CHAPTER XV

REFLECTIONS ON THE BATTLE OF JUTLAND

There has been some discussion on the tactics of the Jutland Battle, and no doubt there will be more. I have endeavoured to give the facts, so that future discussions may take place with adequate knowledge.

It is as well, first, to dispel the illusion, which I have seen expressed, that the Grand Fleet was divided with the object of enticing the enemy out to attack the weaker portion in order to provide the opportunity for a Fleet action. There was no such intention. On May 31st the Battle Cruiser Fleet was scouting to the southward of the Battle Fleet in pursuance of the policy which had been frequently carried out on previous occasions.

Many surmises have been made as to the object with which the High Sea Fleet put to sea on this occasion. The view which I have always held is that the frequent light cruiser sweeps, which had taken place down the Norwegian coast and in the vicinity of the Skagerrak during the spring of 1916, may have induced the German Commander-in-Chief to send out a force with the object of cutting off the light cruisers engaged in one of these operations, and that he took the Battle Fleet to sea in support of this force. There is no doubt that he did not expect to meet the whole Grand Fleet. If confirmation of this were needed it is supplied in the German account of the battle, in which it is stated that “there was no reason for supposing that any enemy forces were about, much less the entire British Fleet.”

Consideration of the tactics at Jutland, or indeed of the whole strategy and tactics of the War, leads naturally to the fresh problems which the advent of new weapons had introduced. When I took command of the Grand Fleet one of these problems was that of how to counter a destroyer attack in a day action. It had excited more attention in the two or three years before the War than any other question of tactics, much attention was devoted to it during the War, and for that reason it is desirable to discuss it fully.

It was not, I believe, until the year 1911, during what were then known as “P.Z. Exercises” (that is, actions between Battle Fleets as an exercise), that destroyer attacks were actually carried out in the British Navy on a large scale.

During that year manœuvres took place between the 3rd and 4th Divisions of the Home Fleets, commanded by Admiral the Marquis of Milford Haven, and the Atlantic Fleet, commanded by myself; and the first phase of the manœuvres of that year included some Battle Fleet “P.Z. Exercises,” during which attacks by considerable forces of destroyers were carried out. Before this date the risk attendant on such exercises, and the fact that our Main Fleet exercises frequently took place without destroyer flotillas being present, had prevented the matter from being made the subject of thorough practical experiment on such a scale as to give reliable guidance. The 1911 exercises brought the question into greater prominence.

The Fleet manœuvres of 1912 did not throw further light on the question, as no Fleet action took place in which destroyers were engaged; and the subsequent Battle Fleet exercises did not, so far as I recollect, include destroyer flotillas amongst the vessels engaged. During the Fleet action at the close of the 1913 manœuvres most of the destroyer attacks on the “Red” Fleet were made from towards the rear of the “Blue” battle line, and we did not gain much fresh knowledge from them.

To turn from manœuvre experience; during the years 1911–14, covering the period of Sir George Callaghan’s command of the Home Fleets, destroyer attacks were practised in the smaller Fleet exercises that were constantly being carried out, and officers were impressed with the supreme importance of the whole matter.

This was the position when I took over the command of the Grand Fleet on the outbreak of War, and the matter immediately engaged my attention. The “counter” which had usually been favoured by flag officers commanding Fleets up to the date named, had been the obvious one of an attack by our own light cruisers’ torpedo craft on those of the enemy, as the latter advanced to attack. It was difficult to forecast how far such a “counter” would be successful in preventing the destroyers from firing their torpedoes. Much depended on the distance the torpedo could be relied upon to run with accuracy, and on its speed, both constantly increasing figures.

The great number of destroyers possessed by the enemy, the largely increased range of torpedoes, the difficulty which our light cruisers and flotillas might experience in reaching a favourable position for meeting and disposing of the enemy destroyers before the latter could discharge their torpedoes, together with the danger attendant on meeting the enemy’s fleet in weather of low visibility, when a destroyer attack could be instantly and effectively launched before such a “counter” could take place, made it essential to consider other means for dealing with the situation.

Some German documents which came into our possession early in the War proved the importance which the enemy attached to this form of attack, and emphasised the gravity of the question.

It was, of course, fully realised that the question had two sides, and that if our own Battle Fleet was open to this form of attack, that of the enemy was equally so, but as against this there were important considerations to which it was necessary to devote attention.

The first was that the element of chance enters very largely into torpedo warfare of this nature. A flotilla of destroyers attacking a Battle Fleet at long range does so with the idea that a certain percentage of the torpedoes fired will take effect on the ships, the remainder passing between the ships.

Obviously a torpedo fired at a range of 8,000 yards having a speed of 30 knots an hour, or, in other words, of 50 feet per second, is not comparable to a projectile from a gun which has a velocity at 8,000 yards of say 2,000 feet per second. The torpedo may run perfectly straight after discharge, but unless the speed and course of the target have been determined with considerable accuracy, the torpedo will not hit. Let us assume that the target ship X at position A is steaming at 15 knots, and that the destroyer attacks from a favourable position on the bow so that the torpedo with its speed of 30 knots is discharged on a line at right angles to the course of the target at a distance of 8,000 yards (_see_ diagram). The target ship will advance 4,000 yards along the line A B whilst the torpedo is running 8,000 yards along the line C D. The time occupied in each case is eight minutes.

It will be seen that if the course of the target ship has been misjudged very slightly, or had been altered during the passage from A to B, the torpedo will pass ahead or astern of it. In that case it might hit instead a ship Z ahead or one Y astern of X.

There are no means available on board a destroyer for determining with any real accuracy either the speed or the course of a ship at a distance of four or five miles. Hence the difficulty, and the reason why torpedoes are fired at a ship a little way down a line of ships, in expectation that _one_ of the ships in the line will be hit.

[Illustration]

The object in view is thus rather to “brown” the enemy, and the chances of achieving this object are naturally proportional to the target presented by a ship as compared with the space between adjacent ships.

In the case of a British line of eight battleships attacked “beam on,” the chances of a hit for torpedoes which reach the British line may be assessed roughly at seven to nine, taking the length of a ship as 600 feet, and the distance from the bow of one ship to the bow of her next astern as two and a half cables, that is 1,500 feet, thus giving a total length of _ships_ of 4,800 feet, and the total of the _interval_ between them as 6,300 feet.

A German destroyer usually carries six torpedoes, and at long ranges one may calculate the chances of hits _on the above reasoning_ at between three and four per destroyer, provided all the torpedoes are correctly fired at such a range as to ensure that they reach the British battle line, and provided that the British ships can take no effective steps to avoid the torpedoes.[O]

[O] Few British destroyers carried more than four torpedoes up to the year 1917, although they mounted a much heavier gun armament than their enemies.

It has been said that the element of chance is a large factor in torpedo warfare of the nature herein discussed. By this it is meant that skill is not a factor that can produce a decisive effect when dealing with torpedoes, as in the case of guns dealing with guns. It is true that skilful manœuvring may enable a ship to avoid a torpedo, if sufficient warning of its approach is given, and if its position with reference to any track it is leaving can be correctly judged. When experience at the Jutland Battle showed that under favourable weather conditions the track of German torpedoes was visible for some distance, great care was taken to avoid all mention of this in the dispatches so that future use could be made of the fact.

Another factor in this matter was the knowledge that our enemy was almost certain to possess a very considerable superiority over us in the number of destroyers likely to be present during a Fleet action. This was a question which had given rise to anxiety in the minds of the then First Sea Lord and myself before the War; we had discussed it on more than one occasion when the destroyer building programme was being considered.

Our fears were realised, particularly during the first two years of the War.

The relative position of the two Fleets in this respect at different periods is shown in the following table, so far as it is known to me:--

------------------+--------------+-------------+----------------------- | British | German | Additional German | destroyers | destroyers | destroyers, less than | with the | probably | 12 years old, that Date | Grand Fleet, | attached to | could join the High | including | the High | Sea Fleet at Germany’s | Flotilla | Sea Fleet | selected moment. | Leaders[P] | | ------------------+--------------+-------------+----------------------- August 4th, 1914 | 42 | 88 | 20 October 1st, 1914 | 42 | 88 | 20 January 1st, 1915 | 42 | 88 | 30 April 1st, 1915 | 58 | 88 | -- July 1st, 1915 | 65 | 88 | -- October 1st, 1915 | 65 | 88 | -- January 1st, 1916 | 66 | 88 | 50 April 1st, 1916 | 74 | 88 | -- May 31st, 1916 | 80 | 88 | 70[Q] ------------------+--------------+-------------+------------------------

[P] The Harwich force, as a whole, is not included in the figures in column 2, since I never expected that it would be able to concentrate with the Grand Fleet.

[Q] No account is taken in column 4 of German losses in destroyers.

Of the 80 destroyers belonging to the Grand Fleet at the end of May, 1916, 70 were available to go to sea on May 30th (an unusually large proportion). There happened, also, to be on this date at Rosyth eight destroyers belonging to the Harwich force, and these accompanied the battle cruisers to sea, making a total of 78, of which 47 were with the Battle Fleet and cruisers, and 31 with the Battle Cruiser Fleet, including the 3rd Battle Cruiser Squadron. The smaller German Fleet had 88, a far larger proportion to each ship.

This superiority in numbers on the part of the Germans arose from three causes:

(_a_) The formation, by us, of a light cruiser and destroyer force at Harwich, the presence of which force during a Fleet action was very improbable, owing to the fact that a Fleet action would, if it took place, probably do so at Germany’s selected moment and not at ours, and to the difficulty of concentration under such circumstances.

(_b_) The necessity of utilising a large number of our destroyers for patrol purposes in the Straits of Dover and elsewhere.

(_c_) We had not built an adequate number of destroyers in the years before the War to meet the many needs that only this class of vessel could fulfil, particularly as the enemy developed his submarine warfare against merchant-ships.

The shipbuilding programmes of 1908–09, and following years up to 1912–13, included provision for twenty destroyers each year. Subsequent to the latter date, the programme of destroyers was somewhat reduced in order to provide for light cruisers, a class of vessel in which we were woefully deficient. In spite of the continual rise in the Estimates, there was never sufficient money to meet all the Admiralty’s needs. It was intimated that one or other of the requirements had to give way at a time when the Navy Estimates were mounting up year by year, and as the light cruisers were considered to be even more necessary than the destroyers, the number of the latter class of vessel was reduced.

Although, in spite of the great destroyer programme initiated by Lord Fisher at the end of 1914, the shortage of destroyers was most seriously felt throughout the whole War, the conditions would probably have been even worse had the pre-War programme of light cruisers been sacrificed to maintain the output of destroyers to the standard desired by the Admiralty.

A third consideration that was present in my mind was the necessity for _not leaving anything to chance in a Fleet action, because our Fleet was the one and only factor that was vital to the existence of the Empire_, as indeed to the Allied cause. We had no reserve outside the Battle Fleet which could in any way take its place, should disaster befall it or even should its margin of superiority over the enemy be eliminated.

The situation was in many respects different from that with which our Navy was faced in the time of the old wars. In those days disaster could only come about by reason of bad strategy or tactics owing to our enemy being in overwhelming strength when met, or handling his force better, and, apart from manœuvring, the action was invariably decided by gunfire, a well-known and well-tried weapon.

During the recent War two entirely new features of the greatest importance were introduced. First, the torpedo could be fired at very long range, up to 15,000 yards, either from large ships or destroyers, and at shorter range from submarines, and the mine had been developed; the invisibility of these weapons made it difficult for it to be known when they were being employed.

The reasons which make it necessary to be more cautious when dealing with the attack of under-water weapons than with gun attack are the greater damage which one torpedo hit will cause, which damage may well be fatal to many ships, in most cases compelling the ship to reduce speed and leave the line of battle. With the gun, it is usually different; a ship which is being heavily hit can--if her own offensive powers will not save her by crushing the fire of the enemy--so manœuvre as to derange temporarily the accuracy of that fire. Therein lies the whole necessity for the exercise of care when dealing with the underwater weapon.

These considerations led me to introduce measures for dealing with destroyer attacks on the Battle Fleet other than the counter of attack by our light craft on the enemy’s destroyers. These measures involved a turn on the part of the ships, either _towards_ the torpedoes or _away_ from them.

In the first case, the object was to turn the ships so that they would present as small a target as possible to the torpedo, and incidentally that the space between the ships should be correspondingly large. The matter is very technical, and presents many interesting features, one of which may be illustrated by an example:

[Illustration]

Generally speaking a safe course to pursue is for ships to steer direct for the attacking destroyers _if the moment at which the torpedoes are fired can be ascertained_.

This course, although applicable to one attack, leads to difficulties in the case of successive attacks, since further turns towards will bring the battle line within effective range of torpedoes fired from the enemy’s battleships; occasions will arise when this risk must be accepted.

The accompanying diagram shows that the van and centre squadrons are not so well safeguarded by a turn towards the attacking destroyers as is the rear squadron, for if the enemy’s flotilla is seen to fire torpedoes from C (a threatening position to the van) and the van squadron turns inwards 4 points, the 4th ship of the squadron will steer along the line A B.

If the torpedoes have been fired at the rear squadron instead of the van squadron as supposed, and their objective is the twentieth ship in the line, they will run along the line C D, i.e., directly at the fourth ship in the line.

The target presented is, however, small, and the chances of a flotilla attacking the rear squadron when in a favourable position for attacking the van are not great.

The important point in the case of a turn towards is, however, the necessity for ascertaining the moment of discharge of the torpedoes.

In the second case, that of turning away, the object is to place the ships at such a distance from the attacking destroyers that the torpedoes will not cross their tracks, but if this object is not achieved the ships are in a good position for avoiding the torpedoes if their tracks are visible; the objection to this manœuvre is that the range of the enemy’s battle line is necessarily opened.

It was my intention in a Fleet action to use one or other of the manœuvres should destroyer attacks take place under conditions which prevented an effective “counter” by our own light craft; both manœuvres were arranged to be carried out “by subdivisions” as a turn by divisions of four ships would delay the completion of the manœuvre to too great an extent.

The Grand Fleet Battle Orders contained a great deal in the way of discussion and instructions on the subject of torpedo attack in a Fleet action. The duties of light cruisers and destroyers in this connection were dealt with at considerable length, and stress was laid on the supreme importance both of making early torpedo attacks on the enemy’s line and of immediately countering such attacks, and it was pointed out that an early attack by our own destroyers would not only tend to stop an enemy attack, but would place our attacking vessels in the best position to meet a hostile attack.

The battle stations of both light cruisers and destroyers were so fixed that they should be in the best positions to effect these two objects, such positions being obviously in the van of the Fleet; in order to provide against a 16-point turn on the part of the enemy, or deployment in the opposite direction to that anticipated, one or two flotillas, according to the numbers available, and a light cruiser squadron, were also stationed in the rear.

The probable tactics of the German Fleet had been a matter of almost daily consideration, and all our experience and thought led to the same conclusion, namely, that retiring tactics, combined with destroyer attacks, would be adopted by them. There were many reasons for this belief, and some of them were as follows:

1. On each occasion when German vessels were met, they had immediately retired towards their bases.

2. The tactical advantages of such a move were obvious. They might be enumerated thus:

(_a_) The retiring fleet places itself in a position of advantage in regard to torpedo attack on the following fleet. The retiring fleet also eliminates, to a large extent, danger of torpedo attack by the following fleet.

(_b_) Opportunity is afforded the retiring fleet of drawing its opponent over a mine or submarine trap.

(_c_) Smoke screens can be used with effect to interfere with the observation of gunfire by the following fleet.

(_d_) Considerations of moral effect will force the stronger fleet to follow the weaker, and play into the hands of the enemy.

We were so certain that the enemy would adopt these tactics that in all the many exercises carried out by the Fleet during the War, it was the invariable rule to indicate beforehand an _assumed_ position of Heligoland, and the Flag officer, representing the Commander-in-Chief of the High Sea Fleet in these exercises, always deployed his Fleet in the direction of Heligoland and adopted retiring tactics. The difficulties resulting from the employment of these retiring tactics and the best method to adopt in the circumstances were, therefore, the subject of constant thought, both by myself and by all the senior officers in the Fleet, and the subject was very frequently discussed and worked out on the tactical board.

The difficulty is, to a certain extent, insuperable if retiring tactics are employed in conjunction with a free and skilful use of under-water weapons.

When, therefore, the two Fleets met on May 31st, 1916, these thoughts were in my mind, and were no doubt present in the minds of all Flag officers in the British Fleet. It has been mentioned that the circumstances of the meeting made it very difficult to ascertain with any degree of certainty the disposition of the enemy’s Battle Fleet, and the deployment of our own Fleet took place under these conditions. Even so, however, the course on deployment (that is, south-east by east) was to a certain extent governed by the idea of getting between the enemy and his base on the supposition that he would be making towards it by the shortest route, namely, the Horn Reef Channel.

The arrival of the 3rd Battle Cruiser Squadron in a commanding position on the bow of the enemy caused the enemy to make a large turn to starboard, largely because this squadron--Rear-Admiral Hood’s--was mistaken for the British Battle Fleet. The German account, as I have already mentioned, bears out this view, as it is stated that at about 5.45 P.M. “dim shapes of enemy battleships are discerned in a north-easterly direction.” These shapes were undoubtedly the 3rd Battle Cruiser Squadron. The German account states that their battle cruisers turned away on sighting these ships. This gave the British Battle Fleet the chance of placing itself between the enemy and his base. Advantage was taken of this opportunity, and the enemy was then forced to pursue his retiring tactics in a westerly direction. In making the large turns required to effect our object, we were inevitably placed in a position of tactical disadvantage owing to the British Fleet working round on a wide circle outside the enemy.

A careful study of the movements of the two Fleets will show this at once.[R] The course of the British Fleet on deployment was south-east by east. Successive turns to starboard brought the course through south by west to south-west and finally to west, a total alteration of 13 points on the outer of two similar arcs, some 12,000 yards apart, the German Fleet moving on the inner of these two circles.

[R] _Cf._ diagram in the pocket at the end.

The result was that the “overlap,” which the Germans erroneously thought was in favour of the British Battle Fleet, but which was always with the enemy, was accentuated, and the Grand Fleet was gradually brought farther and farther abaft the beam of the High Sea Fleet, placing the latter in a position of tactical advantage in regard to torpedo attack. This advantage was increased by the low visibility, which rendered it difficult to see flotillas approaching to attack until they were at fairly short range.

When the first attack by German destroyers took place and the first of the enemy’s flotillas was seen to be approaching on a bearing 30 degrees before the beam of the _Iron Duke_, and had reached a distance of 9,000 yards or less, the “counter” of a turn “towards” or “away” was essential. Our own flotillas had been using every endeavour to get to the van, but the frequent turns to starboard and the movement of our battle cruisers across the bows of the Battle Fleet had delayed their movement, and it was evident that neither they nor the light cruisers could prevent the attack from developing.

The moment of discharge of torpedoes could not be determined with sufficient accuracy for a turn “towards” and therefore the Battle Fleet was “turned away,” in subdivisions.

Although I was not aware of the fact at the time, coincidentally with the destroyer attack the enemy made a very large turn-away from our Fleet, and thus opened the range much farther, disappearing entirely from view even from our rear; this process was repeated on each occasion of our ships getting back into range. The enemy was, therefore, continually refusing action.

It may be asked whether it was necessary to turn the whole line of battle away for this attack, or whether the leading squadron could not have held the original course. Such a movement was provided for in the Battle Orders, but the destroyers were observed at a range of 9,000 yards on a bearing 30 degrees before the beam of the _Iron Duke_, the leading ship of the centre battle squadron, and therefore the leading Battle Squadron was as open to attack by torpedoes as was the centre or rear squadron; indeed, the destroyers were standing in a direction to attack the van squadron. The rear of the leading Battle Squadron was also not at the time clear of the van of the centre squadron, as the turns that had been made had prevented line ahead being re-formed, and the _Iron Duke’s_ Division could not turn unless the division ahead also turned. These facts strengthened the reasons which led me to make the signal general to the Battle Fleet.

According to the reports of the captains of the ships of the Battle Fleet, a total of at least 20 torpedoes crossed the line of our Battle Fleet during the 7.10 P.M. destroyer attack alone, in spite of the turn. The large majority of these were observed by the ships of the 1st and 5th Battle Squadrons, but one torpedo is known to have crossed the line _ahead_ of the _Iron Duke_, and at least six crossed the track of the 4th Light Cruiser Squadron, which was moving out to attack the enemy’s flotilla.

In the case of a long line of ships there is always danger of the torpedo menace to the ships at the rear being forgotten or minimised by ships that are in the van, owing to failure to realise how dangerous the torpedo fire of ships or destroyers abreast of them may be to vessels a long way in rear, although they themselves are quite immune from this danger.

The Grand Fleet Battle Orders provided for considerable decentralisation of command, and great stress was laid on this point in the general instructions for “Battle Tactics.” The opening paragraphs of this section of the Battle Orders emphasised this strongly. It was pointed out that whilst the Commander-in-Chief would control the movements of the whole Battle Fleet before and on deployment (except in the extreme case of very low visibility rendering it necessary for the Flag officer of a wing division to take immediate action), he could not be certain of doing so after deployment, when funnel and other smoke made both vision and communication difficult. The necessity for wide decentralisation of command was then pointed out, combined with a close watch on the movements of the Commander-in-Chief, with which Flag officers should generally conform.

The Battle of Jutland was the first Fleet action since Trafalgar if we except the actions in the Russo-Japanese War, and advantage was naturally taken of the experience to make some changes in the Battle Orders; but there were no surprises in the way of enemy tactics, and, therefore, no radical alterations were necessary. As the Chief of the Staff remarked to me during the Battle Fleet engagement, “This is all going according to expectation.” We did, however, obtain confirmation of our views as to the probable retiring tactics that would be adopted by the German fleet.

The principal changes that were made in the Battle Orders were in the direction of laying still further emphasis on the discretionary power which was vested in Flag Officers commanding squadrons, owing to the difficulty, always clearly recognised, and confirmed at Jutland, which the Commander-in-Chief would experience in controlling the movements of the whole Fleet in the heat of action; also in defining still further the different movements that might be adopted to deal with torpedo attacks, whether the torpedoes were fired from battleships or from destroyers.

A very exhaustive analysis of the subject of torpedo attacks in action had been prepared by my Staff during the spring of 1916, and a memorandum, with diagrams, had been written showing the various situations that might arise and the effect of the different counter-movements in each case. It is of interest to note that this memorandum was on the point of issue when the Jutland Battle was fought. It was dated May 27th, 1916, but it had not actually been issued.

The experience gained at Jutland was embodied in the memorandum before it was finally issued to the Fleet.

The questions of the use of the torpedo in action and the “counter” measures adopted have been dealt with at considerable length, since this form of attack and its “counter” have been much discussed in the Service since 1911, and it is a subject on which discussion is likely to continue. It is also certain that it will form the subject of much future experiment.

The German attacks at Jutland did not produce any great effect, and their importance should not be exaggerated. The turn of the British Battle Fleet opened the range some 1,750 yards, but _it was not this turn which led to the difficulty of keeping touch with the enemy_. That difficulty was due to the fact that the German Fleet made a very large turn to the westward under cover of a smoke screen at the moment of launching the earliest destroyer attacks. Neither our battle cruisers in the van which did not turn away at the time, as it was not necessary in their case, nor the Battle Fleet, were able to regain touch until 8.20 P.M. because of the retirement of the enemy.

The instructions as to my intentions as the Commander-in-Chief, in regard to the ranges at which the opening phases of the action should be fought, remained unaltered, and stress was once more laid on the policy of keeping the centre and rear of the Battle Fleet outside torpedo range from the enemy’s battle line _in ordinary circumstances_.

As is very frequently the case when naval actions do not result in overwhelming material losses by one side or the other, or the capture or destruction of a large part of the opposing Fleet, both sides at the time claimed a victory at Jutland, the Germans because they hoped to support confidence at home and encourage a young Fleet, besides influencing neutral, and probably in particular American, opinion.

The Germans apparently based their claim on two grounds, the first being that of having inflicted heavier losses than they received. In order to make good this contention, the Germans claimed to have sunk one battleship, one armoured cruiser, three light cruisers, and five destroyers more than actually were sunk on the British side; and they concealed, until further concealment was impossible, the sinking of the battle cruiser _Lutzow_ and the light cruiser _Rostock_, besides omitting to mention that the _Seydlitz_ had to be beached to prevent her sinking, thereby slurring over the point that the _Seydlitz_ would undoubtedly have gone to the bottom as our own _Warrior_ did, had the action been fought as far from German bases as it was from British bases. They also said nothing of at least four German battleships being torpedoed, and of several battleships and all their battle cruisers being so severely damaged by gunfire as to be incapable of further fighting for several months. The case was very different with the British ships, as has been already stated. If these points are borne in mind, the original German claim to victory falls to the ground, even on the material side. After the surrender of the German ships in November, 1918, Captain Persius, a reputable and informed writer on naval matters, stated in the _Berliner Tageblatt_ of November 18th that “our Fleet’s losses were severe,” adding that “on June 1st, 1916, it was clear to every thinking person that this battle must, and would be, the last one. Authoritative quarters,” he declared, “said so openly.”

But a victory is judged not merely by material losses and damage, but by its results. It is profitable to examine the results of the Jutland Battle. With the single exception of a cruise towards the English coast on August 19th, 1916--undertaken, no doubt, by such part of the High Sea Fleet as had been repaired in order to show that it was still capable of going to sea--the High Sea Fleet never again, up to the end of 1917, ventured much outside the “Heligoland triangle,” and even on August 19th, 1916, the much reduced Fleet made precipitately for home as soon as it was warned by its Zeppelin scouts of the approach of the Grand Fleet. This is hardly the method of procedure that would be adopted by a Fleet flushed with victory and belonging to a country which was being strangled by the sea blockade.

Again, in the German account of the “victory” it is remarked that “as the dawn coloured the eastern sky on the historic 1st of June, everyone expected that the rising sun would illuminate the British line deployed in readiness to renew the battle. This expectation was not realised. As far as the eye could reach the horizon was clear. Not until the late morning did our airships, which had gone up in the meantime, announce that a Battle Squadron consisting of twelve ships was approaching from the southern part of the North Sea at full speed on a northerly course. To the great regret of all concerned, it was too late for our Fleet to overtake and attack theirs.”

What are the facts? We know now that as the sun rose, the High Sea Fleet (except such portions as were escaping via the Skaw) was close to the Horn Reef, steaming as fast as the damaged ships could go for home behind the shelter of the German minefields. And the Grand Fleet was waiting for them to appear and searching the waters to the westward and northward of the Horn Reef for the enemy vessels; it maintained the search during the forenoon of June 1st, and the airship, far from sighting the Fleet _late in the morning_, as stated, did so, first at 3.30 A.M., and on several occasions subsequently during the forenoon. And if that airship reported only twelve ships present, what an opportunity for the victorious High Sea Fleet to annihilate them! One is forced to the conclusion that this victorious fleet did not consider itself capable of engaging only twelve British battleships.

I cannot conclude these remarks on the Jutland Battle without mentioning the personnel of the Fleet. From the second in command, Sir Cecil Burney, to the youngest boy, who was possibly young Cornwell in the _Chester_, the Fleet was imbued with the same high spirit and determination. Sir Cecil Burney was an old and trusted friend, a fine seaman who always handled his squadron--or, in my absence, the Fleet--with marked skill and ability. Sir Martyn Jerram, who held a high reputation as a squadron commander; Sir Doveton Sturdee, the victor at the Falkland Islands, an officer who had made a special study of tactics; Rear-Admiral Evan-Thomas, and the other squadron leaders, including my very old friends and gallant brother officers Sir Robert Arbuthnot and Rear-Admiral Hood, by whose deaths the nation and Fleet lost of their best--were all officers of proved ability, in whom not myself only, but the Fleet, had absolute confidence.

In Sir David Beatty the Battle Cruiser Fleet possessed a leader who throughout his Service career had shown fighting qualities of the highest order, and he had imbued his force with his own indomitable spirit.

The Flag officers second in command of squadrons had all led divisions for a considerable period, and I was confident that they would handle their divisions as well in action as they did during exercises, as proved to be the case.

The officers commanding Light Cruiser Squadrons and destroyer flotillas had invariably fulfilled every expectation that I had formed of them. I had always admired the manner in which the personnel of these vessels had endured the conditions under which their work was so frequently performed.

Assisted as I was by a brilliant Staff, with Rear-Admiral Sir Charles Madden (my righthand man throughout) and Commodore Lionel Halsey as its chief members, seconded by such able and experienced Flag officers, and with captains who had on countless occasions shown their skill, I was indeed in a fortunate position.

To the above advantages I must add those obtained by the magnificence of the personnel of the lower ranks. The officers and ships’ companies were as keen as any Commander-in-Chief could desire. The long wait had never produced the slightest feeling of staleness. Officers and men were day after day striving to perfect the fighting efficiency of their ships, and well had they succeeded. The engine room staffs had demonstrated early in the War that they would respond magnificently to any demand that I called upon them to make, and they did it on the occasion of the Jutland Battle. The spirit and moral of the Fleet never stood higher than at the time of the Battle of Jutland, and because of that spirit I knew that the Fleet under my command was the most formidable fighting machine in the world.

Of the gallantry shown it is difficult to write with proper restraint. Whenever and wherever there was opportunity, officers and men displayed courage and self-sacrifice of the highest order. There were innumerable instances which proved that the personnel of the present Navy has nothing to learn in this respect from its forefathers. The dead died heroic deaths; the wounded behaved with marvellous fortitude. Forty-four years passed in the Service had given me unbounded faith in, and admiration for, the British officer and bluejacket, but they surpassed all my expectations, and so long as that spirit endures, this country will be fortunate, and with adequate forces will be safe.

It may not be out of place to quote the memorandum issued to the Fleet after the Jutland Battle:

_Iron Duke_, June 4th, 1916.

H.F. 0022 349.

MEMORANDUM.

I desire to express to the Flag Officers, Captains, Officers and Men of the Grand Fleet my very high appreciation of the manner in which the ships were fought during the action on May 31st, 1916.

2. At this stage, when full information is not available, it is not possible to enter into details, but quite sufficient is already known to enable me to state definitely that the glorious traditions handed down to us by generations of gallant seamen were most worthily upheld.

3. Weather conditions of a highly unfavourable nature robbed the Fleet of that complete victory which I know was expected by all ranks, which is necessary for the safety of the Empire and which will yet be ours.

4. Our losses were heavy and we miss many most gallant comrades, but, although it is very difficult to obtain accurate information as to the enemy losses, I have no doubt that we shall find that they are certainly not less than our own. Sufficient information has already been received for me to make that statement with confidence.

I hope to be able to give the Fleet fuller information on this point at an early date, but do not wish to delay the issue of this expression of my keen appreciation of the work of the Fleet, and my confidence in future complete victory.

5. I cannot close without stating that the wonderful spirit and fortitude of the wounded has filled me with the greatest admiration.

I am more proud than ever to have the honour of commanding a fleet manned by such officers and men.

J. R. JELLICOE. Admiral, Commander-in-Chief.

The Flag Officers, Commodores and Officers in command of H.M. ships of the Grand Fleet.

My official despatch on the battle to the Board of Admiralty was forwarded on June 19th, and the following letter was afterwards promulgated to the Grand Fleet:--

ADMIRALTY, July 4th, 1916.

SIR,--My Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty have considered your reports on the action off the Jutland Bank between the Grand Fleet under your command and the German High Sea Fleet on the 31st May, together with the report of the Vice-Admiral Commanding the Battle Cruiser Fleet, and those of the various Flag Officers and Commanding Officers of the Grand Fleet.

2. Their lordships congratulate the officers, seamen, and marines of the Grand Fleet on this, the first Fleet action which has occurred since the outbreak of the war, as a result of which the enemy, severely punished, withdrew to his own ports. The events of the 31st May and 1st June gave ample proof of the gallantry and devotion which characterised all who took part in the battle; the ships of every class were handled with skill and determination; their steaming under battle conditions afforded a splendid testimony to the zeal and efficiency of the engineering staff; while individual initiative and tactical subordination were equally conspicuous.

3. The results of the action prove that the officers and men of the Grand Fleet have known both how to study the new problems with which they are confronted and how to turn their knowledge to account. The expectations of the country were high; they have been well fulfilled.

4. My Lords desire me to convey to you their full approval of your proceedings on this occasion.

I am, Sir, your obedient Servant, W. GRAHAM GREENE.