Going into World War I, the British Navy tasted success for well over a century. By 1916, they finally had an adversary that would test their abilities: the German High Seas Fleet. From the Series: Combat Ships: World Wars bit.ly/2rE1kjn
A New York newspaper at the time perhaps put it best: "The German navy has assaulted its jailer, but it is still in jail." Germany wasn't able to decisively or even temporarily change its surface fleet's inferior strength position in the North Sea. It never again sortied out in strength during the Great War. The German ships were better built in some ways (their armor was thicker at the cost of longer cruising range and the comfort of its crews) and they were very efficient at gunnery and better trained in night fighting, but it wasn't enough. Robert K. Massie's CASTLES OF STEEL is an awesome book detailing all this.
As a retired US Navy veteran, I really appreciate looking into these naval engagements. Thank you and would really like to see the expanded episode, if available.
This fight was abt Blockade. In summation the oft-quoted quip attributed to an American news correspondent: "The prisoner has assaulted his jailer but he is still in jail."
I do believe the RN won a strategic victory despite their tactical defeat. The German surface navy was out of the war after this battle. The reasons for the heavy RN losses are not discussed in this video: they were in part due to bad assumptions about ship design. The RN learned that lesson, only to have to learn another in WWII - aircraft carriers trump battleships! Now, in 2018, I see another Falklands like RN forming...not enough ASW and AAW assets for two carriers.
@Roland Lytle - Yes, that certainly didn't help matters for the RN. Combined with insufficient armour...well, history speaks for itself if one is listening to both sides.
It was not even a tactical defeat for the Royal Navy, at best for the German fleet it was a draw. The German fleet was reversed and retreated from the battle space so cannot claim even a tactical victory. Casualties are not a measure of who wins a battle
It was a strategic victory for the Royal Navy. The blockade was maintained and reinforced. The RN Grand Fleet was also ready to go back to sea within a few days, the German High Seas Fleet was crippled for months and did not dare tackle the RN for the rest of the war. Preferring to tackle the Russians instead and focusing on U-Boats to tackle the British rather than the surface fleet. The man most responsible for preventing a decisive RN victory was Beatty. Poor ammunition handling practices before the battle, poor signalling to Jellicoe and being drawn easily into the trap (something that worried Jellicoe before the battle) were all major failings on Beatty’s part.
Gut geschrieben, und realistisch vor allem. Habe das Buch von Bennett schon 2mal gelesen, indem er die Skagerrakschlacht beschreibt. Besser geht es nicht. Wenn man wissen will wer der Sieger war, dann nur daran denken wer vor wem abgehauen ist.
@@indiatalent3377 They were called jótar, although a lot of Europe can trace roots back to some of the early Indo-European culture, and we can see traces in religious and cultural practices that goes way back to the Vedas, there was a long time from that point in time and to the point where various tribes merged on the peninsula of Jutland.
I reenacted it last year, pitting the kids against eachother - not far from where the battle actually happened and only a few hundred meters from the memorial "park" that were raised 100 years after the battle
Scheer should have pulled a 180 again before meeting the Scala fleet so the British would have thought that the Germans had an even larger fleet behind them and thus called off the attack.
When Scheer stormed north with the High Seas Fleet he had (as someone wrote) "not the foggiest idea what really was going on" and that he was about to meet the Grand Fleet. Bettys course could hav given him an idea though ... But so his "T" was then crossed twice in the aftermath. After "Windy Corner" and the absurd loss of HMS Defence because of admiral Arbuthnots stupidity the whole horizon soon was filled with British battleships firing on his fleet. He turned his ships around 180 degrees with a maneuver the British did not know: "Gefechtskehrtwende". Only to decide some minutes later to turn again and get in the same deadly mess as before. When asked after the war why, he said "I don't know, I think it was because of poor SMS Wiesbaden", the wrecked german cruiser which was still floating between the fleets. That was something like a death wish and in the end cost SMS Lützow because of the ordered "death ride" of the german BCs to save the main fleet. Of course he had to try to escape the Grand Fleet with his third "Gefechtskehrtwende" immediately. And it worked because he also ordered the german torpedo boats to launch an attack on Jellicoes battleships. But instead of the possible 300 this boats launched just 30 torpedoes. And these were still driven by pressed air, so they could easily be recognized and avoided by the British. One battleship was hit but it was said that the fish came from the still floating cruiser Wiesbaden (only one surviver in the end). But Jellicoe did not want to take the risk (understandable) and turned away and so let escape Scheer so that he could claim victory after return. Of all the miserable commanding officers on this day Scheer IMO was the worst, even more than arrogant Beatty. The only admiral on this day who did no major mistake was Hipper. His Scouting Group showed an impressive performance against Beattys BCF which was even without his four 15 inch QEs (which got lost before the battle because of BCFs notorious terrible signal system and, because of a second mistake of Beattys flag officer Seymore, were later nearly annihilated by the German Battle Fleet) still superior 6 to 5 in numbers and had larger guns than their german opponents. But at least the famous "Run to the South“ was, exceptionally, a more or less fair fight between parts of Royal Navy and German High Seas Fleet - which should deeply satisfy all sporty British people. But there were also 8645 sailors from both sides dying a senseless death in a few short hours of fight on this day and night. Good that there never was a "real" clash of all the british and german battleships and battlecruisers ...
The British won this battle in the strategic sense and that settles it. The High Seas Fleet hightailed it for home, their only possible choice. Trafalgar, too, was a strategic victory in precisely the same way. It took a few years for Napoleon and Wilhelm do concede defeat.
The battle was not decided by casualties nor by the number of ships sunk. It was decided by the objectives obtained. The British objective was to bottle up the German fleet and that was the end result. If the royal Navy had lost every ship in their order of battle and the Germans still ran back to port it would still have been a British victory. There is no doubt the Germans caused more damage etc, but that is pretty irrelevant. At the end of the day the Royal Navy had control of the seas and the Germans didn't. Ergo a British strategic victory.
@@gortmundy01 .....and after the Battle of Jutland, the German submarines came and blew up the blockade. Basically, this whole battle was an unnecessary slaughter that for a long time in the war did not lead any of the parties to success. WWI was decided on land. The victors took advantage of the revolution in Germany to win the war.
Yes in the strategic sense, but the decisiveness of Jutland does not even compare to Trafalgar. All those sunk ships and lost men still require crucial resources for the Royal Navy to fill in order to make up for the losses, while the High Seas Fleet remained a threat to break out again (even though they never tried again). The British basically annihilated the entire Franco-Spanish fleet at Trafalgar. This not just maintained the British dominance on the high seas (which already controlled the seas well before Trafalgar), but also meant that the French and Spanish navies won't even pose a slither of threat anymore, which frees up resources for the Royal Navy to further expand its reach.
Folke Stender The blockade was never broken, but the German attempted a counter blockade with submarines, which comprised the second phase of the war at sea.
@@folkestender2025 The German submarines never challenged the blockade. They tried instead to cut British Atlantic supply lines by means of unrestricted submarine warfare. This did come close for a time, but had the catastrophic effect of bringing the United States into the war on the Allied side. The revolution was a direct result of the blockade. Soldiers and sailors are hardly motivated to fight when their families are dying of starvation & hypothermia. Read up on the Turnip Winter.
According to some sources, half our shells failed to 'go orf'. The Germans had no chance really. Like the French, being stuck in port meant no sea time. However, they put up a jolly good show, but they did leave the battle.
British Victory, now you may say British Strategical and German Tactical because the Germans sunk more, but if you do it as a percentage of the amount of ships (of the two fleets present) the British just barely have a lower percentage of loss, im not so sure about percentage of tonnage lost, but the percentage of the fleets the germans lost, not only this, but the British were also succesful in stopping the Germans from escaping the blockade. Saying Germany won the battle is like saying that in a 3 v 50 battle the 3 won because they killed 10 of the 50, with 1 survivor, no thats just a costly victory for the 50, they still won.
The Battle of Jutland was decisive to the outcome WW1 as a whole. The Western Front had been in stalemate for years, and the war was to be decided not by armies, but by the effect of naval blockades on industrial output and civilian morale. The German surface fleet was still largely trapped in port after Jutland, and the decision was made to return to unrestricted U-boat warfare against British and Allied shipping. This was bound to antagonise America because US ships and citizens would suffer, as they had done when the Lusitania was torpedoed. Not only that, but the Germans asked Mexico to keep the USA busy (and therefore out of the European war) by border attacks, with the incentive of winning back Texas and Arizona. That German message to Mexico was intercepted by the British, relayed to President Wilson, who within days declared war on Germany.
To quote a newspaper account at the time: "The Germans have assaulted their jailer, but they are still in jail." The British fleet commanded the field at the end of the battle; the German fleet ran for home and hid. The German fleet never again left port with its full strength. Jellicoe handled it brilliantly; he was faced with the paradox that he could not win the war in an afternoon, but he could certainly lose it in the same time. I refer to Robert K. Massie's CASTLES OF STEEL as my definitive history of this.
WTF? Germany lost one capital ship with minor losses, battlecruiser SMS Lutzow, sunk by their own destroyer due to it's damages, making returning to base impossible. On the other hand RN lost 3 out of 10 battlecruisers with nearly all hands on board. This is not a failure in your opinion? You are confusing second World War with the First. In second German Fleet was minor power compared to RN, in First World War Imperial German Navy was the second biggest Navy in the world right after RN having together about 500 active vessels, over 200 of which participated in Jutland Battle. Royal Navy's advantage in numbers was only more less 30%, reduced by The fact that German capital ships were better constructed and protected (what was prooven by the tragedy of three British battlecruisers sunk each by the one salvo on target in this battle in less than fifteen minutes)
@@gorillaguerillaDK 99 German and 150 British warships met. In the end, both sides signed the victory. The Royal Navy lamented 14 sunken ships with 6094 dead, the German fleet 11 ships with 2551 dead. When compared to ships and victims, the Germans have clearly won. Victory on points, one would say in boxing, though the nose is broken and the eye blue. Despite the smaller fleet they had bigger successes and lower losses. However, since the balance of power in the North Sea remained the same after the battle and the Royal Navy continued to block the sea routes, the British have strategically triumphed, but for what price. This naval battle was basically an idiotic slaughter of centuries past. Basically naval battles are relics of sailing ship time and no longer fit into a modern war that was decided elsewhere for other reasons. World War I was already a modern war when compared to previous wars. Nevertheless, in the Second World War, you started again with this nonsense and built new battleships and sent against each other only to wipe each other out, without the slightest success for the total war. Decisive were more modern weapons, such as submarines and airplanes. Submarines was also more success in World War I than any battleship or heavy cruiser to break blockages and disrupt supply routes. Why are they doing another naval battle like in Nelson's time? I think admirals and politicians in this time were as pubescent boys who compare their penis. Who has the greatest has won.
Not necessary to dishonor the German side. The British lost more men and ships, and this is 'accounting standard' to choose the winning side. British fleet could not succeed in the engagement, they won the war - but lost this battle - and so it is the 'Skagarrak Schlacht' - cause only the winner has the right to name the event.
Your first sentence is obviously correct, your second sentence is basically false. The winner of the war > the winner of an individual battle insofar as naming 'rights' in the consensus history books. That's just the tale of history. No one outside of Germany names the battle the Skagerrakschlachtt. It's 'Jutland' in practically every non-German historical text.
Control of the battleground and achievement of objectives determines the winner of a battle not casualties. Rather than engage the main British fleet the Germans chose to flee back to their ports where they stayed for the remainder of the war. The Germans failed their objective to break the British blockade, while the British achieved their goal of containing the Germans.
+CognizantCheddar Finland and Sweden call it the battle in Skagerrak. But it really doesn't matter what we call it, the idea that it's named Battle of Jutland cause "the winners decide" is just crazy and has nothing to do with it, which you maybe will agree with me on! Only some part of the battle was in Skagerrak, while most of the battle happened in the part of the North Sea that is close to Jutland!
Undeniable - it is (and remains) standard in (military) history, to use the naming of a battle by the winner. And, 'Kattegatt' as well as 'Skagerak' are designations of sea regions, which are in use in German language as well. Typical, for the 'Culture of Defeat', the usual revanchism, is the denying of the win to the winner, who is disliked. Dont forget, WW1 is the so much more result of a warmongering France and Russia - not Germany. See, listen, read - historian Christopher Clark - ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-dx_V4NAUuW8.html
The win - and therefore the naming of the battle - falls to Germany. There is no holding of territory in a navy battle, as said before. And even a smaller fleet may win by hitting and withdrawing afterwards. Even though Imperial Germany could not break naval the encirclement, this event, the battle in the Skagerak, was (as ever) won by the side with fewer losses of ships and men - name the Kriegsmarine.
The Royal Navy won both a strategic and tactical victory, despite the Germans having had the best of the action, because of the Grand Fleet's massive material advantage. However, the British people required no less than a second Trafalgar, a decisive and annihilating victory that would vindicate the fleet’s reputation for invincibility and hopefully win the war in an afternoon. That this did not happen and that the navy’s post battle public relations were a disaster gave the impression of a defeat, which became an overwhelming disappointment. The spell of Trafalgar had been truly broken, to paraphrase the Kaiser. So, in a sense Jutland was the greatest defeat of the war, in that the army was able to come back from its many reverse whilst the Navy never got another shot, despite its eventual victory.
The German Navy had no significant history and no naval tradition worth mentioning. Their radio codes had been broken, they had fewer numbers. They sailed out to meet the most powerful Navy of the world and in a clash of titans the British expected to win easily. They inflicted more casualties and sank more ships than they lost themselves. I call this a german victory. It didnt change the outcome of the war but it harldy would have ever. I have yet to meet a single Brit admitting they got defeated in this battle. All of them say their losses were due to either poor handling of ammunition or poor communication. Id say it was courageous and able german sailors in their ships.
Technically the loss of the Royal Navy could have impacted the war massively. The Germans would be able to blockade France and the UK, denying them of resources and reinforcements while no longer being starved by the Royal Navy. Without the blockade, Germany has a high chance of getting the UK to peace out and overrunning France. So Jutland was quite important, and the Germans failed in their objectives before fleeing the seas where their Navy would sit, useless, until being scuttled after the war. On the other hand, the UK was back at full combat readiness within 2 days while the Germans never recovered and were actually weaker than the British after the battle. If you just look at numbers, sure, the Germans technically won due to sinking more ships, but they failed massively in their objectives and couldn't stop the blockade, which led to Germany starving and the German Navy revolting.
This makes no sense. If you get defeated due to poor ammunition handling or communication, you still get defeated. Moreover, war is not football. You don't count casualties to see who won. In the end, the British won the war for two reasons; Germany starved first, and the USA entered, caused largely by unrestricted submarine warfare, with the result that Germany understood it was decisively outnumbered. Both of those things were caused by the British not losing at Jutland, and in particular by Jellicoe's forces making it clear that he was no Beatty. It was the decisive engagement of the war. Scheer understood very well after it that while he got lucky with the battle cruisers this time, he could not take on the Grand Fleet. None of that affects the fact that the Germans fought brilliantly to survive against the odds and that the performance of the British, in particular Beatty and Arbuthnot, left a great deal to be desired and killed a great many of their own side through stupidity.
And escaped it twice which was a masterpiece of naval warfare. There was indeed a British strategical victory for the German navy could not break the Britsh blockade. Yet it was a tactical draw - if not a German victory even.
@@dantecaputo2629 Actually, there were two brief sorties into the North Sea after Jutland. Both were quickly aborted, one when Scheer found out the Grand Fleet was only around 60 miles away, and the second when a German warship was torpedoed just off the Heligoland Bight. The occasional Baltic cruise was more or less irrelevant.
