Who actually won The Battle of Jutland? 

I love that phrase, i think it's wonderful

Sums it up. RIP the dead.

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

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 you don't enforce a blockade by sitting in port

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.

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

@@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

@@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.

@@billyosullivan3192 You have binairy stupid thinking.

Tactical German victory, Strategic British Victory.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

@@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.

@@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.

IMO its one of Drachinifel 's best documentary's . Also , the grandson of Jellico made an excellent documentary on this battle . ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-U_UryFjKUsM.html .

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.

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

DAMN YOU BEATTY!

And failing to use his range advantage.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

Now, just hold on a minute there.

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.

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.

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.

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

@@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…….

@@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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

@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?

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.

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.

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.

@@user-gl5dq2dg1j 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.

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

@@user-gl5dq2dg1j 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.

@@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.

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.

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

@@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.

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.

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.

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

@@dovetonsturdee7033At Galipoli, for example?

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

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.

@@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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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

@@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

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

@@kumasenlac5504 fair 😎

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

​@@annadalassena5460no, not really.

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

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.

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.

You mean the guy who wasn't given clear signals about which course and speed to set by someone who couldn't be bothered to look behind himself and see if everyone was keeping up?

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.

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

Hardly, they were unlucky to lose SMS Lutzow whereas the British losses were largely diwn to bad policy decisions. Further, if the Germans had really had all the luck HMS Lion, Tiger and Malaya would have all exploded - all three suffered hits that seriously threatened the ship.

@@mattbowden4996And the Germans equally lucky not to lose several ships themselves due to hit, only their safer propellant saved them. but I am not talking about chemistry or the fact German ships had advantages in their short range design no other navy would tolerate. The had much greater luck in the battle overall. When it mattered the light were excellent and the wind greatly favored them both during the run to the south and north. By the time they met the Grand Fleet, visibility was poor due to funnel and gun smoke. That is what let Scheer successfully run away both time. They were lucky to intercept the British challenge and response. They were lucky not to be fired upon due to a British Captains bad decision not to open fire without orders. They were lucky to slip behind the GF and equally lucky their blunders during the night action Vs the Destroyers didn't lead to their own ships colliding multiple times, which nearly happened. That is why I say rolling natural 20s when it mattered. You can even say the number of times they hit turrets is pretty damn lucky.

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

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

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

@@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

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

Not quite right the quote was "Jelicoe was the only man on *either* side who could loose the war in an afternoon"

I think Beatty's previous successes at Heligoland Bight and Dogger Bank helped offset this, along with political connections. He still comes across as an example of failing upwards, though.

@@iansneddon2956 Even Beatty thought he failed at Dogger Bank and Heligoland Bight, which he did, and tried to blame his flag lieutenant for all three of his failures.

Yes, Jelicoe was aware of the problems with the Shells but had to leave it for others to fix when he was promoted to admiral of the Grand Fleet. However, his further promotion after Jutland put him in a position to make sure the shell problems were fixed. A rematch in 1918 would have gone very very bad for the Germans.

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.

@@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.

Yes, because the Germans never intended to hold the field in the first place. The battle of Jutland was a strategic raid. The German plan was to destroy what they could then get away before the massively superior Grand Fleet showed up. If the Germans had sunk the entire Britsh Battlecruiser Fleet and then evaded the Grand Fleet without taking a single loss, would you still be claiming they had lost because they ran away? That's not how it works...

@@mattbowden4996 Keep coping wehraboo 🤣

@@legiran9564 I find it's pretty typical of someone who realizes they're wrong but refuses to back down to start throwing insults around. I suggest you either make an intelligent contribution or - as you so eloquently put - learn to "cope" with having your childishly bad take corrected.

@@mattbowden4996Victory is achieving your objectives. The Germans did not achieve theirs. They not only did not break the British blockade, or deny the British their dominance of the Atlantic, they did not make a significant step toward doing so.

@peterwebb8732 Your argument only works by assigning objectives to the High Seas Fleet that they were not trying to achieve on the day - because the objective of the Jutland fleet advance was NOT to break the blockade and had nothing to do with the Atlantic. The Germans expected it would take three of four successful operations to whittle down the Royal Navy enough for them take them on directly and lift the blockade, so their sole objective was to inflict asymmetrical casualties on the Grand Fleet whilst avoiding a general fleet action. You are mistaking the objective of the battle for the objective of the campaign. Nobody disputes that the Germans lost the North Sea Campaign, but that doesn't mean they "lost" the battle Jutland, where they achieved exactly what they set out to do only to realize their larger plan simply wasn't going to work - so I suppose I agree that they did not make a significant step towards whittling down the Grand Fleet. Even so, I assume you have heard of the concept of a pyrrhic victory? The reason it is impossible to say who won at Jutland is because both sides achieved their objectives, but neither side was happy about the cost they incurred doing so.

Tactically lost. Strategically won.

That's strategy. Tactics are on the spot moves.

@@Poliss95 The High Seas Fleet fled the area and, through both skill and luck, avoided much heavier losses. Battles, regardless of you view them, are not determined solely by losses. The British didn't tactically "win" (they failed to inflict heavy losses on the High Seas Fleet), but then, neither did the Germans. They wanted to isolate and destroy a few dreadnoughts, not battlecruisers, which wouldn't materially affect the balance of power in the North Sea. Neither side achieved their immediate objective,while the British achieved their long-term objective. Quite frankly, we should all be grateful that Jutland was such a dud. A second Trafalgar could've resulted in the single deadliest day of World War One.

@@Cailus3542 Read my post again. I said Britain tactically lost, which they did because they lost more ships, but they strategically won because the High Seas Fleet skulked in port for the remainder of the war. The German high command never had a clue about sea power. When there was a fight to be had they ran away. That cluelessness continued all through WWII.

Beatty was no Nelson, Rodney, Hood or Cunningham.