In this episode we're taking a trip backward through time, to World War I, to look at our favorite and most innovative ships of that war. To support this channel and the museum, go to: www.battleshipnewjersey.org/videofund
@@lyndonbull3581 We do the same. Ever heard of the 1812 war when we invaded the USA. We burnt the whitehouse down (was not called that in 1811 but it was in 1812 or 13 when they whitewashed it to get rid if the soot). We then got our arses kicked goid and proper in 1814 down in New Orleans. Never got that in UK history at school, I learned it from an old 78 Lonnie Donigan song....(78 not being the year but the speed if the record, vinyl as they call it in the days of downloads) Say what you will. No USA in WW2 and we would have drawn or lost, we were well fecked and short of everything. We might have won WW1 if USA had not joined, hard to say. Not by winning in France but by starving Germany in a blockade, but the U Boats might have got us first. Germans stilk talk of the Turnup Winter of 1917. Bad times. I cant fault the USA for helping in the two wars. Earlier would have been nicer but the USA had to get it's people on side first so really they did the best the could. No complaints from me.
As an American, I physically winced when he pronounced Indefatigable. And I'll take the Queen Elizabeths, specifically Warspite, based on its combat record. Took the fire of pretty much the entire German fleet, stayed afloat, and still came though and dealt out plenty of punishment.Thats not even mentioning her WWII service, which was outstanding.
Also, Queen Elizabeth was both laid down (1912) and launched (1913) before USS Nevada (1912 and 1914, respectively). And the very big innovation of the QEs was that they were fully oil-powered. So giving that to Nevada is, to say the least, US-centric.
I'm an American 100% agree with everything you said, I'd say everybody doing the time it seemed pretty capable ships for American and British ships at least Mayer something special, especially Queen Elizabeth class in the New Mexico class always love those two.
I didn't think his pronunciation was physically possible LOL ... and think a few minutes later, Indefatigable gets punk'd for the title by Warspite. Rough.
I'm constantly wincing at American pronunciation of "British" ships but I do give leeway for a country that has designated "SafeSpaces" in many universities from the frightening hetrosexuals & white people. What a sad world the leftist have created in the USA. I will pray for sanity to prevail with my American brethren & sisters.🙏
The German ships have my favorite names to pronounce, Derfflinger, Seydlitz, Gneisenau, Scharnehorst, Horst Wessel. Although not all are WWI specific. The last 3 are all WWI/II and WWII despite being a barque.
Although to be honest Warspite, Kongo, Iron Duke, Hood and New Jersey(my all time favorite battle wagon, completely biased seeing as I’m a New Jersey native and visit the ship yard it was built at and where it currently resides almost weekly) are some of my other favorite ones some WWI some both some WWII only.
Queen Elizabeth was oil-fired, had four turrets that were bunched in pairs, had 15" guns where Nevada had 14" guns, and was commissioned more than a year before Nevada. I'm not convinced that Nevada is all that much more innovative than the QE. As a side note, the Russians were another navy with WWI-era dreadnoughts with triple turrets.
The QE2 had a miz of coal and oil fired boilers during WW1. And the Autro-Hungarian were first to have triple turrets. Russians used them spaced out all over the ship without superfireing because of ice to increase stability in Northern Baltic icy conditions.
@@dariuszrutkowski420 The QE was fully oil fired, not a mixed coal oil. That was the initial Resolution build plan but was changed in 1914 to full oil as well.
@@dariuszrutkowski420 This is the first time I've heard of such a mission. The main task was to create a minimal silhouette of the ship - the Russians had many designs, including those similar to Bayern or British ones, but they abandoned it. In addition, the horizontal angle of the Russian turrets was greater than that of many others.
Yes, the Russians later made a few knock-off versions of Dante Alighieri ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_battleship_Dante_Alighieri ) The QE had a standard armor layout instead of the raft/all-or-nothing layout that was inarguably an American innovation with Nevada and Nevada embraced the Italian triple turret innovation where QE stuck with strictly twin turrets.
14:12 As a boy, I knew a man who fought at Jutland in HMS Monarch, one of the Orion class. He was 16 at the time of Jutland. You mentioned a ship being lost to a mine. This was HMS Audacious. She was of the follow-on King George V Class.
You know what sir that is something not everybody can say I guarantee you listen to every word he had to say, just as I did with my grandfather in World War two conversations 👍
Dreadnought sinking U29 might make it one of the more successful British battleships in WW1, in that it took out a U-boat ace captain and avenged the sinking of the cruisers Aboukir and Cressy. British battleships did a lot sitting around in WW1, so it doesn't take much to be more successful than most of them.
What I find funny and awesome Titanic sister ship Olympic did that also, that's not something that happens very often what there's two magnificent ships did.
@@george_364 Does a plane from a battleship sinking a submarine count? :) At the Second Battle of Narvik a Swordfish launched from HMS Warspite bombed and sank U64.
From the point of view of all round innovation, durability, defensive and offensive power, and down right value for money, the Queen Elizabeths can't be beaten. A few come close but none exceed them.
I think it is fair to say that the QEs and especially Warspite were the best "bang for the buck" class of battleships. Present at Jutland and played an important role, modernized and used extensively in WWII including Norway, the Med and even the Indian Ocean as front line units. I can't think of another class of battleships that anyone ever got that much use out of.
@@thekiatty6953 The Iowas were effective fighting units as late as the first Gulf War & Missouri & Wisconsin weren’t struck from the reserve fleet until 2006. Just sayin’... :-)
@@grahamstrouse1165 true enough! But I think it is fair to say that other ships could have performed the job they did during Vietnam and the Gulf wars. You cannot say the same of the QEs throughout their service history. Also, the refits that added CIWS and VLS etc. are of a scope and scale far beyond what the QE refits entailed, hence the "bang for the buck" comment. BUT I don't think the Soviets liked the Iowas steaming around very much. They were almost a fleet-in-being on thwir own, so you might be able to argue that they were a good bang for the buck for that reason alone.
There is a great book written by Georg von Hase, the firing director of Derfflinger at Jutland. The title is "Kiel and Jutland: the Famous Naval Battle of the First World War from the German Perspective". I hope that you can find it! It illustrates also the firing systems of the WW1 german ships.
You forgot the QEs were oil fired which means they were at least as innovative as Nevada, but with an actual WWI record to go along with it, I don't see how you keep them out of #1.
The Queen Elizabeth class had oil fired first Nevada was second so I believe Your right Queen Elizabeth Clash should be first with HMS Warspite being top ship
It's not the only mistake in this video let alone if you're a regular on this channel. The research is a little lacking sometimes and it unfortunately spreads a lot of miss information.
The Queen Elizabeth class was the first battleship class to feature oil-fired boilers. The Nevada class was second. Also, there were four Queen Elizabeth class ships that weren't built. Agincourt was to be the sixth of the class, but wasn't built. Meanwhile Canada was going to have 3 modern super-Dreadnoughts built, but the authorization bill wasn't passed. These were tentatively to be named Ontario, Quebec, and Acadia. They're building would have made for some interesting discussions around the Washington Treaty negotiations, likely with those ships joining the RN, as it's unlikely Canada would have wanted to maintain them, but they weren't old enough, and out of date in the manner of the Australia to make scrapping necessarily a prime option... 🤷♂️
If Canada had built their three then I can see the RN giving up Repulse and Renown to compensate, or maybe 3 of the R class. If they couldn't get a bigger tonnage.
Yeah, if this innovation is why Nevada is number 1, that spot should really go to the Queen Elizabeths. They saw more service and action, they achieved more, and they innovated more. Consider that their 15" guns were so good that they were still used on the final British battleship, Vanguard, completed after the SECOND world war.
@@AllThingsCubey Vanguard used old turrets in storage, removed from Glorious and Courageous in the 20's when they were converted to carriers. The RN didn't want to use them, but they needed fast battleships with more than 14" guns to deal with Bismarck and Tirpitz and realized they could build a hull for these old turrets quicker than they could build the planned 16" batteries for the Lion class ships already laid down as the delay on the Lion's was primarily in the expected production time for the new 16" guns.
@@adam_mawz_maas Actually, by the time the armament was fitted to Vanguard, WW2 was ended, Bismarck had been sunk for 5 years, and it was chosen because the cost to fully develop the new 16" guns was simply not worth it when the 15" was so excellent, an already available. The 1920s turrets were so heavily rebuilt as to basically be totally new, and the barrels were sourced from six ships retired at the end of the war, including Warspite and Queen Elizabeth. While they're hardly 16" L50s like the Iowa's armament, the BL 15" L42s were the most capable guns of their size ever made, and there was really nothing wrong with equipping Vanguard with them even post-war.
@@richardcutts196 They would never propose to give up Repulse and Renown.. that would have been a severe strategic blunder. These 15 inch globe encompassing battle-cruisers where the next best thing behind Hood, and quite a lot of effort has been spend inter-war to modernize them. Their gunpower alone made them some of the more intimidating capital ships out there, and their speed was definitely what the RN needed to interdict raiders, cruisers and protect their interests abroad. Getting rid of R-class would be preferred. While the 15" guns would be very much in use, their design was still more of a war-time solution to boost the numbers to overwhelming numbers, than a unit that added extra capability, where Repulse and Renown def. did.
@@MrMattMWH its just perceived as too long because most of us have already seen it a few times and thus, as every intro, it gets boring. If you see it for the first, second time its quite nice
That was down more to the poor performance of British AP shells, as Drac said,if we had green boy shells at jutland the Germans would have lost more ships.
@@davidbirt8486 Still, surviving the Deathride of the Battlecruiser was still impressive. It was not an easy receiving the order "Gefechtskehrtwendung", which basically meant charge into guns of the Grand Fleet again and ram their ships.
Ryan, I never miss one of your videos, I wanted to tell you that you are constantly improving and are a great storyteller! Thank you for doing this, I personally appreciate it. Greg
The one ship I find missing here is the SMS Seydlitz. This is my favorite - aside from USS Texas of-course - capitol ship of that era. While this list focuses mainly on innovations - and would be better labeled "Top 10 most innovative ..." - and Seydlitz had very little difference from her predecessors of the Moltke class. She was different and stands out. She was over 40' longer, nearly 10% larger and had a forecastle deck that was 1 deck level higher. These don't seem much but despite being a Battlecruiser, her armor was heavier than most Dreadnoughts. She devoted an unprecedented % of her overall tonnage to armor, and it more than paid off. What did that one extra deck level do for her? when she returned from Jutland, having been hit by no less than 21 heavy gun rounds including 15" shells from the QEs and a 21" torpedo, that forecastle deck was just 3 feet out of the water. the deck below was under water. She was so low in the water that she couldn't enter Drydock, she had to be backed into the Kiel canal lochs and the lochs drained so she could be lightened and repaired enough for her keel to clear the Drydocks. That was perhaps the worst battering any ship has ever had and still returned to service. She should be on the list just for pure toughness.
Enjoyed the video but thought HMS New Zealand should have been mentioned as one of the Indefatigable class. She fought in all three major battles and did not blow up. Many thought it was because she was protected by Maori magic. Others think she was just extremely lucky.
You guys should reach out to do a collaboration video with Drachinifel . Both this channel and his are amazing content and BSNJM probably already shares many fans and subs with him already. Keep up the good work👍.
If this channel still exists? I better make a donation! These are college level Battleship lectures. I want them to continue. I hope you enjoy making these as much as I enjoy watching them.
My favourite must be Warspite. It was also having one of its best missions 200km from where I live, where it with a division of destroyers sailed in the Ofotfjord and sank 1/3 of all german destroyers in a few hours.
I always felt some pity for the German destroyers who found themselves facing not only an aggressive British destroyer flotilla but Warspite. Any idea what a 15" does to a destroyer? No sea room.for them to escape they must have known they were doomed. It's also an interesting measure of how much stronger Britain was at sea and how much stronger Germany was on land.
@@HarryFlashmanVC Normally destroyers + submarines > battleships especially in confined areas, even more so if said battleship has steering problems. There's some luck factor in there like a submarine hitting a rock when ambushing Warspite, or torpedoes hitting a forcefield or whatever and detonating prematurely, or magnets not working because of magnetic poles.
@@sundiver137 Just wait till we tell you they canceled a third one, which supposedly they were going to call Resistance. Because there were 8 R class planned, and 5 became the R Battleships, so 2 R Battlecruisers were built, third just disappeared to history
Barham was sunk in the Mediterranean, off the coast of Egypt, by U331 in November 1941. Royal Oak (an R-Class battleship) was torpedoed and sunk at Scapa Flow by U47 in October 1939. One of my Great-grandfathers served on the Barham in WWI, including at the Battle of Jutland.
In-de-fat-ig-able, not in-de-fat-eeg-able - for all the Americans like Ryan :) Definitely a respectable top 10 - well constructed, and, as always, very well informed. Enjoying the vids as ever, but! This is clearly the list of an American, and I'm a Brit, so... People have said before, The Queen Elizabeth-class were the first oil fired battleship design globally, not the Nevadas, and I think personally , while the all-or-nothing scheme puts Nevada in perhaps second place, the QE's went to 15' in guns, the best naval rifle mounted by any nation to that date, four twin turrets in 2 super firing pairs and most importantly, they moved toward the 'fast battleship' concept. Their speed was at construction very much delivered on and saw them paired with the 1st Battle Cruiser Squadron under Beatty - who then turned without proper signalling and lost his greatest asset momentarily. Nevertheless, given Warspite's punishment subsequently received at Jutland their armour scheme was, I think, proven sufficient for their time, if not as pioneering as Nevada's - the QE's sit comfortably at 1st on my list. Again, great vids keep them coming!
At Jutland, the Queen Elizabeths (the Queen Elizabeth itself was actually in drydock) were not included in the line of battle but instead were attached to the Battlecruiser group out of Rosynth.
All he’s saying is that the QE class never quite hit their designed speed of 25 knots, which is true. They were faster than contemporary German & US battleships but were nowhere near as fast as the battlecruisers.
For historical reference , HMS Agincourt should have been included, she mounted 14x12inch cannon all on the center line in twin turrets. The most main guns ever put on a battleship or battlecruiser. She was originally ordered by Brazil, but taken over by the Royal Navy at the outbreak of WW1. USS Wyoming and Arkansas had 6 twin 12 inch gun turrets on the centreline.
Being American I knew Warspite was going to be N2 and some american ship n1 because 'Murica, but I tough Texas was going to be the one. Also the one sunk in Scapa was Royal Oak, from the R class. Barham was sunk in the mediterranean.
Yes. Though Barham was indeed not extensively modernized before WWII and she was sunk in the Med after being torpedoed. But yes, it was an "R" class (HMS Royal Oak) that was sunk in Scapa Flow early in the war. (But yes, Royal Oak was also un-modernized and suffered a severe morale problem when war broke out because of her lack of modernization.)
While the Dante Alighieri was the first triple gun turret ship laid down, the Tegetthoff class beat it into service by a month with the Viribis Unitis entering service at the beginning of December 1912 and the Dante Alighieri following in early January 1913.
The indefatigable class battle cruiser shown at 22:21 has the Australian flag flying on the jack staff at the bow so is HMAS Australia. Von Spee, the German commander of the squadron sunk at the Falklands said that it was only the presence of the Australia which prevented him from shelling Australian ports at the beginning of the war. So it did its job in that respect. HMAS Australia joined the British battle cruiser squadron based at Rosyth, but missed Jutland as it was being repaired after a collision with its sister ship, HMS New Zealand. As a result of the Washington treaty in 1922 HMAS Australia was sunk off Sydney heads.
My favorite WWI battleship is the seven-turreted HMS Agincourt, which was originally going to be Brazil's 'Rio de Janeiro' -- but a sudden economic downturn led to the Brazilians selling her to the Ottoman Empire as 'Sultan Osman I'. Unfortunately the war started before she and another ship (which became 'Erin') could be transferred to the Empire and the British impressed them into Royal Navy service -- which led directly to the Ottoman Empire joining the Austro-Hungarian/German side. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Agincourt_(1913)
I have always loved the battleships over other naval ships, but after watching this video, I realized there is so much more to learn about them. Thumbs up to this guy, he really knows his stuff.
Hi Ryan, very sorry to disagree with you but I would go with the Queen Elizabeth class. Specifically HMS Warspite. The QE's were oil fired. Innovation strait away. Those that were rebuilt had excellent career's.
Hey Ski. I am rooting for USS Texas ( BB-35 ) . I trod her decks twice. Once in 1988 when they were concrete and again in 2001 after her major repairs at Todd's Shipyards on pine planked decks.
I think you'll find that the battleship sunk by a submarine in Scapa Flow was the Royal Oak and that Barum was sunk off the Egyptian coast the following November by the German submarine U-331
35:30 I was saying to myself: "He is describing the sinking of HMS Royal Oak, not HMS Barham" since Royal Oak was sunk in Scapa Flow by U-47, and Barham was sunk in the Mediterranean by U-331.
I wonder when USS New Jersey was building, what equipment and such, would have been installed prior to the laying down of that deck's ceiling. In other words, what equipment was in the Uss New Jersey prior to her launching? Thank you Ryan, Alaina and Libby☺.
Anything to big to fit through the doors. So her boilers and engineering equipment, as well as auxiliary machinery like generators and distilling equipment.
Maybe SMS Von der Tann. She wasn't the first battlecruiser, but she was actually the first, that was built with fleet engagements, facing other capital ships in mind. Not only did she survive Jutland, but she was also responsible for the destruction of HMS Indefatigable, which was, among her (half-) sisters, insufficiently armored, to face capital ship weapons. Those features were later enhanced again with the Moltke class, which causes the design of the Lion class, on of the few british "response builds". (The other is suprisingly the admiral class which was based on the false assumption, that the Mackensen class would go 30 knots, and have 4x2 15" guns).
One of the reasons the Germans kept using the Bayern-class armour scheme is they didn't have any more experience with building capital ships, and this was the last ones they built. It actually had quite a few limitations by WW II.
this can also be seen by their choice to give all their capital ships the 4x2 gun layout. (The Scharnhorst class was supposed to have its turrets replaced). The French, British and Italians experimented a bit more as seen in the Richelieu, the KGV and the Littorios
Nope, that is an utter failure. The german defence system was build up by these points (proven in ww2) 1.) you need your vitals staying alive and running 2.) you need to survive hits from medium to short range 3.) long distance hits are nice but RARE. A battleship having est. 60-80 rounds of AP ammo will not hit once with them at a distance of 32km (hit chance lower as 1%, more at 0,3%)... so even if you fire 9 rounds (full salvo) and empty your magazines and you have ONLY loaded AP, with 900 shells flying you get 2,7 hits. That does nothing. And only these long distance hits were bad for german defence system 4.) all other hits will break up at the german "sandwich" defence system - as was proven with Bismarck. So, the very best armor protection system in ww2 had the germans with T and B. They both could not be sunk by artillery of Battleships and in any normal engagement (with both sides running and manovering) they will not be sunk. And B had to be scuttled. He was a floating wreck, but he swam. The AON-System looks good in theory but is crazy shit in reality. Its the same with tank-protection. Once AON-thick armor, now sandwich-spezialised protection that is nearly unbreakable. The germans just did that on purpose with battleships.
Little confused here. British BC you start of correctly identifying the issue with the BC design was powder handling and safety procedures but then you forget that and propagate the inaccurate myth they were bad design. Later battles showed the design was in fact very sound when safety doors were shut and powder wasn't lining the halls all the way to the magazines
Even though I'm not American I would love to one day visit your ship. Sadly the UK didn't preserve any of our Battleships as our country was so broke after the war we scrapped them all. If I ever win the lottery this would be the first thing I would do. Respect to our brave allies in the US navy
Like the video, not enough out there on WW1 ships. One change for me, I would put the QEs ahead of the Nevada. Any sim or game I have had would show that a QE can take a Nevada. Take it up a class and you get a good fair fight between a QE and an Arizona class.
The German experts evaluated the damage inflicted on their ships by the Royal navy after Jutland and stated that if the British had AP shells that actually worked ( as the German shells did) then they would of probably lost 5 or 6 capital ships... So the British battle Cruisers lost in Beatties charge was down to storing cordite wrongly against Royal Navy protocol and the Germans knew of our useless AP shells prior to the war thanks to the Swedish navy!!!... Oh and it was the Royal Oak that was sunk in Scapa Flow and Barnham was sunk off Egypt both by torpedo attacks..... Great video by the way...you colonists are coming on leaps and bounds... Hahaha
At the Battle of Jutland on May 31, 1916, as his cruisers were exploding around him, then Royal Navy Vice Admiral David Beatty lamented “something is wrong with our bloody ships today.”
There were a couple of other reasons British WWI battleships were at a disadvantage to the German: Owing to a lack of funding, and the need to get on, pre-WWI, with construction of sufficient 15-in gun ships, older facilities were retained, limiting the beam of the new ships to 90 ft, vs 120 ft for the German. Thus, German gunners had a more stable platform to shoot from. The British had also retained, owing to financial concerns, outmoded wire-bound gun barrel production facilities, wherein an inner tube, carrying the rifling, was wrapped with layers of steel wire, and then an outer steel tube placed over that. The Germans used the superior "built-up" designs consisting of concentric steel tubes. Wire-bound barrels tended to droop fractionally, decreasing the accuracy of the shot.
An interesting list. I've learned some things I didn't know. One small point though, you've confused HMS Barham with HMS Royal Oak. HMS Barham was sunk by an Italian submarine in the Mediterranean, while it was HMS Royal Oak that was torpedoed in Scapa Flow, by the U-boat U47 commanded by Lt Gunter Prien. I'd heard of the "All or Nothing" armour idea, but now have a better understanding of it. Also, I hadn't realised the similarities between HMS Tiger and Kongo class vessels.
Ryan, for a future series raising sunken battleships. Both Pearl Harbor with US ships and Scapa Flow with the German WWI ships. Both are excellent stories.
Here's my list I'm biased. Based more upon design or capabilities... Warspite 1st. R Class 2nd. Bayern Class 3rd. Arizona 4th, Texas 5th, Iron Duke Class 6th, Nevada 7th, Kongo class 8th, the Andrea Doria class 9th and the Teghetoff class 10th. The Brits had a 14" gunned special made super dreadnaught in WW1, that could have been an honorable mention lol. It never gets talked about much... was named after the country i live in...(Canada). Could you do another top 10 later for each battlecruisers and battleships? Some good ships get left out... BTW Barham was torpedoed by U331 i believe at sea. Gunther Prien sunk the Royal Oak, an R class ship, in port, at the start of WW2.Great video, you covered a broad range of detail in a short amount of time. Caught this much later...
HMS Barham was sunk in the Mediterranean. Royal Oak was sunk in Scapa flow (Revenge class). The Queen Elizabeth class were designed for 25 knots and had no trouble reaching 24.5 except when in need of a refit. Barham with worn out turbines could only do 22 knots, and a grounding incident before the battle of Matapan temporarily limited Warspite's speed to 22 knots due to condenser fouling. It was the Revenge class that were 22 knot ships but could push 23 knots in overload.
I'm not arguing they weren't great it was just funny to hear it put like that. The model I built of renown 1941 looks nothing like the late teens photo I have of her
I did raise an eyebrow about your number one slot but I like your presentation and appreciate the time you took to make the video. It's subjective of course but I then asked chat GPT and this was it's reply to the question 'what was the best battleship class of WW1?' During World War I, the battleship that is often considered the best class was the British Royal Navy's "Queen Elizabeth-class" battleships. The Queen Elizabeth-class included ships such as the HMS Queen Elizabeth, HMS Warspite, and others. These battleships were known for their combination of speed, firepower, and modern design. Key features of the Queen Elizabeth-class battleships included: Main Armament: They were armed with eight 15-inch (381 mm) guns in four twin turrets, which gave them a significant firepower advantage over many of their contemporaries. Speed: These battleships were relatively fast for their time, capable of speeds exceeding 24 knots, which allowed them to keep pace with the fast battlecruisers and other elements of the British Grand Fleet. Armor: They had well-balanced armor protection, which made them durable in battle. Modern Design: The Queen Elizabeth-class battleships incorporated modern design principles, including better protection against underwater threats, which was a significant improvement over older battleships. These battleships played a vital role in World War I, participating in various naval engagements and contributing to the British Royal Navy's dominance in the North Sea. While it's challenging to definitively say which battleship class was the absolute best, the Queen Elizabeth-class is often considered one of the most successful and influential battleship designs of that era.
Barham was sunk in the med by a U-boat, Royal Oak was sunk by U-47 at Scapa Fow, & the Royal navy had a saying "if Warspite was`nt there, it was`nt a proper fight".
Thanks to the bravery of one of her gunnery officers who flooded the magazines. The Germans learnt their lesson pre Jutland and reinstated flash protection measures that had been part removed to improve rate of fire. What would have happened one wonders if the British had had a similar experience pre Jutland. Though that assumed beatty would have bloody listened.
I refer to twin rear axle motor homes as dreadnaughts. Indefatigable sounds better than Indumavisible. Wonderful exposé on the old ships Ryan. Also, the Iowa Class beats ANY of the WWI ships. I knew a veteran who served on the Nevada in WWII. He has passed on but he did tell what he did on board the ship in the 1980s and yes he was there at Pearl Harbor 7th Dec. 1941. Thanks.
I honestly was surprised the battleship HMS Agincourt was not on this list. Definitely an interesting ww1 design equipping a battleship with 14x 12inch guns. 7 turrets on a battleship. Not only was she the largest battleship in the royal navy up until HMS hood, but despite being larger and heavier than all other ships she was also faster than most other heavy battleships and even some battlecruisers. At Jutland neighbouring ships in the battle line thought that Agincourt had been destroyed by a magazine detonation only to find when the smoke cleared the ship perfectly fine with the massive explosion and shockwave coming from the firing of all 14 guns at once on full broadside. To this day Agincourt holds the record for the largest number of same calibre big guns fitted to a warship. Only superseded by the Lyon class French battleship with 16x guns in four quadruple turrets but this ship was never built.
Errata 1. Radetzky class at 10.35, not Teghetoff/Viribus Units class. 2. No Orions were lost in the war. HMS Audacious was sunk by a mine but she was King George V class. 3. It was the Invincible class and not the Indefatigable that initiated the battlecruiser concept and the Invincible class, HMS Invincible and Inflexible that fought at the Falklands battle, not the Indefatigable class. 4. The Queen Elizabeth were oil fired and their speed made them marginally more useful than the American standards in WWII.
It was Royal Oak that was sunk at anchor in Scapa Flow. Bahram was torpedoed in the Med whilst in convoy with Malaya and Valiant. I'm a Brit so the QE class is my No.1 and am pretty sure it was the first oil fired warship - although the US had better supply, so maybe I'm wrong. The USN definitely pioneered the super-imposed turrets. The mid Q turrets on the Iron Duke and Orion Classes also interrupted the machinery spaces - by dropping this the QEs and the R-Class ships could have more powerful engines. Great video!
talking about Derfflinger: in survived battledamage her predecessor Seydlitz was even better „arguably the toughest battlecruiser ever tested in combat“ (quote Richard Humble)
Indeed! It was so damaged in Jutland that it nearly escaped sinking. Warspite did get a overheat in the rudder which made her drift in front of all the enemy ships for a while getting just as much beating. But not as much flooding.
Seydlitz had extra freeboard in her bow compared to near sisters Moltke and Goeben. I always think of this when seeing pics of how battered she was and how down in the bow she was after Jutland. Her near sisters might not have survived.
19:00 ".. no projectile penetrated more than 9 inches of armor". At Dogger Bank, a 13.5" SAPC shell from Lion penetrated the 25cm aftmost turret barbette of Seydlitz.
Serriously the Nevarda? 4MPH slower and smaller guns with a shorter 45 caliber and only 15deg of ellevation compared to WW1 Queen Elisebeth class. The birds nest tripods made accuracy at any speed impossible - The QE also had the latest had Krupp Cemented Armour which made the Nevarda STS armour obsolete - The Nevarda's sister ship had tripple expansion engines !
I think the biggest thing that makes the battleship obsolete is the same reason it's needed. The fear factor. When you look at battleship service, Jutland was the only big battle that the battleship was designed for. Otherwise, there was some small battleship battles involving a few battleships. With that being said, there was a few times during World War II where there could have been a Jutland style battle. In the end, the battleship turned out to be like nuclear weapons. They acted like a great stop. Even though, the German High Seas fleet was only in one big battle, they tied up a lot of resources from other areas. They also added protection from an invasion in the area.
I enjoyed the video very much. But the 1st battle cruiser built that sms blusher was designed against was HMS invisible. And royal oak was sunk at Scapa flow. But aside said it was a very good video.
I tend to love the french predreadnought that went to war in 1914-18 because they had some interesting features (mix batteries, hull shapes, use of the coal to protect the inner parts, etc.)
For the record, the Royal Navy's Queen Elizabeths were the first oil fired battleships in the world. Also, it was HMS Royal Oak that was sunk at Scapa Flow. HMS Barham was sunk in the Mediterranean by a U-boat that managed to slip inside her escort screen. At the battle of Dogger Bank, SMS Seydlitz lost two turrets to a single hit when the fire in her Y turret propagated into her X turret barbette.
Queen Elizabeth Class were the first oil-fired battleships, which is why HMS Warspite, with her exemplary record in both wars, deserves to be first on the list.
Did you know that USS Nevada was the only ship to be at pearl harbor and d-day. USS Nevada BB 36 is the only ship named after a state that had the same hull number as the state jointing the union. Nevada is the 36th state. USS Nevada survived two atomic bombs. Was sunk by US naval gun fire on July 31,1948.
THAT was a crying shame the Navy could do that to great US Capital ships . They could have used something else for target practice . As much as I am NOT a fan of USS New York BUT it shouldn’t have been used for target practice OR nuked at operation crossroads as with the Nevada or KMS Prinz Eugen and other ships .
The Bismarck and Tirpitz were tough ships, whatever else you might say about them. Bismarck took a huge number of hits when the British fleet caught up with her, and it was ultimately sunk by her crew scuttling her.
The scuttling myth again. Go look the wreck footage from Bismarck, the hulk is basicly an emmenthal cheese, more holes than intact. Both 14 and 16 inch. The armour scheme was obsolete, too low citadel and thus the communication lines were exposed to Rodney and KGV, causing a quick silencing of the main battery. The fact that germans had a 20 year design gap came with a prize. Skill and continuity lacked seriously.
@@Ah01 Well, actually, I'm going by the reports from the British fleet that caught her, and the reports form those who inspected her hull when they dived on her. The general consensus was that she might have EVENTUALLY sunk on her own, but the crew's decision to scuttle her was the proximate cause of her sinking. The film you refer to showed more of her superstructure than her hull. And her superstructure did indeed look like Swiss cheese. However, the superstructure of a ship isn't integral to keeping it afloat.
