The Sinking of HMS Glorious: An Avoidable Tragedy?

[@startrekker4596]

Interesting fact, when Scharnhorst scored the first hit on Glorious, the range was 26,000 yards. As such, she holds a tie for the longest ranged hit by a battleship, the other being HMS Warspite on Giulio Cesare during the battle of Calabria

[@mrrosy9190]

I am pretty sure the Scharnhorst scored the hit from 26,400 yards, but I may mistaken

[@ghostblue9598]

Oh that's awesome great fact I never knew much appreciated for the new knowledge my friend 👍

[@princeofcupspoc9073]

These reports are currently under scrutiny.

[@dononteatthevegetals2941]

I think that that title may go to the Yamato during one of the battles around the Philippines

[@Dilley_G45]

I read once that Scharnhorst class ships had a range of 42.000 m for the main guns but I can't give a source. Seems a lot. However the caliber is less j.portant than the L/ length. And so the German optical rangefinders were the best

[@RapierNeedleCrime]

i really love that you focus on the more micro aspects of history rather than a more general and less personal approach. it really makes each death described in these stories feel a lot more meaningful than most history videos.

[@historigraph]

Thank you for the kind words!

[@nekomancer4641]

Rip madlad Acasta captain

[@kevinhasch3097]

Hear hear

[@BA-gn3qb]

The captain of the Glorious was of the old capital ship era. Hence his hatred of the Air Commanders, throwing one in jail, and refusing to let another fly scout planes on the return from Norway. All these avoidable deaths rest solely on him.

[@shawngilliland243]

@B A - I agree completely.

[@rogerwilco2]

Without any surviving direct witnesses, we can't be sure, but that seems the most likely explanation.

[@shaundavidssd]

Wrong!it falls in the fool that gave him captaincy,clearly an incompetent buffoon

[@rickrobinson672]

Since Glorious was transporting land-based aircraft, perhaps she was unable to launch and recover aircraft.

[@desireegrisham3892]

Not so.

[@tillytilford2158]

The bravery displayed by the crew of the two RN Destroyers in particular is incredible.

[@channelbree]

So sad but if you have to go, then stand tall and face it...just wish have the same fortitude when I face death. All of these people who perished in the war, so tragic why do we not learn?

[@GearGuardianGaming]

Kinda reminds you of the uss johnson (i think thats the destroyer's name) doesnt it?

[@coledevlin3984]

Gear Guardian Gaming you were very close, it was called the USS Johnston.

[@GearGuardianGaming]

@@coledevlin3984 i did some research and i'm sorry to misspell the name of such a legendary destroyer, her and the samuel roberts had the bravest crews of any ship i had ever heard of. R.I.P. to all

[@ant7936]

But foolish. Acasta could have run away, without shame, to fight another day.

[@stephenburgess5109]

The self sacrifice and do or die spirit of the destroyer crews saved the troop convoy amazing forgotten story.

[@dave-in-nj9393]

TRUE ! that was the incredible story of bravery.

[@rolandramos6926]

FFFF paying respects to the men on both destroyers

[@johnjephcote7636]

Indeed. I've always thought about what those two destroyers gave.

[@oceanhome2023]

Woodlice worm Thank You for that !

[@DerBunker95]

My Great Uncle died on the glorious, nice to see a detailed video about it! Its outrageous that the only memorial to all those lives lost is a small stained glass window and a couple of plaques.

[@historigraph]

Yeah- this video was conceived as a bit of a tribute to those who died to be honest. Your Great Uncle's name will be in there somewhere, as I really did list every single person

[@DerBunker95]

Yeah, I found his name on that list! Thanks for making the video!

[@rolandramos6926]

ITS glorius sorry

[@S.D.V.T]

My uncle was on there too! Only 19 he was, an able-seaman.. my Dad was three at the time of his death and never met him but told me he remembered his mother crying upon hearing the news of her oldest sons death. He was one of 22 young lads from the county of cork in Ireland on board the glorious that day and it is an honor to be associated with any of the brave men and women who held back the most evil person that ever lived.

[@jamesbeale9622]

My father was a soldier evacuated from Narvik . He often said the Royal Navy saved his life and made my brother’s, sister’s and my life possible. He rang up crying in 1990 when the official documents were made public. He told me the story of the convoy home many times when I was a child. Just telling you. I haven’t forgotten.

[@vidright]

As a german i have to say, these men on Ardent and Acasta really had balls. My deepest respect to those brave guys. RIP

[@channelbree]

Great comment friend.

[@debeeriz]

personally once glorious was a right off acasta should have left the scene to fight another day, it was a waste of crew and ship knowing full well she was committing suicide, the captain as much said so

[@ErnestoBrausewind]

@@debeeriz Taken into account that she crippled the Scharnhorst and forced Marschall to escort her to safety, the possibility that the germans could have hit the convoy with the Troop-Transports with two intact battleships, as mentioned in the video, the "suicide" makes a lot more sense than just a useless display of heroism or whatever you want to call it. I assume the captain knew about this convoy, at least to a certain extend, and may have saved it - a lot of "what if's" but the lives of 15.000 troops allow for quite a lot of them.

[@mikehoare1338]

And as a sailor I have to say, all sailors are missed. No matter where they come from.

[@Infinite_Jester]

Pretty ballsy of Admiral Marschall to roll around with two battleships too, all things considered.

[@mikefjortoft9947]

My grandfather , Emil fjortoft was the captain of the Norwegian merchant ship, Borgund, that picked up most of the survivors and brought them back to the uk. Like many Norwegian ships they came over to the uk after the Germans invaded Norway. His ship was lost a year later while carrying frozen fish from Iceland to Scotland - presumed sunk by a German aircraft

[@captainhindsight8779]

Thank you for helping our boys when they needed rescue, respect to your grandfather.

[@inbetweenland4395]

Mike thanks My Grans 1st Husband died not long after he was pulled out of the water, Our family believe from the story that he died on the Borgund or just before he was picked up then buried in the Faroe Islands so if this is true once again thanks for your Grandad`s efforts to save them and sorry for your loss when the ship dissapeared heading back from Iceland. He served on HMS Acosta and his name was William Craig Smith. We know thanks to your father he was giving a proper funeral and we know where he is lying. My mum was the 1st from my Gran`s 2nd husband and it is only recently I have been doing some research on it that next step a visit to the Faroes to visit his grave. Strange how a battle that took place over 82 years ago normal people like us can now look back and affecting not only our bloodlines who we come from but if William hadn`t died that day my mum might never have been born and God knows where I would be but sadly William died and so did a lot of very brave men.

[@gerryduffy6498]

Hi Emil my name is Gerard Duffy My Family owes a great debt of gratitude to your brave grandfather and his crew. My father was a survivor of the Hms Glorious his name was John Alexander Duffy from Belfast Ireland. He was I believe picked up by the Borgund and taken to the Faroe islands. He recovered and went to serve the rest of the war. He went on to marry and have 5 sons sons. Sadly, he passed away 1967. I was so very sad to hear of the loss of the Borgund but due to bravery of your Father and his colleagues many people are alive today and of that you should be so very proud, From the bottom of my heart Tusen takk

[@gerryduffy6498]

Sorry Mike I addressed you as Emil

[@theofficialsikris]

Devonshire in an alternate reality: Captain: "We received a transmission from the Glorious, turn hard to Starboard." King Haakon: "Where are we going?" Captain: "Oh, just to go fight two of the most feared German battleships ever made." King Haakon: *the* *WHAT?*

[@looinrims]

“What? WHERE ARE YOUR BALLS, YOUR MAJESTY?!”

[@nunyabidness674]

@Bruh Moment "THOSE WEREN'T OVER-PENS DANGIT!!!"

[@user-vt4hd8hb4v]

Were they tho? The most feared ones?

[@theofficialsikris]

@@user-vt4hd8hb4v Tirpitz and Bismarck were ScAwEY, but Scharnhorst and Gneisnau did far more damage in their careers.

[@user-vt4hd8hb4v]

@@theofficialsikris well they were more effective, yes, but I doubt they were as feared as Bismarck was, especially after he sunk HMS Hood.

[@S0RGEx]

Man, DDs in WWII were just fearless, weren't they? Mad respect to Acasta and Ardent's crews.

[@Snarkbar]

1) They were often tasked with defending much larger and far more valuable ships, and they were told to sacrifice themselves to do so. After all, a carrier is worth many, many destroyers. 2) Their weapons weren't useful until they had closed with the enemy. A 15" gun has far more range than a torpedo, and far, far more range than a 5" gun. So the heroic crews of these destroyers ended up charging straight into the mouth of hell so that they could spit in Satan's face and maybe, just maybe, turn things around. It wasn't fearlessness - those boys certainly felt fear. It wasn't recklessness - they knew they had slim odds. It was a calculated decision to put their own lives on the line in order to defend the rest of the fleet. "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."

[@BradHartliep-kn9ud]

@@Snarkbar - Larger, yes. More expensive, yes .. More Valuable, no .. The Honorable men who served aboard Destroyers were REAL heroes, as opposed to the over-paid, over-worshipped, arrogant, selfish, self-centered pilot pussies serving aboard Carriers .. Every Destroyer is worth many, many Carriers .. I'll take a Destroyer over a Carrier any day of the week .. because the Men who served aboard Destroyers were and are FAR more valuable than every single Pilot ..

[@tetraxis3011]

@@Snarkbar Taffy 3 which had only destroyers and small carriers managed to stop the entirety of IJN Center force.

[@Marveryn]

dd captain were often selected for man that were not afraid to go into the teeth of the enemy if it meant getting a torpedo down their throat.

[@ericlanglois9194]

The British navy had a strong tendency to send ships in too small of a quantity with too little intelligence which cost them several ships. HMS Glorious, HMS Hermes and HMS Prince of Wales being the biggest examples of this.

[@iroscoe]

Not always entirely their own fault political interference would play a part as well as simple operational over stretch .

[@Pandadude-eg9li]

And the HMS Hood...

[@Matt_History]

@@Pandadude-eg9li no the hood was activated because the German operations had been detected with Bismarck. It's faliure wasn't from bad intelligence. It was Huburis

[@Pandadude-eg9li]

@@Matt_History What part of "Too small of a quantity" do you not understand?

[@AdmiralRamenNoodles]

@@Pandadude-eg9li well actually in the seas of Norway no German reinforcnemtns could be send as u boats and the Luftwaffe couldn't reach the Denmark straight and the Hood had another battleship Prince of Wales which actually outgunned the The German Bismarck and heavy cruiser Prinz Eugene. Meanwhile the rest of the homefleet was scattered elsewhere ALSO looking for the bismark so the engagement was just really in lucky for the Brits and nothing about escort

[@MarkGeraghty]

The story of the Ardent is incredibly moving. Not only did she attack one Battleship single handed, but she took on two of them. I feel ashamed I was not aware of this. It feels like her story has been hidden and forgotten, because of Wartime censorship and the need to forget a disaster. We hear endlessly about WWI and the Somme, while this is forgotten. The story of the Acasta is incredible too,

[@greyfells2829]

I'm sure we'll get a movie soon. Brits love making disasters into glorious events.

[@mjbull5156]

Glorious has embarassing distinction of being the first aircraft carrier to be lost to surface ships. The lack of urgency with which Glorious's CO seems to have handled the situation is inexplicable. Considering that Devonshire was carrying the Norwegian government, it is unlikely that anything would have been done to put it in gun range of the German battlecruisers.

[@davidlewis5312]

that's the one question that I think is mute. Devonshire while more capable than Acosta and Ardent, is still an 8 in cruiser and those are two 11 in 'battleships'. (However I can't see either german ship lasting long against even a QE1 battleship, god help them if they run afoul of a pissed off KGV battleship) it would be a bad idea if they weren't carrying a foreign civilian government.

[@AngelaTopping]

My second cousin's brother in law, Albert Cohen, died on HMS Glorious. He was a stoker. Thanks for making this film. Very sad so many lives were lost, and the disaster could have been prevented with better leadership.

[@boiledliddo]

he did good service for your country.

[@AngelaTopping]

@@boiledliddo thank you. While we remember them, their lives are not forgotten.

[@christosvoskresye]

I look forward to the English Parliament investigating why Harold's infantry fell for the Norman feint.

[@donaldclifford5763]

That's right. Just think how the English language changed, with the Norman influence.

[@michaeldonahue1009]

Not to mention that the Norman archer who shot King Harold was clearly off-sides.

[@robertdarby1039]

What is this 'English Parliament' about which you speak?

[@jaybee9269]

christosvoskresye >> There is no ‘English’ Parliament. More importantly why did Harold book it off almost immediately after the battle of Stamford Bridge (vs. Norwegians), not waiting for more militia (the ‘fyrd’). He also dismissed his brother’s plan to lay waste to the country in the Norman’s path, poisoning the wells & such. That could’ve worked! Plus, if he’d waited the Normans would’ve run out of wine & HAD to drink the water! We must get to the bottom of this. There should be a 1066 Commission.

[@harmannuslouwes1306]

To me this is a disrespect to the documentary on HMS glorious , this was a complete cover-up. Please keep to the subject above. Because of nearly 2000 sailors dying, this event deserves the truth, thank you

[@dave-in-nj9393]

as I understand, Captain, Guy D'Oyly-Hughes hated airplanes and as captain of an aircraft carrier was in a post on a ship he detested. he tried to order planes on a suicide mission, and when the wing commander refused, he put him ashore. never to have another plane take off, even to patrol around his ship. he was in a rush to return to prepare for a court marshal of said wing commander. Ironically, the best weapon he had, planes, was something he did not understand. his actions are tantamount to dereliction to duty. There are other videos that reveal more about his myopic actions that cost the lives of so many.

[@cheesewhis]

this bit of info has introduced the British Admiralty as the major contributor, of the sinking of the glorious. Common sense dictates a captain with a comfortable interaction with planes and the personnel that maintain and fly them.

[@alex_zetsu]

Based on their intelligence reports at that time, those were not suicide missions and those orders given to his wing commander were perfectly reasonable missions. Had Glorious gotten back without incident Heath would almost certainly been court martialed for insubordination at the very least. Captain Guy D'Oyly-Hugh's decision to focus on the court martial over the safety of his own ship and crew was suicidal and should be condemned, but his anger at his wing commander was justified.

[@dovetonsturdee7033]

@@alex_zetsu I agree. D'Oyly-Hughes was self-evidently unsuitable for command of an Aircraft Carrier, but it was not Heath's place to decide what was a proper or improper use of naval aircraft. He should have informed Hughes of his reservations, and the reasons for them, but, in the last analysis, he should have obeyed orders. Just, incidentally, as Hughes was expected to.

[@dovetonsturdee7033]

@wargent99 There was one called 'Secret History - HMS Glorious' which was on TV in, I believe, 1997 or thereabouts.

[@Kyleinasailing]

The blame must rest on this man and the Admiralty for giving him the job.

[@lukewind13]

Im always reminded how many men these huge warships contained, and how so few managed to escape them. RIP all sailors from every nation.

[@HolyMotherofGrid]

"Well, our chummy ship has been sunk and the Glorious is dead in the water... the least we can do is make a show"..... charges vastly superior force head on!! Can't get much more British than that.

[@oveidasinclair982]

A US Navy destroyer forces did the same thing in the South Pacific saving a beach landing party and 3 smaller escort carriers against a large and powerful Japanese force.

[@jwadaow]

@@oveidasinclair982 Those are extremely different circumstances.

[@jeffposter6832]

@@jwadaow Actually taffy 3 was going against much greater odds and had far better results.

[@justinebautista1383]

@@jeffposter6832 well they did have a good commander

[@pavitashergill8308]

@@oveidasinclair982 you do no that you are literally Europeans?? Mostly British and that's a fact. Just a name change that's all. Rule britana. 💪🇬🇧

[@donfelipe7510]

I have read about this incident in a book some time ago. One point you have not mentioned in the video is that by Royal Navy orders all of the "carley floats" carried aboard HMS Glorious were painted low-visibility grey and some sources point to this as being a reason survivors were difficult to find until it was too late. The fact of the matter is that this incident taken together with the loss of HMS Courageous and HMS Royal Oak in Scapa Flow harbour demonstrated German strategic and tactical cunning which the British were simply unprepared for in the early years of the war. The German Enigma code had not yet been completely broken so intelligence on German fleet movements were based on guesswork rather than solid fact. Overall the Norwegian campaign was a disaster for the German surface fleet too. The loss of the light cruiser Nuremberg, heavy cruiser Blucher, damage suffered by Scharnhorst and Admiral Hipper as well as the sinking and scuttling of numerous destroyers during the twin battles at Narvik were bad irreplaceable losses. Bismarck and Tirpitz were still being fitted out and undergoing trials while Graf Spee had been cornered and sunk in the South Atlantic. All this left the already heavily outnumbered German navy at an even greater disadvantage and no doubt contributed to a shift in thinking in favour of a U-boat campaign.

[@historigraph]

I think the loss of Courageous, Glorious et al fundamentally comes to one common denominator- the British Admiralty's arrogance. Same goes for the success of Weserubung.

[@donfelipe7510]

Completely agree, the Allies underestimated the German armed forces entirely, the navy was no exception. However the fact remains that the Royal Navy was numerically much stronger and while it is callous to say, the British could afford to lose older ships like Royal Oak and Glorious while the Germans could ill afford to lose ships like Blucher and Graf Spee or even have their ships sustain damage which meant lengthy stays in dock.

[@historigraph]

Yeah this is true- Weserubung, despite being a resounding operational success, crippled the German surface fleet.

[@donfelipe7510]

Imagine a what if scenario. The British are attempting to evacuate the beach at Dunkirk but off the coast are Scharnhorst, Gneisenau, Blücher, Deutschland, Graf Spee, Admiral Hipper and all the destroyers they lost at Narvik. Meanwhile the Luftwaffe controls the skies making British heavy units of the home fleet their primary targets if they attempted to intervene. It would have been a massacre.

[@mercenarieboy]

Fyi, I know this is theoretical and so is more of a thought exercise than anything. But,this goes both ways though, if the German fleet is just off the coast of the UK in Dunkirk, it would have the living shit bombed out of it. The Luftwaffe only had air superiority (note not supremacy) over Dunkirk due to the saving of planes for the BoB. That would all change if the RAF was instead used to screen the home fleet and bomb the Kriegsmarine. I would actually argue it would end up with the lose of both the Scharnhorst and the Gneisenau. Although this would more than likely come at the loss of most of the BEF and some heavy units from the home fleet. Another factor is that the German fleet would also be in range of the small torpedo boats used to guard ports and the like in the UK. These could also be sent in waves to attack the German fleet, even if only suicide missions. Meanwhile the Kriegsmarine would have to pretty much sit off the coast of Dunkirk to guarantee an evacuation couldn't be carried out. Also making them a target for RN subs. Furthermore, given the situation I would pretty much guarantee the UK would do all of the above. In terms of naval strategy this would basically be handing the entire German surface fleet into the hands of British guns. But it terms of the army could have been a disaster for the UK as it would have delayed the evacuation until the German ships where dealt with.

[@tridentasvg4530]

My Great Uncle was 20 when he served and died on HMS Acasta. Different breed and pride doesn’t come close

[@Schimml0rd]

Heroes

[@banditodorito4091]

My great grandfather was on the Prinz Eugen

[@spudskie3907]

USS Johnston would approve and salute the actions of HMS Acasta and Ardent.

[@Snarkbar]

"Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."

[@s.thompson867]

To say nothing of the Hoel and Sammy B.. This was the Royal Navy's version of the Battle off Samar and Taffy 3.

[@lorenrogers9269]

@@s.thompson867 Indeed, may God rest their souls.

[@markdavidson1049]

Absolutely fascinating. I know of the sinking of HMS Glorious as well as her escorts but didn't know about the details of the bravery of those destroyers especially Acasta.

[@copferthat]

Into the valley of death rode HMS Acasta.

[@MrMalvolio29]

Your account of this unnecessary loss of three RN ships was insightful, articulate, precise, and thought-provoking. It does seem incredible that Capt D’Oyly-Hughes was so certain Germany’s surface fleet posed no threat that he left Glorious with absolutely no flight CAP. That would have been unthinkable practice for an Allied carrier in the Pacific theatre.

[@petermainwaringsx]

An uncle, who was lost before I was born, was on the Glorious.

[@SayianRace]

I am sorry for your loss

[@jstoned88]

Fart

[@phaedracollins6051]

My uncle - a citizen of Eire - was lost on this ship. May he rest in peace.

[@michealohaodha9351]

Thanks for this nugget of info. It never ceases to surprise me where Irish nationals turn up in wartime

[@warhawk9566]

Yeah saying devonshire should've went to rescue glorious, that's literally just asking to get another ship sunk, Devonshire couldn't take a battleship on her own let alone 2, and doing so while carrying a government in exile would've been stupid cause you risk getting them killed or captured.

[@billbutler335]

Agreed, Devonshire's captains first priority was the safe delivery of Norway's Royal Family. Breaking off to engage two battleships with a heavy cruiser would have been stupid.

[@Postpunk-cx1ph]

I’m currently reading ‘Straight and Level’ by Kenneth Cross who was one of the RAF survivors. He’d been on Glorious a few weeks before and seen the animosity between Heath and the Captain before this action. Well worth a read as the action and subsequent survival in a dinghy is starkly portrayed.

[@corcky4634]

The Captain of the Glorious was a fool and had his Commander Air Group arrested for taking over the ship to launch Swordfish as spotters which meant that he was disobeying the captain's orders to sail a particular course. The CAG was ashore in Scapa Flow awaiting court-marshal.

[@dave-in-nj9393]

Reading the posts, this is in agreement with most. he was a submariner in a war of air combat. had he understood the role of an air craft carrier, it is highly possible that his best weapons, Airplanes, could have sunk both German ships and the results would have been totally reversed. In the Pacific, the US got rid of their incompetent submarine captains and put in captains who knew how to use the weapons properly. Hughes was not that man

[@redskindan78]

And that is astounding. Beginning of the war, I guess, and perhaps the RN had not cleared out carrier skippers who should have been kept in "the gun club", as Hornfischer calls them, or the "black-shoe sailors" as SE Morrison calls it.

[@rogerwilco2]

@@dave-in-nj9393 The problem with the submarines in the Pacific was mostly the torpedoes. Drachnifel has a very good video about that disaster.

[@justinebautista1383]

@@dave-in-nj9393 commanders weren't the problem in the pacific. Its the Mark 14 Torpedoes

[@christopherrowe7460]

@@redskindan78 I agree with your assessment. Glorious' captain had only recently earned his wings, which may have meant he knew just enough to think he understood aviation, but not enough to know when he was wrong. This is symptomatic of the Fleet Air Arm being only given back to the RN in 1939... there weren't enough "brown-shoe" admirals to take commands.

[@georgedorman3157]

Incredible story, I come across this by chance, after seeing a war grave in Norfolk of an airman, Sergeant Derek Clowes Smith who died in March 1942 aged 21 years, however at the very bottom of his gravestone was a further mention, that stated his brother Trevor Patrick Smith Air Fitter in HMRN had died earlier in 1940 on the Aircraft carrier the Glorious, aged just 20, see above, so sad....RIP Sirs..

[@scrappydude1]

Scharnhorst’s first hit on Glorious was one of the two longest range hits ever recorded on the open sea. Range was estimated at around 27,000 yards, which may only be exceeded by the hit Warspite scored on Italian battleship Vintorio Veneto, which is believed to have been near 28,000 yards. About 16 statute miles.

[@jacobstewart1950]

My opinion is that royal navy was overconfident and didn't believe that the German surface fleet was ready.

[@artificialgravitas8954]

I don't see why the Devonshire is a concern, is a cruiser going to hold off two Battleships? I think not

[@notmenotme614]

HMS Devonshire sacrificed 1600 sailors lives while it fled with the Norwegian royal family

[@SkiddyGaming]

@@notmenotme614 As the original comment stated, it would've likely been suicidal for Devonshire to engage the two German Battleships, and by the time it arrived on the scene Glorious would've likely been underwater or near enough to it anyway. It would take time to get there, and all the Devonshire would've likely accomplished is giving the German Battleships another target to destroy, perhaps doing a bit more damage to the Germans before retreating in flames (if lucky) or sinking. One Heavy Crusier vs Two Battleships isn't a good matchup for the heavy cruiser. Would've been a waste of a good vessel, as well as of its own crew and the VIPs aboard. I don't think Devonshire sacrificed anything (would've already been a lost cause by the time she arrived)... it's commander however would've saved the lives of his crew and the VIPs aboard by deciding not to engage, if that is indeed what happened. Not really anything Devonshire could've done without reinforcements.

[@notmenotme614]

@InfiniteMushroom important for who?

[@notmenotme614]

@InfiniteMushroom the Norwegian royal family made no difference to London (or all the other British cities outside of London) and absolutely no difference to the war effort whatsoever

[@notmenotme614]

@InfiniteMushroom To the people and the war effort. The Norwegian royal family made zero difference. We all know this.

[@hottestcheese7973]

when that torpedo missed my heart sunk but the acasta went down like a true brit proud to the end

[@donfelipe7510]

Ardent and Acasta did exactly what escorts are supposed to do. Delay ideally while the ship they're defending gets away. Unfortunately there was no way Glorious was going to out run Scharnhorst and Gnisenau

[@hottestcheese7973]

Don Felipe yes that doesn’t change the fact that they kept on fighting even when there was no hope that’s a noble way to die in my books

[@donfelipe7510]

Very much so and in the tradition of the Royal Navy. Honourable but possibly unnecessary

[@hottestcheese7973]

Don Felipe how was it unnecessary they knew that had no chance to escape the warships so they decided to go out fighting

[@donfelipe7510]

I meant the whole incident was unnecessary, the British lacked caution and were surprised by the presence of German heavy units when perhaps they should not have been.

[@Nabium]

If Devonshire had gone to help, they'd risk losing the Norwegian royal family and the exiled Norwegian government. Which was now an allied government, ready to help UK's war effort. The Norwegian Navy operated 118 ships, and Norway also gathered(under the command of the Royal Air Force) three squadrons, to mention some of the effort done by the Norwegian exiled government. I say it would have been a very high risk for Devonshire to aid the renegade captain of Glorious. They probably didn't hear the calls, but, if there's a conspiracy theory that say they did and decided to pretend like they didn't, then that might have been strategically a wise decision. But somehow I doubt that's how it happened.

[@Ivellios23]

Cruiser: 2 'Pocket Battleships,' no location. VIPs on board... yeah, time to book it.

[@emanuelgoncalvessantos4499]

@@Ivellios23 Scharnhorst and Gneisenau wasn't "pocket battleships", they were full size battleships. The so called was Deutschland-class heavy cruisers Deutschland, Admiral Graf Spee and Admiral Scheer.

[@PokePresto]

@@emanuelgoncalvessantos4499 He called them pocet battleships in the video, but yes you are right.

[@SkiddyGaming]

Yah, going to help seems futile here. Devonshire was a lone heavy cruiser, and would've been morbidly outgunned against two German battleships. That she was carrying VIPs simply would've solidified the logic behind a hypothetical decision not to engage in what would've more than likely been a losing battle.

[@hb9145]

@@emanuelgoncalvessantos4499 They were battlecruisers: As well armed as full size battleships, but with lighter armour to gain higher speed.

[@bsmartr806]

My thoughts: Glorious left early to court martial and replace Heath. There was no air reconnaissance for afew possible reasons: they had no intelligence of a possible threat and weren't far from home, Hughes had no faith in the remaining pilots since he is court marshaling their commander, the pilots disregarded Hughes orders due to injury/plane damage/lack of fuel/or byHeaths himself, or the aircraft fuel reserves could have been depleted or saved. The Devonshire isnt a mystery at all, they received an SOS from Glorious and destroyed the evidence, then tested their guns and sped up in case they Germans spotted them also. They were carrying a Royal Family, they must have had orders to avoid conflict at ANY cost.

Not to mention that Devonshire might have received a garbled mess, understood that something MIGHT be up, and just sped up and tested her guns just to be sure. Which is reasonable at all times, but especially when carrying an entire government.

[@julianmhall]

@ the garbled mess might have just been enough to discern the word Scharnhorst or Gneisenau, and Devonshire's captain with the Norwegian Royal Family abroad decided not to risk them or his ship.

[@myparceltape1169]

@@julianmhall I don't think the names or even the type would be necessary in that message. The meaning would imply 'Trouble!' and that would be enough. Order full ahead and close up for action. Just in case.

[@julianmhall]

@@myparceltape1169 Agreed, just saying if the name(s) were/was there the reaction would be 'Oh hell.. be somewhere else ASAP!'

[@jwbullardxxiii]

What is really amazing is that the crew of the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau have openly praised the bravery of the British crews of the destroyer escorts. Allegedly, they even flew their flags at half mast and saluted the crews. Sailors know what other sailors are going through.

[@AdamMGTF]

Something that happened throughout the war. The krigsmarine were the least "nazified" of the armed forces of Germany.

[@gmverber437]

"We have a very daring and skillful opponent [Rommel] against us [in North Africa], and, may I say across the havoc of war, a great general.” - Churchill Churchill was criticised by some in Parliament for "giving aid and comfort" but the accolade was well received by most in the British military. As Caesar pointed out in more than one of his writings, it is a capital mistake to disparage and thus underestimate the enemy. This, along with many lessons of military history, were lost in the closing years of the Twentieth Century.

[@jamesroyston8123]

Whatever the reason for the sinking of the HMS Glorious, tragically it cost the life of my 40 year old grandfather Lindsay Edgar Royston his life, Lieutenant Commander on secondment from the RAN. RIP LER & all other crew members! Thank you for making this video!

[@stevenmoore4612]

Just imagine your on a unarmored tinderbox, and you run into a task force headed by two state of the art battleships. It’s hard to imagine the utter fear the crew must have felt. The two destroyers were like little gladiators charging into battle! The men on those ships had balls of steel! RIP to all of them.

[@lindsayh.malcher8074]

Battlekruzers

[@stevenmoore4612]

@@lindsayh.malcher8074 No they were classified as “fast battleships”.

[@user-fd4il6pi9i]

@@stevenmoore4612 still battlecruisers they literally have the worst armor for a bb

[@stevenmoore4612]

@@user-fd4il6pi9i Well compared to their successors the Bismarck’s and they were less armored, but they had great armor protection for their class and what they were designed for. They were nothing like the French glass cannons the dunkerque class which were really battlecruisers not battleships. In fact the dunkerques were the very definition of a battlecruisers. The Scharnhorst’s were tanky as most German battleships were, but just had smaller caliber guns that were designed for hitting hard with a fast reload. However, they would be outclassed by by newer more heavily armed and armored battleships like the British George V class, the U.S. NC/South Dakota class, and the French Richelieu class. They were “fast battleships” in their own right.

[@justinebautista1383]

They do not infact their armor was better than Bismarck

[@asheer9114]

One of the most appalling things in Glorious case is that for this day Royal Navy HQ outright REFUSE to honour both Destroyer's Captains for their Bravery despite petitions from the families and people who known them for Honour them with Victoria Cross... and that adamantly negative behaviour from R.N top brass speaks perhaps more louder about reasons why Glorious was out there with her "hands" tied to her back and unable to defend herself... and having almost no protection...

[@historigraph]

I didn’t know there had been petitions to give them the VC- absolute scandal that they haven’t, aI agree

[@maximilianhollesen4340]

As a german im satisfied,that finaly some english speaking Channel call Scharnhorst and Gneisenau what they are: Battleships. Best Greetins

[@dovetonsturdee7033]

Of course they were. They had thicker armour than the North Carolinas, and no-one ever called them battlecruisers!

[@dovetonsturdee7033]

@Bruh Moment Because they were mis-identified. In the Denmark Strait, Prinz Eugen's gunnery officer identified Hood & Prince of Wales as light cruisers, but that doesn't mean that they were.

[@looinrims]

lol

[@crazysteve9390]

Without a doubt the most amazing thing about this is that it was still being questioned in Parliament in 1999. That blows my mind. After that, I would say the fact that no aerial scouting was happening when a carrier was traveling back with only two destroyers boggles the mind (speaking just as an amateur observer of course, perhaps there’s some professional military doctrine I’m missing here).

[@bullreeves1109]

Charles Glasfurd’s speech made me cry when I had first read of it... Knowing how futile there last stand was. But that fact they where still whiling to do it...

[@Andy-ub3ub]

My uncle was on the Devenshire. Apperently they were fully aware of the situation but were ordered not to even pick up survivors let alone attack the enemy ships due to their VIP cargo. An order that caused outrage amongst her crew.

[@generalissim01]

I love that you used the World Of Warships game to illustrate the action. It was brilliant to demonstrate the battle.

[@hailitalia86]

Me too, I'm doing the German BB now and am on Gneisenau currently!

[@shauniesshow5381]

Hi Historigragh. this is a great series from past and almost forgotten events. This is from memory which is crap and i will have to go through my files (an really filing cabinet) Here we go! My grandads brother, Royal marine, A Streams served on HMS Devonshire in the late 1920's-30's. He received an Albert Medal for life saving (now George cross) when the X turret exploded. He jumped in and saved the chaps from within it and pulled those out who did not survive. he retired only to be pulled out of retirement when WW2 started in his mid 40's to set up Royal Marine commando units and entering into 43 commando for deployment into WW2. Back to this episode, From what i recalled Devonshire was on orders not to stop for anything when leaving Norway with the Norwegian Royal Family and Government. Devonshire knew what happened to Hms Glorious etal. Those on board Devonshire were not happy about not stopping to pick up survivors but orders are orders and sailed at 'full steam' to get back to blighty. I will look for extra info and get back. Thanks

[@beboy12003]

This was a good story. I find it ironic that the royal Navy, the first Navy to develop the aircraft carrier, didn't develop proper tactics to deal with poor intelligence. I always thought that you have aircraft up from dawn to dusk to keep an aerial view of everything. Glorious's loss and the loss of her destroyer escorts, I feel, left the rest of the Royal Navy vulnerable at a critical time. Has they have Glorious and Courageous available, I feel Bismarck might have not sailed ,and HMS Hood would have been available for a longer time.

[@AdamMGTF]

Doctrine for aircraft carriers was very new. Had there being a standing order that a patrol should have been up from dawn to dusk. It would have happened. Bismark would still have sailed. Apart from the fact that aircraft carriers weren't yet seen as capital units. And apart from the fact that the Germans were out for convoys. And were aiming to avoid a fight. And apart from the fact that at the time. It was believed that a capital ships anti aircraft weapons can develop it... German intelligence at the time was a joke. They had no idea what ships the RN had or where they were. Certainly not accurate ones. So having one more carrier wouldnt have changed any of the operational reasons for sailing. It sure as heck would not have mattered a dot to the stratigic reasons.

[@Walterwaltraud]

@@AdamMGTF Perhaps the intel was a joke, the FW 200 were one of the most feared elements of the war by Winston himself. So aerial reconnaissance especially around "Operation Weserübung" should have been a prime concern. There were many aerial bombardments by Do17, Ju88 and the likes.

[@julianmhall]

Don't forget D'Oyly-Hughes had put Glorious' normal CAG ashore at Scapa Flow - which given he was heading into a warzone was IMHO stupid. Maybe his deputy wasn't up to the job.

[@MirelleLaRouge]

Captain Guy D'Oyly-Hughes was incompetent, a pigboat driver in command of an aircraft carrier. There's a reason sub captains are so insular. He never should have been in command, his incompetence had led to trumped up accusations against his air group officers, and on a beautiful day in perfect conditions sailed without air cover into nazi guns. There's no reason, no good reason at all for there not to have been a CAP up, any reason you can give is founded in ineptitude. Captain Guy might as well stood the crew on deck and machinegunned them.

[@shawngilliland243]

@Mirelle Larouge - Machine gunning would have been a more merciful death than what many of the crew suffered due Captain' Guy D'Olyly-Hughes' inexplicable and unforgivable errors.

[@julianmhall]

Ref my other comments just now, I completely agree that he was responsible

[@davidcollinson5076]

My late mother in laws husband, Bosun Percival Caddy was on board and lost his life on Glorious. R I P .

[@warwickivill3771]

I lost a uncle on Glorious/ very sad for all those brave men lost on those ships.

[@ivantrapic6209]

Very nice video. I loved every minute of it. Keep up the good work. :)

[@historigraph]

Glad you liked it!

[@fakkuyu641]

Charles Eric Glasfurd's Acasta was only sunk because his steel balls were too heavy

[@migmadmarine]

indeed. much like ernie evans at leyte gulf.

[@hedonyable]

I'm loving the cover of Weserübung and the North sea engagements! Would you go in dept on any of the battles in Norway as well?

[@hedonyable]

Land and not sea battles, that's my point

[@benedictodunsky2790]

Man those two RN destroyers This is why i keep my Acasta in world of warship Regardless of her tier This meant to honor the men onboard Acasta

[@willdavis5332]

There simply should have been much stronger surface escort support as well air recon...Blame exists between the OITC and the British Admiralty...

[@Zockania]

reat in peace sailors, i hope we will never again such stupid wars, greetings from berlin 2020

[@jaywulf]

Here in Australia 2020, our fucknut, Evil Right wing asshole Government is pushing us into a war with China. I know, idiots.

[@williammoxon4104]

I think another British naval battle worth looking into is the destruction of Force Z at the hands of the Japanese. The loss of two large scale capital ships to Japan's air power was certainly a changing point in Naval Doctrine at the time.

[@williammoxon4104]

@Tom Sanders Indeed. They could have done a serious blow to Japan's ambitions in Malaya and the Dutch East Indies. In that regard, the Japanese invasion of British Malaya would make for a good series, similar to the invasion of Norway by Germany.

[@madwolf0966]

Aghh Battlestations Pacific nostalgia

[@jaybee9269]

William Moxrson >> You might already know that the carrier HMS Formidable was slated to join Force Z, but she was having serious battle damage repaired & couldn’t join them in time. It might have made a big difference, or possibly she would’ve been sunk as well.

[@shathriel]

HMS Indomitable wasn't it from grounding damage? Formidable was still under repair along with Illustrious from damage sustained in the Med.

[@acosorimaxconto5610]

it was churchill who ordered them to sail without air cover. Fool

[@domhuckle]

This channel is amazing. I can't believe how much time at school we spent on the second world war without ever touching on these confrontations

[@anonymusum]

The German perspective was not as simple either. Marschall had the order to attack Harstad and that happened at a point of time when the German admiralty wanted to support the German ground troops fighting with the allied invasion force. Some days later Marschall´s ship listened to a radio signal from a German plane addressed to it´s Luftwaffe headquarters. It said that the harbour of Harstad was empty. So Marschall came to the conclusion that the Allies had evacuated that port and probably the whole country and he changed his plans ignoring the previous order. That led to a controversy between him and the German CinC later on after which Marschall resigned - despite the sinking of the Glorious. My opinion about the sinking is: First of all that captain was not an easy person and he wasn´t very familiar with naval aviation warfare. It was a mistake to give him the permission to leave Narvik with only two destroyers. The official requirements for doing so were at least four destroyers. Of course it was another mistake that he parked the evacuated land planes from Norway on his flightdeck which disabled him to start any spotting planes. Devonshire had the Norwegian Royal Family plus the Norwegian treasure of gold on board. So that ship had the strict order to use any radio signals and keep quiet. But even if Devonshire would have altered course in order to help Glorious it wouldn´t have been a match for the battlecruisers. But it could have rescued a lot of men swimming in the water. All in all i wonder why the Home Fleet didn´t send the Warspite, Valiant and Rodney to Norway in order to escort the valuable carriers back home. They all were available but i guess the whole evacuation was very hasty as German troops were invading France.

[@richardrowe6907]

The Hurricanes were below. They were put on Glorious because her elevators could accommodate the Hurricane's wingspan - Ark Royal couldn't. Why no spotter aloft to check for submarines? Good question. Swordfish were unarmed to speed disembarkation on leave when in port ... Why readiness 4 in a war zone with possible submarines? Why no lookout aloft given the possibility of submarines? So many questions. By June 1940 there should have been urgency from the top ... clearly not. The Admiralty had much to answer for.

[@Kathikas1]

Richard Rowe - I think the ship’s Swordfish were able to operate with the RAF Hurricanes ranged on deck. Indeed, on May 26th my father along with his observer Lt Wise and TAG N.A.Wise led six of the RAF aircraft into the fjord leading to Skaanland airfield (as weather conditions meant the fast single crew fighters would not have been able to locate the narrow mouth of the fjord) The other two flights of six a/c failed to locate the entrance I can also confirm from an entry in my father’s logbook that the CAG Cmdr. Heath left Glorious at the same time as my father on in the afternoon of May 30th - quite how I do not know as my father never once spoke of those events, tho’ my mother said he found the loss of his fellow 823 squadron friends to be too painful - he had been with the ship since early 1939

[@neniAAinen]

Which requirements? RN routinely detached carriers with two escorting destroyers during the war, often in a very risky situations(say, Matapan)

[@anonymusum]

@@neniAAinen It was a direction by the British Admiralty that capital ships had to be escorted by at least 4 destroyers. Secondly a carrier that can´t defend itself sailing in waters without reconnaisance is way more than risky and that´s the main difference to the campaigns in the Med. Glorious could have waited for Ark Royal but the official reason was that she had not enough fuel to do so - which is questionable. The second explanation was the captain´s decision to get rid of one of his officers as soon as possible. But still he had to ask the admiral on Ark Royal for permission which was given. I don´t know - the whole story stinks.

[@neniAAinen]

@@anonymusum i don't know, but similar detachments happened in rn throughout 1940, 1941 and even 1942. I guess it's about making do with destroyers available here and now.

[@hans-wernerfassbender3027]

My late father was in the crows nest of the Scharnhorst, together with the radar operators, during these events. His account of the sequence differed slightly. I cannot tell which is right but he said: "We spotted the Glorious and took course towards her. Glorious repeatedly requested identification (I guess with light signals) but of course no response was given. Glorious then realized we were hostile and the destroyers moved to provide a smoke screen. Our radar operators however provided bearing and range to the artillery so they could fire at the otherwise invisible target, and managed to hit the flight deck so no aircraft could take off and intervene...". The rest of his account confirms the video, especially the torpedo hit scored by the destroyer. In his understanding it was expected that the surviving destroyer would be used to rescue surviving sailors out of the sea and his attack was unexpected. Not sure whether that was true or the German command was simply careless. The knowledge about their radar was kept strictly secret at that time and even most of the officers didn't understand it. That might be the reason why I don't find mention of it's use in the batlle anywhere.

[@JohnRodriguesPhotographer]

Speaking of the Captain of Glorious, there is no excuse for having no aircraft on patrol. Granted a C.A.P. may not have been necessary but an anti submarine patrol would have been not just prudent but should have been considered absolutely necessary. Add to that the crowd nest was not manned. This Captain was not prepared to fight or defend his ship. I feel he was incompetent at best.

[@tomjustis7237]

Two points for consideration. 1) If the Air Commander had been on board the Glorious instead of sitting at Scapa Flow awaiting court martial, he might have been able to coerce the captain into putting up scout planes. After all, it seems as if the contention between the two resulted from him pushing for proper use of aircraft as well as challenging the captain when he felt he was correct. 2) In defence of Devonshire, she was carrying both the Norwegian royal family and Norway's government, the safety of which would have been her first concern. Even if she had received both messages from Glorious clearly and knew what was happening, it would have been her duty, considering her passengers, to make for England. After all, a single cruiser against two battleships would not have changed the outcome of the battle, other than to add another British ship sunk.

[@davidcollinson5076]

Bless. All who perished. May. They rest in peace and rise in glory. Amen.

[@proofbox]

It seems is this instance that the Royal Navy did not know how to use a carrier. The concept of a battleship simply sailing up to a carrier and shooting it to pieces asks the question. How do you get sunk and never bring your aircraft [ your only weapons] into play? This aspect I don't understand. Although it was mentioned that the aircraft commander was not along for the ride surely there had to be somebody standing in for this position.

[@joaquinandreu8530]

proofbox I agree. You can compare with the actions of USS Ranger in 1943 during operation Leader. It was escorted by USS Augusta, USS Tuscaloosa and five destroyers. Plus the Ranger carried 76 airplanes vs 48 of HMS Glorius and Ranger run continuous CAPs.

[@donaldclifford5763]

CAP even at night?

[@ChaplainDMK]

Simple, it didnt expect combat and when it was trying to increase distance she was sailing with the wind which prevented launching her planes. Plus she was ferrying ground based aircraft on board

[@fwi1298]

it 's june . that far north there is little ,to no darkness , so not having the carrier rigged for flight ops , when the only striking power a carrier has, is it's air wing , is a major deraliction of duty.

[@mtaylor44]

Because it was to ferry Hurricanes and Gladiators back from Norway, the ship only carried 9 Sea Gladiators and 6 Swordfish. You cannot conduct effective search operations and maintain a naval strike capability with only 6 attack aircraft. The Sea Gladiators are not suitable for either of those roles. Now, I agree that lookouts should have been posted and 2 or 3 of the Swordfish should have been out on search/early warning missions. If anything, any contacts would give the ship more time to avoid a surface (or maybe even a submarine) engagement.

[@andrewmallory3854]

Nice video. I had heard of HMS Glorious’ loss, but didn’t know the details. The hubris of the British government and armed forces high command in 1939-40 beggars belief. So many avoidable losses like this in the early years. Thankfully they did not result in defeat before help came. Of course, the Nazi ubermenschen (sp?) made their share of blunders too....Naval losses in this campaign where huge for both sides, and the Germans had less capacity to recover from theirs. The loss of an aging carrier is marginal...the lives lost of course tragic.

[@RomanHistoryFan476AD]

a common thing for the allies in the start of the war and later america's entry into the war was bumbling and doing ill actions. they improved over time and by late war they were like a well oiled machine with only a few hiccups here and there. the axis seem to go in reverse early war there magnificent bastards but as it drags on they lose there edge and start to do some real stupid things.

[@mrfried]

This wasn't the hubris of the government or high command though, while the appeasement politicians who were in power from the 1930's to 1940 have their own cases to answer for and own individual accounts of hubris that caused avoidable losses, this was not one of them. This was purely the incompetence of one man, the Captain of HMS Glorious, Captain Guy D'Oyly-Hughes, originally a submariner, he had a good service record, but was ill suited to command an aircraft carrier, he failed to understand the role of a carrier, he failed to understand the roles of the aircraft on the carrier and their limitations, and that put him at odds with the crew when he failed to listen to what they were telling him, especially his Air Commander, who he then would attempt to court martial, this lead Glorious to be described as being "a very unhappy ship" Glorious failed to have planes ready for combat on her flight deck, scout planes flying as they should have been, a lookout in the crows nest, or all of her boilers connected, she didn't even have the escorting destroyers out in a scouting formation. Even with the RAF planes she was carrying, which they had taken account for by not having a full complement of her own aircraft onboard she was still capable of launching aircraft, and statements from survivors confirm this as 5 Swordfish were readied for launch and sent to the flight deck when the enemy was sighted, but as that was a lengthy process as they had to switch those aircraft from bombs to torpedoes, ready them for use and then send them to the flight deck, by the time they got to the flight deck a hit to her deck destroyed two of them and put her deck out of action. She failed to do the basics required of her, the Captain was the one responsible, and as Admiral Dudley Pound, First Sea Lord, said at the time "Glorious seems to have forgotten that she was a man of war." The Admiralty did decide to cover it up, probably as the incident was a huge embarrassment for them, and due to the sensitivity and importance of other operations going on at the time, which lead to the Dorsetshire sacrificing the lives of the survivors and them not wanting to reveal that those men could have been saved but were left to die. But the events leading up to her sinking, and the mistakes made, they were all on her Captain. And before anyone mentions the traffic analysis, consider that it was an unproven 'art' and the 'theory' of one man at Bletchley that these ships were going to leave their base in the Baltic Sea and sail into the Norwegian waters, no other intelligence at the time supported this, so Naval Intelligence went with what they knew, this is not an incorrect decision, it just proved to be an incorrect decision. If you have say 5 trusted and proven sources telling you one thing, and then one new source that hasn't been proven and could mean anything and some unknown analyst is making a theory out of it which are you going to go with? However after they learned from their mistake and put a greater importance on traffic analysis.

[@sillyone52062]

Certainly, the loss of the brand new heavy cruiser Blucher was a blow to the DKM.

[@looinrims]

Oh trust me guy it wasn’t just 1939-1941 The war ended with British blunders, no one is immune from blunders but it just so happened that neither the Soviets nor Americans happened to make these blunders after 1943, very odd

[@sawyerawr5783]

There are no ships more valiant and brave than destroyers. Ardent and Acasta fought like lions.

[@lonniebailey4989]

What about the USS Johnston, the destroyer that led an underprepared force against the might of the IJN and forced the IJN to retreat at the cost of the Johnston sinking?

[@martinjernsletten68]

i don*t think HMS Devonshire would have been of any help against the TWO BBs pursuing HMS Glorious, she was carrying the former king of my country and therefore i am a little biased when i say she did right in not engaging in combat potentially rising the lives of the royal family. However it should be said that both the British And American navies had several cases of sloppiness and arrogance during the war (mainly referring to the disasters of HMS Glorious and the entirely avoidable sinking of the USS Indianapolis), and had the intelligence of the two navies acted differently under these events they could have avoided the loss of both ships and brave sailors.

[@MrFixIt74Fun]

The Americans? They were not in the war yet? Not until late November with the "Rubin James" and first week in December "Pearl Harbor"?

[@martinjernsletten68]

@@MrFixIt74Fun i was referring to the Americans during the entire world war 2 not in just this moment when the Glorious was sunk

[@looinrims]

Not BBs, BCs really BB would be Bismarck’s, not Scharnhorts

[@billbutler335]

@@MrFixIt74Fun Consider the first battle of Savo Island off Guadalcanal, 5 heavy cruisers sunk, one damaged due to the utter compliancy of the senior officers. The marines named it the battle of the 5 sitting ducks.

[@netcrazy1078]

Her sinking and the loss of the other ships were ultimately down to not having spotter planes up in the air,I think we all know why that happened ,had they have been up on patrol as they should have been I am pretty sure they would have escaped, It’s absolutely mind blowing bad how this situation was handled. Over 1500 souls lost.

[@AdamMGTF]

Such a shame you weren't in charge. Hindsight is 2020. Have you ever considered that if it was so *obvious* that xyz should have happened. That maybe it would have?

[@thekingsamar5781]

I sometimes think the Capatain drinking tea, then suddenly he sees shells raining down toward him.

[@demetridar506]

I have read the book by Cross, a British RAF officer that was riding glorious and survived the sinking. He provided a very interesting in-person experience of the event.

[@DouglasMoran]

People tend to think of aircraft carriers in terms of the later war in the Pacific. Because of the weather conditions in the North Sea and North Atlantic, carriers were not seen as that important. Weather impacted take-offs and landing, survivability of the aircraft, ability to find the enemy (poor visibility), effectiveness of the attacks by aircraft (as in later attacks on the Bismarck), … It wasn't until later - with improvements to both the aircraft and the ships themselves - that carriers had much impact (as escorts to convoys and sub-hunting groups). Recognize that the attack on the Italian Fleet at Taranto was still in the future.

[@historigraph]

I think it's definitely the case that the RN (and other navies for that matter) didn't really know how to use an aircraft carrier effectively in 1940, as you say it wasn't until later years they were used properly

[@RaphaelAndrieux]

ZerrArQ

[@adrianpatrick8508]

Nice video Historigraph. Like some other posters here, I had relatives who died in action here; my cousin 1x removed, William Henry Dobson CANN on the Glorious, and HIS uncle (my Granduncle). Stanley George CANN, on the Ardent. Another brother, Alfred Thomas CANN, was lost on HMS Matabele, torpedoed in January 1942 near Murmansk. RIP all those lost.

[@jonglewongle3438]

This could be why you do not have as many subsequent in-laws in the intervening decades as you might otherwise have had.

[@KelsomaticPDX]

Why in the world was this issue brought to parliament in 1999? I'm more curious about that than the history itself, haha.

[@redskindan78]

I think the results of the RN court of inquiry are sealed until 2040 or 2041. It was probably an attempt to force the RN to open them up. The RN answers in the '90's are non-answers, though.

[@TheDaverobinson]

Yeah it’ll be that it’s secret - but given that relatives will still have been alive in the 90’s parliament probably wanted to try and get some closure for relatives. Besides, at the very least the guys that died deserved some consideration.

[@looinrims]

@@redskindan78 like all politician’s answers, pathetic people

[@bairdrew]

Destroyer crews man. They are fucking insane. If bravery and gallantry were armour such crews would be truly invincible. Brings a tear to the eye.

[@dennissvitak148]

No knowledgeable person on military history would ever question the bravery of the Royal Navy. They were, just like the US Navy, subject to arrogant, ill-considered decisions that cost many thousands of lives.

[@nikkijenkins3142]

Thank you for this brilliant video. My Grandad was serving on board the Glorious when she went down and I'm always looking for any information I can find. I agree with Christopher MacLennan that there are still files on this case that are classified and are on lock down until the 100 year anniversary. Fingers crossed I'm still around to hopefully find out the truth!

[@LikeUntoBuddha]

One bottom line is that a ship in a war zone should always be on high alert.

[@MrMalvolio29]

From what I understand of the Glorious/Ardent/Acasta tragedy, D’Oyly-Hughes was not, in temperament or training, a naval *air* commander, but, rather, a man more suited to command a battleship or heavy cruiser. He didn’t appreciate or truly know how to use the great assets of aircraft carrier power-this was the source of his vicious quarrel with his aircraft commander (because of whose court martial D’Oyly-Hughes was recklessly rushing to return nearly alone to Scapa Flow), *and* the reason HMS Glorious had no lookouts posted, no reconnaissance scouts in the air, or any planes ready to launch when the carrier encountered Gneisenau and Scharnhorst. Much of the blame falls, I think, on the shoulders of Glorious’s arrogant, ill-suited commanding officer. I agree that the bravery of the crews of the two RN destroyers almost defies belief.

[@ajvanmarle]

All that was needed was a spotter plane. Glorious was fast enough that she could have avoided the German ships given enough warning. Even with the captain quarrelling with his air-group commander a carrier should always have some sort of air patrol up.

[@sticksnstones5407]

There was a reunion of sailors from Scharnhorst and Gniesenaui in 1988 that spoke highly of the bravery of crew of the 2 destroyers.

[@willghezzi]

I know that the Germans were so impressed by the courage of the 2 destroyers that they decided to name 2 of the battleship crew quarters Ardent and Acasta, in honor of the men that fought that day... They may have been serving a mad man, but the German sailors had always been honorable men

[@xJavelin1]

Regarding the lack of a CAP or scout planes aloft, I have a question. So in the Doolittle raid in 1942 USS Hornet couldn't launch any of its own planes for CAP/scouting due to the presence of heavy land based bombers on its deck. The solution there was for a second carrier USS Enterprise to join the raid to launch planes for the CAP etc. The HMS Glorious had just picked up land based planes from Norway and were taking them back to England. Could their presence have prevented her from launching her own aircraft just as for the Hornet in the Doolittle raid?

[@jamestheotherone742]

Most likely yes. Are there pictures of Arc Royal during this evacuation which showed how she had the aircraft stowed?

[@007Aeon]

What I glimps from some reports is that Glorious arrived at Narvik with only 15 planes on bord (9 Sea Gladiators and Six Swordfish.) She took ten Gladiators and the 46 Squadrons hurricanes (which I cant find a size so I am going with 24 planes) taking her up to 49 planes on bord. Her official carrying capacity were 48 so no problems there. But the hurricanes could only take of if Glorious was pushed to a speed of 30kn against the wind. Since she was running only 17kn (maybe to conserve fuel.) none of the Hurricanes could take off for CAP. The hurricanes landed last, maybe they blocked the deck and couldn't take off, because of the fuel conserving speed.

[@WHORTH-TheUglyDucklingOfFORTH]

This just may be the root of the conflict with the flight commander...

[@jamestheotherone742]

But the hurricanes can't fold their wings so effectively take up the space of two aircraft which would have severely impacted her ability to operate.

[@007Aeon]

But I wonder, since the Hurricanes came in last, and were able to take of again, if Glorious would have speed up to 30kns, why didnt they use them? They knew that Germany had large surface ships stationed in the Baltic sea. I think the real reasons was, they underestimated the Germans, or they didn't believe that the Kriegsmarine would even dare to challenge the Royal Navy.

[@cicero2]

Apparently there was an almost carnival atmosphere aboard the Glorious as it steamed home. No Walrus spotter planes were aloft and torpedo aircraft below and disarmed, with Hurricane fighters parked on deck. Commander D'Oyly Hughes was largely responsible for the disaster, but his part was covered over by the Admiralty.

[@AdamMGTF]

I'd be interested to read your sources

[@datgood121]

Devonshire had no wrong doing, she was a cruiser and her foes were 2 battleships. Also she was carrying the Norwegian Royal Family and Government. Risking their lives by engaging 2 battleships that already out gun and have better protection than you with Foreign Royalty on board is very unwise. Edit: Maybe she could radio other parts of the fleet but again as in the vid, Glorious message was to unclear.

[@jwadaow]

She was on radio silence.

[@looinrims]

Well yeah, but the Scharnhorsts aren’t battleships, they’re battlecruisers really

[@glorifiedcouch648]

@@looinrims and? There are still 2 ”pocket battleships” against a cruiser

[@looinrims]

@@glorifiedcouch648 accuracy is important, I didn’t say anything about anything, just calling them battleships isn’t really correct

[@julianmhall]

@@looinrims Accuracy.. online... Good luck with that..

[@xylomeat9913]

VERY good. A lot of details that I haven't seen in other videos on this disaster.

[@thisnicklldo]

A few points: - I am a huge fan of Churchill, but not to the point of blindness. Prior to, and for the first few months of the Great War, he had been First Lord of the Admiralty, politically instrumental in the build-up of Fishers Dreadnought fleet and actively involved in the first 6 months of the naval war, when he had learned that it was politically very important to manage perceptions of where blame should be placed whenever the Royal Navy suffered any setback (e.g. Coromandel, the Goeben, etc etc). He was again First Lord at the start of this war, and had only become Prime Minister because Chamberlain ended up carrying the can for the Norway debacle. It was important to Churchill that any failures be either those of serving officers, or newly appointed members of the Admiralty, or an inevitable by-product of a misbegotten adventure in Norway, and his comments on this incident are inevitably somewhat partial. - The 'no look-out in the crows nest' thing I believe I read in Churchills history of the war. Of course he did not make such things up, but if one of the few survivors, who was probably 80 feet below and several hundred feet away from the crows nest, mentioned that he didn't see anyone there, it suited Churchill, and if not him then the Admiralty, very well to lay the blame at the sea commanders door - as always happens after any sinking. And seriously, men in the crows nest would have made no difference, nor is it necessarily any indication of a lack of preparedness. - If you are very short of fuel, you would steam as few boilers as possible wouldn't you? - HMS Devonshire with he 8" guns would no doubt have put up a fine fight in line with all the traditions of the Royal Navy - but it would have been sunk by 2 proper heavy cruisers with 11" guns. Not that any captain would have avoided action for that reason, but it wouldn't have helped - A couple of years later lousy intelligence (or lousy interpretation of good intelligence, take your pick) about the movements of German capital ships in the Norwegian sea caused the PQ17 catastrophe, when a fleet was dispersed to avoid German cruisers that in fact were not there. It's very difficult to decide to alter naval dispositions on the back of a few un-decoded radio transmissions that are suggestive rather than conclusive. - It seems obvious to me that Glorious simply should not have been sailing alone - once she was, there was probably no avoiding the tragedy. Searches for the causes should all be about whether he really sailed to be at the Court Martial, or whether the Admiralty were stupid and ordered him back. Remember how important it was in the run-up to Midway that the carriers were rushed back to port, refitted, and hurled straight into the fray. There was bound to be a sense of urgency that every ship was needed immediately, and I can see the Admiralty wanting Glorious back quickly and into the fray - Dunkirk had only ended a few days earlier, with the loss of many destroyers - they were short of ships.

[@historigraph]

"It seems obvious to me that Glorious simply should not have been sailing alone - once she was, there was probably no avoiding the tragedy. " I agree- save for the fact that Glorious had no aerial reconnaissance planes in the air. Had she done so, she would have been able to get away before the Germans even caught sight of her.

[@thisnicklldo]

I'm not sure that it was feasible to maintain full-time 360 degree reconaissance from the Glorious. To the best of my knowledge no Royal Navy carriers ever did that, they weren't set up for it. From 1900-1945 the dominant thinking when it came to deployment of large surface ships in the northern seas was always about submarines - no doubt that's why the Admiralty gave him the destroyers, scarce as they were at that time, and no doubt they were doing their best to scour the seas for echoes. I suspect that they would only put search planes up when they had good reason to believe there were ships close, and roughly where they were.

[@donaldclifford5763]

Recon planes and CAP, 24/7 in contested waters, I would think.

[@thisnicklldo]

24/7? I very strongly doubt that on the Glorious in 1940. In fact, I very strongly doubt it on a US carrier in 1945, but maybe they could do it sometimes. Where's the evidence of continous night time take-offs and landings in northern waters? Anyway, 24/7 is a bit of a red herring, I doubt that any Royal Navy carrier ran continuous air reconnaissance, even in daytime, even in good weather. I believe, for example, that the north Atlantic escort carriers would only fly daylight reconnaissance whilst in the area of possible U-boat attack. They simply didn't have the planes, supplies or capability to do this.

[@donaldclifford5763]

Well I guess night operations are a more recent capability. And of course radar was limited by the horizon. Probably scout ships or subs would be the answer.

[@leshmahagow364]

My captain on Arrow lost his father here. Nicholas Barker. Fighting RN captain. He was on Endurance down south.

[@e.belcampo2982]

In every battle of history, my heart is always for those who are outgunned or outnumbered

[@looinrims]

I wouldn’t take that approach considering that implicitly makes you a Nazi sympathizer, since they were outnumbered from day 1 Not accusing, just saying you need to refine that view a bit more If it’s any consolation whichever side of this particular conflict you support you’re supporting some of history’s worst war criminals, from the Soviets to the Nazis to the Chinese, whichever side you wanna pick

[@JohnSmith-qb9ex]

@@looinrims It's a pretty stupid way to think, we have countless act of resistance to the Nazi, it works from both way. And not every German was a Nazi. Fighting for your conviction, with honor and dignity, no matter your allegiance. That's why we have so many last stand during WWII.

[@looinrims]

@@JohnSmith-qb9ex okay, seems pretty academic to the tens of millions of Russian civilians and POWs that were murdered also the Waffen SS numbered what 8 million? That’s 10% of the German population or so, not everyone was a Nazi but everyone worked for them Also are you missing the whole the entire war was started by war criminals? Like, everyone worked for their governments, which very few (if any, maybe the Canadians) were clean, and none of the ones who started the war were clean The Germans? Hopefully I don’t need to say more The Soviets? Absolutely not The Japanese? Fuck no The Chinese communists? Nah The Chinese nationalists? Nah^2 The British? Nope The French? Ehhh they didn’t last long enough to matter The rest didn’t start any conflict or were puppets

[@JohnSmith-qb9ex]

@@looinrims You miss the point here. It's not about politics or country or anything. It's about men (and women too) who made their last stand, no matter the cost, they fight to the bitter end for no one but their conviction. This is act of bravery. I respect as much the Soviet who fight during Stalingrad siege, the Finnish during the Winter War, the French at Bir Hakeim, operation Ten-Go, German general Walther Wenck during Berlin battle, and many more. I don't care about Churchill, Staline or any other cunt agenda at this time, many men died because of them, so at least i can respect whose men.

[@e.belcampo2982]

@@looinrims Ideology is blinding you. I was talking about people, not about colours or ideas. Get it

[@Euroka2000]

What a difference a few scout planes could have made here. Not only would the Glorious receive an early warning and could have taken evasive action, but also an air attack on Scharnhorst, Gneisenau and the Hipper cruiser could have been executed, with good chances of destroying these capital ships. But of course, bringing the air commander to court must have been much more important.

[@dovetonsturdee7033]

What with? She only carried a handful of her Swordfish. Six or so, at most.

[@TheDaverobinson]

‘The least we can do is make a show’. Well in lad.

[@gazof-the-north1980]

Admiral Dudley Pound summed it up best. "Glorious seems to have forgotten that she was a man-o-war!"

[@davel99ZZ]

Some interesting arguments here but I think receiving warnings or not is irrelevant. These were ships operating in a war zone and as such glorious should have been at full battle readiness including having air cover in the air. That still might not have saved her but at least she could have put up a fight. Hats off to the courage of the escorts though.

[@richardrowe6907]

Not only did they have no lookouts, no aircraft aloft, and one boiler shut down ... but according to Hinsley, the crew were having a 'half day off' to tidy up and speed disembarcation at Scapa. It was probably just D'Oyly-Hughes turn when 'Glorious' came up. Seniority and all that.

[@Revkor]

@@richardrowe6907 frankly his first officer should have removed him when cap was not done. hell even the pilots of the ship were against this

[@richardrowe6907]

@@Revkor the head of the air group was ashore awaiting court martial for arguing with the captain ... and given the RN likely to be busted. Nobody would stick their heads up. The ship was on holiday, tidying up so they could all race ashore as soon as they got to Scapa ... After this the Admiralty paid attention to Hinsley, despite his being an undergraduate without appropriate formal clothing.

[@Revkor]

@@richardrowe6907 the first officer should till remove him of command for blantly stupid orders concerning security

[@richardrowe6907]

@@Revkor Sergeant,arrest the captain for being silly ?! Sergeant, arrest the first officer for mutiny Yes Sir! This is all wisdom in hindsight. The RN didn't know German heavy units were at sea. Harry Hinsley (a newly recruited undergraduate in a strange and untrusted unit), using a novel and untried method thought they might be. And his naval contact didn't. The Glorious' decks were loaded with Hurricanes being returned to Britain (they didn't fit the lifts). Even if a Swordfish could be launched it would have spotted the German units, but, before Taranto and Bismarck the Germans wouldn't have seen it as a deadly threat.

[@reiryuusei092]

Taking a cigarette as ship sinks after putting up a show despite the odds. What a man.

[@leggdad1]

Thank you for another great, informative video. Why has the 'Battle of the Bulge' video been blocked in the UK?

[@historigraph]

KZbin’s nonsensical algorithms, that’s why

[@christophercripps7639]

HMS Devonshire (8x 8-inch guns, 1-inch armor) vs more heavily armed (9x 28cm guns) & armoured KM Gneisenau would've only added the Devonshire's complement and the Norwegian government to the casualty rolls. As for the rest of the RN, that could well have been a Bit "middling along."

[@blmetal65]

Guess they are still learning about how to conduct Carrier operations effectively e.g. Combat Air Patrols, etc. but an aircraft carrier sunk by battleships must be one of the highlights of Inglorious event in the Royal Navy's Fleet Air Arm history.

[@imergence9628]

nashi nash Not really, the air arm officers aboard glorious wished to launch aircraft but the incompetent captain (whom the blame almost solely lies on) didn't want to launch aircraft.

[@inbetweenland4395]

A very sad story and a story that also left my gran mouring the loss of her Husband William Craig Smith. He served on HMS Acasta and according to the family history actually survived but we think either died from his injuries on the liferaft or on the Norwegian Trawler Borgund. William is buried in the Faroe Islands so he was most likely picked up by it and no other boat has been mentioned. But a very sad and horrible story that saw not only the loss of over 1,500 Allied sailers but also 40 Germans also died as a result of Acasta`s hitting it with it`s torpedeo. War is brutal respect to those who died on all sides

[@TheAmir259]

Can you do Battle of the North Cape next? That epic second last battleship-battleship engagement!

[@JOYOUSONEX]

Good video, and very instructional . I had heard many times of the Glorious' sinking but never the details. Thanks for posting.

[@andmos1001]

To say this: It was war, and one mistake lead to another and that lead to HMS Glorius to the buttom of Narvik coast with 1500 sailors lost. To say thing like this could been prevented is wishfull thinking at this point. It did happen, multiable lifes where lost and german taught the british navy an costly lesson of never underestimate your enemy

[@jwadaow]

It is completely obvious how it is preventable in the circumstances, nobody took the basic measures that they were obliged to take.

[@frederickgates4349]

Whant more insight into this particular naval battle but anyway thanks,I did enjoy the video

[@Bra-a-ains]

The commander of a ship or base, whether it be the Glorious or Pearl Harbor, is ALWAYS responsible for the safety of that ship or base. They should ALWAYS assume they will be attacked and ALWAYS be on the lookout and prepared. "I didn't think/know . . . " is never a valid excuse.