I have an interest in naval history, don’t know why.  Perhaps Hornblower stories in the ‘50s?

So a recent YouTube doc on the battle of Jutland (Skaggerak), 1916, was quite a surprise.  This took a much more causal (?) than temporal view.

Battle Of Jutland: The Naval Disaster That Won WW1

As examples:

• Not ‘what’ British ships sank, but ‘why’ did they sink more often that the Germans’
• Not ‘what’ the Beatty’s British battle line was, but ‘why’ it was incomplete.

In both cases it was that the British Admiral had (a) ignored battle safety protocols by ordering munition transit doors be left open to increase the rate of fire, thus causing an exploding magazine  (b) used flag communications instead of available telegraphy, thus part of his fleet not following.  Who was this egoistic idiot:

Oh dear, Admiral David Beatty (please note the spelling!)

Yet he and Jellicoe (the boss he ignored) are both honoured, notwithstanding the loss of 6,000 people and 14 ships (far more than German losses).  Because the strategic objective was maintained: to block sea traffic to Germany.  Local famine ensued in Germany.  Fair ball in the ‘rules of war’ at the time. Muddling through?