The Ship That Used a Strange Weapon in an Unexpected Battle

Рет қаралды 100,239

Күн бұрын

Пікірлер: 96

@not-fishing4730 4 ай бұрын

Many people think less of British designers but I've lauded them for their innovation and willingness to take risks to actually secure greater rewards.

@davidhouston1729 6 ай бұрын

So many errors, the battle with Scharnhorst was fought in pitch blackness (December well above the Arctic Circle) and Scharnhorst's radar was damaged by the cruisers before Duke of York joined the fight. I never found the "strange weapon" in the video, nor was the battle unexpected. It was a well planned and executed trap.

@otacon5648 6 ай бұрын

Man haven’t you guys figured out that the people who run this channel get details wrong so you all dive into the comments to correct them and that generates engagement with the channel, which means it’s gets promoted more, so more people watch the video, which makes them more money. Think about it.

@richardcleveland8549 24 күн бұрын

Yeah, he's slipshod with his "facts", for sure!

@diannegooding8733 6 ай бұрын

Nelson and Rodney were a quick build to get within the limits!

@steveclarke6257 6 ай бұрын

They were not "quick" builds persay, the RN slow walks the construction process from 1925-28 for both ships of the Nelson class. Done for two reasons, first to keep work in the dock yards to keep the experience and secondly the processes to keep the ships under the 35k limit required untried technology and materials which needed testing- such as using Aluminum as a replacement for steel in less critical areas, which had not been used by before on an RN ship

@walterrymarczyk8271 6 ай бұрын

It was the HMS Prince of Wales, not the Duke of York, that brought Churchill to meet Roosevelt.

@SnowmanN49 6 ай бұрын

Actually it was both. Prince of Wales in August 1941 and Duke of York in December 1941.

@jamesgascoyne.7494 6 ай бұрын

Yes that's right. Just before she was lost in the middle East.

@ScienceChap 6 ай бұрын

You described the armament of the WW1 KGV class. KGV class fired a heavier broadside than Bismarck.

@dovetonsturdee7033 6 ай бұрын

Indeed, 15,900 lbs as opposed to 14.112 lbs.

@corbintodd9339 6 ай бұрын

Nah he combined the two together and is all over the place lol. WW1 class had the 5 twin turrets but had 13.5” guns not 14”. He even jumps back and forth between showing the different ships. Long story short he has no idea what he’s talking about lol.

@Buddieboy1957 6 ай бұрын

@corbintodd9339 I would agree. All the content reposts is poorly researched.

@chadrowe8452 6 ай бұрын

What is the strange weapon?

@johnF1958 6 ай бұрын

I guess the radar targeting systems.... your guess is as good as mine

@malakaman9468 6 ай бұрын

A quadruple 356mm turret in a modern battleship

@bentonmarcum8924 6 ай бұрын

This guy is increasingly using misleading titles to get views

@williamjones3462 6 ай бұрын

@@bentonmarcum8924 You are correct. I will be less inclined to click in the future

@smallcnclathes 6 ай бұрын

I came here to find out, the last video was about one "epic shot" not sure what that was either. Time to click the do not recommend button I think

@BrentHolt-oy3eg 6 ай бұрын

I hate that these great ships ended up getting scrapped it’s a shame

@bionicgeekgrrl 6 ай бұрын

Sadly whilst Britain emerged victorious in the war, it was utterly wrecked and broke. It owed significant sums to the USA and critical infrastructure, housing and transport all needed replacement or upgrade. As well as this significant social and welfare reform occurred with the nationalisation of the railways, road transport and coal industries and the formation of the NHS. Rationing continued into the mid50s. So put simply there was neither the desire nor the funds to preserve ships, otherwise there'd be at least one preserved battleship and carrier. However, hms Belfast is still able to be visited on the Thames, so at least some of the fleet that sunk scharnhorst survive.

@JohnnyWednesday 6 ай бұрын

A shame? The weapons designed to kill people? you think that's a shame?

@tonystevens9278 6 ай бұрын

There was some good film of the KGV class at sea in Arctic waters in this video. The class often receives criticsm for supposedly being undergunned. However, the KGVs mission killed two contemporary (that is, post Washington Treaty) battleships. Duke of York with Scharnhorst, with the hits made on Bismarck by the Prince of Wales causing the former to abandon her commerce raiding mission & to set course for France to undertake repairs. The KGV herself being one of the two RN' battleships present for the final destruction of the Bismarck on the 27 May 1941.

@SnowmanN49 6 ай бұрын

I agree with everything you said except that I've always considered Scharnhorst to be a battlecruiser, totally outclassed/outgunned by D of Y.

@tonystevens9278 6 ай бұрын

@@SnowmanN49 - You make an intersting point. The Kriegsmarine always classified the twins as battleships with the RN tending towards the battlecruiser designation if only because of their speed. The main belt thickness on the Scharnhorst being similar to that fitted to the later Bismarck' class. Without wanting to disappear down a rabbit hole a number of commentators regard HMS Hood as the prototype fast battleship as post Jutland her armour arrangements were better than the celebrated Queen Elizabeth class (pre 1930s rebuild). However, because of her speed the RN always designated the Hood as a battlecruiser.

@howardmallisonii503 6 ай бұрын

I've been on HMS Belfast, they don't make ships anymore. They make "weapon systems".

@steveclarke6257 6 ай бұрын

13:30 the 2nd London Naval treaty planned to restrict gun size to 14", but it never happened due to the withdrawal of Japan from the treaty system. So the statement is slightly incorrect.

@tylercaldwell9890 6 ай бұрын

Could you do a video on the USS Alabama please

@davidvines6498 6 ай бұрын

Radar is the Strange Weapon. The British had Radar towers during the Battle of Britain and the Germans, not knowing what they were, ignored them. It allowed the Spitfires and Hurricanes to meet the Luftwaffe in the Channel

@dutchman7216 6 ай бұрын

The Royal navy should have had the foresight to save one of the KG5s as a museum.

@johngaither9263 6 ай бұрын

The Brits were so broke after the war it wasn't feasible for them to save anything, but I bet they wish they had now.

@dutchman7216 6 ай бұрын

@@johngaither9263 I agree

@dovetonsturdee7033 6 ай бұрын

No. HMS Warspite.

@michellepeoplelikeyoumurde8373 3 ай бұрын

@@johngaither9263not particulary

@michellepeoplelikeyoumurde8373 3 ай бұрын

@@dutchman7216where is all Netherlands war ships,bottom of the java sea

@Bob_Burton 6 ай бұрын

OK. I give up What was the strange weapon and what was the unexpected battle ?

@ristube3319 6 ай бұрын

A.I. told them it’s a title to get clicks. Isn’t it infuriating?!

@davidvines6498 6 ай бұрын

Radar, the same strange weapon the German Luftwaffe failed to recognize during the Battle of Britain

@Bob_Burton 6 ай бұрын

@@davidvines6498 Radar is not a weapon

@ristube3319 6 ай бұрын

2:15 “Beam of 103 feet?! It’s as wide as a football field?

@dominicbuckley8309 6 ай бұрын

That would be a very narrow football field: 160' is the standard width of an NFL field, 220' is the pitch width in *real* football and rugby.

@mrbr4587 6 ай бұрын

IMHO the Scharnohst is a battle cruiser

@clarencehopkins7832 6 ай бұрын

Excellent stuff bro

@bentonmarcum8924 6 ай бұрын

Why was Germany so in love with 11 inch guns.? They were using 11 inch in ww1 when the British were using 12 inch. By ww2 the British are using 14 inch and the germans are still using 11 inch.

@dominicbuckley8309 6 ай бұрын

Politics. One variation of the Deutschland class 'pocket battleship' design would have been armed with twin 15" turrets. However, as they were being built to replace the elderly pre-dreadnoughts, it was felt that any enlargement of the gun calibre above the 11" guns of the Preussen class would risk a veto from the Naval Inter-Allied Commission of Control (NIACC) created by the Washington Treaty powers.

@MrHuggybear62 6 ай бұрын

You're wrong there the Bismarck 16 in guns

@dominicbuckley8309 6 ай бұрын

@@MrHuggybear62 Bismarck had 380mm (15") guns, but didn't come out until 1941, 12 years after the first pocket battleship. The twin 15" turrets were designed to be a direct replacement of the triple 11", and there were plans to retrofit Scharnhorst and Gneisnau with 15" turrets. However, these were postponed indefinitely when the leadership lost faith in big-gun ships after Bismarck was sunk.

@bentonmarcum8924 6 ай бұрын

@@MrHuggybear62 Bismarck was a entirely different class of battleship. Only two of the Bismarck class were built. The Bismarck and the Tirpitz were the largest battleships built by Germany. I'm talking about their regular battleships which were still being armed with inferior 11 inch guns. Giving British battleships with 14 inch guns a range advantage, and twice as much explosive.

@Lemurion287 6 ай бұрын

In World War 1, the Germans were using 11-inch guns on their battle cruisers because they had a different philosophy for the type than the British. British battle cruisers had the armament of a battleship but less armor because they were designed to hunt cruisers and reducing armor made them faster. German battle cruisers had better armor than British ones and smaller guns so they could be faster than most battleships but still stand in the battle line if they had to.

@peteralflat281 6 ай бұрын

6:15 why is a spitfire attacking an allied convoy? I think you should do a video on that.

@jacqueslefave4296 6 ай бұрын

When weapons are captured, according to the laws of war, they may be put into battle by the other side, but they MUST paint it with their nation's colors and markings. I'm not saying that this happened in this instance, it might be just an editorial mistake.

@moodogco 6 ай бұрын

No the turrets were 1 quad 14inch & double forward & a single quad aft not 2 double aft & 3 double forward lol just look at it & u know thats wrong 😂😂😂 U keep showing the wrong ships randomly the first ships was correct

@jamesgascoyne.7494 6 ай бұрын

Correct sir.

@jeebusk 6 ай бұрын

a four gun turret is not the same as a quad, where the guns cannot raise and lower separately. same goes for double vs two-gun.

@moodogco 6 ай бұрын

@@jeebusk yes I know, I watch drach so I heard all about it but I just making a point

@jeebusk 6 ай бұрын

@@moodogco well if you're going to criticise other people's work, the least you can do is use correct terminology in your criticism :p the 3 double forward, was that a joke?

@moodogco 6 ай бұрын

@@jeebusk yh it is a quad turret on the king George 5th so what r u on about & how is 3 double a joke? Thats what they showed which was the wrong ship!! Do u actually know what your commenting about or a have clue about the subject? I take it u thought u was criticising me even tho I was correct but u didn't have clue what u was going about so didn't realise that fact 🤔 🤣👍

@christopherjenkins2373 6 ай бұрын

It would be great if your photos and videos matched your narration. I could give you numerous examples but I bet you know what I mean.

@scotthughes7208 6 ай бұрын

Love your work. Maybe include metric weights and lengths?

@zeusandathena4094 6 ай бұрын

Excellent history lesson on WW2 Dark Seas

@ristube3319 6 ай бұрын

13:05 Looks like it “participated” in the bomb drop on Hiroshima.

@Expat47 6 ай бұрын

So what was the "strange weapon" that was used or was that just clickbait?

@auro1986 6 ай бұрын

strange is you make treat where you only make ships better then others

@Dlabhelp 6 ай бұрын

Radar?

@MaxKrumholz 6 ай бұрын

a Strange Weapon?

@abnurtharn2927 6 ай бұрын

Radar perhaps? Just guessing here.

@robertwalker1742 6 ай бұрын

Rule Britannia, we must expand again the Royal Navy asap too long run down increase size and guard our sea again.

@jacqueslefave4296 6 ай бұрын

Im not an expert on this, but it looks like a British "pocket battleship?"🤔

@jrd33 6 ай бұрын

Not with 10 14" guns and belt armour up to 14" thick. It was a proper battleship of its time, though smaller than later battleships.

@jacqueslefave4296 6 ай бұрын

@@jrd33 You seem to be an expert. Can you tell me what the difference between a Dreadnought and a Battleship? Is it merely an incremental progression, or is there a fundamental difference of kind?

@jrd33 6 ай бұрын

@@jacqueslefave4296 HMS Dreadnought was a battleship launched in 1906 and was a major step up in terms of power at the time. At the time, people used the term "dreadnought" to refer to battleships build in the style of HMS Dreadnought and "pre-dreadnought" for earlier and less powerful battleships. The term doesn't really have any meaning after that (pretty much all battleships after 1908 were in the dreadnought style).

@jacqueslefave4296 6 ай бұрын

From context, I got the idea that the dreadnaughts were primarily designed for engagement with other fleets, whereas the battleships were that, but also shore bombardment. I remember reading about the USS Texas, which this author referred to as a dreadnaught, tasked with pre-bombardment of the defenses at Normandy for the D-day landings in WWII. But unlike the modern battleships, they could not elevate the guns high enough to reach where they needed, so in a clever solution, the captain directed that the ballast tanks be flooded with seawater on one side so as to tilt the other side so they could, together with the superstructure of the ship, gain a sufficient tilt and elevation to get a combined elevation and tilt to the artillery so that the targets could be engaged at the higher pillboxes to be useful. It worked, but it suggested to me that the dreadnaughts were not designed for shore bombardment, and probably not over-the horizon artillery fire. This would make sense because at the time the dreadnaught Texas, and others of its era, they probably did not have naval air reconnaissance beyond line of sight of the observation tower. But just because it's a reasonable deduction, doesn't mean it's true. Comments?

@jrd33 6 ай бұрын

@@jacqueslefave4296 Nice logic but that isn't the case. "Dreadnought" was never an official ship designation, it is just a descriptive label. All battleships were capable of shore bombardment. I imagine USS Texas was described as a dreadnought by virtue of her date of launch (1912, just 6 years after HMS Dreadnought). According to Wikipedia, Texas had to flood tanks to increase its maximum gun elevation in order to hit targets that were well inland and outside the ship's normal maximum range. Battleship maximum gun elevation increased over time as advances in propellant, fire control and precision engineering made it possible to engage targets at a range unthinkable when USS Texas was launched. And, or course, radar and naval air reconnaissance.

@daystatesniper01 6 ай бұрын

Look back in history apart from Bismarks hit on Hood the German mega fleet did nothing

@grantss1 6 ай бұрын

So the "strange weapon in an unexpected battle" is bs and just clickbait...

@martinsechrist1393 6 ай бұрын

Thank you. I was coming to that conclusion. Closest thing was radar. You saved me some time.

@chainweaver3361 6 ай бұрын

First like & first comment? Eh, who cares, it dont matter.

@Rick8191-tv8pg 6 ай бұрын

Work Will Set You Free

@Fn-sw6jn 6 ай бұрын

Why Brits had succes only on damaged target,with super overwhelm power,like 10 ships vs 1...quite poor achivment

@dovetonsturdee7033 6 ай бұрын

It is called Force Concentration. If you have a larger navy, isn't it a good idea to use it? I refer you to the later example of the US Navy at Leyte Gulf.

@teddywoo83 6 ай бұрын

It’s also not true. Plenty of examples of the RN ships being out numbered and coming out on top. But generally if you’ve got the largest navy, you use it. It’s really poor strategically to go in to a “fair fight”. Also worth remembering the German ships were out hunting merchant ships whilst trying to avoid any RN ships