Jump to content

Talk:John Jellicoe, 1st Earl Jellicoe

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pictures

[edit]

Reference taken out of context

[edit]

In the first paragraph of the section "World War 1" a passing reference is made to the effect that Winston Churchill referred to Jellicoe as 'the only man on either side who could lose the war in an afternoon'. This is apparently taken out of context from writings by Winston Churchill. In Churchill's series "The World Crisis 1911~1918" the complete text from which this was originally taken (Volume II, page 1015 of the two volume complete edition), in which Churchill described the difference in effect on the war between the Germans winning the battle of Jutland (i.e., total blockade of the British Isles, interdiction of supplies and re-inforcements moving to France from England for the Allies, America unable to join the war effort in the face of an overwhelming enemy navy, and the eventual loss of the war for England, France, Italy and Russia) and the British navy winning the battle of Jutland (basically a continuance of total sea supremacy that they already maintained), and that a mistake made by Jellicoe during a conflict of this nature could result in the destruction of the British navy, with the aforementioned results. This reference was only meant to imply the awesome responsiblity of Sir John Jellico's position, and the reason he was conservative in his actions at Jutland as he knew he had far more to lose in pursuing the engagement beyond what he thought was safe for the conservation of the British battleship superiority.

It seemed to me an unfair reflection on both Winston Churchill and Sir John Jellicoe, who's promotion had been planned for some time, and was only promoted ahead of time due to the outbreak of war, as Admiral Callaghan was due to retire as Commander-in-Cheif by December 1914 anyway, and it was never the Admiralty's intention to have the old Admiral command the fleet at war anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.252.64.194 (talk) 17:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation added.Paulturtle (talk) 13:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You made an amendment to the opening paragraph[1], so that it said:
His handling of the fleet at that battle remains controversial: he made no serious mistakes and the German High Seas Fleet retreated to port - at a time when defeat when would have been catastrophic for Britain - but at the time the public were disappointed that he had lost more ships (mainly due to design faults on British battlecruisers) and had not won a victory as crushing as Trafalgar.
I have changed "design faults" to "dangerous ammunition-handling procedures".[2] The ammunition handling procedures on the battlecruisers were dangerous given the propellant in use and the fact that the armour of the hooded barbettes was not impenetrable. That people chose not to use the safety measures available, can hardly be called a design fault.--Toddy1 (talk) 16:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's arguably a design fault that the guns could not be loaded quickly enough, with the result that safety guidelines were flouted for speedy and efficient loading in battle, but it's not really worth arguing about. To be honest I'm not sure Jutland is all that "controversial" any more - when I first started reading about WW1 thirty years ago it was already largely agreed that Beatty was a bit vainglorious and Jellicoe won a strategic victory ("The German Fleet has assaulted its jailer - but it is still in Jail" as the headline went at the time). It would be truer to say that it was controversial at the time and in the 1930s when proponents of Beatty and Jellicoe engaged in controversy in print.Paulturtle (talk) 11:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ammunition

[edit]

AT Kunene (talk) 15:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)A veteran from the "New Zealand" at Jutland, told me in the 1960s, that after the poor British Battlecruiser gunnery at the Falklands, the only way to be sure of eventually hitting the enemy was to fire as frequently as possible. To do this the ammunition was stacked inside the turrets and passage ways to keep up the rate of fire.[reply]

In other actions, such as the Dogger Bank, where the battlecruiser ammunition supply was carefully controlled the, Battlecruisers seem to have successfully stood up the hits by German heavy shells.

References.

Didn't Jellicoe write his own account of the battle as "The Grand Fleet" or some such title?AT Kunene (talk) 15:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mention of Jellicoe's book "The Crisis of the Naval War" now included under "further reading". Dormskirk (talk) 15:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:John Jellicoe, Admiral of the Fleet.jpg to appear as POTD soon

[edit]

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:John Jellicoe, Admiral of the Fleet.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on December 5, 2016. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2016-12-05. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:14, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Jellicoe
John Jellicoe (1859–1935) was a Royal Navy officer who fought in the Anglo-Egyptian War and Boxer Rebellion and commanded the Grand Fleet at the Battle of Jutland during the First World War. His handling of the fleet at that battle was controversial: he made no serious mistakes and the German High Seas Fleet retreated to port – at a time when defeat would have been catastrophic for Britain – but the British public was disappointed that the Royal Navy had not won a victory on the scale of the Battle of Trafalgar. Jellicoe later served as First Sea Lord, overseeing the expansion of the Naval Staff at the Admiralty and the introduction of convoys, but was removed at the end of 1917. He also served as the Governor-General of New Zealand in the early 1920s.Photograph: Bain News Service; restored by Adam Cuerden
Archive – More featured pictures...
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on John Jellicoe, 1st Earl Jellicoe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:22, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Non-sequitur

[edit]

Churchill described Jellicoe later as "the only man on either side who could lose the war in an afternoon" — essentially hinting that Jellicoe's decision to prefer caution was strategically correct. Nevertheless, he was appointed a member of the Order of Merit...

'Nevertheless' seems meaningless. What is being implied? Valetude (talk) 00:19, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Jellicoe,_1st_Earl_Jellicoe&oldid=1216474002"