KMS Bismarck - Guide 017 (Human Voice)

[@Drachinifel]

Pinned post for Q&A :)

[@rambling_reiver]

We hear a lot about the importance of WWII radar. However, I have heard offhand references to ships equipped with ECM (Fritz X jammers in particular) - what sorts of naval ECM were used, how widespread was it, and how significant did such naval units prove?

[@pepeman69_24]

any thoughts on the A150 (super yamato) Class battleships?

[@alexandercorbett3095]

Do you play hearts of iron and if you do what’s tour favorite country to play and why?

[@Thecrownswill]

How effective were German and Italian asw in ww2, and what was there greatest success? Also, could the Germans have bought 13.5 in. guns from the Italians somehow, and would it be feasible? If not, then forget about the first part, and just assume the German Herman managed to put 9 13.5 in. guns in the Scharnhorst class. What do you think the effects would be? Also, what if Japan joined the central powers in ww2 because Germany sees their value and decides to build 1 or 2 battleships for them and help modernize them? P.S, how was your ninth grade? Because I'm goin into highschool, and I may not come back out.

[@carterk5060]

Using specs from WW2, what is the worst possible ship you could build?

[@b.thomas8926]

In five minutes, Drach has done a better job of telling Bismarck's story than World of Warships. And he doesn't have fancy CGI. Thumbs up bro!

[@b.thomas8926]

@Star Trek Theory I stopped playing over a year ago. To grindy, and I hated working hard at acquiring a ship only to have WoW screw with it.

[@datgood121]

@Star Trek Theory what did they nerf on tirpitz?

[@madmoff]

@@datgood121 Not nerfed per se, just powercrept to oblivion.

[@Revkor]

@@datgood121 it's been buffed twice. first it's secondaries to match the overall buff. and recently dipersion buff so more accurate main guns. still a fairly common sight in game.

[@wiryantirta]

beating WeeGeetards on competency (except their modelling and art department, those guys are hard carrying) is the lowest bar imaginable

[@lukum55]

On 26 May 1941, a day before the sinking of Bismarck, the German submarine U-556 sighted the carrier HMS Ark Royal and battlecruiser HMS Renown. The U-boat was on its way back to base from a patrol and had already spent all its torpedoes so it could not attack the British ships but observed activity on Ark Royals flight deck. U-556 saw Ark Royal launch the Swordfish aircraft that doomed Bismarck but could not do anything to stop it.

[@Iamlostofwords]

A broken promise :(

[@hoangho6781]

We’re they escorted by a few destroyers or something

[@bkjeong4302]

Imagine if that U-Boat did have torpedoes at that point and went in for an attack.

[@Dave5843-d9m]

Battles like this always have “random” events that lead to one side winning. At full speed, HMS Hood created a wake that dipped well below her armour belt. A lucky shell hit here triggered her magazine. Bismarck was stopped by a (un)lucky air launch torpedo that jammed her rudder.

[@tharos]

Pop history: The German Bismarck was one of the deadliest ships of her day! Drach: *Curb your Enthusiasm theme plays*

[@BHuang92]

"sinks HMS Hood" RN: You have chosen death Bismarck: How many ship you pursuing with? RN: 68 Bismarck: *haha I'm in Danger*

[@misterthegeoff9767]

"You and who's Navy?"... "Oh."

[@igorshmakov8634]

@@misterthegeoff9767 -You and what fleet -Home Fleet

[@tomhsia4354]

"Hmm, 68 ships in just the home fleet? That's impossible, we shall fight to the last shel... Oh bugger, now the rudder is jammed" "Hmm, I wonder why the horizon seems to be rizing?"

[@bkjeong4302]

Pointless overkill for an obsolete-on-launch vessel that could be sunk with a few carriers....

[@bengrogan9710]

@@bkjeong4302 Not really, it was a choice to make in clear that surface combat would be met with overwhelming force - the same premise as the modern nuclear deterrent

[@randomcode99]

Thanks for all the hard work you put into these Drach.

[@timhancock6626]

I met a man who had been a seaman on HMS Hood, but for some reason he had left the ship before her final departure. I don't think he ever quite came to terms with the manner of her loss. He had a small part of his council house dedicated to HMS Hood with cuttings and a model. A few doors away there lived a German wartime seaman who ended up staying in the UK and they became quite good friends. The day the hunt for the Bismark began my grandfather was on his troopship leaving Liverpool for New York. Their escort was HMS Rodney plus a destroyer flotilla..until Rodney and the rest suddenly cleared off at great speed leaving them unescorted. They only found out why a few days later.

[@jeg5gom]

Best snap description ever. Always thought the Biz was the ultimate but your comparisons with various others puts it in proper context. Thanks, Uncle Drach!

[@bkjeong4302]

Really the only thing she has going is speed and operational range, and even then Iowa has her beat (then again, Iowa was larger than Bismarck)

[@cgaccount3669]

So nice to hear real information. Most documentaries portray her as this super ship... that was sunk almost by bad luck

[@lejenddairy]

To be honest, the German military during WW2 gets glazed so much by wehraboos and internet historians. People speak as if Germans were a different species from a more advanced universe.

[@karlvongazenberg8398]

I got "ping" for the Tegethoffs, for the Courbet and for the Gangut, but not for the Bismarck. I guess the guy on the Gotland were sleeping.

[@DrivermanO]

Me too!

[@grochomarx2002]

Great stuff as always. How about a presentation of the German converted commercial ships commerce raiders of ww1 and ww2? The Atlantas, the Komet, and the others...

[@SonOfAB_tch2ndClass]

We’ll find the German battleship that’s makin such a fuss, we gotta sink the Bismarck cause the world depends on us!

[@daveriddell3704]

Someone is a Johnny Horton fan!! :)

[@gundamzeta3447]

Hit the decks a-runnin' boys and spin those guns around When we find the Bismark we gotta cut her down

[@Pijawek]

The Hood found the Bismarck on that fatal day The Bismarck started firin' fifteen miles away "We gotta sink the Bismarck" was the battle sound But when the smoke had cleared away, the mighty Hood went down

[@ivangenov6782]

@@Pijawek for 6 long days and weary nights they tried to find her (FÜRHERIOUS TYPING WHY BISMARCK A HE) trail

[@champagnegascogne9755]

Meanwhile Tirpitz is just chilling

[@sillypuppy5940]

Look at all those airplanes!

[@garrymartin6474]

Hiding

[@tyazze6390]

litterally

[@MAXLD]

Got molested 3 times by Tallboys... earthquake-making suppositories designed to penetrate and obliterate bunkers, dams, bridges, Uboat pens, etc... Ooof. Even missed ones did significant damage to it several times.

[@champagnegascogne9755]

"I love the snow and the fjord branches on Norway" Tirpitz

[@gumimalac]

Drach! you are a machine! So many videos! So little time! You sir, are not running on "bad coal"

[@73Trident]

Well Drach you sure stirred up a Hornets nest with this one. Great job, I'm just reading and eating popcorn!

[@Trek001]

Bismarck: *sinks Hood* Fleet Air Arm: "Right, ya bastard... Let's have ye"

[@turbowolf302]

Bismarck: *Getting spit-roasted by Rodney and KGV* ORP Piorun: "I AM A POLE"

[@TheEvilFoxy]

Nice to see that things haven't changed in the almost 80 years that have passed, since I run to players proclaiming their Polishness on WoWS evey time I take the German battleships for a spin.

[@scootergeorge9576]

@@TheEvilFoxy - Don't see the point in bringing video games into an actual history discussion.

[@rpm1796]

''A Republic for a rudder! Just tink how guud it cudda bean. If only OLE BIZZY could have made her to the welcoming throngs and, all the rolly ginger sluts at Galway Baye ...And joined up with our Irish super pocket battleships... the famous 7X10 3/8th inch,...Give or take 15,000 tonne Le' Drunk & her sister ship Stupid...….''WE ARE DRUNK!''

[@karlvongazenberg8398]

@@rpm1796 "A Republic for a rudder!" - Warspite got her rudder jammed too and waltzed round and round before the Hochseeflotte at Jutland. Having the Grand Fleet behind her prolly helped a lot to get out of the situation.

[@wiryantirta]

Piorun was probably trying to steal the kill with their 120mm peashooters

[@GaldirEonai]

Drach: Bismarck was an inefficient design. Wehraboos: *furious typing noises*

[@Keckegenkai]

still a good ship considering the years of a treaty tho

[@moritamikamikara3879]

I mean sounds to me like Bismarck was literally just made to give the finger to the treaties that constrained it, which it seemed to do fine

[@wolfsoldner9029]

Drach: Bismarck was an inefficient design. Britboos: excited masturbation noises.

[@SwissCowboy87]

doesnt matter if it was inefficient, it oneshooted the Hood lol

[@neniAAinen]

@@moritamikamikara3879 She wasn't. Weight saving measures are very apparent in her. There is a very significant distance between ship which ended up being way over, and ship which was originally designed unconstrained.

[@dyynf]

You're spoiling us drach Thank you!

[@VuldEdone]

Forgot to say thank you for redoing those, the robotic voice was a real roadblock to access all those info.

[@kimtainio8975]

You're on a roll today! At least 3 vids!

[@davidfernandes920]

Excellent job. Too many people in believe that Bismarck was a super ship.well balanced information.

[@therocinante3443]

Good on you for changing to live voice videos! Best of luck with your wonderful channel.

[@joeblow9657]

Bismarck: Is inefficient in its design Drachinifel: It deserved everything it got and was a stupid ship

[@jamesberlo4298]

I know, for a stupid Ship it made short Work of Hood and needlessly charitable to Prince of Wales, and according to the Bismarck expedition not a single penetration to the Hull Armor? and likely took more punishment than any Warship (not to mention its sister surviving a direct Tall Boy hit and two near misses) the broke even on Bismarck. Imagine if they didn't make a stupid one?

[@DrFatalChunk]

@@jamesberlo4298 You are confusing design for circumstance, real life is not top trumps. The facts are that the attributes afforded to Bismarck were not in accordance to its weight class. Additionally: Both Rodkey and KGV penetrated Bismarck's armour at points thicker than the main belt, as well as the armoured deck, Bismarck was not an impenetrable behemoth and the damage it suffered was enough to render her dead in the water as well as sink it outright (depending on who you ask). Had Tirpitz suffered her tall boy hit at sea rather than in port I highly doubt its fate would have been a positive one. You say these things as if anyone, least of all the Germans, could design a ship to counter the material facts of reality.

[@joeblow9657]

@@jamesberlo4298 Very astute points there. If it's fire control systems had been properly armored or luckier it might've been even greater. HMS Hood was so low in the water it had very high rates of pneumonia among its crew. Also, Hood was one shotted so...

[@filipzietek5146]

@@jamesberlo4298 Typical opinion of someone with little understaning of the topic. Bismarck lost it's turrets very early and they had thicker armor than the belt. Also hitting the superstructure can't really sink a ship directly it;s not wows lol. Coming back to belt penetrations, i don't know how Bismarck begining to slowly sinking shortly after start of the final battle can be explained if the belt was intact? By the time it recieved torpedo hits and most of gun hits the deck was already partially submerged. Also all that matters little when Rodney a much older and lighter ship managed to basicly disarm Bismarck in short time.

[@jamesberlo4298]

@@filipzietek5146 Yes easy explanation it was scuttled, and it didn't lose its turrets from penetration apparently, one shot went under B Turret into the slew Gear and got inside, German Armor is Superior, even someone with "little understanding" knows that. but thank heavens there are experts like you that were actually there to straighten us out! I'm going on what legitimate is available, information like from the expedition, but regardless for an interwar design with all of its shortcomings commenting on its qualities and known facts is permissible. and it is in much better condition today than is Hood.

[@Historybuff_769]

Happy birthday bismarck 🎉

[@schullerandreas556]

The intro is kinda quiet compared to the video

[@ApothecaryTerry]

It's been the other way around lately, as long as I can hear Drach himself I'm happy.

[@dugclrk]

Had to turn the volume all the way up to even hear it.

[@josiahricafrente585]

Oh look! It’s SCP-4217-A!

[@josiahricafrente585]

Cpl. Rook Someone call up the Foundation before [REDACTED]!

[@F1-Person]

@@josiahricafrente585 The foundation Is On the Wae

[@mikeklaene4359]

A technically poor design or not, she sure did LOOK good!

[@dimesonhiseyes9134]

Style over substance is sometimes a preferred philosophy.

[@phantomwraith1984]

Indeed, Bismarck and Yamato are easily the two most beautiful ships ever built in my opinion

[@llllib]

@@phantomwraith1984 Fish agree.

[@Nyx_2142]

@@llllib Any fish near Yamato when she went down most definitely do not agree. Fish paste doesn't do much of anything besides taste bad.

[@leftcoaster67]

HMS Hood as well.

[@Dreska_]

The volume levelling has swung wildly in the other direction now? Otherwise, good video. I've always liked the Bismarck despite obviously not being a great design

[@rictusmetallicus]

Not a great design? It's a legend. That's what Bismarck is. Design...

[@m0nkEz]

The impracticality is what makes German equipment so cool/fascinating. It's like watching a trainwreck. "You built a battleship with distributed armor in the year of our lord 1936? You absolute mad lad."

[@Dreska_]

@@rictusmetallicus as the video explains,all of its real strengths are simply due to being big, not actually a well thought out or polished design. Something can be awesome without being 'good'

[@Dreska_]

@@m0nkEz Bismarck is almost like the Tiger tank of ships, except it was never really top dog by most measures

[@bkjeong4302]

@@Dreska_ Worse than a Tiger design-wise (or even conceptually, since the whole battleship concept was obsolete in WWII, though it can be argued that the heavy tank concept was also doomed to failure)

[@Thecoolman1]

Finally! Thank you Drach!

[@AngooseTheMoose]

I'd love you to do a video on the WW1 Australian battlecruiser HMAS Australia

[@sugarnads]

Angus Hatty yes. And ww1 sydney kicking crap out of emden in anachronistic revengay for kormarant killing sydney in ww2

[@NigelDeForrest-Pearce-cv6ek]

Brilliant and Concise!!!

[@lionheartx-ray4135]

Honest question, why does this ship have so much love? For me it an average battleship for it time with no real stand out.

[@danielgaddis4120]

In general, because it sank a prized warship(HMS Hood) and was deemed by the Royal Navy to be so dangerous that it ABSOLUTELY had to be sunk. That and they sent an entire fleet out to sink it. Rarely has that much force been deployed to combat a single ship.

[@ilikelampshades6]

The battle of the atlantic was probably the most strategic theater of the war and the surface raiders had so much potential to destroy British shipping. Without imports britain was doomed and without britain the Atlantic, Mediterranean, Africa, western europe and middle east would fall to Axis powers. Now imagine if the axis had supplies for their war effort vs soviets who themselves would not have been supplied.

[@WamuroRiXi08]

People like the look of it and how the only single operation she had, Sinking the pride of the royal navy ( HMS Hood ) , was hyped so much by films , books and tales told by other people , making it such a "legendary ship" , so people love her

[@wolfsoldner9029]

Love ? Everywhere I see british fanboys trashing on this ship.

[@Zagskrag]

It's German. Yes, that's literally it. It's the big bad Nazi ship.

[@Big_E_Soul_Fragment]

*From the mist, a ship a shape is taking form*

[@lordbaysel3135]

Sign of power, show of force

[@hmskinggeorgev7089]

Raise the anchor Battleship piloting it’s corse

[@Big_E_Soul_Fragment]

BISMARCK IN MOTION

[@thomasgray4188]

KING OF THE OCEAN!

[@bobmcclure8069]

He was made to rule the waves across the seven seas

[@wdavis6814]

I love how there was some random ass USCG ship just hanging out near by. They were probably sitting there with popcorn.

[@hckyplyr9285]

Excellent! Naval analyst Stuart Slade at Forecast International (who also has a substantial interest in naval history) once wrote that Bismarck was really just a slightly improved WWI era design drawing a great deal from Bayern and Mackensen classes. You seem to indicate that comment should have more rightly applied to the Scharnhorsts than Bismarck. Care to comment any further? Was Bismarck particularly inefficient due to relying on a previous generation design philosophy? You also have said the Prinz Eugens were similarly inefficiently designed with more displacement required than contemporary heavy cruisers. Thanks for your efforts and excellent videos.

[@Drachinifel]

Bismarck is a weird mix of old and new design philosophies, whilst some aspects of the design iterate from the last WW1 era German designs, there is a lot that is new about them as well, all of which hybridises to give them some great strengths, but also some massive weaknesses.

[@michaelbersuch4826]

Great video!! Lots of knowledge. I have been captivated by the old ships of the line, and am surprised there isn’t any videos on HMS Victoria the last and largest British Ship Of the Line

[@stefanfichtenhuegel5370]

Closing in and doing Little more than rearranging the wreckage. That's though!

[@godlucifer8428]

Kiegsmarine: sink Hood. Royal Navy: to lead the war machine, to rule the wave and SINK the Kiegsmarine

[@Armo1997]

I literally can not watch a single historic vid on YT without seeing Sabaton comments.... Its getting a bit annoying, and to be honest disrespectful.

[@Lord_Foxy13]

Clever!!!

[@lavrentivs9891]

@@Armo1997 Disrespectful to whom?

[@lavrentivs9891]

@Raj Neo Sabaton themselves are big history fans and their music is about history. Naming their songs on related topics is mostly just a joyful way for fans of the band to congregate in comment sections. =)

[@Nyx_2142]

@@Armo1997 Cry more. I'm sure that'll do something. Those pesky history fans and their darn historical music.

[@thomaszinser8714]

Is there any chance you could do a video on USS Vestal?

[@tomhsia4354]

My opinion on the Bismark has always been, good ship, had weaknesses, had a short but epic career, one-shoting Britain's pride, and taking a hell of a beating to take down (the great majority of the beating was to the superstructure, but still, it was one hell of a beating). I couldn't understand why Drach raged on the efficiency of Bismark until I learned of her specs and displacement... 41,000 long tons std/49,500 long tons loaded for a ship that is roughly comparable to the KGV (2 knots faster, worse armour, roughly equal firepower)? Ewww!

[@iansneddon2956]

I read a great description of the effect of Bismarck's inefficient design. "It's superpower was its size". Due to the inefficiency it was a larger ship than it should have been, and this size allowed it to soak up a lot of punishment. That said, much of the punishment was a gratuitous waste, carrying out an experiment to see if you can sink an enemy battleship with gunfire. Once Bismarck's guns were silenced they should have turned the flaming and defenseless wreck over to the cruisers to finish it off with torpedoes.

[@notsureyou]

I recently read that the extra compartmentalization as well as numerous system redundancies in systems cost an estimated 10,000 tons. How true that is I wouldn't have a clue.

[@rickhunter6513]

Most beautiful battleship ever built, if you can call a machine of destruction, “beautiful” Just my opinion of course 👍🏼

[@hukama6911]

ehh Jean Bart and Tiger is prettier, Tiger is a battlecruiser though

[@bullettube9863]

In contrast to the Germans the US navy spent money to lighten scantlings and fittings, shading the armor coverage, and eight high temperature high pressure boilers, to get the same fire power with a faster speed and longer range. The British naval engineers who inspected US warships all said that if their government had been willing to spend equivalent funds, they could have built similar ships before war broke out. The US navy did admit that angling the armor actually cost more weight then vertical armor, and that the proposed turbo electric plant would have weighed less then the final layout of four separate engine rooms that was chosen. The Germans also mistakenly believed that their shells did not need improvement.

[@frankvc5899]

That’s why I love Tirpitz more She caused an almost complete destruction of a convoy out of sheer fear

[@neniAAinen]

Her "fleet in being effect" owes largely to the accomplishments of other 3. Italian and IJN battleships never had such an effect.

[@bkjeong4302]

The success of that particular ship is owed largely to both sides of WWII being complete idiots when it came to the value of battleships-they overrated the worth of both their own and enemy battleships.

[@bengrogan9710]

@@bkjeong4302 battleship forces where the old equivalent of the nuclear deterrent. Effective only while the threat holds weight - useless once unleashed enmasse

[@tycondero1647]

@@bkjeong4302 True, the only thing the Bismark class achieved during WW2 was to show that they could destroy the pride of the British fleet (Hood) and tie down enough naval and air units far beyond its actual strategic value (Tirpitz).

[@Thraxus]

Tirpitz was a huge threat though, to the Arctic Convoys at least. Without enough ships stationed there to either 1. Discourage her from emerging or 2. Be able to definitely intercept and destroy her, she was fast enough to cause massive damage to the convoys there. Which was the primary supply route to Russia for the Allied Forces. Japanese Battleships never had the same effect because the US didn't have the same supply lines that existed in the Atlantic and the Arctic.

[@justsomeguyonyoutube3258]

Fun Fact:The Bismarck class was just a prototype the German command planned to build more ships based on the Bismarck class with stronger guns,AA guns and secondaries and these are called "H-Klasse" Battleships their names were H-39(Friedrich der Große),H-40,H-41,H-42,H-43,H-44(Großer Kurfürst) Erich Raedar and other Kriegsmarine admirals expected for the war to happen in 1944 because they wanted to build more ships with the Plan Z to equally battle the Royal Navy and French Navy with a Jutland 2.0 style.

[@Big_E_Soul_Fragment]

Drach: "Whilst they were the largest battleships in the world until the end of 1941, they weren't the most powerful." Can you hear it? That's the sound of Wehraboos crying in pain.

[@alfrig1363]

Sorry I’ll try to be quiet. *silently cries in a corner*

[@joshthomas-moore2656]

It is like thousands of voice have cried out in terror

[@thelvadam2884]

Still better track record then Yamato 🤣

[@Slades_Garage]

Thel 'Vadam more like Yauselessto

[@Slades_Garage]

The Bismarck was a good ship. But, due to many design flaws. She was not the world’s most powerful battleship.

[@caseylimbert266]

Bismarck was a good looking ship

[@LiveErrors]

Drach... did you just call Nagato better armored and almost as fast as Bismarck? How much IronBrew have you ingested?

[@bkjeong4302]

Seriously....WTF? Bismarck had major design issues, but was nowhere near THAT bad.

[@LostMaster100]

he said it that is as fast as the nelson-class ,but it is still stupid. 4:00 (what i found in the internet Bismark had a speed of 30kn and Nelson 24kn

[@tomhsia4354]

@@LostMaster100 He meant the Nelson was the only battleship out of the ones he listed that was NOT comparable in speed to the Bismark. The way he said it was very weird, but this is what he meant. "Each of these classes was better armed, carrying 8 or 9 16 inch guns, with the exception of the North Carolina Class, they were much better armoured, and with the exception of the Nelson-class, almost as fast in normal sea conditions." (Drach mentioned in a Drydock he considered a speed advantage of over 3 knots to be a clear tactical advantage) In other words, out of all the ships he listed, only the North Carolina Class had worse armour and only the Nelson was significantly slower. All of them had more firepower.

[@cold_raptor]

​@@tomhsia4354 saying the other ships were better armored is... Not COMPLETELY true. It is true that more or bigger guns but Bismarck kinda made up for that with a high reload speed and armor piercing capability that was actually Superior to that of the rodney.

[@josephamstutz9118]

Happy birthday Bismarck

[@trevortrevortsr2]

I am impressed that the old battleship Rodney

[@williamharvey8895]

It's a Drachinifel kind of morning.

[@willyjimmy8881]

First time in a while I've been able to binge watch the 5 minute guides. The wife is that magical ovulation cycle and were trying to get her pregnant. As long as I take 3 or 4 swings at the plate a day she leaves me alone between. The rest of the month, well, eh.

[@ajm2872]

Looking forward to seeing these guns as big as steers and shells as big as trees.

[@tomhath8413]

The old adage that generals and admirals prepare to fight the previous war is so true here. Battleships were effective in WW1, but they were no match for carriers in WW2

[@ImRezaF]

Carriers didn't really do good at night battle, you know.

[@bkjeong4302]

@@ImRezaF But battleships still couldn't beat carriers because the carriers could just remain out of range day and night.

[@NashmanNash]

By the time of Bismarcks sinking the biggest achievements of carriers were:Getting sunk by U-Boats,getting sunk by Battleships...and attacking an unsuspecting fleet at anchor....Not anything i would really bother with in my naval planning to be honest

[@rayalbaugh4149]

Wow, in in less than an hour, first time for me

[@michaeldantoni4292]

Regardless if you like that ship or not, it sure did scare the shit out of Churchill.

[@erikgranqvist3680]

You could argue that the Germans should have put the resources elsewehere then Bismarck and Tirpitz.

[@feliscorax]

Aye, you could. Those were resources that could have been better deployed in the U-Boat fleet. Admiral Dönitz always wanted 300 U-Boats at the start of the war (instead, he had slightly more than half that number), and it’s just as well for Britain’s sake that he hadn’t had that many.

[@hmskinggeorgev7089]

More uboats but if you what battleships a improved 15in Scharnhorst would be better.

[@KMCA779]

To be fair Tirpitz did an amazing job at pulling aircraft and other assets away from other duties to try and sink it. I don't understand why they remained so obsessed with it.

[@bkjeong4302]

You can say that about literally any battleship of WWII. What this class stands out for is that it was not only pointless and a waste of money, it wasn't even good at being a pointless and wasteful battleship. At least the British, Japanese, Americans, etc had contemporary designs that were superior, even if they were just as pointless.

[@josevicentetagle7753]

Thats alot of Panzer IVs you can build with the Bismarck

[@cannonacesw2236]

There are flaws for sure. But the final fight was none. She was a sitting duck with low Speed running in circles. Your guide implifies she went down having full fighting capacity...

[@godalmighty83]

He stated the loss of primary and secondary fire control and the effective destruction of the turrets. It is only a 7min video but that was covered.

[@cannonacesw2236]

@@godalmighty83 Fighting capacity gun wise yes (wich was there from the beginning), but not maneuverability and Speed - both very important Faktors

[@hukama6911]

A hit from prince of wales made her sits lower on the water, and slower. Which meant shadowing harrasing her is easier, intercept by swordfish possible. And not just the rudder the crew were exhausted from harrasments indicated by after battle report that she didn't score a single hit on her last battle.

[@lordhumungous7908]

So beautiful

[@corporalpunishment1133]

"But but but it's German it's got to be the greatest battleship ever put to sea. But I play world of warships but but GRRR I rage quit your channel". Just kidding I learn something from channels like yours everyday keep it up and thank you.

[@falcongaming49]

please provide me with information and drawing about the main electric cables in Bismarck, seems everybody talk about but no drawings

[@mctixe7792]

Plans a huge Navy Construction Program, starts a WW before any of the ships are finished. 9000 IQ play. Also u could have mentioned that bismarck only sank because the admiral in comand was incompetent and gave away their position.

[@markusbrenninger4957]

While the decision to attack Poland and thus kick-start WW2 was maybe a little bit too early in regards to the Navy, there were a lot of factors which had to be considered. The comment about the imcompetence of Admiral Lutjens however, is not completely correct. He did give away their position but because he wasnt aware that the British had lost him. He still thought, the cruiser squadron was on his tail. In the end, the hunt for the bismarck could have gone both ways. The British had a lot of bad luck in regards to their attempts to slow the Bismarck down. Torpedoing their own cruisers, losing her even with radar and one failed torpedo attack.

[@mr2tuner136]

@joanne chon wasnt the reason he engaged hood was because they were already firing at bismarck. And the line "ill be damned if i let my ship get shot out from under me" became a thing? He kinda had to fire on hood and prince of wales..Or else he would've been damaged/sunk without firing a shot.

[@hamhobo123412]

Wait wait wait. You're telling me Bismarck didn't have 20 18inch guns, 25inch Armour and could launch 150 jet fighters? Lies. The Bismarck is the ultimate vessel of war.

[@LuqmanHM]

With that 47,000 tons displacement, if the germans used all or nothing armour scheme and more efficient design, Bismark could have 16 inch belt angled at 20 degrees. Or the same 13 inch belt with 4 triple 15 inch turrets

[@gonavygonavy1193]

Triple turrets are aesthetically inferior to double turrets.

[@hailexiao2770]

@@gonavygonavy1193 And aesthetics matter in this case...how?

[@skdKitsune]

All or nothing armor is bad tho?

[@gonavygonavy1193]

@@hailexiao2770 Form triumphs over function in the long run.

[@Nyx_2142]

@@hailexiao2770 Aesthetics matter in everything. We can't help that you are an uncultured and inferior barbarian.

[@evo5dave]

All the money and resources Germany used for the building of these capital ships really was just an exercise in futility.

[@EliteF22]

And to employ them as commerce raiders. So wasteful. The U-boats were so much better suited for that.

[@evo5dave]

@@EliteF22 Exactly. Either that or hide them in a fjord.

[@richardthomas5362]

I think their only main use was a "fleet in being". I think that was how Tirpitz and Scharnhorst were employed in Norway. When Scharnhorst went on a raid and HMS Duke of York sunk it Hitler was furious because, I believe, the destruction of that unit would allow the British to concentrate resources elsewhere.

[@bobjohnbowles]

I think it's easy to say that in hindsight, but at the time the simple existence of these two ships was a source of consternation to the British Admiralty. Witness the time and resources the Allies put into destroying Tirpitz even after she was holed up in a fjord.

[@bkjeong4302]

To be fair, by WWII EVERY new battleship was an exercise in futility. The Germans just messed up badly enough that their ships were badly designed on top of being pointless.

[@leftnoname]

Well, Rodney made a quick work out of her, once she lost ability to run away. Admiral battleships seem to have been very solid gun boats for their time, although with limited speed due to treaty displacement restrictions. RN got their moneys worth from Rodney and Nelson. Solid service all around.

[@wolfsoldner9029]

With their poor speed they would have been as useful as the R-class ships with their bad speed.

[@KatyushaLauncher]

@@wolfsoldner9029 They may be slow but they still achieved much more than Bismarck who's original goal was to sink merchant ships and failed miserably, Tirpitz who's fleet in being was supposed to be useful but in the end the cost of keeping her far outweighs her benefits

[@wolfsoldner9029]

@@KatyushaLauncher Its original goal was to be a response to the Richellieu. Instead it covered Scharnhorsts and Gneisenau escape for getting all the RN attention and sunk one of the 3 current useful 30 knot capital ships. Also the Nelson class would have archieved nothing if the Bismarck wasnt disabled. All german capital ships were able to outrun the Nelsons.

[@KatyushaLauncher]

@@wolfsoldner9029 You're mixing up ship history, The Nelson-class was a response to America and Japan having 16 inch battleships which were the Colorado-class and Nagato-class. So is running away the only thing German Capital Ships are useful for? Actually that is correct, the Nelson-class had a heavier broadside weight, thicker armor and was better protected, carried much more advanced radar and fire control systems, looks like the only thing they do have is their speed, I'm not sure that running away is the only justification you have for German capital ships?

[@wolfsoldner9029]

@@KatyushaLauncher Its the reality that all those beefy features which were barely better than a much faster ship are worthless if you cant even keep up with your enemy. Even the Nagato was faster. The Bismarck was faster than most RN capital ships and destroyed the strongest ship that was able the catch up.

[@angrywehraboosnoises8016]

Bismarck: fires guns Fire controll: my time has come

[@warhawkme6344]

My wife says "The Bismark is cream filled."!!

[@toothedacorn4724]

I feel like after the British cornered the Bismarck it was less about sinking it and more about pounding it into the sea

[@tomhsia4354]

Well, given the fact that most of the hits were on the superstructure, it was more a case of pounding it into a sea of fire and debris than pounding into the sea.

[@toothedacorn4724]

@@tomhsia4354 well eventually after they'd sufficiently savaged the superstructure they'd have to shoot something else 😆

[@Nyx_2142]

@@toothedacorn4724 Yeah. The main armor belt they never got through.

[@autiovaa5255]

@@Nyx_2142 The armor belt was pierced multipul times

[@robertbertagna1672]

Thanks!

[@edwarddunne2758]

If it's not too much too ask, would you mind doing a video on any of the following: the Hunt class destroyers, the river class frigates, the Royal Navy War Emergency Programme destroyers or the various small torpedo boats like the MTB's and e-boats.

[@jrd33]

Yes, I think that's too much to ask, given Drach is receiving requests from dozens of other people too. Pick one :-)

[@kirin1022]

Ah, yes the infamous "i detonate your pride"

[@s.31.l50]

Yuro reference!

[@NewtypeCommander]

At least it wasn't the Freaking Dumb Goon, a massive pork knuckle that cannot be missed. Or the more egregious Gross Kurry.

[@GermanShepherd1983]

Von Lindemann to Lutchens, "I'll not have my ship shot out from under my ass".

[@airplanenut89]

Always Sunny in Philadelphia theme plays: "Lindemann Gets His Ship Shot Out From Under His Ass".

[@deanmason7983]

Brilliant video, always good to learn a bit more about the history of these famous ships. Please could you review HMS Upholder (p37) or HMS Venturer (p68) for your next video?

[@bjturon]

Best guide of the Bismark ever! So informative, yet short and sweet.

[@karlchenkarolinger5799]

hood faster then bismarck? Hood barely reached her construction speed in the first place and in the time Bismarck set sail a major overhaul was overdue.

[@CapLP-yt7hd]

Karlchen Karolinger, Incorrect, Hood had in Fact Exceeded Her Design Speed. Her Speed had Fallen Latter to Approximately 30 Knots Due to Machinery Wear, Similar to that of Bismarck. On a Fair Day that is.

[@richardbushey2666]

Correct, all these newfound navel "experts" are blowing smoke. The Bismark was more than a match one on one with anything in the British navy.

[@lukewilliams7075]

Rodney was better protected and had bigger guns. The only advantage Bismarck had was speed, so she could control the engagement range. However, this isn't a huge advantage as, if the Bismarck's crew decided for a long range engagement, the Bismarck's turtleback armour would be ineffective against long range fire. Rodney's gunnery was also great, so that isn't helping Bismarck. If Bismarck's crew decided for a short range engagement, whilst Bismarck's turtleback armour would be effective in preventing the ship from going under, Rodney's larger guns would wreck anything above deck (fire control, radar etc...), and render Bismarck incapable of fighting back. Rodney definitely wouldn't escape unscathed, but she would be in better condition than Bismarck.

[@karlchenkarolinger5799]

@@lukewilliams7075 Bismarcks crew decided... Rofneys gunnery was great... The German ship was barely making 10kn to keep in on a straight heading because of the destroyed rudder. This was not a fight. It was like a turkey shoot

[@richardbushey2666]

@@lukewilliams7075 , Rodney better protected? What are you smoking? One on one confrontation the Rodney wouldn't have much of a chance. The Bismarck had superior fire control with her stereoscopic rangefinders and her modern 38cm guns had almost a 2 to 1 rate of fire. Rodney was old and slow and only got the best of the Bismarck as she was down to less than 10 knots and unmaneuverable , an easy target.

[@jehb8945]

I still consider the Bismarck an impressive battleship but after learning a little bit more it was not the hard nut to crack thought I thought it was the main armor belt did seem to keep out the vast majority of the shells but the conning tower was not thick enough to keep Lutjens and Lindemann in solid format and then there's the turret armor which from all accounts didn't hold up too long and you have to believe at least one of the turrets was destroyed by a 14-inch shell from King George V which really makes the turret armor look bad

[@mauriceofnassau5476]

You have to be aware that Bismark was hit by 3 torpedoes and 2 14" shells before the final action (enough to sink any other battleship, exept mayby Scharnhorst and Yamato) And the fact that she could not stear made it very difficult for her to score any hits or even to bring the guns to action, Bismark was also going very slow to conserve fuel and that plus the fact that she could not make evasive manuvers made it easyer for the 4 British ships to hit her....

[@Nyx_2142]

Not a hard nut to crack? Over 1000 shells hit it and none actually penetrated the main belt. After all that the crew scuttled it and finally put it down. The crew scuttled it so it wouldn't be captured. You know you are doing a piss poor job when after 1000 shell hits, the enemy still thinks you want to board and capture the ship.

[@commandeur1]

Why do we so many Bismarck videos being uploaded ?

[@neniAAinen]

Well, knowing Hiraga projects prepared before London treaty, there were no effective 35'000 tonners ever built.

[@garrymartin6474]

HMS Rodney sank the Bismarck which was quite effective !

[@daveriddell3704]

@@garrymartin6474 Not quite! She didn't do it alone.

[@daveriddell3704]

The South Dakotas were pretty effective for 35,000 tonners.

[@hmskinggeorgev7089]

Say what you want about the turret the KGV’s were good 35,000t ships. Yeah the turret problems hampered KGV and really annoyed POW but just ask Scharnhorst about how good a KGV can be.

[@hmskinggeorgev7089]

Dave Riddell KGV tor up what Rodney missed

[@Philip271828]

Can anyone else hear Sabaton? Who I, ironically, first saw supporting Dragonforce's Ultra Beatdown tour. Which was preceded by Inhuman Rampage. Edited because I can't tell the difference between pre and pro.

[@sugarnads]

Racecar Meerkat anyone understand any of this? Oh never mind. Its a meerkat. They just babble about eagles and snakes n such. Mongooses rule meerkats drool.

[@Philip271828]

@@sugarnads DragonForce have an album called Ultra Beatdown. When they toured to promote it, Sabaton were one of the support acts. Dragon Force's previous album was Inhuman Rampage. I heard a V8. Be right back.

[@robert48044]

sunk the 27th thats why all the love the last two weeks

[@Rauschgenerator]

I have some critic here; You can't say that the South-Dakota-class was comparable while in reality being much slower than the Bismack (3 knots difference) and not mentioning it - while you keep telling that Hood and the Iowa-class were faster than the Bismarck, where the difference here is just 0,4 to 0,6 knots. Then, "excellent German gunnery destroyed the Hood" - erm, rather it was either a very lucky hit, or a catastrophic failure in the construction of the Hood, wasn't it? I fear, there's a little bias here... But I agree that there's a myth, especially in Germany, saying it was the strongest battleship of its time, and it's important to tell the truth about it. What I find interesting is your statement that the shock from its own guns knocked out the radar system - which lets me ask: didn't they ever test the guns on the ship before it was sent into war?!

[@airplanenut89]

Personally I wouldn't call 3kts "much slower". Yes at some point Bismarck would out-run a South Dakota but given it's only 3kts, it would take some time before it shakes the South Dakota loose.

[@notsureyou]

In regards to the radar. From what we do know (on what Bismarck reported back to home base) is that: " Own EM-2 [radar] instrument prone to failures, especially during firing" This seems to indicate an issue with the radar when the main guns are firing, not a disabling of the radar (fully out of action, and never repaired). Dave Saxon who has done a lot of research on German radar makes a good comment if you look at this link "www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3977"

[@Rauschgenerator]

@@airplanenut89 That's not the point; the point is that he mentions the less-than-1-knot-faster ships as "faster than the Bismarck" while saying nothing about the speed when comparing the Bismarck to ships that are 3 knots slower.

[@Rauschgenerator]

@@notsureyou Thank you! That's very informative!

[@stevevalley7835]

So, Drach is on board with the theory that Bismark was unsinkable by British fire and was, instead, scuttled? Or just repeating German puffery? When Ballard found the wreck, he also said he believed the scuttled line, but, looking at the video shot of the wreck, i see a heck of a lot of damage, including long strips of the outer hull torn off below the waterline, and the entire stern missing.

[@kemarisite]

What both expeditions found is that the Bismark was going down, it was just a question of time. The scuttling effort allowed the crew to get it's own licks in and accelerate the process a little. Even if the British had pulled out and the scuttling order wasn't given, Bismark was never going to make it to port.

[@seno5530]

Drach said it would have sunk either way, making it a moot point

[@gonavygonavy1193]

@@kemarisite It never would've made it to port because it's rudder was stuck.

[@Nyx_2142]

@@seno5530 Imagine thinking you still have a chance of sinking it after failing over 1000 times. It wouldn't have made it to port without repairs to the rudder. Not because it would magically sink anyways. It sunk because the crew scuttled it. Nothing more, nothing less.

[@Nyx_2142]

@@kemarisite See other comment. The expeditions had to pedal that bullshit to save the Royal Navy some face. Lol.

[@timkbirchico8542]

Captain Drachinifel, proceed to cut out vid on Chocrane's career and adventures in South America with haste. Your obdt servant etc . Admiral Fatarse.

[@greenflagracing7067]

Repurposing BBs as commerce raiders, what could go wrong?

[@GreyWolfLeaderTW]

Repurposing BBs as commercial raiders in of itself wasn't a bad idea. Sending the BBs out with minimum escort was the problem.

[@colinthompson2335]

Great stuff, but one query, could the Tallboy bombs be supersonic ? They weren’t rocket propelled, just relying on good old gravity.

[@colinthompson2335]

Just done some homework, I stand corrected, terminal velocity increases with density and streamlining: ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/how-long-did-it-take-the-bombs-to-hit-the-ground-from-25-000-ft.39410/

[@warp8368]

Did the various H-class designs have similar design faults?

[@BadSkeelz]

Aside from also being outdated and strategically-irrelevant weapon systems whose resources would have been better put to use in more submarines? I think Drach's got a video on Germany's "Plan Z" navy that might answer your question. I imagine they would, especially if they let Hitler anywhere near a drafting board. Sometimes I'm surprised the Volkswagen didn't come designed weighing at 50 tons and mounting an 88mm cannon.

[@ApothecaryTerry]

The design fault with the other Z plan ships is very similar to the fault with the Russian navy of the time: not actually existing.

[@hanswurst6712]

I would have loved (in theory) to see what the two Bismarck-Class BBs escorted by the two Scharnhorst-Class BCs/BBs could do. Just in theory, it would be intresting to know. I guess they would have caused quiet a headache in the RN headquarter. But anyway, german naval strategy in WWII was doomed to fail. There was no chance to beat the RN. The smart plan would have been to fully focus on Submarines. Germany only had like ~50 Subs at the start of the war. If they would have used that industry power which was wasted on those capital ships, germany could have started the war with 200+ subs. Which could have caused the british economy to collapse. But anyway, even as a german, i have to say, the world is better of with germany losing. ;)

[@notsureyou]

I have heard that if they had also focused on heavy cruisers, they would have caused the Royal Navy to be even more spread out then what they were. Which is why in the Anglo Naval agreement the British made sure to limit Cruiser numbers, through dictating of the amount of tonnage that could be used in each class. Though what also needs to be remembered is that technically by June 1941 Germany had beaten Britain. In that Britain was out of money, and as a result couldn't get any more war materials And it was only the lend lease system through the neutral United States that enabled them to fight on.

[@sepuk]

Od couple (torpedo biplane and strange setup BS HMS Rodney) enters the bar ....

[@mongolike513]

But Bismarck looked so professional! I am sure that Jack Tar felt a bit embarrassed to have overcome such a ‘centrefold ‘ unit. Just imagine how things may have evolved if Bismarck hadn’t pulled off the thousand to one shot (?) that finished Hood. Tell me that story, please.

[@airplanenut89]

Probably in a similar fashion when the numbers came in on how much convoy tonnage was lost from Eugen and Bismarck.

[@businessdevelopmentofficej2747]

why are there no photos of the bridge of the Bismarck? the only ones I have seen have sailors wearing Scharnhorst or Prinz Eugene uniform caps on , so obviously not the Bismarck

[@jtpenman]

You have an amazing voice. Could do movie covers.

[@otakurt1149]

Designers: how powerful do you want the ship to be? Hitler: *Yes*

[@bkjeong4302]

But actually no, considering what the Italians managed on a similar displacement.

[@SeveralWeezelsInaTrenchcoat]

Designers:"Best I can do is "no" "

[@samstewart4807]

Hi I cant find your Q&A section. Hope you dont mind this comment here. I stayed up most of 5/23/24 waiting for you post a comprehensive hood video. I was thinking you would post it at the time she sunk. When do you think you do a "complete" video on the hood?

[@duraicarey4186]

well that's why my teacher said priorities the priority

[@davidharner5865]

More mention of vessels 'as powerful' as Bismarck, all U.S., so eXtremely slow. NMs and TNsees had 12 14\5s each, they were armoured better than much better than Bizzy, being fairly well protected against 15 inch, while Bismarck was a bit underwhelming vs. 14 inch on paper.

[@ConfusedAdmiral]

German Engineering Is The Finest In The World!

[@benbaselet2026]

Are you trying to say we didn't do the Bismarck before?

[@paolopetrozzi2213]

I don't think that, in the 1930s, Germans were using inches to size their armour belt, but cm. (Nowadays, only Burma (Myanmar), Liberia and the USA don't use the metric system, and only two of them use feet, inches, fingernails, elbows and eyebrows). Am I right?

[@hukama6911]

The brits still use imperial. and if you're an engineer work anywhere in the world you use both. Only scientists use pure SI. The rest uses English Unit or Napoleonic.

[@paolopetrozzi2213]

@@hukama6911 My question was rhetorical, which means that you didn't have to answer. Let's make it clear: ONLY the USA Liberia (...) and Burma (...) in the world still use their body parts plus other casual xxx: gauge, mile, yards, feet, elbows, inches, fingernail, pube's hair. Even NASA uses the SI, after the last crash due to a conversion error. Nowadays, in the UK, they use the meter, the kg, and the litre in their everyday life; they still use the mile in the street; The UK is officially adopting the SI since 1965, which means that the SI has been in use for over 50 years. The process started in 1965, and later, in 1971, they opted for a gradual & VOLUNTARY changeover approach to the metric system as opposed to an M-Day (Metrification Day). The problem is the ignorance of the "Average Joe - Hilly Billy - Redneck" British citizen; and it looks like the hugely expensive UK college degrees don't allow people to understand the measurement system used in their own country. This is the reason why after 50 years road distances are still in miles. According to www.gov.uk/speed-limits As you can see, it still uses miles AND km, to allow people to get used to the "New" metric system. This is the first step, as miles are written as first, and km as second. The second step is to reverse their position. The third step is to use only the meter. Dozens of countries in Europe have adopted this method to adopt the Euro to replace the local currencies, we needed only a couple of years to adapt. The UK, after 58 years, are still at the first step. In the USA: Chemical engineers mostly use metric, with a final imperial conversion at the end. Nuclear, aerospace, and automotive are pretty much all metric now. Of civil, mechanical, and industrial engineers in the US, nearly half use metric. The trades and maintaining current infrastructure are the biggest roadblocks to full adoption. Metric fasteners were in the automotive and manufacturing industries and were considered "normal" by the early 1970s. Both systems are used in the US. Practically all US manufacturing uses Metric. So, if you are speaking in English, you are perfectly "allowed" to use the meter, the kg, the litre & Co. Better, you have to. “Keeping information in two systems is not only costly but creates a disincentive to change.” UKMA UK Metric Association But let's give a look at the current Imperial System: from Britannica: "Imperial units, also called British Imperial System, units of measurement of the British Imperial System, the traditional system of weights and measures used officially in Great Britain from 1824 until the adoption of the metric system beginning in 1965." ... "Imperial units are now legally defined in METRIC terms." ...

[@bernardrednix756]

pride of a nation a beast made of steel