The Sinking of HMS Glorious: A Devastating Loss for the Royal Navy

Подписаться 14 тыс.

Просмотров 27 тыс.

50% 1

In this gripping historical account, we delve into the dramatic events surrounding the Battle of HMS Glorious, a pivotal moment during World War II. Join us as we explore the harrowing afternoon of June 8th, 1940, when the British aircraft carrier, HMS Glorious, and its escort destroyers, Acasta and Ardent, encountered the formidable German battlecruisers, Scharnhorst and Gneisenau. Witness the valiant efforts of the British forces as they face overwhelming odds and fight for their survival. Learn about Operation Alphabet and the critical role played by HMS Glorious and HMS Ark Royal in the evacuation of Allied forces from Norway. Discover the challenges faced by Glorious in carrying RAF fighters and the daring attempts to fly them back to the United Kingdom. Experience the heart-pounding moments as Glorious and her escorts engage in a one-sided battle against the relentless German firepower. Follow the courageous actions of Ardent and Acasta as they confront the enemy head-on, launching torpedoes and engaging in a desperate struggle to delay the German advance. Through historical accounts and first-hand testimonies, we paint a vivid picture of the intense combat and devastating consequences faced by HMS Glorious and her crew. Explore the fateful moments when Glorious is relentlessly targeted, leading to the ultimate sacrifice made by those aboard. Join us as we pay tribute to the bravery and resilience of the British sailors who fought with unwavering determination, embodying the spirit of heroism in the face of overwhelming odds. Witness their extraordinary courage and honor their memory as we recount the untold story of the Battle of HMS Glorious. As a disclaimer the map animations shown are not entirely accurate. They are there as a visual aid to help you see where the ship is going.
Content
0:00 Intro
0:26 Background
4:18 Battle
14:06 Possible Answers
Sources/Further Reading:
www.amazon.com/Hitlers-Pre-Em...
play.google.com/books/reader?...
www.hmscossack.co.uk/lo3-4/
play.google.com/books/reader?...
play.google.com/books/reader?...
play.google.com/store/books/d...
www.amazon.com/Arctic-Rescue-...
www.amazon.com/Carrier-Glorio...
www.amazon.com/Engage-Enemy-M...
Video Information:
Copyright fair use notice. All media used in this video is used for the purpose of education under the terms of fair use. All footage and images used belong to their copyright holders, when applicable.

Опубликовано:

10 июн 2024

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 114

@ImportantHistory Год назад

Thank you all for watching! I hope you enjoyed the video. I'm still getting the hang of the new editing style and I'm really happy with how this one turned out. Let me know what you all think!

@robertewing3114 8 месяцев назад

How can anyone listen to the destruction of Glorious? This must be a test for your abilities to relate tragic events. Many sailors left in the sea to perish, a very unnecessary tragedy caused by a silly man.

@oreticeric8730 7 месяцев назад

@@robertewing3114: BLA , BLA , BLA Robert .

@robertewing3114 7 месяцев назад

@@oreticeric8730 Beats BLA, BLA, BLA tragic events

@robertewing3114 7 месяцев назад

This is how anyone can listen to the destruction of Glorious - emphasis on the captains risk taking, and consideration of his bravery award from WWI because it may have derived from luck relative to wreckless judgment, and Glorious was unlucky both to receive him as captain and to be found by the G and S. Pausing for thought generated this opinion, and clearly the captain never paused for thought. The narrator is a busy young man without much time to pause for thought, and arguably the world generally asks us not to do so but follow and appease, a captain to be considered Sweet FA. The newsreels showed Glorious and said her aircraft were relentlessly vigilant to know where the enemy was. The public thought that made sense, but as with so much reporting this wasn't entirely the case, the ship was sunk apparently because the captain simply assumed he would arrive at Scapa, no precaution of speed or anything else was attempted until G and S opened fire.

@ceciliaflorencenapier4595 Год назад

My family and I were in Weymouth in 1939 enjoying our holiday. King George VI was reviewing his fleet. Families could visit the fleet on aboard a pleasure steamer, war was coming, everyone knew it. In the evening all the young sailors were enjoying themselves in the pubs. My father, a World War I veteran said let them be, they must have some fun! Many of the boys never survived their ordeals

@brianw612 Год назад

WOW, what guts for Barker and Glassford to go after those big guns with their pea shooters They charged a much superior enemy head on to give their countries larger vessel and sailors a chance to escape knowing they themselves didn't stand a chance of survival. Heroes all.

@bkjeong4302 Год назад

This whole thing would never have happened if the captain BOTHERED TO ACTUALLY CHECK WHERE THE ENEMY WAS. Glorious could have found the Twins long before they found her and simply gotten out of there, but incompetence led to her not doing that.

@freebeerfordworkers Год назад

Which is why the government has always denied or refused to carry out an inquiry into the loss. I read somewhere the captain of Glorious was a former submariner did not get on with the aviation officers and was rushing back to the UK to court martial them.

@HighlanderNorth1 Год назад

@@freebeerfordworkers 🌈 But as is _ALWAYS_ the case here in America, I'm 100% certain that the UK gov't acted swiftly to investigate the leadership failures and mistakes that led to this disaster! Then, of course, I'm sure they posthumously prosecuted and/or court-martialed the criminally incompetent officers responsible for this tragedy, for the sake of justice, and to ensure that arrogance and stupidity was no longer to be tolerated in the naval officer corps! Yep, you can always count on our governments to hold their own accountable..... That's why we've allowed them to set up their own internal self-investigatory departments, because we know they would never tolerate incompetence or corruption within their own ranks! 🙃

@robertewing3114 8 месяцев назад

Perhaps the flight deck was conjested, but why the slow boat to G and S? He was a very silly captain.

@bobfreestone1752 7 месяцев назад

-and he didn't think that it might be good to put up CAPs, or even mount a mk.1 eyeball lookout.

@JeffreyWilliams-dr7qe 2 месяца назад

@freebeerfordworkers inquiry would have found that the greatest empire on earth was woefully prepared to defend itself. That is what the findings would have concluded or it would have been another Jutland scandal. 3:35

@theswampangel3635 Год назад

Good presentation but it only scratches the surface of the controversy over the sinking of HMS Glorious. Why was an unqualified submariner (D'Oyly-Hughes) who happened to be a friend of Churchill’s put in command? Why was he allowed to endanger his ship to rush back to get to a court martial of his senior officers?

@dovetonsturdee7033 Год назад

D'Oyly-Hughes was not an 'unqualified submariner.' He was one of few RN senior officers who had actually learned to fly, and between 1931 & 1934 had served firstly as Executive Officer of HMS Courageous, Glorious' sister ship, and secondly, on secondment to the Air Ministry. He must have seemed an appropriate appointment to command of an aircraft-carrier at the time. Why do you believe he was a 'friend of Churchill?'

@commonwombat9171 11 месяцев назад

Think you've got an 'air swing" with the assertion that D'Oyly-Hughes was a friend of Churchill. I think you have mistaken him for William Boyle, Lord Cork, a recalled retired Admiral of the Fleet; who was the commander in chief of the Narvik mission. Whilst much of D'Oyly-Hughes' career was spent in submarines, he WAS a qualified pilot. However, this did not necessarily make him an expert on air operations and it does appear that he was a disputatious individual. It DOES, however, have to be acknowledged that naval aviation had been grossly neglected during the period between both wars (due to RAF dominating the vast majority of defence aviation expenditure) hence the outdated equipment

@commonwombat9171 11 месяцев назад

@@dovetonsturdee7033 Whilst you are correct with regards to D'Oyly-Hughes being a qualified pilot; I do think you are overstating his purported expertise by pointing to his period as Executive Office of another carrier HMS Courageous. The "Commander"/XO is responsible for the day to day operation of a warship however, in the case of carriers, this does NOT extend to air operations which come under the aegis of the Commander Air. After his time in Courageous, he was posted away from aviation with command of a destroyer flotilla leader/submarine tender then a submarine flotilla.

@dovetonsturdee7033 11 месяцев назад

@@commonwombat9171 Agreed, but unlike many other candidates, he had experience of the atmosphere and workings of a fleet carrier. He also spent around three years with the Air Ministry. Cedric Holland, captain of Ark Royal, had no experience of carriers until given command of one. His previous appointments had been to cruisers & destroyers, followed by a spell as Naval Attache in Paris.

@billthomas8205 Год назад

Thank you for this video. It was the landing of 46 Squadron's Hurricanes on Glorious that showed that modern, high-performance fighters could be loaded on carriers, leading to the Sea Hurricane & Seafire later in the war.

@MXB2001 Год назад

WW2: Battleships are obsolete due to Carriers. Scharnhorst & Gneisenau: Hold my beer.

@bkjeong4302 Год назад

The Twins only succeeded because Glorious didn’t bother to check where they were.

@lawrencelucarelli2969 Год назад

The balanced and unbiased approach are appreciated. Thanks!

@hazchemel Год назад

It seems that HMS Glorious went sailing into the night, blindfolded and cuffed. Valete young sailors and airmen.

@tedthesailor172 Год назад

I have read that there was a lot of infighting on board the carrier, in which Doyle-Hughes - like so many hide-bound naval officers - remained scornful of the merits of airpower. This is what lay behind the intended court-martial. As a result, he failed to maintain any kind of reconnaissance or scout air cover during the voyage that could've provided him with early warning of the enemy ships. For this reason he remains wholly responsible for the dreadful loss of life. Many fine ships and thousands of lives on all sides were lost to this bombastic arrogance and myopia...

@geebards Год назад

A disturbing and outstanding account. Many thanks.

@kenoliver8913 Год назад

Glorious was a converted battlecruiser and the oldest aircraft carrier in the world still operating at that time. Her strike capacity was less than her contemporaries in the RN and smaller again than any Japanese or American fleet carrier. Not only could she only fly biplanes off, she had only a handful of them. Both the ship and the planes she carried had far less endurance than those of Ark Royal. She was despatched to Norway mainly as a plane transport ship for the RAF. All this explains why here was no combat air patrol but also makes it so much less forgiveable that she was sent home on her own without the protection of more capable ships.

@janibeg3247 Год назад

shocking incompetence by the captain of the HMS Glorious

@DONALDSON51 Год назад

Apparently Doyley Hughes was not a fan of aircraft in general. I seem to recall an account of him saying that he would sooner charge an enemy ship firing his ships guns. A bit of an unpleasant character. There is certainly more to the story than meets the eye as official documents relating to the loss of the glorious have been marked classified for an unusually long time with no obvious explanation (given many other records from the war are reading available)

@paulmac8639 11 месяцев назад

Thanks for your overview of this naval action. My father was serving on the Glorious on 8th June 1944 and was one of the 41 survivors, so I have naturally been following the accounts of the sinking for a long time. He was one of the sailors rescued by the Norwegian vessel, the MV Borgund. I am not sure if we will ever know the full story but, given the Royal Navy saw fit to seal the official records for 101 years, there must have been something to cover up. It has now been 83 years. It would be nice if the records were unsealed earlier but I don’t hold out much hope.

@californiadreamin8423 Год назад

The Admiralty ignored warnings from Bletchley Park that German Main Units may be operating in Norwegian Waters…..Sir Harry Hensley.

@jamesm3471 Год назад

Before being blown out of the water, HMS Acasta’s torpedo-men got a small measure of revenge against Scharnhorst that day - 1,296 days later, the Royal Navy would get the rest, with torpedoes & the radar-directed 14 inch guns of HMS Duke of York. The immense loss of life that accompanied these two battles at sea juxtaposed to the great respect the men who fought them had for their opponent afterwards, is really quite incredible.

@TTTT-oc4eb Год назад

Good overview. The Germans, who built them, classified Scharnhorst and Gneisenau as battleships, not battlecruisers. They had smaller guns, but almost the same armor as Bismarck/Tirpitz. The latter had much thicker upper belt and slightly thicker deck armor. Main belt was the same. Scharnhorst's first hit was the longest hit from any battleship at 25,600 meters (28,000 yards), perhaps shared with Warspite against Italian battleship Giulio Cesare at 24,000 meters (26,000 yards).

@freebeerfordworkers Год назад

Yes I read that they were designed to take heavier guns when they became available

@ImportantHistory Год назад

For the most part I tend to follow what nations classify ships as. However most modern sources designate them as battlecruisers (and for the most part I tend to steer clear of this subject entirely, especially with these two ships). I have called them battleships previously and people comment and say they are battlecruisers. But, anyway if you haven't a great book to look at is Battleships of the Scharnhorst Class by Gerhard Koop and Klaus-Peter Schmolke. It tells the story of their development and history from their war diaries. www.amazon.com/Battleships-Scharnhorst-Class-Gneisenau-Kriegsmarine/dp/159114177X

@gayprepperz6862 Год назад

@@ImportantHistory No matter which term you use you're going to draw fire. These were unique ships and the term "pocket battleship" always seemed the most accurate to me.

@billballbuster7186 Год назад

The tragedy was caused by putting a submarine Captain in command of an Aircraft Carrier. The Royal Navy had been warned the German Battlecruisers were in the area, but they ignored the information. On the Glorious no air patrol was ordered, no lookouts were posted and the wireless sets were on the wrong frequency. No aircraft were on stand by or had been made ready for flight, the ship was at peacetime conditions. When the Germans were sighted the Glorious stayed on course and did not increase speed, making it easier to be intercepted. The level of the Captains incompetence was staggering, no radio report was sent that the ships under attack. As a result no rescue was mounted until the ships failed to arrive at their base, 1,519 men were lost many could have been saved had a report been sent.

@heavybreath Год назад

The GLORIOUS captain, Guy D'oly-Huges, did not believe in air reconnaissance and thus had no aircraft aloft to spot the route. Also had gotten into a dispute with his air group commanders and had put them ashore pending court martial for insubordination So eager was he to return to base and court martial than petitioned Fleet commander Lord Cork to sail alone rather than with fleet with only 2 instead of 4 destroyers To compound the stupidity had no ready aircraft armed and not even a manin the crow nest keeping a look out

@billballbuster7186 Год назад

@@heavybreath Guy D'Oyly-Hughes was a typical upper class arrogant twit, not fit to command a piss-pot. Typically D'Oyly-Hughes thought he knew mor about flying than his Air Commander.

@bkjeong4302 Год назад

@@heavybreath Glorious wouldn’t have needed a significant escort to escape if she actually had bothered to check where the enemy was.

@dovetonsturdee7033 Год назад

@@billballbuster7186 No, he wasn't an upper-class arrogant twit. He was the son of a British doctor, and was born in Salt Lake City, Utah. He was one of few senior RN officers who had actually learned to fly, and between 1931 and 1934 had been, firstly, executive officer of HMS Courageous, Glorious' sister ship, then, secondly, on secondment to the Air Ministry. He must have seemed, superficially at least, to have been an appropriate appointment to HMS Glorious, given his service record. His dispute with his Commander (Air) was because the Commander had refused to plan an attack by Glorious' aircraft on ground targets in support of troops, describing it as an 'inappropriate use of naval aircraft.' This instruction had come from Vice-Admiral Wells, Flag Officer (Aircraft Carrters), to D'Oyly-Hughes. Hughes felt that it was not his Commander (Air)'s right to refuse this order. Indeed, many of Glorious' pilots agreed, that 'Something might have been attempted.' Read the books. D'Oyly-Hughes made a number of errors, but you are demonising him without justification, and on the basis of false assumptions.

@billballbuster7186 Год назад

@@dovetonsturdee7033 "Made a number of errors" is putting it mildly. Gross dereliction of duty would state the case better. He literally did nothing right, disobeying standing orders for the safety of his ship.

@robertmiller2173 9 месяцев назад

Wow, I thought I knew this history! Thank you! I only knew a little of this history! Love from New Zealand!

@RayyMusik Год назад

As for the Home Fleet: Rodney as an escort for Glorious would have fended off the Twins!

@bkjeong4302 Год назад

A lack of escort was not why Glorious was sunk. Glorious was sunk due to a failure to understand how carriers actually defended themselves (by simply maintaining a safe distance from enemy battleships after checking where they were).

@dovetonsturdee7033 Год назад

Glorious simply should have remained in company with the rest of the fleet. The reasons for her galloping off ahead with an escort of two destroyers are controversial, and likely to remain so.

@sylvainpouliot5289 Год назад

first time i heard of very interesting thank a lot

@gerhardris Год назад

Excellent well balanced and carefull depiction of a hourendous affaire, with no doubt great galantry of the destroyers. I'm taking the data you provide into evidence indeed agree with Churchill et al that the comander of Glorious wanted to leave. Why he was granted permission of the fleet comander is the question at hand. The RN knew a major German Kriegsmarine action had been underway in Norway and that the allies had been kicked out. Well, then any German major ship not accounted for must be assumed to be in the area.

@davidcollinson5076 7 месяцев назад

My late Mother in Laws husband. Percy Caddy, was a bosun on the Glorious. He went down with the ship. He never met his daughter who was due whilst he was at sea. RIP Percy.

@straswa Год назад

Great vid, RIP to all those brave men. Yes I would very much like to know why Glorious' CAP was not scrambled when smoke was spotted on the horizon.

@jpmtlhead39 7 месяцев назад

The Scharnhorst Salvo at 26.000 mts away right on target is One of the great feats in naval warfare.

@ivanlussich8146 Месяц назад

I think it was 26,000 m away, not km.

@philiphumphrey1548 Год назад

Another question is why wasn't Glorious flying patrols in what was a warzone. There must have a danger of U-boats at least and much better to spot them before they spot you. Likewise, if Scharnhorst and Gneisenau had been spotted before they were in visual range, that would have turned the tables completely. Not only could Glorious have escaped but the two German battleships would have become the hunted. Perhaps Ark Royal's aircraft could have had a go at them.

@Alan316100 Год назад

This is the 64,000 dollar question, the answer appears to be that the carrier's captian was way out of his depth and should not have been in command of a dingy let alone a carrier. Surely it was basic practice to fly combat air patrols in a warzone, not for this captain however!

@stephenrichards339 Год назад

Excellent video, can you do video on HMS Renown 1895, she's Fisher's baby and I think the this where Fisher get is battlecruier theory from

@eze8970 Год назад

I too thought about the CAP etc, until I found out about another story, not widely known (but is on Wiki somewhere - Operation Paul). Churchill wanted to mine or attack one of the main Swedish harbours supplying iron ore to Germany, as it would have a big effect on their war effort (Operation Paul?). Originally 3 carriers were to be used, Glorious, Ark Royal & one which was sunk/damaged/in refit. Ark Royal & Glorious then sailed for Norway to carry out their mission, but got overtaken by events. The Ark Royal became part of the withdrawal force. However, Churchill still wanted his plan to be carried out, so Glorious & the two destroyers were sent off. The mission was at the extreme range of the Swordfish, so adaptions had to be made to the planes, which hadn't yet been carried out. With all the disruption of the other planes landing & taking up space, the mission planes were still being adapted when the German ships appeared, which is why there was no CAP up. No lookout, the German ships being ignored by Allied intelligence, the chaos of France, & other RN commitments at the time, did the rest. It doesn't seem to make sense the ships being where they were otherwise, why didn't the Gladiators & Hurricanes go with the main evacuation forces where it was safer for them all, or why risk a carrier & 2 destroyers ( to mines, submarines or planes at the very least), for 2 squadrons of aircraft, one being obsolete? I appreciate the RN has a fine tradition of helping the other services, but it just seems strange the planes landed weren't sent north (I appreciate this was a fluid situation, so orders may not have been arriving in time). The comment of Glorious' captain wanting to get back to base quickly for a court martial, in the middle of a war seems a bit far fetched. 'Oddly', Churchill completely misses this mission/story out in his memoirs, & only comments on the fuel part of the Admiralties poorly constructed whitewash. Other main RN commanders sworn to secrecy or dead. I had never heard of this before, despite a long interest in WW2 history. Whatever the truth, a sad loss of a fine ship, crew & RAF pilots.

@ottovonbismarck2443 Год назад

Interesting, until you LOOK AT A FREAKIN MAP ! Sweden has no North Sea Ports and not even Churchill was mad or drunk (or both) enough to send 3 carriers through the Skagerak deep into the Baltic Sea, which were essentially German waters. So forget that other story. That said, Narvik (IN FREAKIN NORWAY !) was the most northern port to be free of ice in winter and "by coincidence" the end point of the railway that connected the Swedish Kiruna iron ore mine to the rest of the world. Still, mining a neutral port is an act of war. Like it or not, but Churchill took the same care for Norwegian neutrality as Hitler; Germany was just that little bit faster.

@eze8970 Год назад

@@ottovonbismarck2443 I believe the port was in the Gulf of Bothnia (Lulea?) . Sweden has no ports on Norwegian sea side, I didn't say it did. Look up Operation Paul. Germany was heavily dependant on good quality Swedish iron ore at the time. Yes it could have brought Sweden in on the Axis side, but with the Axis now on all sides, it was already having to act as a minor Axis ally, & Churchill didn't know if the Germans would invade it next, they'd already invaded other neutral countries. There was a comment from Churchill that 'there were no neutral states in this war' now, it was a life or death struggle. From what I could find from say Bodo in Norway (but you'd have to add more miles onto this, it was just a reference point) to Lulea in Sweden, it's 245 air miles, the Swordfish had a range of 522 miles. As stated, they were going to have to alter the planes. I believe also leave one of the crew behind. Churchill was full of 'madcap' schemes for attacking places throughout the war, which exasperated his military advisors.

@ottovonbismarck2443 Год назад

@@eze8970 As said, Churchill gave a sh** for neutrality, and so did Hitler. Vichy-France also was a neutral country, which nobody cared for. I mean, Churchill wasn't wrong; if you struggle for your own survival, ethics are the last thing to care about. As you've mentioned, he was full of "brilliant" ideas. That's what alcholism does to you. And before you mention it, the drug-addicted "genius" with the moustache declared war on the USA. That's how brilliant he was. I know about that planned operation to mine Norwegian waters to hinder or cripple Swedish iron ore transports to Germany; that's why Germany "intervened" in Norway in the first place. It was just simply out of question to mine Swedish Baltic ports from both a political and technical standpoint. Yes, you could get Swordfishs to Lulea. Which is an act of war and might have tipped Sweden to join the Axis. And it wouldn't have done anything. The Swedish shipping routes were regularly swept anyway. Sweden tried to be neutral as much as they could. They also sold ball bearings to Great Britain, which were run by disarmed MTBs. "Civilian" Mosquitos also were involved in certain transport operations. Fact is, Sweden (and Switzerland) had no choice but to almost exclusively trade with Germany. Another fact is that neither RAF nor RN could do any serious damage to German iron ore "convoys" (if you call 2 freighters and a few armed ex fishing trawlers a convoy); no matter if they ran through the North or Baltic Seas. They couldn't even stop German traffic in "their" Channel. Although the brave boys in their little MTBs and some even braver boys in Blenheims tried.

@kaijudirector5336 Год назад

Considering O'Dyly-Hughes was a legitimate hero during World War I (he got a DSO after blew up an Ottoman train as a member of the submarine E11, a good 30 years before the USS Barb did it), this is probably not the way he would have liked to end his career. And sadly any good service he may have had is probably forgotten because history remembers him as the "captain who blindly sailed his carrier unescorted into a battleship flotilla". That being said, this is not an excuse for any of his mistakes he made that day. Nothing justifies them. It's just an odd dichotomy I found the other day.

@tvgerbil1984 Год назад

Glorious was not unescorted. It was accompanied by two destroyers. Both destroyers fought valiantly to give the carrier a chance but were sunk. The carrier being in such an unprepared state in a war zone was of course the responsibility of its captain. Appointing a man to captain a carrier who had no experience in commanding a major surface warship before was of course the responsibility of the Admiralty.

@vincentcondron588 Год назад

Another excellent video from you but if I may give you an idea for you could you do one on operation EF I won't say more as I'm sure you will have fun researching this I know I have thank you

@ImportantHistory Год назад

I just looked into it a bit, and I will certainly have to do some more research!

@connarcomstock161 Год назад

Why wasn't she flying a CAP? If not flying a CAP, why weren't there planes armed/prepped, even if below, ready to be scrambled/on alert? Why weren't they aware of the Kriegsmarine in the area? Why wasn't this *simply assumed* ? Why were the DDs so close, they should have been pushed out further to cover more area, what's the use of scouts if they see something at the same time as the flagship? Why was the ship, under wartime conditions, steaming with 1/3d of her boilers offline? It's as if the Captain was steaming home under peacetime conditions and just...forgot...they were at war.

@randyjohnson6845 Год назад

29.47 knots

@namelesscurmudgeon9794 11 месяцев назад

I have an additional question. Why were at least some of the Swordfish not loaded with torpedoes and ready to launch at the first sign of enemy ships?

@davhot4107 11 месяцев назад

10:40 Dude was probably looking at a real freaking *GOSHT!* There's no way someone could walk with a wound like that. And smileing too?! No way. Either that was an hallucination or the ghost of his buddy saying goodbye to him.

@eldarhighelfhealermiriella7653 11 месяцев назад

Most likely a psichotic breakdown. Not a ghost. Several traumatic events can cause hallucinations and visions. He didn't mention his pal say something to him so it was a visual hallucination caused by severe stress and a mental breakdown due to the battle. A severe wounded person smile is not uncommon but walking with "bone shatered legs" is physically impossible.

@duanerice-mason2115 Год назад

THE FACT THAT A CARRIER HAS THE ABILTY TO SEEK OUT AND DESTROY A SURFACE COMBATANT 100s of MILES BEFORE THE SURFACE COMBATANT CAN STRIKE BACK PROVES BRITISH INCOMPETENCE

@COLINJELY Год назад

Why was she not flying off aircraft patrols?

@dovetonsturdee7033 Год назад

Because she was being used as a ferry carrier, not an operational one. She had landed most of her air group before she sailed, as she was used to land on a number of RAF Hurricanes and Gladiators. She had only around ten of her own aircraft aboard.

@DONALDSON51 Год назад

@MrMalvolio29 9 месяцев назад

The British Admiralty’s Official “Explanation” of the Glorious incident was a sad attempt to save face. D’Oyly-Hughes didn’t trust his Flight Command Crew and was *rushing* ahead of the convoy bc he was anxious to court-martial his First Flight Officer, JB HEATH. D’Oyly-Hughes also FOOLISHLY “didn’t trust flight reconnoisance,” so the aircraft carrier had no planes in the air as it tried in vain to make it back to Scapa Flow. HMS Glorious’s Captain was ENTIRELY to blame

@randyjohnson6845 Год назад

Probably the captains insanity to court martial two officers caused this sinking

@TTTT-oc4eb Год назад

Glorious had a similar top speed to the two German battleships. Why didn't she sail at fullspeed, at least til she was out of Norwegian waters?

@BLAZEU. Год назад

Didn't have all boilers lit

@TTTT-oc4eb Год назад

@@BLAZEU. Yes, but why not go near full speed from the get go?

@Marveryn Год назад

@@TTTT-oc4eb fuel? she lack the fuel to go full speed.

@rubylaser8601 Год назад

This was weird. Why did an aircraft carrier get so close to a battlecruiser that it could be hit by the cruiser's guns?

@vernsmart5447 8 месяцев назад

The loss of Glorious was avoidable and tragic.

@model-man7802 11 месяцев назад

Would love to have Glorious in 1/350 scale

@buck9739 Год назад

I don’t understand why didn’t they have planes to bomb the German ships. I might have missed that part.

@ImportantHistory Год назад

You really didn’t miss anything. Glorious simply didn’t have planes in the air at the time of the attack. Which can be attributed to a gross error of negligence by her Captain D’Oly-Huges. By the time the engagement had started, Glorious had been hit, preventing any planes from taking off. I have also read that Hurricanes fighters crowded her hangars and decks, but that should be taken with a grain of salt as witnesses say otherwise.

@lightfootpathfinder8218 Год назад

Her mission was to ferry land based RAF aircraft back to the UK so in a Sence she was being used as an "Aircraft transporter" not an operational carrier. The video said she had 10 of her own aircraft onboard and that they were being readied to fly off her when the first shells hit her so it's sounds like it was already to late when they tried to launch aircraft

@buck9739 Год назад

@@lightfootpathfinder8218 thanks I appreciate the recap. I knew I missed the beginning. Makes sense now.

@Thumpalumpacus 11 месяцев назад

And a carrier sailing through hostile waters with not one airplane aloft. Simply having a couple of Stringbags aloft for scouting would likely have allowed Glorious to escape simply by steering away and arming a strike. Simple incompetence. What carrier doesn't post scouts?

@ml50486965 11 месяцев назад

Why did the glorious not fly any patrols?

@MrMalvolio29 9 месяцев назад

There were MORE than “hints” that significant Kriegsmarine combat groups were in Norwegian waters, but the Admiralty chose not to convey this information

@user-eh4cg4mh9b 11 месяцев назад

The Brother in law of one of those who perished aboard HMS Glorious made it his mission over many years to find out the truth about the affair with out success and at 99years old fears he never will. I believe the records of the event are not kept in standard military archives which is quite strange in itself. I know the above person very well and have some sympathy with the families view that HMS Glorious was sacrificed to allow the King of Norway to escape. Poor British naval intelligence, potentially disjointed leadership aboard Glorious and Admiralty decisions made for a perceived greater good combined with a chronic shortage of British naval resources at the time to my mind contributed to one of the Royal Navy’s worst war time disasters. To give this post some context my father was a Commander in the Royal Navy at the time of HMS Glorious sinking.

@ted_scruffy 4 месяца назад

My grandfather's brother was killed on Hms Glorious

@imanenigma3348 11 месяцев назад

I know you mentioned Glorious trying to prepare Fairy Swordfish for an attack, but being hampered by German gunfire before they could, but why was this not done as soon as the ships were spotted, prior to Glorious coming into their range? Once knowing who they were and not being able to outrun them, I would think it was an opportunity to sink two German capitol ships as well as a matter of survival. Mind you, easy for me to say, but just asking the question.

@Boron121 11 месяцев назад

You gave the not opinions facts, thanks. The Scharnhorst scored what is possibly the longest hit between 2 moving warships ever. Yes, some say the Warspite hit on the Guilio Cesare was further. There was no official measurement so this will be debated for ages.

@fitzdiggers-562 Месяц назад

Thank you for your account, although there are some errors that I would like to correct. Aircraft from Glorious did take part in activities over Norway on at least one of her trips to the Narvik region prior to 8 June 1940. Also, a couple of errors from the battle: Glorious had a top speed of over 30 knots, which was higher than Scharnhorst or Gneisenau. Unfortunately, she was unable to achieve this because she did not have all boilers operational and did not have time to bring them into service when the attack happened. She was unable to launch her aircraft because the first salvo punctured the flight deck, probably disabling the launch gear, and started a major fire in the hangar space. I am afraid that your account does not really address the reasons for continued secrecy by the British Government regarding the sinking of Glorious, Acasta and Ardent. Secrets that are not scheduled to be released until 2041. Many are waiting for that release. My Uncle died on Glorious and my family still awaits that information. Captain D'Oyly-Hughes remains a controversial figure, with some historians finding much to blame, whereas others supported him. I remember reading The Sunday Times 1980 article "The Cantankerous Captain of HMS Glorious'" which lambasted him. My mother said that controversy surrounded him from the moment of the sinking, but she could not bring herself to read the article. D'Oyly-Hughes' daughter, amongst others, disputed many of the article's claims. I believe the case against him is strong, but it is not proven and he should be granted at least some leeway. The neglect of the Royal Navy, to their shame, in refusing to recognise the crews of the three ships in an official memorial until 2002 speaks volumes. The families were not able to claim the Polar service medal, to which the crew were entitled, until the early 2000s. There are details surrounding this naval disaster for Britain that are embarrassing to the Royal Navy and the British Government. The actions of the Devonshire, in particular, are questionnable and this was discussed in the parliamentary debate about Glorious's sinking in 1999. There is more to this. I would also request that you tone down your melodramatic written description for your film, which is inappropriate when dealing with such loss of life that is still felt today.

@ImportantHistory Месяц назад

Thanks for the comment. As for your comments about the lack of commentary on the British government’s lack of clarity on the subject, that was a conscious decision because of the lack of clarity. Granted I could’ve touched on it a bit more. As for my tone, I would like to disagree. I find it appropriate to discuss the first hand account and experiences. You also need to understand that I’m an edutainment channel, I have to keep people entertained, and a dry account/description which I have done in the past does not keep entertained. In fact there are documentaries from the 1980s that are far more dramatic than my presentation. I’m sorry for your uncle and your family, I hope that you find closure, have a great day.

@fitzdiggers-562 Месяц назад

@@ImportantHistory Thanks for your prompt reply. I have no problem with your commentary in the video. My comments are regarding the written summary and its melodramatic tone with regards to expressions such as "Witness [this] ...", "Experience [that] ....", "Learn about [xyz] ...", "Discover [abc] ....", "Explore the fateful moments ....", "Witness their extraordinary courage .... " . You do not need to descend to cheap sensationalism. This tale has inherent drama without making it like you are selling encyclopaedias with an added set of steak knives. It is that tone which is disrespectful.

@mikebarbeau8569 Год назад

War is a racket...the rich got richer and we died...again???

@lawLess-fs1qx 5 месяцев назад

The admiralty bullshit about not enough fuel is alarming. The implication is that a ship in a convoy uses more fuel is absurd. D'Oyly-Hughes decided to go it alone.He was known to be vindictive. The only reasonable explanation is his hatred of Heath. Paradoxically if Heath was still on the ship, he would have had CAP in place.

@ottovonbismarck2443 Год назад

If you call the evacuation of your fighting forces - which means retreat after defeat - a success, your standards for military operations are quite low. That's like saying Stalingrad was a German success because the encircled 6th Army was binding 6 Russian armies. Nope ... Why a carrier has no aircraft in the air although knowing the enemy is out there is a very valid question. And why the only two existing German battleships were without any sort of escort at that very moment is another. A single British submarine could have had the best time in its life.