HMS King George V - Guide 021 (Human Voice)

The UK's first fully Treaty-compliant battleships are the subject of today's video.
All images used are public domain unless otherwise noted.

[@neontetr4551]

Real shame that UK didn’t keep a single battleship as a museum piece.

[@lukedogwalker]

Perhaps, but if any ships should have been kept it must surely have been one of the Grand Fleet veterans... but after the war there was no money and no interest in such things. It's fittng that Belfast was kept to memorialise the second war as it was more a cruiser/carrier war with BBs very quickly relegated to expensive targets or carrier escorts. Most of the really hard stuff was done protecting commerce and convoys and cruisers were front and centre in that fight.

[@LordOceanus]

Agreed

[@johnmatthesen1186]

Neon Tetr4 Well, Mikasa is a British built battleship

[@Chrinik]

@@johnmatthesen1186 Yeah but it's a pre-dreadnought battleship...it's not the same xD

[@warspite1995]

The British were too broke! Although there is one left, japan kept it!

[@sergarlantyrell7847]

I don't know why the RN tried so hard to keep to the treaty limits, and cut 2 guns from the design... Germany would have fudged the numbers to make it 20% bigger, and pretend they didn't hear anything about the 14" limit. France would have claimed that they thought the treaty was in metric tonnes, so it was an honest mistake. Italy would have just said " Non capisco l'inglese." and carried on regardless. USA would have claimed the paintwork was at some point a liquid so TECHNICALLY didn't count towards the displacement limit. And the Japanese would have taken the whole plate of biscuits and the packet too, drawn the curtains and put a sign up outside saying "NO ENTRY. Definitely a 35,000 ton ship inside, scout's honour!"

[@SierraB109]

Considering that the Royal Navy were the inventors of the Standard Displacement, and we've seen how they manipulated that to their advantage on Nelson and Rodney, you can hardly cut them out of the running there. The nations that became the allied powers tried hard to stick to the treaty limits because they could afford to. They had the largest navies in the world. Further, the British government wanted to both be seen to "lead by example" in this regard "they wanted even stricter limits that would have benefited them even more), and wanted a reduction in costs associated with naval building. It was only the US Navy refusing to have truck with 12in guns and 25,000 tons that got us the 2nd London Treaty as it was.

[@sergarlantyrell7847]

@@lostalone9320 you might want to speak to various navies during the naval arms race & the treaty period. If they weren't trying to 1-up each other then they were trying to squeeze the most oflut of the treaty limitations so you weren't at a disadvantage IF the enemy managed to show up with all their capital units in working order. The battleship building holiday gave countries plenty of time to plan what they would build next to maximise what they were allowed. But then various navies got caught with their pants down when other navies ignored the limits. The USN managed to change their design in time to be a 16" gun ship. But the RN started on an englarged design and laid 2 down before most of the KGVs had even touched the water because they knew that just having the KGV's available en-mass wasn't nessasarily enough. They even expedited Vanguard so they would have something to match or even trump Bismarck. And so what? It's a treaty. They all agreed to keep to those limits and then one by one they broke their word/the contract. Particularly for Japan, that's not an especially "honourable" thing to do.

[@ilikelampshades6]

@@sergarlantyrell7847 Most British battleships were already trumping Bismark

[@Someone-ic5no]

Ser Garlan Tyrell The RN kept their promise that’s for sure, but they should think more for them self, when they design the ship they should reverse room for the 16inch gun if upgrades are necessary, just like the HMS Queen Elizabeth the have design room for the CATOBAR

[@sergarlantyrell7847]

@@Someone-ic5no when you're already having to cut barrels to keep under the weight limit, designing them with extra space for 16" shells is only going to compound the weight problem as they can't be optimised quite as much for the 14" one. Honestly I'm not sure why they didn't just set the treaty limitations to 15", to align with the majority of their ships, plus the newer ones from France, Germany and Italy. And had the limit not been quite as restrictive, people couldn't gain as much of an advantage by breaking it as they could with the 14" limit.

[@Aelvir114]

Fun fact, while Anson was being built HMS Centurion, a WW1 King George V-class battleship, was disguised as her. Ironic, a WW1 KGV pretending to be a WW2 KGV

[@RossEphgrave]

Hoping to see a future video on Centurion that includes these fun facts...

[@Aelvir114]

@@RossEphgrave Same

[@bigships]

Big lol

[@artinyyk]

I’m glad some of the older videos are getting some love. Although the robot voice has its charms I much prefer a human.

[@recklessroges]

I agree. The comedy can't shine with that robot voice.

[@typehere6689]

Yuro, Sliphantom, and others make pretty good use of it.

[@brucedavidson3881]

Humans taking robots jobs init

[@roboticus71]

I found the Nassau robot voice review especially funny. It got me hooked on this channel.

[@beachcomber2008]

THAT SIT for it, then.

[@NickRatnieks]

In 1946, HMS King George V was anchored off shore from where my mother lived- the battleship was doing a victory tour around the UK. A launch pulled up on the beach from KGV and some men got out. One was the RAF liaison officer for this battleship and they became very friendly eventually going out together. Anyway, he's not my dad but he did become a very celebrated British/Scottish artist.

[@davidburton2229]

'Only the Yamato would exceed them in terms of BB's actually constructed' Damn you World of Warships!!!

[@Fiddling_while_Rome_burns]

In WWII, Vanguard also exceeded them.

[@brother-captaindiomedes2058]

@@Fiddling_while_Rome_burns Vanguard was commissioned in 1946

[@Fiddling_while_Rome_burns]

​@@brother-captaindiomedes2058 Vanguard was the only British battleship built during WWI, despite all stops being pulled out and many compromises made it still wasn't completed in time to participate in WWII, so cannot be counted as the 2nd most heavily armoured ship in WWII. Meaning eViL dAvE is quite correct when he says only Yamato exceeded George V in armour but only in the context of WWII.

[@johnfisher9692]

Well WoWs is a game with only a tenuous contact with reality. Their world view is very simple 1. Russian ships are godly 2. German and Japanese ships are demi-gods 3. Most others are...acceptable 4. British ships are punching bags and jokes to be nerfed They really seem to hate anything British. Jealousy probably.

[@lescobrandon3047]

The Yamatos served brilliantly as fish homes.

[@Yayaloy9]

Hands down KGV class and QE class are some for the most beautiful and finest ships.

[@Alistair14]

Another excellent video with first rate research. As a child I was on the shore at the Rhu Narrows when King George V was towed through, en route to Faslane for breaking. In a final moment of defiance, she briefly went aground. My father, who had been in the Navy 1937 - 1953 found it a poignant moment, I am sure. His final posting had been at Faslane, next door to the breakers yard. The majority of his War service had been on HMS Dido serving in the Mediterranean and on Arctic Convoys. Having completed his posting to Dido, he was transferred to a survey ship, HMS Seagull. Seagull was involved in minesweeping the River Scheldt and taking emergency supplies to the starving Dutch population. Would either of these ships qualify for attention? Keep up the Good Work! Best wishes, Alistair.

[@hmskinggeorgev7089]

Bismarck is how battleships should look but not how they should be designed

[@UnicornGamingRX03]

HMS Dido is in Azur Lane as a ship girl.

[@pauldeibner6130]

((??(((((((((????n?.m??????m.m????????...mm?..n....mm

[@tonytye8963]

@@hmskinggeorgev7089 HMS Rodney isn't how a Battleship should look but it made a hot mess of Bismark in a few salvos and left the rest to finish her off, personally i love the whole big gun implacement at the front of a ship coming at you, menacing to say the least, most underatted ship of the war was old Rodney.

[@russellking9762]

wouldnt have made any difference had she met Bismarck....germans had much better fire control system...FACT!

[@hammerheadeagleithrustakag9289]

2nd most armoured Battleship in WW2 yet its one of the most poorly armoured ship in WOWS

[@frostedcat]

@Nguyen Johnathan well well well well, how the turntable...

[@jarrusjenkins]

Yep I have both the KGV and the DoY on WoWs and I do like to play them but when they raised the citadel on all the RN BBs from tier 7 on.... KGV, DoY and Monarch never deserved it (maybe Monarch to a lesser extent but still) It was rather harsh, as for Lion and Conq, well I would have said a heal nerf and a waterline citadel would have been the way to go rather than what we have now....

[@spookyshark632]

Armor in wows is fucking dumb. 50mm outer plating does far more to protect the ship than 500mm of belt armor.

[@fyorbane]

WOWs is one of the worse games for anything to do with accuracy concerning warships and naval conflict. It is little more than a arcade shoot them up albit with pretty graphics.

[@lordredlead2336]

Damn in wow's legends it has good armor but not the greatest but it is pretty hard to kill in legends

[@furthernerd]

My great grandfather served on this ship throughout the entirety of the war, even during the battle of the Bismarck. He worked in the artillery units

[@tedthebear4748]

same here, my great grandfather was an anti-air gunner and i think he operated some of the bigger guns too.

[@tj1923]

O did my grandfather he was a stoker/mechanic

[@johnfisher9692]

Great video The KGV's are the most under rated BB's of WW2. Too many concentrate on their 14inch guns and use this as a basis for their attack on the class but don't do the research to find out just how effective these guns were. In many ways better than their opponents 15inch weapons. As you stated, their armour was the heaviest in the world until the Yamato class came along and the only ship to be lost was sunk by a combination of a very heavy air attack (which would have sunk any capital ship at the time) and some bad luck in just where the torpedo hit. In battle the class did everything that was asked of them and did it well. With hindsight it's clear 9x14inch guns in 3 turrets would have been a better choice as well as a raked bow and more spacious turrets for the secondary guns. But hindsight is 20/20 after all. I could fix all this if I could get my TARDIS working. lol.

[@bkjeong4302]

John Fisher “Most underrated BB of WWII” may be true, but given that every single BB of WWII is overrated (none of them had any reason to exist, even if nobody knew that at the time), I doubt that really means much. I’m not saying the KGVs were bad battleships, but more that battleships in general were bad warships in WWII.

[@jimiacuwhg3836]

Bk Jeong in the atlantic battleships were still relevant until the sinking of bismark and scharnhorst. The first by a combination of a carrier, two battleships and several cruisers and the latter by a batteship and cruisers

[@arthurfisher1857]

@Jim Barrows no, but the Iowa's were built after the treaties were no longer a factor. And didn't even enter the war until it was more that half way over. They didn't even really do much of note in the war. Carrier escort and shore bombardment was the order of the day for them. Great ships, no doubt. But ultimately pointless.

[@fyorbane]

@Jim Barrows Iowa class were a newer design and did not adhere to the treaty restrctions. So to compare them is rather not fair. Nearest brit battleship to compare to the Iowa's is the larger and newer Vanguard. Lion class would have been a better [if built] bet and would have been a good match.

[@adamtruong1759]

3x3 15 guns probably would've worked, too.

[@peterdavy6110]

Anson and Howe were originally to have been called Jellicoe and Beatty but it was felt that using those names would only re-open old arguments about who did, or did not, do what at Jutland. It was therefore decided to name them for two 18th century Admirals instead.

[@mattapacka54]

Second most armored actually built battleship second to yamato yet in wows it's a tier 7 and acts like a lightly armored battlecruiser. Historically accurate they said.......

[@Kris-qy7hh]

Is it so squishy we could call it a Large Light Cruiser? #CourageousGloriousFurious

[@lucasselvidge2250]

The whole game makes no sense, first time i played as a BB, turned broadside and exploded

[@jotafonso3310]

@@lucasselvidge2250 Giving broadside in most BBs is asking for citadels from other BBs lmao

[@SvenTviking]

JotAfonso Which is complete and utter bullshit in comparison to reality. In real life, you turn your broadside to the enemy to bring most guns to bare and turn your heaviest armour in the direction of the enemy.

[@arionerron4273]

@@SvenTviking you can broadside in a BB, you just gotta be careful with it.

[@calebshonk5838]

The US still has eight battleships afloat, albeit all as memorials/museums. I'm kind of surprised that despite Britain's naval history, they chose to scrap every single one they ever had. I guess Britain had more important things to pay for than a Navy following the war.

[@sandydennylives1392]

Yep, we were dead broke, and were sleeping in the subways and in the pouring rain.

[@japekto2138]

Yet, we scrapped the USS Enterprise, the most famous WW2 USN warship of them all. I guess big guns tend to bring in more (paying) visitors.

[@calebshonk5838]

@@japekto2138 That's a possibility probably helped by the fact that we still have CVs in AD service, but no longer any BBs.

[@mgt2010fla]

@@japekto2138By the end of the Second World War US Carriers (CV) had become more numerous and updated. The honorable USS Enterprise, damaged many times and having less modern equipment, was something a good luck charm! The US Navy didn't want to ignore her because she was sometimes the only US carrier working in the Pacific in 1942! But late in the war she was used as a special night attack/defense carrier and still operated with the 3rd and 5th Fleet(s). Other carriers began to get coverage since there were now a dozen or more Essex Class CVs in the Pacific so less focus on a single carrier like when it was only the USS Enterprise. The Japanese claimed to have sunk the USS Enterprise SIX times, which had to make the Japanese people wonder why did the US keep naming new carriers "Enterprise"! I also liked the fact that ships were named for great ships or important battles in US History, instead of the current state of naming them for US Presidents, (and politicians), many of whom never stepped onto a US CVN at sea! However that started I hope it ends before more current Presidents get a $13 Billion (2018 Dollars) name for them! How about the USS Taxpayer?) (Sorry, got off on a tangent!) At the end, the USS Enterprise was just too far removed from younger people and although there was a kids pennies drive, there wasn't enough interest with Essex CV getting updated with angled decks and newer, larger carriers! Back on topic, BB's were named after States, so while having big guns, having the ship named for a State was a natural match! The USS Alabama, the USS Massachusetts, the USS North Carolina, for example. And, then the last 4 have been recalled since first retired so they are somewhat available! Plus of the last four, only the USS New Jersey is not an inland State, ala USS Iowa, USS Wisconsin, and USS Missouri, so no way to get them there! (Although they are all still afloat, somewhere, I think!)

[@allanfifield8256]

Food

[@daveelliott5855]

KGV my favourite battleship maybe it's because she's a. Geordie. Have nothing but sheer admiration for those men who worked these magnificent beasts

[@doctorbritain9632]

I knew someone who served on KGV in WW2 he aboslutely adored this ship.

[@jessallen2032]

My grandad was a marine in WW2 on KGV

[@tj1923]

My grandfather was navy on her

[@klipsfilmsmelbourne]

prince of wales was the last of king George class as a wreck memorial but problem was there was major problem some parts of the wreck was illegally salvaged meaning the ship is disappearing

[@ianbrock9430]

Very interesting as always. I remember my Dad telling me stories of when he was a crew member on the KG5 (HMS King George V) One of his duties was loading the 5.25ins guns in the P4 turret (port turret No.4)...This video bought it all to life. Thank you.

[@markfoster7271]

My late grandad was also on the KG5.

[@chrisdowns1987]

My Grandad served on Anson after the war as a Stoker, they were some of his most fond memories. I’d love to be able to see one of the class in the flesh.

[@bigships]

There seems to be a lot of love for the Anson in this comments section. P.S Anson is my personal favourite of the KGV class

[@metaknight115]

Dive the wreck of Prince of Wales

[@daniellapus636]

I am an admirer of the king George v class battleships.thanks.

[@bigblue6917]

Depth charges on a battleship? I bet the crew who manned were not over worked.

[@arthurfisher1857]

Capt: "Ahh, Midshipman Smith, how's depthcharge duty goi-" Smith: "..." Capt: "..." Smith: "..." Capt: "Why the bloody hell aren't you wearing pants?!?"

[@Shadow-sq2yj]

@@arthurfisher1857 I don't get it, but I will pretend to

[@mikearmstrong8483]

Where did you come up with that? There were no depth charges on the ship.

[@rogertulk8607]

What a pity one of them wasn't kept as a museum ship. It would be fascinating to walk around one.

[@lupus67remus7]

This is my favorite British battleship class, and I find it sad that all of those that survived were scrapped... But unlike planes and tanks, preserving any member of any battleship class takes up a LOT more space, a LOT more money, and a LOT more enthusiasts to keep in running condition, so... I see the practical aspect of not keeping one...

[@krieger3132]

Dude it's true... Shame to see the unique battleship were scrap Just to become a pile of steel... 😢

[@johnjephcote7636]

I remember being overawed by seeing the Vanguard in Portsmouth but only remember feeling regret at the news of the KGV's scrapping in the 'Telegraph'. We scrapped everything then.

[@Area51UFOGynaecology]

always thought these ships looked so powerful from the front with that quad turret

[@LordOceanus]

Your release time and the fact that I'm in america means i get to start my day with your videos every time you post!

[@HemlockRidge]

As a fellow American, I will chime in to say: "You're" is "you are". "Your" is possessive. Try not to make us look uneducated, please.

[@USSAnimeNCC-]

You know it morning when Drachinifel upload

[@LordOceanus]

@@HemlockRidge Happy now lol?

[@HemlockRidge]

@@LordOceanus Yes! TY. Hey. I'm anal and OCD.

[@bjw4859]

Thank you for using a human voiceover, those A.I generated ones are grating to listen to.

[@thomaskwei9119]

You should do a video that is an overview of the Washington and maybe even the London Naval Treaties. That way we can have some background to all the treaty warships.

[@b.griffin317]

good idea.

[@mikecimerian6913]

Battle Plan Red.

[@stevenvater2681]

Fantastic film ,thank you drachinifel

[@robertbeermanjr.2158]

I really enjoy all of your hard work, research and dedication to bringing us all of this thorough information. Thank you so much.

[@ammoalamo6485]

Your into music is the best on KZbin. It is not only good music, it is appropriate to the subject matter, good enough to avoid being annoying, and acts to introduce the subject well.

[@robertparisi324]

Fortunately, after the loss of the Prince of Wales, certain mitigating remedial repairs and redesigns, like removal of bathrooms above the armored deck, only 'armored trunked' entries into the 'citadel', correcting the electric power loss inevitability after hits below deck and the improvements of the main shaft 'glands', (where 325' shafts cross from citadel going aft toward the propellers) that leaked perfusely after the Japanese torpedo hits aft, while the shafts kept operating and twisted like a pretzel causing the acceleration of progressive flooding by compromising the 'citadel' more than anticipated. This plus failed dynamos and pumps caused the more rapid capsizing within an hour plus. Also, once the ship was listing the 5.25" anti-aircraft guns became unworkable with a relatively minor list. That was supposedly corrected in the surviving class members and those lessons were included in the completion of the Vanguard. Just a quick note: after the Japanese notified the British and Americans that they weren't going to adhere to the London Treaty going forward, the U.S. immediately throw out the strict treaty weight limits for increased survivability and offensive capabilities. For instance the Washington and North Carolina were being designed and built for 12 - 14" main guns in 3 turrets and redesigned for 9-16" while under construction. Difficult but doable. Unfortunately, they were unable to add armor without completely redesigning the ship so its armor was designed against 14" adversaries while being armed with 16" guns (normal U.S. practice is armor against your own main weapons). The next class which included the South Dakota for which the class was named was armed and armored with and against 16" guns within a specific 'immunity zone'. The torpedo protection was tested in the North Carolina (sister of Washington) and the ship managed to return under its own power to the west coast for repairs.

[@ApothecaryTerry]

I learned a number of things while watching this video. The most important of them was this: there is such a thing as too much chilli in your dinner. The limit is about half as much as what I put in.

[@BobSmith-dk8nw]

Yeah ... I had the top on a can of black pepper come loose and dump half the contents of the can on my still powdered grits ... I tried to spoon it out and got a lot of it but - that was one hot bowl of grits ... .

[@ModernFossilOuttakes2004]

Very interesting learning more about the ship, my great grandfather served on her as a gunner when she was hunting the Bismarck!

[@Major_Bomber187]

Well, thank you for recognizing us!

[@mehusla]

Fabulous, as always, and greatly appreciated.

[@sargepent9815]

I can't believe that, dispite being a nation built upon the waves and having the world strongest navy for over two hundred years that they didn't save a SINGLE battleship

[@troller1911]

bit of an old video but i found out not long ago that my great-uncle served on the KG5 in WW2 and was the gunner that spotted the bismarck witch i find very cool wish i could have meet him

[@philipm06]

He'd have seen you first.

[@admiraltiberius1989]

The KGV class isn't as handsome as the Nelson's or QEs but its still a very good looking design. That odd ball twin No2 turret kinda messes with my OCD but I can look past it. The class is definitely in contention for the best class of British battleships ever.

[@hmskinggeorgev7089]

@Sakkra101 I'm with you on that

[@XXXXHHHHHTTTTTHHHHHH]

Thanks for having playlists!

[@namelessentity5851]

I really like this particular class, especially the Prince of Wales....probably because I watched "Sink the Bismark" about 8 billion times. Not quite as cool as the Repulse, but still, a very sexy beast!

[@miroslavskubal2397]

“All the dislikes” are from Kriegsmarine captains whos ships were sunk by this mighty battleship.

[@MrOlivertwist19]

0 so far? :-D

[@lukedogwalker]

Dislikes will be from the people who watch those Top Ten style list videos. Those always rate the KGVs very low... basically because they aren't Iowa or Yamato. These list videos even put Bismarck higher but I think the KGV design, with the exception of the bow and possibly the optical fire control system (quite good on German ships) was the better design on paper, and became better in real life once the turret problems were fixed.

[@westcoaststacker569]

Yet sufficient to disable Bismarck and survive.

[@lescobrandon3047]

Miroslav Škubal - 👌🏽

[@westcoaststacker569]

I had meant King George V it combined with Rodney disabled the guns even though Bismarck had limited control her guns and fire control systems seemed capable before the final battle. The armament of KGV proved superior in hitting even if it was inferior in penetration power and rate of fire. Price of Wales was responsible for the damage to the Bismarck hitting a fuel tank resulting in reduced speed and additional necessity to head to a port. Two ships with inferior armament did very well against a superior adversary.

[@marksolarz3756]

Wonderful pictures!

[@thomasaffolter4386]

Good video, I didn't know much about this class so I found it informative.

[@champagnegascogne9755]

*"A new battlefield huh, heh heh, that suits me fine... so, are you my Commander? King George V, at your service."*

[@killme7820]

What a weeb

[@briangregg8581]

Yes, it would also be nice to take a look at Nelson with 9 16inch forward

[@barryguerrero6480]

In the movie "Sink The Bismark", KGV is given most of the credit in turning Bismark into a bonfire. However, I've read that it was really HMS Rodney - the sister ship to the Lord Nelson - that caused the bulk of the damage with her nine, very powerful 16" guns - all grouped together up forward. Slower than most battleships of their day, the two Nelsons were perfect for a sitting duck case, such as Bismark (at that point), and ship to shore bombardment.

[@metalmadsen]

Nice with a human voice. And a cool video.

[@peterblood50]

Much better with human voice. Good job mate.

[@XCrawlFan]

Washington Naval Treaty - destroyer of clean Naval aesthetic.

[@roybennett6330]

Beautiful looking vessel

[@johnwagner4776]

A 15-inch shell missing its target is no more powerful than a 14-inch shell missing its target. Given comparable fire control, training and mechanical factors, a ten-gun broadside of British 14-inchers @ 15,900-lbs of weight had a better chance of scoring a hit than an eight-gun broadside of German 15-inchers @ 14,400-lbs. (Of course, the recently commissioned Prince of Wales was not in condition to fight the powerful, well-trained Bismarck.) The USN engaged in a similar debate when trying to decide if the Colorado-class should mount the twelve, 14-inch/50-caliber Mark B guns of its predecessors (18,000-lbs) or change to the eight, 16-inch/45-caliber Mark 1 rifles they were finally built with (16,880-lbs, using the 2,110-lb, 16" Mark 3 AP shells initially developed for that weapon.) Some time later, Mark 5 AP shells (2,240-lbs) would yield an eight-gun broadside of 17,920-lbs. The North Carolina, South Dakota and Iowa classes, with nine 16-inch Mark 6 & 7 guns and 2,700-lb AP shells could fire 24,300-lb broadsides. Only Yamato and Musashi would exceed that number. Their nine 18.1-inch/40 rifles fired 3,220-lb AP shells for a broadside of 28,980-lbs.

[@adamtruong1759]

Besides in penetration, shell weight doesn't tell the whole story.

[@kaveebee]

Upon entering harbour at a port where the ships crew are entertaining the idea of leave, the main guns are set at the same angle as an erect phallus. Works wonders for the liberty men I'm told.

[@sergarlantyrell7847]

My favourite naval photo is of 3 of these beauties together in Portland harbour. Thinking about the relative effectiveness of British armour, it's possible that 8-25% are all true under different circumstances. For example, the advantage in British armour might be increased vs high-velocity projectiles (compared to American armour with their overly thick face-hardening).

[@davidvasquez08]

3:55 *OFF COURSE, JAPAN HAD OTHER IDEAS IN THAT DEPARTMENT*

[@user-qz7nu3mm9r]

very nice video thanks!

[@XCrawlFan]

I am on a battleship geek-out!

[@adamtruong1759]

And to think I've gained a mad obsession for this class because of Drachinifel and the comment section of a WoWs armada video about KGV. Life is so strange.

[@teynryn831]

World of Warships: Legends | Currently have KGV in my port while listening to this :D

[@robertadamcik9179]

Quick question, were the 14 inch guns in a four-gun configuration (i.e. each gun could elevate and fire independently)? Or quadruple firing (I.e. all four guns elevated and fired as one)? Thanks!

[@papaversomniferum2365]

Well you may actually have find a photo of Duke of York with some of its 14inch guns elevated at different angles so it was indeed possible, but when it comes to firing i have no idea if it was possible or not. Cheers! :)

[@ScienceChap]

They were 4 gun turrets.

[@MrAlias-oc8uk]

I was watching the robot version when I got the human one!

[@thefilmandmusic]

My dad was on this WW2 in Pacific

[@timarmstrong9026]

Hooray a human voice. Fantastic to hear.

[@CrossAnchors]

I wonder if it would ever be possible to do a Guide on the Survey Vessel HMS Cook A307 She was ordered to be built by William Pickersgill & Sons Ltd. Middlesbrough, in January 1943 as the Loch-class frigate HMS Loch Mochrum, but the order for the Ship was then changed, and her Keel was finally laid down on 30 November 1944 to a revised design as a Bay-class frigate, and launched on 24 September 1945 as HMS Pegwell Bay, but after launching, she was taken in tow to the Devonport Dockyard and converted into a Survey Ship, they didn't start the conversion work until 1948, and she was finally completed in July 1950, she didn't have any armaments, but instead, had extra accommodation and offices installed for hydrographic work, and from HMS Pegwell Bay, she was renamed HMS Cook A307 Sorry I know a lot about this Ship, but my Father had two Drafts on her as a Stoker, and he always had a soft spot for her

[@flotsamike]

I keep having to remember that in the US Navy at least, the entire era of battleships between bb1,the first battleship Indiana, and the Missouri launched in 1944, lasted only one year longer than the second aircraft carrier Enterprise served. Seems like things advanced so much in the early 20th century compared to the last half.

[@ScienceChap]

The nay-sayers about these ships are rather 2 dimensional in their thinking. Someone please correct me if I am wrong, but KGVs accounted for 2 German battleships - Bismarck (with a big help from Rodney) and Scharnhorst. No other class that I can think of destroyed more enemy capital ships than that - not even the Queen Elizabeths. Destroyers and cruisers are 10 a penny (eg Narvik, Cape Matapan, Guadalcanal) but actual capital ships? Kirishima was destroyed by (spoiler alert) South Dakota and Washington. The Iowas never sank anything larger than a light cruiser. The Yamatos were destroyed before they got within range of anything significant. Jutland was so mixed up with so many classes of ship present that those ships that were lost were accounted for by numerous hits from different ships. 14 inch guns, in a battery of 10, are also underestimated. They penetrated Bismarck's armour very well - the fact that she lies on the seabed is a partial testament to that fact. Scharnhorst, which had a thicker belt than Bismarck, was penetrated by Duke of York. I think the armchair admirals doing willy size comparisons about 14 inch v 16 inch also miss the point that these ships were a part of a large, sophisticated and integrated navy. Doctrinally they weren't designed to stand in a battle line such as Jutland. They were designed to be the heavy hittering muscle in a combined battle group, which is exactly what they did. The outlier is Prince of Wales, being unescorted in company with Repulse when she was lost. However setting that aside these ships were, in the final analysis, actually enormously successful and represent great value for money.

[@aristosachaion_]

Truly an underrated class. My adoration for the Scharnhorst introduced me to Duke of York and I've loved them both ever since.

[@metaknight115]

Actually, the Iowa’s never sank anything bigger than a training ship. Yamato, hotel fucking Yamato, sank more impressive ships

[@jamesgraham7982]

My understanding was that the Royal Navy said the KGV guns were better penetrating than the 15"/42 gun. The 15"/42 had been given the 1920 lb heavy shell. The only way I can see the 14" gun being better is if the Royal Navy did what the US Navy did with its 14" guns and went to a super heavy shell (US went to 2000 lb). But I haven't been able to find any information on KGV shell weight

[@falloutghoul1]

Drach, are you still doing work on the Tegethoff, Courbet, and Gangut remakes?

[@Drachinifel]

Yep, going in order from the earliest videos in general.

[@craigmoloney4486]

They kept HMS Belfast which is the one on the Thames but it was only a cruiser

[@timothycook2917]

Handsome ships, even if they had technical limitations

[@thekinginyellow1744]

Can someone enlighten me as to what "W.T.C." stands for in the cross section diagram @ 5:50? I assume it designates void space that is part of the Torpedo Defense System, but I can't figure out how that abbreviates to "wtc".

[@agactual7901]

Water Tight Compartment. (can be sealed off from other compartments in event of compromise damages.)

[@adamtruong1759]

You know, that acronym reminded of the symbols they use on Bathrooms.

[@vengeance2825]

I clicked because of the (human voice). Nice narration too.

[@willosee]

Boss have you done anything on the Malta convoys?

[@comunistubula4424]

4:25 Anti aircraft gunner: "Enemy bombers on an attack run!!!"....followed by " Enemy ship on the horizon!!!". Hold on to your hat,boys....

[@akeeldberg5218]

Are there any films of images about the Blücher (1940, not WWI)? Would be interesting to learn more since it came to an unexpected end…

[@penkagenova7073]

Not sure if a movie only about the ship but in 2016 a movie was released were it had all scene of the Blücher sinking I think it was called the king's choice or something

[@akeeldberg5218]

@@penkagenova7073 Yes, it's a Norwegian film. Haven't seen it. Perhaps it makes a Drachinifel version obsolete?

[@alexius23]

I have read some US sources that said King George V was a “tired” ship after all it years of service & many miles steamed....referring its deployment in the Pacific War....

[@ciriacomaraboto5385]

By the time KGV deployed in the Pacific, "all its years of service" were exactly FOUR. She began sea trials in October 1940, and joined the Home Fleet in December 1940. And in December 1944 she joined the British Pacific Fleet in Ceylon.

[@alexius23]

Ciriaco Maraboto As Indiana Jones once said.....”it’s not the years it’s the miles”

[@mannycarrillo6595]

What is that into song. Its is so good

[@aristosachaion_]

Duke of York had a hell of a career.

[@binstar8269]

UK really knows how to name their ships

[@russelleames5970]

Excellent class of ship: criminal that none were preserved!!! 😬

[@robertpeace4596]

Fantastic video wow the Royal Navey. What about the Hood!

[@rutherfojr]

It is sad we have none of these ships as a museum. This whole era of royal navy warefare is lost and remains only on film.

[@jollyswagman9242]

6 videos in one day... I’m spoiled

[@moistmike4150]

A conversation at the Naval War College: Cadet-A: "Prince of Wales and Repulse sure got shellacked by the Japanese!" Cadet-B: "And how!" Cadet-A: "No - Howe wasn't there." Cadet-B: ...

[@Timrath]

What does "went to head" mean?

[@zacharygerken4387]

Have you done HMS Tiger yet, I'd think she'd be an interesting one to do.

[@ArenBerberian]

zachary gerken I think the whole Cold War/Falklands era In general would be good to do, as it’s very interesting but underrated.

[@zacharygerken4387]

aren berberian I was talking about a ww1 battle cruiser, I wasn't talking about the Falklands war. Also I believe he has covered it though I may be wrong.

[@ArenBerberian]

@@zacharygerken4387 Do you realise how many HMS Tigers there are lol? When it comes to RN ships its good to specify which one you mean, as sometimes you could have 50 historical ships with the same name. I thought you meant the cold war era Tiger as that was the next generation of ship after the King George V class. Just going by Wiki, there have been 14 ships called HMS Tiger.

[@zacharygerken4387]

aren berberian well that is true and I apologise for not making it clearer, though I do believe there was only one battle cruiser with that name. But I will be clearer in the future.

[@zacharygerken4387]

aren berberian you quote Wikipedia but that would include ships that didn't serve during the first or second world wars.

[@vikkimcdonough6153]

Why does whichever ship is visible at 6:28 appear to have its bow sliced open?

[@grandpaears8746]

Yeaaaaaahhhh ... a real person talking :-)

[@k956upg]

Only the English actually kept to the rules...so America Japan & Germany all started or finished bigger ships.

[@monarols4806]

I read years ago that the reason for the twin turret was when the escalator clause came in, it was decided to armour the ship against 16” shells. But it was too late to change the ship to have 16” guns. As the displacement limit still applied, it was decided to reduce B Turret to two guns to keep it treaty compliant. And that is why the gun arrangements is what it is. Extra armour minus two guns (incidentally, that is why the North Carolina class is only armoured against 14” shells) I cannot remember where I read that. I have been wrong before and I know I will be wrong in the future.

[@Thunderyend]

I read that as well, although I understood it was more of an effort to make it appear to be treaty compliant, knowing that reducing to a twin turret wasn't enough, but thinking that leading by example, or at least appearing to, was more important. Switching from 4.5" secondaries to 5.25" at the same time didn't help.

[@Guitcad1]

What does "W.T.C." stand for on the diagram?

[@NoNameAtAll2]

5:14 so UK knew about diving shells of Japan? or is it about different kind of shells?

[@andybelcher1767]

NoName - What is being referred to is more usually called 'plunging fire', which is the trajectory of shells fired at long distances, striking the ship from above. It is what did for the battlecruisers at Jutland and Hood with their thinner armour to reduce weight and increase speed. Battlecruisers were never meant to participate in fleet actions, they were meant to tour the globe on their own and uphold naval supremacy against smaller forces as they were fast enough to catch anything bigger than a destroyer and had big guns so as to stand off and destroy anything smaller than a battleship. They were the modern equivalent of the old 74 gun sailing ships of the line; cheaper to build than a 1st Rate so you could have more of them, fast enough and powerful enough to take on almost any other ship. Depending on world politics you could group a few to take on anything. If that is a poor analogy, think of it like Sherman tanks and Tiger tanks. A Sherman could catch and take on all but the biggest tanks, but you needed 5 Shermans to kill a Tiger.

[@NoNameAtAll2]

@@andybelcher1767 But how does that explain what "diving shells" mean?

[@andybelcher1767]

@@NoNameAtAll2 They are not diving as in going underwater, more like diving from above. If you think that the guns are pointing up at about 45 degrees when shooting at long range, about 12 to 15 miles, the shells go up to about half way, then they come down, so 'diving' from above. This webpage may help to explain: www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3544

[@NoNameAtAll2]

@@andybelcher1767 thank you

[@bkjeong4302]

Andy Belcher You didn’t need 5 Sherman’s to kill a Tiger (two was usually enough).

[@dobypilgrim6160]

How could a ship named King George V be sold for scrap? Very sad indeed.

[@SlimeJime]

The same reason why Enterprise was. The ship was probably extremely worn out and budgets were collapsing.

[@mikeray1544]

The trades people of The United Kingdom totally kicked- ass' building these WarShips. Mike Ray/ CM-3/USNR(ret).

[@dmunro9076]

The Nelson class were built to the Treaty limits.

[@Foxx_33]

Yes, but not designed. Hence why he ended his sentence with "from the start" about the KGV design. :)

[@deeznoots6241]

They were not designed originally to fit the treaty limits, the Nelson and Rodney were scaled down G3/N3 designs

[@fyorbane]

@@deeznoots6241 They were not scaled down exacts of the G3/N3 class. They had for instance had all their main guns redesigned to fire forward where the the G3/N3's had the third turret directley behind the bridge structure.

[@deeznoots6241]

Boz not all the main guns could fire forward, the C turret on the Nelsons had the same effective fire arc as the Midships turrets on the G3/N3. If you fired the C turret directly forward you would blow up the superimposed B turret. If you want a Battleship that can fire all its guns forwards you have to look at the French with their Richelieu class.

[@CMDRFandragon]

Naval Treaty....its basically the modern video game equivalent of "Infantry only' servers in a shooter game. All the nations just kinda went, 'yeah, we dont wanna have to fight a ship above X weight and with super powerful guns, so dont make em that big,k? thxbye. Japan was the noob who logged into the infantry only server and promptly jumped in the tank and mowed everyone down. They unfortunately were not very good with the tank, so they get rekt in a hurry.

[@HighlanderNorth1]

Still waiting to hear about the "HMS King William the Bastard". I was just reading about the 2 ships of the Norwegian "Ivar the Boneless" class. It included the "HNoMS Sigurd Snake-in-the-Eye"...

[@jackclingenpeel5020]

Thank you for ditching the computer voice!!

[@RNS681]

YAY!

[@randomlyentertaining8287]

"It was not felt a ship with 16 inch guns could have enough armor and speed at the same time." Iowa and North Carolina classes: *AlLoW uS To iNtRoDuCe OuRsElVeS* I know the context. This is a joke.

[@sergarlantyrell7847]

I'm not sure I'd put the NC's in there on the grounds that their armour wasn't great... The South Dakota's would be better but still, none of them were fantastically thick, and all of them overweight.

[@adamtruong1759]

South Dakota was still more efficient than Iowa.

[@5000mahmud]

Iowa did not have an immunity zone against its own guns

[@metaknight115]

The North Carolina’s, South Dakota’s, and Iowas were only armored against 14 inch guns at the thickest(albeit that the last of the 3 had slopes armor