BATTLE OF JUTLAND.

Taranaki Daily News, 16 July 1919, Page 3

BATTLE OF JUTLAND.

WAS JELLICOE TOO CANNY? JF GERMANY HAD WON. &N AMERICAN OPINION, The following article, dealing with the much-debated question of Lord Jcllicoe'a tactics at Jutland, appeared iu a recent number of the Scientific American. It ia an interesting commentary by a scientific journal on the Battle of Jutland. Its conclusions appear to support Admiral Jellicoo. With amazing, but commendable, frankness, Admiral Jellicoe lias made known the fact that though tne German fleet at the Battle of Jutland was inferior in numbers, it was superior in quality. No other conclusion is possible. Apparently it was only in gun-power and numbers that the British had the advantage, und even this was offset by the fact that the German shells carried a delay-action fuse, which caused them to burst inside the ship. The British fuses were too sensitive— the burst occurring on the armour, or while passing through it. In view of the fact that we perfected nn armourpiercing, delay-action shell over 18 years ago, this revelation by Jell'coe will be received with amazement. GERMAN SHIPS SUPERIOR.

■Of equal, if not greater moment, is the announcement that the German ships were greatly superior in resistance to the torpedo. This was due to their greater beam, which 1 permitted the construction of wider anti-torpedo spaces between tlfe skin of the ship and the interior armoured longitudinal bulkheads. The blame for this lies at the door of the British people, who would not vote the appropriations for building the larger dry-docks necessary to accommodate the wider ships. Battleships were popular; drv-docks were not. This underwater protection saved many a German battleship at Jutland and elsewhere. The Goeben was found to have been torpedoed five times; but her inner bulkheads held, and tin- ship was still good for 15 knots. The later British ships, designed during the war, carry the "blister," or bulge—which serves the purpose admirably, as the -monitors proved on many occasions.

A "renter area of the German ships was armoured than of the British, and the average thickness of this armour was greater. Moreover, the deck protection was not only heavier, but it extended throughout the ship, the British being content to armour only the magazine and other vitals. Thus, we learn than nine of the earliest British Dreadnoughts, including several of the battlecruisers, were without protection above the main deck, whereas nlj. German ships were protected to the upper deck.

WAS JELLTCOK RIGHT? In weighing this criticism wo must bear in mind that Jslh'eoe lias been severely criticised for not in to finish the German fleet. His statement, therefore, is a defence of his policv. It "passes the buck" t.o the Naval"Constructor, who, doubtless, will be heard in his own defence. Until that is forthcoming it would be well to reserve judgment, Nor ,<must we fprjrct that the German naval critic, Captain Persius, rr-onitMv wrote .in-the Taijcblatt; "Had the weather been the destruction of the whole German navy would have resulted."

Was Jelliooc over-cautious? That will ever remain a matter of opinion. T enemy had some 80 destrovers to his 40,

A nipht attack mig-lft haw cost him one-half his fleet, and with the British command of the sea lost the whole Allied cause would have gone by t] 1() board. Thus, the British would have heen cut off from France. And we could not have sent a man to Europe