Weird Russian and Soviet Battleships

[@ImportantNavalHistory]

Hey all thanks for watching! This is the last video I recorded while I was at home. So, starting next week I might sound slightly different as I adapt my audio to my room up at my University. Oops, had a bit of an audio goof during the Empress Maria Class portion, sorry about that!

[@NathanStickney-xv6dy]

NicE job

[@vampirecount3880]

7:48 Love the fact that the Ship design to counter the German High Seas Fleet would have its armor imported from... germany. The world was a weirder place back in the day lol.

[@ImportantNavalHistory]

It certainly was an odd place. One of Krupp’s largest clients was the Tsarist regime. Selling all manner of military equipment, cannon, armor, etc. The Arms of Krupp is an excellent book and I’d highly recommend it! Although, might want the audio book version, it’s very long!

[@vampirecount3880]

@@ImportantNavalHistory Thanks for the recommendation, i will try to find myself a copy.

[@petrpinc7695]

"It's just a good bussiness." - Lord Cutler Beckett of East India Trading Company

[@vbtktr]

Few more weird fact "Mother of German Emperor" was elder sister of "Father of British Emperor" and "Mother of British Emperor" was sister of "Mother of Russian Emperor". One way they all were grandchildren of "Queen Victoria" of England and eldest among them was "German Emperor". I didn't used names.

[@Einwetok]

It still is. Where do you think we get our titanium from?

[@TheRealRedAce]

That torpedo Battleship looks like an explosion waiting to happen!

[@vampirecount3880]

Thats one of the reasons the Torps were underwater. Water is the most effective armor a ship can have from enemy cannons.

[@TheRealRedAce]

@@vampirecount3880 It takes a certain amount of water to detonate a big shell which if armour piercing will have a small delay. Hits in the area close enough to the torpedo storage area could still penetrate the thin armour. Of course it isn't intended to face much gunfire - but it wouldn't stand up well to a mine or torpedo.

[@vampirecount3880]

​@@TheRealRedAce I don't know the math required to judge how deep an artillery shell can penetrate in water. But I do know the armor profiles of battleships, and these battleships have no armor at all below the waterline, with the exception, in some warships, of composite armor containers known as Torpedo Belts, which are designed to protect against torpedoes and mines, but in this ships case, the tubes were bellow even where a Torpedo Belt might be. So it would be as safe as it can get. If you look at the blueprints of this 'torpedo battleship' (5:02) you will see that the torpedo tubes are below the armor line, both on this ship and where the armor would be on any other battleship ever designed. So it can be concluded that the tubes are at a depth considered safe for enemy artillery. No ship have armor where the tubes on this ship would be. Now, about 'not intended to face much gunfire', it was actually the opposite. It was intended to withstand heavy fire while it rushed the enemy battleline, launch his torpedo salvo, and withdraw. Thats why they required a Battleship in the first flace. Traditionally a cruiser or destroyer would do the job, but both classes of ships couldn't get close enough to hit their torpedoes without being obliterated by the enemy battle line. A battleship could do it. That was the theory for this ship.

[@TheRealRedAce]

@@vampirecount3880 ALL battleships had armour below the waterline. It would be ridiculous not to. The sea isn't flat, but has deep troughs when rough, exposing the side of the ship well below the waterline and ships also heel in a seaway, especially when turning, exposing even more. In the battle of Denmark strait, a shell from Bismarck was a dud. It hit the sea about 80-100' from Prince Of Wales and was later found embedded in the side of the ship's bottom when she drydocked. Those Russian ships were NOT intended to face much gunfire, their armour was a bit thin for that. Torpedoes usually had a range longer than the effective accurate range of even Battleship guns. They would have been lunched in mass from outside the accurate gun range, receiving one or two hits at best and probably none. In WW2 two Japanese cruisers, for example IJS Kitakami, were fitted with mass torpedo tubes like these Russian ships. The torpedo tubes were quad mounts, five each side for a total of 40, in exposed mounts ON DECK. The ships had only light cruiser armour and again were not intended to get within effective gun range, relying on mass numbers of torpedoes to get hits at long range. This is also the way destroyer squadrons launched mass torpedo attacks in fleet battles; something which made these Russian torpedo battleships and the Japanese cruisers rather pointless as a handful of destroyers could launch an equal mass of torpedoes, without the vulnerability of a single large ship..

[@vampirecount3880]

@@TheRealRedAce 1-"ALL battleships had armour below the waterline" -Then look at the plans. Some indeed had spaced protection to counter torps and mines, as i said. 2-"The sea isn't flat, but has deep troughs when rough, exposing the side of the ship" -Indeed, but you can't protect every inch with armor. The logic of armor is to find the areas most likely to be hit and/or most vital and focus your protection there. You'll have to give up some parts. 3-"It hit the sea about 80-100' from Prince Of Wales" -Yes, and guess what? There was no armor whatsoever at that part. King George V class battleships have almost no armor whatsoever below the main belt. 4-"Torpedoes usually had a range longer than the effective accurate range of even Battleship guns." -Yes, good luck predicting an enemy's course 20 minutes in advance though. A typical WWI torpedo would take 20 minutes to travel the distance an artillery shell would in do 10 seconds... 5-"This is also the way destroyer squadrons launched mass torpedo attacks in fleet battles" Yeah but if you launch your torps at max range, you run into the problem of your fire solution taking half an hour to reach the target. If you get closer to be more effective you run into the problem of not surviving the retaliation. The Russian Battleship's solution described in the video was to get close enough to launch an effective torpedo salvo AND survive long enough to get back to the Allied battle line. Not saying it would work, not saying it would be optimal, I am merely reiterating the point made in the video.

[@madsaadsa7647]

Cheers mate on another fine video. You are a bloody legend for putting so much effort in and the quality productions are a testament to this, in my opinion. You do all this while studying at university which astounds me with your energy and endurance, not to mention, time management. Respect, mate, respect!!

[@ImportantNavalHistory]

Thank you, your comments are always a joy to read! I think I’ve said it in the comments before, but making these videos is a great way for me to get away from the grind of university studies and an added bonus of teaching me time management skills I would never have otherwise. A very valuable skill most my age do not possess.

[@richardcutts196]

To be fair both the Russian and Soviet govt.s were not afraid to look at unusual designs and new ideas. They often didn't work out, however that was usually because the tech had not advanced enough to make them practical not because the ideas were bad.

[@greycatturtle7132]

Yea

[@NayuzAqua]

You... you saying that a circle shaped ship was a good idea?

[@richardcutts196]

@@NayuzAqua No, however it was a new idea and they tried it but it didn't work. Sometimes you don't know if something will work until you try it. The point is they didn't automatically reject something just because it was new or different.

[@jonnyblayze5149]

No, they were bad ideas

[@NashmanNash]

If noone ever tried it,or everyone tells you it is a stupid idea,than it is most of the time a stupid idea

[@waynesworldofsci-tech]

Considering Imperial Russian shipbuilding, I’d be really nervous about sailing on something with 84 underwater torpedo tubes. The possibility of leaks is, um, scary.

[@ImportantNavalHistory]

Same here!

[@Dilley_G45]

The chain reaction of 80 torpedos exploding...

[@waynesworldofsci-tech]

@@Dilley_G45 Um, yes. I learned not to install torpedo tubes on battleships in UAD.

[@Dilley_G45]

@@waynesworldofsci-tech I never played but I'd like to

[@waynesworldofsci-tech]

@@Dilley_G45 Fun game. I play too much 😜

[@coolawesomeepicman4513]

There is probably no sadder fate than the post-Tsushima Russian navy. Russia did actually possess a pretty formidable fleet by the beginning of the war, mostly modern battleships built within the last few years, and after the Russian empire collapsed, and the absolute gutting of the naval department by Stalin during the purges, the Russian navy has been plagued by being well staffed, with smart officers, but is constantly tarnished by poor upper-management decisions which have led to the total state of disrepair it has found itself in up to this day. The Russian Empire could've built a full class new dreadnought battleships before the start of the war, the soviet navy struggled just to maintain the ships they had.

[@NayuzAqua]

And the ships they got were thrown into a poor state. The italian battleship (I think it was Giuliu Cesare?) and that Omaha-Class cruiser were ruined in their hands 💀

[@ImportantNavalHistory]

To be fair to them with Cesare, the Italians handed her over in terrible condition with almost none of the damage control documents and other missing equipment. Tough to maintain a battleship without the proper equipment to do so.

[@NayuzAqua]

@@ImportantNavalHistory Not lime they would take proper care in the end. Even an Omaha in good condition didn't survived 💀 But yeah. This part of Cesare's I didn't knew.

[@karl3998]

@@ImportantNavalHistory even with all the equipment lack of training for the class can be enough to ruin a ship. Look at all the trouble the USN had with Prinz Eugen - you can hardly claim that the USN of 1945/46 didn't know how to operate a heavy cruiser. Still a completely unfamiliar machine layout, unfamiliar systems that were tricky to run even for a trained crew...

[@sniperboom1202]

​@@karl3998 if I remember correctly the main problem was America ships had much lower temperature boilers in their heavy cruisers and light cruisers. But the Germans relied on a slightly old system that had to be run at more extreme temperatures. Any slight mishandling of that would easily cripple a ship enough to need dry docking.

[@JGCR59]

Iankov stuck around Saint Petersburg, when he thought it was time for a change ;)

[@Rudkovsky78]

Iankov was pleased to meet us but he hoped we would guess his name 😂

[@CliveN-yr1gv]

Empress Maria was interesting and the torpedo ship was good too. Great leadership too in progressing the idea for further development. How often does that happen now?! Thanks for another fascinating doco. I'm keen to know more about those circular monitors. Navigation must have been fun. How do you turn to port of its circular? Which side would that be? 😂 have a great week 👍🏽

[@ImportantNavalHistory]

Oh yeah, navigating those bad boys was no easy task, and certainly not for the faint of heart! Always appreciate you Clive!

[@richardcutts196]

Coming for the 10th anniversary of WoWS... The Russian torpedo battleship, 4x3 30cm guns and 64 8km range torpedo tubes. LOL

[@bigsarge2085]

Always interesting!

[@ThommyofThenn]

Correct

[@jlawsl]

I hate bringing up a game in a historical video but its amazing that a supposed historically accurate game, that doesn't put in fake stats or vehicles keeps putting paper Soviet battleships and battlecruisers in. They also make their guns way too overpowered for their size.

[@KonradCurse88]

Is it WoWs you are talking about? Cause it was never historicaly accurate)

[@jlawsl]

@@KonradCurse88 War Thunder. They will add vehicles that were at least partially made. So, for example, the Krondstadt was laid down but never completed. The guns were supposed to come from Germany, but the outbreak of war stopped that. So, the ship was modelled with guns that never existed and given stats that were probably way too good for their actual design. The WT designers said that they will only add historically accurate vehicles that, at least, had a prototype, but they really stretch it with ships.

[@soristrufas6571]

​@@jlawslI mean, without it Russia France and Italy would probably fall way behind the other nations sooner or later. France had a very big gap between their last ww1 dreadnoughts and the ww2 Dunkerque. They will probably need to put something in between. The russians have it even worse. And it's quite clear china Israel and Sweden will not have a naval line to begin with. So I guess In just this scenario I'll allow it

[@sisconomega153]

@@jlawsl They abandoned the "historucally accurate vehicles only" a long time ago lol. The reason? stuff like ww2 era soviet bluewater and japanese ww2 ground forces would suck HARD.

[@1987phillybilly]

Another great video there! Russian/Soviet naval history is such a hoggepodge of things it's cool to learn it

[@ImportantNavalHistory]

Once I figure out some more reliable sources, it’ll be even more fun!

[@TheAnticlinton]

Will you do a video about the soviet kirov class cruisers, who despite being lightly armored, survived massive damage in. Ww2 from mines, bombs or torpedos, and still survived, due to excellent soviet damage control? Also the successful soviet efforts to put back the storozhevoy and minsk destroyers with extremely meager resources, despite one receiving catastrophic damage and the other being sunk, is worth a video too.

[@ImportantNavalHistory]

I’d love to cover these ships. However, Soviet sources are limited. If you could recommend some sources, preferably books, I’d be more than happy to look into it!

[@TheAnticlinton]

@@ImportantNavalHistory Unfortunately there are no english sources going into detail about their service lives, but I will list them. Hopefully there are pdfs online which can be translated. This book goes into more detail goes into more detail about the damage control of the maksim gorky and molotov cruisers: From Kirov to Kagonovich: Soviet Cruisers of the Great Patriotic War Глущенко В. И. В базу вернулся своим ходом Regarding the honestly insane saving of the destroyer storozhevoy after a torpedo from an eboat detonated her entire forward magazines and blew off the entire bow together with most of the conning tower, this book has detailed info regarding it: Legendary Sevens: Stalin's Destroyer Series

[@RICHARDSIMMONS.tRICKy]

I admire, and enjoy, your channel greatly, and would like to see you research, and cover, the English "coastal" monitors , some of which had massive guns and other categories of weapons" They were also, I have noticed, used to bombard coastal areas of Europe on occasion? If true, I would love to have that recognised for the world to be aware of! Well done, as always, herein! It's tRICKy here, & Aussie too, though irrelevant! Thank you!

[@ImportantNavalHistory]

You’re in luck! I’ve covered a large number of monitors on the channel!

[@brianmutcher9585]

Good video, have you ever thought of videos on some of the Canadian navy ships, including those of WW2 including the flower class corvettes or tribal class destroyers?

[@ImportantNavalHistory]

I’ve actually covered both! They’re both 2 years old and not great quality. But, the information is good!

[@kennethquinnies6023]

Tell me if they ever build a battleship as good as the ones we built. During WW2 their fleet basically sucked.

[@alexejzemtsev5774]

Зачем ??? С наличием Гиперзвукового оружия, даже Авианосец превратился в Дорогое Корыто --- Мишень !!!

[@SRDPS2]

@@alexejzemtsev5774 motherfu*k missile in WWII? (patriotic war in Russian language)? wow, how enlighted

[@mahbriggs]

A broadside of 42 torpedoes would have been interresting! Especially if they had the later Japanese Long Lance torpedo! Perhaps it is a good thing the Japanese never tried it!

[@kirgan1000]

Can you explaine then a torpedoe Battelship is more usfull then corresponding tonnage/resources in conventional Destroyers?

[@mahbriggs]

@@kirgan1000 Intimidation power! Which is more imposing? A handful of teeny tiny boats or a battleship? A battle ship wouldn't be bothered much by the small caliber weapons that could take out a torpedo boat. It would take heavy caliber weapons. Besides, I never claimed it would be practical, just interesting! What do you think of a Japanese battleship armed with 84 Long Lance torpedo tubes?

[@NayuzAqua]

​@@mahbriggs thing is. It's easier for the tiny ships to do a fast attack and have succes in using it's torpedoes 😂 There's a reason that DD were a problem to an enemy fleet.

[@mahbriggs]

@NayuzAqua Mostly by surprise! Look at what happened to the destroyers that defended Taffy Three in the Battle off Samar! While the Destroyers and Destroyer Escorts delayed and confused the Japanese force, they did not drive it off or do it serious damage! It was the unrelenting air attack that increased in intensity as more land based aircraft got involved that convinced the Japanese to retreat! That and the belief they had seriously damaged the American fleet by sinking several fleet carriers and cruisers rather than small escort carriers and DDs! At night, when they can sneak in by surprise, a destroyer can do a lot! But in daylight, a battleships small caliber weapons, and those of its escorts are expressly designed to sink or drive off enemy destroyers! With more modern radar, the ability to attack at night becomes even less likely. Go back to WW1 in the Batle off Jutland, while the threat of torpedo attack by destroyers forced various manuvers by the fleets, they did little damage. And that was when they were the most effective! Limited visibility and no radar! Don't get me wrong, they were important in that they forced maneuvers and were a threat that couldn't be ignored, but they did little actual damage. Again during the Battle of Tsushima, the night actions of the Japanese torpedo boats were mostly ineffective. Now imagine a Battleship armed with a broad side of 42 Long Lance torpedoes that have a range of effective Battleship main guns! A spread of 42 torpedoes just might be rather effective! As I said, perhaps it is a good thing the Japanese never built one! As it turned out, air power eventually ended the reign of the battleship, and guided missiles that of surface torpedo attacks.

[@NayuzAqua]

@@mahbriggs Would be shit. There's a reason no one made a Torpedo Battleship.

[@PatrickCosta-q1v]

Really enjoy your videos except your reliance on using metric for all your descriptions would like you to use ft and inches as well

[@ImportantNavalHistory]

It depends on the nation. If I'm doing the USN or Royal Navy, I will use imperial units. However, for nations like Russia, Germany, France, etc. I will use metric. I've done both in the past and it just takes way too long. Another factor is a large portion, if not the majority of my audience uses metric.

[@kirgan1000]

4:20 imagine if there was a smale fast cheap combatant, armed with torpedos and light guns. That you can build in large number, to escort your line of battel, and to attack the enemy line of battel with torpedoes. How will this Battelship defend itself agenst a large number of hostile destroyers? Then it trying to close with the enemy line of battel? Cant see it working even if the Germans do not know. Destoyer torpedo the Battelship that is closing in to ram.

[@geoguy001]

early italian dreadnoughts inspire gangut turret layout

[@greycatturtle7132]

My favorite story is Royal Sovereign returnning like those teens who go to university in one shape and return tottaly change 😂😂

[@tangofox7124]

A torpedo battleship! "World of warships".......yes we can do that!

[@Einwetok]

Would have made a Michael bay worthy boom when it took a hit. Might as well have put Katjusha's on deck.

[@JeffreyWilliams-dr7qe]

These large Battleships would have made no difference aganist The Japanese. Torpedo Battleship, where is the fire control anyway? Naval version air force desperate bizarre interwar aircraft. Intresting!

[@TheDgamesD]

the eventual fate of Giulio Cesare in russian service still saddens me to this day

[@JeffreyWilliams-dr7qe]

Didn't the RN loan HMS. Royal Sovreign to friendly Russian allies? Not alot of TLC from sharp Russian sailors.

[@ImportantNavalHistory]

Royal Oak would have difficult to loan in 1944 unfortunately.

[@JeffreyWilliams-dr7qe]

@ImportantNavalHistory Not sure ? Mentioned in Decline of British power as good example of just more bad luck for the RN ,since 1915. Good Book! Thanks.

[@ImportantNavalHistory]

Well, I was getting at the fact Royal Oak was sunk in 1939 in Scapa Flow. Hope you enjoyed the video!

[@JeffreyWilliams-dr7qe]

@@ImportantNavalHistory Point was clear. Thanks!

[@yxmichaelxyyxmichaelxy3074]

The Soviet Navy ranked right at the very bottom of importance in the Soviet military. The Soviet Union were a LAND POWER.

[@FlyingPigeon-00001]

Most sane Russian BB plans:

[@Backwardlooking]

👍🏻🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿

[@RelaxinRepairin]

ah the famous suicidal swiss cheese hull super battleship!!! Every sailor's dream deployment!!!

[@rossfororder]

Even with 84 torpedo tubes, the fact that it was a Soviet design means it would've sunk

[@leonidjoseph5483]

Like uss thresher and others

[@dannym5865]

​@leonidjoseph5483 cope

[@leonidjoseph5483]

@@dannym5865 cope woke

[@dannym5865]

@@leonidjoseph5483You dont even know what you're doing🤣🤣🤣. Whats next? Are you gonna type in the words "trans" and I'm supposed to get offended?

[@leonidjoseph5483]

@@dannym5865 who the hell cares about you and your crappy country. You and your pos country is joke. Idiots think they are the whole world.

[@yxmichaelxyyxmichaelxy3074]

Now do the Kirov battlecruisers. The Soviets were the ONLY COUNTRY to ever build battlecruisers after WWII. There exists nowhere on earth any such.

[@jimcat68]

Please translate the gun calibers to inches. Nobody thinks in terms of "xyz millimeter guns" - it's always 12 inch or 15 inch or the like.

[@ImportantNavalHistory]

I use imperial units for the USN and Royal Navy. However, for nations like France, Germany, Russia, Japan, etc. I use metric units. Another reason is because a majority of my audience uses metric. I’ve used both in videos and it just takes too long. Long story short, it depends on the nation.

[@madvededvic6280]

That means stfu and do the conversion yourself, imperial system is steaming dogshit

[@Emdiggydog]

I think in cm and mm. To hard for you American? Or perhaps British?

[@ImportantNavalHistory]

@@Emdiggydog As an American, I can definitely think in both. Maybe that's just because I read about it so often.

[@Emdiggydog]

@@ImportantNavalHistory I am sorry. I meant the original comment. I recognise it is easiest to refer to the measurements in the original sources rather than converting. The American (and occasionally British) attitude that everything must be put in the terms they understand is very entitled. This doesnt apply to all however.

[@josephwarra5043]

Aliens

[@richardcutts196]

Not unique the first italian dreadnaught, Dante Alighieri, had the same turret arrangement.

[@ImportantNavalHistory]

They were unique, as all of the turrets were on the same level. Dante Alighieri’s turrets although in a linear arrangement we’re not all on the same level.

[@donaldcarey114]

@@ImportantNavalHistory The basic design was Italian.

[@luciusartorius3437]

@@donaldcarey114 4 turrets = italian

[@donaldcarey114]

@@luciusartorius3437 4 TRIPLE turrets were FIRST proposed by an Italian - FACT.

[@luciusartorius3437]

@@donaldcarey114 bruh the Sevastopol was laid down 3 days before Dante, thus meaning it's actually Russian design not Italian

[@JGCR59]

Generally the Imperial Russian Navy is under appreciated in WW1. They took the right conclusions from the Russo-Japanese war and generally the Russian Imperial Navy performed well in WW1, especially in the Black Sea

[@Dilley_G45]

Not difficult when your opponent is the Ottoman Navy of ww1 plus 2 German ships. One a small cruiser and one a battle cruiser with 11 " guns.

[@peterrudenko4496]

Ngl russian navy would`ve been scary if it was actually competent enough.

[@ryssa2409]

It is, it has more victories than american navy

[@peterrudenko4496]

@@ryssa2409 Being victorious doesn't mean being competent.

[@ryssa2409]

@@peterrudenko4496 it does lol

[@sweaspurdoddd5466]

​@@ryssa2409after the mid 1800s it has been a joke. Especially during the 20th century. Blunder after blunder. Even the Ukraine war highlights this. Losing their black sea flag ship because it was in such a state of disrepair, and because certain equipment couldn't be operated at the same time.

[@ryssa2409]

@@sweaspurdoddd5466 it performed well in ww1, decently in ww2, then it performed well in 80s wargames and is performing greatly in ukraine

[@yxmichaelxyyxmichaelxy3074]

Look at all of the copium. 😂

[@eliasthienpont6330]

🐯🐯🐯🐯🐯🐯🐯🐯🐯🐯545

[@bigwerve]

The Queen Elizabeths were superior battleships because they were a lot faster

[@ImportantNavalHistory]

Certainly in the Second World War, the upgraded QE’s were superior battleships due to their extensive refits that the R-Class didn’t get. Upon commission they were very similar.

[@bigwerve]

@ImportantNavalHistory I think they were allways faster and cost the government more money to build .I often wonder if that fool beatty had used the most powerful battleships in existence (at that time) we might not have lost si many lives at the battle of jutland .great channel BTW

[@ImportantNavalHistory]

Thanks, it is true they had a 1.5-2 knots speed advantage depending the on the ship.

[@orjeetghrajshingbade-d3d]

Jones Matthew Walker Cynthia Young David

[@MarcusRhodes-q2s]

Putting it simply any good battleships Russia had they got from someone else. Then made them worse. See Royal Sovereign and Giulio Cesare. Both good ships in their original navy and left to ruin while serving in the Russian navy. Rest of the Russian navy are known as the ... "SINK BY THEMSELVES" fleet.