From HistoryBuff.com, a site which has lots of interest in showing just how things WERE printed in news stories at the time -- a little different than most sites and a cool idea:
As there were no newspapers at this time, the news was carried by newsbooks published weeks or months after the events. One of the first accounts was in a 24-page newsbook printed in 1588 in Cologne (Germany) by Michael Entzinger. The front page featured a woodcut representing the Spanish Armada sailing off the coast of England (Figure 2). The newsbook is in German and the front page translates as follows:
"A true account of the Spanish Armada or Armaments translated from the original Spanish edition into the high German including the story of how on the 29th and 30th of May the Armada under the command of the Duke of Medina Sedonia, departed from Portugal and how it then, at great risk, arrived in England and struggled in a strait on the 8th, 9th, and 10th of August and also how the Armada again encountered the Englishmen on the open sea after that, on the 22nd of the same month of August." This was quite a "headline" (compare it to modern times when the headline reads "WAR") and was only the introduction to a complete early account of the Spanish defeat. This newsbook represents one of the earliest "first reports" of a significant historical event in a printed news vehicle.
Now, some quick rips from
http://www.rain.org/~karpeles/armadadis.html
The Karpeles Manuscript Library Archive:
The Battle of Gravelines
Three great Spanish ships sank that day, a dozen more were badly damaged. 600 Spaniards were killed and at least 800 wounded. The decks ran with their blood.
The Spanish cannon balls were so badly cast that they splintered when fired. Also, the merchant ships were not built to take either the weight or the recoil of heavy cannon. Continual pounding from their own guns put an immense strain on the ships' timbers. Their carpenters had the never-ending task of caulking the leaks. Sometimes the guns were not properly lashed to the gundecks. When fired, the recoil sent the guns bounding across the decks, severely damaging both ships and men. For these reasons, the English ships received little damage. Scarcely one hundred Englishmen had died since the first encounter.
The Spanish were not prepared for an extended battle. They SEVERELY underestimated the creativity and tenacity of the English. This is not to say the English were wholly prepared for the battle -- they were not. Many of the English ships were privateers pressed into service to fight this battle.
The Spanish were supposed to meet up with the Duke of Parma (From Flanders) and did not yet want to fully engage the english. This reluctance cost them the advantage of initiative.
Point here is this: your view is based on a new view, but so is mine. The Traditional View(tm) sees the Spanish Armada as a naval battle. It should, IMO, NOT be seen like this! It was not a wonderful naval victory for the English. It was not a decisive naval loss for the Spanish. But, that works in reverse too. What made it a decisive victory for the English was that they thwarted an invasion. The defense of England was the victor. The thrashing the Spanish armada got by trying to round the North Coast of the Isles removed the threat to English shores by papist countries. THAT'S why i see it as a victory. As a purely naval battle it was just a mess for BOTH sides -- but in the slightly larger view, it was a clear victory for England. It showed they knew how to use the channel to keep the shores of England safe, no matter who attacked.
).
