King George V class - Design, Service and Myths

[@Drachinifel]

Pinned post for Q&A :)

[@yulu803]

Hi, Since WW1 era submarines were mostly used in attacks when surfaced/at periscope depth, taking advantage of their small size and weather/night cover, it seemed like the ability to submerge is not as critical to convoy raiding/disrupting duties. Has there been any ideas around making torpedo boats (which also attack taking advantage of spotting limits) more ocean-going and long range, thus more adept at convoy raiding? Or, is it that to make something that size you might as well build a destroyer?

[@Alex-cw3rz]

do aircraft carrier decks have drains or/and does the top have a camber like a road, to reduce water pooling?

[@Alex-cw3rz]

I heard that HMS Warspite when doing shore bombardment of Normandy during the D-day landings was able to successfully jam the radar of the German's guns was this common during WW2?

[@michaelkovacic2608]

Damage assessment of Jean Bart after the Casablanca Battle, please :) especially the 16inch hits

[@hydrodrift]

What would’ve happened if the U.S knew about the Pearl Harbor attack?

[@bomburthedwarf9036]

I was literally looking for a documentary on the KGVs last night and all I could find were your old 5min guides. The world truly works in strange ways.

[@JevansUK]

I'm convinced he knows the thoughts of subscribers, he's done this on me more than once

[@mumflurfumperdink2507]

@@JevansUK believe in Drachism!

[@splenditsanguinor]

@@JevansUK .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,. . , ,? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 44 . .

[@splenditsanguinor]

@@JevansUK .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,. . , ,? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 44 . .

[@micnorton9487]

​@@splenditsanguinor.. what's your point with the endless nothing post?

[@jimbolxvi6428]

Just recently found this channel and have been so busy devouring all the content. Your channel is simply the best resource for WW1-WW2 sea power. My Grandfather was a Gunners Mate on the Massachusetts and said he had the privilege of seeing the Rodney in Boston during her refit and then the King George V with the British Pacific Fleet. He said the Rodney just looked like raw brutal power personified. He said the KGV actually had an aura about her they all knew she was part of the duo that dismantled the Bismarck. He told me at some island they were doing shore bombardment and they were in awe of the pace the KGV and either Howe or Anson can’t remember the name of the sister there but he said they were putting out a barrage that they could only dream of he said it was about 5 for every 3 the Mamie got off. So while many like to disparage the 14” guns he was thoroughly impressed. One question as well I love the Adm King and Lee videos any plans for Halsey or Tovey, Cunningham, Somerville, Vian and the rest?

[@TrickiVicBB71]

I visited USS Massachusetts a few years ago when I first visited the USA. Impressive ship and thank you for your grandfather's service

[@theodoresmith5272]

He is awesome and very informative. His guadalcanal and age of sail videos are my favorite. Any of his guests are the top knowledge on said subject. I learned more about the zero by his guest because he had more info then what every video on the zero repeats. Things like the navy wasnt as interested in it being an awesome dogfighter because they knew zoom tactics would tactically be more important.

[@khaelamensha3624]

Welcome in the Drach's dimension... Drachinifel did an amazing video about fire support

[@petermoeller5901]

Thanks for sharing your pops story. My pop was in Skandinavia, trying to shoot down British bombers, I hope you won't hold that against me. Thanks to men like your pop I'm not wearing a brown or black shirt today. I'm thankful for that.

[@agesteiro7326]

Folowed drach from before The drydock. I realy love The Chanel. And The british humor. But we need to Get irn brew to make The original drachsnifiel lube in bigger quanteties.

[@csours]

It's kind of funny how ventilation/air conditioning would probably never make anyone's short fact sheet about a ship, but it might have the single largest impact on crew experience and efficiency (after food and drink). The guns don't load and fire themselves. The targets don't pick themselves, the ship doesn't steer itself. People have to do all these things, and if they aren't thinking or working at their peak, it doesn't matter so much how fast you go or how big your guns are or how much armor you have.

[@mcamp9445]

US submarines having air-conditioning tr a prime example

[@sergarlantyrell7847]

Or how much longer it took in drydock to repair damage to something like an Iowa because the belt was internal, which both meant replacing parts of the belt was more of a faff, but also that the outer skin of the ship was much more susceptible to damage from lower callibre shells (like from a cruiser or destroyer, or another battleship's secondaries). But repairability has no bearing on the fighting stats (pretty much top trumps) people like to compare, and that things like games use.

[@XH1927]

@@sergarlantyrell7847 That's exactly why all engineers should be mechanics or machinists first. Then they wouldn't be so eager to design things that make things hell for the men on the ground. My education specifically included classes that were meant to address this, but the way things are these days I believe that was to better prepare us for the reality that the suits would demand we design things to be as difficult to maintain as possible so as to enforce the unethical... fuck that, outright evil... concept of planned obsolescence.

[@sergarlantyrell7847]

@@XH1927 unless we can work out how to stop materials fatiguing, planned obselesance is unavoidable. Things like bearings will eventually wear out but you can generally replace those... The thrust bearings on a propellor shaft would be a right pain to replace but that's pretty unavoidable. But when you're at the point where your hull, or airframe or chassis is has reached its predicted fatigue life & needs to be thoroughly examined each maintainance cycle for minute cracks, the repair requirements start making it too expensive to keep going. By which point (25-40 years on) technology has usually moved on sufficiently that the thing, on top of being a maintainance hog, is no longer competitive and so is outright replaced. I'm not sure how that's supposed to be "evil" though... Just a consequence of material science & rapidly advancing technology.

[@XH1927]

@@sergarlantyrell7847 That's major maintenance and overhauls, not designing a thing to fail prematurely like modern cars and other consumer products. To put it another way, what you cited is planning FOR obsolescence, not designing a death date into your product and making it hard or impossible to repair.

[@dancingwiththedarkness3352]

Battleships have a certain lethal beauty that inspires legends about them.

[@philipdawes2661]

But are surprisingly small when seeing them 'in person' - saw New Jersey in Portsmouth while she was on her way to Lebanon in the 80's.

[@ToomasKiisk]

There's something about those boxy Queen Anne's Mansions on late British battleships that really does it for me.

[@adamredmayne1326]

@@ToomasKiisk Reminds me of Napoleonic era fortification designs something about them just says "come get some if you think your hard enough".

[@bluemarlin8138]

@@philipdawes2661 Well yeah, when you see them next to a Nimitz class carrier or something like that. They are still huge ships though. Sometimes they have the appearance of being smaller than they are, at least when in service, because about 2/3s of their hull depth sits below the waterline, whereas with a carrier it’s the opposite. If you see a museum battleship, it’s sitting a good 10+ feet higher in the water because it’s not weighed down with ammo and supplies, so it looks much bigger and more impressive.

[@stevenmoore4612]

Very true

[@silverhost9782]

2 hours on my favourite treaty battleships? Drach, you truly are too kind

[@LordInter]

OMG I didn't notice how long it was 😍

[@silverhost9782]

@@LordInter That, I suspect, is probably what she said😉

[@LordInter]

@@silverhost9782 ba doom tish

[@sergarlantyrell7847]

Same. I'm definitely biased, but there is a lot to be said for the unconventional design standing out.

[@TheNinjaDC]

My favorite British Battleship class in WW2. It's quirky, but not gimmicky. A unique, but balanced design.

[@markchip1]

The hit on the Prince Of Wales' propeller shaft mounting is roughly analogous to the hit near Bismark's rudder, in that it didn't create terminal damage on its own but the knock-on effect was ultimately catastrophic.

[@airplanenut89]

At least in Whales' case it was because said hit (from a larger warhead) resulted in greater damage to the ship. Damage which, in addition to flooding, would result in loss of power, speed, and control. As opposed to the "invincible" Bismarck where it was more: Oh noes, Our rudder box (along with other systems on the ship) weren't properly protected! Now one of our rudders is jammed, and our triple screw layout doesn't allow for effective thrust differential to compensate. As I see it, Bismarck stubbed its toe, and Whales got a broken leg.

[@richardschaffer5588]

Any damage to the screws and rudders of a ship is deadly.

[@markchip1]

@@richardschaffer5588 THAT'S PRETTY MUCH MY POINT.

[@dbuckleton]

@@airplanenut89 I think it's broadly accepted a hit in the rudders, props, of any battleship is catastrophic. I think that's what these guys imply and also the Iowa museum guy says much the same.

[@benwilson6145]

The Cruise of the Bismarck The 400 men assigned to the Bismarck's anti-aircraft guns maintained a furious barrage, but the crews, which had been on watch almost continuously for 5 days, were near exhaustion and their fire was not as effective as previously. The planes attacked simultaneously from a number of points, diving to the attack at an angle of about 50 . One torpedo struck amidships on the port side, one on the starboard quarter, and possibly a third on the port quarter; The torpedo which hit the starboard quarter wrecked the steering gear, jamming the rudders and causing the Bismarck to turn slowly in circles to the starboard. Frantic efforts were made to repair the damage: It was announced that the man who succeeded in freeing the rudders would be given the Knight Insignia of the Iron Cross. Divers succeeded in centering one rudder, but the other could not be freed, Efforts were made to steer the ship by her engines, but after a short period, instead of proceeding on her intended southeasterly course, the Bismarck was actually northwest of her position when the attack was made. There appears to have been further controversy among the officers. The captain, when asked by an officer whether he should try to blow off the jammed rudder, is reported to have replied, "Do what you like; I am through with it." The ship's best speed was now reduced to 10 to 12 knots.

[@spamvacuum]

A few years ago I attended a silversmithing course, and one of the other students, a chap called Peter, was a former crew member on HMS Anson, this being post WII. He told me about being punished for some misdemeanour, resulting in him standing on the afterdeck holding a rifle out in front of him with the muzzle pointing directly at him and the butt end furthest away. This had to be maintained for a considerable time. This was on the day King George VI was visiting Portsmouth (I think it was Portsmouth) and was being taken out by launch to another ship. He spotted the hapless rating and enquired as to what was happening. On being told, he there and then requested that this punishment be stopped immediately as a sanction. Peter was the last person in the Navy to receive this punishment apparently. His next posting was on a minesweeper and the crew detested the captain, but had sussed out that for some reason he in turn detested any extraneous noises that weren’t a part of the ship’s daily working. Peter volunteered to place a large empty tobacco tin inverted on top of the mast, such that it would clang incessantly in the wind. The entire crew denied they could hear anything.

[@PaulfromChicago]

Sheffield?

[@GeneralKenobiSIYE]

Wow, how much do you have to suck as a commander when the entire crew would do that? lmao! 🤣🤣🤣

[@KPen3750]

A nearly 2 hour Drach video all on the KGV's??? This is awesome!!

[@cdr651]

Agreed. Work might have to wait.

[@TomM-jh8lx]

Drach, I am constantly amazed at the amount of high quality content you put out every week for what is basically a one man (ship’s) band

[@khaelamensha3624]

Same here. Full crew rowing in Drach s cave? The man is amazing!

[@Loretta2004]

I assume, at 311.000 subscribers, one can live of that. I do not think one can produce that amount of content next to a full time job & family etc. But that is just my guess. And it is great, one can live of that.

[@simonpitt8145]

@@Loretta2004 I think he's an engineer by trade, works in Croydon designing skyscraper buildings or something like that.

[@Tuning3434]

@@simonpitt8145 He quit his main job earlier in 2021 (late 2020?), because of budgets cuts enforced on Croydon's council. One of the reasons why the Patreon Drydocks swollen to insanity inducing lengths... like the rest of us engineers don't have jobs ourselves.

[@mattblom3990]

It's amazing to have been there since his earliest days. Still the "Wizard of Oz" hidden behind robo-voiced videos. But the passion and knowledge was there. I've been able to see the gradual and steady improvement towards professionalism over several years.

[@davidmcintyre8145]

In terms of armour thickness and steel quality the KGV are the best armoured ships of their time and the fact that the 14 inch gun penetrated the heaviest armour of Bismarck shows that it was at least adequate

[@bkjeong4302]

Yet a lot of sources (including some actual naval historians) wrongly claim the KGVs were underarmoured compared to things like the Iowas, which is total BS.

[@malcolmtaylor518]

The accounts I've read, show no penetration of Bismarcks belt armour by any of the British ships in the action. Rodney and King George V pummeled Bismarcks superstructure and turrets creating havoc, but not going through the deck armour. That's why torpedoes were used at the end of the action. Prince of Wales effectively ended the Bismarck's mission by destroying its forward oil tanks beyond its belt armour. All the Bismarck could do was abort and run for repairs. Prince of Wales actually did quite well considering its bridge was hit and most of its main armament was out of action, due to the fact that the ship was not worked up, and suffering many problems with the quadruple turrets. Dockyard matey's were still on board trying to rectify the faults.

[@teddywoo83]

@@malcolmtaylor518 kgv and Rodney both hit and penetrated Bismarcks conning tower. Also half of Bismarcks side is buried so it’s impossible to tell if any hits penetrated the belt on that side

[@bkjeong4302]

@@malcolmtaylor518 Rodney did penetrate the belt armour several times.

[@alganhar1]

@@malcolmtaylor518 This comment makes no sense at all. Bismark was listing, she was listing heavily. That means flooding. Given the design of battleships that flooding is not going to be coming from outside the citadel as the citadel is literally designed to maintain buoyancy even if the rest of the ship is a ruined scrapheap. What this means is rounds from PoW and/or Rodney HAD to have penetrated the Bismarks armour, otherwise her buoyancy would not have been affected enough to create a list, she may have settled somewhat but not listed. The fact she was listing is corroborated and noted by British witness on multiple vessels, as well as from German survivors. This myth that the British guns did not penetrate Bismarks belt is exactly that, a myth. Fast sinkings of battleships such as what happened to Hood are relatively rare, generally even if pummelled into utter wrecks with multiple holes through the armoured belt battleships tend to sink slowly. The torpedoes were not used because Bismark was not sinking, they were used to hasten the process, because she WAS sinking before either torpedoes were used, or the order to scuttle was given. And as I said, that means there WERE penetrations of her main armoured belt.

[@jlvfr]

Arrived home seriously pissed off from a bad day at work... and then I see this. Thanks!

[@mattblom3990]

I enjoyed Drach bringing on a new naval histiographer. The guest was bright and knowledgeable showing that "formal" education doesn't necessarily mean competence. Passion and diligent research is just as good.

[@SpiritOfMontgomery]

Arguably better, and I’m saying this as someone pursuing a history degree. I’ve often found that many times, formally educated (as you put it) historians tend to adhere to the historiographical orthodoxy. Always playing it safe, generally they’re all dead boring, and can best be described as “beige.” Or in other words, I find they often practice bad history as they don’t really scrutinize the work which has gone before them. This is a general statement from my own experience, it is not a rule. Those who approach it from the angle of the amateur more often than not, bring something new to the table. Specifically a different angle of understanding the topic, one in which the formally trained historian wouldn’t.

[@tomriley5790]

It's interesting how much the world changed between the designing the KGVs and WW2, it really annoys me when people apply 1945 standards to everything.

[@RCAvhstape]

"Build ships for brawling rather than sniping" somewhere Adm. Nelson smiled.

[@MrT67]

Another great thing about the KGV's is that the Brits could relatively quickly and cheaply produce 5x capital ships when they absolutely needed them, rather than 2 or 3 with slightly bigger guns.

[@jamesricker3997]

It actually would have been cheaper and faster if they had gone for 9x15-inch guns They already had equipment to produce 15 in guns modifying, them to produce a gun with a longer caliber would have been cheaper then producing entirely new equipment for the 14-inch guns The super heavy 15 inch shells already existed It would have been one less turrent to design and more part standardization

[@MrT67]

@@jamesricker3997 Not true: A change to 15 inch guns would have resulted in an 18 month delay until 1942. The London Naval Treaty of 1936 also stipulated a 14 inch maximum gun size, with an opt out clause, which Britain was reluctant to exercise, as the Admiralty was hoping to persuade the other naval powers to stick to 14 inch guns. There are also other reasons that they went with 14 inch.

[@hmskinggeorgev7089]

I can't thank you enough for this.

[@RoamingAdhocrat]

yeah you can. simply name your firstborn child "Drach"

[@philipdawes2661]

ON the reliability of the turrets/gunnery systems - the 'fire to exhaustion' exercise performed by the USS Idaho during WW2 gives a very good example of how even in the best of circumstances you will not get 100% output. (The exercise was designed around firing all the main battery guns until the magazines were empty)

[@lostpony4885]

I assume the exercise is successful if you run out of shells before your crew drops.

[@philipdawes2661]

@@lostpony4885 It was an interesting read - to check how the crew, systems and processes stood up to continuous firing." expending 597 rounds in 156 salvos. The average salvo interval was 1 minute, 24 seconds, but only 20 of these were full six-gun salvos; the average was 3.82. She suffered no fewer than 205 separate casualties during the firing, mostly requiring adjustment of the gas check pads or rammers. Powder handling, however, was flawless, 2,400 one-hundred pound bags of powder being handled without mishap” - casualties being a failure of 'something' preventing a full salvo. So when compared to the KGV class, they performed remarkably well considering.

[@fyorbane]

@@philipdawes2661 I bet they did not perform this exercise in a force 10 gale [a la Duke of York v Scharnhorst].

[@philipdawes2661]

@@fyorbane Exercise conditions, so no external 'circumstances', only internal procedures and equipment reliability.

[@fyorbane]

@@philipdawes2661 Exactly my point. Exercise conditions is one thing, but in the real world of combat in very difficult conditions things are very different.

[@michaelkovacic2608]

I always found the KGV class to be a very good design, although in my opinion they should have cheated the treaty by a few hundred tons and installed the 2 additional 14inch guns, since it was obvious that both Axis powers were cheating massively (we are talking 5000 tons and more)

[@frostedcat]

There were designs with 12 14" guns, but the decrease in armour wasn't considered to be worth it, and so the twin turret was adopted. The King George V simply can't accommodate due to the smaller B barbettes, and the increase in weight would also present its own problems. And even with only 10 14" guns, the KGV still have higher broadside weight than the Bismarck and Richelieu. If the Royal Navy intended to cheat, then 15" would be the best choice, but a broadside of 9 15" guns are considered to be uneconomical. Examinations at 15" designs also reveal some ugly features such as lower top speed, turret-mounted catapults,... The King George V are lovely as they're, and i'll fight anyone who unjustifiably question their abilities.

[@captain61games49]

It probully wouldn't have gotten past parliament and also if britan cheats on the treaty it discredits the whole idea and it would allow the axis powers to get away with more or abandon it all together.

[@wolffweber7019]

Better option: slightly more cheated and 9x16” aka Lions. Or 9x15” but there were no guns except those 4 twin barrel turrets for Vanguard. Economy before war, reality during war.

[@michaelkovacic2608]

@@captain61games49 cheating by a few hundred tons is not obvious, how exactly should the Axis powers know about this? The Brits also didn't know the exact size of the Axis BBs, although it was obvious that they were overweight. Fully agree on Parliament, however.

[@DisSabot]

@@frostedcat So you think they're on an equal footing with the NorCals and Bismarcks?

[@Aotearas]

I like these 5 minute (more or less) guides.

[@Alex-cw3rz]

The talk about the turret was fascinating I just presumed it was all faults with the design, and hadn't thought about the human element or the sea states they were fighting in or the fact they were firing more rounds than 6 battleships over an entire battle.

[@RCAvhstape]

Or the fact that they only really got to stress test them in combat, and that they actually worked fine for a good 30 or 40 salvos or so before they started running into problems. Very informative.

[@WALTERBROADDUS]

@@RCAvhstape Old saying.... "Fight like you train. Train like you fight."

[@McNubbys]

Same, I always assumed it was teething problems that were solved over time...I had never looked at firing duration or sea conditions😊

[@Lemurion287]

Yep, it really shows the difference when you realize that Oldendorff's entire fleet only fired 285 shells at Surigao Strait and even KGV beat 300 rounds handily, and DoY almost 450.

[@lostpony4885]

Rate of fire is suuper important.

[@DonaldMcKay3768]

This might be about the best video you've made yet, Drach! Truly an in-depth analysis of the KGV design that shows us almost a "Bill Garzke, or Norman Friedman-like" view of the design development and the decisions that eventually created this important Treaty battleship. The other expert who gave us digests of the official design history (didn't catch his name) was an excellent choice, he'd obviously spent many hours poring over the original documents and had reached the conclusion that these ships hadn't received their due from history. Well, I'm convinced. Given Treaty restrictions the RN created a formidable ship and got them into commission in time to play an important role in the war. That's what matters in the time of "The Gathering Storm." The details about the turrets jamming in the Bismarck engagement and the Battle of North Cape were previously unknown to me and don't reflect as badly on the ships as the impression you get from more broad-brush accounts in secondary sources. Good going!

[@somerandompersonidk2272]

Dammit Drach, I have an exam in 50 minutes. Now I have to decide between this or revising US supreme court cases.

[@larsandersson5974]

I guess Drach won since you went on KZbin instead of studying :-)

[@CSSVirginia]

KGVs have 10 more 14in guns than the Supreme Court,. Easy choice really.

[@PalleRasmussen]

@@CSSVirginia funniest comment today, I chuckled visibly. Also; KGV is The Royal Navy, easy choice really. What other navy had had such a success over such a long time with so many developments? It was the RN that built and upheld the Empire, and it was not their fault when it faltered.

[@Maddog3060]

I never thought the KGVs were bad ships, and I'm an American. I always thought the British were a bit too obsessed with downsizing their main batteries but this video at least explained that there were very good reasons for it. I mean, look at their combat histories, clearly not a bad design one bit.

[@fyorbane]

They were in general a very good design considering they were the only ones to stick to the treaty.

[@sparky694]

My favorite ship of all time, very underrated. Always thought they looked very modern with their blocked superstructure and wouldn't be so out of place today. Built many models of these ships. Thank you for the very informative discussion.

[@foxxy46213]

Yeah I never really was interested in ships or battleships but thought I haven't got one an picked KGV purely on how she looked

[@WildBillCox13]

Engine rooms were hot. Workspace temperatures of 130 degrees F were not uncommon in period warship boiler rooms. They lived on water and salt tablets. Imagine for a minute if you will how much worse it had been for coal fueled ships of the previous wars, stoking the boilers with a shovel, while a mate sprayed the pile with oil for an "extra kick".

[@nerd1000ify]

I've heard stories of the stokers in warships being covered in burns due to boiling water dripping from overhead steam lines, and near lethal temperatures inside the boiler spaces. My grandfather was a merchant mariner on various ships postwar, and has quite a few stories about this sort of thing. Including seeing the chief engineer coming off shift naked except for a towel hanging from his 'member.' A delightful sight to see coming down the corridor, I'm sure. He also notes that one of his captains was always placed in command of steamships because he couldn't bring a diesel ship into dock: large ship based diesels take some time to switch from forward into reverse, and this particular skipper was a student of the '30 point turn' method of berthing. You can imagine the frustration in the engine room when the telegraph changed from 'ahead' to 'astern' *again*

[@frankmiller95]

Definitely not OSHA approved working conditions, but then again, these guys weren't Cambridge, Oxford, Harvard or MIT material.

[@khaelamensha3624]

Thanks again Drach for your amazing videos... I just have to cancel my afternoon meetings and explain to the customers and managers that I must have my Wednesday rum ration and if someone stay on my way, the person will be flogged 😂

[@philvanderlaan5942]

Flog them ‘round the fleet ! And. If they think you’re drinking on the job Flog them if they can’t take a joke

[@khaelamensha3624]

@@philvanderlaan5942 excellent idea 🤣

[@Alex-cw3rz]

1:46:04 this table really does put it into context yes it's a smaller gun, but looking at this table it doesn't matter what it faces it will penetrate at 16,000 yards and if it's deck penetration at 26,000 yards nothing will go through the Yamato's deck and it can penertrate points on all other ships, just like the other ships will find this issue penetrating any point of King George V's deck

[@Abysslord1234]

To be fair, unless your name was Warspite or Scharnhorst, you weren’t hitting at 26k yards.

[@Alex-cw3rz]

@@Abysslord1234 very true

[@bkjeong4302]

@@Abysslord1234 Even those two got lucky to hit at that distance.

[@stevevalley7835]

Problem is, some adversaries have the bad form to not get within 16,000 yards. During 1914-1916, the head of BuOrd, Admiral Strauss, kept pushing 14" guns because they could penetrate any existing BB at 12,000 yards. But Dogger Bank was at about 20,000 and Jutland was at more than 15,000. In WWII, West Virginia opened up on Yamashiro at something over 22,000. What do you do when the opponent doesn't want to fight the fight the way that is optimal for you?

[@Alex-cw3rz]

@@stevevalley7835 because most fights are closer and yes West Vaginia opened up at 22,000 yards but the ship wasn't sunk at 22,000 yards, 22,000 yards is 16,600 yards off King George V's guns maximum, the Royal Navy was also the best trained navy on the planet with the joint longest ranged hit ever which was more than 22,000 yards, and that was against at least a competent enemy, in not the best condition humanly possible which occurred at Surigao Straight. The Royal Navy is really not the ones who have to worry about range here.

[@MacHamish]

Many years ago this ship was one of my first Tamya model kits (waterline series). It got me hooked on these ships. I love your vids and the time and effort you put into making them. Very informative. 🙂👍

[@canisrufusuk]

So the impression I have about the KGV's after this, and what else I've seen, is that they were workhorses. They didn't stand out in any particular way, but were good enough at everything to be relied on as effective enough in whatever role was required of them.

[@ScienceChap]

Between them they sank 2 German capital ships. For me that says money well spent.

[@lostpony4885]

@@ScienceChap there really werent that many german capital ships to sink really, so 2 is a really high score.

[@Wilsontripplets]

Then you have the ole' reliable Queen Elizabeth under Warspite.

[@svgproductions72]

One of my favorite battleship classes, something about them is so beautiful even though they are so utilitarian. I’ll have to say the Littorio-class and KGV-class are the best looking to me of the WWII era. Great content as always!

[@kenellis6575]

In early August 1954,I started my first job,it was an apprenticeship,to become a Marine Electrician,I was 15 years old. To get me from under his feet,the foreman sent me out, with the van driver,to the Gladstone Dry Dock,in Liverpool,to deliver equipment, when we arrived there,it was to see the magnificent Battleship,HMS.KING GEORGE V. What an amazing sight! I went aboard her,the driver told me,that she was being readied for her last journey,to the ship breakers,on the Clyde. I’m in my 86th year now,and I’ve always thought I was privileged,to have said goodbye to her.There can’t be many people around now,who can say they’ve been aboard her.

[@Alex-cw3rz]

This video really shows why South Carolina was able to fit 9 16 inch guns, it was all in the armour, with less thick armour over smaller areas, it was able to get to the desired number of guns, but sacrifice armour.

[@typehere6689]

Isn't that thing armed with 8x12" guns?

[@josephmichuda6447]

The North Carolina had 16" guns. The South Carolina only had 12" guns.

[@Maddog3060]

You mean South Dakota? The South Carolina class were basically pre-dreadnought BBs with dreadnought main guns. And the South Dakota herself took quite a beating and survived, so I dunno why the dunk on her.

[@bkjeong4302]

@@Maddog3060 Maybe because of her habit of vast overclaiming and stealing credit for the work of others while actually accomplishing almost nothing, as seen at Santa Cruz (vast AA overclaiming, and it was pilots from Enterprise and Hornet that actually did most of the damage to the Japanese aircraft involved) and Second Guadalcanal?

[@GaryJones69420]

North Carolina*

[@Demonriceball]

I would love to see more videos in future with Matt, he’s incredibly knowledgeable and interesting to listen to!

[@The_Viscount]

I have always been impressed by the ability of the Royal Navy to plan long term. They don't always succeed, and their long term focus can sometimes leave them on the back foot when faced with rapid technology advancement. That said, the RN is always thinking about the long term consequences of their decisions for building ships. This cannot always be said for other nations (*cough, cough Germany cough*). The Admiralty doesn't always make accurate predictions, but they're always thinking years ahead, and plan their building programs accordingly.

[@iangodfrey4518]

You seen the state of the Royal Navy lately?

[@julekgorecki1102]

historicaly, definieltly. But nowdays the RN is a bit less independent, and has a lot, lot less clout in the political spectrum, compared to the 1930s Admiralty, to actually be able to enforce such a long term plan

[@chnghemeng2845]

“Long term consequences” Proceeds to equip its cruisers with ww1 levels of common shells, with mild steel caps attached. Proceeds to equip cruisers with old Fire Direction Equipment, (specifically Leander herself), didn't actually use fire control direction equipment, as well as a large number of cruisers post-Leander. They got refurbished WWI equipment.

[@SudrianTales]

@@chnghemeng2845 with what money would they be able to replace them? Britian was broke after WW1, WW2 just took the Empire behind the shed and shot it. Wars aren't fought by what you wish you had but what you have

[@trevortrevortsr2]

That was totally geeky - That guest speaker Matt certainly knew his ships - I especialy like that each fact was put within its context and possible future needs.

[@Z-Man1973]

This was a fantastic video. Thank you for collaborating with Mr Warwick on the story of the King George V class battleships. I find these to be the most interesting ships in the British WWII fleet. It's such a shame KGV or Duke of York were both scrapped. One of them would have made a fantastic museum ship.

[@mcamp9445]

I agree it would’ve been nice to have a museum ship but the reality was Britain was broke for a long time after World War II

[@qasimmir7117]

@@mcamp9445 Lame excuse.

[@captainbullcat4757]

The amount of Wednesday videos where special guests and experts are speaking is amazing! I’m glad to see so many people willing to speak with you and us about naval history!

[@keithplymale2374]

The rate of fire vs. fewer but bigger shells per hit debate started long before the KGV (II) class was developed and the things being discussed here. This was seen in the RN going from 12" to 13.5" to 15" where as the German Navy went 9.5" to 11" to 12" then a big jump to 15" in service though they did plan to build ships with 13.8" or so Austro-Hungarian guns. There is also the economics behind all this. Great Britain mortgaged the Empire to pay for W W I. Then in reaction to the start of the Great Depression the United Kingdom defaulted on the loan payments. There was also the rebuilding of the Renown and the QE's that was done in the latter 1930's. There is also the fact that the RN Design Office was run down in the 1920's, especially the battleship section. So in the 1930's there was great pressure placed on fewer designers for not only BB work but CV, CA, CL, DD, DE and Sub work as well. POW and Arizona were both killed by Golden BB's. In Arizona a bomb that detonated above the armor deck caused a paint locker to catch fire. Burning paint went into a black powder magazine above the main gun magazine via an open hatch. The black powder was put there for the aircraft catapults on top of the turrets. Since the only other way to fire them was with compressed air and that would have involved making a hole in the turret top. In both ships cases prewar damage study and planning could not have accounted for the damage hat actually occurred. Great topic and fascinating discussion. This reminds me of the Friedman Design History books on the USA.

[@glennsimpson7659]

Thanks, didn’t know that about Arizona. Hood and Bismarck were also destroyed by unlikely hits, and Scharnhorst might also be considered unlucky. The trouble with assigning these losses to golden BBs is that shells that hit have to hit somewhere, and every hit has a good chance of doing some unforeseen catastrophic damage. Battleships are highly complex machines so stuffed full of explosives and flammable material that magazine explosions are not as rare as you would like them to be, while shock damage from torpedoes can lead to loss of power and machinery damage even if the torpedo defense system is not breached. Makes writing wargame rules difficult when you don’t have any “average” damage.

[@ScienceChap]

1:01:11 I love the pic of a North Carolina next to a KGV. Really shows the different design philosophies...

[@Olliemets]

WOW !!! Thanks for this. Been waiting for a deeper dive from you into the KGVs Always liked these ships. Given the RNs worldwide commitments, these ships gave terrific service all over the globe in some extreme conditions from the Arctic, N Atlantic to Indian and Pacific oceans. The RN got it's money's worth.

[@ukee31]

I love that half a million people are into this level of detail! I would think a channel like this (Despite being amazing) would not get so many views due to how detailed it is and how not clickbaity it is. It makes me optimistic to see that people can get past the surface BS on youtube and find real quality like this!

[@brendanoneill1466]

KGV have always been favorites of mine ... historically speaking.

[@youngbloodk]

The KGVs have always been very high on my list of WW2 era battleships. They were a really good design, though I have always been partial to the South Dakotas (at least on paper).

[@ModelkitStuff]

Fascinating My Grandfather was on HMS Anthony and escorted POW back to Iceland after the Battle of the Denmark straight, he always maintained that we (the Royal Navy) came a lot closer to losing POW in that battle than most realised, she was very low in the water. His brother, my great uncle, was the meteorological rating on KGV when engaging Bismarck, interestingly he pointed out how much damage, firing a broadside did to things like trunking even just in practice, so its no great surprise that the guns ran into minor issues in protracted engagements with all that procession force on the ship structure.

[@briannicholas2757]

Building the 1/350 scale King George V has been loads of fun, the model has tons of detail, and she ends up having a really nice profile. The quad turrets make her very unique. I've been building the predreadnought Lord Nelson and the IRN Tesaravich along side KGV, what is so amazing is all three are the same scale, but the KGV is so much more massive. I'm trying to decide on my next 1/350 scale ship, its between the USS Texas or HMS Dreadnought herself or HMS Nelson/Rodney. Any opinions from fellow Drach fans would be appreciated. Being from the USA, I'm leaning towards Texas, as she is our first super Dreadnought and she still exists as a museum ship. But HMS Dreadnought was THE ship which changed everything, as for the Nelson's, they are such a unique looking ship. Hmmmm grrrrr.

[@dalel3608]

Whatever the choice, just always stick with the same scale. Do the Texas. Then the Dreadnought. And then a 1/350 scale Type VII Uboat just to see how tiny they were to the big ships.

[@dougjb7848]

Post pix somewhere please! I love model making but have neither time nor funds to pursue it.

[@joweeqc98]

This was really informative for a specific class. I hope more will follow thanks drach!

[@markchip1]

Excellent presentation and a great collab'!! My only recommendation, to speed up any reading of text as shown in various points, would be to have highlighted any particularly relevant text as those points were being made in the narration - similar to the way a lot of KZbin political commentators do when reviewing the statements of political figures and the courts. It's a way of harmonising the visual and audio elements to get the most pertinent points across! This is just a minor consideration in, what was otherwise, a superbly entertaining and thoroughly educational video - exactly what we have routinely come to appreciate from Drach'!!

[@X8X8X8X8X8X8X8X8X8X]

It's great to come HOME to a video like this - thank you, Drachinifel! PS: I forgot the "home" - makes quite for a difference in meaning...

[@Dunkerque351]

I do wish someone made a comedic video where they portray the different nations at the different naval conferences. Japan in the background quietly designing the Yamato while everyone else in the room are discussing 14” guns could definitely be used.

[@bkjeong4302]

Japan left the treaty system before they started working on the Yamatos.

[@kenoliver8913]

@@bkjeong4302 True, but they cheated more than anyone else (much more even than the USN, the next biggest cheaters) with their treaty ships. They understated the actual tonnage of ships built under the treaty by many thousands of tons. Of course everyone had design teams quietly working away anyway in case the treaty broke down. The Yamato probably came from that team.

[@eric24567]

So... got any plans to do the same for the rest of the treaty battleships? Including the Bismarck class and the Littorio/Vittorio Veneto class even if we think they didn't even trying.

[@billlong9606]

a one hour fifty min vid of the King George V - Ok then. (afternoon plans cancelled)

[@carlcramer9269]

Speaking as a total amateur in this field, I must say that this video was very easy to understand. Very nice side diagrams, for example. Overall, the newb-friendliness of this entire channel is very nice.

[@andrewmcbain4119]

Thank you for this analysis of the KGV class. I have been fascinated with this inter-war compromised design for a long time. The balance of protection, speed and firepower within the tonnage limits imposed, and the choices in armour and armament are quite interesting. I was not aware of the shell output the ships had achieved during the war, I'm impressed. I have always heard about the issues they had faced, but never combined with the success of the systems.

[@fyorbane]

Yes, this seems to be something that has really been about only in more recent times. I think a lot of the unfair criticism has come from ill informed fan boys of other battleships and countries. Hopefully with videos like this and the excellent books available now on these ships will help to enlighten these people.

[@jefferynelson]

Drach thanks for all the work you put into the channel, we all benefit. As usual, great guest.

[@Aelvir114]

41:09: Wargaming: *proceeds to give KGV 13 mm and 25 mm deck armor and most of the British battleships less than 70 mm of deck armor*

[@jamesd3472]

This was an exceptionally interesting deep dive particularly with the use of primary sources. It's easy for them to get missed when discussing ship design. Couple of questions/requests. What was the weight difference between the actual 10 14 inch guns and the hypothetical 9 15 inch? As in, could you have kept the higher armoured deck whilst also having that armament? Secondly, would it be possible for some of the images to be available. They'd make quite a cool randomised screensaver! I'd need to learn how to do such a thing, but I'm willing to try. Finally, on the topic of a future video I was wondering if it would be possible to have a discussion of the the lion class and admirality requirements for them. Did the ideas change, and how were they and the KGVs planned to be used together? Thank you again to you and your guest!

[@MrPokemonWT]

Another good Drachinifel video perfect for my long morning of working on university assignments ;)

[@Zarcondeegrissom]

1:31:08 The kind of questions I really do appreciate, as so often a ship is mentioned as being at a particular engagement, then it just appears to vanish after that. Case and point the 6 escort carriers at the Battle of Samar, we all know about the heroic story of the Roberts, yet the escort carriers appear to just materialize just for that engagement, then almost no one mentions where they went after that as if the crews just ceased to exist after the Battle of Samar.

[@andrewpease3688]

How heavy was the Bismark really? I read a biography by one of the survivors and he was told it was well in excess of what was declared and quite a bit wider.

[@JD-kl8hz]

probably in the 45-50k ton range

[@bkjeong4302]

If we’re going by standard displacement for both ships, around 5,000 tons heavier than the KGVs (while being far more badly armoured, though faster)....at least according to known/official stats. A lot of confusion over ship sizes results from people using the full load displacement for one ship and standard displacement for another; for example, Yamato is often stated to displace 72,000 tons, but this is the full load and her actual size was more like 65,000 tons.

[@toddwebb7521]

One reason Bismarck ended up heavy is when it was a paper design before it was started or laid down it was going to actually be 35k tons standard displacement but with 350mm(13.8") guns when it looked like 14" was going to be in the treaty then when France and Italy announced 15" on Richlieu and LittorIo it got scaled up to 380mm(15") and ended up over on displacement because they scaled up an already 35k ship for bigger guns.

[@augustosolari7721]

By the Thirties Germans had lost a lot of practice building battleships, for that reason they has to build a very heavy battleship which capabilities were not as good as its tonnage would suggest. Basically an upgraded Bayern Class.

[@bbkingwasthegreatest711]

@@bkjeong4302 Weren't the armour welds brittle on Bismark as well, always hard to find info on this?

[@rare_kumiko]

Cool to see Matt Warwick here, I've followed him on Twitter for a while. Great video!

[@lutherpolaris8230]

To be sure, the KGV class of Treaty Battleships are superb designs in both theory and execution especially when one recalls that they more strictly observed the Treaty limitations than any other naval power at the time. Even the U.S. evoked the escalator clause, swapping 3 Quad 14 inch mounts for 3 triple 16 inch mounts after construction began and finished with a somewhat unbalanced design which lacked armored protection against its own guns. As for the Italians, French and Germans, the Treaty limitations insofar as weight was concerned was completely ignored with all of the aforementioned exceeding 40k tons Standard displacement and the Bismarck class exceeded 45k. Under these considerations the British, still within the weight limit were able to provide superior deck and side belt armor, a usable aviation department, torpedoes and 4 superior, large caliber, secondary, multipurpose 5.25 twin turrets plus advanced air and fire control radar compared to any of the other ships.

[@adamtruong1759]

Richelieu is a 35,000 ton design.

[@lutherpolaris8230]

@@adamtruong1759 In regard to the French Richelieu design; the French government received a formal complaint from the British regarding the Richelieu design violating the Washington and London Naval treaties. Their pre-war/rebuild displacement was "37,250 Long Tons" and "43,200" after their 1943 rebuild in the U.S. The French government in 1937 expressed their opinion/judgement, that the British had abrogated the Naval treaties due to their agreement with Germany (France's enemy) which allowed Germany to build ships that grossly exceeded the Treaty of Versailles. In any event, the Richelieu was damaged by several allied naval operations which saw the French heavy surface units as potential German assets. Subsequently, she was repaired/updated in the U.S. in 1943 and had a standard displacement of over 43k long tons, (47.5 full load) which was comparable to "Jean Bart". The newest class's of French battleships were superior to the Italian "Vittorio Veneto" type which began with a standard displacement of around 40k long tons as completed. For one thing the Italian ships side armor only extended about .5 meter below the designed waterline. Regarding the 35k ton standard displacement, the French originally intended to build within that limit and, in fact, their proposed but uncompleted ships of that class are listed as 35k tons standard displacement. By the time the French were building these ships, (post 'Dunkerque/Strasbourg' BattleCruiser designs), they were in response to potentially hostile Navies whose current heavy units under construction were obviously greatly in excess of the treaty displacement. The IJN's actions, informing the treaty signatories that it wasn't planning on remaining within the London limitations, signalled the building of the Yamato class whose existence also threatened French interests in Indochina. So the Richelieu as constructed, (later updated in the U.S. after being attacked twice by allied forces and gaining about 5k tons) was ~7% over the Treaty's Standard Displacement. By this time the escalator clause had been used by the U.S. to replace the 14" main battery design of the North Carolina class with a new 16" gun. 12, 14 inch guns were exchanged for 9, 16 inch. The North Carolina class went slightly overweight also, but was only armored against the U.S. 14 inch guns. The new 16" American main battery fired a 2700 lb. A.P. shell versus an improved 2240 lb. A.P. for the older Colorado class (Maryland, West Virginia, Colorado). So despite the firepower, the U.S. design of the same period lacked the Richelieu and Jean Bart's balanced design where speed, armor, and firepower were very nicely balanced. Superior to both their Italian and German counterparts and on less displacement. There are records that detail how well the French battleships stood up when attacked by British and U.S. heavy surface units in 1940 and 1942. Since the French battleships were subsequently repaired and updated in the U.S., extensive records are easily found in the public domain.

[@michaelpielorz9283]

9500 ts more is strictly observing) (:-))

[@Jintsoo]

This was really interesting learning more about the KGVs and I especially love the slides providing additional visuals and data!

[@Big_E_Soul_Fragment]

The best barbeque machines in WoWS

[@issacfoster1113]

BEST BB to farm in low tiers

[@silverhost9782]

WG made them weakly armoured too. Go figure

[@chrislyne377]

If only the armour was realistic in any way

[@waverleyjournalise5757]

Please don't remind me of the absolute travesty those ships are

[@d.olivergutierrez8690]

I was interested in getting the game but after seeing that the meta is dominated by super shits that were never built or original designs that look like something out of a post-apocalyptic steampunk fanfic then I lost all interest

[@SupaTang]

I came in today after getting the Blue Mountain coffee!!! Thanks for letting me know about your channel. I. Love. It!!!!

[@ryantoole2327]

This will likely get buried. However, regarding the AA performance of PoW at her sinking I think it is correct to hammer on about the issue of "not having the ability to show what she can do" due to the torpedo strike. It's worth discussing her excellent AA performance at Operation Halbert in the Medditereanan and subsequently comparing that with what happened at her sinking. I'm not saying she would have been saved by her AA suite had it been operating at 100%, but perhaps she would have given a better account of herself (that said, clearly she did as well as she possibly could in the circumstances).

[@cmdredstrakerofshado1159]

Thank you for this video. You have done great job in dispelling the myths and other naval historians' dim views of the King George V classes as being useless. Due to KGV effectively-being unarmed, always broken 42000 ton ocean going gunnery target due to KGV classes defective guns. In reality, this idea is vastly overstated. Your video and the Official Battleship New Jersey's YT channels video by the curator Ryan Szimanski video on the King George V class really help in my mind remove the opinion that KGV was useless due to defective gun design and poorly trained RN crews. Really the KGV class was a victim of being rushed into service due to WWII without the usual ship development program. Usually, the first ship of the class is built and undergoes seas trials to find what needs to be fixed before the rest of the class is built. If sea trails had happened with the KGV class the Quad turret issues would have been discovered and corrected, unfortunately, WWII started too soon. One of the most brutal assessments of the KGV class was by a British author ( sorry his name escapes me) in a book reviewing RN ships in WWII in his twenty-page chapter's closing on the KGV class loosely quoting " The steel would have found better use being ship to American and returned as Sherman Tanks, Savage firearm produced No.4 Mk 1 * SMLE's and the difference sent to Canada to produce Hi power 9mm pistols and Bren guns. Or the real B slap to KGV class he suggested the steel would have been better spent and send back to England in the form 5 Kaiser steel built Casablanca class escort carriers Ouch! Oof ! Thank you again for the great video and for giving an accurate historical context around the KGV class of battleships.

[@Alex-cw3rz]

49:57 has one of the secondaries on this ship been replaced by an AA mount or is the secondary hiding behind the turret on the Left side and I'm mistaken?

[@sergarlantyrell7847]

Nope, all 4 5.25" turrets on that side are still there.

[@Lucinat0r]

I love this kinda in depth analysis, it shows the work of true historians and given I'm a Docent/Historian the the worlds largest private aerospace museum I know how hard it is to try and weed through misconceptions and false info that sometimes has been floating around or half a century or more. Good work guy's

[@jamesmasonaltair]

I know progress never stops, but I miss the age of the battleship. Now we have stand off missiles and carrier airstrikes. But in the battleship era you had to be ready to stand in there and give and receive shots. Battleship gun battles are the naval equivalent of MMA. Though a leader of land armies, the great Duke of Wellington summed it up perfectly. "Hard pounding, Gentlemen. Let's see who pounds the longest." Thanks, Drach for another great vid!

[@richardstephens3327]

Thank You! please never listen to anyone that tells you videos like this are to long, the longer it is the more info.

[@CodeElement190]

KVG with torpedos Wargaming: write that down, write that down!

[@ThroneOfBhaal]

I love long form videos. Everyone's doing 10~15 minutes to please the algorithm, I cant learn enough in 15 minutes. This is better.

[@wolffweber7019]

Reserved for tonight. Definitely better option than Netflix👍

[@zelogicalgopher1683]

amazing videos as always drach... i dont know if enough information is available but id love if you did this kind of video on the nelson class should sufficent information be able for you, superb content as always keep it up!!

[@mcduck5]

Imagine a KGV with similar layout to a Nelson and 12 guns, That would have been quite something!!

[@soto1649]

British actually wanna make kgv class with 3 triple turret 16inch

[@youraveragescotsman7119]

@@soto1649 Known as the Lion-Class.

[@NathanOkun]

Note that to make the APC projectiles less breakable, they made their middle and lower bodies very soft and bendable, with a special Hadfield "Patent Relief" base plug shaped like a wine goblet -- an air gap between the bottom of the plug and the inner side of the threaded region holding the plug to the bottom of the shell -- with the base fuze as the screwed-in central stem, so that the flattening or tearing of the base due to highly oblique impact on thick deck armor would not damage the base fuze, as happened in fuzes that were in a rigid disk-shaped screwed-in base plug when the base slammed into the side of the forming hole in the armor. This soft body and special base plug design worked fine for face-hardened armor plates only up to slightly thicker (say, 15"-16"or so armor for a 14" British WWII APC shell of this new design at up to 30 degrees or so from right-angles), but as either homogeneous, ductile or face-hardened plates got much thicker than that, the projectiles began to bend in the middle like a banana and fail to penetrate mode that a few inches, though in many cases the projectile remained in more-or-less one piece with perhaps some nose damage. Thus, along with the with the gun size and ship displacement, even the anti-battleship ammo used was tuned to give maximum effect against the more lightly-protected, smaller warships that matched proposed treaty limits. Good enough against BISMARCK and the Italian LITTORIOs, but definitely NOT against the YAMATO Class ships or ships with the thick barbettes and turrets of the new French and later new US battleships. Another point: British APC shells were allowed to vary in AP cap design widely from manufacturer to manufacturer. Hadfield had an rounded, contoured AP cap with virtually no corners where the edge of the face met the side of the AP cap (where the windscreen screwed on), while the FIrth AP caps had the "Knob - and-Ring" face virtually identical to the latest Krupp APC shell used in BISMARCK. These had a flat "brim" at the edge of the face with a thick dome in the center over the tip of the projectile nose under the cap. On impact with deck armor at high obliquity angles, that sharp corner of the Firth/Krupp cap could notch the armor and begin to peel up the front surface layer, making it more difficult for the armor to cause the projectile to glance off, thus improving penetration in such impact. The Hadfield contoured AP cap could not do this and would bounce off much more easily. This was confirmed during US Navy tests of Hadfield versions of the British 14" APC shells tested after WWII that skipped off 7.25" turret roof plates at about the same impact energy as US 14" Mark 16 AP shells were punching through, all impacts at 55 degrees from right angles. If these had been 14" British Firth versions, the shells might have been roughly of equal capability to the US AP shells under this test. US AP caps could vary somewhat, but usually only in the very center over the tip of the nose (flattened or rounded), but the rest of the US AP cap face shapes allowed -- a cone shape with a 100-degree angle between the face slope on each side of the cap central tip -- were essentially identical to give repeatable results under test and in a battle. The US cone-shaped face had enough of a corner at the edges to cut the needed notch if the plate was thick and rigid enough, which varied depending on the impact angle, with thinner and thinner plates being able to be notched as the angle of impact increased; note that it took about a half-caliber homogeneous, ductile plate at 50 degrees to be rigid enough to be notched by the US AP cap edge design, which gives the thickest armor needed at over 45 degrees impact angle for this improved penetration to occur. The notch bonus for the US circa-140-degree corner at the cap edge was a drop of 12% in the needed impact velocity to penetrate the affected plate. I think that this bonus would be identical for the sharper-edged Firth/Krupp AP cap, but that the needed thickness to get it would be less for this sharp-cornered cap at any impact angle; perhaps only one-third caliber plate needed at 60 degrees, thinning down from there at higher angles.

[@JohnRodriguesPhotographer]

I have always felt Prince of Wales was a hard luck ship. What I mean is before she was had a proper shakedown and trials, she is called upon to combat Bismark. At the time of her loss, the task group was undersized, it was what RN had to send and in some circles too much. HMS Hermes is questionable as an asset or just another target. It is like all the luck for the class skipped Prince of Wales.

[@mpersad]

Just an outstanding review of an iconic battleship. Just another example of the quality of your exceptional channel.

[@madrabbit9007]

I really enjoyed this deep dive and look forward to more like it.

[@WayneBorean]

Wonderful. That answers questions I didn’t even knew existed. Thanks very much.

[@klassehkhornate9636]

Agincourt got scrapped so the British needed a dakka ship to replace them.

[@CSSVirginia]

Ain't never enff dakka!

[@thehandoftheking3314]

HMS WAAARGGGHHHier

[@xthetenth]

If I remember right, regarding turrets troubleshooting and having issues over protracted engagements, Massachusetts at Casablanca missed a lot of salvoes from what I've read, with about 75% salvo availability, including some pretty long stoppages and jams. And who can forget the South Dakota's electrical issues, they were also present in that fight, though much less dramatic. Similarly, I don't know how big an effect this had, but the Richelieus didn't get delay coils that were vitally needed by their main guns for acceptable salvo accuracy, since the shells were prone to interfere with each other in flight if not staggered. As far as cold and heavy water operations go, Scharnhorst and Gneisenau infamously ran from the renown with Gneisenau's main battery having issues that contributed to their decision to leave the fight. So I've never held the view that PoW against Bismarck is at all a remarkably poor showing. Much more remarkable to me would be a hypothetical ship that was rushed into service and worked fully from the get-go. Similarly, the torpedo hit against her is the sort of thing most designs would suffer badly against. Maybe, maybe the US turboelectric designs would have fared better against this sort of hit, maybe the skegs on US battleships could have helped, but that was an astoundingly, exceptionally unlucky hit. Frankly I think the KGVs turned in really good performances despite being frankly unlucky in the context of their use. They got pressed into battles that would be a challenge for any ship and took hits that would be huge trouble for any ship. Despite that, they delivered a shell that substantially constrained the Bismarck's options and flat out murdered the Gneisenau.

[@Hvitserk67]

I love these more in-depth videos with warships from WW2, but I think that on some level it would have been interesting to get a short briefing on what applies today. Gunfire and extreme amounts of armor in the traditional sense are not relevant today, but warships must still be able to protect themselves. I understand that it is about defense levels and that the last line of defense is usually close in weapons such as Phalanx. With, among others, the Norwegian Aegis frigate Helge Ingstad anno 2009 (F313) in fresh memory and how this ship slowly sank after a collision with an oil tanker due to very thin steel and poor watertight integrity. The ship should technically have remained afloat even if it took on water through the propeller shaft and stuffing boxes. It has also been questioned whether thicker and/or more solid steel would have meant that the breach along the side from the starboard torpedo launchers to the stern would have been less severe. I'm not an engineer or technical expert, but I have a feeling that today's warships are far from being as solidly built as they once were. It all obviously depends on keeping the dangers at a distance. The ships are simply not built to withstand a direct hit from, for example, rockets and mines.

[@Destroyer_V0]

Arguably... Modern anti ship weapons are made to counter the completely lacking armour on modern warships. Most modern vessels have, at best, 3 inches of armour plate, and to use a gaming term, are built like glass cannons. As much ordinance and long range as possible, and hope you kill the enemy before they either notice you are there at all, or before they can kill you. If you were to have a well armoured heavy cruiser with even potentially 4-6 inches of armour everywhere (Keeping in mind this is not how things were done, cruisers would have more armour than this, especially around critical areas) Alongside sufficient internal partitioning and torpedo protection. Having such vessels on mass would require larger anti ship missiles, eventually to the point where they might not be carried by carrier aircraft if it escalates. Cue renaissance of battleships having a place in warfare as they shrug off most firepower that is in use today... if the industries to make thick steel plate armour for ships was still around.

[@5000mahmud]

​@@Destroyer_V0 Some antiship missiles already have armour penetrating capabilities, like the warhead of the p700 Granit. There's an image showing a cross-section of it's warhead, and it has a thick armoured nose of 4 inches. Like a supersonic fritz-x, it's going straight through a ship if it hits the deck armour in dive mode. There was also a missile test of the Moskit where the missile goes through the target ship lengthwise. Besides, you can't armour the radar of a ship, which anti ship missiles do target, and without that you have a very expensive target ripe for immolation. Armour penetration for modern anti ship missiles is secondary to high explosive, as they are currently meant to burrow into the hull of giant CVs and gut them. Reintroduce battleships and you'll end up with antiship missiles meant purely for armour penetration.

[@glennsimpson7659]

What an enjoyable hour, with my favourite battleship class! One area not mentioned was fire control, which was adequate for surface action (although not as good as US or German systems) throughout the war but entirely inadequate for AA fire until lend-lease US equipment was installed late in the war. Anson and Howe, being later to complete, both benefited from improvements in radar directed gunnery control, especially in AA gunnery and had the most up-to-date radar fit out and Gun Directors. The 5.25” guns could not train or elevate fast enough to follow high-speed German and Japanese aircraft, but did receive Remote Power Control by 1945 for the Pacific deployment. They were also not very watertight. As far as changing things in the KGV design is concerned, I agree with all the suggestions in the video but also would have replaced the 5.25” with an equivalent number of 4.5” in between-deck mountings (as on the Aircraft Carriers, Valiant and Renown) - faster firing, faster training, and just as effective against the actual air threat of torpedo bombers and dive bombers. Saves quite a lot of weight and frees up the 5.25” mountings for use in the AA Cruisers. The other thing I would have changed is putting in a proper Electical system - a system split into 2 ring mains was very old-fashioned and vulnerable to damage, US BBs had much better electrical systems and used electricity for many things that the British used hydraulics or steam power for (not sure about other nations but judging by their automobiles , Bismarck would have been well served by Robert Bosch electrics). The use of oil lamps rather than battery powered emergency lights is another indication of the backward state of some of the RN’s standard systems. I also thought the comparative review of BBs was very fair. If you had to ask yourself, which of all these ships would I want to go to war in, my pick would be USS Massachusetts (they have ice cream) , but Anson (they have Pink Gin) would be a pretty close second.

[@Captain_Brian78]

I think you could some up the design of the King George the V class with one phrase. "They're fine, not great, but not that bad either."

[@WBtimhawk]

That was great ! I loved the mix between going into the geeky details and putting this details in context and explaining why they mattered or not.

[@ScienceChap]

As a former soldier, I know that the only guarantee is that a weapon system will fail. A rifle will jam, for example. It takes second to clear a stoppage when the round is less than an ounce. When the round weighs over a ton, a stoppage can become a real problem. A 66% success rate is very good under fire, in moving seas with ice. I have always loved the KGVs. Really handsome, purposeful looking battleships. Edit. I wonder why the RN did not add an Atlantic bow onto these ships. Once the doctrine of firing over the bow became redundant, something similar to what Scharnhorst class ships had fitted might have been a good addition.

[@steffenb.jrgensen2014]

I think an often overlooked asset of the KGVs are the 14" shells. They were fully sufficient in defeating armour, perhaps except that on Yamato, but due to their very large bursting charge they were much more destructive than most other heavy shells of larger bore diameter. (incl the USN 16" 2700 lbs)

[@pegzounet]

Well that's not a rhum ration anymore, it's the whole bloody barrel !

[@fantasyfleet]

Another great Wednesday video, you are spoiling us at the moment.

[@wyattbedard2194]

If you look closely, you can see the hundreds of "witherer" medals on the deck.

[@Randomclips9564]

What are those

[@waverleyjournalise5757]

@@Randomclips9564 World of Warships reference

[@talltroll7092]

@@Randomclips9564 It's the World of Warships award you get for killing a ship with fire...

[@wyattbedard2194]

@@talltroll7092 actually witherer is from getting 60k damage with fire or flooding

[@emmabird9745]

Hi Drach, Fascinating video, by far the most detailed you have done (except possibly loss of Hood). With ref to POW drive shaft issue, looking at it as a mechanical engineer but without the benefit of drawings to look at, I would think that there may be several different possible ways to address it. First more strong supports to the shaft but I would prefer some sort of break neck or quill drive that would break the flailing shaft/ screw outside of the hull and dump it. Then maybe the hull is intact so no counter flooding and the electricy supply can be maintained. Boeing use this sort of strategy for their engines, if they seize, they fall off!! (This occurred rather publicly about 25 years ago when a 747 cargo crashed into flats at Schipol because the "fuse pins" didn't break quite as ordered).

[@moistmike4150]

Great discussion! I keep thinking how tragic that Prince of Wales was lost because they had zero air cover, but desperate times lead to desperate decisions. God rest all who perished with her.

[@jollyjohnthepirate3168]

I built a model of a KGV years and years ago. I don't remember which one it was but I remember the ship had beautiful lines. I built it with a friend and let him keep the ship. His mom was from England and approved of my choice of ship to build.

[@onecertainordinarymagician]

Oh boy, this is one I want to have some popcorn out

[@vanguard6498]

My favourite class of Battleships hands down

[@dillank3240]

This is my favourite class of battleships. Thank you so much for this!

[@TomCamies]

Hell yes, I’m going to be listening to this tonight.

[@TrickiVicBB71]

Really great video to listen while working. I enjoy reading all the comments from people, great discussion.