Who actually won The Battle of Jutland?

[@billyosullivan3192]

If there is one thing Germany in both world wars can teach it's that tactical victories don't win wars

[@lucius1976]

Well, what qualifies a tactical victory from a strategic one? I would say Germany had some strategic victories in the First as well as in the Second World War. Knocking out Russia in the first and France in the Second were strategic victories.

[@Duke-i3u]

a tactical victory is one where you inflict more harm on your enemy, thus seeming to win in a way, but it can still be a strategic defeat if you don't achieve your objective, as the german objective, overall, was to defeat the british and raise the blockade. failure to do so resulted in ultimate defeat in the war. the simple difference is in the old saying "you can win the battles, but still lose the war"@@lucius1976

[@billyosullivan3192]

@@lucius1976 Germany badly understood and then applied bad lessons from defeating russia in ww1. Ludendorff explicitly said his understanding of how Russia was beaten was tactical victories led to victory. He then believed all he had to do in the west was tear a hole and the rest will sort out itself. Besides in ww1, the western front was always the decisive front of the war. The fact Germany beat Russia but still lost shows that the westerners were always right

[@PeteOtton]

@@lucius1976 Coral Sea? First battle of Savo Island and a few other night actions off of Guadalcanal where the USN learned how to fight at night with that newfangled radar the hard way.

[@ignatziusturret5641]

@@billyosullivan3192 You have binairy stupid thinking.

[@billyosullivan3192]

"The German Fleet has assaulted its jailer, but it is still in jail."

[@Bullet-Tooth-Tony-]

I love that phrase, i think it's wonderful

[@biddyboy1570]

Sums it up. RIP the dead.

[@dynamo1796]

Put more simply, the Germans fancied some but got none. FAFO in the naval sense.

[@LMyrski]

Parroting that nonsense are we......The Brits could have remained in port that day drinking tea and achieved the same thing without losing so many men and ships.

[@billyosullivan3192]

@@LMyrski you don't enforce a blockade by sitting in port

[@diannegooding8733]

Jellicoe kept the RN Fleet in being and continued to blockade the High Seas Fleet for the rest of the war. German sailors mutinied rather than sail out again in strength to try to break the blockade! Germany needed to win massively at Jutland, Jellicoe only needed not to lose the fleet!

[@iansneddon2956]

Agreed. While the public wanted another stunning victory like Trafalgar, Jellicoe wisely took the safer option of turning to Port to cross the German T. Taking greater risks is justifiable when you are losing, but as he was in the superior position he chose a certain but less spectacular victory.

[@dynamo1796]

And there was zero chance of the Royal Navy losing a fleet at Jutland - such was its size and the weight of its fire, it doesn't matter. Throughout history battles have been won where the victorious side actually lost more troops, because its not just about body count. Its about what happens next after the battle itself, how does it change the situation.

[@iansneddon2956]

@@dynamo1796 I wouldn't say zero in just the relative strength of forces. Had Jellicoe not withrdrawn the Grand Fleet as the Germans retreated the first time, and been hit by a massive spread of torpedoes, the second engagement could have been on different terms. Jellicoe acted quite sensibly (perhaps masterfully) to not put his fleet at undue risk, turning to port to cross the German's T, withdrawing to avoid an expected torpedo attack, and bringing the fleet back to position to punish the Germans again. I think another historical battle to consider is the assault up San Juan hill in the Spanish American War. The Americans took about twice the casualties the Spanish suffered, but they took and held the hill. The result, they unlocked the defenses of Santiago, and could exploit that by bringing up artillery with which to shell the city - forcing the Spanish fleet to try to break out through a narrow channel against a waiting US fleet that could hammer them piecemeal inflicting a devastating naval defeat on the Spanish. And forcing the city to surrender. One costly battle won the Caribbean phase of the war for the Americans out of what it forced the Spanish to do.

[@TinaHollner]

@@diannegooding8733 true, but that was AFTER the battle. Here the talk is about an incident not who won the war

[@22grena]

The Royal navy lost more ships and sailors but the German fleet never left its home waters again in an effective way to confront the Royal Navy until they surrendered. Therefore it was a win for the Royal Navy

[@DouglasEdward84]

Tactical German victory, Strategic British Victory.

[@Simon_Nonymous]

Soviet casualties at Kursk were higher than Axis losses, but we all know who won the battle.

[@mattbowden4996]

Actually, the Germans sortied again in August 1916 and then again in October 1916, both times with the intent of engaging the Royal Navy. Then they fought defeated the Russian Navy in the Baltic in 1917 before trying to bait out the Royal Navy AGAIN in the summer of 1918. The idea that the High Seas Fleet never sailed again after Jutland is century old propaganda that was never true in the first place and we really shouldn't be repeating now. It's a shame the video didn't take a moment to dispell this myth, but I suppose they have to keep things brief.

[@mickywanderer8276]

Also Jellicoe signaled that the Grand Fleet was ready for another action with two days of arrive back at base. They had the ships to replace the ones lost/damaged. The Germans didn't.

[@peterwebb8732]

@@DouglasEdward84It’s not a “tactical victory” if you don’t get what you were fighting for.

[@Masada1911]

Very hard to judge. But in my opinion the Germans needed to upset the status quo and they didn’t do that. So I have to say the British came out ahead.

[@andrewsoboeiro6979]

it was said that Jellicoe was the only man who could lose the war in an afternoon; só the fact that he didn't do só was a British win, however anticlimactic

[@MaxwellAerialPhotography]

It's actually very easy to judge, the German navy was bottled up in port before the battle, unable to operate openly on the North Sea for prolonged periods. They sortied out to try and disrupt grand fleet operations in the North Sea. After the battle their circumstances had not changed, the Royal Navy Home Fleet still had control of the North Sea and it's exits, thus the Kaiserliche Marine failed to achieve any real results other than damaging and sinking ships that the Royal Navy could repair or replace.

[@biddyboy1570]

Within 24 hours the Grand Fleet was ready to go again. Same could not be said for the High Seas Fleet. A draw was a win for GB.

[@peterwebb8732]

@@biddyboy1570Which means that it wasn’t a draw. The score-card was irrelevant. It was about who could do what they wanted afterwards. The British had what they wanted . The Germans did not. So….. not a draw.

[@biddyboy1570]

@@peterwebb8732 The British wanted to end the stalemate with a complete victory. A Trafalgar 2.0. We can't compare the losses as the Brits had more they could lose. The morning after the battle the tactical situation was unchanged with the Germans still unable to control the seas. Status quo maintained. Hence a draw with the Germans moving to a fleet in being.

[@alanclague2333]

Drachinifel has done a good series of videos on the Battle of Jutland. The first video was the set up to hhe battle and the run to the south. The second covers the run to the north to the night actions. The final video discussed the outcome and consequences.

[@landsea7332]

IMO its one of Drachinifel 's best documentary's . Also , the grandson of Jellico made an excellent documentary on this battle . kzbin.info/www/bejne/i5C4o6x8n7CIqa8 .

[@alanb9443]

You should never measure victory by loss of men and equipment. It’s whether or not you met your strategic objectives. The USSR lost nearly 3x as many men and tanks as Germany in WW2 but no one is arguing Germany won the war. This is the mistake the US made in Vietnam, it doesn’t matter if you’re destroying their troops and equipment if theyre willing of taking the loss and capable of finding replacements.

[@Blablablabla1ify]

Your comment deserves more appreciation! Good points.

[@callumgordon1668]

My son won a competition to name a street in a new development in Rosyth sometime before 2009. We did a wee bit looking online and found there were streets named after Jellicoe and Beatty, but not for the battle of Jutland. So we still have a Jutland Street sign in the loft after my son, not so forward unusually asked if he could have the mockup they’d done for publicity. The year’s significant as I told the photographer there was still a living witness to the battle. He looked at me as if I was mad, but Henry Allingham was still alive then. I thought the analysis in your video was spot on. The Royal Navy lost more ships and men, but their tactics were sound and the Germans failed in their strategic objectives: destruction of the cruisers and breakout, whereas the British achieved theirs. Retained dominance and blockade and the Germans never came out again. In fact they mutinied in 1918 when their commanders wanted them to embark on a death ride into the North Sea. The battle indirectly leading to the US entering the war is an interesting point.

[@Geoff31818]

Notice you make no mention no of beatty’s abysmal signals and communication. Also he is the one that pushed for rate of fire on his ships resulting is chronic errors like removing flash doors so they can load the guns faster

[@Poliss95]

Then there was the great gunnery scandal with the firing clocks which meant they couldn't hit their targets anyway.

[@kommandantgalileo]

DAMN YOU BEATTY!

[@grahvis]

And failing to use his range advantage.

[@kommandantgalileo]

@@grahvis that was due to his crew not being trained properly, they over estimated the range.

[@iansneddon2956]

Jellicoe salvaged a bad situation into a successful (for the British) battleship engagement with his quick decision making. Beatty showed that he was no Nelson, Rodney, Hood or Cunningham.

[@JH-ox7hn]

Very good documentary. Thanks a lot. I enjoyed Mr. Dickens' presentation and would like to see more of him.

[@cra0422]

The Germans won tactically by sinking more tonnage and causing more casualties, but the British won strategically because the German fleet went back to port and stayed there for the remainder of the war.

[@EnglishScripter]

Well yeah, but also, the entire German fleet was very heavily damaged, not long after the battle the majority of the British fleet had been repaired and was on station again.

[@koala6016]

Also the damage to the German fleet was heavy and widespread, whereas the damage to the British fleet was more or less confined to the battlecruisers.

[@iansneddon2956]

When the battle ends with your forces in a full rout, you haven't won anything.

[@advanceaustralia4861]

The German Navy ran away! Some tactical victory.

[@manilajohn0182]

Spot on comment, cra0422.

[@melvinjohnson2074]

Despite the David Beatty's incompetence the battle went to the Grand Fleet.

[@xornxenophon3652]

Not really. 1) The battle was not conclusive for any side, even though the British fleet lost more men and more ships. So tactically it was more or less a draw. 2) The German navy operated under the doctrine of a fleet in being. It was never meant to defeat the Grand Fleet in battle. So with regard to grand-strategy, things also did not change much. The German fleet remained a fleet in being and the Grand Fleet had to keep watching her. Nothing changed for any side.

[@sputnikjones6838]

Thank you for the clear break down of the battel .I finally somewhat understand the complexity of the engagement.

[@Floods-uy6tl]

Great video with a respectful and evenhanded conclusion.. thanks mate

[@donwayne1357]

Now, just hold on a minute there.

[@seanmoran2743]

Beatty should have been sacked for allowing the German Battle Cruisers to open fire first when he had them in range

[@landsea7332]

To add , the guns on Beatty's battle cruisers had a longer range than the guns on Hipper's ships . So during the first stage of the battle , while moving parallel , Beatty's battle cruisers could have been shooting at Hipper's ships , without putting his own ships in harms way . But instead , Betty put his own battle cruiser's within range . So totally incompetent David Beatty gets promoted , and the very skillful John Jellico gets pushed out . .

[@iansneddon2956]

Jellicoe was promoted after the battle and in his new position was able to push ahead the redesign of British AP shells to correct their defects. The crushing damage inflicted on the Germans at Jutland was with defective shells. A rematch would have gone much much worse for the Germans.

[@jamespennington7919]

You could make a similar argument re the USS Constitution in the war of 1812. She won some individual skirmishes, picking on smaller ships mostly, (as is wise and fair in a war) but the US fleet never broke the Royal Navy blockade.

[@copferthat]

If a winning boxer quits on his stool, he's lost

[@OceanHedgehog]

Britain would have won decisively if Beatty wasn't there.

[@dominiccassidy9708]

Neither side achieved the objectives that they had planned but that was a strategic win for the British. The German fleet had to break out of the North Sea and they failed.

[@scotthill8787]

Jellicoe won Jutland by not losing. The blockade of Germany was continued.

[@rickkephartactual7706]

This was one of the better, if short, descriptions of the events that took place.

[@johntechwriter]

An impressively comprehensive, yet easy to understand, presentation of the military and political consequences of a historic battle. Your research extends from the admirals in charge to the valiant ordinary sailors. And your deceptively simple animations portray what took place between the two navies with a clarity that in other recountings have required hours of reading and viewing, and still we weren’t quite sure what happened. I agree with your summary of this seemingly inconclusive engagement. The British discovered the vulnerability of their lightly defended decks - something that would come back to haunt them in WWII with the loss of the Hood to the Bismark. But the Germans were unnerved by the prescience of the Brits. How did they know where the Germans would be? Which brought to the fore their inferiority complex. The superiority of British intelligence would come back to haunt the Germans in WWII when Enigma foretold so many German battle plans long before they were executed. Look at Hamburg, Dresden, and Berlin if you wish to judge the relative importance of nerds vs. whiskered old admirals stuck in the 19th century.

[@billpugh58]

The British fleet stopped the German fleet and made it turn around forget its plans and never venture forth again. Clear British victory.

[@bruceferguson8030]

Always fascinated with Jutland . Much to learn for an old tankie.

[@Tailssonic1999x]

Have you news of my boy Jack? " Not this tide. "When d'you think that he'll come back?" Not with this wind blowing, and this tide Oh, dear, what comfort can I find?" None this tide, Nor any tide, Except he did not shame his kind--- Not even with that wind blowing, and that tide. Then hold your head up all the more, This tide, And every tide; Because he was the son you bore, And gave to that wind blowing and that tide!

[@occamraiser]

it's one of those 'tactical' Vs 'strategic' questions. Undoubtedly the Germans won the engagement - in a tactical sense..... they sank more ships Undoubtedly the British won the engagement - in a strategic sense.... they forced the German navy back into port - permanently.

[@iansneddon2956]

Maybe initial tactical victory for the Germans in the Battlecruiser engagement. If the Germans had retreated after sinking two of Beatty's battlecruisers I would call this a tactical victory for the Germans, but they squandered their accomplishment and failed tactically by trying to chase down Beatty's remaining force, misjudging why they were heading North instead of heading home - chasing the RN battlecruisers into a trap. (Beatty's lack of communication aided the Germans, but Jellicoe's quick decision overcame this putting the German fleet in the worst tactical situation with their T being crossed by a battleship line 5 miles long). Faced with this the Germans launched torpedoes at the British and retreated. This provided cover for their retreat, so was a good tactical decision. But then they returned to see if they had softened up the British and resume the battle. But, again, Jellicoe acted correctly pulling his fleet back to avoid torpedo hits and then returning to position... so when the Germans returned they drove into the same bad tactical position. This time the German line collapsed under the bombardment with Captains not waiting for orders but just turning out of the line and retreating on their own .... a disorganized rout. Since the whole point of the German strategy was to avoid this sort of battle with the RN battleships... they failed tactically going head on against an enemy they were not prepared to fight, taking a beating, retreating, and then coming back for more of the same. The Germans did not dare bring their battleships up against the strength of the RN for the remainder of the war. I'd call it an overall British tactical victory (tacitcal victory by Jellicoe in the main part of the battle) due to (1) pounding the enemy to the point that they didn't just retreat, they ran away in panic, and (2) they left the enemy so demoralized that even when their ships were repaired they were not wanting to go up against the Grand Fleet again - but trying once again in late 1917 to see if they could engage just part of it - failing due to poor intelligence which seems a common German failure through all of this. Had the Germans stopped after sinking two of Beatty's battlecruisers and then retreated with much less damage, leaving their fleet physically and emotionally ready to soon fight again, I would call that a German tactical victory. But they squandered their victory trying to go for it all and paid for it dearly.

[@marcdavis4509]

It’s how it was described as the prisoner has assaulted their jailer but is still in jail. Tactical victory for the High Sea Fleet but strategically nothing really changed.

[@peterwebb8732]

It’s not a victory of any kind if it doesn’t get you what you want. It’s not a game of cricket that is won or lost according to some scorecard. It’s about who owns the sea afterward.

[@LMyrski]

Parroting that nonsense are we......The Brits could have remained in port that day drinking tea and achieved the same thing without losing so many men and ships.

[@LMyrski]

@@peterwebb8732 So the Brits Burning Washington DC in the War of 1812 was a British defeat?

[@peterwebb8732]

@@LMyrski It’s hard to find the words to explain just how myopic your claim is Britain, France and their allies were engaged in a World War on the Western Front. Their ability to do that depended entirely on international trade coming through the Atlantic, the Mediterranean and the North Seas. The Germans knew this, and their objective was to blockade Britain and France at sea . Had they been able to do this, the war on land would have been lost. The objective of the Grand Fleet was to prevent the Germans from achieving naval dominance of those waters, and they did exactly that…….

[@xwormwood]

@@peterwebb8732Sorry, that is a very single sided view on the situation. Matter of fact it was the Grand Fleet that blockaded Germany, trying to starve them to death.

[@MortRotu]

So Germany 'won' tactically (more sunk ships/killed sailors) but lost strategically (blockade maintained, resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare -> US entry into WW1). Seems clear enough to me.

[@iansneddon2956]

Lost tactically as while they were able to engage the battle cruiser squadron and inflict heavier losses, they were not able to do this in isolation. The whole point of their plan was to avoid open battle against the Grand Fleet. The pounding they took forced the Germans to retreat the first time, and the second time the ship captains weren't waiting for orders - they just broke and ran. When your forces are thrown into a rout and escape into the darkness hoping to get home without getting into another battle - you haven't won. They were afraid as they knew there were British out there, lots of them. The defeat of the High Seas Fleet at Jutland led to that resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare which did more harm than good to the German war effort.

[@pomicultorul]

great channel, thank you or your efforts!

[@Gerhardium]

Germany failed to meet its objectives or change the strategic situation and the next day the Grand Fleet was ready to sail again whilst the High Seas Fleet wasn't ready for anything for some time afterwards. A tactical withdrawal in the face of the enemy is still a retreat and the British retained control of the sea but if German fanboys want to call it a victory go right ahead.

[@xwormwood]

Retreating from battle is not the same as losing the battle. Having superior numbers, reserves and therfor the ability to be ready for combat faster than the enemy has nothing to do with winning a battle either. It has something to do with winning the war, of course. But that was not the question.

[@iansneddon2956]

@@xwormwood While retreating is not the same as losing a battle, having the battle end with your forces breaking and heading for home in a rout that is a very good indication you lost. The Germans did carry out a tactical withdrawal, then returned, and then just fled in a rout.

[@tim7052]

Broadly speaking the Germans won tacticly (more RN men and ships lost in the Battle) and they retreated to fight another day - which tied up RN resources to meet another, potential, future sortie. But the Royal Navy won strategically because after Jutland, the German Navy never ventured out from Port again: their Navy even mutinied rather than fight.

[@xwormwood]

Last sentence is not true. They mutinied because the war was already clearly lost. They would have fought if it wouldn't have been so ovious that they were meant to sacrifce their lifes for nothing but the pride of the Admirality.

[@iansneddon2956]

Except the German High Seas Fleet retreated to never fight another day, so how was this a victory for the Germans? The ships eventually did steam out to meet the British... who came to escort them into internment at Scapa Flow where the Germans scuttled their ships rather than let the British and French take them. The Grand Fleet had no other place they needed to be than stationed around Britain or out in the North Sea. The ships had already been built and were going to be maintained and kept operating so there was not much additional cost waiting to see if/when the High Seas Fleet would come out again. The Germans failed in their plan to weaken the Royal Navy down to parity. There is a poster (images of it online) showing the German High Seas Fleet on its way to Scapa Flow escorted by Royal Navy battleships with a few American battleships, along with the cruisers and destroyers. The overwhelming number of ships of the Royal Navy on full display.

[@tim7052]

@iansneddon2956 The Germans won a tactical victory (sunk more ships and killed more sailors) but lost strategically. The UK didnt want to repeat another Jutland - as their losses would be more keenly felt. Understand?

[@alganhar1]

@@tim7052 I understand, and its largely rubbish. Why? Well I will tell you. The Battle of Jutland ended with the German High Seas fleet running for Port, while the British Grand Fleet was ACTIVELY trying to reposition to re-engage the enemy. In other words the Royal Navy was perfectly willing, and perfectly able to continue the fight and was actively seeking to do so. The German Navy on the other hand was NOT willing to re-engage, it was actively seeking to return to safe port. Therefore despite the Royal Navy losing more ships, it retained 'control of the field' in that it, and not the German High Seas Fleet, was ready and willing to continue the fight. Therefore it can only be concluded that the Royal Navy in fact won both a TACTICAL as well as Strategic Victory at Jutland. Had British shells been working properly, the main battleship on battleship engagement would have gone very differently to the historical outcome as well. People like to point out what ifs for the Germans but conveniently forget them for the British. Unpleasant fact for those people is that if the British shells had not been detonating prematurely the Germans would have lost AT LEAST six Battleships. The German main battleline got hammered, even with defective British shells half those German Battleships were out of action for months. In contrast the Royal Navy was ready to go again within two weeks.... People like you need to get through your head that losses mean little when it comes to defeat and victory, what matters is DID YOU ACHIEVE YOUR OBJECTIVES. The British mostly achieved both their Tactical and Strategic Objectives, the Germans failed to achieve ANY of their Tactical or Strategic Objectives....

[@tashatsu_vachel4477]

Who won at Jutland??? The reason for fighting this battle was to control the seas, and losses really do not matter if you continue with complete control afterwards. British control after Jutland was if anything even more secure than before it, as whilst the Germans had taken almost every available ship out to sea, the British left significant forces (including 3 of the 15" gunned ships) in port for various reasons. Scheer concluded after the battle that there was no hope of defeating the Grand Fleet in battle and that the submarine was the only hope.

[@Bullet-Tooth-Tony-]

Tactically the Germans performed quite well in the actual battle but strategically the end result speaks for itself. The Germans never again dared to seriously challenge the Royal Navy. The Royal Navy continued to dominate for the rest of the war. In that context you can only see the end result as a strategic British win.

[@mattbowden4996]

That's not strictly true. The Germans sortied again in August 1916 with the specific intent of repeating the Jutland plan, only with better coordination with their Zeppelins and U-boats so they wouldn't get caught flat-footed again. The operation did not result in a Fleet action (ironically the Zeppellins misidentified the Dover patrol's cruisers as a battleship squadron leaving Adm Scheer chasing ghosts and the two fleets never sighted one another) but the German intent to try again was very real.

[@patrickporter1864]

What was the basic strategy and tactics behind the design of the battlecruiser. I always understood that they were meant to outgun and out pace heavy And light cruisers in there commerce raiding role. As a fleet ship they were too lightly armoured for fleet action. As was proven by the Queen Mary et Al at jutland in ww1 and the battle of the Denmark straits in ww2. Even when convert to aircraft carriers they were still too lightly armoured.

[@mencken8]

This has been rehashed who knows how many times. The Germans won the tactical victory, since most people count tonnage sunk / disabled, albeit using varied criteria. The British won the strategic victory, since the whole point was the German fleet being able to break out into the North Sea, which they failed to do. The German fleet returned to port to rot and ultimately to mutiny.

[@KarlKarpfen]

Well, in all effect, the battle of Jutland ultimately and directly ended the war and the German Empire: The moment the order came to do it all again, the German navy sailors revolted and thereby ended the war.

[@xwormwood]

They revolted because the war was clearly lost and nearly over.

[@marcneef795]

I think, the Britains considered it as a loss at the time it was over. Only after some time they realized, they had bloodied the German fleet so much that they would not fight again.

[@dovetonsturdee7033]

The Press certainly did, as the scribblers in their offices (and bars) demanded a second Trafalgar.

[@dominicpickett5262]

My grandad was a signalman on the HMS Lion , I’ve still got all the messages he sent in the battle.

[@diannegooding8733]

The blockade was not lifted and the High Seas Fleet took more widespread damage and took time to repair. Jellicoe was ready to go to sea again in a few days. The Germans never ventured out in numbers throughout the war. “Jellicoe the man who could lose the war in an afternoon” didn’t! Beatty’s report/ book on the battle is somewhat biased. Beatty never admitted that his order for rapid fire caused the Battle Cruisers to override safety features and leave fire doors open in the magazines, which probably led to the vast explosions.

[@davidcrabbe9710]

Whilst I appreciate the need for brevity given the short running time, it would have been worth delving into why the Battlecruisers under Beatty suffered catastrophic explosions, why given the excellent positioning of the Grand Fleet so little damage was inflicted and also the exceptional way in which the High Seas Fleet was able to extricate itself from potential disaster. For anyone interested, I highly recommend Rules of the Game by Andrew Gordon.

[@simonlancaster1815]

Give us a few ideas in brief. British ships weaker and poorly designed compared to German? British guns not good at long range? German seamanship just better?

[@davidcrabbe9710]

@@simonlancaster1815 German designs valued protection over firepower, British shells were unreliable at Jutland, Beatty was a poor subordinate to Jellicoe and his decision to prioritise weight of fire over shell handling safety would have disastrous consequences for the Battlecruisers under his command. Also The Germans handled their ships and the tactical situation brilliantly.

[@simonlancaster1815]

@@davidcrabbe9710 Scheer thought Germany had better ships and men. Maybe he was correct.

[@alganhar1]

@@simonlancaster1815 Not really. After the battle the Germans identified the primary weakness of their Capital ships was lack of firepower. They had gone too far down the speed and protection end of the triangle, which meant the British battleships had a significant edge in that their armour was adequate against the German battleships main guns at the ranges they were fighting, but the British guns would punch through their armour. Assuming their shells worked properly that is! Really thats what the fewer losses the Germans suffered boils down to, the British shells were unreliable because the explosive filler was overly sensitive so had a tendency to detonate prematurely. It was not a defect with British ships, but their shells. And this is something noted in the German records made by the naval architects surveying the damage. According to those records had the British shells been detonating as they should have been, at least six of those German Battleships would never have made it back to port....

[@aquilarossa5191]

Neither side won it or lost it. The UK was able to continue its blockade of German ports. Germany was able to deal a severe blow to the UK's battle cruiser squadron. Both outcomes were consistent with each country's naval strategy. The UK and its blockade strategy to deny Germany war materials, which would impede and diminish it ability to successfully fight a war. Germany had a fleet in being and would attempt break outs to destroy parts of the UK's fleet in detail if they could, which is exactly what they achieved against the battle cruisers. However, if we determine a winner just by by losses at sea, Germany won a costly victory.

[@iansneddon2956]

UK strategy was to retain dominance over the North Sea and maintain the blockade. They succeeded. German strategy was to engage just part of the Grand Fleet and wear down the RN piecemeal to the point where the High Seas Fleet could match the Royal Navy and to then use the High Seas Fleet to break the blockade. The cost of dealing that blow to the UK's battle cruiser squadron was such a pounding on the High Seas Fleet it would be years before they could set out again and even then the crews mutinied rather than go out to battle the RN again. The blow to the Battlecruiser squadron was inconsequential to Royal Navy power. The High Seas Fleet needed to inflict much more damage to achieve their strategy.... but were unable to continue the battle. While they didn't know it at the time, the Royal Navy had effectively knocked the German surface navy out of the war. Strategic victory for the Royal Navy. Strategic defeat for the German Navy. The German defeat was completed by their resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare which brought the USA into the war.

[@Muesli711]

@1:37 With 10 'big' guns - this all big gun configuration was one of the revolutionary aspects of the Dreadnought design.

[@rogerrees9845]

Another very interesting presentation..... Thank you....Roger...Pembrokeshire..

[@micheal6898]

Jellico , Hands down saved this battle from beatys mistake . If he had managed to get his Wants for More modern shells that where not woefull and kept British Ammo stowage Regulations from being grossly Ignored by Beatys Fleet . The battle could have been another Trafalgar .

[@tombblades]

I consider this a firm British win. The Royal Navy forced the Germans back into the Baltic permanently.

[@kirishima638]

The Germans failed to break the blockade or defeat the British fleet, so the answer is obvious. Why is this still controversial?

[@brettmitchell6431]

The German Navy couldn’t run away fast enough and never came out to fight again. Clear Royal Navy strategic victory.

[@Brian-----]

Pretty clear that with the blockade still on, Britain and the Entente won.

[@Outlier999]

The Germans won a tactical victory but they were too stupid to know it, so they scurried away and hid for the rest of the war, thus handing the British the ultimate strategic victory.

[@iansneddon2956]

What victory had they achieved? Had they stayed fighting they would have suffered much more damage. The first time they drove into Jellicoe's battleship line they were forced to carry out a tactical retreat to save their ships from destruction. They came back for a second attempt and this time the German captains didn't wait for their Admiral's order, they just left formation and turned and ran.

[@Roland14d]

I'm glad IWM has addressed this issue. IMHO The relative casualty rate is irrelevant to determining who won the battle. All that really matters is: 1) The British held the field of Battle. 2) The German Grand Fleet never again left the safety of their harbor. While a Fleet-In-Being ties down enemy resources, it otherwise has no substantial affect on the war.

[@ColHoganGer90]

The "field of battle" does not exist in naval warfare. When the Japanese won at Savo Island, they had to hurry back to Rabaul afterwards. Did they lose? No. Naval warfare is about area denial and sinking the enemy assets.

[@iansneddon2956]

@@ColHoganGer90 Naval power is about being able to do what you want in a sea/ocean while also denying the enemy the ability to do the same. The Royal Navy had naval power. The German navy wanted to challenge, weaken and eliminate the naval power of the Royal Navy. Essentially, the Royal Navy demonstrated that the North Sea was a British lake and the Germans were not welcome. The sinking of enemy assets is not necessary if they are not able to do anything with those assets.

[@alanbrookes275]

As CinC Jellicoe took the blame, but Beatty almost lost the battle by bloody-mindedness. So Beatty promoted to CinC Grand Fleet and Jellicoe shunted sideways as First Sea Lord. Beatty made and earl, Jellicoe a viscount later upgraded to earl.

[@PeteOtton]

Isn't the First Sea Lord the highest post in the Royal Navy? The officer in charge of ALL ships and tasks, not just the main Grand Fleet.

[@alanbrookes275]

@@PeteOtton Indeed it is, but at the time the feeling in the fleet was that Beatty was replacing the better man as CinC. At the time CinC as considered as the peak of a sea officers career. First Sea Lord was more political back then who had to reign in overenthusiastic First Lords like Churchill who was prone to issue orders without consulting the First Sea Lord.

[@PeteOtton]

@@alanbrookes275 Ok, I can understand the sailors being upset with losing Jellicoe.

[@RaderizDorret]

@@PeteOtton It is, but it's an administrative role. Imagine someone like Patton or Nimitz being sent to the Pentagon while being some of the best field commanders we have.

[@PeteOtton]

@@RaderizDorret Nimitz wasn't at sea. He mostly relied on his subordinate admirals to fight the battles he chose for them in their way. He would end up as the CNO after King.

[@ralphe5842]

The number of ships sunk or sailors killed doesn’t determine a win or loss but the results of the engagement in tha t case Germany lost and actually lost big as there huge expense on a navy was a waste it wasn’t the trafalgar that the public wished but the results were just as important.

[@iansneddon2956]

Naval power is the ability to use the oceans for your purposes and depriving your enemies of the ability to use the oceans for their purposes. Britain achieved this and was able to expand their blockade of Germany which brought down the Kaiser and the German war effort.

[@郑颍]

Jack Cornwall is not the youngest to be awarded the VC. That was Hospital Apprentice Andrew Fitzgibbon in 1860 at age 15. Facts matter.

[@DCS_World_Japan]

Tactical stalemate, strategic British victory then.

[@Joker-yw9hl]

You can fight as bravely and competently as you like but if your objectives were not met then you lost

[@iansneddon2956]

Failing to achieve your objectives might mean a draw. Being unable to try again to meet your objectives means clearly you lost. After Jutland the British Royal Navy could do pretty much what they wanted in the North Sea while Germany was stuck in harbor while their nation began to starve under a crushing blockade. A loss of naval power by Germany. Their surface navy was effectively removed from the war as certainly as if it had been sunk at Jutland. The Germans just made it official at Scapa Flow a few years later.

[@martyn420]

The outcome is hardly "ambiguous"; it was a clear-cut strategic victory, albeit not in the Nelsonian manner the public hoped for. No British battleships were lost, and improvements to British shell fuses meant that a further German sortie would have been suicidal. By failing to destroy the Royal Navy, or at least reduce it significantly, the Germans were denied control of the seas and could not break the lethal blockade, which ultimately hastened the war's end. Juland is a classic example of how a strategic victory can be messy but equally successful as Trafalgar. Jutland's aftermath was the surrender of the German fleet at Scapa Flow.

[@oldtrkdrvr]

I read somewhere that it was said that the Germans had met their jailer and they were still in jail.

[@Justjunniee]

"the Germans had bloodied their jailer but is still in jail"

[@Mustapha1963]

I think that it could be said that the British won, despite themselves. Germany needed a decisive victory that redressed the imbalance of ships and to break the British blockade. They did neither. I said "despite themselves" because the British could have lost the battle. David Beatty had a terrible day. He had fought Jellicoe over control of the new Queen Elizabeth-class Superdreadnoughts and had finally won that control- and then failed to bring the commander of those ships to hid flagship to discuss tactics. During the battle, Beatty failed to exert leadership over his assets. Worse, he failed to keep Jellicoe even remotely informed of what the Germans were doing. This was completely inexcusable, as Jellicoe had made to crystal clear that keeping him informed was the primary task of all scouting forces- of which Beatty's Battlecruiser Force was part. Yes, there was "something wrong with our bloody ships today"- but there was also "something wrong with the bloody Battlecruiser Force commander today". Had David Beatty fulfilled his duties competently, given Jellicoe's actions in deploying his ships effectively even though he was but marginally informed of the whereabouts of the Germans, the Grand Fleet might every well have wrecked the High Seas Fleet to a point that the war could have ended shortly after Jutland, as the Germans might have concluded that breaking the blockade with a shattered High Seas Fleet was impossible.

[@iansneddon2956]

As I posted in another comment, historical reflection makes it abundantly clear that Beatty was no Nelson, Hood, Rodney or Cunningham. (regardless of how much he saw himself like that).

[@FuriousFire898]

Waiting for the second battle of Jutland in the comments 🗣️🔥

[@squirepraggerstope3591]

Who won at Jutland? In brief, we British did. At least in any way that's identifiable as remotely relevant to either side's fundamental strategic objectives.

[@joegordon5117]

I recall long-ago history lessons at school, where our history master posed the same question of who won this battle, before saying both side claimed victory, and in their way they were both right. The Germans inflicted far more damage, but then they effectively surrendered the field of battle ro the Royal Navy for the rest of the war, so the RN can claim victory too. Looking back now I realise our teacher wasn't just explaining this moment in history to us, he was gently training us to realise that history was not always clear cut and often depends on the interpretation of different people with different opinions, which was not a bad thing to teach us.

[@melbjohn]

The launch of the Dreadnought in 1906 did not presage the naval arms race! True, it rendered much of the pre-dreadnaught era ships out of date but the race had been going on since 1897 and when it was put on the blocks it was just a new stage.

[@dianacollins391]

Good video

[@Roland14d]

1:35 Odd that he doesn't say what made HMS Dreadnought (DN) special. - She ONLY carried 12" guns, ie ALL BIG GUNS! N secondary armament. In other words, Dreadnought had 2.5 TIMES as many guns as her predecessor (King Edward VII class). - She was the first capitol ship to use turbines give her a 12-15% more speed for less fuel use.

[@keptinjack]

Tactical for the Germans, RN shells didn't work as advertised and the BCs paid for Beaties incompetence. Strategic for the RN, the Gemans only commissioned 1? more ship while the RN got quite a number more and their damaged ships were repaired long before the KM. Ended the KM as a viable fighting force, and their big ships did nothing more of consequence

[@PeteOtton]

What's scary is that Beatty wanted to use torpedo planes, which would have been spring 1919 before he'd of had enough to launch a raid on the High Seas Fleet at anchor.

[@MarkHarrison733]

Britain did not control the sea, and its blockade was illegal under international law. The Germans left port several times after their great victory at Jutland. Germany did not lose World War I, and by the 1930s Britain no longer mattered at all.

[@Finnbobjimbob]

This is sarcasm right? No one is actually this stupid

[@dovetonsturdee7033]

@@Finnbobjimbob Yes, he is. He is a troll who posts simply to annoy. Best to ignore him.

[@MarkHarrison733]

@@Finnbobjimbob See the 1931 Statute of Westminster, "appeasement" and why Ike bankrupted sterling.

[@MarkHarrison733]

@@dovetonsturdee7033 See why Israel bombed British civilians during World War II.

[@olaspaz3079]

Is this even in question? The mystery is that Hitler bothered to build another surface fleet at all.

[@leighmenzie5904]

Hitler was only a coperal during ww2, so I fail to see what he would have to do with the battle of jutland

[@iansneddon2956]

@@leighmenzie5904 The point is that in the first part of the 20th century Germany lost the arms race with Britain and failed to be able to exercise surface naval power in the North Sea. Leaving Germany a major naval power that had spent a fortune on a navy that was unable to change the course of the war leaving Germany subject to a crushing naval blockade. Later, that corporal rose to power and authorized the construction of German capital ships whose superior speed gave them the super power of being able to run away. Run Away! Wasting money on four battleships that not only failed to break the next British blockade but also failed to prevent vital supplies from getting shipped in to UK and USSR., That, and an aircraft carrier that could never be allowed to function as an aircraft carrier.

[@skyden24195]

Which fleet ended up interned and eventually at the bottom of the sea? That fleet definitely did not win.

[@xwormwood]

They did not loose either, because they sank themself, where they were meant to hand over their ships.

[@seanmoran2743]

Germany wasted resources on building such a surface fleet to begin with as it’s primarily a continental power

[@marcneef795]

By some metrics, it was the largest naval battle of all time.

[@kumasenlac5504]

Leyte Gulf ? - in both area covered and number and size of ships involved...

[@marcneef795]

@@kumasenlac5504 I am aware, that Leyte Gulf is the largest one by most metrics. 😉 But not by some others, like total displacement of the involved ships or number of capital ships

[@kumasenlac5504]

@@marcneef795 I'm happy to accept 'most metrics'.

[@marcneef795]

@@kumasenlac5504 fair 😎

[@PeteOtton]

@@marcneef795 And Leyte could be considered 3 or 4 battles that converged but didn't quite make it into one huge battle.

[@GrenvilleP710]

The Germans sunk more RN ships But they never put to sea in force again The RN ruled the waves.

[@GregWampler-xm8hv]

Frankly I think they should've keelhauled beatty. Commanding the 1st SCOUTING GROUP FER CRYIN' OUT LOUD, he never discharged his primary duty of reporting to Admiral Jellicoe the information on the German Fleet. Jellicoe had to 2 options in disposing his fleet from a cruising formation to a battle formation. And folks that don't just happen in the blink of an eye. I believe Admiral Jellicoe fought his ships excellently especially as his scouting group had failed him miserably. And in a foreshadowing of Dowding and that tw*t waffle leigh-mallory, beatty takes over Admiral Jellicoe's position and Admiral Jellicoe is shuffled off to obscurity. Beatty always has that cover at a jaunty position, I'd have knocked it right off that pointy little head of his.

[@PaulInPorirua]

Tactical German victory (shading towards a draw); strategic British outright victory.

[@iansneddon2956]

When your forces end a battle in a full rout, you haven't won.

[@jurgschupbach3059]

Empathisches Rollenspiel ist Voraussetzung in der modernen Wertschöpfung der Teambildung

[@smokerjim]

I'm no expert by any stretch, but I'd describe it as a tactical victory to the High Seas Fleet (due to sinking more ships than they lost), but a strategic victory to the Grand Fleet (due to the High Seas Fleet returning and not leaving port for the rest of the war).

[@kommandantgalileo]

​@@annadalassena5460no, not really.

[@tomhalla426]

What is not mentioned is just how bad visibility was through most of the battle. Fog, coal smoke, and smoke from gun propellant led to targets vanishing within gun range.

[@johnfisher9692]

Actually visibility was excellent at the start of the battle with the light greatly favoring the Germans but as the battle progressed visibility quickly grew worse due to funnel and gun smoke and changing weather conditions. the weather can change with shocking rapidity in the North Sea.

[@robmclaughjr]

It occured to me Britain benefitted from volume and speed over armor. A bit like Allied tanks versus late war German tanks

[@aaronrowell6943]

Considering Germany failed their objective to break the blockade and they had to run to save their navy, I'll give it to the Brits when even the Germans say they can't afford another battle.

[@bobbyb379]

It could be argued that the UK won the battle but lost the strategic war. The main reason the UK was drawn into WW1 against Germany (a long time ally with strong cultural / royal family links to the UK) was the threat that Germany posed to Royal Navy hegemony. However, the cost of WW1 (40% of government spending was on war cost / bond repayments by 1918) was so great that the UK struggled to maintain as large a navy post war. The fact the enormous amount of money poured into US arms production by the UK caused the US to overtake the UK as the world’s largest economy in 1916 - signaling the beginning of the end of the Pax Britannia and severely denting UK prestige. Plus all the overseas trading partners that had been reliant on the UK before the war had to develop their own industries / find other trading partners during WW1 as the Royal Navy was no longer around to protect global trade routes in the UK’s interests. For me, Jutland was a watershed moment in the UK’s history - a naval battle that marked the end of the period of Royal Navy and UK global dominance that had started at another naval battle - Trafalgar. A good historical equivalent of how a breakdown of trade can have severe impacts on the status quo - what started the fall of the Roman Empire was the crisis of the Third Century. During this time, the trade routes (and resulting imperial tax revenue) and economic stability that had been guaranteed by Roman Legions broke down. In the absence of cross-Empire supply of goods, and most importantly food, localized economies and power bases started to emerge around local war-lords who were able to provide these essentials to people - marking the start of the Fuedal system in Europe and the end of Imperial dominance. We get the word “lord” from the old English word “hlaford” which literally means “bread guarder” as it was the supply of food to dependent people post Roman Empire that got Feudalism going.

[@PeteOtton]

Trouble is that Germany by backing Austria-Hungary was upsetting the delicate power in Europe. I don't think Britain was willing to risk Germany getting ascendancy on the continent at the expense at France.

[@iansneddon2956]

Royal Navy dominance was not lost at Jutland and the cost of building such a large navy was already spent one way or another. Ultimately Britain and USA were aligned for both WW I and WW II. But the cost of the arms race and wars was very heavy. That German capital ships regularly ran away from British capital ships, and the naval victories over Italy, show that Royal Navy dominance was still present through WW II - just becoming eclipsed by the massive growth of the US Navy. Britain was more immediately threatened by one nation or alliance gaining dominance over Western Europe, but USA also recognized that such a European power would challenge America's Monroe Doctrine which would force USA to give in or wage war. Advisors of Wilson were pushing early in WW I that America needed to get in the war to ensure Germany didn't win. Both World Wars forced UK in earlier and at great cost - achieving Pyrrhic victories where Western Europe was eventually saved but at a cost that lost Britain her wealth and empire.

[@guywilson8598]

It should also be pointed out that because the Grand Fleet had crossed the T twice, the Hochseeflotte took a real battering at Jutland and was in no fit state for action for some time afterwards. By contrast, the Queen Elizabeth class battleships, with 15 inch guns, were entering service for the RN. In comparison, the Kaiserliche Marine only ever commissioned two battleships with this size of armament (Bayern and Baden). By the time the German fleet was ordered to sea in a kamikaze action at the end of October 1918, which led to the sailors' mutiny that ultimately sparked the revolution that overthrew the Kaiserreich, the Grand Fleet outnumbered the Hochseeflotte by more than two-to-one in dreadnoughts, and even more by weight of broadside (helped by the addition of a powerful US squadron). There is an interesting book in German on the German fleet in WW1 by Nicolos Wolz: "Und wir verrosten im Hafen", or "And we're rusting in port", which pretty much sums up the contribution the German surface fleet' made to the war.

[@mattbowden4996]

Not entirely true. The most heavily damaged German capital ship to survive Jutland was the SMS Seydlitz and she was returned to service in November 1916. Pretty much all the German dreadnoughts were repaired in time for the August 1916 Fleet advance. In truth, whilst the German battlecruisers were heavily hit, the German battlefleet was fairly skillfully extricated from it's two confrontations with the Grand Fleet and only a couple of dreadnoughts were seriously damaged. Many of the Gernan dreadnoughts were scarcely hit at all.

[@xornxenophon3652]

You are missing an important part about the German navy; it was never meant to defeat the royal navy! Germany employed the strategy of the "fleet in being", tying up capacities of the royal navy simply by existing. And you also forget all those uboats that nearly starved Britain in ww1.

[@dovetonsturdee7033]

@@xornxenophon3652 Where else would you suggest the Grand Fleet could have been used? The Somme, Verdun, or Passchendaele?

[@xornxenophon3652]

@@dovetonsturdee7033At Galipoli, for example?

[@dovetonsturdee7033]

@@xornxenophon3652 The problem with ships is that they aren't much use on land. Like at Gallipoli, for instance.

[@BlindPidePiper]

I'm getting so tired of Brits spinning this. The answer is clear and simple. The battle was a tacticle victory for Germany (they won on the battlefield) and a strategic victory for Brittian (they controlled the waters after the battle). Done. I'm so tired of hearing Brittish insecurity.

[@MarkHarrison733]

@@McDuckSauce The Germans left port several times after their great victory at Jutland.

[@manilajohn0182]

Yep. They're far too prone to make excuses and it's just nuts. The Japanese achieved a tactical victory at the Battle of the Coral Sea for precisely the same reason- while experiencing a strategic defeat.

[@BlindPidePiper]

@@manilajohn0182 Exactly.

[@MarkHarrison733]

@@manilajohn0182 Japan won the Battle of the Coral Sea.

[@kb4903]

Did they really say that they didn’t want to risk the dreadnoughts in battle? If so seems another insane ww1 view. Battleships that weren’t used for battle?!

[@dynamo1796]

No, they never said that - I don't know why IWM thinks that. Both sides were gagging to use these massive fleets of battleships, they definitely weren't afraid.

[@Trecesolotienesdos]

In a way, Britain did. They kept Germany locked up in its home parts and ensured the blockade wold resume.

[@bruceferguson8030]

Jellico was the only man who could lose the war in an afternoon. He won the day and the war.

[@cheriefsadeksadek2108]

It was a tactical victory for Germany and a strategic defeat at the same time and a tactical loss for brtitain but a strategic victory for it

[@jozef_chocholacek]

Very good video, as usual. Just your pronunciation of Scheer's name makes my ears of a German speaker hurt.

[@RachelAllcock]

Jutland was a British victory in that, though they didn't know it, it was a massive missed opportunity for the Germans. At Jutland, the British learned the flash protection lessons that the Germans had learned after Dogger Bank, which meant their ships would never again be this vulnerable. And likewise after Jutland the British learned that their armour-piercing shells didn't work very well, and fixed that too, so it was the Germans who'd be much more vulnerable from now on. Had a second Jutland been fought, it would have gone very differently. As for even the tactical victory side, you have to remember that by this stage of the war, 12" gunned British dreadnoughts and battlecruiser equivalents were verging on obsolence next to the 13.5", 14" and 15" gunned super dreadnoughts. Dreadnought herself wasn't even at Jutland because she had been removed from the Grand Fleet. So for all the tragic loss of life in Indefatigable and Invincible, and indeed in the old armoured cruisers, at the end of the day those made as little difference to the balance of power as the loss of the German pre-dreadnought Pommern did. Each side lost one front-line battlecruiser. Jutland was a draw, which meant the Germans had blown their one and only chance because they'd never again have it so good.

[@MarkHarrison733]

Britain lost. Very badly.

[@RachelAllcock]

@@MarkHarrison733 I would contest your argument but you don't seem to have made one.

[@MarkHarrison733]

@@RachelAllcock In one hour Germany ended the Royal Navy's prestige forever.

[@MarkHarrison733]

@@RachelAllcock Germany easily won the Battle of Jutland, and in the process permanently ended the Royal Navy's prestige.

[@RachelAllcock]

@@MarkHarrison733 Oh dear. Battles are won by achievement of objectives. German primary objective, sink enough British ships to destroy British command of the sea (and so win the war). German secondary objective, survive as fleet in being. 1. Not achieved. 2 Achieved, well apart from not daring to come out again. British primary objective, retain command of the sea (and so win the war). British secondary objective, annihilate the High Seas Fleet. 1. Achieved., 2 Not achieved. To judge who won, see who achieved their primary objective... Quite.

[@stueyguerreiro]

This question is so old and as such quite boring now. According to the vast majority of modern historians, Britain won both a tactical and strategic victory. The war was effectively won at Jutland. The High Seas Fleet never left port again as the British blockade tightened. In doing so the Royal Navy starved Germany to death, which essentially led to her Army quitting in 1918 and German civilians rioting, bringing about the end of the war. Plain and simple.

[@wweminehead]

The Royal Navy rules the season

[@lfcloyal8284]

Quick recap the British lose more ships but they can afford to.....Germans fleet is kettled up in port...and Admiral Beatty wears his cap at a jaunty angle...all done nothing to see here😂

[@iansneddon2956]

Yes, the British public wanted another great victory like Trafalgar. Had the battle worked out for the full destruction of the High Seas Fleet we would be mentioning Jellicoe in the same breath as Nelson. But it was still a victory and if Jellicoe had put his fleet at extreme risk then history might judge him as reckless and almost leading his fleet to disaster. Jellicoe played it safe. He had the superior numbers and just needed to not squander them. As for Beatty, I think historical reflection makes it abundantly clear that he was no Nelson, Hood, Rodney or Cunningham.

[@rapierduell]

The British lost tactically but won strategically

[@daveoaktowers]

Tactical and Strategic victory for the Royal Navy, as many of the losses were often by Beatty's poor handling of the opening race to south, left behind the QE battleships. Despite losses being higher the Royal Navy were never threatened to lose the battle, always had upper hand. Jellicoe's brilliant single formation to force Scheer into crossing the T forced the Germans to head home. Some were unfortunate such as HMS Black Prince

[@xwormwood]

Not sure how brilliant one has to be if he knows when and where the enemy will arrive, while having supriorty in numbers, but anyway, I guess it is safe to conclude that both navies "did their job", and were let by people which knew their business. In the end this was the wrong war after all, ruining Europe for good.

[@IanSheridan-s1r]

No mention of the 5th Battle Squadron. Saved Beatty's ass.

[@andrewsoboeiro6979]

Fascinating to compare to World War II, where the British largely sweep the German navy out of the sea during the Norway campaign (and do the same to the Italians a year later in the Mediterranean). There's also the u-boat campaign in both wars, but even that was probably a closer-run thing in World War I than in World War II.

[@DMS-pq8]

The German navy or at least its surface fleet was much much smaller in 1940 than it was in 1916

[@andrewsoboeiro6979]

@@DMS-pq8 true, though the Italians had a reasonably large & well-equipped navy that the British similarly smashed

[@DMS-pq8]

@@andrewsoboeiro6979 Italians had no aircraft carriers, Poor coordination between the navy and airforce and their ships were not well armored and lacked radar

[@andrewsoboeiro6979]

@@DMS-pq8 fighting close to their coastline largely made up for the lack of carriers, though; & the lack of armor was traded for more speed/flexibility. You’re right about the lack of skill/coordination, but that’s kinda my point about the British Royal Navy completely outclassing the Axis navies, to a much greater degree than they did the Central Powers in WWI

[@ignatziusturret5641]

GB almost collapsed 1942 due the shortage of goods. You need to update your knowldedge.

[@markdunigan805]

to answer your question as to who won, the ones still alive at the end.

[@smacky101]

I believe the British have to be considered the winner. That being said I've heard that same opinion loads of times from british historians. I don't think I've ever heard it from a german one.

[@dovetonsturdee7033]

Well, whose fleet controlled the oceans and imposed a blockade, and whose fleet barely poked a nose out from the River Jade, and finally mutinied when asked to sortie in 1918?

[@hughjass1044]

Depends on how you look at it. The Germans inflicted more losses on the British than was inflicted upon them but they still didn't achieve their objective and were essentially confined to port for the rest of the war. The British had the upper hand before the battle and retained it afterwards despite the losses so it's not as though they really gained anything for all the losses they suffered. I guess it was a draw.

[@denniskrenz2080]

Germany won the penalty shoot out, but Britain the season. But, not so clear as it is presented here looking just at the surface. The German U-Boats had a pretty good run in WW1 already and where also a threat that Britain never had been able to contain, despite the success of the convoy system late in the war. An omen for the next war.

[@iansneddon2956]

The U-boat campaign in WW I sunk more shipping than the campaign in WW II, but was an unmitigated disaster for the war effort. They failed in preventing the Entente powers from receiving materials they needed to stay in the war, they failed to persuade the civilian populations of the Entente powers to leave the war, and they failed to force an end to the blockade of Germany that led to starvation and revolution.

[@stevetheduck1425]

Everyone who died lost. The taxpayers who footed the bill lost. Lots of fish died. More seriously, there are four elements to any battle / campaign / war. Grand Strategy = how do you want your country to be positioned after the battle / war? Strategy = who has gained and who didn't? Operations = who still has a fleet afterwards. Tactics = who sank more ships / shot more accurately? The Central powers lost the first two, and the third was decided by them not coming out for another try. They won the last and least important element.

[@iansneddon2956]

The Central Powers won the tactical battle against Beatty's squadron which they had set out to engage. But they lost the tactical battle, twice, against Jellicoe's main battleship force.

[@Duke-i3u]

it was kind of a draw. the germans sank more british ships than they lost, but the british still had them bottled up in port afterward. this gave a tactical victory to germany, but a strategic one to britain.

[@dynamo1796]

How is it a tactical victory when your fleet is so badly bashed up they can't put to sea again for another few months? And then of course you're even more outnumbered than when you started. Its a defeat up and down.

[@Duke-i3u]

simple. there are two ways to measure victory in battle. first, who caused the most casualties on the enemy. the german fleet did this, just as the japanese fleet did in two ww2 carrier battles, coral sea and santa cruz. second, who achieved the objective. the british were trying above all else to keep the german bottled up and neutralized. they did this. in ww2's battle of the coral sea, the us objective was to halt the japanese move south and save australia and new zealand,, and although the us navy lost more ships, they did. that is the difference between tactical victory, in which you may win the battle, but still lose the war, but in a strategic one, you can actually kind of lose, still win the war.@@dynamo1796

[@Duke-i3u]

When you inflict more harm on your enemy than you suffer, that's a tactical victory. If you still prevent your opponent from achieving their objective, even though you suffer more losses, that is a strategic victory. That is why both sides could claim victory. And has been pointed out many times before, it is possible to win the battles, but still lose the war.

[@dynamo1796]

@@Duke-i3u What harm? Its not a tactical victory if its pyrrhic in nature. The Germans did more damage, sure, but the cost of doing that meant their fleet was no longer a viable contestant to the might of British sea power. The British on the other hand did lose a few ships but it made nearly no difference to their position. If I take 100 men and assault the enemy position of 500 men, kill 100 of theirs and lose 30 of my own, I am actually worse off for that engagement. Its not a tactical victory, because my ability to fight future engagements is neutered. If you cant see this then I'd love to play some AOE4 against you - you can have the 100 men and I'll take the 500 lol

[@iansneddon2956]

@@Duke-i3u Yes, because we all remember the Vietnam war as a stunning American victory as they killed more than a million Viet Cong and North Vietnamese while losing less than 60k troops.