home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: sci.military
- Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!psinntp!psinntp!ncrlnk!ciss!law7!military
- From: "david.r.wells" <drw@cbnewsg.cb.att.com>
- Subject: Re: Jutland
- Message-ID: <Bxyuv7.FKq@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>
- Sender: military@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM (Sci.Military Login)
- Organization: AT&T
- References: <BxvFwo.9J6@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>
- Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 13:59:31 GMT
- Approved: military@law7.daytonoh.ncr.com
- Lines: 35
-
-
- From "david.r.wells" <drw@cbnewsg.cb.att.com>
-
- In article <BxvFwo.9J6@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Markus Stumptner <mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at> writes:
- >
- >
- >> In article <BxICus.L1w@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, "Edward J. Rudnicki" writes:
- >>> In terms of ship count, it was a clear-cut German victory:
- >>> Strategically, Jutland was a clear-cut British victory:
- >
- >I disagree, since basically, Jutland did not change the strategic
- >situation at all, it just managed to preserve the status quo. Coral
- >Sea was the high water mark of Japanese expansion in the South
- >Pacific, and they never tried again to get at Port Moresby. I've
- >never heard Coral Sea called a clear-cut US victory.
- >
- >
-
- I view Jutland as a British victory, only BECAUSE the status quo
- was unchanged. The Germans needed to chase the Royal Navy from
- the sea, in order to break out and cause havoc on the sea lanes,
- and thus starve England. They failed to do this. They got chased
- back to Germany. The Royal Navy, while damaged, was still in control
- of the seas (except of course for a few problems with U-Boats of
- course!) The British met their victory conditions, the Germans
- failed to meet theirs. Looks like a clear cut victory to me.
-
- Likewise with the Coral Sea. The Japanese failed to achieve their
- objective, the capture of Port Moresby. It was an expensive
- victory for the US, but a victory none the less.
-
- David R. Wells
-
- Disclaimer: I don't speak for AT&T, and they don't speak for me.
-
-