeds are not forgotten!
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

dougieo
Member
Posts: 88
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2008 12:36 am
Location: Scotland

Re: Jutland Anniversary: 94 years ago

Post by dougieo » Tue Jun 01, 2010 12:20 am

oh for a time machine to go back and observe the fleets in action

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Jutland Anniversary: 94 years ago

Post by lwd » Tue Jun 01, 2010 2:22 pm

Why do you insists on inserting your politics into what would otherwise be very reasonable commemrative posts?

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Re: Jutland Anniversary: 94 years ago

Post by Karl Heidenreich » Tue Jun 01, 2010 8:52 pm

Why do you insists on inserting your politics into what would otherwise be very reasonable commemrative posts?
Mainly because what you have done to this forum, now a USN dictatorship, it's obvious. Why you and the USN acolites can write whatever you pleased, even as absurd as they can come, and be unchalenged and those that do not share your mioptic vision have to pass through your censorship?

Jutland was fought by the Eureopean Powers, not the USN. In WWI the USN fought no battle.

Jutland was fought by fleets that had a good chance to destroy each other, unlike Leyte

Jutland is the cementary of thousands of brave sailors of both sides

Jutland's dreadnoughts (German or British) did not have, as New Jersey or Iowa, battle stars, despite the fact that those WWI ships were all in danger during the action and fighting other dreadnoughts, unlike New Jersey or Iowa, that without fighting a single battleship in their careers or being iin real danger of being sunk have more battle stars than the shoulders of Douglas McArthur.

That's why.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Jutland Anniversary: 94 years ago

Post by lwd » Wed Jun 02, 2010 12:20 am

Karl Heidenreich wrote:
Why do you insists on inserting your politics into what would otherwise be very reasonable commemrative posts?
Mainly because what you have done to this forum, now a USN dictatorship, it's obvious. Why you and the USN acolites can write whatever you pleased, even as absurd as they can come, and be unchalenged and those that do not share your mioptic vision have to pass through your censorship?
In case you haven't noticed I get challenged on a regular basis. I'm also hardly capable of censoring anything on this board. Just because you can't present a conclusive enough case to convince people otherwise is hardly my problem.
Jutland was fought by the Eureopean Powers, not the USN.
Has anyone said otherwise?
In WWI the USN fought no battle.
I'm sure the crews Nicholson, San Diego, Fanning, and Jacob Jones would disagree.
Jutland was fought by fleets that had a good chance to destroy each other, unlike Leyte
Did they? Perhaps more than at Leyte but the Germans certainly didn't fancy their odds vs Home Fleet.
Jutland is the cementary of thousands of brave sailors of both sides
So you try to cloak your opinions on things in their actions?
Jutland's dreadnoughts (German or British) did not have, as New Jersey or Iowa, battle stars, despite the fact that those WWI ships were all in danger during the action and fighting other dreadnoughts, unlike New Jersey or Iowa, that without fighting a single battleship in their careers or being iin real danger of being sunk have more battle stars than the shoulders of Douglas McArthur.

That's why.
The British and Germans didn't give out the equivalent of battle stars? But in any case that's history. Live with it.

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Re: Jutland Anniversary: 94 years ago

Post by Karl Heidenreich » Wed Jun 02, 2010 12:39 am

In case you haven't noticed I get challenged on a regular basis. I'm also hardly capable of censoring anything on this board. Just because you can't present a conclusive enough case to convince people otherwise is hardly my problem.
Many have given solid arguments for some years and at the present. All of them, when their thesis do not suit the USN navweaps vision of things are simply ignored and the common wisdom let to flood the forum. Anyway, as your disection of my previous post shows, is no use to even bother to write anything new or challenging in this forum anymore. And I'm not alone in this thinking.

Anyway, it's better to ignore Denmarck Straits and Jutland, they didn't exist because Halsey wasn't present in them.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: Jutland Anniversary: 94 years ago

Post by Bgile » Wed Jun 02, 2010 2:34 am

I have a suggestion, Karl. Why don't you start your own site? Then you could ban everyone who didn't agree with you and delete all of their posts. You might be much happier.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7603
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Jutland Anniversary: 94 years ago

Post by RF » Wed Jun 02, 2010 8:48 am

Karl Heidenreich wrote:It seems that, again, everybody in this US Navy fans' dominated forum........
This forum I believe is devoted to a warship and operation that did not involve the USA as a combatent and is run by a Spanish national, and the number of ''US Navy fans'' are not really that great in the total number of posts made.

Either this thread commemorates the Battle of Jutland or it does not, I don't see that discussion of the US Navy is relevant to it.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Re: Jutland Anniversary: 94 years ago

Post by Karl Heidenreich » Wed Jun 02, 2010 12:11 pm

Either this thread commemorates the Battle of Jutland or it does not, I don't see that discussion of the US Navy is relevant to it.
Neither do I, which is why I brought the anniversary to the forum, where everybody else forgot about it.

Bgile:
I have a suggestion, Karl. Why don't you start your own site? Then you could ban everyone who didn't agree with you and delete all of their posts. You might be much happier.
As RF says this is a Bismarck related forum, not a USN shrine, so it is not me the one that need to pull out. Maybe the followers of navweaps and their prophets can stay in that forum and leave this one to Bismarck fans, isn't it better?
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Jutland Anniversary: 94 years ago

Post by lwd » Wed Jun 02, 2010 12:30 pm

Karl Heidenreich wrote:
Either this thread commemorates the Battle of Jutland or it does not, I don't see that discussion of the US Navy is relevant to it.
Neither do I, which is why I brought the anniversary to the forum, where everybody else forgot about it.
Then why did you inject that into it? A commemorative thread on Jutland is certainly a reasonable and worthwhile one. But for both this one and the one on Bismarck you insisted on dragging in irrelevant and contentious points. This would be considered trollling or deflection by many, indeed it detracts from the whole purpose of a commemorative thread.

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Re: Jutland Anniversary: 94 years ago

Post by Karl Heidenreich » Wed Jun 02, 2010 12:37 pm

Then why did you inject that into it? A commemorative thread on Jutland is certainly a reasonable and worthwhile one. But for both this one and the one on Bismarck you insisted on dragging in irrelevant and contentious points. This would be considered trollling or deflection by many, indeed it detracts from the whole purpose of a commemorative thread.
It is trolling just because it does not suit your (and the navweap) point of view and brings forth the fact that the USN is not the master of naval history. I am trying to made that point, precisely and now, as usual, being under attack from the USN fan faction, as usual, because it is that faction the one that feel I'm trespassing your so called "rights" of monitoring the thruth here. Sorry for that.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Jutland Anniversary: 94 years ago

Post by lwd » Wed Jun 02, 2010 12:46 pm

Karl Heidenreich wrote:
Then why did you inject that into it? A commemorative thread on Jutland is certainly a reasonable and worthwhile one. But for both this one and the one on Bismarck you insisted on dragging in irrelevant and contentious points. This would be considered trollling or deflection by many, indeed it detracts from the whole purpose of a commemorative thread.
It is trolling just because it does not suit your (and the navweap) point of view and brings forth the fact that the USN is not the master of naval history. I am trying to made that point, precisely and now, as usual, being under attack from the USN fan faction, as usual, because it is that faction the one that feel I'm trespassing your so called "rights" of monitoring the thruth here. Sorry for that.
No. It's not trolling because it doesn't suit my POV or bring forth in facts that I object to. It's trolling because you inserted a controversial position that was completely irrelevant to the commerative nature of the title. I didn't say and have never said that you are 'tresspassing' on my 'rights'. What you are doing here however is detracting from the supposed purpose of the thread (commemorating Jutland). Furthermore it looks like you tried to wrap yourself in the cload of a commemorative thread both in this one and the Bismarck thread to forstall any critism for your controversial and mistaken opinions. The memory of the participants in these battles deserve more than that.

boredatwork
Member
Posts: 234
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 8:42 pm

Re: Jutland Anniversary: 94 years ago

Post by boredatwork » Wed Jun 02, 2010 3:35 pm

...

Karl where is your evidence that Jutland was "forgotten" by US Navy fans? That they didn't beat you to posting a memorial thread? By that logic you could say they also "forgot" Pearl Harbour as neither lwd, nor Bgile posted in that thread. (though by your logic that makes complete sense as no Iowa was present at Pearl Harbour either...)

Sadly you're mis-interpreting the criticisms of your original post as further "evidence" of some massive conspiracy to turn kbismarck into an "all USN, all the time" forum.

Let me ask you however which of the following statements is more agreeable to you?
68th Anniversary of Midway
It seems that, again, all the German Fanbois in this forum have forgoten about the GREATEST naval battle involving carrier fleets. June 4th, 1942 two fleets in real capacity to hurt each other and with the potential to change the strategic scene of a World War colided at the Pacific Ocean. None of the fleets was German. Indeed the Germans couldn't even finish an aircraft carrier, let alone operate it. Both fleets were relatively matched and unlike Jutland or many of the engagements in the Atlantic war which were indecive and did little to alter the status quo Midway changed the course of the war.

Hundreds of pilots and sailors died, fighting bravely, in an encounter that carried danger to both sides. If all the rest have forgotten, I do not: I offer a prayer to the brave sailors of both fighting fleets, maybe there was no long chase or heroic floating target practice at the end but History will still regard their combat as the greatest one.
Versus:
68th Anniversary of Midway
June 4th marks anniversary of the GREATEST naval battle involving carrier fleets. June 4th, 1942 two fleets colided at the Pacific Ocean and changed the course of history.

Hundreds of pilots and sailors died, fighting bravely, in a close fought encounter that carried danger to both sides. I offer a prayer to the brave sailors of both fighting fleets for their sacrifice for their respective nations.
Now which of them does YOUR original post most resemble?

Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: Jutland Anniversary: 94 years ago

Post by Bgile » Wed Jun 02, 2010 4:01 pm

I think it's relevant to post the words next to the forum Logo: "Naval History Forums"

and

"Warships, naval battles, technology, weapons, navies of all eras, modeling, etc."

We are apparently encouraged to discuss things besides Bismarck.

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Re: Jutland Anniversary: 94 years ago

Post by Karl Heidenreich » Wed Jun 02, 2010 11:21 pm

boreatwork:

It's a pitty that you became involved in this discussion, which was never intended for a person like you, mainly because you are not a part of the faction I have been refering. However, since you post the following I need to answer:
Sadly you're mis-interpreting the criticisms of your original post as further "evidence" of some massive conspiracy to turn kbismarck into an "all USN, all the time" forum.

Let me ask you however which of the following statements is more agreeable to you?

68th Anniversary of Midway
It seems that, again, all the German Fanbois in this forum have forgoten about the GREATEST naval battle involving carrier fleets. June 4th, 1942 two fleets in real capacity to hurt each other and with the potential to change the strategic scene of a World War colided at the Pacific Ocean. None of the fleets was German. Indeed the Germans couldn't even finish an aircraft carrier, let alone operate it. Both fleets were relatively matched and unlike Jutland or many of the engagements in the Atlantic war which were indecive and did little to alter the status quo Midway changed the course of the war.

Hundreds of pilots and sailors died, fighting bravely, in an encounter that carried danger to both sides. If all the rest have forgotten, I do not: I offer a prayer to the brave sailors of both fighting fleets, maybe there was no long chase or heroic floating target practice at the end but History will still regard their combat as the greatest one.

Versus:

68th Anniversary of Midway
June 4th marks anniversary of the GREATEST naval battle involving carrier fleets. June 4th, 1942 two fleets colided at the Pacific Ocean and changed the course of history.

Hundreds of pilots and sailors died, fighting bravely, in a close fought encounter that carried danger to both sides. I offer a prayer to the brave sailors of both fighting fleets for their sacrifice for their respective nations.

Now which of them does YOUR original post most resemble?
First the fabricated quote is completely unecesary and irrelevant. I was the one, in this forum, that has tried to bring ALL military historical dates to the table for all to share. Precisely, on June 8th, 2007 I started a thread regarding the topic:

viewtopic.php?f=28&t=1285&start=0

But thanks to the same factious partisan group whose interests are being damaged now I stop some months later. All those dates, including US ONLY ones were taken into consideration. It is true, and I admited it, that I involved certain comments of political or personal nature but this is a forum and I do imagine that is allowed.

Also, you are not being conscious that, before and in several ocassions, I have tried to bring several important naval and military historic issues to the main table with enough background research, direct quotes and the best bibiography possible. Such is the case of the "Bismarck and her contemporaries" when I supported arguments with Friedman's, Garzke's, Raven's and such authors as I started to do since September 13th, 2009:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1145&start=465

In many of these I pointed out how this authors (not amateur calculists) regarded several concepts as displacement limitations, beam restrictions, design issues were completely disregarded or ignored because they simply do not adjust to the Inquisition Concepts that have been brought by the navweaps site. It's like try to talk about the South Daks' performance at Second Guadalcanal, which is nulified in the same proportion in which the Nowaki incident is given credibility beyond measure.

Other arguments, not mine, but from other posters such as the RDFC capabilities of the Germans in 1942, or the real capability of the USN radar in 1945 or the IZ of Iowa vs. Yamato or the IZ of Bismarck against the treaty limited battleships or the capabilities of the space array armour schemes in contrast to the AoN one have been completely and shamelessly put aside just quoting un-backed amateursich calculations that even the author seemed dubious to back up now. When these posts were done I tried to be as objective and reasonable as possible only to be disregarded. Why on Earth I have to be now decent with those that have never been decent with me?

This I left here. Basically I answer because it was boreatwork the one that made the point. I leave you now.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

Post Reply