Top 10 Battleships of WWI

In this episode we're taking a trip backward through time, to World War I, to look at our favorite and most innovative ships of that war.
To support this channel and the museum, go to:
www.battleshipnewjersey.org/v...

[@joelmullan5092]

HMS BARHAM was sunk in the Med by a U-Boat in '41. HMS ROYAL OAK was sunk by a U-Boat in Scapa Flow in '39.

[@jameshiggins8329]

Was about to comment when I saw you had it covered. Royal Oak saw largest loss off life of boy sailors.

[@Hyppehest]

HMS Barhams demise was rather spectacular too... and there's even footage of it.

[@michaelimbesi2314]

Came here to say this

[@lyndonbull3581]

@@jameshiggins8329 not like a Yank to get history wrong 😑

[@jameshiggins8329]

@@lyndonbull3581 We do the same. Ever heard of the 1812 war when we invaded the USA. We burnt the whitehouse down (was not called that in 1811 but it was in 1812 or 13 when they whitewashed it to get rid if the soot). We then got our arses kicked goid and proper in 1814 down in New Orleans. Never got that in UK history at school, I learned it from an old 78 Lonnie Donigan song....(78 not being the year but the speed if the record, vinyl as they call it in the days of downloads) Say what you will. No USA in WW2 and we would have drawn or lost, we were well fecked and short of everything. We might have won WW1 if USA had not joined, hard to say. Not by winning in France but by starving Germany in a blockade, but the U Boats might have got us first. Germans stilk talk of the Turnup Winter of 1917. Bad times. I cant fault the USA for helping in the two wars. Earlier would have been nicer but the USA had to get it's people on side first so really they did the best the could. No complaints from me.

[@Eric_Hutton.1980]

Barham was sunk in the Mediterranean (If I remember correctly.) Royal Oak was torpedoed and sunk at Scapa Flow.

[@octavia2]

You do remember correctly. Like this kzbin.info/www/bejne/j5XVeoaYrN6SsKs

[@ronaldgray5707]

I thought the same thing when he said it.

[@pbsmg]

Not the same class of Ships.

[@octavia2]

@@pbsmg Barham was the same class as Warspite; Royal Oak was the later Revenge class.

[@gossythepadre]

Correct

[@eoyguy]

As an American, I physically winced when he pronounced Indefatigable. And I'll take the Queen Elizabeths, specifically Warspite, based on its combat record. Took the fire of pretty much the entire German fleet, stayed afloat, and still came though and dealt out plenty of punishment.Thats not even mentioning her WWII service, which was outstanding.

[@cypherpunks2002]

Also, Queen Elizabeth was both laid down (1912) and launched (1913) before USS Nevada (1912 and 1914, respectively). And the very big innovation of the QEs was that they were fully oil-powered. So giving that to Nevada is, to say the least, US-centric.

[@joelsullivan3614]

I'm an American 100% agree with everything you said, I'd say everybody doing the time it seemed pretty capable ships for American and British ships at least Mayer something special, especially Queen Elizabeth class in the New Mexico class always love those two.

[@cypherpunks2002]

@SAMUEL NAUMETS Ok, I don't thinks it's a Freudian in this case ;-).

[@jpotter2086]

I didn't think his pronunciation was physically possible LOL ... and think a few minutes later, Indefatigable gets punk'd for the title by Warspite. Rough.

[@scottyfox6376]

I'm constantly wincing at American pronunciation of "British" ships but I do give leeway for a country that has designated "SafeSpaces" in many universities from the frightening hetrosexuals & white people. What a sad world the leftist have created in the USA. I will pray for sanity to prevail with my American brethren & sisters.🙏

[@michaelschoch8776]

Also the funny thing about the Nevada is, she is the only battleship to refuse to sink after being attacked by two atomic bombs.

[@hemihead001]

The Pennsylvania .

[@Shadooe]

If nothing else, Derfflinger has the best nickname; "The Iron Dog."

[@hattrick8684]

The German ships have my favorite names to pronounce, Derfflinger, Seydlitz, Gneisenau, Scharnehorst, Horst Wessel. Although not all are WWI specific. The last 3 are all WWI/II and WWII despite being a barque.

[@hattrick8684]

Although to be honest Warspite, Kongo, Iron Duke, Hood and New Jersey(my all time favorite battle wagon, completely biased seeing as I’m a New Jersey native and visit the ship yard it was built at and where it currently resides almost weekly) are some of my other favorite ones some WWI some both some WWII only.

[@steveholmes11]

Gotta love the Iron Dog.

[@smilingnid4276]

The Queen Es did use their Speed at Jutland, That is why they were with the battlecruisers, while 3rd was training.

[@michael14195]

Queen Elizabeth was oil-fired, had four turrets that were bunched in pairs, had 15" guns where Nevada had 14" guns, and was commissioned more than a year before Nevada. I'm not convinced that Nevada is all that much more innovative than the QE. As a side note, the Russians were another navy with WWI-era dreadnoughts with triple turrets.

[@dariuszrutkowski420]

The QE2 had a miz of coal and oil fired boilers during WW1. And the Autro-Hungarian were first to have triple turrets. Russians used them spaced out all over the ship without superfireing because of ice to increase stability in Northern Baltic icy conditions.

[@robhartley3930]

@@dariuszrutkowski420 The QE was fully oil fired, not a mixed coal oil. That was the initial Resolution build plan but was changed in 1914 to full oil as well.

[@davidbirt8486]

@@dariuszrutkowski420 the QE's were fully oil fired.The Royal Soverighns were designed to be a mix of oil and coal,but completed as all oil.

[@ironfelixfromkuban2580]

@@dariuszrutkowski420 This is the first time I've heard of such a mission. The main task was to create a minimal silhouette of the ship - the Russians had many designs, including those similar to Bayern or British ones, but they abandoned it. In addition, the horizontal angle of the Russian turrets was greater than that of many others.

[@rfant6223]

Yes, the Russians later made a few knock-off versions of Dante Alighieri ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_battleship_Dante_Alighieri ) The QE had a standard armor layout instead of the raft/all-or-nothing layout that was inarguably an American innovation with Nevada and Nevada embraced the Italian triple turret innovation where QE stuck with strictly twin turrets.

[@Robotnik123]

Dreadnought sinking U29 might make it one of the more successful British battleships in WW1, in that it took out a U-boat ace captain and avenged the sinking of the cruisers Aboukir and Cressy. British battleships did a lot sitting around in WW1, so it doesn't take much to be more successful than most of them.

[@rohanthandi4903]

never thought about this but ya ironically they did more in ww2

[@george_364]

And I think it was the only time a battleship sank a submarine.

[@joelsullivan3614]

What I find funny and awesome Titanic sister ship Olympic did that also, that's not something that happens very often what there's two magnificent ships did.

[@AdaEngineer]

@@george_364 Does a plane from a battleship sinking a submarine count? :) At the Second Battle of Narvik a Swordfish launched from HMS Warspite bombed and sank U64.

[@VersusARCH]

The RN BBs cut Germany from maritime trade. It was a major contribution to the Entente victory.

[@ross.venner]

14:12 As a boy, I knew a man who fought at Jutland in HMS Monarch, one of the Orion class. He was 16 at the time of Jutland. You mentioned a ship being lost to a mine. This was HMS Audacious. She was of the follow-on King George V Class.

[@joelsullivan3614]

You know what sir that is something not everybody can say I guarantee you listen to every word he had to say, just as I did with my grandfather in World War two conversations 👍

[@johnstaves1337]

From the point of view of all round innovation, durability, defensive and offensive power, and down right value for money, the Queen Elizabeths can't be beaten. A few come close but none exceed them.

[@sr71blackbirddr]

Plus Warspite was a hard b@$+ard and took on anything flying an enemy flag.

[@rickmorgan3930]

Personally, Warspite is my favorite BB of all time. No technical reasons, I just like its story and combat record.

[@thekiatty6953]

I think it is fair to say that the QEs and especially Warspite were the best "bang for the buck" class of battleships. Present at Jutland and played an important role, modernized and used extensively in WWII including Norway, the Med and even the Indian Ocean as front line units. I can't think of another class of battleships that anyone ever got that much use out of.

[@grahamstrouse1165]

@@thekiatty6953 The Iowas were effective fighting units as late as the first Gulf War & Missouri & Wisconsin weren’t struck from the reserve fleet until 2006. Just sayin’... :-)

[@thekiatty6953]

@@grahamstrouse1165 true enough! But I think it is fair to say that other ships could have performed the job they did during Vietnam and the Gulf wars. You cannot say the same of the QEs throughout their service history. Also, the refits that added CIWS and VLS etc. are of a scope and scale far beyond what the QE refits entailed, hence the "bang for the buck" comment. BUT I don't think the Soviets liked the Iowas steaming around very much. They were almost a fleet-in-being on thwir own, so you might be able to argue that they were a good bang for the buck for that reason alone.

[@karenblackadder1183]

@@grahamstrouse1165 They spent much of their lives in the 'mothballall fleet'

[@SennaAugustus]

@@thekiatty6953 Fleet-in-being died with Tirpitz, it's not a thing any more past that point.

[@Telewaifus]

There is a great book written by Georg von Hase, the firing director of Derfflinger at Jutland. The title is "Kiel and Jutland: the Famous Naval Battle of the First World War from the German Perspective". I hope that you can find it! It illustrates also the firing systems of the WW1 german ships.

[@warhead_beast7661]

We could also have included Seydlitz just because she should not have been above the Water after Jutland 😂

[@535phobos]

Well, most of her wasnt.

[@warhead_beast7661]

@@535phobos true 😅

[@davidbirt8486]

That was down more to the poor performance of British AP shells, as Drac said,if we had green boy shells at jutland the Germans would have lost more ships.

[@Edax_Royeaux]

@@davidbirt8486 Still, surviving the Deathride of the Battlecruiser was still impressive. It was not an easy receiving the order "Gefechtskehrtwendung", which basically meant charge into guns of the Grand Fleet again and ram their ships.

[@davidbirt8486]

@@Edax_Royeaux true but she wouldn't have if British armored piercing shells had worked,

[@_Nat3345]

Indefatigable. Drach is loosing it as we speak. 😂

[@eatthisvr6]

I thought she was a battle cruiser lol

[@Milleneum]

Drach has a few ships he has had trouble with too. Ajax and New Orleans right off the top of my head.

[@eatthisvr6]

@@Milleneum the german pre dreadnaught that kicked off ww2 lol

[@jimtalbott9535]

@@eatthisvr6 “Shh-less-whig Hole-steen”.

[@Xenophaige_reads]

@@eatthisvr6 she was but they were originally called dreadnought armoured cruisers. iirc

[@SuperStormfury]

I waited all video for HMS hood then realised she was a post ww1 ship 😂😭

[@rfant6223]

The one ship I find missing here is the SMS Seydlitz. This is my favorite - aside from USS Texas of-course - capitol ship of that era. While this list focuses mainly on innovations - and would be better labeled "Top 10 most innovative ..." - and Seydlitz had very little difference from her predecessors of the Moltke class. She was different and stands out. She was over 40' longer, nearly 10% larger and had a forecastle deck that was 1 deck level higher. These don't seem much but despite being a Battlecruiser, her armor was heavier than most Dreadnoughts. She devoted an unprecedented % of her overall tonnage to armor, and it more than paid off. What did that one extra deck level do for her? when she returned from Jutland, having been hit by no less than 21 heavy gun rounds including 15" shells from the QEs and a 21" torpedo, that forecastle deck was just 3 feet out of the water. the deck below was under water. She was so low in the water that she couldn't enter Drydock, she had to be backed into the Kiel canal lochs and the lochs drained so she could be lightened and repaired enough for her keel to clear the Drydocks. That was perhaps the worst battering any ship has ever had and still returned to service. She should be on the list just for pure toughness.

[@merafirewing6591]

A shame that she never survived all the way to the modern era.

[@panzerdeal8727]

SMS Seydlitz at Jutland - How to survive being a 25,000t Piñata..Drachinifel. kzbin.info/www/bejne/Y53InXyYrtx-j8U

[@nyrmetros]

We need a Drach style intro! Love the videos!

[@frankbarnwell____]

I love both channels. Polite discussion on!

[@eatthisvr6]

I don't like crachs intro personally and skip it, I prefer straight into it

[@MrMattMWH]

Drachs intro too long . I skip it

[@markusz4447]

@@MrMattMWH its just perceived as too long because most of us have already seen it a few times and thus, as every intro, it gets boring. If you see it for the first, second time its quite nice

[@Qossuth]

You forgot the QEs were oil fired which means they were at least as innovative as Nevada, but with an actual WWI record to go along with it, I don't see how you keep them out of #1.

[@rugbylad2384]

The Queen Elizabeth class had oil fired first Nevada was second so I believe Your right Queen Elizabeth Clash should be first with HMS Warspite being top ship

[@robanson32]

@@rugbylad2384 agreed I was thinking the same thing, wait why isn’t he saying QE’s are oiled and mentioning Nevada is oil fired

[@richardmalcolm1457]

A surprising omission, honestly.

[@ukgamer2817]

It's not the only mistake in this video let alone if you're a regular on this channel. The research is a little lacking sometimes and it unfortunately spreads a lot of miss information.

[@BattleshipWarspite]

First warship to oil was HMS Spiteful.

[@Irisishunter]

Great video and loved the pronunciation of Indefatigable haha

[@mitchellberg9975]

I think it is the best pronunciation I have ever heard by an American As an American.

[@plastictsubasa1390]

Somehow Kongō in Japanese was pronounced more accurately than Indefatigable? I love it.

[@kevinhaynes9091]

In-de-fat-i-ga-ble - third syllable 'feet' should be 'fat'. I'm thinking 'undefeatable' is in his mind!

[@wonkagaming8750]

Sir edward pellew is most unhappy

[@brianspendelow840]

Enjoyed the video but thought HMS New Zealand should have been mentioned as one of the Indefatigable class. She fought in all three major battles and did not blow up. Many thought it was because she was protected by Maori magic. Others think she was just extremely lucky.

[@JamesPhieffer]

The Queen Elizabeth class was the first battleship class to feature oil-fired boilers. The Nevada class was second. Also, there were four Queen Elizabeth class ships that weren't built. Agincourt was to be the sixth of the class, but wasn't built. Meanwhile Canada was going to have 3 modern super-Dreadnoughts built, but the authorization bill wasn't passed. These were tentatively to be named Ontario, Quebec, and Acadia. They're building would have made for some interesting discussions around the Washington Treaty negotiations, likely with those ships joining the RN, as it's unlikely Canada would have wanted to maintain them, but they weren't old enough, and out of date in the manner of the Australia to make scrapping necessarily a prime option... 🤷‍♂️

[@richardcutts196]

If Canada had built their three then I can see the RN giving up Repulse and Renown to compensate, or maybe 3 of the R class. If they couldn't get a bigger tonnage.

[@AllThingsCubey]

Yeah, if this innovation is why Nevada is number 1, that spot should really go to the Queen Elizabeths. They saw more service and action, they achieved more, and they innovated more. Consider that their 15" guns were so good that they were still used on the final British battleship, Vanguard, completed after the SECOND world war.

[@adam_mawz_maas]

@@AllThingsCubey Vanguard used old turrets in storage, removed from Glorious and Courageous in the 20's when they were converted to carriers. The RN didn't want to use them, but they needed fast battleships with more than 14" guns to deal with Bismarck and Tirpitz and realized they could build a hull for these old turrets quicker than they could build the planned 16" batteries for the Lion class ships already laid down as the delay on the Lion's was primarily in the expected production time for the new 16" guns.

[@AllThingsCubey]

@@adam_mawz_maas Actually, by the time the armament was fitted to Vanguard, WW2 was ended, Bismarck had been sunk for 5 years, and it was chosen because the cost to fully develop the new 16" guns was simply not worth it when the 15" was so excellent, an already available. The 1920s turrets were so heavily rebuilt as to basically be totally new, and the barrels were sourced from six ships retired at the end of the war, including Warspite and Queen Elizabeth. While they're hardly 16" L50s like the Iowa's armament, the BL 15" L42s were the most capable guns of their size ever made, and there was really nothing wrong with equipping Vanguard with them even post-war.

[@Tuning3434]

@@richardcutts196 They would never propose to give up Repulse and Renown.. that would have been a severe strategic blunder. These 15 inch globe encompassing battle-cruisers where the next best thing behind Hood, and quite a lot of effort has been spend inter-war to modernize them. Their gunpower alone made them some of the more intimidating capital ships out there, and their speed was definitely what the RN needed to interdict raiders, cruisers and protect their interests abroad. Getting rid of R-class would be preferred. While the 15" guns would be very much in use, their design was still more of a war-time solution to boost the numbers to overwhelming numbers, than a unit that added extra capability, where Repulse and Renown def. did.

[@judpowell1756]

around 16:15 New Jersey goes into action and Ryan calmly carries on...lol

[@Masada1911]

The aliens finally found New Jersey

[@gregorycarr8311]

Ryan, I never miss one of your videos, I wanted to tell you that you are constantly improving and are a great storyteller! Thank you for doing this, I personally appreciate it. Greg

[@andreaspedersen3952]

My favourite must be Warspite. It was also having one of its best missions 200km from where I live, where it with a division of destroyers sailed in the Ofotfjord and sank 1/3 of all german destroyers in a few hours.

[@johnhughes4313]

And Her Floatplane sank a U Boat as well...

[@karenblackadder1183]

To her final days HMS Warspite epitomised 'British Sheer Bloody-Mindedness'

[@HarryFlashmanVC]

I always felt some pity for the German destroyers who found themselves facing not only an aggressive British destroyer flotilla but Warspite. Any idea what a 15" does to a destroyer? No sea room.for them to escape they must have known they were doomed. It's also an interesting measure of how much stronger Britain was at sea and how much stronger Germany was on land.

[@SennaAugustus]

@@HarryFlashmanVC Normally destroyers + submarines > battleships especially in confined areas, even more so if said battleship has steering problems. There's some luck factor in there like a submarine hitting a rock when ambushing Warspite, or torpedoes hitting a forcefield or whatever and detonating prematurely, or magnets not working because of magnetic poles.

[@dillank3240]

The Queen Elizabeth was the first oil fired battleship, I believe. I would put the Queen Elizabeth at the top of my list. Your list gets my thumbs up.

[@bill5982]

At Jutland, the Queen Elizabeths (the Queen Elizabeth itself was actually in drydock) were not included in the line of battle but instead were attached to the Battlecruiser group out of Rosynth.

[@grahamstrouse1165]

All he’s saying is that the QE class never quite hit their designed speed of 25 knots, which is true. They were faster than contemporary German & US battleships but were nowhere near as fast as the battlecruisers.

[@alanclague2333]

@@grahamstrouse1165 but he did say they never got to use the extra speed in WW1, when they actually did use it such as in Jutland.

[@eatthisvr6]

Refit and repair lol. I wondered if you were gonna go there haha. Ps renown was an EXCELLENT gunnery ship despite only having 6 main guns

[@gossythepadre]

I would always say a renown is the best and last true type of battlecruiser.

[@kurakensama]

Being American I knew Warspite was going to be N2 and some american ship n1 because 'Murica, but I tough Texas was going to be the one. Also the one sunk in Scapa was Royal Oak, from the R class. Barham was sunk in the mediterranean.

[@DeadMemories03]

In-de-fat-ig-able, not in-de-fat-eeg-able - for all the Americans like Ryan :) Definitely a respectable top 10 - well constructed, and, as always, very well informed. Enjoying the vids as ever, but! This is clearly the list of an American, and I'm a Brit, so... People have said before, The Queen Elizabeth-class were the first oil fired battleship design globally, not the Nevadas, and I think personally , while the all-or-nothing scheme puts Nevada in perhaps second place, the QE's went to 15' in guns, the best naval rifle mounted by any nation to that date, four twin turrets in 2 super firing pairs and most importantly, they moved toward the 'fast battleship' concept. Their speed was at construction very much delivered on and saw them paired with the 1st Battle Cruiser Squadron under Beatty - who then turned without proper signalling and lost his greatest asset momentarily. Nevertheless, given Warspite's punishment subsequently received at Jutland their armour scheme was, I think, proven sufficient for their time, if not as pioneering as Nevada's - the QE's sit comfortably at 1st on my list. Again, great vids keep them coming!

[@ottaviobasques]

QEs were great. But I also like some of the Revenges, especially Royal Sovereign, despite not having the greatest records

[@aw34565]

Barham was sunk in the Mediterranean, off the coast of Egypt, by U331 in November 1941. Royal Oak (an R-Class battleship) was torpedoed and sunk at Scapa Flow by U47 in October 1939. One of my Great-grandfathers served on the Barham in WWI, including at the Battle of Jutland.

[@daleeasternbrat816]

If this channel still exists? I better make a donation! These are college level Battleship lectures. I want them to continue. I hope you enjoy making these as much as I enjoy watching them.

[@BattleshipNewJersey]

We plan to keep making videos as long as we can. There's no end in sight yet.

[@SeveralWeezelsInaTrenchcoat]

10:40 you made a mistake, the first ship with triple gun turrets was the Dante Alighieri of the Regia Marina

[@adam_mawz_maas]

While the Dante Alighieri was the first triple gun turret ship laid down, the Tegetthoff class beat it into service by a month with the Viribis Unitis entering service at the beginning of December 1912 and the Dante Alighieri following in early January 1913.

[@R.Floman63]

For historical reference , HMS Agincourt should have been included, she mounted 14x12inch cannon all on the center line in twin turrets. The most main guns ever put on a battleship or battlecruiser. She was originally ordered by Brazil, but taken over by the Royal Navy at the outbreak of WW1. USS Wyoming and Arkansas had 6 twin 12 inch gun turrets on the centreline.

[@craigclemens986]

Agincourt could only Fire all 14 at a single target if in full broadside

[@jagreb]

Agincourt shot very well/accurately at Jutland, IIRC.

[@Ewok_Pilot]

#1 battleship is going to be Nevada or Warspite, I'm calling it now... (I'm probably 100% wrong though lol) edit: wow I actually got it right!

[@exovian489]

Well, you got it.

[@officeran9581]

You predicted the future.

[@resolute123]

Very accurate on both prediction. Well done!

[@elmerbraatz3362]

Love the video, keep them coming

[@leafs9328]

Why do I have the suspicion that instead of Courageous, Glorious and Furious, Ryan wanted to say "Spurrious, Curious & Outrageous."

[@sundiver137]

The RN crews called them that, along with Repulse and Renown getting dubbed Refit and Repair.

[@TEGRULZ]

@@sundiver137 Just wait till we tell you they canceled a third one, which supposedly they were going to call Resistance. Because there were 8 R class planned, and 5 became the R Battleships, so 2 R Battlecruisers were built, third just disappeared to history

[@robinmacfarlane4769]

@@sundiver137 along with intrepid being called decrepit

[@simonrook5743]

Queen Elizabeth’s were oil fired roughly 2 years ahead of the Nevada.

[@martyndyson9501]

Yea he was clutching at straws and trying to justify picking an American ship as best during WW1, biased much!!

[@ZGundam83]

35:30 I was saying to myself: "He is describing the sinking of HMS Royal Oak, not HMS Barham" since Royal Oak was sunk in Scapa Flow by U-47, and Barham was sunk in the Mediterranean by U-331.

[@reynard61]

My favorite WWI battleship is the seven-turreted HMS Agincourt, which was originally going to be Brazil's 'Rio de Janeiro' -- but a sudden economic downturn led to the Brazilians selling her to the Ottoman Empire as 'Sultan Osman I'. Unfortunately the war started before she and another ship (which became 'Erin') could be transferred to the Empire and the British impressed them into Royal Navy service -- which led directly to the Ottoman Empire joining the Austro-Hungarian/German side. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Agincourt_(1913)

[@benjaminrush4443]

Excellent !

[@davidncw4613]

fascinating ty!!!

[@olivermacke838]

I think, you mixed up Barham and Royal Oak. But great video.

[@pastorjerrykliner3162]

Yes. Though Barham was indeed not extensively modernized before WWII and she was sunk in the Med after being torpedoed. But yes, it was an "R" class (HMS Royal Oak) that was sunk in Scapa Flow early in the war. (But yes, Royal Oak was also un-modernized and suffered a severe morale problem when war broke out because of her lack of modernization.)

[@leopardone2386]

You guys should reach out to do a collaboration video with Drachinifel . Both this channel and his are amazing content and BSNJM probably already shares many fans and subs with him already. Keep up the good work👍.

[@jimtalbott9535]

I’m hoping Drach will be able to do that when he can finally reschedule his US trip. I think he HAD planned to make a trip to Camden in early 2020.

[@DalekSec4]

Even though I'm not American I would love to one day visit your ship. Sadly the UK didn't preserve any of our Battleships as our country was so broke after the war we scrapped them all. If I ever win the lottery this would be the first thing I would do. Respect to our brave allies in the US navy

[@bagoquarks]

Thank you, I learned a lot in 45 minutes. I also briefly hit pause and used Wikipedia to understand how Austria could have a navy in WWI.

[@Bill23799]

Hey Ski. I am rooting for USS Texas ( BB-35 ) . I trod her decks twice. Once in 1988 when they were concrete and again in 2001 after her major repairs at Todd's Shipyards on pine planked decks.

[@occhamite]

There were a couple of other reasons British WWI battleships were at a disadvantage to the German: Owing to a lack of funding, and the need to get on, pre-WWI, with construction of sufficient 15-in gun ships, older facilities were retained, limiting the beam of the new ships to 90 ft, vs 120 ft for the German. Thus, German gunners had a more stable platform to shoot from. The British had also retained, owing to financial concerns, outmoded wire-bound gun barrel production facilities, wherein an inner tube, carrying the rifling, was wrapped with layers of steel wire, and then an outer steel tube placed over that. The Germans used the superior "built-up" designs consisting of concentric steel tubes. Wire-bound barrels tended to droop fractionally, decreasing the accuracy of the shot.

[@NKP73]

Very informative, Thank-You

[@frantavomacka2882]

Prefering to switch Nevada and Queen Elizabeth. QEs were also oil fired and got higher speed.

[@davidbirt8486]

Also, the Queen Elizabeth class could make twenty four knots as built.

[@AWMJoeyjoejoe]

The QEs were still valid front line combat units in WWII. Can't say the same the Standards. They were just too slow.

[@1987phillybilly]

This one is VERY good!!

[@beigethursday1352]

QEs should be number one. Fifteen inch guns, oil fired, fast for the time period.

[@miguelcabrera5814]

I have always loved the battleships over other naval ships, but after watching this video, I realized there is so much more to learn about them. Thumbs up to this guy, he really knows his stuff.

[@johncouriermeh]

I think you'll find that the battleship sunk by a submarine in Scapa Flow was the Royal Oak and that Barum was sunk off the Egyptian coast the following November by the German submarine U-331

[@fsj197811]

Interesting, thanks for sharing. :)

[@nobbytang]

The German experts evaluated the damage inflicted on their ships by the Royal navy after Jutland and stated that if the British had AP shells that actually worked ( as the German shells did) then they would of probably lost 5 or 6 capital ships... So the British battle Cruisers lost in Beatties charge was down to storing cordite wrongly against Royal Navy protocol and the Germans knew of our useless AP shells prior to the war thanks to the Swedish navy!!!... Oh and it was the Royal Oak that was sunk in Scapa Flow and Barnham was sunk off Egypt both by torpedo attacks..... Great video by the way...you colonists are coming on leaps and bounds... Hahaha

[@Meldonator]

I tend to love the french predreadnought that went to war in 1914-18 because they had some interesting features (mix batteries, hull shapes, use of the coal to protect the inner parts, etc.)

[@durhamdavesbg4948]

One of the reasons the Germans kept using the Bayern-class armour scheme is they didn't have any more experience with building capital ships, and this was the last ones they built. It actually had quite a few limitations by WW II.

[@markusz4447]

this can also be seen by their choice to give all their capital ships the 4x2 gun layout. (The Scharnhorst class was supposed to have its turrets replaced). The French, British and Italians experimented a bit more as seen in the Richelieu, the KGV and the Littorios

[@aarondeleon8347]

I clearly disagree with your opinion, Germans are aware of other armor scheme especially the all or nothing.

[@durhamdavesbg4948]

@@aarondeleon8347 There is being aware, and then having the technical expertise ready to do it.

[@steffenjonda8283]

Nope, that is an utter failure. The german defence system was build up by these points (proven in ww2) 1.) you need your vitals staying alive and running 2.) you need to survive hits from medium to short range 3.) long distance hits are nice but RARE. A battleship having est. 60-80 rounds of AP ammo will not hit once with them at a distance of 32km (hit chance lower as 1%, more at 0,3%)... so even if you fire 9 rounds (full salvo) and empty your magazines and you have ONLY loaded AP, with 900 shells flying you get 2,7 hits. That does nothing. And only these long distance hits were bad for german defence system 4.) all other hits will break up at the german "sandwich" defence system - as was proven with Bismarck. So, the very best armor protection system in ww2 had the germans with T and B. They both could not be sunk by artillery of Battleships and in any normal engagement (with both sides running and manovering) they will not be sunk. And B had to be scuttled. He was a floating wreck, but he swam. The AON-System looks good in theory but is crazy shit in reality. Its the same with tank-protection. Once AON-thick armor, now sandwich-spezialised protection that is nearly unbreakable. The germans just did that on purpose with battleships.

[@durhamdavesbg4948]

@@steffenjonda8283 Except the Bismark was mission killed really quite quickly. It's not very useful to not sink if you quickly can't fight back.

[@frankdineen2256]

I wonder when USS New Jersey was building, what equipment and such, would have been installed prior to the laying down of that deck's ceiling. In other words, what equipment was in the Uss New Jersey prior to her launching? Thank you Ryan, Alaina and Libby☺.

[@BattleshipNewJersey]

Anything to big to fit through the doors. So her boilers and engineering equipment, as well as auxiliary machinery like generators and distilling equipment.

[@alanmountain5804]

Great analysis. Ww1 gets so overlooked. Slight error on Barham at Scapa Flow but I really enjoyed the content. Many thanks

[@garomcfbgdd3211]

Somewhere, Drachinifel is shuddering at some of the pronunciations.

[@rabidmidgeecosse1336]

Aint just Drach, Indefatigble (facepalm)

[@notshapedforsportivetricks2912]

Say after me ... Schleiswig-Holstein 😆

[@amandarhodes4072]

I honestly was surprised the battleship HMS Agincourt was not on this list. Definitely an interesting ww1 design equipping a battleship with 14x 12inch guns. 7 turrets on a battleship. Not only was she the largest battleship in the royal navy up until HMS hood, but despite being larger and heavier than all other ships she was also faster than most other heavy battleships and even some battlecruisers. At Jutland neighbouring ships in the battle line thought that Agincourt had been destroyed by a magazine detonation only to find when the smoke cleared the ship perfectly fine with the massive explosion and shockwave coming from the firing of all 14 guns at once on full broadside. To this day Agincourt holds the record for the largest number of same calibre big guns fitted to a warship. Only superseded by the Lyon class French battleship with 16x guns in four quadruple turrets but this ship was never built.

[@josynaemikohler6572]

Maybe SMS Von der Tann. She wasn't the first battlecruiser, but she was actually the first, that was built with fleet engagements, facing other capital ships in mind. Not only did she survive Jutland, but she was also responsible for the destruction of HMS Indefatigable, which was, among her (half-) sisters, insufficiently armored, to face capital ship weapons. Those features were later enhanced again with the Moltke class, which causes the design of the Lion class, on of the few british "response builds". (The other is suprisingly the admiral class which was based on the false assumption, that the Mackensen class would go 30 knots, and have 4x2 15" guns).

[@user-ms4ef8xz9t]

Like the video, not enough out there on WW1 ships. One change for me, I would put the QEs ahead of the Nevada. Any sim or game I have had would show that a QE can take a Nevada. Take it up a class and you get a good fair fight between a QE and an Arizona class.

[@doctordoom1337]

i think wwi ships are relevant to the channel, i think the current nj museum encompasses the spirit of bb-16 as well.

[@diggLincoln]

Iv had to re sub to this channel 3 times now

[@simonglover2996]

Barham was sunk in the med by a U-boat, Royal Oak was sunk by U-47 at Scapa Fow, & the Royal navy had a saying "if Warspite was`nt there, it was`nt a proper fight".

[@alecblunden8615]

The QEs were fully oil fired. The Us standards were slower weaker armed and with poor battle records. How about some objectivity?,

[@neptunecloud108]

Great video and explanations. Would love to see a segment on capital ships confronting and hitting lesser ships esp. against cruisers. That I think as in Guadalcanal. However, just against full military armed ships, not cargo ships convoy.

[@davidbarlow5148]

I did raise an eyebrow about your number one slot but I like your presentation and appreciate the time you took to make the video. It's subjective of course but I then asked chat GPT and this was it's reply to the question 'what was the best battleship class of WW1?' During World War I, the battleship that is often considered the best class was the British Royal Navy's "Queen Elizabeth-class" battleships. The Queen Elizabeth-class included ships such as the HMS Queen Elizabeth, HMS Warspite, and others. These battleships were known for their combination of speed, firepower, and modern design. Key features of the Queen Elizabeth-class battleships included: Main Armament: They were armed with eight 15-inch (381 mm) guns in four twin turrets, which gave them a significant firepower advantage over many of their contemporaries. Speed: These battleships were relatively fast for their time, capable of speeds exceeding 24 knots, which allowed them to keep pace with the fast battlecruisers and other elements of the British Grand Fleet. Armor: They had well-balanced armor protection, which made them durable in battle. Modern Design: The Queen Elizabeth-class battleships incorporated modern design principles, including better protection against underwater threats, which was a significant improvement over older battleships. These battleships played a vital role in World War I, participating in various naval engagements and contributing to the British Royal Navy's dominance in the North Sea. While it's challenging to definitively say which battleship class was the absolute best, the Queen Elizabeth-class is often considered one of the most successful and influential battleship designs of that era.

[@giauscaesar8047]

Strange I'm watching this video whilst making the USS New Jersey Tamiya model.

[@solreaver83]

Little confused here. British BC you start of correctly identifying the issue with the BC design was powder handling and safety procedures but then you forget that and propagate the inaccurate myth they were bad design. Later battles showed the design was in fact very sound when safety doors were shut and powder wasn't lining the halls all the way to the magazines

[@7StarsMA]

"Indefatigable perhaps one of the best names of a warship ever" even better when you pronounce it correctly.

[@Luwinkle]

I really like the bowling alley that's going on outside of that room.

[@vespelian5769]

Errata 1. Radetzky class at 10.35, not Teghetoff/Viribus Units class. 2. No Orions were lost in the war. HMS Audacious was sunk by a mine but she was King George V class. 3. It was the Invincible class and not the Indefatigable that initiated the battlecruiser concept and the Invincible class, HMS Invincible and Inflexible that fought at the Falklands battle, not the Indefatigable class. 4. The Queen Elizabeth were oil fired and their speed made them marginally more useful than the American standards in WWII.

[@williamfilce5329]

HMS Barham was sunk off the coast of Egypt . Royal Oks was torpedoed in Scapa Flow .

[@holderofthemantle117]

Refit and Repair!!! That was epic

[@nnoddy8161]

Two of the finest ships in history.

[@holderofthemantle117]

I'm not arguing they weren't great it was just funny to hear it put like that. The model I built of renown 1941 looks nothing like the late teens photo I have of her

[@terrybassett1]

An interesting list. I've learned some things I didn't know. One small point though, you've confused HMS Barham with HMS Royal Oak. HMS Barham was sunk by an Italian submarine in the Mediterranean, while it was HMS Royal Oak that was torpedoed in Scapa Flow, by the U-boat U47 commanded by Lt Gunter Prien. I'd heard of the "All or Nothing" armour idea, but now have a better understanding of it. Also, I hadn't realised the similarities between HMS Tiger and Kongo class vessels.

[@mickkent1826]

Barham was sunk by a U-boat.

[@simonjackson7269]

At the Battle of Jutland on May 31, 1916, as his cruisers were exploding around him, then Royal Navy Vice Admiral David Beatty lamented “something is wrong with our bloody ships today.”

[@klsc8510]

Ryan, for a future series raising sunken battleships. Both Pearl Harbor with US ships and Scapa Flow with the German WWI ships. Both are excellent stories.

[@burroaks7]

super awesome very neat

[@vincentlavallee2779]

First, let me start off to say that this was a very interesting report, and I had not hear of most of these battle cruiser/battleships, and I learned a lot! And as per Beastmasurus's comment below, I looked up the issue about 'first oil fired' battleships. It turns our a couple of ships prior to those designed originally to be fired by oil, were indeed converted to oil after the were launched, and long after they were commissioned. One such ship was the HMS Spiteful (1899), and it was converted to oil fuel in 1904. But as for battleships, the QE was the first battleship that was initially built to burn oil and not coal, and this was commissioned in Dec 1914. However, the US Texas was commissioned in March, 1914, but was initially built to use coal, and was converted to use oil in 1925. The US Nevada BB-36 was the first US battleship to be built initially to use oil, and it was commissioned in March 1916, 1.25 years after the QE.

[@TheBdb869]

My grandfather served on the USS Florida during WWI as the Chief Water Tender of the Boiler room.

[@philiptrueman1022]

19:00 ".. no projectile penetrated more than 9 inches of armor". At Dogger Bank, a 13.5" SAPC shell from Lion penetrated the 25cm aftmost turret barbette of Seydlitz.

[@frantavomacka2882]

Oh. On the picture is not SMS Tegetthoff but SMS Radetzky.

[@trevortrevortsr2]

Serriously the Nevarda? 4MPH slower and smaller guns with a shorter 45 caliber and only 15deg of ellevation compared to WW1 Queen Elisebeth class. The birds nest tripods made accuracy at any speed impossible - The QE also had the latest had Krupp Cemented Armour which made the Nevarda STS armour obsolete - The Nevarda's sister ship had tripple expansion engines !

[@MSUTri]

Hey Ryan, I think this video underscores the need for you to do a Battle of Jutland video! And a Battle of Tsushima video would be awesome as well.

[@DJNUMA]

Just got myself Battleship NJ License Plates! Was told the extra money goes to you guys, so cheers!

[@BattleshipNewJersey]

Thanks for your support!

[@jamesngotts]

I honestly wonder what would have happened if a major WW1 naval power had decided not to invest in dreadnoughts, battleships and battlecruisers but instead decided to invest the huge amount of resources into destroyer/torpedo boats and submarines/U-boats. I’m envisioning a line of 24 lumbering British battleships being absolutely devastated by a swarm of 300 destroyers or submarines who ultimately suffer relatively minimal losses in man power and investment compared to the British battleships. Hindsight is 20/20. In reality what probably would have happened is the British battleships would have never left ports due to the fear of being torpedoed and the admiralty would have been raging about this type of small ship warfare was uncivilized and unfair. Ultimately had the Germans invested mass amounts of resources into a massive fleet of smaller capital ship hunters they may have been able to control the north sea and channel with packs of 10-15 destroyers and U-boat packs. Think about it, if a group of 10 destroyers engages a group of 3 capitals and their escorts, they maybe lose 3-4 destroyers which can be built back in a month or two whereas if they land torpedos on the battleships and down one and heavily damage the other two, it’s pretty much a complete loss for the British.

[@richardbeachey1444]

Ryan. Thank you! Fun post. Derflinger and sister ships should be considered the high point of capital ships in WW1. IMHO they should be at #1. For the day very fast (over 26 knots), well armed and armoured.

[@neptunecloud108]

Also quite agree with your opinion on Derfflinger.

[@heikoalber1392]

talking about Derfflinger: in survived battledamage her predecessor Seydlitz was even better „arguably the toughest battlecruiser ever tested in combat“ (quote Richard Humble)

[@andreaspedersen3952]

Indeed! It was so damaged in Jutland that it nearly escaped sinking. Warspite did get a overheat in the rudder which made her drift in front of all the enemy ships for a while getting just as much beating. But not as much flooding.

[@davidbirt8486]

@@andreaspedersen3952 The British armored piercing shells at Jutland were defective.Had they been more effective,Seylitz would have been sunk.

[@Qossuth]

Seydlitz had extra freeboard in her bow compared to near sisters Moltke and Goeben. I always think of this when seeing pics of how battered she was and how down in the bow she was after Jutland. Her near sisters might not have survived.

[@pshehan1]

The indefatigable class battle cruiser shown at 22:21 has the Australian flag flying on the jack staff at the bow so is HMAS Australia. Von Spee, the German commander of the squadron sunk at the Falklands said that it was only the presence of the Australia which prevented him from shelling Australian ports at the beginning of the war. So it did its job in that respect. HMAS Australia joined the British battle cruiser squadron based at Rosyth, but missed Jutland as it was being repaired after a collision with its sister ship, HMS New Zealand. As a result of the Washington treaty in 1922 HMAS Australia was sunk off Sydney heads.

[@terrymills2010]

Royal Oak was sunk by a submarine within Scapa Flow. Barham was torpedoed at sea.

[@belind0388]

That cut during Ryan's description of what the Dreadnought race essentially was... 🤣

[@TimDyck]

Good video, I agree with it except the 1 and 2 picks were I would have put the QEs first and the Nevada’s second.otherwise a lot of great information. Great video.

[@futch2121]

The major innovation of Nevada was the introduction of the all or nothing armouring scheme. Nothing else was as revolutionary as the QE`s, but that one innovation for me justifies the number one spot.

[@martinsnow6010]

It was Royal Oak that was sunk at anchor in Scapa Flow. Bahram was torpedoed in the Med whilst in convoy with Malaya and Valiant. I'm a Brit so the QE class is my No.1 and am pretty sure it was the first oil fired warship - although the US had better supply, so maybe I'm wrong. The USN definitely pioneered the super-imposed turrets. The mid Q turrets on the Iron Duke and Orion Classes also interrupted the machinery spaces - by dropping this the QEs and the R-Class ships could have more powerful engines. Great video!

[@ThePrader]

Every time he says "Indefatigable" I react like he just scratched his fingernails over a chalkboard.

[@cameronmccreary4758]

I refer to twin rear axle motor homes as dreadnaughts. Indefatigable sounds better than Indumavisible. Wonderful exposé on the old ships Ryan. Also, the Iowa Class beats ANY of the WWI ships. I knew a veteran who served on the Nevada in WWII. He has passed on but he did tell what he did on board the ship in the 1980s and yes he was there at Pearl Harbor 7th Dec. 1941. Thanks.

[@noname117spore]

42:30 -ish. Seydlitz suffered a turret flash fire at Dogger Bank that knocked out both her X and Y turrets. But she didn't sink.

[@Jpdt19]

Thanks to the bravery of one of her gunnery officers who flooded the magazines. The Germans learnt their lesson pre Jutland and reinstated flash protection measures that had been part removed to improve rate of fire. What would have happened one wonders if the British had had a similar experience pre Jutland. Though that assumed beatty would have bloody listened.

[@73Trident]

@@Jpdt19 Which he would have not listened too.

[@mikhailiagacesa3406]

@@73Trident That's my Beatty! lol.

[@Will_CH1]

HMS Barham was sunk in the Mediterranean. Royal Oak was sunk in Scapa flow (Revenge class). The Queen Elizabeth class were designed for 25 knots and had no trouble reaching 24.5 except when in need of a refit. Barham with worn out turbines could only do 22 knots, and a grounding incident before the battle of Matapan temporarily limited Warspite's speed to 22 knots due to condenser fouling. It was the Revenge class that were 22 knot ships but could push 23 knots in overload.