HMS Glorious, 1940: Scharnhorst & Gneisenau Ambush an Aircraft Carrier

[@HoH]

This video is not sponsored. If you want to help me make more videos and gain early access, consider supporting House of History at www.patreon.com/HouseofHistory!

[@ItzSevEditz]

Hello HoH,Can You make The Battle Of Coral Sea/Lady Lex(USS lexington) Fate So its Start On On 3-4 May, Japanese forces invaded and occupied Tulagi, although several supporting warships were sunk or damaged in a surprise attack by the U.S. carrier Yorktown. Alerted to the presence of enemy aircraft carriers, the Japanese fleet carriers advanced towards the Coral Sea to locate and destroy the Allied naval forces. On the evening of 6 May, the two carrier fleets closed to within 70 nmi (81 mi; 130 km) but did not detect each other in the darkness. The next day, both fleets launched airstrikes against what they thought was the enemy fleet carriers, but both sides actually attacked other targets. The U.S. sank the Japanese light carrier Shōhō, and the Japanese sank the Sims, a destroyer, and damaged the fleet oiler Neosho. On 8 May, both sides finally located and attacked the other's fleet carriers, leaving the Japanese fleet carrier Shōkaku damaged, the U.S. fleet carrier Lexington critically damaged and later scuttled, and the fleet carrier Yorktown lightly damaged. Both sides having suffered heavy aircraft losses and carriers sunk or damaged, the two forces disengaged and retired from the area. Because of the loss of carrier air cover, Inoue also recalled the Port Moresby invasion fleet. Although the battle was a tactical victory for the Japanese in terms of ships sunk, it has been described as a strategic victory for the Allies. The battle marked the first time since the start of the war that a major Japanese advance had been turned back. More important, the damage to Shōkaku and the aircraft losses of Zuikaku prevented both ships from participating in the Battle of Midway the following month

[@dulio12385]

This battle sounds like the closing stages of a World of Warships match, when its the carrier's turn to get plastered.

[@HoH]

🤣

[@SirAlric82]

You read my mind. XDD

[@barneyklingenberg4078]

In world of warships you still have a shot if there is 2 DD’s supporting you. DD’s in WoW are very effective against battleships when played right.

[@iankingsleys2818]

One nearby British warship heard Glorious' cries for help, HMS Devonshire an 8" heavy Cruiser. She was only 50 miles away but as she was carrying the King and Crown Prince of Norway and was under command to observe strict radio silence, there was little she could do As it is the Admiralty papers on the sinking of the Glorious' task group have been sealed until 2040

[@dovetonsturdee7033]

Actually, HMS Devonshire only seems to have received signals from HMS Glorious which were, at best, garbled. It seems Glorious had been broadcasting on the Aircarft Carrier wave, not the Fleet wave.

[@ColinFreeman-kh9us]

@@dovetonsturdee7033 not true, the message was clear but the. Royals of Norway were carrying gold as well. A despicable act I think

[@dovetonsturdee7033]

@@ColinFreeman-kh9us Why do you think that this isn't true? Have you read 'Carrier Glorious' by John Winton? The Germans had a B-Dienst team aboard Gneisenau. They detected transmissions from Glorious, but did not detect any acknowledgements from any British warship or shore station. As far as I know, the Germans had no obvious reason to lie.

[@DevenTurner-gk6dd]

Imagine if the British would have sailed in with the king of Norway on the bridge. Bet that would have made the history books

[@jimmunro4649]

Wonder why Huge cock up You think

[@ctid98]

There was a documentary back in the 80's or 90's that stated D'Oyly-Hughes left Norway earlier because he wanted to court martial the head of his air groups who kept trying to tell him how to run a carrier which he had no idea about never having flown, so he told the Admiralty he was low on fuel so he could leave early. Having no cap or air recon on the day seems to reinforce that idea and the fact the official reports on this remain sealed only adds to it.

[@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684]

Just to correct one point, Guy D'Oyly-Hughes was a fully qualified pilot.

[@dovetonsturdee7033]

D'Oyly-Hughes is believed to have requested permission to steam ahead of the main evacuation convoy in order to process the documents for the court-martial of his Commander (Air), J. B. Heath, who had been left ashore. The fact is that, whatever the circumstances, Vice-Admiral Wells should not have authorised his request. D'Oyly-Hughes had learned how to fly, had been Executive Officer of another carrier, HMS Courageous, in 1931, and had spent some time on secondment to the Air Ministry. He had previously been asked by Wells to provide air support for ground troops, and had instructed his Commander (Air) to produce a plan. Heath refused, claiming that it was not 'a proper use of naval aircraft.' Whether refusing a direct order to provide, at the very least, a plan to support British troops in need of help, was an appropriate response by Heath, is for others to discuss, but certainly it seems a number of Glorious' air crews did not agree with Heath.

[@N0rdman]

Correct, the commanding officer D'Oyly-Hughes seemed more preoccupied prancing around and telling people down and wanted so badly court-martial anyone, and in particular experienced sailors and not a stick-jockey, who actually knew the proper way to command a carrier, thereby not caring about air patrol and proper procedures.

[@dovetonsturdee7033]

@@N0rdman D-Oyly-Hughes was an 'experienced sailor.' He had been in the Royal Navy since 1909, and had won two DSOs and a DSC for Gallantry in WW1. He experience was mainly in submarines, but he had served as Executive Officer of Glorious' sister, HMS Courageous, before being seconded to the Air Ministry. in the 1930s. He was also that rare beast, a senior officer in the RN who had learned to fly. When appointed to HMS Glorious in June 1939, he must have appeared an excellent choice. He did wish to court-martial his Commander (Air) J. B. Heath, because, after D'Oyly-Hughes had been given orders by his superior, Admiral Wells, to use Glorious' aircraft to carry out a mission in support of ground troops, Heath refused to plan it, claiming that it was 'not a proper use of naval aircraft.' Clearly, something had gone badly wrong with D'Oyly-Hughes by the end, but surely he was entitled to expect the loyalty of his subordinate commander. Which he did not receive. Ark Royal, by the way, had already carried out a number of such missions, without her Commander (Air) seeking to undermine his Captain.

[@Boxghost574]

@@dovetonsturdee7033 Just a total breakdown of the chain of command. Shows how easy it is for a couple of bad choices to snowball into a complete catastrophe in warfare.

[@torgover-l1n]

Her captain, had he survived, would have undoubtedly been court martialed and found guilty of incompetence. He had no CAP up, nobody in the crows nest and even the survivors disliked him, and the Germans were shocked she had no CAP flying. Scharnhorst is tied with HMS Warspite as scoring the longest ranged hit by two naval ships at around 26,400yds/24,140M with her third salvo in this battle.

[@dovetonsturdee7033]

Are you aware thar Glorious had left most of her air group behind as she had been sent to act as a ferry carrier for RAF Gladiators & Hurricanes being withdrawn from Norway, and she had wider lifts which could accommodate them. At most, she seems to have had some ten Sea Gladiators and Swordfish aboard. Moreover, previously during the campaign, carriers returning to Britain had not flown such patrols.

[@torgover-l1n]

@@dovetonsturdee7033 Yes, but that's no excuse to not have a CAP up or someone in the crow's nest while *in hostile waters*. That's simple incompetence.

[@dovetonsturdee7033]

@@torgover-l1n HMS Glorious was not in waters deemed to be hostile. RN carriers had passed through the same area more than once, without air patrols and totally unthreatened.

[@torgover-l1n]

@@dovetonsturdee7033 Even the Germans aboard Scharnhorst were surprised the carrier had no CAP and took so long to notice them. German planes had sighted them and knew Glorious and Ark Royal were in the area, and yet Glorious still had no CAP up and nobody in the crow's nest.

[@dovetonsturdee7033]

@@torgover-l1n Ark Royal was not in the area, and Glorious was not spotted by German aircraft.

[@danielsantiagourtado3430]

These naval battles are amazing! Thanks For this

[@Karottenregen]

Would have been cool to mention that scharnhorsts first hit on glorious was the longest range hit with a naval cannon ever recorded with 24km and gneisenaus hits that lead to the sinking of glorious was the longest distance naval kill with ober 16km

[@wacherwicht1810]

Not a problem, but you wrote "Schlachtschiffe" beneath the name of each battleship. That is the plural, impliing that there were multiple BBs with each symbol. The singular version would be "Schlachtschiff". So without the "e" on the end. Again, no problem, just a comment I wanted to leave.

[@wacherwicht1810]

Also it would be very nice if you would decrease the transparacy of the smokescreen Animation a bit. Atleast on my screen its very Hard to Spot.

[@Jadegreif]

Glad you already mentioned it, was bothering me too a little bit. Also, later he keeps calling them Battlecruisers, which one can make a case for I guess, but its just a little inconsistent

[@HoH]

Good shout, thanks for pointing it out! I'll make sure to decrease the transparency of the smokescreen as well.

[@yehudacohen9151]

​@@Jadegreif I believe they were battlecruisers.

[@klade5031]

@@yehudacohen9151 There is no definitive answer. The line between a battlecruiser and fast battleship will always be blurry as the very definition of "battlecruiser" varies wildly for every nation that utilized them. Just to give a couple of examples: on one hand you have the Kongou-class which the Japanese called battleships after they slapped on extra armor and better boilers yet they were only about as well armored as the Renown-class battlecruisers. On the other hand, there is the famous Hood, which is overwhelmingly called a battlecruiser yet the British added so much armor during her construction that she was practically just a really fast Queen Elizabeth-class battleship. In the case of the Scharnhorsts, they were called battleships by the very navy that operated them but their form, a fast light battleship, and the way they were used as ocean raiders were actually similar to the WW1 German version of the battlecruiser.

[@elennapointer701]

I'm still astonished to this day that D'Oyly-Hughes didn't have any planes in the air. He could have shoved the land planes overboard (the men were the important cargo) and flown spotter planes. But he did nothing, and blundered into the ambush blind. He should never have been commanding a carrier because he seems not to have understood how to do it.

[@jonshive5482]

Dunno if it was his fault If he was ordered to carry those extra fixed-wing planes.

[@dovetonsturdee7033]

The Hurricanes and Gladiators had been taken below, and Glorious only had ten of her own aircraft aboard. Other carriers which had passed through that area earlier in the campaign had not, apparently, had aircraft aloft either.

[@jonshive5482]

@@dovetonsturdee7033 You could be right. Thanks for the correction if you are.Bear in mind it's easy to think we know something after reading mutually agreeable sources earlier.

[@shanebailey9128]

He had No planes in the air due to the fact they had No Propellers!

[@ThePrader]

I am a USN veteran. My first ship, as an Ensign, was on the LPH-7, USS Guadalcanal. As a LT. I served aboard the USS Independence , CV-62.Later I served as the Flag LT. to COMNAVFORCARB. I can say for certain that had he not been killed in this action, I would have drafted his Art 32, and GCM papers had he been in the USN.

[@crownprincesebastianjohano7069]

For those who insist the Scharnhorst Class were battlecruisers: This is incorrect. The Scharnhorst Class were fast battleships. On both major accounts, armor and armament, the ships do not meet battlecruiser definitions. 1) Their armor was relatively the same as the Bismarck Class, with the S'Horst Class actually having a thicker belt. 2) Their armament of 11-inch C/34s was an expedient measure as the ships were completed before the intended 15-inch guns were and the demands of the war meant the change-over, intended since the design was accepted, never happened. The 11-inch guns were ready for use because the Scharnhorst Class began life as the D-Class Cruisers. The two D-Class Large Cruisers were the follow-up class to the Deutschland Class as larger far better armed and armored commerce raiders that no longer needed to adhere to a 10,000 ton limit. They were to have x9 11-inch guns and a 220mm belt with a top speed of 32 knots. These ships would have a nightmare as they rectified the major shortcomings of the already effective Deutschland Class. However, thanks to the 1935 Anglo-German Naval Treaty that allowed Germany to build battleships again, Hitler demanded a proper battleship with 15-inch guns over 11-inch Large Cruisers despite Admiral Raeder insisting the Large Cruisers were more useful. In 1936 the order and already laid up materials for the D-Class were changed to the Scharnhorst Class.

[@daniellucas1494]

I was unaware of this engagement. Thanks to your postings I am learning more about the conflict I thought I knew very well.

[@WW...conquest]

This is great! There isn't a lot of other channels with such a good quality. I like these naval videos as you are never get told about them.

[@JohnDoe-tx8lq]

And who was supposed to tell you??? 🤔 Put HMS Glorious in the search and you'll find a long list of videos going back years. It's in all books about British naval battles. Not exactly a 'secret' history.

[@WW...conquest]

It's way less covered.Dont lie to themselves

[@JohnDoe-tx8lq]

@@WW...conquest 😆🤣

[@HenrySimple]

Reading helps :) There are enough worthwile boots out there.

[@WW...conquest]

@@HenrySimple true

[@chriswissmar504]

Your voice and narration is the best. Love your channel.

[@Bleihagel]

8:45 That 24-km-salve of Scharnhorst was the longest hit on a moving vessel by a battleship in the entire world war 2, if not the longest ever made.

[@thebestteammate6528]

Well I mean the approximate hit was 26,000 yards so if it was off by 401 yards then Warspite steals it away from Schanhorst by 400 Yards with its longest hit being 26,400 yards when it’s first Salvo hit the Giulio Cesare at the Battle of Calabria

[@Bleihagel]

@thebestteammate6528 Very interesting thing! Thank you. Are there more details to find? Wiki only talks about 24 km in both cases.

[@KHK001]

Amazing work as always!

[@ageingviking5587]

HoH Dude, you do a wonderful job. Keeping people interested in history is very important. Thank you! 🙂

[@HoH]

Thanks for watching!

[@scottdewey03]

This was both outstanding and interesting, on a little-known and little-remembered topic. THANKS !!!!!

[@mohammedsaysrashid3587]

These naval battle introductions..good doing and informative introducing....thank you ( house of history ) channel for sharing

[@DiscoKevin69420]

This is so surreal. My great-grandfather died on HMS Acasta, so it was a very strange experience to hear that name as I was chilling out before bed. Maybe if the Glorious had a bloody lookout posted then my Grandma would have grown up with a dad.

[@niklasn.4529]

Meanwhile my grandfather was an intelligence officer aboard Scharnhorst. He nearly died during the occupation of Norway by an air strike on Scharnhorst.

[@cliffwilkins9178]

Outstanding account and narrative - thanks you so much!

[@andreb.4742]

Von dieser Seeschlacht habe ich noch nie gehört. Tolles Video. Gut erklärt. einfache und gut verständliche Animation. 👍 Top

[@TallDude73]

I'm surprised the carrier didn't have scout planes aloft, or a CAP. That's the big advantage the carrier has - view beyond the horizon. It just seemed like a bunch of dysfunctional newbies. Maybe it was early in the war...

[@TinKnight]

Initially, I'd thought it was simply because their deck was full of planes & thus couldn't launch, a situation which happened with American & Japanese fleets later in the war...but then he said they started preparing to launch, which means they could've launched... Perhaps the air temps were too low/conditions were unsafe for ongoing launch & retrieval? But I suspect they were far too reliant on signals intercepts by that point, & didn't take the most basic precautions because they hadn't heard there was a threat.

[@willghezzi]

The reason why HMS Glorious didn't have any plane scouting or ready for launch is because her captain was one of the old stuck up officers who believes planes were a joke and battles were to be fought with guns... and his idiocy costed the lives of thousands of men...

[@elennapointer701]

@@TinKnight I've hear that D'Oyly-Hughes was a "battleship man" who didn't think aircraft carriers were particularly important. He was apparently in a hurry to get back to tghe Royal Navy's anchorage at Scapa Flow so that he could court-martial his air group commander, who he apparently saw as insubordinate. The air group commander had already been grounded and sent back to the UK before Narvik was evacuated, thus surviving the debacle. D'Oyly-Hughes' seeming eagerness to court-martial the other officer apparently took priority in his judgment over launching air patrols.

[@AlejandroGermanRodriguez]

@@elennapointer701 An old stuck officer and a battleship man but in command of a aircraft carrier. What can go wrong?

[@theoneandonlysoslappy]

It seems like it was nothing more or less than criminal ineptitude.

[@danteardenz2670]

Epic presentation. Direct information, presented with flair ,and understanding of the subject matter. Kreigsmarine surface operations are less famous then the U- Boat , and light forces actions during the conflict. Exploration of the actions of the German Disguised Raiders would be most fascinating. The Atlantis , commanded by Erich Rugge , and Michal , lee by Helmuth von Rockteshell, are two very colorful officers, operations very effective.. Of note on the Operation Juno : Admiral Marshall was a swashbuckling U- Boat commander in WWI who held the Pour Le Merit . Hugh Daley was a British Submsriner in WW I !

[@lochnessmonster5149]

Ben Barker(Grandson of Ardent Captain LT CMDR Barker): Glorious was attempting to carry out Churchill's Operation Paul. Glorious launched no planes because the Swordfish were not battleworthy and she had no other planes capable of launching from her deck. The 5 Swordfish brought to the deck were not armed, because they had been stripped and fuel tanks added to carryout Operation Paul. Glorious had no CAP because all the fighters were exlusively used to defend the convoy per Admiral Pound's orders. The only other planes onboard were RAF Hurricanes recovered from Norway and they were tightly stowed onboard ship. Devonshire did receive the SOS and did not pass it on to the Admiralty. The ship went to battlestations and picked up speed. The admiral sat in the corner and chain-smoked because he thought he would be punished for leaving Glorious to her fate. The British Admiralty was alerted by the Norwegians and Bletchley Park as to the launching of Operation Juno by the Germans. It was also detected by a RAF squadron but a warning was never sent. The ship was not racing back for a "courts martial". It was racing back to offload and pickup additional moddified Swordfish do conduct Operation Paul. The Glorious' captain only brought the court martial forward because air commander Heath refused the dry run for Operation Paul some days earlier. He was charged for "cowardice in the face of the enemy" even though it was a training mission and faced no enemy.(Operation Bottle) The captains of Ardent and Acasta were denied VCs because no senior officer witnesses survived the battle, even though according to official German sources, Ardent and Acasta acted heroically and skillfully while laying smoke for Glorious and torpedoing Scharnhorst. If you want to blame anyone for 1,500 deaths, blame Churchill and the 1st Sea Lord, because it was all their fault. Edit: Grammar

[@dovetonsturdee7033]

Unfortunately, whilst the story is entertaining, there is not one single shred of actual evidence to support it. Moreover, at the time of her sinking, Glorious had only around ten of her usual air group aboard, split between Sea Gladiators & Swordfish, because she was operating as a ferry carrier, which on this occasion had managed to land on number of RAF Gladiators and Hurricanes. Devonshire did not receive any SOS or, at least, German B-Dienst operators aboard Gneisenau stated that no acknowledgement was received from any British ship or shore station. 'The ship went to battlestations and picked up speed. The admiral sat in the corner and chain-smoked because he thought he would be punished for leaving Glorious to her fate.' That is simply made up, of course. 'The Glorious' captain only brought the court martial forward because air commander Heath refused the dry run for Operation Paul some days earlier. He was charged for "cowardice in the face of the enemy" even though it was a training mission and faced no enemy.' Again, nonsense. Heath had been ordered to prepare a plan for use of Swordfish aircraft in the ground attack role, in support of Allied troops in the Mosjoen-Jamo area, on 27 May. This was following receipt of a signal asking for this from Flag Officer, Narvik. Heath simply refused to produce a plan, stating that it was 'not a proper use of naval aircraft.' Ark Royal Commander (Air) had arranged similar operations, and the idea that British forces would refuse to support each other in action, as developed by Heath, was far from the norm. Heath, by the way, was never charged with anything, as there never was a court-martial. The Swordfish would have been armed with bombs, by the way. In no way at all was this any 'dry run for Operation Paul.' The blame for the sinking should be placed at the door of Glorious' captain, Guy D'Oyly-Hughes, rather than that of Churchill or Pound. Certainly, Churchill was keen on the idea of mining Swedish ports, but Glorious' actions which led to her sinking had precisely nothing to do with it. For much fuller, and accurate, information on Operation Paul, read Peter Hore's account, on ' Operation Paul - the Fleet Air Arm attack on Luleå in 1940.'

[@brokenbridge6316]

Such a tragic loss of life for the British. Great video. Glad to see that little known events of WWII have been covered.

[@Karottenregen]

Actualy strange that its so little known considering both the longest dustance hit and the longest distance naval kill with naval guns ever recorded happened during this engagement Longest range hit: scharnhorsts first hit over a distance of ~24km Longest range kill: gneisenau delivering the final blow over a 16km distance

[@loxleyproductions]

Including my Great Uncle. I am.curremtly working on a new documentary about this, they will not be forgotten.

[@brokenbridge6316]

@@loxleyproductions---Good luck

[@TomG1555]

My understanding is that the officers and crew of HMS Acasta and their valiant last stand (and subsequent loss of most of their complement) were not honored and largely ignored by the Royal Navy, even after the war, probably in part from a reluctance to draw attention to a defeat that was compounded by a number of errors which should not have happened on the part of the RN.

[@researchvesselservices2202]

Actually the awards documents for Acasta and Ardent explain why they were not awarded. It was the admiralty’s opinion that given the importance of the convoys to the North, after the Glorious had sank the Acasta should have shadowed and reported the Germans movements to protect the convoys to the North. Sacrificing the ship didn’t help…..not my opinion

[@DeaconBlu]

Great vid! Thank you!

[@williamhumphrey9692]

Hahaha! Every time I begin to think that I have learned all there is to know about WWII, A new story pops up. I somehow missed the documentary mentioned below and have never heard of this event before now. Thank you for this!

[@Karottenregen]

That engagement is also verry impressive due to scharnhorst scoring the longest recorded hit with naval guns and gneisemau scoring the longest distance naval kill during that engagement Scharnhorsts hit: ~26km Gneisenaus kill: over 16km

[@Martin77641]

Great video and good animation. Know the story and must say it seems that the Glorious was a victim to get the whole other fleet out of norway, more like planned to get her sunk and escape. The second convoy came home and was a massive fleet. Scharnhorst was hit in the battle with torpedoes and must repair. That resulted that the german ships must sail to port to repair Scharnhorst and the big convoy escaped in this time.

[@Chriscers]

I got inspired by HOF's battle animation especially those cute ww2 battleships on how they animated that filled my room with huge lego ww2 ships, I even spent almost like $300 on just lego battleships, Assembling it all day and after, I display it, Its really worth it

[@Hichatsu]

I wonder if you could do the heroic fight of HMS Glowworm against the Admiral Hipper

[@Ashleigh50]

A great 'what if'. WI: the carrier had a different captain, one who knew something of carrier operations. Or, if permission to depart early was refused and stayed with Ark Royal. Or, put up recce flights to scout for any danger. Or, if the 'Twins' were spotted by a RAF Coastal Command patrol - leasing to strikes by Ark Royal & Glorious aircraft.

[@waryth4475]

As if there's any great captains in the British Navy. All they do is send lots of warships since they don't have any skilled sailors. If it wasn't for that they rely on their allies for support which only lead them victory in war through someone else's effort.

[@zaren5210]

Love the videos, but I find it hard to believe that the aircraft carrier had a mooring point at Bardufoss (2:33), as it's far inland with no access to the sea. The closest mooring points would be Sørreisa, Sjøvegan or Finnsnes. However, there were planes from the RAF stationed at Bardufoss and Elvenes airfields. Maybe it was one of the squadrons was placed there temporarily or something.

[@robbabcock_]

Great video! All war is terrible but there must have been a special kind of horror as men realized they were trapped in a sinking coffin being pummeled by thousand pound shells!

[@acg1970]

Me ha encantado el documental. Muy buen trabajo. Enhorabuena desde España

[@BatMan-oe2gh]

The Brits were a bit arrogant in the early days of the war. Why the Carrier and Destroyers were not at battle stations heading home to be prepared for anything is beyond stupidity. Atsa minimum they should have had air patrols up, steaming at full speed, and plenty of lookouts, and the Swordfish armed and ready to go.

[@buk1237]

The whole thing is bizarre in terms of decision making

[@elennapointer701]

The captain of Glorious was not experienced as a carrier commander and didn't rate carriers very highly. He apparently resented being foced to captain what he saw as a glorified transport ship instead of the battleships he was trained on and much preferred. It didn't help that he's grounded his air group commander and was eager to get back to the UK in order to court-martial him.

[@philipthonemann2524]

Thanks for an interesting video!

[@DanielWW2]

Its not really surprising that Scharnhorst and Gneisenau where on target fast, accurate out to long range and where not really hindered by the smoke screens, when you know that both had functional multi purpose radar systems that could be used for both searching and gunnery. Something no other navy possessed in 1940. Those systems are also very poorly understood and often downplayed without any serious supporting argumentation. There is a lot, and I mean a lot of utter nonsense written and claimed about German radar systems.

[@edelmann4388]

actually the germans and the brits had their radar but used them both "not the best way". Regarding the frequency used german radar was far more suited for fire control than british but inteded to be used for surveillance. the british vice versa. also by frequency the german radar was more effected by weather, especially rain. Later in the war german efforts more tended to passive radar or detecting radar on warships, most on Uboats, than on development of active radar for attack. I support your opinion that as good the influence of Radar on allied side is known a understood - like Battle of Britainor sinking of the Scharnhorst - there is lots of it to discover or publish on german radar technology in WW2 for AntiAir and Naval use

[@DanielWW2]

@@edelmann4388 I think its far more fundamental than that. Seetakt fundamentally was multi purpose radar system. It was both surveillance and gunnery. These sets had two modes, one general search and the other for gunnery with much narrower bearing accuracy. And that is where the real question lays. Calais B FuMG 40G achieved 0.1 degrees of bearing accuracy in 1940. This was a land based Seetakt used for coastal gunnery. Now Bismarck and Prinz Eugen also seem to have been fitted with FuMG 40G before sailing out for Rheinübung. If that is the case, it would explain an awful lot about what happened to HMS Hood. It wasn't just Bismarck which was on target so fast. Prinz Eugen was even faster and Prinz Eugen its radar was known to be functional. Another issue is the magnetron and centimetric radar. The Germans started off with a magnetron and experiments with 13.5cm and 48cm wavelengths. After the successful 1935 trials in front of the Raeder with 48cm, GEMA decided to temporarily abandon the magnetron and opted for triodes, eventually settling on the 82cm wavelength. They didn't do that because nobody believed centimetric radar was impossible. They did that because magnetrons are inherently unstable and experience frequency drifts. That was causing issues with achieving range. So GEMA accepted the lower, more stable power delivered by triodes and upped the wavelengths. This was very much opposed by the NVA, a German navy research organisation. They wanted centimetric and narrow beams because they would allow much smaller antennas. Meanwhile Hans Hollman published two books about his magnetron and some applications. Much to the dismay of the German navy. That seems to have inspired magnetron and centimetric radar development in the UK. Another accidental discovery in detecting an aircraft, would lead to Freya. Freya started off as a 2m wavelength air search radar, eventually being fixed at 1.2m. Meanwhile within the German navy, a debate started how to best employ radar. Fleet command favoured the tactical possibilities of radar like situational awareness and emphasised maximum range, willing to give up some bearing accuracy. The weapons office wanted maximum accuracy and a focus on gunnery. GEMA managed to achieve both in Seetakt, thus also settling the issue. That is another key point that is often missed in these discussions. Because the RN and USN had search radar first and developed separate gunnery systems later, does not mean that is the only way to do it. The Germans had a multi purpose system from the start. Later on, they also started developing separate tactical surveillance radars. For that application, centimetric radar proved to be quite an improvement. That is the element the Germans where behind. But it was not their development emphasis or goal. They tried centimetric radar for gunnery, but eventually achieved both gunnery and surveillance with decimetric wavelengths. The Germans came from the opposite direction, starting off with surface detection, then going for gunnery, later followed by aircraft detection. The US and UK had a completely different development trajectory. Not basing their radar on the magnetron, did allow the Germans to develop into other directions. For example the Germans combined Freya with Würzburg for fighter direction. Würzburg was a narrow beam 53-54cm air search and directing system that later was also developed into a AA gunnery radar. The idea was that Freya would detect enemy aircraft at very long ranges and Würzburg would do the more fine direction finding and ascertaining coordinates for vectoring in fighters or searchlights. Mannheim would be your more dedicated AA gunnery system, based upon Würzburg. Würzburg Riese would also allow AA gunnery. The big one (pun intended) would be the further development of Freya into Mammut. That is a phased array. Making a phased array with a magnetron, would be difficult to say the least. I doubt it would be possible with WW2 technology and modern phased arrays don't use magnetrons either. I also have seen some murmurs that the late war FuMO 26 as fitted on Tirpitz and Prinz Eugen, was also a phased array. I don't know that for sure, but it could be possible seeing as Seetakt and Freya where closely related. But from what I have seen, FuMO 26 seems to have been very long range and accurate out to very long ranges. If you want to know more, well this is probably the best book on German radar out there: books.google.nl/books?id=fzHpBwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=nl&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

[@robwernet9609]

I believe this was one of only 2 ever carriers sunk in a surface action by gunfire during ww2. Both being British flat-tops if im not mistaken. Im not entirely sure about that...or the number of cv's (fleet carriers as opposed to escort carriers) sunk by gunfire. Could have been as many as 3.

[@marcussamborski7472]

For some reason I thought the HMS glorious was sunk by a U-boat. I had no idea it fell prey to Scharnhorst and Gneisenau. I knew the Royal navy lost a couple carriers to uboat attacks but I never knew that they had lost one to enemy surface units.

[@GarrickKing-w2s]

Her sister ship, Courageous, was lost to a U Boat months prior so you weren’t far off. Others being Ark Royal (terrible damage control) and Eagle.

[@vampi-chan3793]

@@GarrickKing-w2s fun fact, HMS Courageous was the first british warship that the germans sunk in ww2, and 3 days before HMS Ark Royal was almost sunk by U-39 but was unsuccesful.

[@yukotani7871]

Small problem gneisenau isnt a battlecruiser since shes equipped with 3x 15 inch guns while her sistership scharnhorst is a 212mm making her a battlecruiser

[@LordKingPotato]

Would love to see you do a video on "Battle of North Cape". Keep up the hard work, love your content 👏

[@jonshive5482]

With the exception of "escort carriers" (i.e. converted merchant ships) ambushed at Leyte Gulf in 1944 this must've been the only time surface ships managed to close in on the new Queens of the Sea. Had Glorious' flight deck not been so overloaded with aircraft she would've been able to keep a Combat Air Patrol aloft constantly during daylight. Quite ironic, no?

[@legoeasycompany]

Outside of the aftermath of the Battle of Santa Cruz islands with USS Hornet (or what was left of her) you are correct. Although I find it highly amusing about Cape Matapan where the RN brought in HMS Formidable into the line of battle with the QE class, AND she actually got to exchange some shots with her DP artillery mounts. I mean the lack of CAP is one thing but the captain didn't even have a look out posted in the crow's nest, basically the captain himself doomed the ship. He chose to leave early when he could have waited for the evacuation convoy the next day and the failure of the look outs not being posted

[@dovetonsturdee7033]

Actually No. Her decks were not crowded, as the RAF aircraft she had collected had been taken below. However, Glorious only seems to have had around ten of her usual Air Group aboard.

[@jonshive5482]

@@legoeasycompany Thanks for the clarification.

[@jonshive5482]

@@dovetonsturdee7033 Gotcha. Thanks.

[@dovetonsturdee7033]

@@jonshive5482 There is a useful, if slightly old, book about the sinking of HMS Glorious, called 'Carrier Glorious' and written by John Winton, which shows that a number of the assumptions made by people in posts on here are inaccurate. Please don't think I am an admirer of d'Oyly-Hughes, by the way. Only that I can understand some of his actions.

[@wiggydj100]

Great video. The only suggestion I have is the volume of the background music can be distracting to what your actually saying. Apart from that thoroughly enjoyed this video.

[@HoH]

Noted!

[@sillyone52062]

So sensitive is the Royal Navy about this event, the report about will be classified for decades yet.

[@sonnyjim5268]

Pure incompetence to allow a carrier to travel without proper escorts. At a minimum, CAPs should have been up.

[@jonshive5482]

Yeah but an overcrowded flight deck interfered with routine flight operations.

[@dovetonsturdee7033]

@@jonshive5482 No, it wasn't. Oh, and define 'proper escorts.'

[@jonshive5482]

@@dovetonsturdee7033 My understanding was that fixed-wing Hurricanes interfered with flight operations. Could be wrong. You'll have to ask the OP what he/she meant by "proper escorts."

[@dovetonsturdee7033]

@@jonshive5482 No. The reason for using Glorious as opposed to Ark Royal was precisely because the Hurricanes could be taken below using her wider lifts. Previously, carriers sailing to and from Norway had not had significant escorts.

[@sonnyjim5268]

@@dovetonsturdee7033 Proper escorts would be enough force to defend itself against an enemy capable of sinking a carrier.

[@thorstenreich1280]

Why do you tell at the very beginning that Glorious was first detected by radar (wrong) and later in the video that the first detection was made by a lookout (correct)?🤔

[@NoNamefree123]

Great video. One thing, german ships were either Battlecruisers or Battleships. They can not be both. You used those interchangeably which is incorrect. In fact they were both battleships.

[@FIJIKILO0]

Rare case of capital ships defeating an aircraft carrier in WW2.

[@HORMOVAS]

Great video thank you! Can you make a video for the naval battle of Elli and Limnos? With the legendary Battleship G. Averof

[@HoH]

Do you have any good sources regarding that war?

[@hannesromhild8532]

Averof is a mediocre armored Cruiser and sure as hell no Battleship.

[@HORMOVAS]

@@HoH Please send me your email and I will send you

[@HORMOVAS]

@@hannesromhild8532 So what? This ship crushed the Turkish fleet twice by itself

[@hannesromhild8532]

@@HORMOVAS Yeah not as impressive as you think.

[@jonny-b4954]

How you gonna escort a carrier with only 2 destroyers?

[@TinKnight]

Much like not having any aircraft aloft, I suspect they were assuming no threats since they hadn't been told there was a threat. And so they were just trying to get back to Britain as quickly as they could, rather than forming a proper escort. Still seems mind-blowing, since U-boats were already an ongoing threat in the area even without the surface fleet.

[@dovetonsturdee7033]

It rather depends what you are ecorting the carrier against.

[@xxnightdriverxx9576]

In addition to thinking the waters were safe, there is also the problem of "what ships can we spare for escort"? The UK in 1940 wasn't exactly in a good position naval wise; they were stretched thin fighting on 3 fronts, with most of their emergency pre war construction programs not yet completed (no King George V class for example, and only a small part of their new cruiser and destroyer force).

[@hellhound47bravo3]

The Courageous and and her sister Glorious were tragic tales indeed. One was lost due to poor tactics. The other, it seems to me, was the victim of total incompetence.

[@scroch6512]

Great Video. I don't want to be a grammar nazi, but "Schlachtschiffe" is plural. Gneisenau and Scharnorst were "Schlachtschiffe" (Battleships) but just 1 of them would be a Schlachschiff (Battleship). You get what I mean? E.g.: at 3:28 you say "...including the schlachtschiffe gneisenau..." but it should be just "schlachtschiff" without the e. You used the plural while only talking about a single ship. It's just a minor thing and all, so nothing crazy. I just wanted to clarify for the future.

[@johnpauljones4190]

I would like to watch a video abaout the Teutonic Knights from you. Example :Battle on the Ice. Which is very iconc in the Teutonic Knights history.

[@HoH]

I created this video 4.5 years ago (wow, time flies) before I learned how to animate videos. Maybe you'll enjoy it: kzbin.info/www/bejne/joGzfIWcYtWho5Y

[@johnpauljones4190]

@@HoH oh, so you wont make more videoes abaout the Teutonic Knights?

[@HoH]

@@johnpauljones4190 I didn't say that

[@johnpauljones4190]

@@HoH okay. Thank you. I waiting for that video.

[@kcstafford2784]

wish there was some way to turn down the background music...

[@andreiversus]

Scharnhorst is an Admiral Hipper - class?

[@vampi-chan3793]

Scharnhorst is a Scharnhorst-class battleship.

[@PaulinAsia_]

How about a video on the Battle of Cartagena de Indias in 1741 Thanks

[@italianspaghett4359]

it seems that fear is an alien concept to the british destroyer crews

[@volk4all805]

The Germans all saluted the destroyer crew for their bravery in trying to protect glorious

[@hannesromhild8532]

nonsense. nobody had time or even an opportunity to do such in the middle of a Battle or even after.

[@seanfair1975]

Great video again how about the bismark story or the graf spee

[@t.sievers1024]

Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were no battleships. They we're classified as Battlecruisers according to the main batteries and Armour. Btw, a carrier without air support was a sitting duck for them.

[@crownprincesebastianjohano7069]

This is incorrect. The Scharnhorst Class were fast battleships. Their armor was relatively the same as the Bismarck Class, with the S'Horst Class actually having a thicker belt. Their armament of 11-inch C/34s was an expedient measure as the ships were completed before its 15-inch guns were and the demands of the war meant the change-over, intended since the design was accepted, never happened. The 11-inch guns were ready for use because they had been ordered for the D-Class Large Cruisers that were the follow-up class to the Deutschland Class, but were then upgraded and upsized to the point that Hitler demanded a proper battleship with 15-inch guns. The order and materials for the D-Class were changed to the Scharnhorst Class.

[@IRLangmaid25]

Has the wrecks of all three ships ever been found.

[@TheCommanderswat]

Yaaaaaay. I think I suggested that video on a former video not too long ago :)

[@ThePrader]

The state of HMS Glorious preparedness, or lack thereof, would have meant a GCM in the USN for "hazarding his vessel", and his two consorts. But you cannot Court-Martial a dead man. The only upside of this slaughter was that she hadn't taken aboard any of the men from Narvlk.

[@istoppedcaring6209]

note to anyone in power, don't assume that a daring capable submarine captain would make a capable aircraft carrier commander, I have to give it to Churchill for promoting a commoner to such a position but he wasn't the man for the job, the skillsets required are different

[@Longislandenjoyer]

The battleships should have stopped for survivors or to drop boats, but at least they thought someone was coming for the brits. Scharnhorst was hit with the old irony stick later when her own crew was left for dead just the same by the British, for the threat of submarines in the area.

[@wolf2912]

Can you do Battle of Narva 1700 ?

[@robertmann9822]

d'Oyly-Hughes was hastening home to court-martial his Cdr (flying), Heath, who had been left in limbo on another ship, not having been charged with any offence. A key error: the little-mentioned Vice-Adm Wells, in command of the carriers, should have refused permission for d'Oyly-Hughes to depart Norway with only 2 escorts. The case should be a prime example for discussing in staff colleges the criteria for removing senior officers from command.

[@josephdans7120]

Did Glorious have a radar system?

[@researchvesselservices2202]

No

[@xxnightdriverxx9576]

Most ships at that time didn't have radar yet

[@johnmarcantolin5847]

Can you do the battle of manila bay? Thanks if you do it 😊

[@TheSmittenman]

The problem was Glorious wasn't even steaming with all her boilers lit, else she could have outrun her attackers. Bad choices from her Captain in wartime

[@kristelvidhi5038]

Gambier Bay was the next Carrier to get sunked by gun ships in action. Yamato deserved that win, but she was denied her only chance.

[@patrickthoma5320]

Thank you!

[@I_Love_YouA]

Scharnhorst is a Battleship not a battle cruiser

[@davidhughes8357]

Sad to hear about the fate of Captain Hughes!

[@zillsburyy1]

8:35

[@Korinthian-do7sx]

They were battleships, you even wrote them yourself as Schlact=battle schiff= ship.

[@bkjeong4302]

A battle that only happened because of human stupidity, not because carriers were actually vulnerable to letting battleships get close enough to them to shoot.

[@chadrowe8452]

Carriers without CAP is silly.

[@velesquad4253]

Dude May I Request New Section : the What If Section? Like What if at Indian Ocean Raid ( What if Force A Was Get Spotted By Japan's Reconnaissance Plane and they were in Range of Japanese Strike Plane attack base from Carrier? Like Will Force A Lead Ship i mean like HMS Warspite and Illustrious Class Carrier that Participate on Indian Ocean will be sunk? And it was sunk what the dominos effect for Kriegsmarine Campaign On Atlantic Sea? Thanks I Just Wondered Cause i'm curious

[@СергейЮрьевич161]

4:53

[@AntonioOwens-q4v]

Do a video about the 452 Australia squadron in ww2

[@evgenylaptev2534]

Практически все знают про героический поход "Бисмарка" и только единицы знают имена командиров "Акасты" и "Ардента", двух героических эсминцев доказывающих что Британию называли "Владычицей морей" не за красивые мундиры!

[@desert_fox5641]

Lost is due to the incompetent of the commander. No observer plane is launch.

[@DaHuuudge]

You know, France gets a lot of criticism for its mistakes in this war, but the British conduct of the war early on may have been even worse. They routinely blundered away sizable advantages in numbers and equipment, while overpromising and under delivering aid to their allies, thus setting them up for defeat.

[@patrickhamilton9242]

The British use of aircraft carriers in the early war was absolutely deplorable. Small strikes via aircraft with abhorrently small escorts. Neither mistake was ever made by the US during the war.

[@neues3691]

@@patrickhamilton9242 I wouldn't limit it to carriers either. The Royal Navy's performance from 1939 to about 1941 was substandard to put it mildly. Especially Norway should have never fallen to a Germany whose naval assets were extremly limited.

[@bingobongo1615]

I mean… the defeat at Singapore is probably the most embarrassing of the whole war - however the British did embarrass the Italians in NA

[@vespelian]

By all accounts D'Oyly-Hughes had serious mental issues and the admiralty were keep to get him back and relieve him of his command though just who his sponcer was and exactly what happened behind the remains classified.

[@zetectic7968]

It was a RN blunder to put in charge of the Glorious a man who didn't understand the importance of naval air power. The hurricanes on deck made it more difficult to launch aircraft but it was still negligent not to have air cover. By the time the 2 German pocket battleship were spotted HMS Glorious was steaming with the wind thus was not able to launch any aircraft without turning & steaming towards the enemy. The destroyer captains did their duty & paid the price. The whole Norway campaign was another Churchill led fiasco. So many lives lost for no gain.

[@dovetonsturdee7033]

D'Oyly-Hughes was one of very few senior officers in the Royal Navy who had learned to fly, and between 1931 & 1934 he had been first Executive Officer of HMS Courageous, and then seconded to the Air Ministry for a time. The Hurricanes were not on deck, they had been taken below, using Glorious' wider lifts.

[@notthefbi7932]

Britannia really didn't rule the seas after WWI 😬

[@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684]

Erm.... I think you'll find that to use a contemporary phrase the German Kriegsmarine in WW2 "fucked about and found out" from the Royal Navy.

[@sheilah4525]

Battle……. CRUISERS you inexpert ship classifier, you.

[@johncarlson3061]

Please 🙏 do a video on the 380th's raid on Bailikpan!

[@Russianist525]

it's balikpapan dude

[@meeksvaughan1398]

Man this is the RN's Savo Island equivalent. A tragic set of unforced errors.

[@interceptor212]

Das muß auf der Glorius die Hölle gewesen sein.

[@francomundkowsky4913]

The map at sec 58 is wrong. Parts of italy are now port of the greater germany and other parts are missing instead. Thats definetly wrong and needed fixing.

[@timucintarakc2281]

didnt knew germans sank a carrier.

[@beepboop204]

[@DaveSCameron]

Doylly Floozies

[@REgamesplayer]

You would think that ships would sail in task forces back when combined arms in naval warfare mattered. Well, Germans were never that great with whole naval business to begin with. They sent two battleships without adequate scouts or screens resulting in a torpedo hits which took out BB for remainder of the war. Just bunch of raiders. They fought like raiders and died like ones too. Such a waste of resources and effort. German naval build up didn't mattered more than capturing Norway. All the rest was just submarine nuisance.

[@BelaM27X11]

Battlecruisers... AAAAHHHHHAAHHH

[@Tyrone-hq6dr]

Really ? I thought France conducted a very proffesional. Surrender what,s to critisize ?