B65 class - Guide 068 (Re-upload)

The B-65 class of the Imperial Japanese Navy is today's subject.
(Apologies for the re-upload, the first version only had the latter half of the actual video for some reason)
Next on the list:
-Deutschland class (pre-Dreadnought)
-G3 class (NB)
-USS North Carolina
-Tillman Battleship Special
-Deutschland class (1930)
-KMS Graf Spee
-Tone class
-HMS Warrior (1860)
-IRN Potemkin
-Hipper class
-KMS Prinz Eugen
-Yamato class
-Italia class
-Tsesarevich
-Βασίλισσα Ολγα (Basilissa Olga)
-Nagato class
-Monitor Parnaiba
-G-class destroyer
-HMS Glowworm
-Town class cruisers
-USS Wichita
-Lord Nelson class
-Essex class
-Slava (Pre-dreadnought)
-USS Massachusetts
-Pensacola class
-HIJMS Oyodo
-Riachuelo (NB)
-I-19
-HMS Ark Royal
-ORP Błyskawica
-USS West Virginia
-Amagi Class
-Tosa Class
-Alaska class
-Derfflinger class
-Yorktown class
-Tre Kronor class
-Nelson class
-Gato class
-Admiralen class
-H class (NB)
-Greek 'Monarch' class destroyers
-'Habbakuk' project
-USS Texas
-USS Olympia
-HIJMS Mikasa
-County class
-KMS Tirpitz
-Montana class
-Florida class
-USS Salt Lake City
-Storozhevoy
-Flower class
-USS San Juan
-HMS Sheffield
-USS Alaska
-USS Texas
-USS Johnston
-Dido class
-Hunt class
-HMS Vanguard
-Mogami class
-Almirante Grau
-Surcouf
-Von der Tann
-Massena
Specials:
-Fire Control Systems
-Protected Cruisers
-Scout Cruisers
-Naval Artillery
-Tirpitz (damage history)

[@alexius23]

The Alaska Class was designed to fight the B64 class. By the time the American super cruisers were deployed the threat was long gone. As a result the USN curtailed the full building of the big cruisers. In fact the USN was so underwhelmed by the end results they were quickly taken out of service and scrapped. From what I have read they were almost as expensive to run as an Iowa class BB

[@michaelsnyder3871]

Keep in mind that when these two ships were completed in circa 1947, the IJN would have produced four "Yamato" and three "Super-Yamato" class "fast" battleships at ~64,000 tons standard displacement. The USN would have completed the six 35,000 ton standard displacement "fast" battleships of the "North Carolina" and "South Dakota" class, six of the 45,000 ton "Iowa" class, six "Alaska" class large cruisers and five "Montana" class battleships. More important, the IJN might have developed an actual fire control radar from Type 22 which would allow the Japanese to engage at an effective range of 24,000 yards in almost all conditions. Except the USN would have the SG-2 surface search radar with double the power and range of the Type 22, and the Mk.13 fire control radar. The effective engagement range in most conditions for the USN would have been between 36,000 and 40,000 yards.

[@alexius23]

Until the hull hits the water all those plans were little more than science fiction

[@bkjeong4302]

Even with American radar and fire control, 36,000-40,000 yards isn’t a range where you can reliably hit anything. Check out the NavWeaps page on the Iowa’s main guns: they list targeting results under testing conditions (using WWII-era propellant), and the results are actually terrible at the ranges you claimed as their effective engagement range (less than 3% and that's under testing conditions). The real effective engagement range would be 25,000 yards or less. Naval artillery was always hilariously inaccurate.

[@josephlongbone4255]

I'm with you chief, the Axis couldn't have won.

[@evobsm2328]

​​@@alexius23yes thats what he said though. That when the time came around to it this wouldve been the composition

[@evobsm2328]

But essentially it wasnt the radar that won the battles. It helped but the reall deal breaker was the cracking of japanese codes. Without it the major victories at midway and other decisive engagements wouldnt have happened. And the japanese wouldve probably inflicted more severe losses on the american forces all around. So its thanks to those guys we never talk about the war was won.

[@michaelsnyder3871]

The Japanese B-65 class would not have been laid down until after 1944. The Japanese were limited in the numbers of large slips and even more as far as sets of high pressure steam machinery sets. The Japanese could produce only four sets of high power (~150,000shp) machinery a year, which limited the number of "fast" battleships, battlecruisers, fleet carriers and heavy cruisers. With the production of IJNS Taiho and the "Unryu" class medium fleet carriers, there would not be any machinery sets for the B-65 unless "Unryu" class carriers were not built. The same limitations prevented the Japanese from completing any heavy cruisers beyond the IJNS Ibuki before 1945. And that was without the US steel embargo.

[@potatoraider7320]

Where can i read the source? i need to know more than just the summary. Specifically speaking, i want to know where to find the information about the production quantities of Imperial japanese navy, from resources to technical machineries.

[@mattblom3990]

Hey Drachinifel, an episode on the naval doctrines of all major WW2 powers would be cool. I found the Japanese night fighting doctrine mentioned at the beginning of this episode fascinating.

[@admiralmackvods3766]

WOW 4 Years later and you got your wish

[@mattblom3990]

@@admiralmackvods3766 Lol, can't believe you found this old post to reply to it with the news!

[@williamgandarillas2185]

@@mattblom3990Congrats then!

[@AlbertLindberg]

I would like to suggest the Finnish coastal defense ships Väinämöinen and Ilmarinen. They were the biggest ships of the Finnish navy during ww2 and have quite an interesting history to them. Good video keep up the great work mate!

[@Drachinifel]

thendol97 I'll put them on the next list update.

[@Drachinifel]

Further note - for future reference, how do I pronounce there? I'm thinking looking at them "Ill-Marie-Nen" and "Vay-Nam-Oy-Nen", but would appreciate any corrections.

[@AlbertLindberg]

Drachinifel Väinämöinen is pronounced: Väi-nä-möi-nen where the ä:s are pronounced like the 'a' in "and" and the ö letter can be pronounced similarly to 'o' although there is some difference. If you want to learn it im sure you can find someone on youtube explaining it. Illmarinen is pronounced: Ill-mari-nen. The 'a' is here pronounced like the 'a' in "hard". Everything else is pronounced as it is written.

[@norbertblackrain2379]

The conclusion, that the Russo- Japanese War was decided on that one day is the main failure. the war was decided by a long range of events. The success of the Japanese to neutralize the original Russian fleet. Than the successful land operations resulting in the siege of Port Arthur and pushing further into Russian territory. So Tsushima was the straw that broke the camels back.

[@martinbuhl7606]

Please do not forget about the utterly poor leadership of a lot of russian High Commands in battle like for example Roshestwenski: He never told his Staff, other Admirals associated to his Squadron or his ships Commanders anything about his intentions, plans, or even strategies for an upcoming battle beforehand. In fact: he only gave per order some loose and vague instructions to his ships that were totally insufficent, leading to a lot of confusion amongst their Crews and having them wondering whether there will be a propper Plan communicated or given at a later point in time. That didn't happen which led to the Known result of this Battle. Things didn't go better on land either. All in all the Japanese Forces capitalized mostly on the russian Leadership not being able to meet the recquierments to lead a war in an era they couldn't keep up with.

[@polygondwanaland8390]

Or the fact that by the time the Russian 2nd Pacific Squadron arrived at Tsushima, most of the crew would have been perfectly happy to scuttle their ships without a fight and Kamchatka was happily trying to make that a reality. RIP Admiral Rozhestvensky, at least you tried

[@nathanwilcut3360]

@@martinbuhl7606 well if I would have been that russian admiral, wouldn't want my own side and reinforcements to know where I was at either. Considering the fact he was in command of a floating museum of naval history, had the most ineffective officers of the russian navy and the kamchatka under his command

[@martinbuhl7606]

@@nathanwilcut3360 That may be true, however he still should have come up with a propper plan and told his Subordinates...

[@Maritimesgestein]

@@martinbuhl7606 which nobody would have followed anyway

[@VersusARCH]

Japan had a war with China (First Sino-Japanese war) before it fought Russia and Chinese fleet was actually superior to the Japanese, but gross incompetence of the Chinese personnel both active and support enabled the competent Japanese to win.

[@feanorn8409]

They re about to get added to World of Warships.

[@kimpatz2189]

The Azuma

[@johntaylor4975]

And Yoshino

[@patrickradcliffe3837]

These were supposed to be replacements for the Kongō's on paper they look very inferior with only a 3 knot speed advantage.

[@karlbrundage7472]

A great series of histories. Bravo Zulu. That said, this is one of many times I've heard you refer to the Type 93 torpedo as the "Long Lance". This was not the nomenclature the Japanese Navy used, but rather, a term created by Samuel Elliot Morrison, who wrote the official history of the USN in WWII. You would be more precise and historically correct to refer to the weapon as the "Type 93" and differentiate it from torpedo weapons carried on other platforms, both submarine (which never used the 24" type 93, but rather a 21" analog). Just a suggestion............................ Edit: Perhaps you could do a seperate video on the Type 93 torpedo, since it had such a great effect on Japanese planning and, obviously, on USN/RAN/RN/RNthN losses...............................

[@mattblom3990]

Agreed on the separate video but you're splitting hairs with "Long Lance". Yes, an American came up with it - but most of us interested in the subject know it as the "Type 92 Long Lance". I think that's OK.

[@alexius23]

Had not heard about Morrison creating the name “”Long Lance”

[@canmufu3923]

@@mattblom3990 Sorry, as it's a year-old comment, but you did mean Type 93? Most using 'Long Lance' are just ignorant about the term's mistaken origin. Or think it sounds cool from hearing it in all the edgy History Channel documentaries they grew up on---more likely imo. The most clever way to introduce the weapon in these videos would be as "the Type 93 [Oxygen-fueled] Torpedo, known widely as the 'Long Lance'."

[@mrridley8967]

Wooooooooooo real voice keep up the good work

[@congratsyoufoundmychannel1098]

*Imagine if the Imperial Japanese Navy Actually built this class of heavy Cruisers as a Yamato look-alike decoy and sent one on Operation Ten-go, and after the Pacific Fleet claimed they've sunk the Yamato and began to steamroll their way though Okinawa the Actual Yamato sailed up and said "Suprised Motha F**kers."*

[@briantien7146]

It wouldn't matter because first of all, they only look alike from silhouette. Once the aircraft got close enough, they'd realise that most of its gauntlet of AA guns had disappeared and that it was smaller than expected. Second of all, if they didn't sink Yamato at Ten Go, they'd sink it in port, or take it as reparations to use in the nuclear tests. Ten Go effectively used the last of the Navy's oil, and the army was tightening their grasp on what oil remained for their hidden tanks and aircraft in case of invasion.

[@Rammstein0963.]

So this is the inspiration for the Azuma class from WoWS... Kinda cool.

[@horselips]

Please review WW2 Germany's Hipper class cruisers. Thanking you in advance.

[@konstantinosv.2858]

Do the fletcher class dd "Velos" of the hellenic navy!

[@Drachinifel]

Will do

[@konstantinosv.2858]

Drachinifel yes!

[@Archie2c]

So the WoW Azuma interesting very interesting.

[@bohemianmonk6222]

How about the USS Long Beach?

[@donf3877]

I don't get it people... 45,516 views, and only 967 thumb up???!!! What the hell........... If you watch it and like it, hit the thumb up.

[@LanusseJoaquin]

Since we are on battlecruisers(lovely vid btw), how about the Scharnhorst class? Those were battlecruisers in the very fashion of what was expected from the B-65 or Alaska, and actually saw extensive service.

[@3men219]

Those had very high level of armor protection, for all intents and purposes they were Battleships armed with tiny guns.

[@jehb8945]

I know there are several other videos where I could have asked this before But was the battlecruiser ever a good idea? They're employment and survival seems to be predicated on absolutely tactically ideal situations(and I am talking about before there were aircraft capable of damaging capital ships) where they can't get hit by any shell bigger than a cruiser's and even though speedgives you the ability to dictate the terms of the engagement there's still the fact that damage is going to happen and the more impervious you are too damaged the better chances you will have of surviving an engagement.

[@josephlongbone4255]

Pure Battlecruisers do suffer for being specialists, they rely upon optimal circumstances to work correctly and relying on your enemy to do the right thing is rarely a good idea. However, cruises and armoured cruisers always be more numerous than battleships because they are smaller and cheaper and having something specifically designed to maul them is very useful, particularly if you were going to be facing a minor navy that couldn't field large capital ships. This can be seen at the battle of the Falklands were the Scharnhorst class armoured cruisers were outmatched in every way by the Invincibles. Light forces are also essential in the battle line as the screening force and if one side were to have battlecruisers you could effectively make the enemy fleet blind as they would have no forward scouting units. This resulted in the Germans building very heavily armored battlecruisers specifically to counter the British battlecruisers. Finally late battlecruisers involved in to fast battleships with Ships like Hood, Derflinger and the Kongos being quite well protected.

[@joseluissalguero6478]

De haberse construido hubieran sido impresionantes pero ante la era de la aviación hubieran sucumbido

[@lucasemanuel7044]

B-65/Azuma (inWoWs)

[@atdfbttl15]

Seems more like Yoshino

[@Rog5446]

At approx time mark 3:50 he meant late 1800s, not late 1900s.

[@Anjana-qt8wt]

Can you do an episode on the type 1941 class cruisers.

[@tremedar]

Did you write the wiki article on the B-65? I read that article just before finding this video and I swear it was being read to me here.

[@bullreeves1109]

Glorious video! Also Congrats I’m getting 1.1K Subs!

[@juri8723]

Admiral Reeves him, here :o

[@Drachinifel]

Many thanks.

[@MrUandB]

No comments about how this is almost word for word from wikipedia?

[@Drachinifel]

Actually it's almost entirely from Evans and Peatties book "Kaigun", as well as "Axis battleships", which are pretty much the only readily available comprehensive sources about the ships. That in turn means any description of the ships is going to be very similar, especially in summary form.

[@chrishopwood6938]

Actually wiki page is copied from this channel

[@gavingaming7236]

Why were more strict restrictions placed on Japan when they were our ally in WW1

[@hlakegollum1]

They only had one ocean to defend. US and GB two.

[@nathan5o479]

Hello thicc mommy onee-san

[@anthonylowder6687]

Beautiful design too bad she never went into service.

[@marcoafonseca9461]

Hi! SMS Emden, please? Thanks

[@Drachinifel]

On its way

[@anthonygreenfield123]

It seems the Japanese were too busy in China and South East Asia, to be building and manning these cruisers. Lack of manpower.

[@mainiacjoe]

I am keenly interested in the poster shown at 1:50. Is it still for sale somewhere?

[@Drachinifel]

www.redbubble.com/people/thecollectioner/works/27689733-japanese-navy-ww2?grid_pos=13&p=art-print&rbs=1df70c6f-f281-457d-a8bb-618cbdb760cb&ref=shop_grid&searchTerm=japanese%20navy

[@danger4228]

ummmmm what ship? have u guys done alaska yet? and maybe if guys have time do akagi and kaga together if u guys didnt do them yet. ps maybe even me!

[@Drachinifel]

Alaska is due towards the end on January, Kaga is... further down the list. Akagi doesn't appear to have been requested yet.

[@thatdude3938]

Thushima was never a turning point of the R-J war

[@FLJBeliever1776]

Indefinitely Postponed. Yeah. Japan lost the war. I'd say they were Indefinitely Postponed.

[@jeffreyskoritowski4114]

Its just as well they were never built. The Iowa's would have steam rolled them.

[@bkjeong4302]

jeffrey skoritowski That is if the Iowas would even get to open fire before the Essexes ripped the B-65s apart.

[@jeffreyskoritowski4114]

@@bkjeong4302 It could've happened.

[@bkjeong4302]

@@jeffreyskoritowski4114 Extremely unlikely to say the least.