Nestor_ 950 100
_Nomad_ 950 100
_Shark_ 950 100

The reported German losses are as follows. The actual losses may be
much greater:

BATTLE CRUISERS: Tonnage Officers and Men

_Luetzow_ 28,000 1,150

BATTLESHIP:

_Pommern_ 13,040 736

LIGHT CRUISERS:

_Wiesbaden_ ...... ...
_Frauenlob_ 2,657 281
_Elbing_ ..... ...
_Rostock_ 4,820 373

DESTROYERS:

Five .... ...

_Total Tonnage Lost_

British 117,150
German 60,720 (acknowledged)

_Total Personnel Lost_

British 6,105
German 2,414 (acknowledged)

When the losses above given are analyzed they are found to be much
less favorable to the German side than they appear to be on the
surface. To begin with, we may eliminate the three armored cruisers on
the British side as of no military value whatever. This reduces the
_effective_ tonnage lost on the British side by more than 40,000 tons.

The _Queen Mary_ and the _Luetzow_ offset each other.

If we accept the German claim that the _Pommern_, which was lost, was
actually the old predreadnought of that name, it is fair to say that
she offsets the _Invincible_. There is, however, very good reason for
believing that she was a new and very powerful dreadnought. If this is
the case, her loss easily offsets that of both the _Invincible_ and
the _Indefatigable_. Accepting the German statement, however, as we
have done at all other points, we may say that so far as _effective_
capital ships are concerned, the British lost one more than the
Germans. This, after all, is not a very great difference, and it is to
a large extent offset by the loss of four light cruisers which the
German admiralty admit. In destroyers the advantage is with the
Germans.

With regard to the armored cruisers already referred to, it is
interesting to note the fact that these three ships were practically
presented to the Germans, thus paralleling the fate of their sister
ships, the