Lost damage data and Army-Navy distrust

The failure to inspect Ostfriesland properly mattered because damage-control and hull-protection lessons could have fed later ship design. Progressive flooding might have been limited by an active crew, but the test could not establish that counterfactual after the ship sank without a full inspection. British practice of filling torpedo bulges with water illustrates how a design response could distribute concussive loads while also creating a de facto hole in the hull. Mitchell's public counter-reporting then worsened relations between the Army and Navy just as aviation cooperation should have been maturing. The Navy struggled to compete with the simple public image of bombs sinking a battleship, even though the event functioned more like a laboratory demonstration than wartime combat. A dramatic test result can still produce poor institutional learning when evidence is lost and the services no longer trust one another.