View source for Battle of Jutland

{{short description|1916 naval battle during World War I}}
{{about|the World War I naval battle|the football rivalry|Battle of Jutland (football)}}
{{Use British English|date=September 2013}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=September 2018}}
{{Infobox military conflict
| conflict    = Battle of Jutland
| partof      = [[World War I]]
| image       = Map of the Battle of Jutland, 1916.svg
| image_size  = 300px
| caption     = The Battle of Jutland, 1916
| date        = 31 May – 1 June 1916
| place       = [[North Sea]], near [[Denmark]]
| coordinates = {{Coord|56|42|N|5|54|E|type:event|display=inline,title}}
<!--
Please do NOT change the following result WITHOUT FIRST consulting the talk page; yes, it is controversial!
 -->
| result      = Inconclusive, see {{section link||Outcome}}
| combatant1  = {{flagcountry|United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland}}
| combatant2  = {{flagcountry|German Empire}}
| commander1  = {{plainlist|
* {{flagicon|United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland|naval}} [[John Jellicoe, 1st Earl Jellicoe|John Jellicoe]]
* {{flagicon|United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland|naval}} [[David Beatty, 1st Earl Beatty|David Beatty]]}}
| commander2  = {{plainlist|
* {{flagicon|German Empire|naval}} [[Reinhard Scheer]]
* {{flagicon|German Empire|naval}} [[Franz von Hipper|Franz Hipper]]}}
| strength1   = {{plainlist|
* '''Total: 151 combat ships'''
* 28 [[dreadnought]] [[battleship]]s
* 9 [[battlecruiser]]s
* 8 [[Armored cruiser|armoured cruisers]]
* 26 [[light cruiser]]s
* 78 [[destroyer]]s
* 1 [[minelayer]]
* 1 [[seaplane carrier]]}}
| strength2   = {{plainlist|
* '''Total: 99 combat ships'''
* 16 [[dreadnought]] [[battleship]]s
* 5 [[battlecruiser]]s
* 6 [[pre-dreadnought]] [[battleship]]s
* 11 [[light cruiser]]s
* 61 [[torpedo-boat]]s{{refn|group=lower-alpha|In this article the terms "torpedo boat" (sometimes "torpedo-boat") and "destroyer" are used interchangeably to refer to the same class of vessels in the German Navy.}}}}
| casualties1 = {{plainlist|
* 6,094 killed
* 674 wounded
* 177 captured
* 3 battlecruisers sunk
* 3 armoured cruisers sunk
* 8 destroyers sunk
* (113,300 [[long ton|tons]] sunk)<ref name=nasmith261>Nasmith, p. 261.</ref>}}
| casualties2 = {{plainlist|
* 2,551 killed
* 507 wounded
* 1 battlecruiser sunk
* 1 pre-dreadnought battleship sunk
* 4 light cruisers sunk
* 5 torpedo-boats sunk
* (62,300 [[long ton|tons]] sunk)<ref name=nasmith261/>}}
}}
{{Campaignbox North Sea 1914–1918}}

The '''Battle of Jutland''' ({{langx|de|Skagerrakschlacht|lit=Battle of the [[Skagerrak]]}}) was a [[naval battle]] between Britain's [[Royal Navy]] [[Grand Fleet]], under Admiral [[John Jellicoe, 1st Earl Jellicoe|Sir John Jellicoe]], and the [[Imperial German Navy]]'s [[High Seas Fleet]], under Vice-Admiral [[Reinhard Scheer]], during [[World War I]]. The battle unfolded in extensive manoeuvring and three main engagements from 31 May to 1 June 1916, off the [[North Sea]] coast of Denmark's [[Jutland]] Peninsula.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/world-war-one/naval-warfare-and-world-war-one/the-battle-of-jutland/ |title=The Battle of Jutland |publisher=History Learning Site |access-date=26 July 2016 |archive-date=28 July 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160728191102/http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/world-war-one/naval-warfare-and-world-war-one/the-battle-of-jutland/ |url-status=live}}</ref> It was the largest naval battle and only full-scale clash of [[battleship]]s of the war, and the outcome ensured that the Royal Navy denied the German surface fleet access to the North Sea and the Atlantic for the remainder of the war, as Germany avoided all fleet-to-fleet contact thereafter. Jutland was also the last major naval battle, in any war, fought primarily by battleships.<ref>Jeremy Black, "Jutland's Place in History," ''Naval History'' (June 2016) 30#3, pp. 16–21.</ref>

Germany's High Seas Fleet intended to lure out, trap, and destroy a portion of the British Grand Fleet, as the German naval force was insufficient to openly engage the British fleet. This was part of a larger strategy to break the British [[Blockade of Germany (1914–1919)|blockade of Germany]] and allow German naval vessels access to the Atlantic. Britain's Royal Navy pursued a strategy of engaging and destroying the High Seas Fleet, thereby keeping German naval forces contained and away from Britain and her [[Sea lines of communication|shipping lanes]].<ref>{{cite news |title='Distant Victory: The Battle of Jutland and the Allied Triumph in the First World War' |page=xciv |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=VlTmHeEYgxsC&q=battle+of+jutland+germany+wanted+access+to+the+atlantic&pg=PA94 |year=2006 |publisher=Praeger Security International |isbn=978-0275990732 |access-date=30 May 2016 |archive-date=25 January 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210125181153/https://books.google.com/books?id=VlTmHeEYgxsC&q=battle+of+jutland+germany+wanted+access+to+the+atlantic&pg=PA94 |url-status=live}}</ref> The Germans planned to use Vice-Admiral [[Franz von Hipper|Franz Hipper]]'s fast scouting group of five modern [[battlecruiser]]s to lure Vice-Admiral [[David Beatty, 1st Earl Beatty|Sir David Beatty]]'s battlecruiser squadrons into the path of the main German fleet. They stationed submarines across the likely routes of the British ships. However, the British learned from signal intercepts that a major fleet operation was likely, so on 30 May, Jellicoe sailed with the Grand Fleet to rendezvous with Beatty, passing over the German submarine [[Picket (military)|picket lines]] while they were unprepared. The German plan had been delayed, causing further problems for their submarines, which had reached the limit of their endurance at sea.

On the afternoon of 31 May, Beatty encountered Hipper's battlecruiser force before the Germans had expected. Hipper successfully drew the British [[vanguard]] into the path of the High Seas Fleet. By the time Beatty sighted the larger force and turned back towards the British main fleet, he had lost two battlecruisers, from a force of six battlecruisers and four battleships. Beatty's withdrawal at the sight of the High Seas Fleet, which the British had not known were in the open sea, reversed the battle by drawing the Germans towards the British Grand Fleet. Between 18:30, when the sun was lowering, back-lighting the German forces, and nightfall at 20:30, the two fleets—totalling 250 ships—directly engaged twice. Fourteen British and eleven German ships sank, with a total of 9,823 casualties. After sunset Jellicoe manoeuvred to cut the Germans off from their base, hoping to continue the battle the next morning, but under the cover of darkness Scheer broke through the British light forces forming the rearguard of the Grand Fleet and returned to port.<ref>Campbell, ''Analysis'', p. 274.</ref>

Both sides claimed victory. The British lost more ships and over twice as many sailors but succeeded in containing the German fleet. The British press criticised the Grand Fleet's failure to force a decisive outcome, while Scheer's plan of destroying a substantial portion of the British fleet failed. The British long-term strategy of denying Germany access to the United Kingdom and Atlantic succeeded.<ref>{{citation |title='Distant Victory: The Battle of Jutland and the Allied Triumph in the First World War' |page=xcv |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=VlTmHeEYgxsC&q=battle+of+jutland+germany+wanted+access+to+the+atlantic&pg=PA94 |date=2006 |publisher=Praeger Security International |isbn=978-0275990732 |access-date=30 May 2016 |archive-date=25 January 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210125181153/https://books.google.com/books?id=VlTmHeEYgxsC&q=battle+of+jutland+germany+wanted+access+to+the+atlantic&pg=PA94 |url-status=live}}</ref> The Germans' "[[fleet in being]]" continued to pose a threat, requiring the British to keep their battleships concentrated in the North Sea, but the battle reinforced the German policy of avoiding all fleet-to-fleet contact. At the end of 1916, after further unsuccessful attempts to reduce the Royal Navy's numerical advantage, the German Navy accepted its surface ships had been successfully contained, turning its resources to [[unrestricted submarine warfare]] for the second time (the first attempt of the war having ended with the controversy following the [[sinking of the RMS Lusitania]]) and destruction of Allied and neutral shipping, which—with the [[Zimmermann Telegram]]—by April 1917 triggered the [[American entry into World War I|United States of America's declaration of war on Germany]].<ref>Protasio, John. (2011). ''The Day the World was Shocked: The Lusitania Disaster and Its Influence on the Course of World War I'' pp. 200–201, Casemate Publications (US) {{ISBN|978-1935149453}}</ref> Reviews by the Royal Navy generated disagreement between supporters of Jellicoe and Beatty concerning their performance in battle; debate over this and the significance of the battle continues.
{{TOC limit|limit=2}}

==Background and planning==

===German planning===
With 16 [[dreadnought]]-type battleships, compared with the Royal Navy's 28, the German [[High Seas Fleet]] stood little chance of winning a head-to-head clash. The Germans therefore adopted a [[Defeat in detail|divide-and-conquer strategy]]. They would stage raids into the North Sea and bombard the English coast, with the aim of luring out small British squadrons and pickets, which could then be destroyed by superior forces or submarines.

In January 1916, Admiral [[Hugo von Pohl|von Pohl]], commander of the German fleet, fell ill. He was replaced by Scheer, who believed that the fleet had been used too defensively, had better ships and men than the British, and ought to take the war to them.<ref>Tarrant, p. 49.</ref> According to Scheer, the German [[naval strategy]] should be:

{{Blockquote|to damage the English fleet by offensive raids against the naval forces engaged in watching and blockading the [[German Bight]], as well as by [[naval mine|mine]]-laying on the British coast and [[submarine]] attack, whenever possible. After an equality of strength had been realised as a result of these operations, and all our forces had been made ready and concentrated, an attempt was to be made with our fleet to seek battle under circumstances unfavourable to the enemy.}}

[[File:Almirante Reinhard Scheer.jpg|thumb|upright|[[Reinhard Scheer]], German fleet commander]]

On 25 April 1916, a decision was made by the [[German Imperial Admiralty]] to halt indiscriminate attacks by submarines on merchant shipping. This followed protests from neutral countries, notably the United States, that their nationals had been the victims of attacks. Germany agreed that future attacks would only take place in accord with internationally agreed prize rules, which required an attacker to give a warning and allow the crews of vessels time to escape, and not to attack neutral vessels at all. Scheer believed that it would not be possible to continue attacks on these terms, which took away the advantage of secret approach by submarines and left them vulnerable to even relatively small guns on the target ships. Instead, he set about deploying the submarine fleet against military vessels.<ref>Tarrant, p. 55.</ref>

It was hoped that, following a successful German submarine attack, fast British escorts, such as [[destroyer]]s, would be tied down by anti-submarine operations. If the Germans could catch the British in the expected locations, good prospects were thought to exist of at least partially redressing the balance of forces between the fleets. "After the British sortied in response to the raiding attack force", the Royal Navy's centuries-old instincts for aggressive action could be exploited to draw its weakened units towards the main German fleet under Scheer. The hope was that Scheer would thus be able to ambush a section of the British fleet and destroy it.<ref>Campbell, p. 2.</ref>

====Submarine deployments====
A plan was devised to station submarines offshore from British naval bases, and then stage some action that would draw out the British ships to the waiting submarines. The battlecruiser {{SMS|Seydlitz}} had been damaged in a previous engagement, but was due to be repaired by mid-May, so an operation was scheduled for 17 May 1916. At the start of May, difficulties with condensers were discovered on ships of the third battleship squadron, so the operation was put back to 23 May. Ten submarines—{{SMU|U-24||2}}, {{SMU|U-32|Germany|2}}, {{SMU|U-43|Germany|2}}, {{SMU|U-44||2}}, {{SMU|UC-47||2}}, {{SMU|U-51||2}}, {{SMU|U-52||2}}, {{SMU|U-63|Germany|2}}, {{SMU|U-66||2}}, and {{SMU|U-70||2}}—were given orders first to patrol in the central [[North Sea]] between 17 and 22 May, and then to take up waiting positions. ''U-43'' and ''U-44'' were stationed in the [[Pentland Firth]], which the Grand Fleet was likely to cross when leaving [[Scapa Flow]], while the remainder proceeded to the [[Firth of Forth]], awaiting battlecruisers departing [[Rosyth Dockyard|Rosyth]]. Each boat had an allocated area, within which it could move around as necessary to avoid detection, but was instructed to keep within it. During the initial North Sea patrol the boats were instructed to sail only north–south so that any enemy who chanced to encounter one would believe it was departing or returning from operations on the west coast (which required them to pass around the north of Britain). Once at their final positions, the boats were under strict orders to avoid premature detection that might give away the operation. It was arranged that a coded signal would be transmitted to alert the submarines exactly when the operation commenced: "Take into account the enemy's forces may be putting to sea".<ref>Tarrant, pp. 56–57.</ref>

Additionally, ''UB-27'' was sent out on 20 May with instructions to work its way into the Firth of Forth past [[Isle of May|May Island]]. ''U-46'' was ordered to patrol the coast of [[Sunderland, Tyne and Wear|Sunderland]], which had been chosen for the diversionary attack, but because of engine problems it was unable to leave port and ''U-47'' was diverted to this task. On 13 May, ''U-72'' was sent to lay mines in the Firth of Forth; on the 23rd, ''U-74'' departed to lay mines in the [[Moray Firth]]; and on the 24th, ''U-75'' was dispatched similarly west of the [[Orkney Islands]]. ''UB-21'' and ''UB-22'' were sent to patrol the Humber, where (incorrect) reports had suggested the presence of British warships. ''U-22'', ''U-46'' and ''U-67'' were positioned north of [[Terschelling]] to protect against intervention by British light forces stationed at [[Harwich]].<ref>Tarrant, pp. 57–58.</ref>

On 22 May 1916, it was discovered that ''Seydlitz'' was still not watertight after repairs and would not now be ready until the 29th. The ambush submarines were now on station and experiencing difficulties of their own: visibility near the coast was frequently poor due to fog, and sea conditions were either so calm the slightest ripple, as from the periscope, could give away their position, or so rough as to make it very hard to keep the vessel at a steady depth. The British had become aware of unusual submarine activity, and had begun counter-patrols that forced the submarines out of position. ''UB-27'' passed [[Bell Rock Lighthouse|Bell Rock]] on the night of 23 May on its way into the Firth of Forth as planned, but was halted by engine trouble. After repairs it continued to approach, following behind merchant vessels, and reached [[Largo Bay]] on 25 May. There the boat became entangled in nets that fouled one of the propellers, forcing it to abandon the operation and return home. ''U-74'' was detected by four [[Trawlers of the Royal Navy|armed trawlers]] on 27 May and sunk {{cvt|25|mi|nmi km}} south-east of [[Peterhead]]. ''U-75'' laid its mines off the Orkney Islands, which, although they played no part in the battle, were responsible later for sinking the cruiser {{HMS|Hampshire|1903|2}} carrying [[Herbert Kitchener|Lord Kitchener]], the [[Secretary of State for War]] on 5 June, killing him and all but 12 of the crew. ''U-72'' was forced to abandon its mission without laying any mines when an oil leak meant it was leaving a visible surface trail astern.<ref>Tarrant, pp. 58–60.</ref>

====Zeppelins====

[[File:Carte Skagerrak-Kattegat2.png|thumb|The throat of the [[Skagerrak]], the strategic gateway to the Baltic and North Atlantic, waters off Jutland, Norway and Sweden]]
The Germans maintained a fleet of [[Zeppelin]]s that they used for aerial reconnaissance and occasional bombing raids. The planned raid on Sunderland intended to use Zeppelins to watch out for the British fleet approaching from the north, which might otherwise surprise the raiders.<ref name=jellicoe97>''Jutland, The Unfinished battle'', Nicolas Jellico, p. 97.</ref>

By 28 May, strong north-easterly winds meant that it would not be possible to send out the Zeppelins, so the raid again had to be postponed. The submarines could only stay on station until 1 June before their supplies would be exhausted and they had to return, so a decision had to be made quickly about the raid.<ref name=jellicoe97/>

It was decided to use an alternative plan, abandoning the attack on Sunderland but instead sending a patrol of battlecruisers to the [[Skagerrak]], where it was likely they would encounter merchant ships carrying British cargo and British cruiser patrols. It was felt this could be done without air support, because the action would now be much closer to Germany, relying instead on cruiser and torpedo boat patrols for reconnaissance.<ref name=jellicoe97/>

Orders for the alternative plan were issued on 28 May, although it was still hoped that last-minute improvements in the weather would allow the original plan to go ahead. The German fleet assembled in the [[Jade (river)|Jade River]] and at [[Wilhelmshaven]] and was instructed to raise steam and be ready for action from midnight on 28 May.<ref>Tarrant, p. 61.</ref>

By 14:00 on 30 May, the wind was still too strong and the final decision was made to use the alternative plan. The coded signal "31 May G.G.2490" was transmitted to the ships of the fleet to inform them the Skagerrak attack would start on 31 May. The pre-arranged signal to the waiting submarines was transmitted throughout the day from the E-Dienst radio station at [[Bruges]], and the U-boat tender ''Arcona'' anchored at [[Emden]]. Only two of the waiting submarines, ''U-66'' and ''U-32'', received the order.<ref>Tarrant, pp. 62, 60, 65.</ref>

===British response===
Unfortunately for the German plan, the British had obtained a copy of the main German codebook from the light cruiser {{SMS|Magdeburg||6}}, which had been boarded by the [[Imperial Russian Navy|Russian Navy]] after the ship ran aground in Russian [[territorial waters]] in 1914. German naval radio communications could therefore often be quickly deciphered, and the British Admiralty usually knew about German activities.

The [[British Admiralty]]'s [[Room 40]] maintained [[direction finding]] and interception of German naval signals. It had intercepted and decrypted a German signal on 28 May that provided "ample evidence that the German fleet was stirring in the North Sea".<ref>Stille, Mark. ''British Dreadnought vs. German Dreadnought: Jutland 1916''. 2010. Osprey Publishing. p. 56</ref> Further signals were intercepted, and although they were not decrypted it was clear that a major operation was likely. At 11:00 on 30 May, Jellicoe was warned that the German fleet seemed prepared to sail the following morning. By 17:00, the Admiralty had intercepted the signal from Scheer, "31 May G.G.2490", making it clear something significant was imminent.<ref>Tarrant, pp. 63–64.</ref>

Not knowing the Germans' objective, Jellicoe and his staff decided to position the fleet to head off any attempt by the Germans to enter the North Atlantic or the [[Baltic Sea|Baltic]] through the Skagerrak, by taking up a position off Norway where they could potentially cut off any German raid into the shipping lanes of the Atlantic or prevent the Germans from heading into the Baltic. A position further west was unnecessary, as that area of the North Sea could be patrolled by air.{{citation needed|date = May 2012}}

[[File:John Jellicoe, Admiral of the Fleet.jpg|thumb|upright|[[John Jellicoe, 1st Earl Jellicoe|John Jellicoe]], British fleet commander]]
Consequently, Admiral Jellicoe led the sixteen dreadnought battleships of the 1st and 4th Battle Squadrons of the Grand Fleet and three battlecruisers of the 3rd Battlecruiser Squadron eastwards out of Scapa Flow at 22:30 on 30 May. He was to meet the 2nd Battle Squadron of eight dreadnought battleships commanded by Vice-Admiral [[Martyn Jerram]] coming from [[Cromarty]]. Beatty's force of six ships of the 1st and 2nd Battlecruiser Squadrons plus the [[5th Battle Squadron (United Kingdom)#Battle of Jutland|5th Battle Squadron]] of four fast battleships left the Firth of Forth at around the same time;<ref>Gordon, pp. 63–65.</ref> Jellicoe intended to rendezvous with him {{cvt|90|mi|nmi km}} west of the mouth of the Skagerrak off the coast of Jutland and wait for the Germans to appear or for their intentions to become clear. The planned position would give him the widest range of responses to likely German moves.<ref>Tarrant, p. 64.</ref> Hipper's raiding force did not leave the [[Jade Estuary|Outer Jade Roads]] until 01:00 on 31 May, heading west of Heligoland Island following a cleared channel through the minefields, heading north at {{convert|16|kn|lk=in}}. The main German fleet of sixteen dreadnought battleships of 1st and 3rd Battle Squadrons left the Jade at 02:30, being joined off Heligoland at 04:00 by the six pre-dreadnoughts of the 2nd Battle Squadron coming from the Elbe River.

==Naval tactics in 1916==

The principle of [[Force concentration|concentration of force]] was fundamental to the fleet tactics of this time. As outlined by Captain [[Reginald Hall]] in 1914, tactical doctrine called for a fleet approaching battle to be in a compact formation of parallel columns, allowing relatively easy manoeuvring, and giving shortened sight lines within the formation, which simplified the passing of the signals necessary for command and control.<ref name="gwpda.org">{{Cite web |url=http://www.gwpda.org/naval/nr191401.htm |title=The Fleet in Action |access-date=15 October 2016 |archive-date=6 March 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170306190053/http://www.gwpda.org/naval/nr191401.htm |url-status=live}}</ref>

A fleet formed in several short columns could change its heading faster than one formed in a single long column. Since most command signals were made with [[flag]]s or [[Aldis lamp|signal lamps]] between ships, the flagship was usually placed at the head of the centre column so that its signals might be more easily seen by the many ships of the formation. Wireless telegraphy was in use, though security (radio direction finding), encryption, and the limitation of the radio sets made their extensive use more problematic. Command and control of such huge fleets remained difficult.<ref name="gwpda.org"/><ref>Sutherland, Cramwell, p. 13.</ref>

Thus, it might take a very long time for a signal from the flagship to be relayed to the entire formation. It was usually necessary for a signal to be confirmed by each ship before it could be relayed to other ships, and an order for a fleet movement would have to be received and acknowledged by every ship before it could be executed. In a large single-column formation, a signal could take 10 minutes or more to be passed from one end of the line to the other, whereas in a formation of parallel columns, visibility across the diagonals was often better (and always shorter) than in a single long column, and the diagonals gave signal "redundancy", increasing the probability that a message would be quickly seen and correctly interpreted.<ref name="gwpda.org"/>

However, before battle was joined the heavy units of the fleet would, if possible, deploy into a single column. To form the battle line in the correct orientation relative to the enemy, the commanding admiral had to know the enemy fleet's distance, bearing, heading, and speed. It was the task of the scouting forces, consisting primarily of [[battlecruiser]]s and [[cruiser]]s, to find the enemy and report this information in sufficient time, and, if possible, to deny the enemy's scouting forces the opportunity of obtaining the equivalent information.<ref name="gwpda.org"/>

Ideally, the battle line would cross the intended path of the enemy column so that the maximum number of guns could be brought to bear, while the enemy could fire only with the forward guns of the leading ships, a manoeuvre known as "[[crossing the T]]". Admiral [[Tōgō Heihachirō|Tōgō]], commander of the Japanese battleship fleet, had achieved this against Admiral [[Zinovy Rozhestvensky]]'s Russian battleships in 1905 at the [[Battle of Tsushima]], with devastating results.<ref>Forczyk, pp. 58–62.</ref> Jellicoe achieved this twice in one hour against the High Seas Fleet at Jutland, but on both occasions, Scheer managed to turn away and disengage, thereby avoiding a decisive action. {{clear left}}

===Ship design===
Within the existing technological limits, a trade-off had to be made between the weight and size of guns, the weight of armour protecting the ship, and the maximum speed. Battleships sacrificed speed for armour and heavy naval guns ({{cvt|11|in|mm}} or larger). British battlecruisers sacrificed weight of armour for greater speed, while their German counterparts were armed with lighter guns and heavier armour. These weight savings allowed them to escape danger or catch other ships. Generally, the larger guns mounted on British ships allowed an engagement at greater range. In theory, a lightly armoured ship could stay out of range of a slower opponent while still scoring hits. The fast pace of development in the pre-war years meant that every few years, a new generation of ships rendered its predecessors obsolete. Thus, fairly young ships could still be obsolete compared with the newest ships, and fare badly in an engagement against them.<ref name="Castles666">'Castles of Steel', p. 666.</ref>

[[John Fisher, 1st Baron Fisher|Admiral John Fisher]], responsible for reconstruction of the British fleet in the pre-war period, favoured large guns, oil fuel, and speed. [[Alfred von Tirpitz|Admiral Tirpitz]], responsible for the German fleet, favoured ship survivability and chose to sacrifice some gun size for improved armour. The German battlecruiser {{SMS|Derfflinger}} had [[belt armour]] equivalent in thickness—though not as comprehensive—to the British battleship {{HMS|Iron Duke|1912|6}}, significantly better than on the British battlecruisers such as ''Tiger''. German ships had better internal subdivision and had fewer doors and other weak points in their [[bulkhead (partition)|bulkheads]], but with the disadvantage that space for crew was greatly reduced.<ref name="Castles666"/> As they were designed only for sorties in the North Sea they did not need to be as habitable as the British vessels and their crews could live in barracks ashore when in harbour.<ref>Marder III, p. 168.</ref>

==Order of battle==
{{Main|Order of battle at Jutland}}
{| class="wikitable floatright" style="text-align:right;"
|-
!
!British
!German
|-
|Dreadnought<br />battleships
|28
|16
|-
|Pre-dreadnoughts
|0
|6
|-
|Battlecruisers
|9
|5
|-
|Armoured cruisers
|8
|0
|-
|Light cruisers
|26
|11
|-
|Destroyers
|79
|61
|-
|Seaplane carrier
|1
|0
|}

Warships of the period were armed with guns firing projectiles of varying weights, bearing [[high explosive]] warheads. The sum total of weight of all the projectiles fired by all the ship's broadside guns is referred to as "weight of broadside". At Jutland, the total of the British ships' weight of broadside was {{cvt|332,360|lb|kg}}, while the German fleet's total was {{cvt|134,216|lb|kg}}.<ref>Tarrant, p. 65.</ref> This does not take into consideration the ability of some ships and their crews to fire more or less rapidly than others, which would increase or decrease amount of fire that one combatant was able to bring to bear on their opponent for any length of time.

Jellicoe's Grand Fleet was split into two sections. The dreadnought Battle Fleet, with which he sailed, formed the main force and was composed of 24 battleships and three battlecruisers. The battleships were formed into three squadrons of eight ships, further subdivided into divisions of four, each led by a [[flag officer]]. Accompanying them were eight [[armoured cruiser]]s (classified by the Royal Navy since 1913 as "cruisers"), eight [[light cruiser]]s, four [[scout cruiser]]s, 51 destroyers, and one [[HMS Abdiel (1915)|destroyer-minelayer]].<ref>Jellicoe, Joe, ''The Grand Fleet, 1914–1916'', London, Cassell, 1919.</ref>

[[File:Vice Admiral Sir David Beatty.jpg|thumb|left|upright|[[David Beatty, 1st Earl Beatty|David Beatty]], commander of the British battlecruiser fleet]]
The Grand Fleet sailed without three of its battleships: {{HMS|Emperor of India||2}} in refit at Invergordon, {{HMS|Queen Elizabeth|1913|2}} dry-docked at Rosyth and {{HMS|Dreadnought|1906|2}} in refit at Devonport. The brand new {{HMS|Royal Sovereign|05|2}} was left behind; with only three weeks in service, her untrained crew was judged unready for battle. {{HMS|Audacious|1912|6}} had been sunk by a German mine on 27 October 1914.<ref>Massie, p. 576.</ref>

British [[reconnaissance]] was provided by the Battlecruiser Fleet under David Beatty: six battlecruisers, four fast {{sclass|Queen Elizabeth|battleship}}s, 14 light cruisers and 27 destroyers. Air scouting was provided by the attachment of the [[seaplane tender]] {{HMS|Engadine|1911|6}}, one of the first [[aircraft carrier]]s in history to participate in a naval engagement.<ref name=Camp-26>{{cite book |title=Analysis |last=Campbell |page=26}}</ref>

The German High Seas Fleet under Scheer was also split into a main force and a separate reconnaissance force. Scheer's main battle fleet was composed of 16 battleships and six [[Pre-dreadnought battleship|pre-dreadnought]] battleships arranged in an identical manner to the British. With them were six light cruisers and 31 [[torpedo-boat]]s, (the latter being roughly equivalent to a British destroyer). The only German battleship missing was {{SMS|König Albert}}.

[[File:Vizeadmiral Hipper, der Befehlshaber der deutschen Aufklärungsschiffe in der Seeschlacht.png|thumb|upright|[[Franz von Hipper|Franz Hipper]], commander of the German battlecruiser squadron]]
The German scouting force, commanded by Franz Hipper, consisted of five battlecruisers, five light cruisers and 30 torpedo-boats. The Germans had no equivalent to ''Engadine'' and no [[aircraft|heavier-than-air aircraft]] to operate with the fleet but had the Imperial German Naval Airship Service's force of [[rigid airship]]s available to patrol the North Sea.{{Citation needed|date=July 2009}}

All of the battleships and battlecruisers on both sides carried [[torpedo]]es of various sizes, as did the lighter craft.<ref name=Camp-26/> The British battleships carried three or four underwater torpedo tubes. The battlecruisers carried from two to five. All were either 18-inch or 21-inch diameter. The German battleships carried five or six underwater torpedo tubes in three sizes from 18 to 21 inch and the battlecruisers carried four or five tubes.{{citation needed|date = February 2017}}

The German battle fleet was hampered by the slow speed and relatively poor armament of the six pre-dreadnoughts of II Squadron, which limited maximum fleet speed to {{convert|18|kn}}, compared to maximum British fleet speed of {{convert|21|kn}}.<ref name=Camp-16>{{cite book |title=Analysis |last=Campbell |pages=16–19}}</ref> On the British side, the eight armoured cruisers were deficient in both speed and armour protection.<ref>{{cite book |title=Analysis |last=Campbell |page=22}}</ref>

==Battlecruiser action==
The route of the British battlecruiser fleet took it through the patrol sector allocated to ''U-32''. After receiving the order to commence the operation, the U-boat moved to a position {{cvt|80|mi|nmi km}} east of the Isle of May at dawn on 31 May. At 03:40, it sighted the cruisers {{HMS|Galatea|1914|6}} and {{HMS|Phaeton|1914|2}} leaving the Forth at {{convert|18|kn}}. It launched one torpedo at the leading cruiser at a range of {{cvt|1000|yd|m}}, but its periscope jammed 'up', giving away the position of the submarine as it manoeuvred to fire a second. The lead cruiser turned away to dodge the torpedo, while the second turned towards the submarine, attempting to ram. ''U-32'' [[crash dive]]d, and on raising its periscope at 04:10 saw two battlecruisers (the 2nd Battlecruiser Squadron) heading south-east. They were too far away to attack, but ''[[Captain lieutenant|Kapitänleutnant]]'' [[Edgar von Spiegel von und zu Peckelsheim|von Spiegel]] reported the sighting of two battleships and two cruisers to Germany.<ref>Tarrant, pp. 65–66.</ref>

''U-66'' was also supposed to be patrolling off the Firth of Forth but had been forced north to a position {{cvt|60|mi|nmi km}} off Peterhead by patrolling British vessels. This now brought it into contact with the 2nd Battle Squadron, coming from the Moray Firth. At 05:00, it had to crash dive when the cruiser {{HMS|Duke of Edinburgh||2}} appeared from the mist heading toward it. It was followed by another cruiser, {{HMS|Boadicea|1908|2}}, and eight battleships. ''U-66'' got within {{cvt|350|yd|m}} of the battleships preparing to fire, but was forced to dive by an approaching destroyer and missed the opportunity. At 06:35, it reported eight battleships and cruisers heading north.<ref>Tarrant, pp. 66–67.</ref>

The courses reported by both submarines were incorrect, because they reflected one leg of a zigzag being used by British ships to avoid submarines. Taken with a wireless intercept of more ships leaving Scapa Flow earlier in the night, they created the impression in the German High Command that the British fleet, whatever it was doing, was split into separate sections moving apart, which was precisely as the Germans wished to meet it.<ref>Tarrant, p. 67.</ref>

Jellicoe's ships proceeded to their rendezvous undamaged and undiscovered. However, he was now misled by an Admiralty [[intelligence (information gathering)|intelligence]] report advising that the German main battle fleet was still in port.<ref>{{cite book |title=Analysis |last=Campbell |pages=28–29}}</ref> The Director of Operations Division, Rear Admiral [[Thomas Jackson (Royal Navy officer)|Thomas Jackson]], had asked the intelligence division, Room 40, for the current location of German call sign DK, used by Admiral Scheer. They had replied that it was currently transmitting from Wilhelmshaven. It was known to the intelligence staff that Scheer deliberately used a different call sign when at sea, but no one asked for this information or explained the reason behind the query—to locate the German fleet.<ref>Marder III, pp. 41–42.</ref>

The German battlecruisers cleared the minefields surrounding the [[Amrum]] swept channel by 09:00. They then proceeded north-west, passing {{cvt|35|mi|nmi km}} west of the [[Horns Rev|Horn's Reef]] lightship heading for the [[Fisher Bank|Little Fisher Bank]] at the mouth of the Skagerrak. The High Seas Fleet followed some {{cvt|50|mi|nmi km}} behind. The battlecruisers were in line ahead, with the four cruisers of the II scouting group plus supporting torpedo boats ranged in an arc {{cvt|8|mi|nmi km}} ahead and to either side. The IX torpedo boat flotilla formed close support immediately surrounding the battlecruisers. The High Seas Fleet similarly adopted a line-ahead formation, with close screening by torpedo boats to either side and a further screen of five cruisers surrounding the column {{cvt|5|-|8|mi|nmi km}} away. The wind had finally moderated so that Zeppelins could be used, and by 11:30 five had been sent out: ''L14'' to the Skagerrak, ''L23'' {{cvt|240|mi|nmi km}} east of Noss Head in the Pentland Firth, ''L21'' {{cvt|120|mi|nmi km}} off Peterhead, ''L9'' {{cvt|100|mi|nmi km}} off Sunderland, and ''L16'' {{cvt|80|mi|nmi km}} east of Flamborough Head. Visibility, however, was still bad, with clouds down to {{cvt|1000|ft|m}}.<ref>Tarrant, pp. 69–70.</ref>

===Contact===
[[File:HMS Warspite and HMS Malaya during the battle of Jutland.jpg|thumb|left|HMS ''Warspite'' and ''Malaya'', seen from HMS ''Valiant'' at around 14:00&nbsp;hrs]]
By around 14:00, Beatty's ships were proceeding eastward at roughly the same latitude as Hipper's squadron, which was heading north. Had the courses remained unchanged, Beatty would have passed between the two German fleets, {{cvt|40|mi|nmi km}} south of the battlecruisers and {{cvt|20|mi|nmi km}} north of the High Seas Fleet at around 16:30, possibly trapping his ships just as the German plan envisioned. His orders were to stop his scouting patrol when he reached a point {{cvt|260|mi|nmi km}} east of Britain and then turn north to meet Jellicoe, which he did at this time. Beatty's ships were divided into three columns, with the two battlecruiser squadrons leading in parallel lines {{cvt|3|mi|nmi km}} apart. The 5th Battle Squadron was stationed {{cvt|5|mi|nmi km}} to the north-west, on the side furthest away from any expected enemy contact, while a screen of cruisers and destroyers was spread south-east of the battlecruisers. After the turn, the 5th Battle Squadron was now leading the British ships in the westernmost column, and Beatty's squadron was centre and rearmost, with the 2nd BCS to the west.<ref>Tarrant, pp. 70–71.</ref>

[[File:Jutland battlecruiser action.png|upright=1.7|thumb|(1) 15:22&nbsp;hrs, Hipper sights Beatty. <br />(2) 15:48&nbsp;hrs, First shots fired by Hipper's squadron.<br />(3) 16:00&nbsp;hrs-16:05&nbsp;hrs, ''Indefatigable'' explodes, leaving two survivors. <br />(4) 16:25&nbsp;hrs, ''Queen Mary'' explodes, nine survive. <br />(5) 16:45&nbsp;hrs, Beatty's battlecruisers move out of range of Hipper.<br />(6) 16:54&nbsp;hrs, Evan-Thomas's battleships turn north behind Beatty.]]

At 14:20 on 31 May, despite heavy haze and [[Scud (cloud)|scuds]] of fog giving poor visibility,<ref name=":0" /> scouts from Beatty's force reported enemy ships to the south-east; the British light units, investigating a neutral Danish [[Steamboat|steamer]] (''N J Fjord''), which was stopped between the two fleets, had found two German destroyers engaged on the same mission ({{SMS|B109||2}} and {{SMS|B110||2}}). The first shots of the battle were fired at 14:28 when ''Galatea'' and ''Phaeton'' of the British 1st Light [[Cruiser Squadron]] opened on the German torpedo boats, which withdrew toward their approaching light cruisers. At 14:36, the Germans scored the first hit of the battle when {{SMS|Elbing||6}}, of Rear-Admiral [[Friedrich Boedicker]]'s Scouting Group II, hit her British counterpart ''Galatea'' at extreme range.<ref>{{cite book |title=Analysis |last=Campbell |page=31}}</ref>

Beatty began to move his battlecruisers and supporting forces south-eastwards and then east to cut the German ships off from their base and ordered ''Engadine'' to launch a [[seaplane]] to try to get more information about the size and location of the German forces. This was the first time in history that a carrier-based aeroplane was used for reconnaissance in naval combat. ''Engadine''{{'}}s aircraft did locate and report some German light cruisers just before 15:30 and came under anti-aircraft gunfire but attempts to relay reports from the aeroplane failed.<ref name=Camp-35>{{cite book |title=Analysis |last=Campbell |page=35}}</ref>

Unfortunately for Beatty, his initial course changes at 14:32 were not received by [[Hugh Evan-Thomas|Sir Hugh Evan-Thomas]]'s 5th Battle Squadron (the distance being too great to read his flags), because the battlecruiser {{HMS|Tiger|1913|6}}—the last ship in his column—was no longer in a position where she could relay signals by searchlight to Evan-Thomas, as she had previously been ordered to do. Whereas before the north turn, ''Tiger'' had been the closest ship to Evan-Thomas, she was now further away than Beatty in ''Lion''. Matters were aggravated because Evan-Thomas had not been briefed regarding standing orders within Beatty's squadron, as his squadron normally operated with the Grand Fleet. Fleet ships were expected to obey movement orders precisely and not deviate from them. Beatty's standing instructions expected his officers to use their initiative and keep station with the flagship.<ref>'Marder' III, p. 55.</ref> As a result, the four ''Queen Elizabeth''-class battleships—which were the fastest and most heavily armed in the world at that time—remained on the previous course for several minutes, ending up {{cvt|10|mi|nmi km}} behind rather than five.<ref>{{cite book |title=Analysis |last=Campbell |page=32}}</ref> Beatty also had the opportunity during the previous hours to concentrate his forces, and no reason not to do so, whereas he steamed ahead at full speed, faster than the battleships could manage. Dividing the force had serious consequences for the British, costing them what would have been an overwhelming advantage in ships and firepower during the first half-hour of the coming battle.<ref name=Camp-35/>

With visibility favouring the Germans, Hipper's battlecruisers at 15:22, steaming approximately north-west, sighted Beatty's squadron at a range of about {{cvt|15|mi|nmi km}}, while Beatty's forces did not identify Hipper's battlecruisers until 15:30. <span style="background: lightblue">(position 1 on map)</span>. At 15:45, Hipper turned south-east to lead Beatty toward Scheer, who was {{cvt|46|mi|nmi km}} south-east with the main force of the High Seas Fleet.<ref>{{cite book |title=Analysis |last=Campbell |pages=34–35}}</ref>

===Run to the south===
Beatty's conduct during the next 15 minutes has received a great deal of criticism, as his ships out-ranged and outnumbered the German squadron, yet he held his fire for over 10 minutes with the German ships in range. He also failed to use the time available to rearrange his battlecruisers into a fighting formation, with the result that they were still manoeuvring when the battle started.<ref>Brooks, pp. 234–237.</ref>

At 15:48, with the opposing forces roughly parallel at {{cvt|15000|yd|m}}, with the British to the south-west of the Germans (i.e., on the right side), Hipper opened fire, followed by the British ships as their guns came to bear upon targets <span style="background:lightblue">(position 2)</span>. Thus began the opening phase of the battlecruiser action, known as the ''Run to the South'', in which the British chased the Germans, and Hipper intentionally led Beatty toward Scheer. During the first minutes of the ensuing battle, all the British ships except ''Princess Royal'' fired far over their German opponents, due to adverse visibility conditions, before finally getting the range. Only ''Lion'' and ''Princess Royal'' had settled into formation, so the other four ships were hampered in aiming by their own turning. Beatty was to windward of Hipper, and therefore funnel and gun smoke from his own ships tended to obscure his targets, while Hipper's smoke blew clear. Also, the eastern sky was overcast and the grey German ships were indistinct and difficult to range.<ref>{{cite book |title=Analysis |last=Campbell |pages=38–39}}</ref>

[[File:HMS Lion (1910).jpg|thumb|left|[[David Beatty, 1st Earl Beatty|Beatty]]'s flagship HMS ''Lion'' burning after being hit by a salvo from SMS ''Lützow'']]
[[File:HMS Indefatigable sinking.jpg|thumb|left|HMS ''Indefatigable'' sinking after being struck by shells from SMS ''Von der Tann'']]

Beatty had ordered his ships to engage in a line, one British ship engaging with one German and his [[flagship]] {{HMS|Lion|1910|6}} doubling on the German flagship {{SMS|Lützow||6}}. However, due to another mistake with signalling by flag, and possibly because ''Queen Mary'' and ''Tiger'' were unable to see the German lead ship because of smoke,<ref>Brooks, p. 239.</ref> the second German ship, ''Derfflinger'', was left un-engaged and free to fire without disruption. {{SMS|Moltke||6}} drew fire from two of Beatty's battlecruisers, but still fired with great accuracy during this time, hitting ''Tiger'' 9 times in the first 12 minutes. The Germans drew first blood. Aided by superior visibility, Hipper's five battlecruisers quickly registered hits on three of the six British battlecruisers. Seven minutes passed before the British managed to score their first hit.<ref>{{cite book |title=Analysis |last=Campbell |pages=39–41}}</ref>

The first near-kill of the Run to the South occurred at 16:00, when a {{cvt|30.5|cm|in}} shell from ''Lützow'' wrecked the "Q" turret amidships on Beatty's flagship ''Lion''. Dozens of crewmen were instantly killed, but far larger destruction was averted when the mortally wounded turret commander—Major [[Francis Harvey]] of the [[Royal Marines]]—promptly ordered the magazine doors shut and the magazine flooded. This prevented a magazine explosion at 16:28, when a flash fire ignited ready cordite charges beneath the turret and killed everyone in the chambers outside "Q" magazine. ''Lion'' was saved.<ref>{{cite book |title=Analysis |last=Campbell |pages=64–66}}</ref> {{HMS|Indefatigable|1909|6}} was not so lucky; at 16:02, just 14 minutes into the gunnery exchange, she was hit aft by three {{cvt|28|cm|in}} shells from {{SMS|Von der Tann||6}}, causing damage sufficient to knock her out of line and detonating "X" magazine aft. Soon after, despite the near-maximum range, ''Von der Tann'' put another {{cvt|28|cm|in}} shell on ''Indefatigable''{{'}}s "A" turret forward. The plunging shells probably pierced the thin upper armour, and seconds later ''Indefatigable'' was ripped apart by another magazine explosion, sinking immediately and leaving only two survivors from her crew of 1,019 officers and men.<ref>{{cite book |title=Analysis |last=Campbell |pages=60–61}}</ref> <span style="background:lightblue">(position 3)</span>.

Hipper's position deteriorated somewhat by 16:15 as the 5th Battle Squadron finally came into range, so that he had to contend with gunfire from the four battleships astern as well as Beatty's five remaining battlecruisers to starboard. But he knew his baiting mission was close to completion, as his force was rapidly closing with Scheer's main body. At 16:08, the lead battleship of the 5th Battle Squadron, {{HMS|Barham|04|6}}, caught up with Hipper and opened fire at extreme range, scoring a {{cvt|15|in|mm}} hit on ''Von der Tann'' within 60 seconds. Still, it was 16:15 before all the battleships of the 5th were able to fully engage at long range.<ref>{{cite book |title=Analysis |last=Campbell |page=49}}</ref>

At 16:25, the battlecruiser action intensified again when {{HMS|Queen Mary||6}} was hit by what may have been a combined salvo from ''Derfflinger'' and ''Seydlitz''; she disintegrated when both forward magazines exploded, sinking with all but nine of her 1,275 man crew lost.<ref>{{cite book |title=Analysis |last=Campbell |pages=62–64}}</ref> <span style="background:lightblue">(position 4)</span>. <!-- Campbell p. 47 says 20 survivors picked up but that would mean a crew of 1,286 since he says 1,266 were lost. -->Commander von Hase, the first gunnery officer aboard ''Derfflinger'', noted:

{{blockquote|The enemy was shooting superbly. Twice the ''Derfflinger'' came under their infernal hail and each time she was hit. But the ''Queen Mary'' was having a bad time; engaged by the ''Seydlitz'' as well as the ''Derfflinger'', she met her doom at 16:26. A vivid red flame shot up from her forepart; then came an explosion forward, followed by a much heavier explosion amidships. Immediately afterwards, she blew up with a terrific explosion, the masts collapsing inwards and the smoke hiding everything.<ref>Bennett, p. 187.</ref>}}

[[File:Destruction of HMS Queen Mary.jpg|thumb|right|HMS ''Queen Mary'' blowing up]]

During the Run to the South, from 15:48 to 16:54, the German battlecruisers made an estimated total of forty-two {{cvt|28|and|30.5|cm|in}} hits on the British battlecruisers (nine on ''Lion'', six on ''Princess Royal'', seven on ''Queen Mary'', 14 on ''Tiger'', one on ''New Zealand'', five on ''Indefatigable''), and two more on the battleship ''Barham'', compared with only eleven {{cvt|13.5|in|mm}} hits by the British battlecruisers (four on ''Lützow'', four on ''Seydlitz'', two on ''Moltke'', one on ''von der Tann''), and six {{cvt|15|in|mm}} hits by the battleships (one on ''Seydlitz'', four on ''Moltke'', one on ''von der Tann'').<ref>{{cite book |title=Analysis |last=Campbell |pages=78, 94}}</ref>

Shortly after 16:26, a salvo struck on or around {{HMS|Princess Royal|1911|6}}, which was obscured by spray and smoke from shell bursts. A signalman promptly leapt on to the bridge of ''Lion'' and announced "''Princess Royal''{{'}}s blown up, Sir." Beatty famously turned to his [[flag captain]], saying "[[Ernle Chatfield, 1st Baron Chatfield|Chatfield]], there seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today." (In popular legend, Beatty also immediately ordered his ships to "turn two points to port", i.e., two [[points of the compass|points]] nearer the enemy, but there is no official record of any such command or course change.)<ref>{{cite book |title=Castles |last=Massie |page=596}}</ref> ''Princess Royal'', as it turned out, was still afloat after the spray cleared.

At 16:30, Scheer's leading battleships sighted the distant battlecruiser action; soon after, {{HMS|Southampton|1912|6}} of Beatty's [[2nd Light Cruiser Squadron]] led by Commodore [[William Goodenough]] sighted the main body of Scheer's High Seas Fleet, dodging numerous heavy-calibre salvos to report in detail the German strength: 16 dreadnoughts with six older battleships. This was the first news that Beatty and Jellicoe had that Scheer and his battle fleet were even at sea. Simultaneously, an all-out destroyer action raged in the space between the opposing battlecruiser forces, as British and German destroyers fought with each other and attempted to torpedo the larger enemy ships. Each side fired many torpedoes, but both battlecruiser forces turned away from the attacks and all escaped harm except ''Seydlitz'', which was hit forward at 16:57 by a torpedo fired by the British destroyer {{HMS|Petard|1916|6}}. Though taking on water, ''Seydlitz'' maintained speed. The destroyer {{HMS|Nestor|1915|6}}, under the command of [[Edward Bingham|Captain Barry Bingham]], led the British attacks. The British disabled the German torpedo boat {{SMS|V27||2}}, which the Germans soon abandoned and sank, and ''Petard'' then torpedoed and sank {{SMS|V29||2}}, her second score of the day. {{SMS|S35|1914|2}} and {{SMS|V26||2}} rescued the crews of their sunken sister ships. But ''Nestor'' and another British destroyer—{{HMS|Nomad|1916|6}}—were immobilised by shell hits, and were later sunk by Scheer's passing dreadnoughts. Bingham was rescued, and awarded the Victoria Cross for his leadership in the destroyer action.<ref>{{cite book |title=Analysis |last=Campbell |pages=50–56}}</ref>

===Run to the north===
As soon as he himself sighted the vanguard of Scheer's distant battleship line {{cvt|12|mi|nmi km}} away, at 16:40, Beatty turned his battlecruiser force 180°, heading north to draw the Germans toward Jellicoe.<ref>{{cite book |title=Analysis |last=Campbell |page=52}}</ref> <span style="background:lightblue">(position 5)</span>. Beatty's withdrawal toward Jellicoe is called the "Run to the North", in which the tables turned and the Germans chased the British. Because Beatty once again failed to signal his intentions adequately, the battleships of the 5th Battle Squadron—which were too far behind to read his flags—found themselves passing the battlecruisers on an opposing course and heading directly toward the approaching main body of the High Seas Fleet. At 16:48, at extreme range, Scheer's leading battleships opened fire.<ref name=Camp-54>{{cite book |title=Analysis |last=Campbell |page=54}}</ref>

Meanwhile, at 16:47, having received Goodenough's signal and knowing that Beatty was now leading the German battle fleet north to him, Jellicoe signalled to his own forces that the fleet action they had waited so long for was finally imminent; at 16:51, by radio, he informed the Admiralty so in London.<ref>{{cite book |title=Analysis |last=Campbell |pages=58–59}}</ref>

The difficulties of the 5th Battle Squadron were compounded when Beatty gave the order to Evan-Thomas to "turn in succession" (rather than "turn together") at 16:48 as the battleships passed him. Evan-Thomas acknowledged the signal, but [[Lieutenant-Commander]] [[Ralph Seymour (naval officer)|Ralph Seymour]], Beatty's [[flag lieutenant]], aggravated the situation when he did not haul down the flags (to execute the signal) for some minutes. At 16:55, when the 5BS had moved within range of the enemy battleships, Evan-Thomas issued his own flag command warning his squadron to expect sudden manoeuvres and to follow his lead, before starting to turn on his own initiative. The order to turn in succession would have resulted in all four ships turning in the same patch of sea as they reached it one by one, giving the High Seas Fleet repeated opportunity with ample time to find the proper range. However, the captain of the trailing ship ({{HMS|Malaya}}) turned early, mitigating the adverse results.<ref name=Camp-54/><ref>Massie, pp. 600–601.</ref>{{full citation needed|date=February 2024}}

For the next hour, the 5th Battle Squadron acted as Beatty's rearguard, drawing fire from all the German ships within range, while by 17:10 Beatty had deliberately eased his own squadron out of range of Hipper's now-superior battlecruiser force.<ref>{{cite book |title=Analysis |last=Campbell |pages=96–97}}</ref> Since visibility and firepower now favoured the Germans, there was no incentive for Beatty to risk further battlecruiser losses when his own gunnery could not be effective. Illustrating the imbalance, Beatty's battlecruisers did not score any hits on the Germans in this phase until 17:45,<ref>{{cite book |title=Analysis |last=Campbell |page=135}}</ref> but they had rapidly received five more before he opened the range (four on ''Lion'', of which three were by ''Lützow'', and one on ''Tiger'' by ''Seydlitz'').<ref>{{cite book |title=Analysis |last=Campbell |pages=124–125, 145}}</ref> Now the only targets the Germans could reach, the ships of the 5th Battle Squadron, received simultaneous fire from Hipper's battlecruisers to the east (which HMS ''Barham'' and {{HMS|Valiant|1914|2}} engaged) and Scheer's leading battleships to the south-east (which {{HMS|Warspite|03|6}} and ''Malaya'' engaged).<ref>{{cite book |title=Analysis |last=Campbell |page=100}}</ref> Three took hits: ''Barham'' (four by ''Derfflinger''), ''Warspite'' (two by ''Seydlitz''), and ''Malaya'' (seven by the German battleships). Only ''Valiant'' was unscathed.<ref>{{cite book |title=Analysis |last=Campbell |pages=126–133}}</ref>

The four battleships were far better suited to take this sort of pounding than the battlecruisers, and none were lost, though ''Malaya'' suffered heavy damage, an ammunition fire, and heavy crew casualties. At the same time, the {{cvt|15|in|mm}} fire of the four British ships was accurate and effective. As the two British squadrons headed north at top speed, eagerly chased by the entire German fleet, the 5th Battle Squadron scored 13 hits on the enemy battlecruisers (four on ''Lützow'', three on ''Derfflinger'', six on ''Seydlitz'') and five on battleships (although only one, on {{SMS|Markgraf||6}}, did any serious damage).<ref>{{cite book |title=Analysis |last=Campbell |pages=134–145}}</ref> <span style="background:lightblue">(position 6)</span>.

===The fleets converge===
Jellicoe was now aware that full fleet engagement was nearing, but had insufficient information on the position and course of the Germans. To assist Beatty, early in the battle at about 16:05, Jellicoe had ordered [[Rear-Admiral]] [[Horace Hood]]'s [[3rd Battlecruiser Squadron]] to speed ahead to find and support Beatty's force, and Hood was now racing SSE well in advance of Jellicoe's northern force.<ref>{{cite book |title=Analysis |last=Campbell |page=59}}</ref> [[Sir Robert Arbuthnot, 4th Baronet|Rear-Admiral Arbuthnot]]'s 1st Cruiser Squadron patrolled the van of Jellicoe's main battleship force as it advanced steadily to the south-east.

At 17:33, the armoured cruiser {{HMS|Black Prince|1904|6}} of Arbuthnot's squadron, on the far southwest flank of Jellicoe's force, came within view of {{HMS|Falmouth|1910|6}}, which was about {{cvt|5|mi|nmi km}} ahead of Beatty with the 3rd Light Cruiser Squadron, establishing the first visual link between the converging bodies of the Grand Fleet.<ref>{{cite book |title=Analysis |last=Campbell |page=118}}</ref> At 17:38, the scout cruiser {{HMS|Chester|1915|6}}, screening Hood's oncoming battlecruisers, was intercepted by the van of the German scouting forces under Rear-Admiral Boedicker.<ref>{{cite book |title=Analysis |last=Campbell |page=111}}</ref>

Heavily outnumbered by Boedicker's four light cruisers, ''Chester'' was pounded before being relieved by Hood's heavy units, which swung westward for that purpose. Hood's flagship {{HMS|Invincible|1907|6}} disabled the light cruiser {{SMS|Wiesbaden||6}} shortly after 17:56. ''Wiesbaden'' became a sitting target for most of the British fleet during the next hour, but remained afloat and fired some torpedoes at the passing enemy battleships from long range. Meanwhile, Boedicker's other ships turned toward Hipper and Scheer in the mistaken belief that Hood was leading a larger force of British capital ships from the north and east. A chaotic destroyer action in mist and smoke ensued as German torpedo boats attempted to blunt the arrival of this new formation, but Hood's battlecruisers dodged all the torpedoes fired at them. In this action, after leading a torpedo counter-attack, the British destroyer {{HMS|Shark|1912|6}} was disabled, but continued to return fire at numerous passing enemy ships for the next hour.<ref>{{cite book |title=Analysis |last=Campbell |pages=111–115}}</ref>

==Fleet action==

===Deployment===

[[File:Jutland fleet action.png|right|thumb|upright=1.5|(1) 18:00 Scouting forces rejoin their respective fleets.<br />(2) 18:15 British fleet deploys into battle line <br />(3) 18:30 German fleet under fire turns away<br />(4) 19:00 German fleet turns back<br />(5) 19:15 German fleet turns away for second time <br />(6) 20:00<br />(7) 21:00 Nightfall: Jellicoe assumes night cruising formation]]
In the meantime, Beatty and Evan-Thomas had resumed their engagement with Hipper's battlecruisers, this time with the visual conditions to their advantage. With several of his ships damaged, Hipper turned back toward Scheer at around 18:00, just as Beatty's flagship ''Lion'' was finally sighted from Jellicoe's flagship ''Iron Duke''. Jellicoe twice demanded the latest position of the German battlefleet from Beatty, who could not see the German battleships and failed to respond to the question until 18:14. Meanwhile, Jellicoe received confused sighting reports of varying accuracy and limited usefulness from light cruisers and battleships on the starboard (southern) flank of his force.<ref name=Camp-120>{{cite book |title=Analysis |last=Campbell |pages=120–121}}</ref>

Jellicoe was in a worrying position. He needed to know the location of the German fleet to judge when and how to deploy his battleships from their cruising formation (six columns of four ships each) into a single battle line. The deployment could be on either the westernmost or the easternmost column, and had to be carried out before the Germans arrived; but early deployment could mean losing any chance of a decisive encounter. Deploying to the west would bring his fleet closer to Scheer, gaining valuable time as dusk approached, but the Germans might arrive before the manoeuvre was complete. Deploying to the east would take the force away from Scheer, but Jellicoe's ships might be able to cross the "T", and visibility would strongly favour British gunnery—Scheer's forces would be silhouetted against the setting sun to the west, while the Grand Fleet would be indistinct against the dark skies to the north and east, and would be hidden by reflection of the low sunlight off intervening haze and smoke. Deployment would take twenty irreplaceable minutes, and the fleets were closing at full speed. In one of the most critical and difficult tactical command decisions of the entire war, Jellicoe ordered deployment to the east at 18:15.<ref name=Camp-120/><ref>{{cite book |title=Castles |last=Massie |pages=612–613}}</ref>

===Windy Corner===
Meanwhile, Hipper had rejoined Scheer, and the combined High Seas Fleet was heading north, directly toward Jellicoe. Scheer had no indication that Jellicoe was at sea, let alone that he was bearing down from the north-west, and was distracted by the intervention of Hood's ships to his north and east. Beatty's four surviving battlecruisers were now crossing the van of the British dreadnoughts to join Hood's three battlecruisers; at this time, Arbuthnot's flagship, the armoured cruiser {{HMS|Defence|1907|6}}, and her squadron-mate {{HMS|Warrior|1905|6}} both charged across Beatty's bows, and ''Lion'' narrowly avoided a collision with ''Warrior''.<ref>{{cite book |title=Analysis |last=Campbell |page=115}}</ref> Nearby, numerous British light cruisers and destroyers on the south-western flank of the deploying battleships were also crossing each other's courses in attempts to reach their proper stations, often barely escaping collisions, and under fire from some of the approaching German ships. This period of peril and heavy traffic attending the merger and deployment of the British forces later became known as "Windy Corner".<ref>Massie, p. 614.</ref>

Arbuthnot was attracted by the drifting hull of the crippled ''Wiesbaden''. With ''Warrior'', ''Defence'' closed in for the kill, only to blunder right into the gun sights of Hipper's and Scheer's oncoming capital ships. ''Defence'' was deluged by heavy-calibre gunfire from many German battleships, which detonated her magazines in a spectacular explosion viewed by most of the deploying Grand Fleet. She sank with all hands (903 officers and men). ''Warrior'' was also hit badly, but was spared destruction by a mishap to the nearby battleship ''Warspite''. ''Warspite'' had her steering gear overheat and jam under heavy load at high speed as the 5th Battle Squadron made a turn to the north at 18:19.<ref>{{cite book |title=Analysis |last=Campbell |pages=153, 179}}</ref> Steaming at top speed in wide circles, ''Warspite'' attracted the attention of German dreadnoughts and took 13 hits, inadvertently drawing fire away from the hapless ''Warrior''. ''Warspite'' was brought back under control and survived the onslaught, but was badly damaged, had to reduce speed, and withdrew northward; later (at 21:07), she was ordered back to port by Evan-Thomas.<ref>{{cite book |title=Analysis |last=Campbell |page=259}}</ref> ''Warspite'' went on to a long and illustrious career, serving also in World War II. ''Warrior'', on the other hand, was abandoned and sank the next day after her crew was taken off at 08:25 on 1 June by ''Engadine'', which towed the sinking armoured cruiser {{cvt|100|mi|nmi km}} during the night.<ref>{{cite book |title=Analysis |last=Campbell |page=319}}</ref>

[[File:InvincibleBlowingUpJutland1916.jpg|thumb|left|''Invincible'' blowing up after being struck by shells from ''Lützow'' and ''Derfflinger'']]
As ''Defence'' sank and ''Warspite'' circled, at about 18:19, Hipper moved within range of Hood's 3rd Battlecruiser Squadron, but was still also within range of Beatty's ships. At first, visibility favoured the British: {{HMS|Indomitable|1907|6}} hit ''Derfflinger'' three times and ''Seydlitz'' once,<ref>{{cite book |title=Analysis |last=Campbell |pages=185–187}}</ref> while ''Lützow'' quickly took 10 hits from ''Lion'', {{HMS|Inflexible|1907|2}} and ''Invincible'', including two below-waterline hits forward by ''Invincible'' that would ultimately doom Hipper's flagship.<ref>{{cite book |title=Analysis |last=Campbell |page=183}}</ref> But at 18:30, ''Invincible'' abruptly appeared as a clear target before ''Lützow'' and ''Derfflinger''. The two German ships then fired three salvoes each at ''Invincible'', and sank her in 90 seconds. A {{cvt|30.5|cm|in}} shell from the third salvo struck ''Invincible''{{'}}s Q-turret amidships, detonating the magazines below and causing her to blow up and sink. All but six of her crew of 1,032 officers and men, including Rear-Admiral Hood, were killed.<ref>{{cite book |title=Analysis |last=Campbell |page=159}}</ref> Of the remaining British battlecruisers, only ''Princess Royal'' received heavy-calibre hits at this time (two {{cvt|30.5|cm|in}} by the battleship ''Markgraf''). ''Lützow'', flooding forward and unable to communicate by radio, was now out of action and began to attempt to withdraw; therefore Hipper left his flagship and transferred to the torpedo boat {{SMS|G39||6}}, hoping to board one of the other battlecruisers later.

===Crossing the T===
By 18:30, the main battle fleet action was joined for the first time, with Jellicoe effectively "crossing Scheer's T". The officers on the lead German battleships, and Scheer himself, were taken completely by surprise when they emerged from drifting clouds of smoky mist to suddenly find themselves facing the massed firepower of the entire Grand Fleet main battle line, which they did not know was even at sea.<ref name=Massie-621>{{cite book |title=Castles |last=Massie |page=621}}</ref> Jellicoe's flagship ''Iron Duke'' quickly scored seven hits on the lead German dreadnought, {{SMS|König||6}}, but in this brief exchange, which lasted only minutes, as few as 10 of the Grand Fleet's 24 dreadnoughts actually opened fire.<ref>{{cite book |title=Analysis |last=Campbell |pages=187–188}}</ref> The Germans were hampered by poor visibility, in addition to being in an unfavourable tactical position, just as Jellicoe had intended. Realising he was heading into a death trap, Scheer ordered his fleet to turn and disengage at 18:33. Under a pall of smoke and mist, Scheer's forces succeeded in disengaging by an expertly executed 180° turn in unison ("battle about turn to starboard", German ''Gefechtskehrtwendung nach Steuerbord''), which was a well-practised emergency manoeuvre of the High Seas Fleet.<ref>{{cite book |title=Castles |last=Massie |page=622}}</ref> Scheer declared:

{{blockquote |It was now obvious that we were confronted by a large portion of the English fleet. The entire arc stretching from north to east was a sea of fire. The flash from the muzzles of the guns was seen distinctly through the mist and smoke on the horizon, although the ships themselves were not distinguishable.<ref name=Massie-621/>}}

Conscious of the risks to his capital ships posed by torpedoes, Jellicoe did not chase directly but headed south, determined to keep the High Seas Fleet west of him. Starting at 18:40, battleships at the rear of Jellicoe's line were in fact sighting and avoiding torpedoes, and at 18:54 {{HMS|Marlborough|1912|6}} was hit by a torpedo (probably from the disabled ''Wiesbaden''), which reduced her speed to {{convert|16|kn}}.<ref>{{cite book |title=Analysis |last=Campbell |page=167}}</ref> Meanwhile, Scheer, knowing that it was not yet dark enough to escape and that his fleet would suffer terribly in a stern chase, doubled back to the east at 18:55. In his memoirs he wrote, "the manoeuvre would be bound to surprise the enemy, to upset his plans for the rest of the day, and if the blow fell heavily it would facilitate the breaking loose at night." But the turn to the east took his ships, again, directly towards Jellicoe's fully deployed battle line.<ref>{{cite book |title=Castles |last=Massie |pages=624–625}}</ref>

Simultaneously, the disabled British destroyer HMS ''Shark'' fought desperately against a group of four German torpedo boats and disabled {{SMS|V48||2}} with gunfire, but was eventually torpedoed and sunk at 19:02 by the German destroyer {{SMS|S54||2}}. ''Shark''{{'}}s [[Loftus William Jones|Captain Loftus Jones]] was awarded the Victoria Cross for his heroism in continuing to fight against all odds.<ref>{{cite book |title=Analysis |last=Campbell |page=162}}</ref>

===''Turn Of The Battle''===
[[File:HMS Birmingham (1913) Jutland.jpg|thumb|{{HMS|Birmingham|1913|6}} under fire]]
Commodore Goodenough's 2nd Light Cruiser Squadron dodged the fire of German battleships for a second time to re-establish contact with the High Seas Fleet shortly after 19:00. By 19:15, Jellicoe had crossed Scheer's "T" again. This time his arc of fire was tighter and deadlier, causing severe damage to the German battleships, particularly Rear-Admiral Behncke's leading 3rd Squadron (SMS ''König'', {{SMS|Grosser Kurfürst|1913|2}}, ''Markgraf'', and {{SMS|Kaiser|1911|2}} all being hit, along with {{SMS|Helgoland|1909|6}} of the 1st Squadron),<ref name=Camp-246>{{cite book |title=Analysis |last=Campbell |page=246}}</ref> while on the British side, only the battleship {{HMS|Colossus|1910|6}} was hit (twice, by ''Seydlitz'' but with little damage done).<ref>{{cite book |title=Analysis |last=Campbell |page=218}}</ref>

At 19:17, for the second time in less than an hour, Scheer turned his outnumbered and out-gunned fleet to the west using the "battle about turn" (German: ''Gefechtskehrtwendung''), but this time it was executed only with difficulty, as the High Seas Fleet's lead squadrons began to lose formation under concentrated gunfire.<ref>{{cite book |title=Analysis |last=Campbell |pages=200–201}}</ref> To deter a British chase, Scheer ordered a major torpedo attack by his destroyers and a potentially sacrificial charge by Scouting Group I's four remaining battlecruisers. Hipper was still aboard the torpedo boat ''G39'' and was unable to command his squadron for this attack.<ref>{{cite book |title=Analysis |last=Campbell |page=197}}</ref> Therefore, ''Derfflinger'', under Captain Hartog, led the already badly damaged German battlecruisers directly into "the greatest concentration of naval gunfire any fleet commander had ever faced", at ranges down to {{cvt|4|mi|nmi km}}.<ref name=Massie-627-8>{{cite book |title=Castles |last=Massie |pages=627–628}}</ref>

In what became known as the "death ride", all the battlecruisers except ''Moltke'' were hit and further damaged, as 18 of the British battleships fired at them simultaneously.<ref name=Camp-246/><ref>{{cite book |title=Analysis |last=Campbell |page=205}}</ref> ''Derfflinger'' had two main gun turrets destroyed. The crews of Scouting Group I suffered heavy casualties, but survived the pounding and veered away with the other battlecruisers once Scheer was out of trouble and the German destroyers were moving in to attack.<ref name=Massie-627-8/> In this brief but intense portion of the engagement, from about 19:05 to about 19:30, the Germans sustained a total of 37 heavy hits while inflicting only two; ''Derfflinger'' alone received 14.<ref name=Camp-246/><ref>{{cite book |title=Analysis |last=Campbell |page=220}}</ref>

While his battlecruisers drew the fire of the British fleet, Scheer slipped away, laying smoke screens. Meanwhile, from about 19:16 to about 19:40, the British battleships were also engaging Scheer's torpedo boats, which executed several waves of torpedo attacks to cover his withdrawal. Jellicoe's ships turned away from the attacks and successfully evaded all 31 of the torpedoes launched at them—though, in several cases, only barely—and sank the German destroyer ''S35'', attributed to a salvo from ''Iron Duke''. British light forces also sank ''V48'', which had previously been disabled by HMS ''Shark''.<ref>{{cite book |title=Analysis |last=Campbell |pages=211–216}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |title=Castles |last=Massie |pages=629–630}}</ref> This action, and the turn away, cost the British critical time and range in the last hour of daylight—as Scheer intended, allowing him to get his heavy ships out of immediate danger.

The last major exchanges between capital ships in this battle—and in the war—took place just after sunset, from about 20:19 to about 20:35, as the surviving British battlecruisers caught up with their German counterparts, which were briefly relieved by Rear-Admiral Mauve's obsolete pre-dreadnoughts (the German 2nd Squadron).<ref>{{cite book |title=Analysis |last=Campbell |pages=252–254}}</ref> The British received one heavy hit on ''Princess Royal'' but scored five more on ''Seydlitz'' and three on other German ships.<ref>{{cite book |title=Analysis |last=Campbell |page=272}}</ref>

==Night action and German withdrawal==
{{Main|Night action at the Battle of Jutland}}

At 21:00, Jellicoe, conscious of the Grand Fleet's deficiencies in night fighting, decided to try to avoid a major engagement until early dawn.<ref>{{cite book |title=Castles |last=Massie |pages=635–636}}</ref> He placed a screen of cruisers and destroyers {{cvt|5|mi|nmi km}} behind his battle fleet to patrol the rear as he headed south to guard Scheer's expected escape route.<ref>Massie, p. 637.</ref> In reality, Scheer opted to cross Jellicoe's wake and escape via [[Horns Reef]]. Luckily for Scheer, most of the light forces in Jellicoe's rearguard failed to report the seven separate encounters with the German fleet during the night;<ref name=Massie-645>Massie, p. 645.</ref><ref>Marder, pp. 140–145.</ref> the very few radio reports that were sent to the British flagship were never received, possibly because the Germans were jamming British frequencies.<ref>{{cite book |title=Castles |last=Massie |page=647}}</ref> Many of the destroyers failed to make the most of their opportunities to attack discovered ships, despite Jellicoe's expectations that the destroyer forces would, if necessary, be able to block the path of the German fleet.<ref>Marder, p. 146.</ref>

Jellicoe and his commanders did not understand that the furious gunfire and explosions to the north (seen and heard for hours by all the British battleships) indicated that the German heavy ships were breaking through the screen astern of the British fleet.<ref name=Massie-645/> Instead, it was believed that the fighting was the result of night attacks by German destroyers.<ref>Marder, p. 159.</ref> The most powerful British ships of all (the 15-inch-guns of the 5th Battle Squadron) directly observed German battleships crossing astern of them in action with British light forces, at ranges of {{cvt|3|mi|nmi km}} or less, and gunners on HMS ''Malaya'' made ready to fire, but her captain declined,<ref>{{cite book |title=Castles |last=Massie |pages=645–646}}</ref> deferring to the authority of Rear-Admiral Evan-Thomas—and neither commander reported the sightings to Jellicoe, assuming that he could see for himself and that revealing the fleet's position by radio signals or gunfire was unwise.

While the nature of Scheer's escape, and Jellicoe's inaction, indicate the overall German superiority in night fighting, the results of the night action were no more clear-cut than were those of the battle as a whole. In the first of many surprise encounters by darkened ships at point-blank range, ''Southampton'', Commodore Goodenough's flagship, which had scouted so proficiently, was heavily damaged in action with a German Scouting Group composed of light cruisers, but managed to torpedo {{SMS|Frauenlob||6}}, which went down at 22:23 with all but 9 hands (320 officers and men).<ref>{{cite book |title=Castles |last=Massie |pages=639–640}}</ref>

[[File:HMSSpitfireJutlanddamage.jpg|thumb|Damage to {{HMS|Spitfire|1912|6}} after being rammed by {{SMS|Nassau}}.]]
From 23:20 to approximately 02:15, several British destroyer [[flotilla]]s launched torpedo attacks on the German battle fleet in a series of violent and chaotic engagements at extremely short range (often under {{cvt|0.5|mi|km}}).<ref name=Massie-642-647>{{cite book |title=Castles |last=Massie |pages=642–645, 647–648}}</ref> At the cost of five destroyers sunk and some others damaged, they managed to torpedo the light cruiser {{SMS|Rostock||6}}, which sank several hours later, and the pre-dreadnought {{SMS|Pommern||6}}, which blew up and sank with all hands (839 officers and men) at 03:10 during the last wave of attacks before dawn.<ref name=Massie-642-647/> Three of the British destroyers collided in the chaos, and the German battleship {{SMS|Nassau||6}} rammed the British destroyer {{HMS|Spitfire|1912|6}}, blowing away most of the British ship's superstructure merely with the muzzle blast of its big guns, which could not be aimed low enough to hit the ship. ''Nassau'' was left with an {{cvt|11|ft|m}} hole in her side, reducing her maximum speed to {{convert|15|kn}}, while the removed plating was left lying on ''Spitfire''{{'}}s deck.<ref>Marder, p. 142.</ref> ''Spitfire'' survived and made it back to port.<ref>{{cite book |title=Castles |last=Massie |page=643}}</ref> Another German cruiser, ''Elbing'', was accidentally rammed by the dreadnought {{SMS|Posen||2}} and abandoned, sinking early the next day. Of the British destroyers, {{HMS|Tipperary|1915|6}}, {{HMS|Ardent|1913|2}}, {{HMS|Fortune|1913|2}}, {{HMS|Sparrowhawk|1912|2}} and {{HMS|Turbulent|1916|2}} were lost during the night fighting.

Just after midnight on 1 June, {{SMS|Thüringen||6}} and other German battleships sank ''Black Prince'' of the ill-fated 1st Cruiser Squadron, which had blundered into the German battle line. Deployed as part of a screening force several miles ahead of the main force of the Grand Fleet, ''Black Prince'' had lost contact in the darkness and took a position near what she thought was the British line. The Germans soon identified the new addition to their line and opened fire. Overwhelmed by point-blank gunfire, ''Black Prince'' blew up (all 857 officers and men were lost), as her squadron leader ''Defence'' had done hours earlier.<ref>{{cite book |title=Analysis |last=Campbell |page=290}}</ref> Lost in the darkness, the battlecruisers ''Moltke'' and ''Seydlitz'' had similar point-blank encounters with the British battle line and were recognised, but were spared the fate of ''Black Prince'' when the captains of the British ships, again, declined to open fire, reluctant to reveal their fleet's position.<ref name=Massie-651>{{cite book |title=Castles |last=Massie |pages=651–652}}</ref>

At 01:45, the sinking battlecruiser ''Lützow'' – fatally damaged by ''Invincible'' during the main action – was torpedoed by the destroyer {{SMS|G38||2}} on orders of ''Lützow''{{'}}s Captain Viktor von Harder after the surviving crew of 1,150 transferred to destroyers that came alongside.<ref>{{cite book |title=Castles |last=Massie |pages=650–651}}</ref> At 02:15, the German torpedo boat {{SMS|V4||2}} suddenly had its bow blown off; ''V2'' and ''V6'' came alongside and took off the remaining crew, and the ''V2'' then sank the hulk. Since there was no enemy nearby, it was assumed that she had hit a mine or had been torpedoed by a submarine.<ref name=Tarrant_p222>Tarrant, ''German Perspective'', p. 245 (claimed), p. 222 (Arms and Armour paperback edition, 1997).</ref>

At 02:15, five British ships of the 13th Destroyer Flotilla under Captain James Uchtred Farie regrouped and headed south. At 02:25, they sighted the rear of the German line. {{HMS|Marksman|1915|6}} inquired of the leader {{HMS|Champion|1915|2}} as to whether he thought they were British or German ships. Answering that he thought they were German, Farie then veered off to the east and away from the German line. All but ''Moresby'' in the rear followed, as through the gloom she sighted what she thought were four pre-dreadnought battleships {{cvt|2|mi|nmi km}} away. She hoisted a flag signal indicating that the enemy was to the west and then closed to firing range, letting off a torpedo set for high running at 02:37, then veering off to rejoin her flotilla. The four pre-dreadnought battleships were in fact two pre-dreadnoughts, ''Schleswig-Holstein'' and {{SMS|Schlesien||2}}, and the battlecruisers ''Von der Tann'' and ''Derfflinger''. ''Von der Tann'' sighted the torpedo and was forced to steer sharply to starboard to avoid it as it passed close to her bows. ''Moresby'' rejoined ''Champion'' convinced she had scored a hit.<ref name=Tarrant_p222/>

Finally, at 05:20, as Scheer's fleet was safely on its way home, the battleship {{SMS|Ostfriesland||6}} struck a British mine on her starboard side, killing one man and wounding ten, but was able to make port.<ref>{{cite book |title=German Perspective |last=Tarrant |page=259}}</ref> ''Seydlitz'', critically damaged and very nearly sinking, barely survived the return voyage: after grounding and taking on even more water on the evening of 1 June, she had to be assisted stern first into port, where she dropped anchor at 07:30 on the morning of 2 June.<ref>{{cite book |title=German Perspective |pages=260–261}}</ref>

The Germans were helped in their escape by the failure of the British Admiralty in London to pass on seven critical radio intercepts obtained by naval intelligence indicating the true position, course and intentions of the High Seas Fleet during the night.<ref>{{cite book |title=Castles |last=Massie |page=6342}}</ref> One message was transmitted to Jellicoe at 23:15 that accurately reported the German fleet's course and speed as of 21:14. However, the erroneous signal from earlier in the day that reported the German fleet still in port, and an intelligence signal received at 22:45 giving another unlikely position for the German fleet, had reduced his confidence in intelligence reports. Had the other messages been forwarded, which confirmed the information received at 23:15, or had British ships reported accurately sightings and engagements with German destroyers, cruisers and battleships, then Jellicoe could have altered course to intercept Scheer at the Horns Reef. The unsent intercepted messages had been duly filed by the junior officer left on duty that night, who failed to appreciate their significance.<ref>Marder, pp. 148–151.</ref> By the time Jellicoe finally learned of Scheer's whereabouts at 04:15, the German fleet was too far away to catch and it was clear that the battle could no longer be resumed.

==Outcome==
As both the Grand Fleet and the High Seas Fleet could claim to have at least partially satisfied their objectives, both Britain and Germany have at various points claimed victory in the Battle of Jutland. There is no consensus over which nation was victorious, or if there was a victor at all.

===Reporting===
At midday on 2 June, German authorities released a press statement claiming a victory, including the destruction of a battleship, two battlecruisers, two armoured cruisers, a light cruiser, a submarine and several destroyers, for the loss of ''Pommern'' and ''Wiesbaden''. News that ''Lützow'', ''Elbing'' and ''Rostock'' had been scuttled was withheld, on the grounds this information would not be known to the enemy. The victory of the Skagerrak was celebrated in the press, children were given a holiday and the nation celebrated. The Kaiser announced a new chapter in world history. Post-war, the official German history hailed the battle as a victory and it continued to be celebrated until after World War II.<ref>Tarrant, pp. 274–276.</ref>

In Britain, the first official news came from German wireless broadcasts. Ships began to arrive in port, their crews sending messages to friends and relatives both of their survival and the loss of some 6,000 others. The authorities considered suppressing the news, but it had already spread widely. Some crews coming ashore found rumours had already reported them dead to relatives, while others were jeered for the defeat they had suffered.<ref name=":0">{{Cite news |url=http://www.familyletters.co.uk/21-june-1916-paul-to-ted/ |title=21 June 1916 – Paul to Ted |date=1 June 2016 |newspaper=familyletters.co.uk |language=en-GB |access-date=13 January 2017 |archive-date=16 January 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170116163330/http://www.familyletters.co.uk/21-june-1916-paul-to-ted/ |url-status=live}}</ref> At 19:00 on 2 June, the Admiralty released a statement based on information from Jellicoe containing the bare news of losses on each side. The following day British newspapers reported a German victory.<ref>Steel & Hart, pp. 418–420.</ref> The ''[[Daily Mirror]]'' described the German Director of the Naval Department telling the ''Reichstag'': "The result of the fighting is a significant success for our forces against a much stronger adversary".<ref name="BBCMirror">{{cite web |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwone/mirror03_06.shtml |title=Daily Mirror Headlines: The Battle of Jutland, Published 3&nbsp;June&nbsp;1916 |work=BBC – History |access-date=20 December 2019 |archive-date=4 February 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080204132014/http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwone/mirror03_06.shtml |url-status=live}}</ref> The British population was shocked that the long anticipated battle had been a victory for Germany. On 3 June, the Admiralty issued a further statement expanding on German losses, and another the following day with exaggerated claims. However, on 7 June the German admission of the losses of ''Lützow'' and ''Rostock'' started to redress the sense of the battle as a loss.{{According to whom|date=August 2023}} International perception of the battle began to change towards a qualified British victory, the German attempt to change the balance of power in the North Sea having been repulsed. In July, bad news from the [[Battle of the Somme|Somme campaign]] swept concern over Jutland from the British consciousness.<ref>Steele & Hart, pp. 421–422.</ref>

===Assessments===
[[File:SMS Seydlitz damage.jpg|thumb|SMS ''Seydlitz'' was heavily damaged in the battle, hit by twenty-one main-calibre shells, several secondary-calibre and one torpedo. 98 men were killed and 55 injured.]]
Jutland was the third [[fleet action]] between steel battleships, following the [[Battle of the Yellow Sea]] in 1904<ref>Friedman (2013), p. 68, The Russians and Japanese opened up on each other with 12 inch guns at the unheard range of over "14,200 yards (13,000 meters)," at a time when the world's navies were "...struggling to extend normal gunnery range to 6,000 yards."</ref><ref>Corbett (2015), Vol. 1, pp. 380, 381; The Russians turned back into Port Arthur to remain bottled up, after a 12 inch shell killed Admiral Vitgeft in his flagship, the battleship ''Tzesarevich''. The new anticipated plan would be to re-enter the Yellow Sea from Port Arthur to reinforce the pending arrival of the Russian Baltic Fleet, expected sometime in 1905. The Battle of the Yellow sea is known as the "Battle of August 10" in Russia,</ref> and the [[Battle of Tsushima]] in 1905,<ref>Corbett (2015), Vol. II, pp. 332, 333; "So was consummated perhaps the most decisive and complete naval victory in history,"</ref> during the [[Russo-Japanese War]].

At Jutland, the Germans, with a 99-strong fleet, sank {{cvt|115000|LT|t}} of British ships, while a 151-strong British fleet sank {{cvt|62000|LT|t}} of German ships. The British lost 6,094 seamen; the Germans 2,551. Several other ships were badly damaged, such as ''Lion'' and ''Seydlitz''.

As of the summer of 1916, the High Seas Fleet's strategy was to whittle away the numerical advantage of the Royal Navy by bringing its full strength to bear against isolated squadrons of enemy capital ships whilst declining to be drawn into a general fleet battle until it had achieved something resembling parity in heavy ships. In tactical terms, the High Seas Fleet had clearly inflicted significantly greater losses on the Grand Fleet than it had suffered itself at Jutland, and the Germans never had any intention of attempting to hold the site of the battle,<ref name="suth">{{cite book |author=Sutherland & Canwell |title=The Battle of Jutland |publisher=Pen & Sword |year=2007 |isbn=978-1844155293}}</ref> so some historians support the German claim of victory at Jutland.<ref>Moretz, p. 8.</ref> The Germans declared a great victory immediately afterwards, while the British by contrast had only reported short and simple results. In response to public outrage, the First Lord of the Admiralty [[Arthur Balfour]] asked [[Winston Churchill]] to write a second report that was more positive and detailed.<ref>Rasor, p. 75.</ref>

However, Scheer seems to have quickly realised that further battles with a similar rate of attrition would exhaust the High Seas Fleet long before they reduced the Grand Fleet.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.britishbattles.com/first-world-war/the-battle-of-jutland-part-iv-the-night-action-31st-may-to-1st-june-1916/ |title=Battle of Jutland Part IV: Night Action 31st May to 1st June 1916 |access-date=12 November 2018 |archive-date=12 November 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181112223247/https://www.britishbattles.com/first-world-war/the-battle-of-jutland-part-iv-the-night-action-31st-may-to-1st-june-1916/ |url-status=live}}</ref> Further, after the 19 August advance was nearly intercepted by the Grand Fleet, he no longer believed that it would be possible to trap a single squadron of Royal Navy warships without having the Grand Fleet intervene before he could return to port. Therefore, the High Seas Fleet abandoned its forays into the North Sea and turned its attention to the Baltic for most of 1917 whilst Scheer switched tactics against Britain to unrestricted submarine warfare in the Atlantic.

At a strategic level, the outcome has been the subject of a huge amount of literature with no clear consensus. The battle was widely viewed as indecisive in the immediate aftermath, and this view remains influential.

Despite numerical superiority, the British had been disappointed in their hopes for a decisive battle<ref>{{Cite web |title=Battle of Jutland {{!}} History, Facts, & Outcome {{!}} Britannica |url=https://www.britannica.com/event/Battle-of-Jutland |access-date=2022-07-26 |website=www.britannica.com |language=en}}</ref> comparable to [[Battle of Trafalgar|Trafalgar]] and the objective of the influential strategic doctrines of [[Alfred Mahan]]. The High Seas Fleet survived as a [[fleet in being]]. Most of its losses were made good within a month—even ''Seydlitz'', the most badly damaged ship to survive the battle, was repaired by October and officially back in service by November. However, the Germans had failed in their objective of destroying a substantial portion of the British Fleet, and no progress had been made towards the goal of allowing the High Seas Fleet to operate in the Atlantic Ocean.

Subsequently, there has been considerable support for the view of Jutland as a strategic victory for the British. While the British had not destroyed the German fleet and had lost more ships and lives than their enemy, the Germans had retreated to harbour; at the end of the battle, the British were in command of the area. Britain [[Blockade of Germany (1914–1919)|enforced the blockade]], reducing Germany's vital imports to 55%, affecting the ability of Germany to fight the war.<ref>{{cite web |title=The war at sea |url=http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/firstworldwar/military_conflict/war_sea.htm |website=www.nationalarchives.gov.uk |publisher=[[The National Archives (United Kingdom)]] |quote=Britain still controlled the sea, and Germany never again attempted a full-scale naval confrontation. Germany was thus prevented from receiving vital war supplies and foodstuffs throughout the conflict |access-date=4 November 2019 |archive-date=8 February 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170208140047/http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/firstworldwar/military_conflict/war_sea.htm |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=The blockade of Germany |url=http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/firstworldwar/spotlights/blockade.htm |website=www.nationalarchives.gov.uk |publisher=[[The National Archives (United Kingdom)]] |quote=the blockade made an important contribution to the Allied victory |access-date=4 November 2019 |archive-date=22 July 2004 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20040722073135/http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/firstworldwar/spotlights/blockade.htm |url-status=live}}</ref>

The German fleet would only sortie into the North Sea thrice more, with a [[Action of 19 August 1916|raid on 19 August]], one in October 1916, and another in April 1918. All three were unopposed by [[capital ships]] and quickly aborted as neither side was prepared to take the risks of mines and [[submarines]].

Apart from these three abortive operations the High Seas Fleet—unwilling to risk another encounter with the British fleet—confined its activities to the Baltic Sea for the remainder of the war. Jellicoe issued an order prohibiting the Grand Fleet from steaming south of the line of Horns Reef owing to the threat of mines and U-boats.<ref>Massie, ''Castles'', p. 684.</ref> A German naval expert, writing publicly about Jutland in November 1918, commented, "Our Fleet losses were severe. On 1 June 1916, it was clear to every thinking person that this battle must, and would be, the last one".<ref>Marder III, p. 206, citing Captain Persius, ''[[Berliner Tageblatt]]'', 18 November 1918.</ref>

[[File:Marynarz Wilhelmshaven SMS Westfalen.jpg|right|thumb|upright|A crew member of SMS ''Westfalen'']]
At the end of the battle, the British had maintained their numerical superiority and had 23 dreadnoughts ready and four battlecruisers still able to fight, while the Germans had only 10 dreadnoughts.<ref name=Massie-665>{{cite book |title=Castles |last=Massie |page=665}}</ref> One month after the battle, the Grand Fleet was stronger than it had been before sailing to Jutland.<ref name=Massie-665/> ''Warspite'' was dry-docked at Rosyth, returning to the fleet on 22 July, while ''Malaya'' was repaired in the floating dock at Invergordon, returning to duty on 11 July. ''Barham'' was docked for a month at Devonport before undergoing speed trials and returning to Scapa Flow on 8 July. ''Princess Royal'' stayed initially at Rosyth but transferred to dry dock at Portsmouth before returning to duty at Rosyth 21 July. ''Tiger'' was dry-docked at Rosyth and ready for service 2 July. ''Queen Elizabeth'', ''Emperor of India'' and {{HMAS|Australia|1911|6}}, which had been undergoing maintenance at the time of the battle, returned to the fleet immediately, followed shortly after by ''Resolution'' and ''Ramillies''. ''Lion'' initially remained ready for sea duty despite the damaged turret, then underwent a month's repairs in July when Q turret was removed temporarily and replaced in September.<ref>Campbell, p. 335.</ref>

A third view, presented in a number of recent evaluations, is that Jutland, the last major fleet action between battleships, illustrated the irrelevance of battleship fleets following the development of the submarine, mine and torpedo.<ref name="isbn0-14-101155-6">{{cite book |last=Kennedy |title=The Rise and Fall |page=257}}</ref> In this view, the most important consequence of Jutland was the decision of the Germans to engage in unrestricted submarine warfare. Although large numbers of battleships were constructed in the decades between the wars, it has been argued that this outcome reflected the social dominance among naval decision-makers of battleship advocates who constrained technological choices to fit traditional paradigms of fleet action.<ref name="isbn0-8018-6486-0">{{cite book |author=McBride, William Leon |title=Technological change and the United States Navy, 1865–1945 |publisher=Johns Hopkins University Press |location=Baltimore |year=2000 |isbn=0801864860}}</ref> Battleships played a relatively minor role in World War II, in which the submarine and aircraft carrier emerged as the dominant offensive weapons of naval warfare.<ref name="isbn1-57488-663-0">{{cite book |author=Polmar, Norman |title=Aircraft Carriers: A History of Carrier Aviation and Its Influence on World Events: 1909–1945 |volume=I |publisher=Potomac Books |location=Washington |year=2006 |isbn=1574886630}}</ref>

===British self-critique===
The official British Admiralty examination of the Grand Fleet's performance recognised two main problems:
* British armour-piercing shells exploded outside the German armour rather than penetrating and exploding within. As a result, some German ships with only {{cvt|8|in|cm}}-thick armour survived hits from {{convert|15|in|cm|adj=on}} projectiles. Had these shells penetrated the armour and then exploded, German losses would probably have been far greater.<ref name="auto">Campbell, pp. 386–388.</ref><ref>Jutland, The Unfinished battle, Nicolas Jellico, pp. 315–316.</ref>
* Communication between ships and the British commander-in-chief was comparatively poor. For most of the battle, Jellicoe had no idea where the German ships were, even though British ships were in contact. They failed to report enemy positions, contrary to the Grand Fleet's Battle Plan. Some of the most important signalling was carried out solely by flag instead of wireless or using redundant methods to ensure communications—a questionable procedure, given the mixture of haze and smoke that obscured the battlefield, and a foreshadowing of similar failures by habit-bound and conservatively minded professional officers of rank to take advantage of new technology in World War II.<ref>Jutland, The Unfinished battle, Nicolas Jellico, p. 314.</ref><ref>Jutland, The Unfinished battle, Nicolas Jellico, p. 114.</ref>

====Shell performance====
German [[Armour-piercing shot and shell|armour-piercing shells]] were far more effective than the British ones, which often failed to penetrate heavy armour.<ref>Campbell, pp. 386–387.</ref> The issue particularly concerned shells striking at oblique angles, which became increasingly the case at long range.<ref>Marder III, p. 170.</ref> Germany had adopted [[trinitrotoluene]] (TNT) as the explosive filler for artillery shells in 1902, while the United Kingdom was still using a [[picric acid]] mixture (Lyddite). The shock of impact of a shell against armour often prematurely detonated Lyddite in advance of [[fuze]] function while TNT detonation could be delayed until after the shell had penetrated and the fuze had functioned in the vulnerable area behind the armour plate.<ref>Brown, pp. 151–152.</ref> Some 17 British shells hit the side armour of the German dreadnoughts or battlecruisers. Of these, four would not have penetrated under any circumstances. Of the remaining 13, one penetrated the armour and exploded inside. This showed a 7.5% chance of proper shell function on the British side, a result of overly brittle shells and Lyddite exploding too soon.<ref name="auto"/>

The issue of poorly performing shells had been known to Jellicoe, who as [[Third Sea Lord]] from 1908 to 1910 had ordered new shells to be designed. However, the matter had not been followed through after his posting to sea and new shells had never been thoroughly tested.<ref>'Castles' p. 61.</ref> Beatty discovered the problem at a party aboard ''Lion'' a short time after the battle, when a Swedish Naval officer was present. He had recently visited Berlin, where the German navy had scoffed at how British shells had broken up on their ships' armour.<ref name=Castles668>'Castles' p. 668.</ref> The question of shell effectiveness had also been raised after the [[Battle of Dogger Bank (1915)|Battle of Dogger Bank]], but no action had been taken.<ref name="Marder">Marder III, p. 171.</ref> Hipper later commented, "It was nothing but the poor quality of their bursting charges which saved us from disaster."<ref>'Castles', p. 671, citing Marder, Vol. III, p. 81.</ref>

Admiral Dreyer, writing later about the battle, during which he had been captain of the British flagship ''Iron Duke'', estimated that effective shells as later introduced would have led to the sinking of six more German capital ships, based upon the actual number of hits achieved in the battle.<ref>Marder, p. 169.</ref> The system of testing shells, which remained in use up to 1944, meant that, statistically, a batch of shells of which 70% were faulty stood an even chance of being accepted. Indeed, even shells that failed this relatively mild test had still been issued to ships. Analysis of the test results afterwards by the Ordnance Board suggested the likelihood that 30–70% of shells would not have passed the standard penetration test specified by the Admiralty.<ref name="Marder" />

Efforts to replace the shells were initially resisted by the Admiralty, and action was not taken until Jellicoe became [[First Sea Lord]] in December 1916. As an initial response, the worst of the existing shells were withdrawn from ships in early 1917 and replaced from reserve supplies.<ref>Marder III, p. 215.</ref> New shells were designed, but did not arrive until April 1918, and were never used in action.<ref name=Castles668/>

====Battlecruiser losses====
British battlecruisers were designed to chase and destroy enemy cruisers from out of the range of those ships. They were not designed to be [[ship of the line|ships of the line]] and exchange [[Broadside (naval)|broadside]]s with the enemy. One German and three British battlecruisers were sunk—but none were destroyed by enemy shells penetrating the belt armour and detonating the magazines. Each of the British battlecruisers was penetrated through a turret roof and their magazines ignited by flash fires passing through the turret and shell-handling rooms.<ref>{{cite book |title=Castles |last=Massie |pages=666–667}}</ref> ''Lützow'' sustained 24 hits and her flooding could not be contained. She was eventually sunk by her escorts' torpedoes after most of her crew had been safely removed (though six trapped stokers died when the ship was scuttled<ref name=GaryStaff01a>{{cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Xn87CQAAQBAJ&q=scuttling+of+L%C3%BCtzow&pg=PA278 |title=German Battlecruisers of World War One: Their Design, Construction and Operations |publisher=Seaforth Publishing |author=Gary Staff |page=278 |date=2014 |isbn=978-1848323087 |access-date=2 June 2016}}</ref>). ''Derfflinger'' and ''Seydlitz'' sustained 22 hits each but reached port (although in ''Seydlitz'''s case only just).<ref>{{cite book |title=Castles |last=Massie |page=666}}</ref>

{{blockquote|The disturbing feature of the battlecruiser action is the fact that five German battle-cruisers engaging six British vessels of this class, supported after the first twenty minutes, although at great range, by the fire of four battleships of the "Queen Elizabeth" class, were yet able to sink 'Queen Mary' and 'Indefatigable'....The facts which contributed to the British losses, first, were the indifferent armour protection of our battle-cruisers, particularly as regards turret armour, and, second, deck plating and the disadvantage under which our vessels laboured in regard to the light. Of this there can be no question. But it is also undoubted that the gunnery of the German battle-cruisers in the early stages was of a very high standard.|Sir John Jellicoe|''Jellicoe's official despatch''<ref>{{citation |url=http://www.gwpda.org/naval/jut02.htm |title=Battle of Jutland – Jellicoe's Despatch |publisher=referencing Battle of Jutland – Official Despatches with Appendicies, "Presented to Parliament by Command of His Majesty, His Majesty's Stationery Office, 1920 |access-date=20 October 2004 |archive-date=24 October 2004 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20041024213136/http://www.gwpda.org/naval/jut02.htm |url-status=live}}</ref>}}

Jellicoe and Beatty, as well as other senior officers, gave an impression that the loss of the battlecruisers was caused by weak armour, despite reports by two committees and earlier statements by Jellicoe and other senior officers that Cordite and its management were to blame. This led to calls for armour to be increased, and an additional {{cvt|1|in|cm}} was placed over the relatively thin decks above magazines. To compensate for the increase in weight, ships had to carry correspondingly less fuel, water and other supplies. Whether or not thin deck armour was a potential weakness of British ships, the battle provided no evidence that it was the case. At least amongst the surviving ships, no enemy shell was found to have penetrated deck armour anywhere.<ref>Marder III, p. 218.</ref> The design of the new battlecruiser {{HMS|Hood|51|6}} (which was being built at the time of the battle) was altered to give her {{cvt|5000|LT|t}} of additional armour.<ref>Marder III, p. 219.</ref>

====Ammunition handling====
British and German [[propellant]] charges differed in packaging, handling, and chemistry. The British propellant was of two types, MK1 and MD. The Mark 1 cordite had a formula of 37% nitrocellulose, 58% nitroglycerine, and 5% petroleum jelly. It was a good propellant but burned hot and caused an erosion problem in gun barrels. The petroleum jelly served as both a lubricant and a stabiliser. Cordite MD was developed to reduce barrel wear, its formula being 65% nitrocellulose, 30% nitroglycerine, and 5% petroleum jelly. While cordite MD solved the gun-barrel erosion issue, it did nothing to improve its storage properties, which were poor. Cordite was very sensitive to variations of temperature, and acid propagation/cordite deterioration would take place at a very rapid rate. Cordite MD also shed micro-dust particles of nitrocellulose and iron pyrite.<ref name="navweaps.com">{{cite web |url=http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-100.htm |title=Naval Propellants – A Brief Overview |author=Tony DiGiulian |publisher=navweaps.com |access-date=27 May 2014 |archive-date=2 July 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140702125845/http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-100.htm |url-status=live}}</ref> While cordite propellant was manageable, it required a vigilant gunnery officer, strict cordite lot control, and frequent testing of the cordite lots in the ships' magazines.<ref name="worldwar1.co.uk">{{cite web |url=http://www.worldwar1.co.uk/grant.htm |title=Battle of Jutland, Memoir – World War 1 Naval Combat |publisher=worldwar1.co.uk |access-date=27 May 2014 |archive-date=23 October 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171023071625/http://www.worldwar1.co.uk/grant.htm |url-status=live}}</ref>

British [[cordite]] propellant (when uncased and exposed in the silk bag) tended to burn violently, causing uncontrollable "flash fires" when ignited by nearby shell hits. In 1945, a test was conducted by the U.S.N. Bureau of Ordnance (Bulletin of Ordnance Information, No. 245, pp.&nbsp;54–60)<ref name="warship">{{cite web |url=http://www.warship.org/loss_of_hms_hood__part_3.htm#68 |title=Loss of HMS Hood&nbsp; Part 3 |publisher=warship.org |access-date=27 May 2014 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150111072209/http://www.warship.org/loss_of_hms_hood__part_3.htm |archive-date=11 January 2015}}</ref> testing the sensitivity of cordite to then-current U.S. Naval propellant powders against a measurable and repeatable flash source. It found that cordite would ignite at {{cvt|530|mm|in}} from the flash, the current U.S. powder at {{cvt|120|mm|in}}, and the U.S. flashless powder at {{cvt|25|mm|in}}.

This meant that about 75 times the propellant would immediately ignite when exposed to flash, as compared to the U.S. powder. British ships had inadequate protection against these flash fires. German propellant (''RP C/12'', handled in brass cartridge cases and used in German artillery because their [[Breechblock#Sliding block|sliding wedge breeches]] were hard to obturate with smokeless powder,<ref>[[s:Page:EB1911 - Volume 20.djvu/234]]</ref><ref>{{Cite EB1911 |wstitle= Ordnance |volume= 20 |pages=189-235 |short=1}}</ref>) was less vulnerable and less volatile in composition.<ref>Campbell, pp. 377–378.</ref> German propellants were not that different in composition from cordite—with one major exception: [[centralite]]. This was symmetrical diethyl diphenyl urea, which served as a stabiliser that was superior to the petroleum jelly used in British practice. It stored better and burned but did not explode. Stored and used in brass cases, it proved much less sensitive to flash. RP C/12 was composed of 64.13% nitrocellulose, 29.77% nitroglycerine, 5.75% centralite, 0.25% magnesium oxide and 0.10% graphite.<ref name="navweaps.com" />

The Royal Navy Battle Cruiser Fleet had also emphasised speed in ammunition handling over established safety protocol. In practice drills, cordite could not be supplied to the guns rapidly enough through the hoists and hatches. To bring up the propellant in good time to load for the next broadside, many safety doors were kept open that should have been shut to safeguard against flash fires. Bags of cordite were also stocked and kept locally, creating a total breakdown of safety design features. By staging charges in the chambers between the gun turret and magazine, the Royal Navy enhanced their rate of fire but left their ships vulnerable to chain reaction ammunition fires and magazine explosions.<ref name="worldwar1.co.uk"/><ref>Campbell, pp. 371–372.</ref> This 'bad safety habit' carried over into real battle practices.<ref name="worldwar1.co.uk"/> Furthermore, the doctrine of a high rate of fire also led to the decision in 1913 to increase the supply of shells and cordite held on the British ships by 50%, for fear of running out of ammunition. When this exceeded the capacity of the ships' magazines, cordite was stored in insecure places.<ref>Lambert 1998, p.36</ref>

The British cordite charges were stored two silk bags to a metal cylindrical container, with a 16-oz gunpowder igniter charge, which was covered with a thick paper wad, four charges being used on each projectile. The gun crews were removing the charges from their containers and removing the paper covering over the gunpowder igniter charges. The effect of having eight loads at the ready was to have {{cvt|4|ST|kg}} of exposed explosive, with each charge leaking small amounts of gunpowder from the igniter bags. In effect, the gun crews had laid an explosive train from the turret to the magazines, and one shell hit to a battlecruiser turret was enough to end a ship.<ref>British Battlecruisers 1914–18, Lawrence Burr, Tony Bryan pp. 41–42.</ref>

A diving expedition during the summer of 2003 provided corroboration of this practice. It examined the wrecks of ''Invincible'', ''Queen Mary'', ''Defence'', and ''Lützow'' to investigate the cause of the British ships' tendency to suffer from internal explosions. From this evidence, a major part of the blame may be laid on lax handling of the cordite propellant for the shells of the main guns. The wreck of the ''Queen Mary'' revealed cordite containers stacked in the working chamber of the X turret instead of the magazine.<ref>British Battlecruisers 1914–18, Lawrence Burr, Tony Bryan p. 43</ref>

There was a further difference in the propellant itself. While the German ''RP C/12'' burned when exposed to fire, it did not explode, as opposed to cordite. ''RP C/12'' was extensively studied by the British and, after World War I, would form the basis of the later Cordite SC.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_projectiles.htm |title=German Ammunition, Guns and Mountings Definitions |access-date=19 May 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080517110752/http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_projectiles.htm |archive-date=17 May 2008 |url-status=live}}</ref>

The memoirs of Alexander Grant, Gunner on ''Lion'', suggest that some British officers were aware of the dangers of careless handling of cordite:

{{blockquote|With the introduction of cordite to replace powder for firing guns, regulations regarding the necessary precautions for handling explosives became unconsciously considerably relaxed, even I regret to say, to a dangerous degree throughout the Service. The gradual lapse in the regulations on board ship seemed to be due to two factors. First, cordite is a much safer explosive to handle than gun-powder. Second, but more important, the altered construction of the magazines on board led to a feeling of false security....The iron or steel deck, the disappearance of the wood lining, the electric lights fitted inside, the steel doors, open because there was now no chute for passing cartridges out; all this gave officers and men a comparative easiness of mind regarding the precautions necessary with explosive material.<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.worldwar1.co.uk/grant.htm |title=Memoir of Gunnery Officer Alexander Grant |access-date=25 March 2004 |archive-date=23 October 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171023071625/http://www.worldwar1.co.uk/grant.htm |url-status=live}}</ref>}}

Grant had already introduced measures onboard ''Lion'' to limit the number of cartridges kept outside the magazine and to ensure doors were kept closed, probably contributing to her survival.<ref>Marder III, p. 174.</ref>

On 5 June 1916, the First Lord of the Admiralty advised Cabinet Members that the three battlecruisers had been lost due to unsafe cordite management.<ref name="Lawrence Burr p.40">British Battlecruisers 1914–18, Lawrence Burr, Tony Bryan p. 40.</ref>

After the battle, the B.C.F. Gunnery Committee issued a report (at the command of Admiral David Beatty) advocating immediate changes in flash protection and charge handling. It reported, among other things, that:
* Some vent plates in magazines allowed flash into the magazines and should be retro-fitted to a new standard.
* Bulkheads in HMS ''Lion''{{'}}s magazine showed buckling from fire under pressure (overpressure)—despite being flooded and therefore supported by water pressure—and must be made stronger.
* Doors opening inward to magazines were an extreme danger.
* Current designs of turrets could not eliminate flash from shell bursts in the turret from reaching the handling rooms.
* Ignition pads must not be attached to charges but instead be placed just before ramming.
* Better methods must be found for safe storage of ready charges than the current method.
* Some method for rapidly drowning charges already in the handling path must be devised.
* Handling scuttles (special flash-proof fittings for moving propellant charges through ship's bulkheads), designed to handle overpressure, must be fitted.<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.dreadnoughtproject.org/tfs/index.php/Advance_Report_of_B.C.F._Gunnery_Committee |title=Advance Report of B.C.F. Gunnery Committee |website=The Dreadnought Project |access-date=6 February 2011 |archive-date=19 July 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110719141817/http://www.dreadnoughtproject.org/tfs/index.php/Advance_Report_of_B.C.F._Gunnery_Committee |url-status=live}}</ref>

====Gunnery====
British gunnery control systems, based on [[Dreyer Fire Control Table|Dreyer tables]], were well in advance of the German ones, as demonstrated by the proportion of main calibre hits made on the German fleet. Because of its demonstrated advantages, it was installed on ships progressively as the war went on, had been fitted to a majority of British capital ships by May 1916, and had been installed on the main guns of all but two of the Grand Fleet's capital ships.<ref>Brooks, p. 224.</ref> The Royal Navy used centralised [[fire-control system]]s on their capital ships, directed from a point high up on the ship where the fall of shells could best be seen, utilising a director sight for both training and elevating the guns. In contrast, the German battlecruisers controlled the fire of turrets using a training-only director, which also did not fire the guns at once. The rest of the German capital ships were without even this innovation. German range-finding equipment was generally superior to the British {{cvt|9|ft|m|1}} FT24, as its operators were trained to a higher standard due to the complexity of the Zeiss {{cvt|3|m|ft}} range finders. Their [[Stereoscopic rangefinder|stereoscopic]] design meant that in certain conditions they could range on a target enshrouded by smoke.<ref>Brooks, pp. 221–222.</ref> The German equipment was not superior in range to the British [[Barr & Stroud]] {{cvt|15|ft|m}} rangefinder found in the newest British capital ships, and, unlike the British range finders, the German range takers had to be replaced as often as every thirty minutes, as their eyesight became impaired, affecting the ranges provided to their gunnery equipment.<ref>Brooks, p. 223.</ref>

The results of the battle confirmed the value of firing guns by centralised director. The battle prompted the Royal Navy to install director firing systems in cruisers and destroyers, where it had not thus far been used, and for secondary armament on battleships.<ref>Marder III, pp. 213–214.</ref>

German ships were considered to have been quicker in determining the correct range to targets, thus obtaining an early advantage. The British used a 'bracket system', whereby a salvo was fired at the best-guess range and, depending where it landed, the range was progressively corrected up or down until successive shots were landing in front of and behind the enemy. The Germans used a 'ladder system', whereby an initial volley of three shots at different ranges was used, with the centre shot at the best-guess range. The ladder system allowed the gunners to get ranging information from the three shots more quickly than the bracket system, which required waiting between shots to see how the last had landed. British ships adopted the German system.<ref>Marder III, pp. 166, 214.</ref>

It was determined that {{convert|9|ft|m|adj=on}} range finders of the sort issued to most British ships were not adequate at long range and did not perform as well as the {{convert|15|ft|m|adj=on}} range finders on some of the most modern ships. In 1917, range finders of base lengths of {{cvt|25|and|30|ft|m|1}} were introduced on the battleships to improve accuracy.<ref>Marder, p. 215.</ref>

====Signalling====
Throughout the battle, British ships experienced difficulties with communications, whereas the Germans did not suffer such problems. The British preferred signalling using ship-to-ship flag and lamp signals, avoiding wireless, whereas the Germans used wireless successfully. One conclusion drawn was that flag signals were not a satisfactory way to control the fleet. Experience using lamps, particularly at night when issuing challenges to other ships, demonstrated this was an excellent way to advertise your precise location to an enemy, inviting a reply by gunfire. Recognition signals by lamp, once seen, could also easily be copied in future engagements.<ref>Marder III, pp. 175–176.</ref>

British ships both failed to report engagements with the enemy but also, in the case of cruisers and destroyers, failed to actively seek out the enemy. A culture had arisen within the fleet of not acting without orders, which could prove fatal when any circumstances prevented orders being sent or received. Commanders failed to engage the enemy because they believed other, more senior officers must also be aware of the enemy nearby, and would have given orders to act if this was expected. Wireless, the most direct way to pass messages across the fleet (although it was being jammed by German ships), was avoided either for perceived reasons of not giving away the presence of ships or for fear of cluttering up the airwaves with unnecessary reports.<ref>Marder III, pp. 176–178.</ref>

====Fleet Standing Orders====
Naval operations were governed by standing orders issued to all the ships. These attempted to set out what ships should do in all circumstances, particularly in situations where ships would have to react without referring to higher authority, or when communications failed. A number of changes were introduced as a result of experience gained in the battle.

A new signal was introduced instructing squadron commanders to act independently as they thought best while still supporting the main fleet, particularly for use when circumstances would make it difficult to send detailed orders. The description stressed that this was not intended to be the only time commanders might take independent action, but was intended to make plain times when they definitely should. Similarly, instructions on what to do if the fleet was instructed to take evasive action against torpedoes were amended. Commanders were given discretion that if their part of the fleet was not under immediate attack, they should continue engaging the enemy rather than turning away with the rest of the fleet. In this battle, when the fleet turned away from Scheer's destroyer attack covering his retreat, not all the British ships had been affected, and could have continued to engage the enemy.<ref>MarderIII, p. 222.</ref>

A number of opportunities to attack enemy ships by torpedo had presented themselves but had been missed. All ships, not just the destroyers armed principally with torpedoes but also battleships, were reminded that they carried torpedoes intended to be used whenever an opportunity arose. Destroyers were instructed to close the enemy fleet to fire torpedoes as soon as engagements between the main ships on either side would keep enemy guns busy directed at larger targets. Destroyers should also be ready to immediately engage enemy destroyers if they should launch an attack, endeavouring to disrupt their chances of launching torpedoes and keep them away from the main fleet.<ref>Marder III, pp. 224–225.</ref>

To add some flexibility when deploying for attack, a new signal was provided for deploying the fleet to the centre, rather than as previously only either to left or right of the standard closed-up formation for travelling. The fast and powerful 5th Battle Squadron was moved to the front of the cruising formation so it would have the option of deploying left or right depending upon the enemy position. In the event of engagements at night, although the fleet still preferred to avoid night fighting, a destroyer and cruiser squadron would be specifically detailed to seek out the enemy and launch destroyer attacks.<ref>Marder III, p. 226.</ref>

==Controversy==
[[File:German poster about the battle of Jutland.jpg|thumb|The German propaganda poster proudly boasts of German achievements in the Battle of Jutland]]
At the time, Jellicoe was criticised for his caution and allowing Scheer to escape.<ref name=Massie-631>Massie, p. 631.</ref> Beatty, in particular, was convinced Jellicoe had missed a tremendous opportunity to annihilate the High Seas Fleet<ref>Massie, p. 670.</ref> and win what would amount to another Trafalgar. Jellicoe was promoted away from active command to become First Sea Lord, the professional head of the Royal Navy, while Beatty replaced him as commander of the Grand Fleet.

The controversy raged within the navy and in public for about a decade after the war. Criticism focused on Jellicoe's decision at 19:15. Scheer had ordered his cruisers and destroyers forward in a torpedo attack to cover the turning away of his battleships. Jellicoe chose to turn to the south-east, and so keep out of range of the torpedoes. Supporters of Jellicoe, including the historian [[Cyril Falls]], pointed to the folly of risking defeat in battle when one already has [[command of the sea]].<ref name=Massie-675>{{cite book |title=Castles |last=Massie |page=675}}</ref> Jellicoe himself, in a letter to the Admiralty seventeen months before the battle, said that he intended to turn his fleet away from any mass torpedo attack (that being the universally accepted proper tactical response to such attacks, practised by all the major navies of the world<ref name=Massie-675/>). He said that, in the event of a fleet engagement in which the enemy turned away, he would assume they intended to draw him over mines or submarines, and he would decline to be so drawn. The Admiralty approved this plan and expressed full confidence in Jellicoe at the time (October 1914).<ref>Massie, p. 632.</ref>

The stakes were high, the pressure on Jellicoe immense, and his caution it may be argued was understandable. Jellicoe had not only the responsibility of immediate command of the Grand Fleet, the defence of the British waters and British trade; but also of the maintenance of the [[Blockade of Germany (1914–1919)|blockade of Germany]]<ref>Corbett (2009), p 74</ref> which hinged on the [[Fleet in being|continuing presence and superiority]] of the [[Grand Fleet]]. Therefore, Jellicoe had to consider the wider strategic consequences of his actions and results of the battle; which outweighed the short term benefits of a more outright victory. Churchill said of the battle that Jellicoe "was the only man on either side who could have lost the war in an afternoon."<ref>{{cite book |title=Castles |last=Massie |page=681}}</ref>

The criticism of Jellicoe also fails to sufficiently credit Scheer, who was determined to preserve his fleet by avoiding the full British battle line, and who showed great skill in effecting his escape.<ref>{{cite book |title=Castles |last=Massie |page=672}}</ref>

===Beatty's actions===
On the other hand, some of Jellicoe's supporters condemned the actions of Beatty for the British failure to achieve a complete victory.<ref>{{cite book |title=Castles |last=Massie |pages=670, 679}}</ref> Although Beatty was undeniably brave, his mismanagement of the initial encounter with Hipper's squadron and the High Seas Fleet cost him a considerable advantage in the first hours of the battle.<ref>{{cite book |title=Castles |last=Massie |pages=673–674}}</ref> His most glaring failure was in not providing Jellicoe with periodic information on the position, course, and speed of the High Seas Fleet.<ref>{{cite book |title=Castles |last=Massie |page=674}}</ref> Beatty, aboard the battlecruiser ''Lion'', left behind the four fast battleships of the 5th Battle Squadron—the most powerful warships in the world at the time—engaging with six ships when better control would have given him 10 against Hipper's five. Though Beatty's larger {{cvt|13.5|in|mm}} guns out-ranged Hipper's {{cvt|11|and|12|in|mm}} guns by thousands of yards, Beatty held his fire for 10 minutes and closed the German squadron until within range of the Germans' superior gunnery, under lighting conditions that favoured the Germans.<ref>{{cite book |title=Castles |last=Massie |pages=589–590}}</ref> Most of the British losses in tonnage occurred in Beatty's force.

==Death toll==
{{See also|Damage to major ships at the Battle of Jutland|List of ships sunk at the Battle of Jutland}}
The total loss of life on both sides was 9,823 personnel: the British losses numbered 6,784 and the German 3,039.<ref>Brewers Dictionary of 20th Century Phrase and Fable</ref> Counted among the British losses were two members of the [[Royal Australian Navy]] and one member of the [[Royal Canadian Navy]]. Six Australian nationals serving in the Royal Navy were also killed.<ref name="Commonwealth">[http://www.gwpda.org/naval/jutloscm.htm Great War Primary Documents Archive, 2007, "Battle of Jutland – Commonwealth Casualties"] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210312135641/http://www.gwpda.org/naval/jutloscm.htm |date=12 March 2021 }} (Access: 24 February 2012).</ref>

===British===
113,300 [[long ton|tons]] sunk:<ref name=nasmith261/>
* Battlecruisers {{HMS|Indefatigable|1909|2}} ฿, {{HMS|Queen Mary||2}} ฿, {{HMS|Invincible|1907|2}}
* Armoured cruisers {{HMS|Black Prince|1904|2}}, {{HMS|Warrior|1905|2}}, {{HMS|Defence|1907|2}}
* Flotilla leader {{HMS|Tipperary|1915|2}}
* Destroyers {{HMS|Shark|1912|2}}, {{HMS|Sparrowhawk|1912|2}}, {{HMS|Turbulent|1916|2}} ฿, {{HMS|Ardent|1913|2}}, {{HMS|Fortune|1913|2}}, {{HMS|Nomad||2}} ฿, {{HMS|Nestor|1915|2}} ฿

฿ indicates ships in Beatty's [[Order of battle at Jutland#Battle Cruiser Fleet|Battle Cruiser Fleet]].

===German===
62,300 tons sunk:<ref name=nasmith261/>
* Battlecruiser {{SMS|Lützow||2}}
* Pre-dreadnought {{SMS|Pommern||2}}
* Light cruisers {{SMS|Frauenlob||2}}, {{SMS|Elbing||2}}, {{SMS|Rostock||2}}, {{SMS|Wiesbaden||2}}
* Destroyers (Heavy torpedo-boats) {{SMS|V48||2}}, {{SMS|S35||2}}, {{SMS|V27||2}}, {{SMS|V4||2}}, {{SMS|V29||2}}

==Status of the survivors and wrecks==
[[File:HMS Caroline 1914.jpg|thumb|{{HMS|Caroline|1914|6}}, the last surviving warship that saw action at Jutland, is preserved in [[Belfast]], [[Northern Ireland]]]]
In the years following the battle the wrecks were slowly discovered. ''Invincible'' was found by the Royal Navy minesweeper {{HMS|Oakley|1917|6}} in 1919.<ref>{{cite book |title=Rules |last=Gordon |page=539}}</ref> After the Second World War some of the wrecks seem to have been commercially salvaged. For instance, the Hydrographic Office record for SMS ''Lützow'' (No. 32344) shows that salvage operations were taking place on the wreck in 1960.<ref>{{cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=23r_CwAAQBAJ&q=jutland+1916+the+archaeology&pg=PA27 |title=Jutland 1916: The Archaeology of a Naval Battlefield |author=Innes McCartney |publisher=Bloomsbury |year=2016 |isbn=978-1844864164 |pages=256 |access-date=15 October 2020 |archive-date=25 November 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211125095120/https://books.google.com/books?id=23r_CwAAQBAJ&q=jutland+1916+the+archaeology&pg=PA27 |url-status=live}}</ref>

During 2000–2016 a series of diving and marine survey expeditions involving veteran shipwreck historian and archaeologist [[Innes McCartney]] located all of the wrecks sunk in the battle. It was discovered that over 60 per cent of them had suffered from metal theft.<ref>{{cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=23r_CwAAQBAJ&q=jutland+1916+the+archaeology&pg=PA27 |title=Jutland 1916: The Archaeology of a Naval Battlefield |author=Innes McCartney |publisher=Bloomsbury |year=2016 |isbn=978-1844864164 |access-date=15 October 2020 |archive-date=25 November 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211125095151/https://books.google.com/books?id=23r_CwAAQBAJ&q=jutland+1916+the+archaeology&pg=PA27 |url-status=live}}</ref> In 2003 McCartney led a detailed survey of the wrecks for the [[Channel 4]] documentary "Clash of the Dreadnoughts".<ref>{{cite web |url=http://docuwiki.net/index.php?title=Jutland_-_Clash_of_the_Dreadnoughts |title=Jutland – Clash of the Dreadnoughts |access-date=18 December 2011 |archive-date=9 December 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111209093713/http://docuwiki.net/index.php?title=Jutland_-_Clash_of_the_Dreadnoughts |url-status=live}}</ref> The film examined the last minutes of the lost ships and revealed for the first time how both 'P' and 'Q' turrets of ''Invincible'' had been blasted out of the ship and tossed into the sea before she broke in half. This was followed by the Channel 4 documentary "Jutland: WWI's Greatest Sea Battle",<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/jutland-ww1s-greatest-sea-battle |title=Jutland: WW1's Greatest Sea Battle |access-date=1 September 2018 |archive-date=27 August 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180827213801/http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/jutland-ww1s-greatest-sea-battle |url-status=live}}</ref> broadcast in May 2016, which showed how several of the major losses at Jutland had actually occurred and just how accurate the "Harper Record" actually was.

On the 90th anniversary of the battle, in 2006, the UK Ministry of Defence belatedly announced that the 14 British vessels lost in the battle were being designated as ''protected places'' under the [[Protection of Military Remains Act 1986]]. This legislation only affects British ships and citizens and in practical terms offers no real protection from non-British salvors of the wreck sites.<ref>{{cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=23r_CwAAQBAJ&q=jutland+1916+the+archaeology&pg=PA27 |title=Jutland 1916: The Archaeology of a Naval Battlefield |author=Innes McCartney |publisher=Bloomsbury |year=2016 |isbn=978-1844864164 |pages=257–260 |access-date=15 October 2020 |archive-date=25 November 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211125095109/https://books.google.com/books?id=23r_CwAAQBAJ&q=jutland+1916+the+archaeology&pg=PA27 |url-status=live}}</ref> In May 2016 a number of British newspapers named the Dutch salvage company "Friendship Offshore" as one of the main salvors of the Jutland wrecks in recent years and depicted leaked photographs revealing the extent of their activities on the wreck of ''Queen Mary''.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/war-graves-plymouth-sailors-looted-industrial/story-29306819-detail/story.html |title=War Graves of Plymouth Sailors Looted |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161222042140/http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/war-graves-plymouth-sailors-looted-industrial/story-29306819-detail/story.html |archive-date=22 December 2016 |df=dmy-all}}</ref>

The last surviving veteran of the battle, [[Henry Allingham]], a British [[Royal Air Force|RAF]] (originally [[Royal Naval Air Service|RNAS]]) airman, died on 18 July 2009, aged 113, by which time he was the oldest documented man in the world and one of the last surviving veterans of the whole war.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/5098174.stm |title=Britain's oldest veteran recalls WWI |access-date=19 May 2008 |work=BBC News |date=26 June 2006 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080421192644/http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/5098174.stm |archive-date=21 April 2008 |url-status=live}}</ref> Also among the combatants was the then 20-year-old [[George VI|Prince Albert]], serving as a junior officer aboard {{HMS|Collingwood|1908|6}}. He was second in the line to the throne, but would become king as George VI following his brother Edward's abdication in 1936.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2703403.stm |work=BBC News |first=Andrew |last=Walker |title=Profile: King George VI |date=29 January 2003 |access-date=22 August 2011 |archive-date=26 July 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080726201105/http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2703403.stm |url-status=live}}</ref>

One ship from the battle survives and is still (in 2024) afloat: the light cruiser {{HMS|Caroline|1914|6}}. Decommissioned in 2011, she is docked at the Alexandra Graving Dock in Belfast, Northern Ireland and is a museum ship.<ref>{{cite web |title=NMRM: HMS Caroline |url=http://www.nmrn.org.uk/visit-us/hms-caroline |access-date=15 February 2023}}</ref>

==Remembrance==
The Battle of Jutland was annually celebrated as a great victory by the right wing in [[Weimar Republic|Weimar Germany]]. This victory was used to repress the memory that the [[Kiel mutiny|Kiel sailors' mutiny]] initiated the [[German Revolution of 1918–1919]], as well as the memory of the defeat in World War I in general. (The celebrations of the [[Battle of Tannenberg]] played a similar role.) This is especially true for the city of Wilhelmshaven, where wreath-laying ceremonies and torch-lit parades were performed until the end of the 1960s.<ref>Götz: Remembering the Battle, p. 360.</ref>

In 1916 Contreadmiral Friedrich von Kühlwetter (1865–1931) wrote a detailed analysis of the battle and published it in a book under the title ''Skagerrak'' (first anonymously published), which was reprinted in large numbers until after WWII and had a huge influence in keeping the battle in public memory amongst Germans as it was not tainted by the ideology of the Third Reich. Kühlwetter built the [[Mürwik Naval School|School for Naval Officers]] at [[Mürwik]] near Flensburg, where he is still remembered.<ref>Kühlwetter: Skagerrak – Der Ruhmestag der deutschen Flotte</ref>

May 2016 marked the 100th-anniversary of the Battle of Jutland. On 29 May, a commemorative service was held at St Mary's Church, Wimbledon, where the ensign from HMS ''Inflexible'' is on permanent display. On 31 May, the main service was held at [[St Magnus Cathedral]] in [[Orkney]], attended by the British prime minister, [[David Cameron]], and the German president, [[Joachim Gauck]], along with [[Anne, Princess Royal|Princess Anne]] and Vice Admiral [[Timothy Laurence|Sir Tim Laurence]].<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-36390168 |title=Battle of Jutland centenary marked |work=BBC News |publisher=BBC |date=31 May 2016 |access-date=1 June 2016 |archive-date=1 June 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160601001036/http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-36390168 |url-status=live}}</ref> Another service was held on board [[HMS Duncan (D37)|HMS ''Duncan'']], attended by both British and German sailors,<ref>{{Cite web |date=2 June 2016 |title=The Royal and German Navy remember the Battle of Jutland |url=https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2016/june/02/160602-the-royal-and-german-navy-remember-the-battle-of-jutland |access-date=31 May 2024 |website=royalnavy.mod.uk}}</ref> while the German frigate ''[[German frigate Brandenburg|Brandenburg]]'' laid a flower wreath at the site of the sinking of HMS ''Invincible''.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Wiegold |first=T. |date=31 May 2016 |title=Gedenken an Skagerrak-Schlacht vor hundert Jahren – Augen geradeaus! |url=https://augengeradeaus.net/2016/05/gedenken-an-skagerrag-schlacht-vor-hundert-jahren/ |access-date=2024-05-31 |website=augengeradeaus.net}}</ref> A centennial exposition was held at the Deutsches Marinemuseum in Wilhemshaven from 29 May 2016 to 28 February 2017.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.marinemuseum.de/sonderausstellungen/skagerrak-seeschlacht-ohne-sieger/,%20https://www.marinemuseum.de/sonderausstellungen/skagerrak-seeschlacht-ohne-sieger/ |title=Skagerrak. Seeschlacht ohne Sieger – Jutland. The Unfinished Battle {{!}} |language=de |access-date=2020-01-25}}{{Dead link|date=June 2020 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref>

== Film ==
* ''[[Wrath of the Seas]]'' (''Die versunkene Flotte''), 1926, director [[Manfred Noa]]

==See also==

* [[Largest artificial non-nuclear explosions]]
* [[Naval warfare of World War I]]
* [[Sea War Museum Jutland]]

==Notes==
{{reflist|group=lower-alpha}}

==Citations==
{{reflist|22em}}

==Bibliography==
{{refbegin}}
* {{cite book |last=Bennett |first=Geoffrey |author-link=Geoffrey Bennett (historian) |title=Naval Battles of the First World War |year=2005 |location=London |publisher=Pen & Sword Military Classics |isbn=1-84415-300-2}}
* Black, Jeremy. "Jutland's Place in History," ''Naval History'' (June 2016) 30#3, pp.&nbsp;16–21.
* {{cite book |title=Dreadnought Gunnery at the Battle of Jutland: The Question of Fire Control |last=Brooks |first=John |year=2005 |publisher=Routledge, Frank Cass series |location=London |isbn=0-7146-5702-6}}
* {{cite book |title=The Big Bang: A History of Explosives |last=Brown |first=G. I. |year=1998 |publisher=Sutton Publishing |location=Gloucestershire |isbn=0-7509-1878-0 |url=https://archive.org/details/bigbanghistoryof00brow}}
* {{cite book |last=Campbell |first=John |title=Jutland: An Analysis of the Fighting |year=1998 |publisher=Lyons Press |isbn=1-55821-759-2}}
* Corbett, J. S. (2009) [1938]. Naval Operations: To the Battle of the Falklands December 1914. History of the Great War based on Official Documents by Direction of the Historical Section of the Committee of Imperial Defence. Vol. I (2nd facs. repr. Imperial War Museum and Naval & Military Press, Ukfield ed.). London: Longmans. ISBN 978-1-84342-489-5 – via 1920 edition at The Internet Archive.
* Corbett, Sir Julian. (2015) ''Maritime Operations In The Russo-Japanese War 1904–1905.'' Vol. 1, originally published Jan 1914. [[Naval Institute Press]]; {{ISBN|978-1-59114-197-6}}
* Corbett, Sir Julian. (2015) ''Maritime Operations In The Russo-Japanese War 1904–1905.'' Vol. 2, originally published Oct 1915. Naval Institute Press; {{ISBN|978-1-59114-198-3}}
* [[John Costello (historian)|Costello, John]] (1976) ''Jutland 1916'' with Terry Hughes
* {{cite journal |last=English |first=Major J.A. |year=1979 |title=The Trafalgar Syndrome: Jutland and the Indecisiveness of Naval Warfare |journal=Naval War College Review |volume=XXXII |issue=3}}
* {{cite book |last=Forczyk |first=Robert |title=Russian Battleship vs Japanese Battleship (Yellow Sea 1904–05) |year=2009 |location=Great Britain |publisher=Osprey |isbn=978-1-84603-330-8}}
* Friedman, Norman. (2013) ''Naval Firepower, Battleship Guns And Gunnery In The Dreadnaught Era.'' Seaforth Publishing; {{ISBN|978-1848321854}}
* {{cite book |last=Götz |first=Georg |editor-first=William |editor-last=Niven |editor2-first=Chloe |editor2-last=Paver |title=Difficult Pasts. Memorialisation In Germany since 1945 |publisher=Macmillan |year=2010 |pages=360–368 |chapter=Remembering the Battle of Jutland in Post-War Wilhelmshaven |isbn=978-0-230-20703-5}}
* {{cite book |last=Gordon |first=Andrew |author-link=Andrew Gordon (naval historian) |title=The Rules of the Game: Jutland and British Naval Command |year=1996 |publisher=John Murray |location=London |isbn=978-0-14-198032-4}}
* {{cite book |last=Halpern |first=Paul G. |title=A Naval History of World War I |year=1994 |publisher=[[Routledge]] |location=London |isbn=1-85728-498-4}}
* {{cite book |last=Keegan |first=John |title=The First World War &#124;United States |publisher=Alfred A. Knopf, Inc |isbn=0-375-40052-4 |url=https://archive.org/details/firstworldwar00keeg_0 |year=1999}}
* {{cite book |last=Kennedy |first=Paul M. |author-link=Paul Kennedy |title=The Rise and Fall of British Naval Mastery |location=London |year=1983 |isbn=0-333-35094-4 |publisher=Macmillan}}
* {{cite book |last=Kühlwetter, von |first=Friedrich |title=Skagerrak : Der Ruhmestag der deutschen Flotte |year=1916 |publisher=Ullstein |location=Berlin}}
* {{cite journal |last=Lambert |first=Nicholas A |date=January 1998 |title='Our Bloody Ships' or 'Our Bloody System'? Jutland and the Loss of the Battle Cruisers, 1916 |journal=The Journal of Military History |volume=61 |pages=29–55 |doi=10.2307/120394 |jstor=120394 |issue=1 |publisher=Society for Military History, Vol. 62, No. 1}}
* {{cite book |last=Marder |first=Arthur J. |author-link=Arthur Marder |volume=III |title=Jutland and after, May 1916 – December 1916 |series=From the Dreadnought to Scapa Flow |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=1966}}
* {{cite book |last=Massie |first=Robert K. |author-link=Robert K. Massie |title=Castles of Steel: Britain, Germany, and the Winning of the Great War at Sea |year=2003 |publisher=Random House |isbn=0-345-40878-0 |title-link=Castles of Steel: Britain, Germany, and the Winning of the Great War at Sea}}
* {{cite book |last=Massie |first=Robert K. |author-link=Robert K. Massie |title=Dreadnought: Britain, Germany and the coming of the great war |year=1991 |publisher=Random House |isbn=0-394-52833-6 |title-link=Dreadnought (book)}}
* {{cite journal |last=McCartney |first=Innes |title=Scuttled in the Morning: the discoveries and surveys of HMS Warrior and HMS Sparrowhawk, the Battle of Jutland's last missing shipwrecks |journal=The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology |volume=47 |issue=2 |pages=253–266 |date=2018 |doi=10.1111/1095-9270.12302 |bibcode=2018IJNAr..47..253M |doi-access=free}}
* {{cite journal |last=McCartney |first=Innes |title=The Opening and Closing Sequences of the Battle of Jutland 1916 Re-examined: archaeological investigations of the wrecks of HMS Indefatigable and SMS V4. |journal=The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology |volume=46 |issue=2 |pages=317–329 |date=2017 |doi=10.1111/1095-9270.12236 |bibcode=2017IJNAr..46..317M |s2cid=164686388 |url=http://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/29391/5/ACCEPTED%20VERSION%20IJNA%20IJM%202017.pdf |access-date=10 December 2019 |archive-date=14 March 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200314071848/http://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/29391/5/ACCEPTED%20VERSION%20IJNA%20IJM%202017.pdf |url-status=live}}
* {{cite journal |last=McCartney |first=Innes |title=The Battle of Jutland's Heritage under Threat: The extent of commercial salvage on the shipwrecks as observed 2000–2016. |journal=Mariner's Mirror |date=2017 |doi=10.1080/00253359.2017.1304701 |s2cid=165003480 |url=http://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/29306/3/Battle%20of%20Jutland%20Heritage%20Under%20Threat.pdf |access-date=10 December 2019 |archive-date=28 April 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190428161055/http://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/29306/3/Battle%20of%20Jutland%20Heritage%20Under%20Threat.pdf |url-status=live}}
* {{cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=23r_CwAAQBAJ&q=jutland+1916+the+archaeology&pg=PA27 |last=McCartney |first=Innes |author-link=Innes McCartney |title=Jutland 1916: The Archaeology of a Naval Battlefield |publisher=Bloomsbury |year=2016 |isbn=978-1844864164 |access-date=15 October 2020 |archive-date=25 November 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211125095109/https://books.google.com/books?id=23r_CwAAQBAJ&q=jutland+1916+the+archaeology&pg=PA27 |url-status=live}}
* {{cite journal |last=McCartney |first=Innes |author-link=Innes McCartney |title=The Armoured Cruiser HMS ''Defence'': A Case Study in Assessing the Royal Navy Shipwrecks of the Battle of Jutland 1916 as an Archaeological Resource |journal=International Journal of Nautical Archaeology |date=March 2012 |doi=10.1111/j.1095-9270.2011.00331.x |volume=41 |issue=1 |pages=56–66 |bibcode=2012IJNAr..41...56M |s2cid=163077864 |url=http://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/29393/3/HMS%20Defence%20ijna%20submission%20IJM%20final%20for%20BURO.pdf |access-date=10 December 2019 |archive-date=25 October 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201025090028/http://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/29393/3/HMS%20Defence%20ijna%20submission%20IJM%20final%20for%20BURO.pdf |url-status=live}}
* {{cite book |last=Moretz |first=Joseph |title=The Royal Navy and the Capital Ship in the Interwar Period: An Operational Perspective |publisher=Routledge |year=2002 |location=New York |isbn=0-7146-5196-6}}
* {{cite book |last=Morrison |first=S. E. |author-link=Samuel Eliot Morison |title=Leyte, June 1944 – January 1945 |series=[[History of United States Naval Operations in World War II]] |volume=XII |year=1958 |publisher=Little & Brown |location=Boston |oclc=3339343}}
* {{cite book |last=Nasmith |first=Col. George |others=Introduction by Gen. Sir Arthur W. Currie |title=Canada's Sons and Great Britain during the World War |publisher=Thomas Allen |location=Toronto |year=1919}}
* {{cite book |author=O'Connell, Robert J. |title=Sacred Vessels: The Cult of the Battleship and the Rise of the U.S. Navy |publisher=Oxford University Press |location=Oxford |year=1993 |isbn=0-19-508006-8}}
* {{cite book |last=Rasor |first=Eugene L. |title=Winston S. Churchill, 1874–1965: A Comprehensive Historiography and Annotated Bibliography |publisher=Greenwood |year=2000 |location=London |isbn=0-3133-0546-3 |url=https://archive.org/details/winstonschurchil00raso}}
* {{cite book |last=Tarrant |first=V. E. |title=Jutland: The German Perspective: A New View of the Great Battle, 31 May 1916 |year=1995 |publisher=Arms & Armour Press |location=London |isbn=1-85409-244-8}}
{{refend}}

==Further reading==
{{refbegin|30em}}
* {{cite book |last=Bacon |first=Reginald |author-link=Reginald Bacon |title=The Jutland Scandal |year=1925 |location=London |oclc=1900062}}
* {{cite book |last=Butler |first=Daniel Allen |title=Distant Victory: The Battle of Jutland and the Allied Triumph in the First World War |year=2006 |publisher=Praeger |location=Westport, CT |isbn=0-275-99073-7}}
* {{cite book |last=Corbett |first=Julian |author-link=Julian Corbett |volume=III |title=Naval Operations |year=2003 |publisher=Longmans & Co. |location=London |series=Official History of the War |edition=repr. |isbn=1-84342-491-6}}
* H.W. Fawcett & G.W.W. Hooper, RN (editors), [https://archive.org/details/fightingatjutlan00fawcuoft The fighting at Jutland (abridged edition); the personal experiences of forty-five officers and men of the British Fleet] London: MacMillan & Co, 1921
* {{cite book |last=Frost |first=H. H. |title=The Battle of Jutland |year=1936 |publisher=USNI |location=Annapolis, MD |oclc=2826423}}
* {{cite book |last=George |first=S.C. |title=Jutland to Junkyard |year=1981 |publisher=Paul Harris |location=Edinburgh |isbn=0-86228-029-X}}
* {{cite book |last=Groos |first=''Fregattenkäpitan'' Otto |title=Der Krieg in der Nordsee |series=Der Krieg zur See: 1914–1918 |volume=Bänd V |year=1925 |publisher=Mittler & Sons |location=Berlin |language=de |oclc=2960788}}
* {{cite book |last=Hough |first=Richard |author-link=Richard Hough |title=Dreadnought, A history of the Modern Battleship |year=1975 |publisher=[[Macmillan Publishers]] |isbn=0517293676 |oclc=5101910}}
* {{cite book |last=Legg |first=Stuart |title=Jutland, an Eye-Witness Account of a Great Battle |year=1966 |publisher=The John Day Company |location=New York City |oclc=505431}}
* Lambert, Andrew. "Writing Writing the Battle: Jutland in Sir Julian Corbett's Naval Operations," ''Mariner's Mirror'' 103#2 (2017) 175–95, Historiography..
* {{cite book |last=London |first=Charles |title=Jutland 1916, Clash of the Dreadnoughts |series=Campaign |number=72 |year=2000 |publisher=Osprey |location=Oxford |isbn=1-85532-992-1}}
* {{cite book |last=Marder |first=Arthur J. |author-link=Arthur Marder |title=From the Dreadnought to Scapa Flow, The Royal Navy in the Fisher Era, 1904–1919: The War Years to the eve of Jutland, 1914–1916 |volume=II |year=1965 |publisher=Oxford University Press |location=London |oclc=865180297}}
* {{cite book |title=Battlecruisers |last=Roberts |first=John Arthur |series=ShipShape |year=2003 |publisher=Caxton Editions |location=London |isbn=1-84067-530-6}}
* {{cite book |last=Steel |first=Nigel |author2=Hart, Peter |title=Jutland 1916: Death in the Grey Wastes |year=2004 |publisher=[[Orion Publishing Group|Cassell]] |location=London |isbn=0-304-35892-4}}
{{refend}}

==External links==
{{Commons category|Battle of Jutland}}
* [http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20160303100016/http%3A//www.centenarynews.com/article/centenary%2Dnews%2Dlookahead%2Dbattle%2Dof%2Djutland WW1 Centenary News – Battle of Jutland]
* [http://www.jutland1916.com/ Jutland Centenary Initiative]
* [http://www.jutland.org.uk/ Jutland Commemoration Exhibition]
* Beatty's [http://www.gwpda.org/1916/jutlandb.html official report]
* Jellicoe's [http://www.gwpda.org/naval/jut02.htm official despatch]
* Jellicoe, [http://www.richthofen.com/jellicoe/ extract from ''The Grand Fleet''], published 1919
* [http://www.worldwar1.co.uk/despatches.html World War I Naval Combat – Despatches]
* Scheer, [http://www.richthofen.com/scheer/ ''Germany's High Seas Fleet in the World War''] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110317202734/http://www.richthofen.com/scheer/ |date=17 March 2011 }}, published 1920
* Henry Allingham [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/southern_counties/5044206.stm Last known survivor of the Battle of Jutland]
* [http://www.northeastmedals.co.uk/britishguide/jutland/jellicoe_dispatch_1916.htm Table of Jutland Casualties Listed by Ship]
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20180910131407/http://germannavalwarfare.info/indexJUT.htm germannavalwarfare.info] Some Original Documents from the British Admiralty, [[Room 40]], regarding the Battle of Jutland: Photocopies from [[The National Archives (United Kingdom)|The National Archives]], [[Kew]], [[London Borough of Richmond upon Thames|Richmond]], UK.
* [https://nmrn.locaria.org Sailors, with biographies, plotted on the Jutland Interactive Map of the NMRN] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230205021052/https://nmrn.locaria.org/ |date=5 February 2023 }}
* [https://www.jutlandcrewlists.org/ Battle of Jutland Crew Lists Project]
* [https://battleofjutlandcrewlists.miraheze.org/wiki/Main_Page Battle of Jutland Crew Lists Project Wiki]
* [http://www.jutlandbattlememorial.com/english.html Memorial park for the Battle of Jutland]
* [http://www.battle-of-jutland.com/ Battle-of-Jutland.com] The website owner has a package of original documents
* {{cite web |last1=Harley |first1=Simon |title=A Direct Train of Cordite |url=http://www.dreadnoughtproject.org/tfs/index.php/A_Direct_Train_of_Cordite |website=The Dreadnought Project}} Transcript of post-battle correspondence between the Grand Fleet and the Admiralty concerning the loss of the battlecruisers.

===Notable accounts===
* [http://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/Kiplings%27_Reporting_on_The_Battle_of_Jutland by Rudyard Kipling] Retrieved 2009-10-31.
* [http://www.worldwar1.co.uk/grant.htm by Alexander Grant], a gunner aboard HMS ''Lion''
* [https://archive.org/stream/northseadiary00kingiala/northseadiary00kingiala_djvu.txt A North Sea diary, 1914–1918], by [[Stephen King-Hall]], a junior officer on the [[light cruiser]] {{HMS|Southampton}}
* [http://www.familyletters.co.uk/31-may-1916-the-battle-of-jutland/ by Paul Berryman], a junior officer on {{HMS|Malaya}}
* [http://www.gwpda.org/naval/jut01.htm by Moritz von Egidy], captain of SMS ''Seydlitz''
* [http://www.gwpda.org/naval/foeseyd.htm by Richard Foerster], gunnery officer on ''Seydlitz''
* [http://www.wtj.com/archives/hase_03.htm by Georg von Hase], gunnery officer on ''Derfflinger''

:('''Note:''' Due to the [[time zone|time]] difference, entries in some of the German accounts are one hour ahead of the times in this article.)

{{World War I}}

{{Authority control}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Jutland, Battle of}}
[[Category:Battle of Jutland| ]]
[[Category:Battles in 1916]]
[[Category:1916 in Denmark]]
[[Category:1916 in Germany]]
[[Category:1916 in the United Kingdom]]
[[Category:Naval battles of World War I involving Australia]]
[[Category:Naval battles of World War I involving Germany]]
[[Category:Naval battles of World War I involving the United Kingdom]]
[[Category:North Sea operations of World War I]]
[[Category:Protected wrecks of the United Kingdom]]
[[Category:Military history of the North Sea]]
[[Category:May 1916 events]]
[[Category:June 1916 events]]
[[Category:Germany–United Kingdom military relations]]