The One Reason British Royal Navy Ships Were Invincible In World War 2
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 20 ก.ค. 2021
- Kamikaze attacks were some of the most dangerous and destructive of World War 2, but when it came time to face off against the British fleet, the attacks were rendered useless. How were the British able to simply shrug off Kamikaze attacks? You definitely need to check out this epic new war video right now!
🔔 SUBSCRIBE TO THE INFOGRAPHICS SHOW ► th-cam.com/users/theinfograp...
🔖 MY SOCIAL PAGES
TikTok ► / theinfographicsshow
Discord ► / discord
Facebook ► / theinfographicsshow
Twitter ► / theinfoshow
💭 SUGGEST A TOPIC
www.theinfographicsshow.com
📝 SOURCES:pastebin.com/i3BtbSDH
All videos are based on publicly available information unless otherwise noted.
![ความรักไม่ได้น่ากลัวขนาดนั้น (TRUST ME) - LYKN [ OFFICIAL MV ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/9np-lAtCRpQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Generally British carriers were more survivable than American ones. But that armor came with a trade-off: Less space for planes. There was also case where a typhoon hit the American and British fleets, causing massive damage to the American ships, who then asked the British what damage the typhoon had caused to their ships. The British response couldn't have been more British: "What typhoon?".
Love it😂
😂
4 cups of tea were spilled.
@@Noone-lm9mk that’s sacrilege lol
Only if the British military was as mighty as it once was
Another little factoid, the Royal Navy had predicted that the armoured decks may get dented, so each carrier was supplied with concrete to patch any damage.
That’s actually ingenious for the time
@@owenmonast9582 it really is tbh
Jesus concrete?
Kinda wish they actually made the frozen ship, there was plans to make a ship using ice to combat submarines, was on the verge of getting greenlit, then ze war ended
@@davehart1027 It’s called pykrete
The British contribution to the war in general is so totally underrated and really untold. As a proud U.S. NAVY veteran I salute those brave sailors and the ships the sailed in for their valor in the war to save Democracy.
Thanks dude, and thank you for your service 🇬🇧🇺🇸
@Cops are awesome I beg to differ my good sir. Yes the American war effort in the Pacific was massive, however the we held our ground in Burma and you can't deny the Indian war effort either. We wanted to join the Pacific war, but admiral king, head of the US navy command, had a severe case of Anglo-phobia and despised the British, and he never wanted the British in the Pacific war.
@Cops are awesome how was it tiny when they were also fighting the Japanese in Burma and India
Why thank you kind sir! We also sailed to save the thankless Soviets, who got their just come-uppance in 1991
@@darthreven4901 that doesn't count as the Pacific. That's Indian Ocean and south east Asian. Normal the Pacific is just counted as the tiny islands like Guadcanal and Iwo Jima
Two good things about the UK being an Island; It's very hard to invade and you get REALLY good at building boats.
This is very Historically accurate.
I mean, unless its a battlecruiser unfortunately
@@Chaos_Legend The problem with battlecruisers is how they were used. Presumably, you are referring to the HMS Hood, which was sunk by the Bismarck, because battlecruisers are not designed to fight battleships. The whole idea of a battlecruiser is to outrun anything that’s a threat and blow up everything else. Sending a BC against a battleship is near suicide.
@@subparusername9172 I know that, and nope, I was talking about the battle of jutland, but good example, and the battlecruisers main role was to hunt and destroy enemy cruisers
Unlike the USN, they only spam the seas with their ships, right?
The British, Australian and Canadian forces played a bigger role in WW2 than what is talked about here in the USA. As a Marine Vet I am proud to see and hear more stories are told of our brave and heroic allies! Thank you for your service of before and current service members of our allies and US forces!
Many will appreciate your kind words, but can I say that it was the British, Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders and the rest of the Empirical forces that were the only contributors in WW2 for the first 2+ years. So actually it is us that should be thanking our American cousins for lending a hand to finish the job. America teaches it's offspring that it won the war, as do the Russians. The British talk about the entire allied effort. The French don't like to talk about it at all as they were only half in. The Polish were in it longer than everyone, along with a few other Slav nations who were integrated into the RAF and such like. That's why it was called a world war, because there were way more allied troops in it, and way more Russian troops in it, for longer than the USA. I am not at all doing down the USA's huge and heroic role in defeating the Nazis and Empirial Japan, but let's face it, Uncle Sam arrived late, and could not have done it all alone either. At least not in the time it took. But I'll give you this, if you had not have joined the party, we'd be living in a different world today. God bless ya boys.
I am a Canadian who has grown up loving history, the Canadian soldiers stories frequently scare me.
Canadian soldiers had one of the most difficult beaches because they of what it was afterwards, brutal close quarters fighting in the nearby farm land among the hedges and in the city they were tasked with destroying.
Just a neat little fact
maybe so, but it was the Russians who won the war .....and sacrificed the most to do it......
@@johntucker2826 I disagree Sir, it is my opinion that it was an allied victory. No single member of the allies was able, alone, to deliver victory.
@@johntucker2826 “the war was won with British brains, American brawn, and Russian blood”
-Stalin himself.
Thank you for acknowledging the British contribution in the Indo-Pacific region. It's largely overlooked and underrated
According to Hollywood, Britain didn't take part in WW2 at all....
Especially by American movie producers. 8-(
They mock our effort, just to satisfy their bruised ego (pride)
@@cornwallforever5305 It's a 'new money' thing.
Among the British forces were Australian cruisers and destroyers. It was a Commonwealth thing.
The British have an impressive record against Kamikaze attacks. My father was one of those US Marines that fought on Okinawa and it's great to hear the British had his back.
🇬🇧🇺🇸
@David Jones My father was the same way. He was awarded 2 purple hearts and a bronze star and never spoken to me about it.
Always mate 😉 🇬🇧🤝🇺🇲
Always buddy 🇬🇧 🇺🇸 🇨🇦 🇦🇺 🇳🇿
*clears throat after sipping some tea* hoorah mate.. on behalf of the old boys
Japan: We will destroy your ships.
The UK: What part of "Britannia rules the waves" do you not understand?
XD
It's Britannia rule the waves!
@@peterbrady1536 Sorry, can't hear you over the sound of all the waves we rule over.
Japan really hit them hard not the way around
Also Britain created the ijn
Japan: “We have kamikaze pilots, they will destroy your whole fleet!“
Britain: “no“
You understand that speech works like “this” not ,,this” 🤣
@@spectreblitz9312 yeah i know but my phone automatically does this because in germany it is written „“
U.K.: oh no, *explosion does nothing* anyway :v
UK : **LAUGHS IN BRITISH 🇬🇧**
this comment will go viral
Imagine sacrificing yourself just to realize that you just slightly inconvenienced some repair dudes for a couple hours.
yeah. The Kamikaze doctrine was not very effective in the grand scheme of things. If one could trade off a plane for a ship it would be OK, but that is not what happened. The US Air craft carriers were surrounded by destroyers, frigates, and other picket ships and they shot down most of the attacking planes. The ship radars were getting very good by the end of the war and the allied ships were very prepared for the kamikaze onslaught well in advance. In addition, Allied Planes shot down more of the kamikaze planes. The combat damage of the Kamikaze attacks was just not very effective. It would have required literally thousands of more planes to be effective.. The loss of pilots, alone could not be sustained
Apparently Japanese university students were eager to volunteer, but they only allowed arts students to do so, as they were considered expendable. True story.
@@gkprivate433 standard non kamikaze attacks had even higher losses per ship sunk
Inconveniencing by interrupting afternoon tea as well. 😊😎
@@stevehendon4076 I am sure the tea went on uninterrupted. They were proper chaps in those days. That said, the bromide in Naafi tea makes it almost undrinkable.
A 10 minutes video of the narrator saying: The British carriers had armored flight decks and were pretty much immune to kamikaze attacks, and saying it in 20 different ways.
Remember: youre watching 10minutes of misinformation
Lemme guess.....you're American, right??
@@kokoeteantigha389 is that even an argument?
@@CharlesNauck The British ships had armoured decks not due to Kamikaze's but by coincidence from being designed for use in Eurupe
They where designed with the expectation that small enemy combatants might stumble into gun range during poor visibility in the North Sea and during Atlantic storms when they might not be able to launch many planes due to sea conditions
The "Armour" wasn't all of it though This issue was the "Strength deck"
The American carriers had a main strengthened deck under the hanger - the British had a lesser strength deck there and there primary strength deck as the top deck
This reduced the head room inside the hangar not because of how thick the deck was really but the need to lower the top deck to maintain the stability of the ship, reducing the max size of aircraft and therefore range, bit the twined strength decks acted to avoid strain on the ship in a similar fashion to how Girders, spread their loads in other structures.
This meant that the British where designed for survivability in extreme sea conditions but sacrificed aircraft range, numbers and sortie generation rates
The Americans had larger hangars, resulting in better work ergonomics in maintaining and readying planes for launch
The difference is doctrine -
The US favoured massed long range strikes by the aircraft alone - treating the planes in similar manner to a separate air-force making volume strikes
The British however thought of their carriers as an integral part of the fleet - Using far more sustained recon for surface assets and air patrols cycling aircraft to harrass enemy ships engaging the fleet, forcing evasions that would throw of their ability to maintain reliable fire control solutions.
The way they used fighters also differed - The Americans preferring to range further out from the fleet to ambush large incoming formations but would be stuck dogfighting the strike craft's escorts, while the British used their's to break up aircraft on the final strike runs, making it so the defensive gunners on their ships could focus on 1 or 2 aircraft that directly threatened them at a time over a longer engagement with a higher friendly aircraft attrition rate but the American idea would result in less losses for the air wings over all planes but a more effective final attack on the ships
Hopefully you can see from that description of the fighters especially why the Japanese seemed so much less threatening to the British ships anecdotally
There is a naval historian I find quite fun to watch called Dr Alexander Clarke who has previously described the difference between the way they are used similar to this
The Americans made strategic Fleet carriers, where the British made tactical battle carriers - neither is better or worse, as long as you see the differences between their use
@@CharlesNauck I see this video as giving the Royal Navy the acknowledgment and credit that is due to them when fighting in the pacific , the video shows you how the British contributed quite a lot in the pacific and is a change from the usual , That being that the Royal Navy are over looked and only the USA and Japan are focused on when talking about the war in the pacific, also it’s not a video based on the US navy so why would they have to go into detail about which are better trained and if they got damaged more
My Grandfather, Frederick Harper, was a young radar officer aboard the HMS Illustrious. He was only 19 at the Naval battle of Okinawa when the ship got hit by 2 Kamikaze's. He was a quiet and kind man, never spoke much about the war, I don't think he wanted to. I still have his Burma Star and Pacific Star medals. He became an avid gardener when he left the Royal Navy. A lot of pseudo-tough guys in the comments, real brave, tough guys are very different in real life.
My Grandfather, Robert "Robby" MacArthur was a driver in the British Army. He was evacuated from Dunkirk and then spent the rest of the war in India and Burma. He took over the family bakery after the war. Sounds like he was very similar man to your grandfather. Quiet, wise and massive heart.
Salko Harer: Look up Jeremy Clarkson's The Greatest Raid. You are correct; the actual combatants tell their story and see what type of people they are; same as the Band of Brothers survivors..
@@MoA-Reload... my dad was a driver in the RASC. Evacuated from Dunkirk, went back in 1944, took part in the Berlin airlift. He rarely spoke about the war, took up gardening and lived his life out in peace. Brave men are ordinary men.
My father served on HMS victorious from 1939 when he volunteered and had a box full of campaign medals which when I was a child I always wanted him to wear on remembrance Sunday at the local cenotaph but he wouldn't, I still have the medals, he hated the Japanese and wouldn't eat Asian food because of the atrocities he had seen.
Bit like famous commando, went back to civvy street to sell carpets.
10 minutes of saying: the ships were armored.
Every ship was armoured so yeah
What strikes me is the high number of British planes that were shot down in defense of their own carrier.
I assume those British pilots kept chasing the Kamikaze planes, even as they were going through the British ships' own anti air fire, meaning that quite a few of those British planes must have been shot down by friendly fire.
If that's true, those pilots were extremely brave and willing to sacrifice themselves to save their carrier.
The Japanese still had a few veteran and ace pilots up their sleeve but never enough to protect all the Kamikazes.
When dealing with people of average IQ, and that would be TH-camrs, the rule, from radio, is to say something three times, and at least once it will be understood. Congratulations, TH-cam viewer, you passed the test.
@@spectreblitz9312 the American carries had unarmored flight decks
@@HGShurtugal Both the American and Japanese carriers were unarmoured.
Which is why the Battle of Midway was so devastating to the Japanese Navy.
And which is also why it didn't matter if the Japanese carriers' decks were full of planes or not. Bombs went straight through the unarmoured flight decks then they exploded down below in the hangars and storage areas.
When I thought about kamikaze attacks I never really thought of British ships much . Great video !
Pearl Harbor kind of takes the spotlight
I think of eminem.
That’s because there wasn’t very much, if at all any kamikaze action against them. The British involvement the in the pacific was losing Singapore and losing the cruisers sunk by Japan….
tbh
@@seanosborn3272 lol wrong
Nice to see a vid that recognises the UK and Commonwealth contribution to the war in the Pacific theatre. I have met many Americans that had no idea that British and Commonwealth forces fought on land, sea and air against the Japanese. They literally had no clue and believed that America did everything themselves
That seems to be the view held by many, in the U.S. even Brit's, etc! I think the feeling of shame, over the surrender of Singapore, the biggest capitulation in British history, had something to do with it being "forgotten"??
People also forget it was Australian soldiers were the first to stop the Japanese armies advance by forcing them to retreat and winning the battle of Kokoda in New Guinea in 1942.
Not helped by inaccurate Hollywood movies eg U-571 and Objective Burma,
Not to mention the Philipinos, and.indians, and chinese. They all bore much of the brunt of the Japanese army forces. LOT of fighting in the Phillipines, china, etc.
"When a kamikaze hits a US carrier it means 6 months of repair at Pearl [Harbor]. When a kamikaze hits a Limey carrier it's just a case of 'Sweepers, man your brooms'."
The Malta-class aircraft carrier was a British large aircraft carrier design of World War II. Four ships were ordered in 1943 for the Royal Navy, but changing tactical concepts, based on American experience in the Pacific War, caused repeated changes to the design, which was not completed before the end of the war. All four ships were cancelled in 1945 before they were laid down.
With names like "Indefatigable" and "Formidable", is there any surprise they were so tough?
the way he pronounces Indefatigable in the video is awful.
Invicnible was sunk
A lot of Royal Navy ships had cool names.
@@Luke-tm5oy it took me a min to translate what he was trying to say.
@@dagreetpapirusmusic9163 you mean Ark Royal?
Everybody in war: Trying to Survive
Kamikaze pilots: Planes go BRRRRRR
Kamikaze pilot - I am a failure at everything and the only way to gain honor is to die for my emperor. Kinda like a terrorist in a bomb vest. Reoccurring theme.
How about a banzai charge?
this comment will go viral
Guns go *pew pew pew*
Facts lol
Every time a Japanese Kamikaze plane hit a British ship's deck, the sailors got out their brooms, swept the debris off the deck and then everyone carried on as normal.
Not every time.
Mainly the aircraft carrers with armoured decks.
Lol
Yeah an unlike a town mayor or leader or whatever if there were any potholes or the sort they'd actually be filled
*kamimikazi plane hits the carrier*
"Hey, did we just get hit?"
"Yes...that is a very small dent"
I feel like this converasation happened at least once in the war against japan
As an American, it makes me glad I can call the British allies
The feeling is mutual
We love you lot over there 🇬🇧🇺🇸
Feelings mutual old chap 😃 🇬🇧🤝🇺🇸
Thanks!
we'll , we're practically family
My mother’s cousin was a Royal Navy sailor in the Pacific during the war. Just before he died I met him and he showed me a photograph of the side of the ship he had been on. There was a perfect outline of a Kamikaze aircraft just like after a pigeon hits a window. The ship was barely damaged. He told me that he had feared Stukas more than Kamikazes which surprised me at the time.
Hms Sussex. That pic is phenomenal.
@@beaterbikechannel2538 Its a picture that has to be seen to be believed thats for sure.
Well a Stuka in the Pacific would have meant the Nazis invented teleportation... so yeah... pretty scary
@@timnor4803 Obviously he was talking about earlier on in the war before he sailed to the Pacific.
@@timnor4803 I think he was talking about when they were near the German coast or maybe there own before the Brits went to the pacific. A Flight of Stukas would be Bad news for any ship, they were very good dive bombers.
So the Americans were impressed with the oldest, most experienced navy in the world? Shocker!
Amerikan navy need Britisch technology and training
@@thundinarora7131 dude can you spell American right for once?
@@superiornicholas412 sorry in my native tongue we pronounce it with a strong k I carry that on in riting
@@superiornicholas412 not everyone is from the freedom/obese land dude
@Cops are awesome but not in WW2!
Nice to hear stories of allies working together and using each others strengths to achieve a common goal.
The name HMS Indefatigable is an old and honorable name in the RN. You're saying it wrong. Equal emphasis on each syllable.
Made me grimace each time he said HMS Indefatigable
Glad I found your comment before I posted something similar 😊😎
Also it's not "the Indefatigable", it's "Indefatigable" or "HMS Indefatigable".
@@naajohnnorthcott8267 nah. It's the indyfagabubble of The British Pacific Fleet. Y'know, the guy's with the blobby hands.
@@littlefluffybushbaby7256 no. She was still part of his majesty's Royal navy, and still had RN sailors on board. As such, she still would have been given the prefix "HMS".
Edit: would have been his majesty at the time. Edited to reflect that.
I like how he says "not even Japan's most deadly kamikaze pilots" as though they can just die and comeback to life with all the experience they need.
In a way they did as the Kamikaze Pilots invoked the spirits of warriors past before going into battle.
kamikaze attacks resulted with less pilots lost compared to results achived for Japan
@@hphp31416 because they were only used at the very end of the war
The stupidity of the Japanese policy was that their beat pilots ended up at the bottom of the sea, whereas the allied pilots were moved ashore after so many sorties so they could use their knowledge they had gained to train all the new pilots coming through.
Those who came back where the ones who were least deadly.
Seriously, some did not manage to find ships. They did not have radar, and little training, so a little clouds or fog could seperate them from the rest, and if they got lost over open ocean, they sometimes managed to find land and even an airstrip before their fuel ran out.
British carriers were tougher as the were designed to operate in the Atlantic and Mediterranean and expected to be within range of land based fighters but couldn't carry as many aircraft.
American carriers were more vulnerable but had a more powerful air wing so packed a bigger punch when attacking.
Pretty much sums up the difference between the two. America try to hit them before they hit you. Focusing on big short term wins as opposed to longevity (as they so often needed repairs).
British planned for everything. Took a cautious approach, no point packing a punch if you can only use it once or twice a year. The caution (evidently in this video) paid off as the Japanese struggled to take them on. Nothing like a bit of British engineering!
@@Jannetts_ Gotta give some credit to American tho. Battle of midway was a slap
Yeah and British carrier has armored flight deck while US carrier doesn't.
British carriers were tougher because of German dive bombers....
@@worldscar6422 would've been a disaster if they didn't know though
I am a Brit and immensely proud of my country's contribution to the allied war effort in WWII. However, one of the things that is not mentioned in this video is the reason why it took so long for the British fleet to get organised. The British ships were certainly tough and their crews brave and battle hardened. What they did lack however, was the experience of organizing and running the fleet train, that is, the repair, supply and maintenance support that every American naval task group contained. These were necessary for fleets operating in the vast Pacific Ocean and took the Americans some years to get it right. The British, operating in the Atlantic and Mediterranean had no requirement for such an arrangement and so had to learn the tasks 'on the hoof', so to speak. This, and the intransigent anglophobia of the American admiral King caused long delays that could have been avoided with better co operation and planning. Still, the British fleet was there from the end of 1944 and made a valuable contribution to the defeat of Japan.
That and we're far away...
1:20
Exactly the other way around. The one in the back corresponds to HMS Repulse and the one in the front to HMS Prince of Wales.
I'm beginning to love history even more when Infographics makes a video.
Indeed
Yarnhub, Armchair historian, Simple history, The Front: b r u h
You are so, so, misinformed
Ofc
They're kinda inaccurate with the animations tho
How did he massacre pronouncing the Indefatigable so bad???
its really easy to recreate what he said, simply say indefatigable whilst you have your tongue out
Oh, come on! It's just a snooty way of saying 'Tireless'. English, tsk.
Isn’t it one of those computer generated voices?
He was indyfagabubble about doing it
Why do they have illiterate, ignorant people narrate videos?!
Reminds me of a story I heard once.
During a joint mission at the time a US carrier saw a Kamikaze plane strike the deck of a British ship. Knowing the damage that it could cause they got on the radio and offered help, willing to rescue the crew as they evacuated. The British captain thanked the US officer for the concern but explained they were already sweeping the wreckage off the deck and were doing quite well
It should be noted that unlike the heavy US built fighters the later models of Spitfire(from the MK 9 onwards)and Seafire could out turn the A6-M making the Seafire the perfect antidote to most kamikaze attacks
How many times was the phrase "The British Pacific Fleet" used in this video? 😂
idk
It's royal navy anyway 😂
30 is what I counted lol
30 lol
Right
Drinking game: Take a shot every time you hear the term “British pacific fleet”
Hips Brrrrrrrritissssssssssssssh pfffffffaaaaaaaaaaasiffffffficc pfleeeet hips.
*Dies to alchol poisoning
Beer when he says BPF, shot everytime he says armoured carriers, every time u hear kamikaze u need to spin in a circle lol.
Or the word Armoured lol
Frank we dont want to die lol just push it to the limit lol
Shocked! At last the story of the British Pacific fleet a 215 ship force with 11 fleet carriers. Completely ignored for years.
Honestly didn't know the British helped that much in the pacific 😳, was very informative thanks 👍
I never knew that either. No dis-respect to the American fleet. They relayed on the British and commonwealth navy's so much. You don't hear much about the allies just the Americans in the pacific war. It a shame really because people believe the Americans won alone, when they obviously didn't.
Trainee pilot:''How do i land?''
The instructor: "we don't do that here"
Welllll the thing is they wanted you to turn around if there were problems like, bad weather, can't find target, plane issues, etc. But they would go back out eventually
Another instructor: you land right in there *points at the ship*
lol
@Juan Carrero I was looking for this comment.
Back when we funded the navy properly. Good times.
Back when we funded any part of our military properly!
Our current spend isn't bad but it's lacking compared to the top militaries.
Still one of the highest ranked navy’s in the world.
Well we don't have a world war now
Reason :nukes go bad
Back when you had an empire to fund it.
@@dylankennedy6389 4th biggest military spending in the world ain't bad considering there's over 250 countries in the world
Why does everyone insist on using the Maple Leaf to represent Canada in WWII? The national flag at the time was the red ensign. For WWI it was also the red ensign with a different shield on the fly.
🍁 looks better
Copeland
This video definitely proves that the only thing more valuable than a single capable fleet are multiple capable fleets. Since both came from different places that had different perspectives they had different strengths and weaknesses. Adapting defenses to combat both fleets is normally very difficult especially for a comparatively smaller force.
Up until the US became involved in WW2 the British Navy was the largest in the world!
Kamikazes: ramming into the carriers relentlessly
The carriers: *stop that tickles!*
People acting surprised when the pre-eminent force in world naval power for the last 400 years knows a few things about war at sea.
@Cops are awesome lol that you think you know anything
@Cops are awesome I know you can't read.
@Cops are awesome Aw bless. You think you are a man.
But this trick cost us the lives of a whole battlecruisers crew to learn when the Bismarck hit HMS Hood.
I find it amusing how people find our naval history so shocking… us brits have been around a long time
....and what a naval power they are now.
@@edhuber3557 do I suspect sarcasm ?
@@edhuber3557 Stop contemplating your navel
@@edhuber3557 lol they are the only army in the world that can launch nukes without head of state authority and there is a nuke vanguard class sub patrolling all major waters at all times so id say they still pack a mighty punch they have enough firepower on each sub to wipe out a continent has they use a trident nuclear system the bobs are designed to split into 32 war heads and each explode 1.5 miles from the ground. also if there subs sink an enemy at sea when they come back to dock they fly the jolly rodger.
I can just imagine some japanese soldiers watching one of our carriers getting hit by a kamikaze plane and being totally shocked that the ship was practically fine
I didn't know about the presence of the British fleet in the Pacific before watching this video, I've never seen it covered anywhere and from the description these guys made a huge difference. They may have had less planes but so what? You got four carriers of aircraft that can take a beating and recover and launch planes around the clock because of no damage to their decks. Then on top of that the Brits had pilots that could match the Japanese in air to air combat which prevented them from even reaching the carriers. That's exactly how our carrier battlegroups work today. If a badguy plane gets close enough to launch an anti-ship missile something has gone wrong with the F-18s flying Combat Air Patrol. Can we get a WW2 movie about these guys please?
They had defeated all the axis navies but Japan solo and so just moved on to japan. And while holiday lets by that point most of the Japanese fleet it already been sunk. The British ships did an amazing job at soaking up damage. Imagine if all the kamikaze is that hit the British ships were sent to US carriers or something like that. They'd have no working capital ships left. HMS Indefatigable alone survived more direct hits than any other ship, which happens to be more than the entire Japanese fleet at midway.
@Cops are awesome that is not what I said at all. I said the Japanese navy had mostly been sunk by the time the British got there in any meaningful numbers, in other words the US sunk it.
@@jacobkingsford5209 More or less. The bulk of the Japanese navy was destroyed at Leyte Gulf, while Yamato would be sunk in its own kamikaze attack by American carriers. The British did sink some warships, however. The Japanese cruiser Haguro was sunk in a night action by some British destroyers. Amusingly, even if Haguro had survived the British destroyers, it would've had to face the French battleship Richelieu which was on the hunt nearby. Another cruiser was sunk by a British submarine, while yet another was sunk by British commandos. A light carrier was also sunk by British carrier aircraft.
To be sure, by that point, the naval war had already been won. The Japanese fleet of 1945, crippled by lack of fuel and spectacularly outnumbered, had become useless. Just wanted to throw that out there.
@@Cailus3542 oh yeah. I'm not saying Britain did nothing against Japan at all. I was just saying that Britain did not do as much at sinking the Japanese fleet as America did. Has Britain had instead thank the Italian and German fleets (and a lot of the French)
@@jacobkingsford5209 Lets not forget, the biggest loss to the Japanese Army was at the Burma/India border, which was fierce and costly to both sides. Sure, the British didn't have the resources we had, but they did come and fight.
if you ever feel like you life has no impact on anyone dont worry, just look up the image of the kamikaze pilot that crashed into the side of the HMS Sussex.
I just did. RIP it’s like banksy was around in the 1940s
I searched it up to and that is literally no damage
I can only see an imprint of a zero
Just looked that up and nearly swallowed the can I was drinking from when I saw it. I wonder how long they left that imprint there as a visual warning to other Japanese pilotd.
69 likes 8)
"Nothing will stop the British"
Overheating Engines: Am I a joke to you?
Screams in type 45
*Laughs in American*
No. The British didn't use B29s.
@@fredsmith5473 actually we did
Psst! HMS Hood,cough cough.
One must mention the proximity fuse and how good that was. Most close in kamikaze planes towards the end of the war were shot down by that. Some surviving Japanese pilots or observers were just starting to report that the gun shells were exploding before hitting the planes and were beginning to realize that something was afoot
Brave men of the Royal Navy and British Forces. I salute you all for your courage. As a Zimbabwean of British descent as well as having family connections to the Royal Navy, I give another salute to my British family and kin.
The importance of the seafire as a rapid response interceptor, is often overlooked
I'm starting to think the British ships resisted attacks by the kamikaze pilots due to the ships deck being armoured... I don't know how I came to this conclusion 🤔
Armour no, lots of kettles for brewing tea yes.
The video said it
@@_Crazyman109 like 50 times
Or maybe... just maybe it could be due to the armoured ship decks. 🧐
Idk, shouldn't that be mentioned in the video? Maybe I missed it
Every time an American says I would be speaking German without them, this is one of the many vids I'll show them
When a American say that to me, my response is, "And if it we hadn't have won the Battle of Britain, you'd be speaking German also."
The British were struggling during the early months of the war you know. In fact, the US had to give resources just for the British to survive. For that reason, the US would enter the war because Germany saw what the US was doing for the Brits.
@Cops are awesome We were actually pretty close from speaking German. During the foundation of the country (USA) it came down to a 5 to 4 vote (5 in favor of English being the official language, 4 votes for German). Imagine the alternative history path that singular vote would have led us to.
@Cops are awesome You didn’t bail us out. The UK survived the German invasion threat in 1940 and would not have been invaded after that. The US bailed out France, Belgium, Holland etc.
@Cops are awesome kindergarten, hamburger, yeah no German whatsoever 😳
This fleet was HUGE! 21 aircraft carriers carrying 750 aircraft, 4 battleships, 11 cruisers and a total of 200 ships with loads left back home - the largest single war fleet ever assembled by Brits contributed to by Australia, New Zealand and Canada as well as personnel from many other nations.
What a sight it must have been.
Armored carrier decks. There, saved you the time. 👍
The British ships had excellent armored flight decks, simple as that!
Did they have excellent carrier aircraft?
@@nickdanger3802 yup, once they re equipped with US designs (saying that, the Swordfish, despite everything, did stunning service)
@@nickdanger3802 I’m British and can confirm we did not have excellent carrier aircraft during the time, merely sub par air carriers lol though nowadays with the newest iteration of the lynx we are probably now back up to excellent 😂✌🏻
@@bigglesbiggles1 Well no they used some American designed planes for a short while Nick!
I remember there was an incident like this during the Korean War as well. HMS Jamaica was assisting US forces (I think it was at Inchon) and they were brutally attacked by Communist warplanes, one of them literally exploding over the ship. Incredibly, despite being blasted by strafing and hit by explosive rounds (among other stuff), only one sailor was killed and the ship only moderately damaged, thanks to the vessel's incredible armor.
The British Pacific fleet had a much underestimated impact on the Pacific war. But that is not to take anything away from Admiral Nimitz and the ships and men of the US Navy, who fought the Japanese to a standstill. Maybe some of the posters here need to remember, we were on the same side.
US ship hit by kamikaze: *OH SH!! OH F!!! WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE EVERYBODY RUN FOR YOUR LIVES*
British ship hit by kamikaze: **sips tea** Well, that's inconvenient.
The Malta-class aircraft carrier was a British large aircraft carrier design of World War II. Four ships were ordered in 1943 for the Royal Navy, but changing tactical concepts, based on American experience in the Pacific War, caused repeated changes to the design, which was not completed before the end of the war. All four ships were cancelled in 1945 before they were laid down.
@@nickdanger3802 While this is very interesting Information what does it actually have to do with the comment you are replying too, not that it matters, I suppose
Get the mops out and mix the concrete. Wouldn't want to trip and spill my tea.
@@edwardhilder Steady yourself
@@nickdanger3802 If only they had been completed... Maybe we would have seen CVA -01 actually happen.
In short: They were designed for engagements in the Atlantic and cramped spaces of the territorial waters around the British Isles. Because of this, they were designed to take more fire as opposed to the American bluewater fleets which focused more on firepower and speed while using excellent damage control protocol to minimize damage.
They both had the same aircraft capacity once British adopted deck parking in the safer Pacific. (Excluding Midway class because that is just built different)
@@jacobkingsford5209 No, not exactly. Due to an armoured flight deck it meant that the hanger was lower, meaning that British carrier aircraft had to fold their wings backwards where as American Aircraft could fold them upward thanks to the extra height. This meant that there was more floor space available within the hanger decks of American carriers which allowed them to carry more aircraft.
However the British weren’t overly concerned about this as their carriers were never mainly seen around the Mediterranean and North Atlantic,meaning that they weren’t as far from home soil as the American carriers sometimes were
@@joshuamarshman101 many American aircraft had backwards folding wings like the F6f and F4f
IT wasn’t damage control that the USN (and IJN) were counting on in carrier design - it was the fact both navies were built for battles on the open ocean, where they’d be hard to find.
The british fleet, meanwhile, was built with the intent to fight mainly in the north sea, Mediterranean, and English Channel. Where they would absolutely be found by land based aircraft and needed to be able to stay capable after being bombed. WHich is the only detail I wish the video had covered more
History clearly confirms that the USA relies very heavily on being able to run away.
Woah woah woah, are we just going to ignore the fact that he said indeFATIGUEable instead of indeFATICable.
It annoyed me and no doubt if C.S Forrester can hear this he’d hate it to since it was the ship in the majority of the Hornblower series.
@@jonathantitterton9455 it was doing my head in, I love those books especially the indy!
Are we gonna ignore the fact that majority of this video is misinformation?
@@mirage_panzer2274 what evidence do you have for this?
@@jonathantitterton9455 me and my friend just rant and pointing out the misinformation on the video for an hour. There are just so much things from the fuel tank they call it as a bomb, to "British ships Chad US ships virgin" nonsense. There are just too much faulty if you ever watch documentaries. British Aircraft carrier is bad, there is also a reason why you never heard of spitfire fighting zero because british planes never fought zero. They are busy with kreigsmarine on europe, only US focus on Japan alone. Look up on USS Enterprise, how many times it got bomb and still functional? Armor doesnt matter because kamikaze dont attack aircraft carrier, they attack supply ships or destroyer for the least, that ship is also mounted with tons of AA.
Americans still be like “The British did nothing. America won the war on its own” yeah right 😂
well they sunk Japans fleet, and they nuked japan and took control of it. I'd say america did a lot more then The tea drinkers
@@phoenixrider4622 we'd have our own fair share of things done.
Battle of Britain
Bismarck
The graf spee
El Alamein (the whole north African campaign rly)
The Italian Mediterranean fleet
Tirpitz
Dam busters
A staging point for DDay
A route for Russian supply lines
Free French hosting
Not to mention the Radar etc.
@Cops are awesome Two battleships actually. The Tirpitz was Bismark's sister ship. Also "battleship" is one word, not two. Bismark was also critically wounded by a handful of Swordfish, a torpedo plane that looks more like a WW1 relic than a contemporary warplane which is far more impressive than winning with state-of-the-art torpedo planes and dive bombers. Also Japan's navy might look tough on paper, but when you factor in how out of date some of their tech actually was...well... And their damage control was third-rate, resulting in ships sinking from what any other major fleet would consider minor damage.
For example, the Yamato's final configuration, on paper, looks like pilot's bane with 152 dedicated AA weapons with most of it's other guns, including it's main 18.1 inch guns, could be loaded with anti-air rounds as well. However when it was sunk it had only shot down three of the literally hundreds of planes attacking its fleet with AA fire, with a handful of others being shot down by its screen or being knocked out by Yamato's final explosion.
@@phoenixrider4622 Only nuked Japan when they finally got the B29 to work.
Was nearly done by a Lancaster, but...politics
@Cops are awesome you missed out British code breaking shortened the war by two years roughly ,also we had given you radar which you had at Pearl, your top brass chose not to believe it even when it showed the Japanese air attack coming in . Don't forget British troops in Burma and India to name but two they tied down alot of Japanese troops. In the end we all played are part
Take a drink every time ""The British Pacific Fleet"" is mentioned
the British invested more points on armor and health XD
Is this doom 2016 or something?
@@mrmosky2784 yeah maybe.
...it's TierZoo
that wasn't a bomb on the zero, that was a detachable fuel tank.
I’m guessing you’re new to the channel?
Haha
This channel is not known for its accuracy.
Meh, details 😂
Whatever it was, it glinted in the sun. You know, the sun that magically bent around corners to hit the underside of the aircraft... How do we get this channel shut down?
Well if you’ve been the navy powerhouse for centuries, i kinda expect them to be good at their job
British Aircraft carriers were insanely survivable at the time. HMS Illustrious being the best example given it was attacked by 30+ stukas and suffered 6 direct hits from 500kg and 1000kg bombs with a several near misses, under its own steam got to malta where it was attacked by a further 44 stuka bombers and 17 Ju-88 bombers where it suffered hits and damage yet managed to set off and arrive at alexandria under its own steam where it was given temporary repairs in less than 3 months. The tonnage of explosives that illustrious soaked up was the equivalent to what sunk the 4 japanese aircraft carriers at midway.
you gotta admit, british ship names are the best
The Americans were planning to launch the USS Diem..therf...erDie but sadly it was scrapped.That's were Quentin Tarantino got the idea for the bloke who hides out in the toilet in Pulp Fiction.Honest.
That's for sure Juan. Most taken from the Greek Myths but my favourite Is Dreadnought. 'I fear nothing.' I do tip my hat to the Japenese though. When translated they have great meaning also.
I mean sooner or later they may have the USS Donald J Trump... 😳
@@benwhitehead5806 or HMS Donald J Trump..I wish
When he mentions Prince of Wales and Repulse, the names are on the wrong ships. They should be swapped.
Well at least he can pronounce those names. Unlike Indefatigable lol
Tbf British carriers were mostly built to fight a different type of war. USN carriers were built to fight in the Pacific so their main threat were aircraft from other carriers and there was advantage to having the extra large air wings aboard as they'd be much further away from resupply.
British carriers were expected to fight far closer to land based aircraft which are not only larger but carry much heavier bombs than carrier based aircraft. Not only that they'd have to weather wave after wave. Because of this they were built with survivability as a much higher priority and armoured decks at the cost of carrying capacity.
Something not mentioned is how well the British Navy trained their crews in damage control drills, the icing on the cake 👌
wow shocker, a nation with the greatest military history on the entire planet knows what they are doing with their world renowned Navy… |:
Used to be world renowned anyway.
@@kfg452 no still is
@@ryansmith-zj7gn I can smell the tea from here...must have been the farmers dressed like natives...
@@kfg452 it's still the best navy after the US, China and Russia (depending on whether they remember their tug boats)
@@jacobkingsford5209 Still the best, the others are just larger
Americans: "Is it Possible To Learn This Power?"
Not with a Wooden flight deck.
Not from the french
The Midway Class had an armored flight deck and were under construction in 1945
@@SJstackinbodys Oh I wish I could double like your comment :)
once as an Englishman and once as a Star Wars fan
@@tonybuk70 😁
My mother‘s older brother served on board HMS UNICORN during this period and in common with the rest of the crew had at least two main duties on board. During normal duties he was one of the cooks for his mess specialising as a baker, but when at action stations he was a gun layer on a 3.5” or4.5” gun ( Starboard side astern of the ships island) but also had other duties as assigned. On one occasion he was assigned to guard duty beside his gun station when a kamikaze actually crashed on the edge of the flight deck and just above his guard post, he had fortunately taken a brief skive to have a cigarette and as he returned to his post he found several crewmen trying to find his body underneath the wreckage of the plane. He was of course on a charge the next morning for abandoning his duty post. I’m not sure what punishment he was given but I think it was just a stoppage of his earnings.
Cheap at the price, for what it bought.
hms unicorn what a good name
Time saver: They had armoured decks.
WoW. They did! Also slower and had to resupply in port not at sea like the USA.
@@brentmiller7714 Well, not quite. Illustrious-class carriers were capable of reaching 30 knots, only marginally slower than American carriers, and the British certainly did resupply at sea during the Pacific War.
the funny part is, the silhouettes you used for Prince of Wales and repulse were backwards (also that was HMS Hood silhouette but still a battlecruiser)
HMS Indy-da-fatigue-able was a ship in the British Pacific fleet.
Lol I guess he had a go a really bad effort tho
That makes me laugh everytime he says it.
In-dee-fat-ig-a-bull
This is what happens when you drag an American into the dark depths of the English dictionary.
I'd love to see him wrestle with discombobulated.
@@tonyyates2012 I cant say the first one, but I confused my first grade teacher one day saying discombobulated she sent me to the office and my grandmother took me home
@@johterrianevans3480 You should have told your Grandma and teacher that you are an anti-disestablishmentarianist.
So whatever happened to that awesome British Pacific Fleet? I don't hear of it anymore
This is all new to me and I've been watching WWII stuff for 40+ years. Thank you Britan.
Armored carrier decks are pretty cool
The way you say indefatigable is strange
I thought it very cringe worthy how he pronounced it.
@@jonmcgee6987 I only know how to say it thanks to
Drachinifel
Americans can’t pronounce such an English word lol
They put the em*pha*sis on the wrong syl*a*ble
Great video! The Brits Pacific carrier duty does not get enough love. Top notch sailors and pilots who got it done, every time. I laughed at the Churchill animation in the video 5:06 - nailed it, except you missed the glass of whiskey in his hand! But that's OK, in the morning- Churchill will be sober, but you will still be drawing historical animations. LOL! good stuff, love these Infographics shows. Hopefully makes people want to dig deeper into the past for a look.
I feel like Britain's involvement in the Korean War isn't talked about enough either. The Royal Navy even assisted our Marines at Inchon. That conflict really should be talked about more.
@@thunderbird1921 I agree. That beach invasion gets little talk. They always discuss the Chosin Reservoir battle that follows but skim over the invasion that led to it, it was a huge operation.
🇬🇧🇺🇸
Imagine being a kamikaze pilot, giving your life. To mildly inconvenience a couple of royal navy sailors for about an hour.
i believe you're forgetting the setting time of concrete, I'd say 1/2 an hour including tea breaks 😊
Simple reasons: 1. Brit carriers had armoured decks; 2 Brit carriers had sailors with years more war experience than the US; 3 Brit carriers usually had 4 times more anti aircraft than US (but the US clued up fast); 4. The Brits invented the Radio Fuse and knew how to use it.
Don’t hear much about the British in the pacific except them losing in 1941/2 so thanks for the video 🇬🇧🇬🇧
The Britisch did not lose the war, they fought the entire axis until Russia joined
The Brits and commonwealth forces pushed the Japanese out of most of South East Asia, took control of Thailand and later defeated the communists in Vietnam and Malaya.
The war against Japan has tended to focus on the US effort (including only mentioning Pearl Harbor and ignoring all the other attacks that took place at the same time) but that's because most of the output has been American aimed at an American audience. The other allies hardly get a mention because it's not going to resonate with the target audience. Getting backing for something about Pearl Harbor will always be easier, and more profitable, than something about the Dutch or the Australian effort for instance.
The Chinese probably get the most hard done by. They were in a similar place that the USSR was in terms of acknowledgement of their efforts and suffering. Since ex-soviet archives are now more accessible and the cold war is closer to room temperature the Russian efforts are more acknowledged. Going forward I think the Chinese will be. They now have their own Hollywood style movie output about WW2. The other allies will probably still have to fight for what's left of the limelight.
@@timphillips9954 Yep, and I'd give a specific tip of the hat to those British (commonwealth) forces that were not from Britain. British Indian and African forces as well as ANZACs. For instance, I think the core of British forces in Viet Nam were Indian. Post-war the Japanese troops were co-opted. Wierd how stuff happens.
"Deadliest Kamikaze Pilots" as if they had experience dive bombing to their death. And yes I know what he meant.
Nobody:kamikaze pilots when they’re out of ammo
Look at me,look at me
*I am the ammo now*
Never knew that these events happened, thank you for teaching us about the British Naval fleet battles against the Japanese during World War 2, it was both informative and entertaining
Do not for your own sake. Its terribly misinformed, there are reasons why documentaries made hours worth of video explainning one topic than the a big chunk of the war like this. Do not trust inforgraphic shows if youre looking for historical accuracy and learning history
This is propaganda, Britain was awful in the pacific and kept losing to Japan and embarrassing themselves. Worst defeats in British history were by Japan.
@@user-pn3im5sm7k troll. Terrible attempt. Not only you got ignored but now you're called out.
@@cornwallforever5305 It's just history. You don't need to get mad at me. You can get mad at the British for being so awful I guess.
@@user-pn3im5sm7k had the Brits surrendered, Germany would have won. Quit with such a cheap narrative and learn history
Japan: *loosing a war every way possible fighting multiple super powers*
"Unless you start dropping solesctial bodys on us we will never surrender'
America: SIGH! OH MY GOD FINE
*whistle sounds*
*BOOOOOOM!!!!*
@@anonymo_use5918 japan:..huh....i didnt know we was fighting planetary level charactures
@@SJstackinbodys *second whistle sounds*
*BOOOOOM!!!!*
@@anonymo_use5918 America: this is just 50% of my nuclear power
@@SJstackinbodys Japan:あなたが勝つ
Formidable should nit complain about her thickness it saved her in the war
In light of the common US v. British slanging matches let me start by saying that by his voice I'd say the narrator is American and that I am British. And I certainly appreciate his support at saying our carriers were better at standing up to kamikaze attacks than his own nations. I initially took the view, that he infers, that British carriers were superior to those of the USA. However, on further examination the reality proved to be much more complex for that simple statement.
The art of design is the art of getting the right compromise and this certainly applies to warship design. Total weight is limited and must be shared between defensive armour, hitting power & stamina(fuel, food, etc). Britain faces only one ocean, the Atlantic. so it designed its warships with the thought in mind of never having to be more than 3-4 thousand miles away from home support. The designer, having set hitting power, must then choose between allocating capacity between armour plate & stores. The Atlantic required relatively little from stores, so leaving a large reserve for armour plate.
But the USA also faces the Pacific, a much larger ocean the the Atlantic. So they had to design their warships for a much greater range of operation, so leaving less capacity for armour.
So the British ships could take this great pounding and carry on but only operate relatively close to a friendly home base, or with a great deal of support from tankers and other stores ships, Without all this they could not function. But the USAs ships, though more vulnerable, were able to reach much further and carry on for longer independently of support facilities.
So which are best? THAT depends on the operational context! In the Atlantic the British fleet would serve in a much better fashion than the US fleet. But in Pacific operation, as history shows, the US fleet must ultimately triumph.
Not to mention how Prince of Wales was lost in the almost exact same way as the Bismarck a torpedo to the aft locking it in a constant turn
It just comes along with the experienced pilots that they have as those Spitfires has been dogfighting against the Nazi's air assaults since the start of the war along with better-armored ships.
The spitfire was also a faster and better fighter than the japanese zero's.
The Spitfire was a land-based plane flown by the RAF. The Seafire was the naval variant and it would have been flown by Royal Navy pilots. The experience of dogfighting the Nazis was not by the same guys. The Seafire was also not that common as a naval fighter because it really wasn't that suitable. It has narrow undercarriage and quite a high landing speed for carrier use. The strengthening of the undercarriage, addition of a hook etc. added to the weight of the plane reducing it's performance. It was also designed to be an interceptor and as such has a limited range, something that is a big drawback for carrier planes. Compare the range of a Spitfire or Seafire to the Zero and you'll see how large a difference there is. I watched a video about the Seafire and a veteran was saying it was still a good plane. All carrier-based planes are generally more robust, and therefore heavier, than their ground-based counterparts, and these are what it would be facing. So the Seafire not being as nibble as the Spitfire would matter less. The RN used many other planes (e.g. the Fulmar) and also used US planes like the Corsair. There was also a naval version of the Hurricane. They even tried out the Mosquito on carriers but it had a tendency to turn into matchsticks on a rough landing.
Carrier planes have to be able to take a lot of abuse and are built like tanks.
@@littlefluffybushbaby7256 It was probably more the Fulmars.
Just noticed my own typo: I think the Spitfire was more nimble than nibble.
The infographics show does great historic remembrances for the wars within our real world history.
They do a horrible job actually.
I think someone's jealous.
@@Mechjeb661 naw not really, just tired of seeing incorrect of just misleading information being spoonfed to people who don’t know any better, which isn’t the people’s fault for not knowing.
@@-di-johnson6706 Then why don't you say what is incorrect?
@@Mechjeb661 first off, by 1945, Britain’s assistance in the pacific was not vital (as it’s described in the video), however they were still a useful asset. And personally I feel as if the narrator describes having an armored flight deck as being the best option and carriers with wooden flight decks are inferior. He may not be doing that but that’s what it sounds like to me. Something he could’ve done to not give off the impression that carriers with armored decks are superior is giving a list of pros and cons for each design. For example, carriers with wooden flight decks are generally faster and easier to produce, cheaper, and they could also generally carry more aircraft than armored carriers. But their wooden decks were susceptible to heavy damage from kamikazes. And just reverse it for the carrier with armored decks. That’s a misleading information issue. Another thing is that the war in the pacific would most likely not have been prolonged if britain was not there to assist, because the atomic bomb was going to be used with or without Britain’s help. And as far as I know Britain did not assist in capturing Tinian island (the base from which the nuclear capable b-29s were sent). A lot of things the show says are mostly misleading and can make people who know a little bit less history get the wrong idea about it. Not as many things were factually incorrect in this video compared to others but still a couple details that were left out.
Not a well known fact, the Australian Aircraft Carrier “Sydney” was a WW2 veteran and had survived a kamikaze hit, it served in Vietnam when it was used to ferry Australian troops to and from Australia and Vietnam.
HMAS Sydney only commissioned in 1948.
@@dovetonsturdee7033 HMS PHAETON keel laid 8th July 1933, served throughout WW2 in the British Royal Navy.
@@dovetonsturdee7033 I’m sorry, I just fact checked myself, you are right, I had misread an article, the Aircraft Carrier Sydney was only commissioned after the War as HMS Terrible, sorry and thanks for the correction
@@anthonyburke5656 Indeed, but she was a light cruiser, transferred to the RAN before completion, and renamed Sydney. She did not survive the war. The carrier of the same name was a Majestic class light fleet carrier, launched as HMS Terrible in 1944, but not commissioned, as HMAS Sydney, until 1948.
@@anthonyburke5656 Sorry. I replied to your first post before I read the second!
I learnt this many years ago and was just telling my kids this last week. Great to see a video of the 'iron decks' of the Pacific.
Why Kamikaze Attacks Failed Against the British During World War 2?
Because the Queen said so.
It was king at the time
@@johnsmith-iv8ul Thats how old she is, she was calling the shots before her dad ever knew.
@@mr.patriotjol well my grandmother met her in lonDon during during the Blitz driving a ambulance as my grandmother was paramedic at that time too
King / Who Was Also Admiral of British Navy*
@@johnsmith-iv8ul ah that’s wonderful
Number 13 kamikazi pilot: have you ever seen a kamikaze pilot fly into your battleship
Nicely informative video.
My grandfather was a British navy officer in WWII. He never spoke about the war and in my experience many of his comrades wanted to forget the war the whole thing too. I had no idea about the contribution of the British navy in the Pacific, many thanks for the upload... Many of those who were involved never told their stories.
We might be small but we know what we are doing!
@Cops are awesome sure after just watching a video on the British accomplishments in the Pacific theatre and your American public education still shines through, without the British in ww2 it would've gone very very differently, ever heard of the enigma code used by the Germans, Japanese and then Russians after the war. You can thank the British for telling you about midway or any of the countless times we knew exactly when, what and where the enemy were going.
wow shocker, a nation with the greatest military history on the entire planet knows what they are doing with their world renowned Navy… |:
@@leodesalis5915 he is a Amerikan troll
I tried that remark on my girlfriend. Ex-girlfriend.
One of the US’s ship names was “Hancock?!?” You’ve gotta be kidding me… 🤦🏻♀️
Han is under attack!
Han who?
*HANCOCK*
Nice to know American humour is similar to modern humour
John Hancock was a founding father lol
Herbie Hancock - Rock it !!
@@0utcastAussie haha OK Tommy Boy
If I remember rightly there had been an agreement before the outbreak of WW2 that any carrier built had to conform to a weight limit restriction. To build bigger carriers the Japanese and Americans used wooden decks to keep weight down but carry more planes, the British built smaller carriers but with armored flight decks for greater protection from bombs (and as it turned out kamikaze too). They weren't as big and didn't carry as many planes but darn they were tough !
The British carriers had armoured flight decks, but that came at the cost of smaller hanger deck/fewer aircraft, less fuel carried and therefore less range which in turn meant that they were less capable of traversing the massive expanses of the Pacific. Also discussing the fact that the British used Combat Air Patrols (CAP) like everyone else is a completely mute point... None of this is to say the British carriers were worse than Americans, it's just all countries had different requirements for their vessels. The British design choice was mainly due to the realization that they would be operating more in the Mediterranean where Italian or other neighboring enemies would be able to bomb their vessels, and thus it was deemed armour was more important. Unlike the Americans, where they valued range and aircraft compliment size.
Actually the Americans valued mass production , which worked , but it came at the cost of quality - quality also worked ! Mass production gave the Americans the opportunity to produce low grade carriers fast but with significant limitations, for instance, wooden flight decks, which was cheap and dangerous in combat but allowed the craft to be fast and consume less fuel............In the entire war though, the GIANT American mass production capability DID produce more carriers than the British - but not by much!