HMS Anson - A Battleship That Never Fought in Anger 

Warspite: First time?

Given how little most WWII-gen battleships achieved, especially compared to what other warships might have accomplished in their place (with two notable exceptions), it says more about how strategically obsolete the battleship concept had become by then.

@@bkjeong4302 I am curious about which 2 you think are the exceptions

Carriers is were it at baby

Duke of York, Bismarck, Washington, Prince of Wales, and Soulth Dakota all did battleship ship things

@@king_br0k How about Rodney, or the 'Old Lady?'

Check out the Ansons extremely advanced 14 inch battery reload system. The Tirpitz and the Yamato were slow firing muzzle loaders by comparison

*Cough* Azur Lane *Cough* .

Heh... 😅

Sentimental value. Doesn't outweigh their cost in upkeep.

@@WALTERBROADDUS And that includes HMS Victory too… (£40 - £45 million, and that only in recent years for new restoration. Only "sentimental value" costs there too ..?)

@@hauk65000 some of this is understandable. The United Kingdom had a Empire that was falling and had to spend 30 years rebuilding from war. Preservation of those memories was costly and not fondly ones for all. Nor are ship museums exactly Disney World. They don't draw a huge numbers of visitors who are going to come and make them self-sustaining. And as we stand on the 80th anniversary of D-Day; that entire generation is now nearly in past tense. Even now the Falklands War is 40 years in the past. Where are the great memorials to them? Let alone the other conflicts? Sadly, it's just for the amateur historians, Naval nerds and The Gamers who care anymore.🙇🏽‍♂️

@@WALTERBROADDUS Spray and nonsense. Find another hobby, you understand nothing about history.

@@WALTERBROADDUS Completely wrong.

What do you mean?

@@RayyMusikAzur Lane added her, fans hates her design and she got removed from the upcoming event.

the design of "Anson" was more inline with a lower class submarine, not a high class KGV girl, unlike maya

I think the artist was told that they were gonna add HMS Sunfish but quickly changed their minds after she was drawn. The emblems clearly show a sunfish.@@lsp6032

The issue was that being called into a surface action was unlikely to happen in the first place.

So.... You just completely ignore the Surigao straight? Or the the Big Mamie at Mers-El-Kebir?

@@mikebrase5161- I am not sure whether your comment is a response to my post or not? The battleships involved in the Surigao Strait were of an older vintage than the KGVs and they were fighting ships of a similar age. That is, they were fighting contemporaries as opposed to more modern late generation battleships. The "Jean Bart" was engaged at Casablanca. Although a modern unit she was of course incomplete, stationary, and not a fully worked up vessel in open water. BB59 had a later model of sixteen inch gun. Yes, USS "Washington" used the same weapon to destroy a Japanese' battleship albeit it was a modernised older vessel and not a post Washington Treaty ship.

@@mikebrase5161 Surigao involved old battleships, and Massachusetts needed Ranger to finish the job.

@@bkjeong4302 how can the British 14 inch be the most successful BB Gun when it didn't kill any BB's, because unless I'm wrong the only time they had a chance they had to turn tail. The Bismarck was finally finished off by the Rodney. Furthermore the 14inch guns on the old Texas had to be relined they sent so many rounds down range in fire support. The idea the British 14 inch wasn't anything more than mediocre is hilarious. The 15's on the Warspite got more ass than any of the 14's KGV's

Warspite should've

I agree.

Ha! You won! He's just released a video on USS Stewart!

Yes, the did. It was the only time Tirpitz fired her main armament in anger. If shelling a large shed can be called 'Anger.' Large numbers of medals were distributed among her crew. The whole operation seems to have been an attempt to raise the morale of her crew slightly above the floor level to which it had degenerated.

@@dovetonsturdee7033 Thank you.

Tbh I liked the design

@@ironkeko4423 I did too, but it was more fitting of a submarine than a battleship.

@@Iron_Blood_Enjoyer1933 HMS Barham? Hahahahahahha

@@ironkeko4423USS Arizona? Hahahahaha

I'm gonna miss the smug sukumizu loli. 😢

Have to disagree. At the start of the war most carriers and airforces were still largely limited to day flying in good weather, with only a few specialist night bombers. Battleships could and did fight in all conditions (e.g. Duke of York vs Scharnhorst). Bombing ships was absolutely not a tried and tested tactic prewar, so who on their right mind would bet the farm on it without the data that only five years of fighting could provide? Battleships escorted carriers because carriers were still considered vulnerable to surface attack. I'll stop here but consider that everyone thinks about carrier and aircraft tech from 1945, not 1939, which is 20:20 hindsight and skews points of view. But more importantly, consider that the people of the time making these decisions on what to build and when were not idiots and understood the limitations of these systems... and at the start of the war right through until about 1943, the battleship was undisputed king if it caught up to you, day or night, sun or rain.

@@lukedogwalker IF it caught up….which is unlikely if you’re a fleet carrier and aren’t commanded by D’Oyles-Hughes.

Yeah, he probably does. It's too good to be true as a mere coincidence, lol.

Or if a new BC design was made after Hood was built. Basically a Queen Elizabeth in looks, but with the 16 inch guns and triple turrets of the Nelson's, the same turret layout of the Queen Elizabeth's and Revenge's, the same 32 knots as the Renown's and the Courageous' & Hood, and the mixed armor scheme of the Hood & the Queen Elizabeth's.