An old Australian Daring sailor. I decommissioned our last operational Daring…HMAS Vendetta in 1979. HMAS Vampire stayed in service as a training ship until 1986. X-turret and anti-submarine mortar removed. Last of the true gunships. Used in Vietnam for naval gunfire support on coastal installations. My first ship. My first love. We were given Vendetta, Vampire and Voyager. Voyager was lost after a collision with aircraft carrier HMAS Melbourne. HMAS Duchess was sent out to replace her. Magnificent ships to serve in. Last of the gunships. Subscribed.
Keep it going! You sound young, but you got an old dude about to hit the double nickel who’s loved all things naval since the age of 12. I respect the fact that you come out and say basically “I’ll do a better job next time, and I’m going to correct it” if you find something that you’re not satisfied with. All while just getting your RU-vid feet wet. Trust me…you are light years ahead of Dark Seas because you care about your subject and it shows! You got my sub a while ago and I’ve given a like to every one I’ve watched because it was deserved.
Yeah I am definitely young, all of about 20! I appreciate your kind words, people like you are definitely the reason why I keep posting! Seeing people actually enjoy what I put out always puts a smile on my face. Not to mention it is pretty fun learning how to do all this stuff, keeps me busy in between University, friends, and lifting.
Hey, you showed on my home and I enjoyed this. You did a good job with it. I was first introduced to the Tribals with HMS Ashanti that came in the box with HMS Ark Royal in a 1/720 model kit. We're talking in the 1970s. Fell in love with warship design and have spent many years studying it as a hobby. The Tribals were very capable. I'm going to go give you some more views. Thank you for this!
I served on Zulu in early seventies. I joined at the end of her refit , a week before commissioning. I was with her until November 76 . A great crew ,we had a lot of fun especially when we anchored off a deserted island and had a banyan. I picked up my rate on board and on that day I was the youngest killing stoker in the Navy . Fun days .
I hope in the future you can do a video on HMS Nubian which is the second most highly decorated ship alongside two others and only exceeded by HMS Warspite of the Royal Navy. I am a bit partial because my great-uncle Samuel was a pompom gunner on Nubian.. it's a great history and it's one of the four Tribals that survived the war!
Tribal class in Canada.. at about 3:30 was HMCS Haida (215 on the hull)... also Sioux and Cayuga in Canadian navy my dad was its XO in Korea...... pretty sure that is Cayuga (we have a copy, or one just like it, of that photo at home) at about 7:20, my Dad was the Captain post Korea 🙂 Sioux had the distinction of landing an American Sikorsky helicopter in Korea on its after deck for an emergency medical evacuation... hard to believe but a have a copy of that photo from my Dad too
Great stuff! As iconic as the Tribals were- I don’t know if I would call them successful or not. They were BIG. Their main armament was not Dual Purpose. They had a LOT of guns. They had a very small torpedo layout. They were too large and under equipped for ASW tasks. They were expensive. They were used a LOT by the RN(Allies too) and they didn’t have a great survival rate. You could make an argument for many different reasons for this, but they just didn’t hold up. I think the RN tried the ‘Jack of all trades’ ship that could do many things, but not really excel at any of them.
Tribals were a one-off destroyer class that carried 8 x 4.7 guns at the expense of torpedo tubes and AA armament. In action the Royal Navy lost 12 out of 16 built, 6 were sunk by air attack, 3 by Submarine torpedo, 1 by Destroyer torpedo, 1 by coastal artillery and 1 was rammed by accident and sunk. Of the 11 Canadian and Australian ships built later, only 1 was lost to a torpedo boat. The class was not repeated, in later classes guns were replaced by more torpedo tubes and heavier AA armament.
I served aboard HMS Zulu in the early 70's, whilst she was in refit at Rosyth during the fireman's strike. I remember the huge difference after serving aboard County Class destroyer (HMS Devonshire). What a shock to the system! A very compact ship which was wearing her age well.........Fond Memories!
Come visit HMCS Haida in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada! ... the last of the Tribals. By the way, the last four Canadian Tribals - Nootka, Micmac, Cayuga and Athabaskan 2 were built in Canada at the yard that is about to produce the new Type 26s.
I've been to most all US museum ships east of Mississippi river (might have missed some I don't know about).....and now HMCS Haida is added to my "bucket list" Cot to check latest border crossing rules.............
My grandfather worked in the engine room. One time he was up on deck as the anti aircraft guns were firing and shells were rolling out on to the deck. He picked up a couple, I still have them on my mantle piece to this day
@desperate need of scotch More because the size meant 8 gun destroyer designs were considerably more expensive to procure in both money and build time than smaller destroyers. I really cannot understand how you came up with this idea that something like the Tribals could not keep up with smaller destroyers and frigates. They could. Most RN Destroyers made around 36 knots, the same design speed the Tribals were capable of. In addition the larger size of the Tribals meant better endurance because they could carry more fuel, and better sea keeping in rough weather. The Tribals proved time and time again they were more than capable of keeping pace with the smaller fleet destroyers of the RN.
They were re-configured over time. The Canadian ones replaced the aft most 4.7 inch gun with a Squid antisubmarine mortar (while losing the obsolete depth charges) and the other aft gun with a radar laid, 3 inch 50 twin antiaircraft mounting. The forward guns, originally 4.7 inch were switched out to 4 inch guns that could be elevated to higher angles for anti aircraft fire.
Alexander Clarke did a great book just recently called "Tribals, Battles, & Darings". I really enjoyed it, you might too. He's done at least a video or two about this class of ships (and many others on other naval history topics). I bet you would like each other.
Not just that Dr Clarke has been invited to several documentaries about naval history, I think that he's on the one about Jutland. On the other hand, didn't notice his fanboy face for the tribals😁. You know, those three classes are like the classic fleet, and British in particular, destroyers for me, seeing them remains me of the many Star Trek support ship classes of the Federation.😜 They look so modern and classy at a time.
An excellent presentation of a contentious and intractable topic! The Royal Navy was more focussed on the role… than on the actual ships of other navies…’. That was the crucial issue at the design stage. But in the event (the event being the war of 1949/45) the projected role for the Tribals proved to be merely theoretical. No destroyers on the lines of the Tribals were built after the commencement of hostilities. Several Tribals had their heavy main gun argument (their distinguishing design feature) replaced by lighter anti aircraft guns. Future construction was of lighter, more lightly armed, and CHEAPER destroyers - because in actual war what mattered was quantity rather than quality, however well tweaked were the quality designs. So the Tribals, though beautiful ships, were an evolutionary dead end.
@@ImportantNavalHistory Yes, I understand that you are in the U.S. Could you be more specific? I'm in Hamilton, Ontario and plan to visit the Haida today or tomorrow.
I just found this video and was looking for a comment mentioning Eskimo. Missing the bow and the A turret they not only kept going but expended all the ammo of the B turret as well, A very defiant little or rather large destroyer
I gave Dr. Clarke's channel a shot.. but I have a problem with his videos, he has no volume control of his voice, he speaks very quietly for 40 minutes and suddenly starts shouting like a madman. That's a problem if its 11pm and your significant other is trying to sleep.
I'd take an Allen M. Sumner destroyer over one of these any day. Much more maneuverable and the 5in 38s were a much better gun plus they stayed on the surface not sinking like a rock. History proves me right.
Often with WW2 RN ships it is important to move away from simple Top Trumps of speed and armament. RN ships usually had excellent seaworthiness, reasonable habitability, reliability and range. Not as sexy as a lot of stuff that the IJN, Kriegsmarine or Italian produced but far more effective,
A force multiplier isn’t what you think. It’s an asset that makes other weapon systems more effective, eg awacs. It’s not a word you should apply at random - in this case to an escort vessel.
Well considering I’m not applying it at random, I’m using the term as Dr. Clarke used it in his book. Specifically in the first chapter where he was describing the role the tribals were originally intended to fulfill. To directly quote, Tribals, Battles & Darings: The Genesis of the Modern Destroyer. “ Tribals were seen as ‘force multipliers’ to enable the Navy not only to secure Britain’s global trade, but also to provide the primary defence of the British Empire”. I hope that clarifies exactly what I meant by force multiplier.
@@ImportantNavalHistory That still isn’t what force multiplier means. By definition it can’t be primary - the clue is in the name. Use google to check the terminology.
@@ImportantNavalHistory A capability that, when added to and employed by a combat force, significantly increases the combat potential of that force and thus enhances the probability of successful mission accomplishment. (JP 3-05.1) (US DoD) Or Wikipedia A force multiplier is a factor or a combination of factors that gives personnel or weapons (or other hardware) the ability to accomplish greater feats than without it. The expected size increase required to have the same effectiveness without that advantage is the multiplication factor. For example, if a technology like GPS enables a force to accomplish the same results as a force five times as large without GPS, then the multiplier is five. To be a force multiplier, a Tribal would have to provide a service to other assets that would increase their own defensive or offensive power, eg control their gunnery more accurately.
..Adding a Tribal to an escort force would obviously ADD to the forces power. But it wouldn’t multiply the effectiveness of those other assets! This is fundamental military science terminology.
Well I appreciate you putting this together, but like I said I used the terminology of a trusted source. Not to mention by no means am I a military man, so I do apologize for any confusion.
my grandad served on HMS SIKH . his name was Ernest Honden...he was transfered to another ship just before the evacuation of Crete, where HMS SIKH met her fate. my nans brother was there on HMS DIDO he lost his life in B turret when it took a direct hit from a stuka his name was John Johnstone....grandad was the last person to see him alive in Malta , he was eighteen. both where from Sittingbourne Kent.
