HMS Royal Sovereign - "A Lesson to Be Careful Who You Loan Ships To."

No video

HMS Royal Sovereign - "A Lesson to Be Careful Who You Loan Ships To."

Рет қаралды 55,739

Күн бұрын

Few ships have garnered quite as much of a 'wince in sympathy' reputation as HMS Royal Sovereign. Her service in the Royal Navy was unremarkable, largely consisting of secondary roles. Her only chance to really shine, at Calabria, robbed of her by her own lack of speed.
But this is not unusual. Her entire class, save Royal Oak, had similar fates.
What is remarkable about Royal Sovereign, and elicits the wince of sympathy, is how she was treated in the Soviet Navy. Which was...poorly, let's say.
Further Reading:
www.amazon.com...
www.amazon.com...
www.amazon.com...

Пікірлер: 92

@skyneahistory2306 Жыл бұрын

For those curious about the website mentioned: www.naval-history.net/xGM-Chrono-01BB-HMS_Royal_Sovereign.htm

@fredericksaxton3991 Жыл бұрын

I read a book on "The Tiddly Quid" as "Royal Sovereign" was known, apparently. In the book it mentioned that when the Sovs gave her back, the anti-aircraft guns were found to be still loaded with munitions that had rusted and corroded in place. The thought of those guns being fired does not bear thinking about.

@nicksykes4575 Жыл бұрын

It would appear that maintenance is a dirty word in Russian, then and now.

@mkunes2502 Жыл бұрын

Sober is the dirty word. Lack of maintenance should be blamed on constant drunkenness.

@victorvogelsang6350 Жыл бұрын

During the Cold War we saw that across the board. Stay vigilante. Our personnel are much better trained and have better attitudes.

@sd906238 Жыл бұрын

Pretty much why the Moskva sank. If it was a US Navy ship it would of easily survived the hit.

@christianjohnson9190 6 ай бұрын

@@sd906238I mean the frigate USS Samuel B Roberts beat that game fair n square

@christianjohnson9190 6 ай бұрын

If I were to hazard a guess, and it’s a very long one, is that the Russians probably thought that everything runs on magical dust that would keep the equipment running at all costs times and was told to not trust the equipment that is telling you something is wrong because it is a traitor

@frankmueller2781 Жыл бұрын

I'm surprised that the Soviets actually returned the ship at all.

@percievalcrawford1555 Жыл бұрын

For a nation with wide ambitions, being unable to maintain a ship, even one that's just borrowed is quite appaling. Nice video.

@Dulya_with_poppy Жыл бұрын

Эта нация победила нацистов, отправила первого человека в Космос и не сдаётся американской агрессии. А что сделала твоя нация? Грабила несчастных индийцев, обдирала скальпы несчастных папуасов, травила несчастных китайцев, ещё где-то нагадила? А, я вспомнил, Битлз это было прекрасно.

@burtbacarach5034 Жыл бұрын

@@Dulya_with_poppy Yeah the USSR defeated the Nazis alright.WITH MASSIVE HELP FROM THE USA.Without our aid your cpuntry would be part of Germany.But I'm quite sure you're aware of that fact,just to proud and boastful to acknowlege it. BTW how's your war of aggression against Ukraine going??

@jonathandoe8398 Жыл бұрын

Your nation only defeated the Nazis with the help of U.S., only went to space with stolen technology and is getting it's ass kicked in Ukraine by western technology. Get some Vaseline for your butthurt, Ivan.

@davidtwliew616 Жыл бұрын

@@Dulya_with_poppyStill, unable to maintain a ship. Shameful.

@americantttefan4745 11 ай бұрын

@@Dulya_with_poppy Dunno man, England ain't known as the Prison of Nations like Russia is

@genericpersonx333 Жыл бұрын

Honestly, I am surprised the British bothered asking for the ship back when it was only going to be scrapped for civilian purposes for the most part. Apart from yanking a few spare parts of their own for the Vanguard's benefit, really not much value left in the old thing. If the Royal Navy had actually been following through on plans to build a bunch of large cruisers that would use the old armor-grade steel themselves, there would have been more virtue in dragging the old hulk back, but as it was, Royal Navy spent a fair amount of money and time for little clear gain.

@Joshua-fi4ji Жыл бұрын

It was probably more the government than the navy themselves and it's also the principle of it. Scrap may not be worth much, but Britain was broke.

@gildor8866 Жыл бұрын

Don't disregard the value of 30.000 tons of scrap iron. And Britain was short on money after the war.

@burtbacarach5034 Жыл бұрын

@@gildor8866 Short on steel too.

@burtbacarach5034 Жыл бұрын

@generic person,Why not ask for THEIR ship back?The USSR had shown their true colors by then.

@petestorz172 Жыл бұрын

USS Milwaukee, CL-5, suffered similarly in Soviet service.

@NashmanNash Жыл бұрын

Pretty much everything becomes garbage if you give it to the russians...

@Straswa Жыл бұрын

Poor Milwaukee...

@I_Have_The_Most_Japanese_Music Жыл бұрын

I keep hearing about such things.

@shawnc1016 Жыл бұрын

@@Straswa I think all her sisters were scrapped by the time she was given back, some of them before the end of 1945.

@Dilley_G45 2 ай бұрын

@@NashmanNashas we see again today with the russian army/navy

@alephalon7849 Жыл бұрын

Royal Sovereign's service with the Soviet Union is a different kind of bad luck, all right.

@sirmalus5153 Жыл бұрын

I did read some years ago that all the guns were loaded when the ship was returned, with ammunition either rusted into place or otherwise stuck. True or not, it does sound typical of russian maintenance levels i.e. none.

@revrndcast3918 Жыл бұрын

I recall reading something akin to that too, all guns were allegedly loaded (from her main right through to her small arms). On top of this, it was rumoured that excrement was smeared all through the mess hall.

@TTTT-oc4eb Жыл бұрын

It's like loaning your newly upgraded classic car to your alcoholic neighbor - who lives in the shitty, rat-infested house without water toilet at the end of the street - for almost 4 years!

@mahbriggs Жыл бұрын

An apt comparison!

@WardenWolf Жыл бұрын

The Soviets never really figured out how to use and properly maintain a surface navy, and the Russians haven't even to this day (hence the Moskva's unfortunate fate). They've never been particularly strong on the water, even when they've been very powerful on land and in the air.

@sebbonxxsebbon6824 Жыл бұрын

Drinking vodka is more important than work. Socialism breeds laziness.

@I_Have_The_Most_Japanese_Music Жыл бұрын

They don't invest in port facilities.

@mahbriggs Жыл бұрын

Even that is in dispute! Yes they beat Germany in WW2, but they had an awful amount of help! Since then, other than having nuclear weapons with ICBMs, their military might is not that impressive.

@burtbacarach5034 Жыл бұрын

@@mahbriggs If they maintain their nukes the way they 'maintained' this ship,there's nothing to worry about.

@mahbriggs Жыл бұрын

@burtbacarach5034 Can't disagree. I just don't want to rely on it!

@dugclrk Жыл бұрын

She was a beautiful ship. Too bad she didn't get a full upgrade earlier.

@dmitrykravtsov Жыл бұрын

I read memoirs of a Soviet officer who participated in handover of the British ships to the Soviet Union in 1944. Along with the "Royal Sovereign" (she was renamed in "Arkhangelsk") eight destroyers and four submarines were handed over. The officer claimed that the British taken-from-reserve ships were in very bad shape . All built in WWI era and very poorly maintained. It took two months from the Soviet crews to bring the ships to a condition suitable for a trip to Murmansk (the Soviet Northern fleet base). The destroyers did not have enough spares to bring them to normal shape and the British government had to give to the Soviets one more destroyer for cannibalizing. It happened though that the "spare" ship was in somewhat better condition than the other eight and that one was actually restored to proper condition and named "Deyatelnyi". The ship was sunk by a U-boat by an acoustic torpedo with considerable loss of life and became the only loss from the handed over ships. All the rest were returned to the Brits back after the war. The "replacement fleet" (handed over in lieu of the Italian Navy) anticipated also a light cruiser, but the Brits did not have any available. Then the US gave one their cruisers to the Soviets. It was also a WWI time ship (USS "Milwaukee" , "Omaha"- class), but taken from active service (not from reserve), In her Soviet life she was named "Murmansk". When I was a child I once had an opportunity to talk to a veteran, who served on her as a gunner. He shared many warm memories about the ship.

@bobcornford3637 Жыл бұрын

The fundamental problem with the R class, which so many people fail to appreciate, even those making videos, is that the Stability was very poor. The Rs had no reserve of stability, which meant they could not be modernised in any substantial way. Thus they were stuck with a lack of installed power and therefore were too slow. This could not be addressed as the length to breadth ratio, as well as the small displacement would not permit it.

@mystikmind2005 Жыл бұрын

Interesting.... and yes, being too slow is a MASSIVE problem for a warship... It becomes hard to imagine any situation where it is remotely useful when it has that devastating problem. (almost sounds like sarcasm, but no)

@MickCampin-jp9kb Жыл бұрын

Royal Sovereign was also a river Thames ferry between Southend-on-sea and Margate. Probably used in the Dunkirk evacuation too.

@jim.franklin Жыл бұрын

It was a shame that they did not have the presence of mind to turn her into a museum as they later did with HMS Belfast. The UK has not got any Battleships or Battlecruisers that kids and the interested can clamber around.

@andrewhammel8218 Жыл бұрын

They didnt even preserve the Warspite, its bigger better cousin, which sank more enemy ships than any other dreadnought. The Warspite even had the honor of being damaged by an experimental Nazi guided missle.

@edwardvincentbriones5062 Жыл бұрын

Felt sympathies on her too after watching this video, though you didnt mention that she was named Arkanghelsk in Soviet service.

@davidmurphy8190 Жыл бұрын

Antony Preston wrote of the mess decks being covered in fecal matter upon the return of the RS.

@mikearmstrong8483 Жыл бұрын

He also wrote that every gun, from main battery to light AA, was loaded when she was returned. Since problems with shell handling equipment wouldn't have affected every last gun, I'm guessing this was due to Russian paranoia, thinking they might have to fight the evil capitalists on the return, or more likely a lack of training from sending expendable conscripts on the return who didn't know how to unload the guns. Or maybe they were just trying to send some sort of unfathomable Slavic message.

@michaeledmonds8490 Жыл бұрын

The R-Class and the QEs.were tastefully designed and robust warships of their time. Great historic info. Good job.

@WardenWolf Жыл бұрын

The QE's were honestly the only truly good battleships the British ever built, though. British ships tend to be like British cars, in that they, with very few exceptions, tend to have glaring design flaws. Whereas the QE's were reliable and good all around, the Revenge-class were hampered by poor rolling characteristics which severely hampered their gunnery (and which could not be fixed) and so-so armor. The Nelson-class ships destroyed all the plumbing and lightbulbs in the front half of the ship every time the main guns fired, effectively rendering half the ship uninhabitable; they had to return to port for refit after a single firing session. The later King George V class ships were hampered by unreliable quad turrets and a tendency for their fighting capacity to go to hell after taking even minor damage. And then we have the Sheffield-class destroyers, of which HMS Sheffield, lost during the Falklands war, belonged. They were designed with only a single non-redundant water main, so when the Exocet severed that line the ship had no hope of fighting the fires that were ignited, not by the warhead exploding (which it never did), but simply by the missile's unspent fuel. Once in a while they made a truly good warship class, but it was exceedingly rare. In truth it was quantity over quality.

@Ah01 Жыл бұрын

@@WardenWolf Would agree mostly, but maybe the KGV class` quad turret problems are usually a bit exaggerated due to that most famous battle where POW:s turrets had serious teething problems. Perfect they were not, but not a catastrophy either. Low bows and A-turret wetness were a bigger issue during the war, I`d say?

@theicmn Жыл бұрын

@@Ah01 The NelRods were also excellent ships.

@Ah01 Жыл бұрын

@@theicmn Yes, true smashers with tremendous firepower. Too slow perhaps...

@Dilley_G45 Жыл бұрын

@@Ah01 but quite good AA equipment

@Sean_Coyne Жыл бұрын

So, she ended up being in much the same state as Russia's only aircraft carrier is today...a pile of crap.

@bobgreene2892 Жыл бұрын

A high-quality, concise profile. We subscribed.

@billballbuster7186 Жыл бұрын

The Revenge Class was in several ways better than the earlier Queen Elizabeth Class, but the speed was lower than expected, 21.5 knots instead of the designed 23 knots. Because of this the Royal Navy lost interest in them and they were not updated in the inter-war period. But they were better than some of the US Navy WW1 era battleships. My father saw HMS Royal Sovereign after she had been returned by the Soviets. It had been used for years as a toilet, its condition was so bad Hazmat suits had to be worn to clean the ship before it was sent to the breakers yard.

@jollyjohnthepirate3168 Жыл бұрын

The Royal Navy just couldn't afford to rebuild the R class. Only 3 of the Queen Elizabeth's received a proper modernization Q.E., Warspite, and Vialant.

@billballbuster7186 Жыл бұрын

@@jollyjohnthepirate3168 The Renown also got a nice modernization. But Carriers were the priority after war started

@jollyjohnthepirate3168 Жыл бұрын

@@billballbuster7186 yes she did but my point was that Britain was bankrupt following the Great Depression. They simply couldn't afford to moderize all their ships. True carriers were the wave of the future. But no one really knew their real power yet.

@Ah01 Жыл бұрын

@@jollyjohnthepirate3168 There was no refit - remedy for the slow and cramped hulls. The sparse money was without doubt better spent on Renowns` refits and especially the new KGV`s.

@inyobill Жыл бұрын

My recollection is that they were basically slow Queen Elizabeths.

@rd1690- 9 ай бұрын

My Grandad was a warrant officer on hms royal soverign Walter.G.Duggan ..He swapped half a bar of soap to a decorated German officer when the Germans surrendered for A knights cross with oak leaves ,A luger pistol & a drei Mark prussian Coin. I still have the cross & Coin along with his discharge papers! Would have loved to have been able to find out what ship the German officer was from & return the officers cross & coin to his family! GB 🙏

@Malbeefance Жыл бұрын

A battleship in being it would seem. I have a theory about the unverified condition. It is possible that we are looking at a time lapse event. The vessel was not being kept at fighting trim over a long period of time. Thus making her condition worse as time went on. By the time the socialists in Russia got their hands on her, they could only do so much to maintain the vessel as they lacked the facilities, and possibly the technical expertise, to properly care for such a large and complex vessel. I would also argue that the reason to resist returning the ship might have been influenced, at least slightly, by the embarrassment the Russians might have felt at returning the ship in such shoddy condition.

@mrrobertwolfiii1079 9 ай бұрын

100 and 80 Thousand Horsepower Ship traveled to east coast to Pittsburgh.

@squirepraggerstope3591 11 ай бұрын

Think of the "Rs" as a passing WW1 era British flirtation with the US "Standard" BB concept, or maybe more bluntly, as a cheaper, scaled-back and slowed-down follow-on to the QEs.. There were originally 8 Rs projected too, and the design did easily make them a match for the first three US "Standard" classes (7 ships in total, after which, only the 4th std class of two "Tennessees" which, "as built" could already elevate their main battery guns to +30 degrees, being really at least as capable as the British "Rs"). Of course though, only five of the intended eight Rs were ever built anyway (one being cancelled outright and two, Renown and Repulse, being built as battlecruisers instead). Furthermore, despite the R's armour scheme actually being an improvement on the QEs and their main armament (eight of the justly well regarded 15"/42cal mki guns) being equivalent, their pedestrian 21 - 22kts max speed usually meant they were last in the inter-war queue for much needed upgrades.