This would be looking at the immediate aftermath and not the long term strategic consequences, such as weakening or breaking of the seaborne blockade of Germany. Sailing for home and staying there (which is what happened in reality) is not the same as going home and then coming out again and again.....
Naval battles are always strategic if the battle determines contol of the sea. Isn't that what the British were trying to do for the entire war at sea? To secure their control of it by luring the High Seas Fleet out for decisive engagements?
I don't mean to be argumentative, well maybe I do, because it irks me that Jutland received the most votes for "Greatest Battle." Great battles are supposed to be decisive; Jutland was anything but. Neither side accomplished what it wanted to do when they set sail. The Germans wanted to break the British blockade and the British wanted to eliminate the threat of a German fleet in being. So how does it all end? Historians are still arguing about who won 90 years later. Naval battles usually have clear winners and losers; the loser sinks and the winner sails home.
Don't get me wrong, the Battle of Jutland is one of my personal favorites to read about and argue over. The world's two most powerful navies going gun to gun? Fleets of battleships lined up and throwing huge shells at each other? Hipper decoying Beatty and then Beatty decoying Scheer? The death knell of the battlecruiser? What's not to like?
a significant battle. It epitomized warfare at sea for the steam age but it wasn't all that great. I wonder: if Halsey had left TF34 in Surigao Strait, would Jutland still be considered to be the height of battleship combat?