SMS Seydlitz - Guide 058 - Special (Extended) 

@Old Iron Z21 Wilhelm Heidkamp actually served from 1939 to 1940, she was sunk during the 1st Battle of Narvik by British DDs.

Basically the guy that doesn't Allow his Fate to be written by others

He was just a seaman. He survived and suffered for a day or two in hospital after the ordeal. He was visited by.. I think Seydlitz’ captain? He was posthumously awarded and had a WW2 destroyer named after him.

And then she refused to be raised again. As defiant in death as she was in life. Truly sad that nothing remains of her.

It was common for B-17s and B-29s to do this upon landing after suffering the truly astonishing amount of battle damage they could absorb, they would crack in half as soon as they came to rest, the airframe having retained a C-hair's worth of structural integrity such that it was intact while flown gently, supported by the slipstream and longitudinal forces, but absent these forces and with the full weight resting on the landing gear, they fell apart like an old British convertible where you accidentally opened both doors at once.

As you would say in port. Another Happy Landing.

@@pensiring7112 Apparently her bell still exists, it is somewhere in Laboe naval memorial.

“Speed is armor” screw that, ARMOR IS ARMOR!

Speed was fine with 28,1 knots. The engineer's design foresaw 63.000 horsepowers, but the engines made nearly 90.000 horsepowers. Some sources mentiond 29,1 knots max. speed for Seydlitz. So she was one of the fastest battle-cruisers in her era. And 11 inch guns were enough to knock out one of Lion's engine rooms. Blücher caused itself the battle of the Doggerbank with her low speed. Without Blücher we would have seen no battle or only a battle of 3 BCs against 3 BCs.

Heavier guns would have mattered positively

Battlecruisers were... Complicated, in a doctrinal/tactical sense. At first their role was to be a scout and cruiser-hunter, but then some admirals had the brilliant idea that the less armored ships should be in the line of battle. The germans lacked battleships compared to the british, so they also needed their battlecruiser to be part of the battleline. Given the right angle and distance a 11-inch gun could still penetrate the less armored british battlecruisers, and maybe even the battleships, although that's VERY contentious. Having more armor, considering germany had less capital ships, made sense. It's much cheaper to repair than to build an entire ship.

Any of her turrets. Look at the front turret after Jutland. 15" shell blew the roof off and the 11" guns with it. Nobody could have survived that blast. Same for the bridge crew, all killed. I wonder, was Seydlitz the ship not sunk, with the most deaths aboard in history?

@@AllThingsCubey The guns of the fore turret were removed in port to regain some amount of bouyancy by reducing weight in the bow. I dont know if the turret was still operational, but in the pictures of Seydlitz returning to port (at around 9:00 in this video) you can clearly see that the roof wasnt blown off. The turret even seems to have rotated between the shots, so I guess it was still operable.

@@AllThingsCubey USS Franklin was it, with 800 deaths.

Somethings gain a soul, it seems, they live rather than just exist.

Wilhelm Heidkamp

Reminds me of an American bomber crewman Henry Erwin who when an ignited white phosphorous smoke marker blew back up it's launch tube and into his face. Blinded by the burning marker which burned off his nose and one ear he picked up the 1,000+ degree F device and carried it through the B29 to an open window behind the copilot and threw it out before collapsing. Groping blindly through the plane he held the marker between his arm and body burning away his flesh to the arm bones and ribs. He had left behind flesh from his hands on anything he had touched. Expected to die they approved and air expressed the Meal of Honer to him so he could be alive to receive it. He somehow survived and after two and a half year and over 40 surgeries regained his eyesight and the use of one arm. It is amazing the courage people find in themselves when saving the lives of their comrades is at stake.

He had the choice either he burns his hands or he dies along with the rest of the crew

@@hajoos.8360 the Z-21 was named after him

@@williamcote4208 Yes... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Heidkamp

YOU SHALL NOT PASS!! determination

WEEB

Yep, and you can also tell it's a German ship based on how many fires were started! You'll notice that the British ships never attempted to move to within 6.5km of the Seydlitz, because they knew about the top quality German secondary guns! They say that her captain had a Lyon that he wanted to use at Jutland. But he didn't have enough blueprints to upgrade it fully, and since he had spent all his gold on premium repair kits, he didn't have the 500 gold needed to retrain himself to the Lyon in time!😁

His Spirit kept the USN afloat in WW2.

Which flags and pennants d'you think he had flying to give him all those bonuses

SOVIET gold dmg control

Nah, the robot voice with lots of humor is much more entertaining.

I don't like it, either. It mispronounces words, runs them together and just makes it difficult to listen to. The humour sometimes sounds like Marvin the Paranoid Android (the original, and best, English one). OK, sometimes that's not so bad. But I do prefer the human voice.

Robot Lives Matter.

The Greek armoured cruiser Averof is another ship from that era that's still around as a museum ship :).

Is Seydlitz in WoWs? I don't recall a Seydlitz class cruiser. Or one in the battleship line (even though she's a BC).

RobotDCLXVI I was referring more to the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau, although in the couple of months since I left the original comment, they also added the Mackensen-class battlecruiser “Prinz Eitel Friederich” as an earnable premium ship. I do hope that Wargaming eventually adds at least the German and British battlecruisers to the actual tech trees; there certainly were enough different classes built to fill up several tiers.

@@willrogers3793 Sad that world of warships is a rape on naval warfare

George Kapadoukakis British battlecruisers were also capable of taking a lot of punishment when their ammo handling facilities were operating properly :p

George Kapadoukakis German ships (most of them) were not intended for long cruising missions worldwide as British capital ships were, enabling the German ships to be more heavily armoured as compared to British ships. Sleeping accommodations, food storage, fuel reserves, and crew comforts were sacrificed for heavier armour, and the results speak for themselves. The two navies were intended to serve different purposes, and while the German ships were better suited to battle, the British ships were better in rough seas, and had much longer ranges.

well Michael, also, the german battlecruisers were designed to fight alongside battleships if needed, unlike most british ones (results speak for themselves) the british sacrificed armor for speed compared to battleships, the germans sacrificed firepower

I would contest that they didnt even sacrifice firepower,not until the Derfflinger at least, Von der Tann had the same caliber and broadside as the Nassaus and the Moltkes traded caliber for a larger number of barrels on the broadside compared to the Helgolands. Derfflinger had less guns than Kaisers and Konigs and the Mackensens a smaller caliber than the Badens so here the argument holds water but, as you can see, it can not be generalized.

@@trauko1388 von der Tann had 3 turrets usable per side, in a whole 4, Nassus had per side one turret more, in a whole 6 Moltke had 5x2 11" guns, 3 centerline, 1 on each side but with very bad firing angles to the other side (although that shouldn't have been such a huge problem in real life) (same arrangement as the Kaisers); Helgoland had 6x2 12" guns, 2 centerline, 2 on each side, technically better armed, practically not Derfflinger had less guns than Königs and Kaisers, as you said, Mackensens smaller guns than Bayerns (btw, it's the Bayern-class, not the Baden class, that is mixed up often, the Baden was ordered and begun earlier, but the Bayern was finished earlier and it was officially called Bayern-class)

*Imagines the captain and the crew standing a top in varying dress at attention as the ship goes to dock and sink while jack sparrow theme plays*

yup - it only sank twice:) Seriously though she could take a deal of punishment and survive. For the last part of the journey home after Jutland she was steaming at about 4 knots and astern in order to have any chance of making it home. But she did!

John Parrish I'm still holding out hope for a split BB line for Germany and Britain so we can have a proper battlecruiser tree. Germany and Britain would be the only 2 countries with a full line but it would still be cool to see

@@themadhammer3305 I agree, but even if they didn't this old tub was soooooo tough that she deserves an honored place in my collection.

John Parrish oh I absolutely agree. It does make me wonder how they decide on premium ships as they must have an enormous list that won't fit in the current trees but could still be competitive

I concur, good Sir. Though, since Prinz Eitel Friedrich is already a Tier 6 'battlecruiser' - Seydlitz as a premium tier 5 with Moltke at Tier 4 and Von Der Tann at Tier 3? ;)

@@the_lost_navigator I'm sure there were some post WW1 battlecruiser designs that could be used to pad put the line from 7 to 10. Possibly shuffle Gneisenau over for the level 7 or 8 (depending if they pull a Cleveland) and paper/laid down but not finished designs for the remainder

And known to RN sailors as the 'Dirt flinger'.

Oh hey, great minds think alike!

A floating monument to "WHY WON'T YOU DIE?!!!"

hes telling you not to watch for another few years ;) lol

Some point next year :)

Looking forward to them!

The overlapping sector forwards was so small as to be almost useless, you would essentially never get more than 4 guns firing forwards despite having a theoretical 6. It also meant the magazines of the wing turrets were close to the side of the ship, making them vulnerable to gunfire and causing difficulties in designing a functional torpedo protection. It was one of those, good in theory, not so good in real life ideas.

Weight, one that covers both sectors is better, if your Battle line is fighting both sides, your Command Complex or their Signal Officer is in need of replacing.... in a real sense.

Look at the cost to Britain of the Grand Fleet. They were building ships faster than any other country causing ships they had built just a few years earlier to be completely obsolete. The price they eventually paid was they became a second rate nation because of the massive debt they created building the Grand Fleet.

I have it and many others, and used it to make this video. What precisely do you think is wrong?

In this particular video, the bit about the damage, this is how Campbell puts it: "On receiving Scheer's night formation signal Rear Admiral Mauve ordered the 2nd Squadron to reduce to half speed but he did not begin to take station astern until 2155, when the situation ahead had become clearer. Hipper boarded the Moltke at 2057 (also at 2105) and decided that the 1st SG would proceed towards the head of the line at 20kts. Only the Moltke and Seydlitz could comply as the Derf flinger and von der Tann were limited to 18kts, the former by the amount of water that entered forward at higher speed, and the latter by dirty fires which had to be cleaned. Hipper's increase of speed could be justified for the Moltke but not for the Seydlitz and it would have been better to have limited her speed to 18kts or less, for similar reasons to the Derfflinger's. ... The Seydlitz followed the Moltke, after Hipper had boarded the latter at about 2100, at a higher speed than was wise in view of the amount of water present in the forward part of the ship. At 2100 the total quantity of water in the Seydlitz was calculated to be 2636 tons with an increase in draught forward of 8ft 4in, a decrease of 3ft 3in aft, and a list of 2° 5' to starboard. This was in itself no very serious danger to the ship, and among other compartments the forward 11 in and 5.9in ammunition spaces and the broadside and bow torpedo flats were still unflooded. The large hole in the starboard side caused by the 15in shell at 1706, was however not far above the 2100 waterline, and the faster the Seydlitz steamed the greater would be the intake of water. " The reason for the increased flooding was the excesive speed used, same for Lützow, only that the latter had a justification since she had to withdraw under fire. Seydlitz on the other hand was unneccessarily pressed just to keep up with Hipper in his attempt to regain his position ahead of the fleet. "The Seydlitz's condition did not become dangerous until after she reached Horns Reef, and as previously noted, revolutions for 22 and then for 20kts were maintained. This was too high a speed for a ship with so much damage forward, and had soon to be considerably reduced. " The damage itself wasnt the problem, it was a potential one as long as the speed was kept reasonably low, Seydlitz should have been detached to join the battleline instead of almost sinking itself running around. Her absurd dash produced this: "The Seydlitz therefore continued astern under her own power, and fortunately the weather remained calm. At 1700 the starboard after wings were counter-flooded for a length of 57ft to combat the list to port, and at this time the Seydlitz's condition was probably at its worst with a calculated 5329 tons water aboard, giving a draught of 46ft lin forward and 24ft 4in aft. as against the pre-battle figures of 30ft 6in forward and 29ft Bin aft. The forward end of the keel line, where the draught was taken, was c65ft abaft the stem. The theoretical list to port was 2° 56', but the actual list was 8°. " As you can see, it was Seydlitz' captain who almost sank the ship, he caused the creeping flooding, he could have avoided that by staying with the other damaged GKs. And I dont seem to recall the Seydlitz sinking, running aground yes, but not sinking. I can, of course, be mistaken. There are other mistakes on other videos, off the top of my head the one about Huascar comes to mind since I wrote a long post detailing each one of them. And what can be called "difference of opinion" since I do believe the German GKs should be considered fast battleships due to 1. A 5 knot advantage over all contemporary BBs, 2. armor as thick as most contemporary BBs, 3. German BB caliber guns where RoF was prioritized over weight of shell. Best. Pd.: Re-watched this video, some observations: Doors in the turret were not left open as in the RN ships which, by itself, is a controversial statement: "In the Seydlitz a 13.5in shell struck the aftermost barbette, and burst in holing the 9in armour, driving in red hot armour fragments. These ignited 11in main and fore charges on the transfer rails in the working chamber. The flash shot up into the gun house and ignited the charges there, and down the lower hoists, setting fire to charges in them and in the handing room as well as to some in the magazine. The ignition of the charges was at first comparatively slow, as when the fumes of the burning charges in the working chamber began to penetrate to the handing room one deck below, the crew of the latter opened the bulkhead door, which opened towards the stern, to escape into the handing room of the after superfiring turret. At this moment the charges in the handing room ignited, and flash blew open the connecting door to the after superfiring turret, which opened towards the bows, and passing into this turret ignited charges in the handing room and some in the magazine, and the fire spread to the working chamber and gunhouse." The 2nd turret was lost due to the crew of the 1st trying to escape, and, the flash expanded through the hoists simple because THERE WERE NO HOIST DOORS. A commissioned recomended fitting them AFTER Dogger Bank. I dont get how the arrival of the 5th BS allowed Derfflinger and Seydlitz to concentrate on Queen Mary, something which by the way happened quite fortitously as Derfflinger had lost sight of its target in the smoke and switched fire to Queen Mary by pure chance. Regarding the removal of safeties in the BCF, too much has been made of very little, I suggest this page, it is very interesting: www.dreadnoughtproject.org/tfs/index.php/A_Direct_Train_of_Cordite Destroys some urban legends about the battle. Lion, btw, followed all the RN measures to the letter, it still suffered a cordite fire that would have destroyed the ship, had the magazine not been flooded earlier. That should dispell any belief that following RN procedure would have saved ships. You claim the Seydlitz was at some point "right on the edge of buoyancy" when later on and after she was done fighting, she had less than 3.000t of water and the flooding did not pose a threat to the ship. I would love to know the source for that since sounds more like propaganda than the evaluation of the ships crew. I really, really hope you are not using books by Massie, they are crap.

First, thanks for taking the time to write out so much detail. With regards to the damage Seydlitz suffered at Jutland, the source for Seydlitz's condition after fighting 5th BS comes from the Royal Navy Museum, Portsmouth, and a lecture conducted there a couple of years ago by a panel of naval historians that I was able to attend and also from Tarrant's book on the German perspective of Jutland. By 2100 she'd had two hours to pump out water since the withdrawal from the BCF/5th BS fight, whereas her own crew attest that of the remaining unbreached sections of the ship, a hit that opened any single one would've doomed them c.1900-1930. It's condition was somewhat recovered by later in the battle due to damage control efforts. With regards to the Seydlitz sinking, it was brought back into port only with the assistance of other ships aiding in the pumping out. Once those ships left it settled in harbour, as it had been unable to keep up with the flooding on its own for quite a while. Thus it 'sank', albeit in a perfectly recoverable position. With regards to the damage sustained at Dogger Bank, Seydlitz did have anti-flash doors prior to the battle, but they were designed and added to in the aftermath. The video doesn't contradict Campbell's account and indeed is based on it. With regards to the BCF safeties being removed and their relevance to the loss of the ships, there was a full report made after Jutland apart from the train of correspondence you indicated, and that report goes into fair detail about the reasons for losses and the procedures that needed to be taken. Every formal report the RN made in regards to the matter is fairly consistent on this subject and as a weight of evidence is fairly convincing. Lion survived the battle, which in itself is a vindication of it's superior safety procedures, as no safety system is 100% proof against damage, but exist to mitigate the effects to a point where ultimate disaster can be averted. Additionally, the safety systems took the brunt of the original hit (similar to that which killed the other lost BC's) and preserved the ship in that circumstance, which vindicates the procedures when followed correctly. The later fire flare-up was an example of other procedures (surrounding the forward storage of ammo) not being followed correctly. As regards the concentration on Queen Mary, it was not the arrival of 5th BS that enabled this, I was simply noting that the concentration of fire occurred at around the time 5th BS arrived. As for whether the German BC's count as fast battleships, as you say, difference of opinion there.

They had the same shell diameter but that was about it. The guns and projectiles on the GS were slightly longer and I have no idea if they could mix and match. Trying to retrofit the older guns on the GS would mean having to replace all of them since mixing guns with different barrel lengths and shell velocities really screws with aiming.

Graf Spee guns were a 1928 design with 20% more weight and slightly greater muzzle velocity than the 1911 version.

Still working on the audio issues with my set-up :(

I enjoyed the mix of voices. It was like being educated by Zaphod Beeblebrox. :)

Yep

CheapSushi they are booms for anti torpedo netting while in Port. Of dubious usefulness which is why they went away after ww1

Yep

Its where the torpedo nets hang from. They swing out to have the nets at a distance from the hull

@@535phobos thank you! I see them all the time and think, "That's a terrible place for plumbing."

It's the naval term that describes one turret the fires over another.

Super Firing is a naval term for where two turrets are mounted one above the other. The top one is called a super firing turret. I don't know why, but there it is.

Probably like the latin terms for sub and super scripts in typology.

it is very distraction going back and forth. one or the other would be nice plz.

We're working with robot into and outro and human voices in the for the actual ship history in future videos.

Working on that :)

It was named after a general with the family name, so isn't two separate words as far as the ship goes.