The Boats That Ended Battleships

[@NotWhatYouThink]

Wanna help us get to *2* *million* subscribers? You are *2* clicks away! kzbin.info

[@faydea6962]

Hell nah

[@CCCalebCG7575]

I know who killed em It Was my friend jim

[@thesillymf420]

@@faydea6962 why tho

[@faydea6962]

@@thesillymf420 yes

[@stormtastic7083]

i have been subbed for almost a year now

[@TrangleC]

To be more precise: Most battleships after the literal ironclad era were not actually covered in armor. The most important parts on the inside were armored, but the actual hull of the ship was usually just relatively thin plates. There basically was a bunker inside the ship, called the citadel, which protected the engines and ammunition storage, but the rest of the ship was unarmored, with some small exceptions.

[@cc0767]

not all ships followed the same design

[@nightshade4873]

iirc the US followed the "all or nothing" armor scheme, in which they only armored or heavily armored the areas which are crucial to the survival of either the ship or it's crews. i cannot say for other designs as i have yet to delve into their concepts during their development.

[@orsaz924]

That's a dumb way to do things, in my opinion. If the hull gets pierced/is littered with holes, how can the ship survive?

[@nightshade4873]

@@orsaz924 iirc, such armor scheme allowed large warship to be more agile and faster, the navies did play on the concept of using agility as a means of defense,, probably with the battlecruisers but i can't remember if they did, in the case of a hit, it will be devastating but it gives better assurance that the vital parts, both crew and equipment, can still fight back or survive to be in another ship. Although with the advent of missiles in naval warfare, such concept of an agile bb became obsolescent, they only became bigger targets that cannot easily fight back.

[@hirnlos9462]

​@@orsaz924 internal segmentation into watertight compartments. The all-or-nothing armor scheme has been done successfily by the two largest navies in the largest war we have seen yet. (hopefully I never have to update that part).

[@Black.Templar_002]

Human Torpedo; Italian Version: Actually Practical German Version: Overengineered Japanese Version: BANZAIIII!!!

[@tranquoccuong890-its-orge]

italia in WW2 was often overshadowed by its laughable army that people forget how competent the italian navy was

[@JohnSmith-mb8hi]

@@tranquoccuong890-its-orge not very much they where screw-ups too

[@chrisphoenix77]

I wish we could still have battleships. But with missiles, keelbreakers, planes, all of it... It's not feasible. And that's why the Zumwalts were built. And we see how those turned out :(

[@nomad6-1]

Closest things to a battleship that are still in service are the two remaining Kirov - class battlecruisers of the Russian Northern Fleet. Almost 30 thousands ton, 250 meters , nuclear powered. They are actually bigger than German WW2 battleships Bismarck and Tirpitz (although they weigh a lot less having significantly less armor). IJN's legendary Yamato and Musashi battleships were more than double the weight of a Kirov, 70 thousand tons, but they were only 15 meters longer than it.

[@henryhamilton4087]

I'm guessing a modern or future battleship would either be smth like the Kirov, just modernized. Maybe with the Zumwalt's gun system but uses cheap conventional unguided ammo since it'd carry a lot of missiles already. Or we can get an Iowa but with Railgun main batteries and nuclear power plant, maybe replace a turret with VLS cells, so only 2 turrets.

[@dani.zambomagno]

It's a good thing that you only wish this. Times have changed, reformers must adapt or the united States will fall way back under china

[@jfk9211]

Bro the Iwoa class battleships had missiles and cold war era anti aircraft systems aswell

[@ernestweaver9720]

The Carrier made the BB obsolete in WWII. However some are still in service as artillery and missile platforms. But you already know this. It's to bad we had to sink the Yamamoto. That was a masterpiece.

[@StarPiercerAwl]

What killed the battleships first and foremost is the upkeep cost. Most countries that had battleships post ww2 simply didn't have the money and will to keep battleships in their fleet. And by the time they did have enough money to keep battleships in service, missiles already outranged most naval guns and no1 apart from the US had costal bombardment in mind.

[@spigotsandcogs]

An intelligent take in the YT comment section? Well this is a nice surprise.

[@Anolaana]

Eh, I mean a carrier can't be cheap either. I think the range argument is more compelling. Missiles and aircraft bombs can reach out further, while not risking the hull of the ship who launched them.

[@StarPiercerAwl]

@@Anolaana carriers were simply more important. Obviously battleships werent going to be your predominant force going into the future but they still could potentially have a role into the 50s, 60s and even 70s. They had to choose one and the carrier was the obvious choice. If they had the money however, i recon they would have kept the battleships too.

[@dani.zambomagno]

@@Anolaana aircraft carriers killed the battleship way earlier than missiles. They were too much successful in WWII, having many carriers in those times were like having nuclear ICBMs and guided missiles now, they were the ultimate means to project power

[@StarPiercerAwl]

@@dani.zambomagno not really, the carriers did not "kill" the concept of the battleship. They just replaced them as the predominant force. Battleships still had a major role in WW2 and potentially thereafter

[@agravemisunderstanding9668]

Carriers also rendered battleships obsolete, while a destroyer could and was designed to deal with torpedo boats and submarine, there weren't many ways to stop a swarm of bombers and Torpedo bombers launched from a carrier that was far out of range of the battleships guns.

[@leiregyp5814]

carriers rendered carriers obsolete moment

[@azoverdosed]

@@leiregyp5814 truly the greatest argument

[@agravemisunderstanding9668]

@@leiregyp5814 oh shit yea I didn't even notice that

[@carll.2855]

Unless they were given VERY well improved AA with AA cruisers (like Atlantas, Fargos, Worcesters) but that's costly

[@Carewolf]

@@leiregyp5814 They kind of did, hence the designation of glass cannons. They were their own worst/best counter.

[@antonleimbach648]

The number of battleships sunk by small boats is tiny. Those PT boats had very high losses and were usually not able to sink a capital ship. It’s aircraft that doomed battleships, not small boats.

[@JimmyEatDirt]

PTs are costal defense boats, not open water craft. It's not a surprise that they sank relatively few ships, because battleships very rarely get that close to shore, but that is exactly where they excell. If a battleship is within range of PT boats, they are within shooting range of airfields, which makes it dangerous for aircraft. Patrol, Torpedo boats are meant to act like angry bees; not aggressive, but highly defensive. If you see them coming, you better run, because they are going to dump all of their torpedoes in your direction and skedaddle.

[@Andrew..J]

Depends on the area. Small craft arent prevalent in open water because they can't carry resources for blue water ops and are fodder against modern radar and communication. But in littoral regions with confined spaces and heavy surface traffic like the Strait of Hormuz theyre a considerable problem. Any one of the hundreds of fishers in the area could be carrying a manpad.

[@ChloeKruegerSenpai]

Im thinking that you talking about way back in WW1 where Battleships (Dreadnoughts) are easily blow up by Destroyers (Torpedo Boats). I'm sure in WW2 they start putting Torpedo Bulge Armor, because it will be difficult for Battleships to survive, either Aircraft carriers

[@ComradeArthur]

Yes. An excellent example was the Japanese Battleship bombardment of Henderson field in Oct 1942. USN had PT boats right there. They attacked but the Japanese (torpedo boat) destroyers kept them from doing *any* damage. And that was at night - ideal for PT boat attacks.

[@49Chevy]

Other commenters have said it as well, but torpedoes are not what killed battleships, and saying so blows a hole (hah) in what otherwise might have been a good video. People were building new battleships well into the torpedo era, and torpedo defense was a huge part of battleship design. Battleships died off because they were hugely expensive, and technological advances made them easy targets for increasingly capable carrier-based aircraft as they didn't have anything close to the range to fire back at the carriers in turn - torpedoes didn't have anything to do with it. Heck, the most effective anti-battleship aircraft in WWII weren't torpedo planes, but dive bombers, whose ordinance hits from the top!

[@johnc2438]

Yes! Two cases in point: the IJN Yamato ("hit by at least 11 torpedoes and 6 bombs") and sister ship, the IJN Musashi ("sunk by an estimated 19 torpedo and 17 bomb hits"). These estimates are from Wikipedia articles on those ships. Both vessels, largest battleships ever built, were, in the end, complete failures in their intended function -- to fight U.S. Navy battleships in a colossal gun duel at some point in the war. The combination of bombs and torpedoes from aircraft launched from U.S. aircraft carriers took them out. Yamato and Musashi saw action only a couple of times in all the war (think of the oil needed on a cruise!) and were derided by some in the Japanese navy as large floating hotels.

[@Tsarbloonba]

Yes.

[@alessandromazzini7026]

@@johnc2438 "Wikipedia articles" -> laugh

[@xXCursedWorgenXx]

and more recently: ballistic missile cruisers make battleships even more of a moot point when you can fire huge missiles at them outside their effective range.

[@MartianLeo_T]

The Bismarck was almost completely unaffected from the torpedo bombers other than a hit to the rear which was what made the Bismarck able to turn an it was doing an evasive maneuver so it was going in circles.

[@danielmartin4947]

Interesting thesis, but torpedoes were not really what killed the battleship. Torpedoes were first used pre-dreadnaught and while developments over time saw them become more deadly over the years (as did deployment platforms), so did battleship defences and fleet defences (battleships would be escorted by destroyers/other vessels that could protect against subs and torpedo boats). Yes you could sink battleships in novel/niche ways, but this isn't what killed them as a type of ship. What really killed the battleship was longer ranged cheaper weapons in the forms of missiles and aircraft. The primary stand-out function of a battleship was to use it's long range large guns to sink other ships and survive any counter-fire. With ship/aircraft carried missiles (and torpedoes) being able to hit and sink ships at long beyond battleship gun ranges, they simple became obsolete as weapons platforms. Especially as these new long range weapons and deployment methods were cheaper. A modern destroyer/frigate can carry long range anti-shipping missiles and torpedoes that can accurately hit targets 100km away. Aircraft (carrier born or otherwise) can hit ships from 100s of kms away. The maximum weapons hit by a battleship was recorded at approx 26km by HMS Warspite.

[@thesillyseal284]

Incorrect L

[@henrybryant4380]

You can extend the range of guns with advance shells, GPS, and newer types of propellant that burn fast. I personally find guns more reliable with the fact that aircraft, missiles and torpedoes can be intersepted and these days pretty easily.

[@Viscool8332]

As distance the distance decreases the inaccuracy increases. It’s much more economic to use mussels at that point

[@strangelic4234]

@@Viscool8332 The British still remember with horror the Falkland war and the brutal night attack of the Argentinian commando mussels.

[@MegaJuniorJones]

Why not add rail gun to battleship to regain range. Use a battleship exclusively for carrying the rail gun. Rail gun can not be intercepted and extremely difficult to even detect. Better for stealth ? Good for shore hits.

[@dimitrisanagnostaras4234]

Battleships were killed because other means could do their job more effectively. That’s why tanks aren’t dead. Although tanks can be defeated with top attack missiles and other means, the need for an armored vehicle with great firepower is still present. But, in the case of Battleships, airplanes and destroyers and later missiles, could do it’s job more efficiently and with far lower cost

[@doggonemess1]

11:30 I've heard and read two different things about the wire length. One source was a book I have somewhere, and it says 10 miles of wire in the tube, 10 miles on the torpedo. Another source said 20,000 yards, which is a little over 11 miles. I'm guessing that the figure isn't released, but it's safe to say that it's at least 20 miles.

[@reniswastika7432]

“You were supposed to destroy torpedo boats” “Not become one of them”

[@portalj]

“Can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em”

[@Arc--sk9xr]

Is that a Revenge of the Sith reference?

[@reniswastika7432]

@@Arc--sk9xr yes

[@vasskolomiets41]

In Russian Navy terminology, the history o class name destroyers took another direction. Large torpedo boats (minonostsi) became not destroyers, but the fleet torpedo boats (eskadrenniye minononstsi- abbreviature of it became esmintsi)

[@spigotsandcogs]

What killed the battleships was something being able to do what they can do while being cheaper. Surface to surface missiles can do what big guns can do, and they can be put on much smaller hulls. Aircraft carriers are great, but they don't do what big guns can do. SSMs can.

[@cc0767]

tbf, they totally can by dropping precision bombs from the aircraft. BB shells are actually way cheaper than missiles

[@redalertsteve_]

The shells of battle ships after 1930s are way cheaper than missile and bombs. And just as deadly.

[@spigotsandcogs]

@@redalertsteve_ indeed. The individual munitions fired are indeed cheaper from a battleship. However, there’s two additional cost factors to consider: battleships are HUGE and it takes HUGE engines to move them. And those engines are very expensive to maintain. And second, without precision guided munitions, it takes far more shells than guided missiles to take out a target unless you get really lucky.

[@redalertsteve_]

@@spigotsandcogs you know theres these carriers that also use these very same engines. And depending on the cruiser size as well. Now that I think about it. The size is a meaningless argument now. Have u seen how big are ships are now.

[@spigotsandcogs]

@@redalertsteve_ I have, and the only warships today bigger than post-Dreadnought battleships are carriers (and the Kirovs, but they’re special). Now, nations ARE willing to shell out the cost of a carrier because there is nothing cheaper that can match the range and air control of a carrier. Battleships were replaced because their niche could be filled with something cheaper. Since there is nothing cheaper than carriers that can fill their role, the full cost must be paid.

[@jedisaki730]

Being a weapons maintainer in the Navy myself, I got trained in a specific OTS torpedo system and learnt about a few different types of light weight torpedos. During training we got shown clips seen in this video of torpedo impacts on ships. All of us in the class were blown away and definitely a little frightened. I will say this though, if I was to ever be killed during combat at sea. A torpedo would be the way I'd wanna go. At least it would be quick.

[@williampaz2092]

The Imperial Japanese Navy were absolutely fanatical about Torpedoes. They worked with them, trained with them and experimented with them. They developed the three best torpedoes in the world before WW2 broke out. The Model 93 Surface Launched Torpedo was a 24” monster with an 893 lbs explosive charge, 9850 yard range at 50 knots. These were the ones named “Long Lance Torpedoes by the allied navy’s. The Model 95 Submarine Launched Torpedo was 21” in diameter with an incredible 1,213 lbs explosive charge, a range of 6000 yards at 50 knots. The model 94 was a 17.7” aircraft launched torpedo with a 331 lbs explosive charge and a range of 3300 yards. These were the best torpedoes in the world. Whole ship classes were designed to carry and launch the Model 95 torpedoes. The Japanese were absolutely certain that these were war winning weapons, nothing could stand up to their torpedoes and nothing could defeat them as long as they had enough torpedoes. Then they fought the Battle of Midway Island and watched as a bunch of American Dive Bombers smashed their carriers into scrap…..

[@rubiconprime1429]

What killed the battleship? THE ICE AGE! No but seriously, the Italian military actually succeeding at something. Amazing

[@mbryson2899]

In WWII their naval special forces pulled off a lot. Frogmen crippled Valiant and Queen Elizabeth, a "suicide" motorboat sank the York, frogmen sank two merchant ships in Algiers, and they sneaked a merchant ship into the harbor at Gibraltar that was mothership to frogmen who got away with sinking six merchant ships over eight months.

[@bradbechlyb9273]

i like how your pics, and videos correspond with what you're talking about. not just random shots off nonrelated things like other channels do

[@jerrybriardy]

I served on a Newport class LST in the 80s. It is strange watching a ship of that class blown up in this movie. I was a signalman, working on the very top of the ship. That was my home.

[@lancerevell5979]

And the video showed a Knox class frigate being used as a target. I served on a Knox class. My little ship was later transferred to Turkey and is now on display at their Maritime Museum. Many were expended as targets though.

[@janpost8598]

The Japanese manned torpedo being a one way ticket. My first thought was: "How typical." The worst thing is if your torpedo malfunctions and you do not explode. 😱

[@nixcurpick4708]

Oh god, why did you make the idea even worse:((

[@janpost8598]

@@nixcurpick4708 Sorry. 😅

[@fishofgold6553]

​@@nixcurpick4708 Because there was no way to escape the Kaiten human torpedo, I wonder if the Japanese gave their Kaiten operators a way to commit suicide inside the torpedo in case the explosive did not work, or in case it got stuck on the sea floor. It would be as simple as handing the operator a pistol or cyanide capsule and saying, "Use this in case you get stuck or the bomb doesn't go off. Glory to the Emperor!"

[@1uca_]

“It’s not size that matters, it’s what you do with it.”

[@eivsleiv368]

For battleships, size really matters

[@angdongyiqss1591]

The problem was that battleships were too bulky, too big so only a stormtrooper will miss it, and that their concept was outdated as we modern warfare used long ranged missiles and so big artillery pieces. And also in WW2, a British battleship which I forgotten the name of was destroyed by a bunch of small Italian tourist boats armed with torpedos

[@ThePTBRULES]

They aren't too bulky, look at many engagement and how few times most were hit. Second, Battle Ships are they are big artillery pieces....

[@pyropulseIXXI]

stormtroopers had great accuracy

[@KennyNGA]

@@pyropulseIXXIyes for a blind guy they have very good accuracy at least they shot in the right direction

[@pyropulseIXXI]

@@KennyNGA There are video analysis, and their accuracy is far better than real world troops. They have phenomenal accuracy

[@orsaz924]

It might one of the two ships at 9:35

[@thalmoragent9344]

To be honest, the Battleship even came back to aid the US after initially being essentially decommissioned. It's a solid solution: big guns to toss big payload. The Battleship could come back if outfitted with missiles and rockets, but would essentially be a BattleCruiser more than anything. Funnily enough, they make it seem like only Battleships were affected by Torpedoes. And yet, even an Aircraft Carrier could be taken down in the same way. A carrier is still a ship, even if it's flat on top.

[@redalertsteve_]

Every ship can be ended by a torpedo. And a anti ship missile

[@albertjordan3249]

While very true, carriers were typically more resilient than battleships against torpedo boats, destroyers, submarines, aircraft and other platforms that would use torpedoes against them. Not because they could take a hit from a torpedo any better. Having an air wing to identify and destroy targets over the horizon meant that it was far more difficult (but not impossible, especially for submarines) to get within range to attack a carrier with a torpedo compared to a battleship. You can't hit what you can't get close to.

[@bc1969214]

@@albertjordan3249 good thing the carriers have submarine escorts as well in addition to the topside battle group. I believe the U.S. Navy had a Swedish Stirling engines sub test the Reagan's anti-submarine protection and it got through numerous times.

[@Commander_35]

Their role was replaced by something more cost effective. And that's carriers.

[@thalmoragent9344]

Funny cause even now the Aircraft Carrier is still hella expensive

[@krisloveschicken3939]

Planes are the best, do you know that they are launching drones from the carriers? It's getting pretty wild for the navy

[@thalmoragent9344]

@@krisloveschicken3939 Facts man, I came to join the Navy, not the "Airforce 2.0", but it's alright, should War pop off, the Navies of the world will show why they're still needed, no matter how many fancy Ariel weapons they've got

[@thanhthuannguyen6794]

@@thalmoragent9344 then you can imagine how much expensive a battleship

[@redalertsteve_]

Gonna be honest. Thats a flat out lie. The carriers were just as expensive and its even worse now

[@TheOriginalBlue62]

Those first couple generations of 'frogmen' and manned torpedos are heros in their own right, you should definitely do a focused video on them.

[@lednord741]

Italy: there'll be two of you to help eachother Germany: there's only one operator and you'll be significantly more exposed Japan: Bye! Thanks for sacrificing yourself.

[@pknuttarlott4934]

JFK served in the navy in WW2. During World War II, he commanded a series of PT boats in the Pacific theater. Kennedy's survival of the sinking of PT-109 and rescue of his fellow sailors made him a war hero for which he earned the Navy and Marine Corps Medal, but left him with serious injuries.

[@DesertRat332]

Those PT boats sure looked like fun!

[@gmverber437]

You brilliantly explain how a torpedo hit is so much more destructive than that of a shell-even if the shell hits at the waterline. A major factor in the 1916 Battle of Jutland (auf Deutsch: Skagerrakschlacht) -the last true battleship battle-was the fear of underwater weapons (torpedoes and mines) by the opposing admirals for these weapons were known to be so destructive. In 1968 my ship participated in several operations with Big-J (USS New Jersey) which was a truly remarkable experience. She was a magnificent vessel, and when her 16 inch shells struck the WW2 bunkers where the VC/NVA were holed up the huge explosions rose high above those of the shells from the cruisers and destroyers firing on the same targets. Even then though, it was clear that she was an anachronism.

[@Aabergm]

The video was great. But you have answered a life long question, how did such small ships get such cool names (DDs) now I know and you are a legend amongst men.

[@helicoptopus]

I enjoyed the hard work of your content mister NWYT

[@darkstar8827]

I'm glad I found this channel, it's been informative and interesting. I also think your unique voice is a big part of your success. Please keep it going!

[@fabiopalazzi5044]

A brief story of sinking Austro-hungarian battleship: 1918, Italian Navy officier Luigi Rizzo with two small torpedo boats, had finished an Adriatic Sea patrolling and was returning back to Italian coast. 1918, the same night: a big Austro-hungarian naval task force is going to attack the Otranto naval barrage. Luigi Rizzo see a black smoke high over the horizon and orders not to follow in home direction, but to reverse course to eventally find and attack an enemy convoy. The two italian boats find the convoy and is not a cargo convoy, but: two big battleship escorted by destroyers! The two boats enter between destroyers and battleships, relasing their torpedoes. Two battleships was hit but only the weapon that hits the Szent Istvan detonates. The 2 small Italian boats escape, followed by destroyers; during the chase, the chased launch a deep charge that damages an Austrian pursuer. All two Italian boats arrive in Italy and Capt. Rizzo became a national hero. Some years later, Mussolini's Fascism wants to recruit Capt. Rizzo but he DON'T became fascist. During WW2 Capt. Rizzo is watched by germans as a probably dangerous anti-fascist and anti-nazi man. Luigi Rizzo, Italian from Sicily, died in 1951 in Rome. 🇮🇹

[@Cyclegladiator]

This is one of my favorite KZbin channels and now the first channel I’ve ever subscribed to

[@resurgam_b7]

This is a pretty informative and well thought out video, but you've got a couple of your facts a bit fuzzy. For starters, no battleship was ever armored with plain iron. By the time navies were building ships that could reasonably be called battleships, steel was widely available and vastly superior to iron for warship construction so there were no battleships with iron armor. Secondly, it is rather inaccurate to say that battleships had no armor below the waterline. Not only did the main armor belt nearly always extend lower than the waterline, admittedly to a lesser degree than above, but ships were also outfitted with dedicated anti-torpedo armor even as early as the beginning of WWI. Ships that did not have such protection built in could even be modified to incorporate add-on torpedo defense systems that could substantially reduce the damage from direct torpedo hits. And finally, while it was known that a detonation below the keel could vastly improve the lethality of even moderately sized warheads, the earliest self propelled torpedoes also did not have that capability. That avenue of attack would only be exploited once more advanced, non-contact warhead fuses and more reliable homing systems were developed.

[@P4Tri0t420]

6:42 That SW Quote, nice :D

[@riccardobalbo234]

I wasn't expecting the section about the maiali but as an italian it's always nice to see someone talking about them. Good luck with the milestone

[@congki5327]

The torpedo can also create a cavitation bubble that can break a ship when it implodes.

[@casteddu6740]

Italian human torpedo: "ehi bro, I placed everything." "Good, let's sneak away." German human torpedo: "sheisse I missed!" "Enemy spotted!" Japanese human torpedo: "TENNO HEIKA BANZAI!!!"

[@taskfroce80th95]

Battleship as one navy admiral puts it “are a giant floating artillery platform”. They don’t really offer value other than than shore bombardment for naval invasion plus the guns of the ships are very inaccurate long range for naval combat (without radar assistance). They are also very expansive to crew, maintain, rearm, operate added that ships can be sinked by small boats/submarines/planes with torpedoes really stack the odds against huge Battleships. Soon after WW2 anti ship missiles were in development and deployed which would further stack the odds against battleships also why add big guns onto a ship when missiles have better accuracy and can be more devastating than a few big artillery shell that probably won’t hit you

[@redalertsteve_]

Anti ship missiles counter every ship. People need to stop using this excuse as the end all be all to battleships. Most likely battleship range and heavy cruisers ended the battleships. Tho the fear factor of battleships is still there

[@Frontline_view_kaiser]

@@redalertsteve_ He's right though. The Battleships cost and upkeep could be justified until the Development of guided Anti Surface Munitions.

[@radioinitial1409]

HOI4 PLaYeR

[@taskfroce80th95]

@@redalertsteve_ you can’t argue it’s not one of the major reason among many that only because it’s brought up frequently doesn’t contribute to the extinction of battleships

[@redalertsteve_]

@@taskfroce80th95 you can and i did. The cost is one of them tho nowadays its probably a non issue. It’s really the range of the ship. The can always return because the shells themselves are cheaper. A waterbased mobile artillery bunker that can’t be shot down sounds pretty good. Its whether the navy realizes that it has a place still is the real problem

[@midgetsun4026]

What I learned from this video: Some fish will float to the top.

[@rockroll1005]

When you said “a new type of attack vessel had been designed”, the Human Torpedo was the last thing I could’ve expected.

[@NotWhatYouThink]

It’s Not What You Think 😜

[@OddElephantLTU]

More NWYT uploads. That is very exciting

[@jessdigs]

I like that you included footage of uss Texas being towed to dry dock.

[@YoBoyNeptune]

Nice footage of USS Texas going into drydock the other day

[@SolveEtCoagula93]

'But, let's be real - some fish will float to the top.' - best euphemism I've ever heard! 😂

[@lukalk2920]

1:34 he says battle chips... im dying lol, imagine a doritos with a mounted cannon

[@praevasc4299]

I have to disagree with the title. Although the information presented in the video is correct, torpedoes were not the reason we don't use battleships anymore. Torpedo boats, and torpedo-equipped ships, as well as submarines and aircraft, already existed in WW1, yet battleships were still widely used (and even build) during WW2. Some battleships even lasted until the end of the century. A much bigger cause for battleships to become obsolete, was air power, and cruise missiles. Not just because they could be used to fight against battleships, but because they could fulfill the same roles, basically outcompeting battleships.

[@bc1969214]

The revamped Iowa class were armed with Tomahawks in the Gulf War. I think cost was the issue, not just ship upkeep but several thousand crew. The 16 inch guns powder bags all being decades old and how to source new ones if they wanted to use the guns is probably another issue. Two of the Iowa class fired almost 1,200 of the big gun rounds into Iraq before retirement, so not sure how that would compare to using cruise missiles costwise.

[@rnzafdude]

oh wow, an actually factual video, not just another infographics style waste of time Well done!

[@stevedotson1263]

What ended Battleships were Aircraft Carriers. More precisely, the aircraft they carried.

[@Bzdecism]

Death in a shape of a *handsome italian*

[@gregwilson825]

Yes! You folks do very good work! Your research is excellent. Thank You

[@nicklatino7157]

Go Italy! 🇮🇹 🇮🇹 We had the best human torpedo!

[@thereal757_ap]

Not gonna lie. The voice really shines with this slower deeper narration. Imo.

[@jim2lane]

The USN retired our Iowa class battleships simply because they were too resource intensive to operate in the modern budgetary environment. They were designed during 1930's, at a time when manpower was readily available and cheap. But in today's world they cost nearly as much as an aircraft carrier to operate and require over a thousand sailors. Are they better armored and thus more survivable than our cruisers, destroyers and frigates? Absolutely. Do they provide a naval artillery capability that the USN still hasn't been able to replace to this day? Again, absolutely. But the USN doesn't have an unlimited budget, so if they have to choose between them, and carriers and subs, they've got to choose the latter.

[@crazydrifter13]

I thought the ships in this video were cardboard targets because they were flexing and bending so much. But it was clearly not what I thought.

[@TheMaschinMann]

Everytime I see one of your Videos I am suspisios at fisrts and then glad it is not one of these Dark something channels pumping out an other clicbait! Great Video!

[@clarencehopkins7832]

Excellent stuff bro

[@ColonelFrontline1152]

*"What the Battleships........ The Ice Age!"* ~ Mr Freeze ( I think that what he said. )

[@davidvavra9113]

Well done And color video of Wickes/Clemmson destroyers! Very cool

[@Roberto-REME]

Really well done. Informative, engaging and educational.

[@GameTimeWithMatt]

Can you do a video on how they repair ships with significant damage? Also keep up the amazing work its been a blast watching the channel grow!

[@arandomracoon1836]

Great vid man!

[@albarra7277]

I like how you put a small italian torpedo boat next to a giant battleship, very nice.

[@RandoNMumber27]

The fact that the tiny torpedo boat is my highest kill count vehecel in BF1 now makes an awful lot of sence.

[@webdev217]

Pretty amazing the footage this channel gets even if sometimes the info is not 100% correct. Thanks... very entertaining.

[@themann9722]

Once again, the cameraman made it out alive!

[@Celisar1]

The marine does not care about marine life. Whales for instance have a very sensitive hearing and despite being outside the danger zone reg. The explosion such overwhelming blasts can severely hurt and also shock all animals that rely on good hearing and echonavigation.

[@nerdsahhgaming4779]

Battleship VS Corvettes be like:

[@eroomeroomm2919]

This guy is the greatest historian to ever live, literally about 20,000 leagues better than my history teacher lol

[@therac197]

It's full of mistakes though...

[@cubethai]

God I love this channel so much!

[@matthewethredge8958]

Appreciate the use of film of the USS Texas being towed to dry dock a couple weeks ago

[@kalesoup7633]

@5:23 that how luffy got to skypiea

[@LordPhobos6502]

"How long is a piece of string?" "Ma'am, that's classified information."

[@samoldfield5220]

1:54 there is so much wrong already. Torpedoes preceded HMS Dreadnought by decades at least. No small boat can approach a dreadnought, they're covered in machineguns and light guns. And the men on board are armed. Dreadnoughts all had massive torpedo bulges which work like spaced armor on a tank against contact detonating torpedoes. And keel detonating torpedoes aren't as effective against very large ships as they are against merely large ships. What sunk the battleship was the guided missile, A Harpoon ASM carries the same explosive payload as a 14" shell, but it only needs a 3,000 tonne ship to carry it instead of a 30,000 tonne ship.

[@therac197]

Also Dreadnought was quiet fast for her size, not slow.

[@friendlyfire3412]

In short : Battleships : Cool but heavy Smoll ships : VERY FAST AND FRAGILE BUT VERY CHEAP TOO Thats why we got F18's at air. Instead of Flying Motherships.

[@nyvdrtngryd]

numbers wins, sometimes

[@Matoil738]

Nice video keep it up!

[@MaverickPaul1234]

02:34 "would shock the ship out of battleships" 🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@anthonytomac9218]

I remember when this channel had less than 100,000 subscribers. Yall should be proud 😁

[@ET-jv1wm]

Important note on Guide wires on Torpedoes. Standard protocol when a Submarine or ASW surface ship detects an incoming incoming is to immediately launch a counter attack Torpedo down the opposite bearing. A guide wire allows you to launch your Torpedo away from the target, and slowly circle around before spinning up to atack speed when close enough to make detection inevitable. At this point the fish can go to active sonar and can aquire and track the target independently, even if the wire is severed.

[@tirthankarbasu4199]

Undoubtedly great content as usual 👏🏻 need some content fir Sniper’s life please

[@TBCN69]

Thats what my grandma always said to me. "Size always matters"

[@acrazedgunman3388]

think this shows why if you made a modern battleship you would make it much smaller and resembling more a upgunned destroyer or cruiser than a traditional battleship

[@GaneshMushika]

Cool of you to write the metric values! 👍 Thanks

[@Iamthelolrus]

I'm liking the little teaser short clips.

[@NotWhatYouThink]

Glad to hear 😊

[@MRRookie232]

Mate, so happy for you and what you’ve done with this Chanel. Wishing you more success!

[@ghassanboubez8890]

thank you. Great video

[@billwhite1603]

Aircraft ended the reign of battleships due to survive ability and missiles ended the need for long range guns. But yes unfortunately it's is what I thought.

[@hamentaschen]

Congrats on (almost) 2,000,000!

[@NotWhatYouThink]

Thanks!

[@sharii906]

Welldone. Video was indeed helpful

[@TheBozn]

Just to clearify - underwater explosion have such a devestating effect because of how water, much like oil in a hydraulic system, is virtually incompressible. Hence there is nothing "cushioning" the explosion, like how it would be dampened by air above the surface.

[@noawe_]

This was in fact, Not what I thought

[@bkjeong4302]

What really killed the battleship was the aircraft carrier. An aircraft carrier can simply maintain a safe distance from a battleship and attack with impunity, and the only real hard counter to a carrier is another carrier.

[@romad275]

Was that the USS Texas being towed in 1:11 to about 1:22?

[@jimsvideos7201]

Command wires were also used on nuclear-armed torpedoes to detonate the warhaed.

[@nordoceltic7225]

One thing to remember about Torpedo's. They are not like airborne missiles, they are not fast. How fast do they go? About 30 knots, even with homing, they are not "missiles" that scream in at Mach 3 too fast to be dodged. And yes they ARE devastating, but in WW2, the New Jersey had dozens of torpedo's shot at it. None of them ever hit the ship. In fact the USS New Jersey was FASTER than the torpedoes. Even homing torpedo's can't catch a large ship that has turned effectively to dodge it. ITs why the Navy makes even the Gerald Ford class keep such insanely tight turning radius for such a huge ship. Then as today, screening destroyers and maneuvering remains the best defense against torpedo's. If they can't hit you, you don't take damage. Double bottomed hulls with hard foam also stand to nicely mitigate the "keel breaker" effect that everybody is 100% sure will sink anything that floats. The possibility of having active defense against incoming torpedo's add even more options for "don't be hit." Also the submarine is largely dead. There is a reason the USN has decommissioned all bout a few of its attack subs. They are slower than surface ships, and can be very easily detected by modern active sonar. This means not only can the sub not sneak up on a surface fleet to attack, when spotted it can't escape it either, the destroyers are faster. The reality is the remaining subs are for launching nukes at land targets, not attacking shipping. Ok subs could attack merchant marine? Great, so can aircarft, and they are faster, longer ranged, and can carry more payload. The REAL reason battleships were passed up on post WW2 is aircraft carriers were BETTER, not because torpedo's make battleships instantly sink. Remember these ships survived the duke and puke battles of the WW2 naval wars. Thus the USN and other navies elected to dump huge money into missile destroyers and carriers instead of battleships. And the Iowas were retired in the late 1980's, with STILL plans to refurbish them and return them to service when the End of the Cold War in 1990 caused the government to reconsider multi-billion dollar naval projects. Post cold war Carriers were again MORE attractive given their ability to support ground forces in on-land action against non-peer enemies like Iraq. With the improvement of SAM systems to now 90% or better hit rates, and the Russians selling the s400 to anybody and everybody, the future of manned aircraft is highly in question as in a modern peer-war MOST planes launched would never come home. This makes the carrier a question mark as future platform, given its intense cost and the cost of its aircraft. And now we have it. Armored ships cannot be killed by small missiles. Missiles, by the nature, can't have a 2000 pound warheads, the kind battle ships and heavy cruisers easily survived in action. Missiles because they have to be fast and light, have more like a 50 or, at the biggest, 200 pound warhead. If aircraft are no longer realistically viable at attack platforms, we might well see the return of the attractiveness of armored gunboats.

[@kataisaki505]

Japanese Type 93 Oxygen with 52 knots: 👀👀👀 German G7ut with 45 knots: 👀👀👀 British Mark V with 40 knots:👀👀👀

[@redroyce4590]

Wow 2M already growing so fast!

[@jed-henrywitkowski6470]

I learned how fishing with dynamite works! Thanks. : )

[@joedufour8188]

The PT boats are always the hardest to get in Battleship. Sneaky little buggers. Now I shall watch the video after I got the bit of comedy out of the way.

[@krisloveschicken3939]

We need more movies like "battleships"

[@cyzcyt]

I lived near the wreck of British HMS Repulse and HMS Prince of Wales. Those were one of the best Britain had when they were sank by Japanese bombers and torpedo bombers. The local story was that hubris, overestimating the power of battleships and underestimating the Japanese air attacks were the reason why this happened

[@itsnullcraft]

{im not a scientist just a nerd and i watch too much YT} But i dont think the reason for torpedos hitting a ship twice 3:25 is the shockwave bouncing back from the ocean floor. That wouldnt be very powerful and would bearly do anything. I think its actually Cavitaion caused by the explosion that implodes with a stronger force then the original explosion. I may be wrong though...