Hooray!! Iron Duke My grandfather served on the gunnery of the Iron Duke at Jutland (aged 16). Glad to hear praise about the gunnery accuracy...well done granddad!
I love how the intro sounded like a gentle reprimand from a college tutor who was ever so slightly disappointed with the maturity levels displayed during a lecture
Zara Class vs Algerie class heavy cruisers Atago vs New Orleans class heavy cruisers Le Fantasque Class vs Capitani Romani Class destroyer/flotilla leaders Shimakaze vs Gearing vs Daring class late war destroyers Roma vs KGV class Battleships
Drachinifel, sir, I have never known someone with more knowledge of naval history and ship design than you. You could easily teach at the U.S. Naval Academy at Annapolis. My heart bleeds Army, but I love naval history and am a firm believer in combined arms theory. I also enjoy your sense of humor. In one video you were discussing French (interwar years or floating hotels maybe?) battleships and you said they added four torpedo tubes because, well they could. Lol! If I might be permitted, I would like to request a video. Could you please do a video about the victories versus the greatest odds, the most epic last stands, and the valiant sacrificing of a ship for the mission or fellow sailors and ships. Perhaps a top ten type video? I would be very obliged, sir. Thank you, sir!
@@michiganfarmer69 If the Hood did have a rebuilt and thickened armour deck as formerly proposed, the chances would certainly have been more equal. Right that the Bismarck was not docked and then defenceless as were the french ships in Mers-el-Kébir ...
I would be very much interested in how the Austrian WW1 Battleships would have faired against Italian ones on 1 vs 1... I once read/heard that their navy was actually not so bad for what it was intended to do
@@kostakatsoulis2922 Yes, in the immortal words of Drach in Drydock 044, Yamato “basically ended up giving up and running away right at the point of victory. That’s pretty inept!”
If Washington had the level of gunnery competence insisted on by Admiral Willis "Ching" Lee, she would have taken Tirpitz or Bismarck apart in short order, a la Kirishima at Guadalcanal in November 1942. "This is Admiral Lee. Get out of the way, I'm coming through!"
Washington's gunnery at Guadalcanal was phenomenal. Ripped Kirishima to shreds, at night,. The admiral commanding was a radar gunnery expert, which would be a major advantage.
It is veeery difficult nearly impossible to sink a british designed ( and build) Battlecruiser. remember no british Battlecruiser ever was sunk by 16" guns!!
Minor point of fact: the NC's main batteries were in three-gun turrets, not triple turrets, as each gun could be elevated and fired independently, whereas in a triple, elevation and firing were simultaneous.
I thought I remembered Texas having the first fire control computer on a battleship and in fact did very, very well in gunnery when it joined Home Fleet.
Dio Brando Iowa would have the range advantage. 16” vs 15” guns. She’d also have 9 guns to Vanguards 8. However vanguard was more heavily armoured and had state of the art fire direction and radars. At a medium range engagement I’d say vanguard would win. As her guns were big enough to penetrate the majority of Iowa’s armour, yet being able to withstand considerable damage herself thanks to her armour and the excellent British damage control system. Though Iowa could in theory run away as she was a couple knots faster I believe.
5:37 "Therefore the battle in these two ships in open ocean is very likely to go the North Carolina's way simply because it can hold the range and just pummel away the Nagato-" Nagato: *laughs in Big Seven - Sakura*
Geez Drach just when I thought you couldn't top yourself, you did! another great video and discussions. intermediate dreadnought matchups:Lord Nelson vs Schlesien .... New Hampshire vs Slava....Radetzky vs Regina Elena ... Tsukuba vs Verite. Thanks again Drach!
I'm fairly convinced that if battleship construction had continued into the 1950s, Richie/Nelson/Dunkirk style "all forward armament" would have become the norm.
Hipper suffers from being basically a "first try" at a treaty era heavy cruiser Vs it's contemporaries who benefitted from a continuous design cycle. If you compared them to other 'first tries' like the Pensacola class or the Aoba/Myoko's the comparison is a lot more favourable
The Germans never tried for a "treaty" cruiser with Hipper, they knew they were going over the tonnage limit and went all the way. They did a better job following the 10,000 ton standard rule with the Deutschlands. Problem with the Hipper's is that you have to compare them to cruisers decades their senior, which is pretty sad design wise. Also doesn't help German AP shells and boilers were notoriously unreliable, doesn't make for a great ship.
...... HMS New Zealand (the ship that never got hit) vrx HMAS Australia (the badly tempered Australian sister) Taking into account the actual performance of their contempory crews. Maori warclothes and lucky Necklace ignored (because Australia cannot hit a ship with that much luck)
South Carolina has the better armament layout and the better observation (Dreadnought has the crows nest behind the funnel!), but the Dreadnought has the superior fire control system, far superior propulsion system allowing her to pick her fights, and if you take crew into account, the Dreadnought wins every time as they trained for actual combat whilst the US crews only trained for perfect conditions.
@@TheAngelobarker despite it's shortcomings, it still was fairly accurate. The Littorio's shells were horribly manufactured with no consistency. British ships reported 15' shells flying far over or far short of their ships
@@lordbrain8867 not to mention when it did engage anything the shells were no more accurate than the littorios due to the gun mountings shaking when they fired. The us fleet had no promblem with the french battleships quad turrets they barely ever hit anything. At least the littorios gutted a few cruisers.
French ALGERIE SAP shells will work perfectly against HIPPER due to no face-hardened (Krupp post-1936 KC n/A) on the German ship. ALGERIE has some Schneider et Cie., Creusot, face-hardened armor, but the German APC will be able to penetrate that due to its hard AP cap. Thus, your statement that the French shells give more "bang for the buck" is quite correct since a hard AP cap is not needed and the thinner German homogeneous, ductile (Krupp Wh) armor can be penetrated quite well by large-filler SAP ammo. Face-hardened armor has two advantages when hit at close-to-right-angles impact: It can shatter the nose of uncapped shells and thus significantly increase their needed striking velocity to punch through and, in many cases, even if the cap works and prevents this, at impacts with some oblique angle where the shell is slowed considerably by the armor, the hard face can severely damage the projectile as it tries to pass through the plate, making the shell act more like broken solid shot with much lower damage-causing capability. To do similar projectile damage with homogeneous, ductile armor takes a much thicker plate, on the average, at any given oblique impact angle.
@@johnduchesneau8685 Emerged, the 203 mm guns of the Surcouf would have quickly destroyed the Nautilus. And under the water, both would have been unable to detect the other one, and even more to fight her .
Can you give us an answer to the long standing question, "What do you do with a drunken sailor?" Early in the morning would be a good start, but any time of day would be fine.
Love your videos! My father was a WW2 Navy man who taught the Seebees how to fight! The movie the fighting Seebees with John Wayne my father was in those battles and a few others! It was extremely hard to get him to talk about the war but when he did it was usually to correct history in a WW2 movie when there was a part that was wrong in his eyes! So I remember the things we did talk about and when I listen to your videos it brings back memories of my time discussing WW2 with my father! We went to see the USS Alabama and the USS Drum and I remember his face lighting up when he talked about the ships! I have photos that he took in his time in the Navy and it's crazy the things soldiers went through in WW2! Anyway keep up the good work bro really love the videos!!!
The primary key is being able to have fire control that is both accurate and sufficiently rapid. My thinking is that a ship that is less capable on paper but with a well trained / disciplined crew has a better than even chance against a less capable crew. Hits from even lighter guns can make a big difference.
Iowa and New Jersey straddled Nowaki at 35,000-39,000 yards several times with straddles close enough to cause splinter damage and casualties onboard. And that was a destroyer.
You brought out the accurate gunnery of the Iron Duke, so in fairness you could have mentioned that in actual combat, the Washington fired very fast and very accurate. In something like a 12 minute battle with Kirishima, the Washington had 10 16" hits and 40 5" hits, pretty much tearing the Kirishima apart. While there Tirpitz was a lot tougher, the lighter shells of the Rodney and KG V rendered the Bismarck a mission kill in short order. Unless Tirpitz got real lucky, real fast, I would expect the Washington would knock most of the fire control systems out very quickly. At Savo Island, the Washington did exactly that to the Kirishama, with the 10 x 5" guns concentrating on the superstructure.
Bismarck sank Hood in under 5 minutes and less than 10 salvoes, then proceeded to hit Prince of Wales three or four times AND at a far greater range that the Washington, so I suspect Washington would have her hands full with Tirpitz, , though I don't think Washington had the speed to either catch the Tirpitz or to engage him ( yes, HIM !) in a running gun fight. One on one, Tirpitz either would just go flank speed and evade or use the highly efficient optical fire control for their main batteries to drive off the Washington, or disable / sink it if forced to fight.
@@tommatt2ski Birsmarck and Tirpitz were only about 2 kts faster at best. And if the range opens, Washington gains more advantage with radar guidance. The same system allowed West Virginia to hit Yamashiro with at leas one round per salvo at over 20,000 yards, at night. And less be real, no WWI ship had armor schemes as good as WWII ships.
@@timclaus8313 A ship that takes 400 plus hits from battleship guns, their secondaries, heavy cruisers guns and secondaries, destroyers shells, PLUS a minimum of 8 torpedoes, likely more and taking more time than Titanic to sink... what MORE do want the armor to do, PS - two knots is two knots faster than Washington. Bismarck and / or Tirpitz can engage or disengage at WILL! No modern US battleship in WWII after Pearl Harbor took punishment even near what Bismarck and Tirpitz (not one, not two BUT THREE Tall Boy Bombs what would have happened to either Washington or Iowa suffered the same punishment as Bismarck and Tirpitz respectively ??? Just because an armor scheme is an older design does NOT mean it is inferior or obsolete!
@@tommatt2ski Bismarck's problem was that critical control circuits were above the armor protection. Plus the central fire control system was knocked out. Bismarck had at least two, if not more, barbettes fully penetrated by large caliber shells. This does not mean Bismarck was bad, it just means it was not the mythical ship often portrayed. With the exceptions of a couple of battlecruisers at Jutland, and a true Golden BB shot below the main side armor on Hood by Bismarck, few battleships went down without plenty of torpedo and bomb hits. And a relatively deep running torpedo has a better chance to breach the critical hull structure if it can hit below the main armor belt. I am not sure any battleship from any navy could survive the battering that Bismarck, Yamato or Musashi took while underway. I am also fairly confident that any of the new battleships in the respective fleets, such as the Littorios, Richelieu's KGVs, North Carolinas, South Dakotas or Iowas would have held up just as well as Bismarck did. No battleship, including Yamato, would have handled 4 or 5 long lance hits in the center body of the hull. One of those blew the entire bow off several heavy cruisers.
@@tommatt2ski Bismarck wa a well built ship. Keep in mind that the UK, US and German torpedos were nothing special, nothing like the long lance of Japan. I would say Yamato, Musashi, Yamashiro and Fuso all took a tremendous amount of punishment before sinking. Same with Kirisihima and Hiei. 2 knots is about 2.4 miles in 60 minutes. Still well within accurate gun range for any fast battleship, though it does increase the dispersement a bit. And no ship in a battle is going in a straight line, so that negates some of the flat out speed difference. Plus 4 blade ships are going to out accelerate 3 blade ships while zig zagging.
Kinda fun, comparing the verdicts here to the "World in Flames" Collectors Edition counter sheets. Like, say - Washington vs. Tirpitz are almost rated the same.
If you thought the Admiral Hipper 8in ap shell's bursting charge of 2.3 kg was pathetic check out the the 8 in ap shells of the Northampton class, it's a measly 1.7 kg bursting charge😅
(Non-serious suggestion, feel free to ignore) "Iowa versus Yams! Iowa versus Yams! Everybody-wants-to-see-this-hap-pen! Iowa versus Yams! Iowa versus Yams!"
How effective was American radar gun direction during WW2? The radar on Tirpitz, like Bismarck, was damaged by firing the guns, in addition to fragility it was not nearly as precise or long ranged.
5:57 To hold the distance, that either assumes the Nagato crew is unaware of the armor situation -- which is not the premise of the discussion -- or North Carolina would be rear-facing Nagato's front. That would be a significantly different match-up compared to broadside on at 20k yards.
Nope. (And frankly Drach’s analysis is terrible, because…) Doesn’t take into account fire control. US Mark 38 fire directors provided continuous solution updates, meaning NC can maneuver and fire simultaneously. It can turn and fire all turrets, turn back thru 90 degrees and fire again, then back to the other side ad nauseum. NC has an angular turn rate of about 90 degrees per minute. It would probably want to zig every three-four minutes. Bottom line though is US battleship fire control is so much better it’s not close anyway.
Also would be interesting to see a comparison between the West Virginia and the Nagato, covering both the original configuration and after their respective rebuilds and upgrading. Nagato in the 30s and the West Virginia post Pearl Harbor. Excluding the new battleships, these two were the most powerful veteran battleships in the Pacific. Adding the legendary Warspite for a British flavor would be cool too, as after refits in the 30s, the three upgraded QEs were the best WW I era RN battleships. To my way of thinking, no other navy had a WW I era ship equal before the war to these three, and certainly not after in-war upgrades that were accomplished.
One for the alternate history, what if the london naval treatys failed and therefore the british build the lion class without weight restrictions in mind? Would it still have a similar layout to the KGV class secondary wise and armor etc or would we see the class split the secondary to defined anti surface and AA like this Bismarck and Roma? Or maybe they would stick with the multipurpose guns but have 6 abreast rather than 4? Could we see the torpedo protection introduce the two stage system planned for the G3 class?
I heard just a snippet, once, from a noted historian who felt that if the LNT had failed, the British and Americans would have gone to war against each other.
@@lamwen03 I would have to disagree. If the Washington naval treaty had failed then there would have been war however in the 1930s, when the London Naval Treaty was signed, there was this little thing called the great depredation. The big sad would have prevented any politician from considering war and would have made the construction of new battleships an interesting prospect, as in it would create lots of jobs that would get you lots of votes. The ships themselves would likely be a whole lot bigger, but they wouldn't be as big as the immediate post WW1 designs as that would have been too expensive.
I'm not sure if it was true of the Nagato class or not, but the Fuso class had a major flaw where the turrets' barbettes didn't extend very deep into the ship, potentially exposing the stored shells and magazines to penetration. There's a reason US warships had the base of their barbettes near the bottom of the ship.
Possible Q&A question: Can you go over the design of the Algerie compared to the Admiral Hipper and explain why, based on that engagement you just did, it's such a better cruiser despite displacing 5000 long tons less than the Hipper, basically a 50% displacement advantage. What did the French design simply do better, besides the shells, than even with 50% more ship to play with the German cruiser can't manage a convincing win?
Loved this line up! Definitely some interesting duels. I would say however, that Vanguard and Scharnhorst may not be as quick and easy. You have to bear in mind that though Duke Of York landed substantial hits, the Scharnhorst was "blind in one eye" due to Sheffield's hit to her main radar. Plus, in the end, Scharnhorst's death came from + - 13 Torpedo hits and scuttling. Though the Scharnhorst is certainly not well equipped to face heavy units, in a 1v1 scenario I think it would be far more potent provided it enters the fight in proper order.
HMS Rodney sailed at ships with 9 guns firing, she was a beast of the seas but not many people know 95% of the hits on the Bismarck came from Rodney and at the end was only a few hundred yards away from her at the end
Drachinifel! This is very perfect! I have always thought of the Richelieu vs. the Bismarck. My assumption is that this battle would be down to the sea were it would happen. In open sea with plenty of room to maneuver the advantage may fall to the French, while in a more constricted sea lane, the Germans may have the edge. Your thoughts?
It would be very interesting to see this in a wargame. I think it will largely come down to battle instructions, since both Germans and British had orders to close as fast as possible to around 15km. Don't know about the French, and this might be the single most critical factor, since they can keep the range open if they wish to do so. Still, I do believe Bismarck holds the general advantage due to her proven accuracy, whereas Richelieu had horrible dispersion problems that were only corrected postwar. Bismarck will reliably hit her target at any range, so my money is on her.
How about the 2 big gun battle wagons “Alabama vs Tirpitz” a battle that could’ve happened, since the Alabama while operating in North Atlantic was actually looking for a fight with the German battle wagon
Re Iron Duke v Texas: 1. Texas never got Texas never got the increased elevation for her guns, so the two ships have the same maximum range. 2. The Iron Duke’s mark I shells with the larger busting charge were the ones that failed miserably at Jutland despite numerous hits. They were therefore replaced by Greenboys with a smaller bursting charge. 3. Since Iron Dukes gunnery officer was a guy named Dreyer, perhaps crew skill and training may have had something to do with her good shooting. The ships are basically the same in every way. If this combat occurred during the Great War one would expect the Royal Navy would have the edge as they had been actually fighting whereas the US Navy had been rehearsing.
Just remember - Luck. Hood was hit and sunk by a one-in-a-million hit. Bismark lost both front turrets (effectively) and the bridge with all personnel from one 16" hit. No matter how one-sided a battle, a battleship sized shell can do critical damage to the fighting ability of any ship regardless of armour - a shell hitting a turret doesn't need to penetrate to put it out of action, jams, shock killing the crew etc - ditto radar and directors. I often imagine Warspite getting a couple of decent hits at long range (which she was very good at!) against the Yamato and then proceeding to calmly pick it apart leaving a floating hulk...
What would a Jutland-style clash of the fleets look like in mid-1942, with the following conditions?: UK, USA, USSR, plus French battleships Richelieu and Jean Bart vs. Germany, Italy, and Japan Bismarck still exists Discounting other events, a hypothetical battle with the full capital ship strength of each side No carriers involved
Hi there Drachnifel I just finished up your three part series on the Battle of Jutland . I found it VERY interesting . Your telling of the Battle of Jutland was rivoting . I think that Admiral Jellicoe and Admiral Scheer were both brilliant strategists. They made some boldest moves and sometimes not actually some of the best . But I was not happy that when you mentioned that Admiral Beaty just broke off contact with Jellicoe and did his own thing . Do you think that doing so put those sailors blood on his hands ? When they got back to England they should have had some kind of inquiry . In my opinion . Because someone should have had to answer to all the loss of lives and the loss of all that shipping . But all in all it kept me spellbound . Sir I commend you on that series . The eyewitness accounts and how it was laid out you sir are a brilliant historian . Thank you . Too bad Hipper ,Scheer , Jellicoe and Beaty couldn’t have went for a beer after the outcome of Jutland and discussed their strategies . Thank you again fo tor telling the greatest sea battle of all time . It sir was definitely the Clash of the Titans .
South Dakota class could use radar to aim its guns, while Bismarck class had to rely on optics meaning South Dakota could open fire relatively accurately long before Bismarck and in any conditions on visibility.
I think the old girl would of put up a valiant fight as was her disposition' before succumbing to Bismark' Ramiilles and her crew most certainly would not of backed down as her record proves.
Alaska vs. Scharnhorst? Baltimore vs. Deutschland? If the latter wins, how about Des Moines vs. Deutschland? Admiral Hipper vs. Tone? New Mexico vs. Bayern? And for something a bit crazy, I'd like to hear your thoughts on what would have happened if Vice Admiral Mitscher had not taken the initiative to attack the Yamato with planes, and instead let Rear Admiral Deyo proceed with his force of three dreadnought (Arkansas, New York, and Texas) and seven super-dreadnought (Maryland, Colorado, Tennessee, Nevada, Idaho, West Virginia, and New Mexico) battleships to attempt to intercept the Yamato.
Actually the better matchup is the Iowa class versus the Soviet Kirov class. That is what they were brought back in service and upgraded to be a match for.
@@Volunteer-per-order_OSullivan First, it does not have 5 times the range. The Iowa had anti ship UGM-109b Tomahawks or the optional nuclear. The Kirov's only have 20 anti ship missles. And the Iowa's are armored to fight other BB's. Even if the missle defenses fail, it can take the hits and still hit back. Also, extended range ammo then in development would have boost the gun range to 100 miles. It is fair fight match then and now.
Just to further what WALTERBROADDUS mentions, because no one had built armored ships for more than 30 years, no ASM in use by the soviets or any one else to be honest had armor piercing capabilities and because of that the russians believed that their kirovs or any of their surface ships had no chance and the iowas had to be destroyed by aerial attack or torpedoes- Sergei Gorshkov memories have a interesting story about it.
@@Solrac-Siul Wouldn't Soviet ASMs be nuclear if launched against a US warship? Armor won't help you much with that unless it detonates very far away.
American FC systems employed by far the most advanced stable vertical elements in the world. In practical terms, this meant that American vessels could keep a solution on a target even when performing radical maneuvers. In 1945 test, an American battleship (the North Carolina) was able to maintain a constant solution even when performing back to back high-speed 450-degree turns, followed by back-to-back 100-degree turns.7 This was a much better performance than other contemporary systems, and gave U.S. battleships a major tactical advantage, in that they could both shoot and maneuver, whereas their opponents could only do one or the other.
Ron52G pride? I don’t see the British Admiralty accepting any U.S. advancements on their ships, as that would mean British ships were lacking. I wonder how many more troops would of survived ww2 if pride wasn’t an issue... e.g. 8th Army daylight bombing campaign.
The USS Lexington, if it had been completed as a battle cruiser instead of as an aircraft carrier. Pitted against any actual battle ship or battle cruiser of WWII of your choice!
Is there a place in Naval Warfare for 16 inch guns these days? As a traditionalist and ex-guided cruiser man (CG-11), I sort of dream about bringing back a few of the old mothballed battlewagons, except with a couple of AB1 reactors by the Bechtel Corporation and RIM-161 Standard SM-3 Missiles, of course.
Johnnyc drums there sure is. With today’s technology the guns would have a range of 50 to 75 miles with modern propellants and rocket assisted shells. We could fire precision guided shells also and because of the battleships thick armor there are few weapons in today’s arsenal that could actually sink one.
@@joshlower1 ; Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles (TLAM) have their place but they're $1.87 million per copy (Block IV), soon to be replaced, and the old "Harpoon" is being reimagined. Bring back the battle wagons.
Johnnyc drums I read with the new railguns and scramjet shells being developed they would be able to fire shell 300 to 500 miles at Mach 7. That will make cruise missiles obsolete
Unfortunately I think the old battle wagons days are over. They would cost too much to refit. It’s time we built new ones instead of aircraft carriers. Aircraft carriers bring the military industrial complex more money. That’s why they build them instead
The voice of reason! S Dakota Class over Bismarck class - Thank You! N Carolina class vs Bismarck - more even yes, but with updated targeting radar and Bismarck being prone maybe to knocking its own radar out from own guns percussion ...... ?. .
Well, at least the 1920 designs at least usually had enough firepower to really hurt enemy ships. 406+ mm guns designed during the twenties, especially with modern shells still hurt greatly. Most problems of older battleships, the american ships in particular, was the lack of speed. Especially since unlike firecontrol, deck armor and anti air armament, that was something, that could not particulary well be altered. To go with an 37mm gun however against a KV tank was laughable. Or even some of the heavier armored tanks of the same time. The Char B1 bis and S 35s were pretty much immun against their own armament (and common anti tank weapons of other nations). It kind of fell apart however due to the fact, that they were ridiculously fuel inefficient, combined with incompetent leadership, and the notorious 1-Man turret.
Martin Baumgartner well, that’s literally Japan’s fault. Had they not attacked Pearl Harbor, the U.S. fleet would of never been salvaged, retrofitted and upgraded... meaning it would be more likely the IJN would of squared off against weaker U.S. ships in deep water where they couldn’t be salvaged and saved... as well as lessons learned about the need of aaa.
xjm212x25 yes they were, but slowly and painfully. Pearl Harbor opened the taps to the War Dept to now build whatever they wanted and too hell with costs. Where the Navy had to plead and beg for modernization funds, now congress said get that done yesterday, it’s a national priority.
All right I have a question about Washington versus terpits would it still be a very close call if the battle took place after chingley took command of Washington and trained his gun recruit up to the expertise and sniper like precision that they had at the second naval Battle of Guadalcanal?
I would then suggest H44 Vs final stage of Lion class design, but H44 would have that in the bag really, 20 inch Vs 16 inch? Gonna give that to 20 inch.
I'm new to this channel so I apologize if you have answered this question elsewhere. In the Pacific conflict between the US and Japan, I have the impression that the Japanese had an initial advantage in night naval engagements because of better training and, perhaps, better optics. But, that as the war progressed, the Japanese advantage was negated by the rapid development and implementation of radar by the US. So... For your discussion of the North Carolina vs Nagato... How would they have fared.... At night in 1942?... Or at night in 1944? How good was fire control radar for ships over that period? Thanks!
Night fighting was definitely something the IJN trained very heavily for and held the initial upper hand in. North Carolina did however have a CXAM-1 radar set from the start so at shorter ranges she could still detect a target, albeit she could not use the radar for fire control. I suspect in 1942 Nagato would've held a night advantage unless North Carolina closed in to a point where either visual spotting or searchlights came into play. By 1944 her refitted radar and fire control would give North Carolina a decisive advantage.
hey Drachinifel,..............have you ever done an episode on the use of the Torpedo nets the dreadnoughts would extend out over the side of the ships. I recently saw a model of a dreadnought with the torpedo nets extended and thought it to be quit unusual,........just a suggestion,....enjoy the channel,...thx
Simon Leichtmetall the Ersatz Yorck beats almost every cruiser. If you‘re talking about the Yorck from WoWS... well, that one never even had design plans. It‘s not even hypothetical, wargaming faked it.
rly nis that's actually wrong. The Yorck is based on a light cruiser design intended to replace the K-class, as they were unable to properly perform as raiders due to their small range. The new class of light cruisers had a larger range and 8x15cm guns in 4 turrets. But they were no match for an Admiral Hipper, as they're an entirely different class of ship.
The "Yorck" in WoWS is a heavy cruiser draft, that was designed during the Deutschland Class project. Design I/10 if I remember correctly. Which is also, why they used the guns of SMS Blücher as a placeholder. Since I guess, that ship is meant, it kind of really depends of stuff like bursting charges and other crap. Considering we are talking about Germans however, probably Hipper would win, simply because a 16.000 ton ship can soak up more damage than a 10-12.000 ton shup. Now if we use the SMS Yorck (Roon class cruiser), Hipper would certainly win. She is 10 knots faster, has a stronger main armament.. If you meant the "Ersatz Yorck" class, well, Ersatz Yorck is pretty much a german Admiral class. Around 28-30 knots fast, 4x2 38 cm guns, 300 mm of belt armor, and displacing around 35.000 tons. That is a battleship vs a heavy cruiser.
Hooray!! Iron Duke
My grandfather served on the gunnery of the Iron Duke at Jutland (aged 16). Glad to hear praise about the gunnery accuracy...well done granddad!
The British navy practiced far more in rough seas while the USN did in calm seas so it took a while for the USN in WW1 to adapt
@@ErokCherokee Yeah the USN did practice in the nice warm calm tropics.
sorry to say but with it`s hit rate of 1.5% a german gunnery officer wouldhave to re paint his ship all alone
I love how the intro sounded like a gentle reprimand from a college tutor who was ever so slightly disappointed with the maturity levels displayed during a lecture
When are we gonna get another ship vs ship vid drach?
I like to ship Drach with Othais from C&Rsenal
@@joearnold6881 so
Please !!!!
I must concur, when are we going to get a second one??
More ship VS ship!
Love this!
But really you dont want an equal fight....
*Cough Johnston and S.B.Roberts*
If you're in a fair fight, you're doing something wrong.
Wow! 6 Five minute guides in one episode! Incredible value!
Zara Class vs Algerie class heavy cruisers
Atago vs New Orleans class heavy cruisers
Le Fantasque Class vs Capitani Romani Class destroyer/flotilla leaders
Shimakaze vs Gearing vs Daring class late war destroyers
Roma vs KGV class Battleships
But atago was not built was it. Exept for the new Atago class ships built by japan
@@sturlajonsson9515 you might want to check again chief
The important part is that the Triglav will defeat all of them hands down, isn't that right Vice Admiral Dusty?
Sturla Jónsson Atago was built and she was part of the Takao class
Reality and World of Warships are quite different things.
18:11 - 18:23 I never thought I'd see a Crimean War (1853 - 1856) joke! :)
Drachinifel, sir, I have never known someone with more knowledge of naval history and ship design than you. You could easily teach at the U.S. Naval Academy at Annapolis. My heart bleeds Army, but I love naval history and am a firm believer in combined arms theory.
I also enjoy your sense of humor. In one video you were discussing French (interwar years or floating hotels maybe?) battleships and you said they added four torpedo tubes because, well they could. Lol!
If I might be permitted, I would like to request a video. Could you please do a video about the victories versus the greatest odds, the most epic last stands, and the valiant sacrificing of a ship for the mission or fellow sailors and ships. Perhaps a top ten type video? I would be very obliged, sir. Thank you, sir!
#1 USS Johnston 😎
Enjoying these videos. How about the Hood after proposed rebuild vs Bismarck?
Plunging fire
@@michiganfarmer69 If the Hood did have a rebuilt and thickened armour deck as formerly proposed, the chances would certainly have been more equal. Right that the Bismarck was not docked and then defenceless as were the french ships in Mers-el-Kébir ...
The Bismarck is still going to win. It's too heavy I guess.
Hood exploding slightly later ... lets say after 5 hits?
Same outcome
I would be very much interested in how the Austrian WW1 Battleships would have faired against Italian ones on 1 vs 1... I once read/heard that their navy was actually not so bad for what it was intended to do
How about a Fletcher class DD vs. the Yamato. Oh wait, we already know how that went.
Yes, Yamato lost.
How about a CVE vs an IJN battleship?
@@FS2K4Pilot i mean technically she won, Yamato sunk Johnston... she just retreated afterwards.
@@kostakatsoulis2922 Yes, in the immortal words of Drach in Drydock 044, Yamato “basically ended up giving up and running away right at the point of victory. That’s pretty inept!”
If Washington had the level of gunnery competence insisted on by Admiral Willis "Ching" Lee, she would have taken Tirpitz or Bismarck apart in short order, a la Kirishima at Guadalcanal in November 1942. "This is Admiral Lee. Get out of the way, I'm coming through!"
Discovered in Jan 2022, after watching the channel for last 2 years... I want another
Hi Drachinifel, this was yet another great video. Thank you so much for your research and presentations. Regards, Greybearddad
Washington's gunnery at Guadalcanal was phenomenal. Ripped Kirishima to shreds, at night,. The admiral commanding was a radar gunnery expert, which would be a major advantage.
It is veeery difficult nearly impossible to sink a british designed ( and build) Battlecruiser. remember no british Battlecruiser ever was sunk by 16" guns!!
Yeah, the "too close to call" assessment doesn't take into account the human aimbot known as Admiral Lee.
Minor point of fact: the NC's main batteries were in three-gun turrets, not triple turrets, as each gun could be elevated and fired independently, whereas in a triple, elevation and firing were simultaneous.
I thought I remembered Texas having the first fire control computer on a battleship and in fact did very, very well in gunnery when it joined Home Fleet.
HMS Vanguard vs USS Iowa?
As they would appear in 1946.
Dio Brando Iowa would have the range advantage. 16” vs 15” guns. She’d also have 9 guns to Vanguards 8. However vanguard was more heavily armoured and had state of the art fire direction and radars. At a medium range engagement I’d say vanguard would win. As her guns were big enough to penetrate the majority of Iowa’s armour, yet being able to withstand considerable damage herself thanks to her armour and the excellent British damage control system. Though Iowa could in theory run away as she was a couple knots faster I believe.
@@thatontariofarmer American FCR and FCS is inarguably Superior in 1946. Also Vanguard would struggle to resist later Mark8 AP shells.
Iowa, The Iowa's armor scheme was a generation ahead of vanguard's and her guns were two generations ahead. Vanguard's guns for World War 1 leftovers
+James Ricker irrelevant they where modified with new shells.
@@Ushio01 Not so much new shells as new charges.
Golden BB. I love this phrase. Every time I listen to you I learn something :D
TH-cam's autogenerated subtitles:
"Sean Horse"
youtube's autogenerated subtitles always crack me up. what a waste of microchips!
Oh come on you can tell what heals talking about still
I like the idea to split this kind of topic up in a different "stream". I like also the discussion of the topic you did.
5:37 "Therefore the battle in these two ships in open ocean is very likely to go the North Carolina's way simply because it can hold the range and just pummel away the Nagato-"
Nagato: *laughs in Big Seven - Sakura*
Geez Drach just when I thought you couldn't top yourself, you did! another great video and discussions. intermediate dreadnought matchups:Lord Nelson vs Schlesien .... New Hampshire vs Slava....Radetzky vs Regina Elena ... Tsukuba vs Verite. Thanks again Drach!
In the Battle against Washington, where did Tirpitz find German destroyers as late in the war as it could have fought?
How about a Washington Naval treaty (Ish) matchup? King George V vs Richeleui vs Vittorio Veneto vs South Dakota.....
Fair to say the SoDak wins by a margin. North Carolina would be a more appropriate comparison.
How about Queen Elizabeth vs Colorado vs Nagato?
State of the art in 1922 when the Treaty was signed.
+CountArtha QE was before WW1 it's an older class than the 3 classes of 12 14inch gun US ships so Hood or Nelson would be more fair.
+ Mephistopheles : Richelieu wins . I would like Richelieu vs Bismarck and Strasbourg vs Scharhorst .
I'm fairly convinced that if battleship construction had continued into the 1950s, Richie/Nelson/Dunkirk style "all forward armament" would have become the norm.
Hipper is always outclassed :(
The Admiral Hipster never was mainstream.
Hipper suffers from being basically a "first try" at a treaty era heavy cruiser Vs it's contemporaries who benefitted from a continuous design cycle.
If you compared them to other 'first tries' like the Pensacola class or the Aoba/Myoko's the comparison is a lot more favourable
The Germans never tried for a "treaty" cruiser with Hipper, they knew they were going over the tonnage limit and went all the way.
They did a better job following the 10,000 ton standard rule with the Deutschlands. Problem with the Hipper's is that you have to compare them to cruisers decades their senior, which is pretty sad design wise.
Also doesn't help German AP shells and boilers were notoriously unreliable, doesn't make for a great ship.
@@RelativeGalaxy7 the Germans initially claimed at least on paper that the Hippers adhered to the 10k ton displacement limit :p
the Germans also claimed Bismarck was treaty compliant by listing a completely fake draft ;)
...... HMS New Zealand (the ship that never got hit) vrx HMAS Australia (the badly tempered Australian sister)
Taking into account the actual performance of their contempory crews.
Maori warclothes and lucky Necklace ignored (because Australia cannot hit a ship with that much luck)
Glen McGillivray but the battle takes place while both are being bombarded by kamikaze, so Aus wins? ;P
Like to see the HMS Dreadnought vs USS South Carolina
Me too.
South Carolina has the better armament layout and the better observation (Dreadnought has the crows nest behind the funnel!), but the Dreadnought has the superior fire control system, far superior propulsion system allowing her to pick her fights, and if you take crew into account, the Dreadnought wins every time as they trained for actual combat whilst the US crews only trained for perfect conditions.
+James McKenzie Armament layout just means the SC has the same broadside as Dreadnought.
Dreadnought easily
Richelieu vs Littorio?
Definitely Richelieu by virtue of its shells being consistent alone. Forgetting that they are pretty evenly matched
@@lordbrain8867 the Richelieu had it's own issues with turrets etc you dan either take all flaws into account or niether.
@@TheAngelobarker despite it's shortcomings, it still was fairly accurate. The Littorio's shells were horribly manufactured with no consistency. British ships reported 15' shells flying far over or far short of their ships
@@lordbrain8867 the first time it tried to engage anything a shell blew up in the gun turret....
@@lordbrain8867 not to mention when it did engage anything the shells were no more accurate than the littorios due to the gun mountings shaking when they fired. The us fleet had no promblem with the french battleships quad turrets they barely ever hit anything. At least the littorios gutted a few cruisers.
You realize your now going to face a sea of Coke vs Pepsi and Blonde vs. Brunette ship questions? 🙄 Good luck.
You called it.
I'll pass the sugar water and do the blonde&brunette together.
...so we're just gonna ignore Dr Pepper and Redheads?
Fanta and black hair anyone 🤔
egocyclic no that’s just scary....very scary 🤯👩🏻🦰
French ALGERIE SAP shells will work perfectly against HIPPER due to no face-hardened (Krupp post-1936 KC n/A) on the German ship. ALGERIE has some Schneider et Cie., Creusot, face-hardened armor, but the German APC will be able to penetrate that due to its hard AP cap. Thus, your statement that the French shells give more "bang for the buck" is quite correct since a hard AP cap is not needed and the thinner German homogeneous, ductile (Krupp Wh) armor can be penetrated quite well by large-filler SAP ammo. Face-hardened armor has two advantages when hit at close-to-right-angles impact: It can shatter the nose of uncapped shells and thus significantly increase their needed striking velocity to punch through and, in many cases, even if the cap works and prevents this, at impacts with some oblique angle where the shell is slowed considerably by the armor, the hard face can severely damage the projectile as it tries to pass through the plate, making the shell act more like broken solid shot with much lower damage-causing capability. To do similar projectile damage with homogeneous, ductile armor takes a much thicker plate, on the average, at any given oblique impact angle.
Great video, I have an idea for an engagement. It’s kind of a lol and unusual one.
USS Drum vs. U-505
How about a surface engagement with the WWII Nautilus against the French mega submarine Surcouf?
@@johnduchesneau8685 Emerged, the 203 mm guns of the Surcouf would have quickly destroyed the Nautilus. And under the water, both would have been unable to detect the other one, and even more to fight her .
Can you give us an answer to the long standing question, "What do you do with a drunken sailor?" Early in the morning would be a good start, but any time of day would be fine.
I slways heard the refrain “throw him in a bunk with the captains daughter< early in the morning”. YMMV
How about a a fight of a Bayern-class against a Queen Elizabeth-class in ww1 configuration?
Love your videos! My father was a WW2 Navy man who taught the Seebees how to fight! The movie the fighting Seebees with John Wayne my father was in those battles and a few others! It was extremely hard to get him to talk about the war but when he did it was usually to correct history in a WW2 movie when there was a part that was wrong in his eyes! So I remember the things we did talk about and when I listen to your videos it brings back memories of my time discussing WW2 with my father! We went to see the USS Alabama and the USS Drum and I remember his face lighting up when he talked about the ships! I have photos that he took in his time in the Navy and it's crazy the things soldiers went through in WW2! Anyway keep up the good work bro really love the videos!!!
Keep up the excellent content!
The primary key is being able to have fire control that is both accurate and sufficiently rapid.
My thinking is that a ship that is less capable on paper but with a well trained / disciplined crew has a better than even chance against a less capable crew.
Hits from even lighter guns can make a big difference.
Iowa and New Jersey straddled Nowaki at 35,000-39,000 yards several times with straddles close enough to cause splinter damage and casualties onboard. And that was a destroyer.
Love this channel! What you can never account for in these discussions/comparisons is lady luck. Fantastic research and knowledge though!
You brought out the accurate gunnery of the Iron Duke, so in fairness you could have mentioned that in actual combat, the Washington fired very fast and very accurate. In something like a 12 minute battle with Kirishima, the Washington had 10 16" hits and 40 5" hits, pretty much tearing the Kirishima apart. While there Tirpitz was a lot tougher, the lighter shells of the Rodney and KG V rendered the Bismarck a mission kill in short order. Unless Tirpitz got real lucky, real fast, I would expect the Washington would knock most of the fire control systems out very quickly. At Savo Island, the Washington did exactly that to the Kirishama, with the 10 x 5" guns concentrating on the superstructure.
Bismarck sank Hood in under 5 minutes and less than 10 salvoes, then proceeded to hit Prince of Wales three or four times AND at a far greater range that the Washington, so I suspect Washington would have her hands full with Tirpitz, , though I don't think Washington had the speed to either catch the Tirpitz or to engage him ( yes, HIM !) in a running gun fight. One on one, Tirpitz either would just go flank speed and evade or use the highly efficient optical fire control for their main batteries to drive off the Washington, or disable / sink it if forced to fight.
@@tommatt2ski Birsmarck and Tirpitz were only about 2 kts faster at best. And if the range opens, Washington gains more advantage with radar guidance. The same system allowed West Virginia to hit Yamashiro with at leas one round per salvo at over 20,000 yards, at night. And less be real, no WWI ship had armor schemes as good as WWII ships.
@@timclaus8313 A ship that takes 400 plus hits from battleship guns, their secondaries, heavy cruisers guns and secondaries, destroyers shells, PLUS a minimum of 8 torpedoes, likely more and taking more time than Titanic to sink... what MORE do want the armor to do, PS - two knots is two knots faster than Washington. Bismarck and / or Tirpitz can engage or disengage at WILL! No modern US battleship in WWII after
Pearl Harbor took punishment even near what Bismarck and Tirpitz (not one, not two BUT THREE Tall Boy Bombs what would have happened to either Washington or Iowa suffered the same punishment as Bismarck and Tirpitz
respectively ??? Just because an armor scheme is an older design does NOT mean it is inferior or obsolete!
@@tommatt2ski Bismarck's problem was that critical control circuits were above the armor protection. Plus the central fire control system was knocked out. Bismarck had at least two, if not more, barbettes fully penetrated by large caliber shells. This does not mean Bismarck was bad, it just means it was not the mythical ship often portrayed. With the exceptions of a couple of battlecruisers at Jutland, and a true Golden BB shot below the main side armor on Hood by Bismarck, few battleships went down without plenty of torpedo and bomb hits. And a relatively deep running torpedo has a better chance to breach the critical hull structure if it can hit below the main armor belt.
I am not sure any battleship from any navy could survive the battering that Bismarck, Yamato or Musashi took while underway. I am also fairly confident that any of the new battleships in the respective fleets, such as the Littorios, Richelieu's KGVs, North Carolinas, South Dakotas or Iowas would have held up just as well as Bismarck did. No battleship, including Yamato, would have handled 4 or 5 long lance hits in the center body of the hull. One of those blew the entire bow off several heavy cruisers.
@@tommatt2ski Bismarck wa a well built ship. Keep in mind that the UK, US and German torpedos were nothing special, nothing like the long lance of Japan. I would say Yamato, Musashi, Yamashiro and Fuso all took a tremendous amount of punishment before sinking. Same with Kirisihima and Hiei.
2 knots is about 2.4 miles in 60 minutes. Still well within accurate gun range for any fast battleship, though it does increase the dispersement a bit. And no ship in a battle is going in a straight line, so that negates some of the flat out speed difference. Plus 4 blade ships are going to out accelerate 3 blade ships while zig zagging.
Alaska Class vs Scarnhorst Class?
Kinda fun, comparing the verdicts here to the "World in Flames" Collectors Edition counter sheets.
Like, say - Washington vs. Tirpitz are almost rated the same.
Would you be able to do a IJN B65 vs. USN Alaska?
If you thought the Admiral Hipper 8in ap shell's bursting charge of 2.3 kg was pathetic check out the the 8 in ap shells of the Northampton class, it's a measly 1.7 kg bursting charge😅
hey, they had to compare until a american or british ship wins!!
Canoe vs a kayak?
The question I would like to know some ship crews were a step above the rest which ship were the best handled and best shots and why.
Please do more of these videos!
(Non-serious suggestion, feel free to ignore)
"Iowa versus Yams! Iowa versus Yams! Everybody-wants-to-see-this-hap-pen! Iowa versus Yams! Iowa versus Yams!"
It would be the best fight since Ali - Frasier!
is this a Jerma985 reference
How about a fight between Drachinifel and the Mighty Jingles?
How effective was American radar gun direction during WW2? The radar on Tirpitz, like Bismarck, was damaged by firing the guns, in addition to fragility it was not nearly as precise or long ranged.
If you are thinking of the Iowa class, by mid 1944 they could hit targets at 30,000 yards all day.
Ooooh, can we have Kamchatka versus admiral jellybean in a steel bathtub with a slingshot?
A-150 japanese battleship vs H-44 German battleship.
A-150 is somewhat of an improved yamato but H-44 is just straight up a fictional impractical ship lol
Definitely the H-44
County class vs hipper?
Another really interesting video, well reasoned.
How about Prince of Wales and Hood vs Bismarck and Prinz Eugen? I would think that, on paper, RN is the hands down winner, however...
I've always wondered how effective the N3 might've been with a deck layout similar to Nelson.
It would be awesome if you did more of these!
I went to The Show Girl today. Awesome, beautiful ship. Go Heels.
5:57 To hold the distance, that either assumes the Nagato crew is unaware of the armor situation -- which is not the premise of the discussion -- or North Carolina would be rear-facing Nagato's front. That would be a significantly different match-up compared to broadside on at 20k yards.
Nope. (And frankly Drach’s analysis is terrible, because…) Doesn’t take into account fire control. US Mark 38 fire directors provided continuous solution updates, meaning NC can maneuver and fire simultaneously. It can turn and fire all turrets, turn back thru 90 degrees and fire again, then back to the other side ad nauseum. NC has an angular turn rate of about 90 degrees per minute. It would probably want to zig every three-four minutes.
Bottom line though is US battleship fire control is so much better it’s not close anyway.
I love your videos! Do you think you could to The Alaska class battle cruiser vs the Roma battleship?
I've done the Roma, although it was in the robot voice. The Alaska is on the list though :)
Drachinifel Nice I’ll check out the Roma video
The Alaska class was a heavy cruiser
I think this vs type episode was well worth doing again with other ships...good fun
Also would be interesting to see a comparison between the West Virginia and the Nagato, covering both the original configuration and after their respective rebuilds and upgrading. Nagato in the 30s and the West Virginia post Pearl Harbor. Excluding the new battleships, these two were the most powerful veteran battleships in the Pacific. Adding the legendary Warspite for a British flavor would be cool too, as after refits in the 30s, the three upgraded QEs were the best WW I era RN battleships. To my way of thinking, no other navy had a WW I era ship equal before the war to these three, and certainly not after in-war upgrades that were accomplished.
One for the alternate history, what if the london naval treatys failed and therefore the british build the lion class without weight restrictions in mind? Would it still have a similar layout to the KGV class secondary wise and armor etc or would we see the class split the secondary to defined anti surface and AA like this Bismarck and Roma? Or maybe they would stick with the multipurpose guns but have 6 abreast rather than 4? Could we see the torpedo protection introduce the two stage system planned for the G3 class?
I heard just a snippet, once, from a noted historian who felt that if the LNT had failed, the British and Americans would have gone to war against each other.
@@lamwen03 I would have to disagree. If the Washington naval treaty had failed then there would have been war however in the 1930s, when the London Naval Treaty
was signed, there was this little thing called the great depredation. The big sad would have prevented any politician from considering war and would have made the construction of new battleships an interesting prospect, as in it would create lots of jobs that would get you lots of votes.
The ships themselves would likely be a whole lot bigger, but they wouldn't be as big as the immediate post WW1 designs as that would have been too expensive.
Apparently 20" guns were on the agenda and silly stuff like that
@@lamwen03 Noted historians say stupid things all the time. I
Two ships with allegedly similar arrangements - Scharnhorst versus Alaska?
I'm not sure if it was true of the Nagato class or not, but the Fuso class had a major flaw where the turrets' barbettes didn't extend very deep into the ship, potentially exposing the stored shells and magazines to penetration. There's a reason US warships had the base of their barbettes near the bottom of the ship.
Possible Q&A question: Can you go over the design of the Algerie compared to the Admiral Hipper and explain why, based on that engagement you just did, it's such a better cruiser despite displacing 5000 long tons less than the Hipper, basically a 50% displacement advantage. What did the French design simply do better, besides the shells, than even with 50% more ship to play with the German cruiser can't manage a convincing win?
That's a nice enough fact dump but it answers basically none of my question.
Will add to the Q&A list
Loved this line up! Definitely some interesting duels. I would say however, that Vanguard and Scharnhorst may not be as quick and easy. You have to bear in mind that though Duke Of York landed substantial hits, the Scharnhorst was "blind in one eye" due to Sheffield's hit to her main radar. Plus, in the end, Scharnhorst's death came from + - 13 Torpedo hits and scuttling. Though the Scharnhorst is certainly not well equipped to face heavy units, in a 1v1 scenario I think it would be far more potent provided it enters the fight in proper order.
HMS Vanguard vs Bismarck?
Vanguard.
10 years newer, similar armourment and much superior fire control.
HMS Rodney sailed at ships with 9 guns firing, she was a beast of the seas but not many people know 95% of the hits on the Bismarck came from Rodney and at the end was only a few hundred yards away from her at the end
I loved this, put in on in the background while playing a relaxing game and I had myself a lot of fun!
18-inch gunned H-39 with a 2 inch reduction in armor belt vs the Montana class!
Drachinifel! This is very perfect! I have always thought of the Richelieu vs. the Bismarck. My assumption is that this battle would be down to the sea were it would happen. In open sea with plenty of room to maneuver the advantage may fall to the French, while in a more constricted sea lane, the Germans may have the edge. Your thoughts?
It would be very interesting to see this in a wargame. I think it will largely come down to battle instructions, since both Germans and British had orders to close as fast as possible to around 15km. Don't know about the French, and this might be the single most critical factor, since they can keep the range open if they wish to do so. Still, I do believe Bismarck holds the general advantage due to her proven accuracy, whereas Richelieu had horrible dispersion problems that were only corrected postwar. Bismarck will reliably hit her target at any range, so my money is on her.
How about the 2 big gun battle wagons “Alabama vs Tirpitz” a battle that could’ve happened, since the Alabama while operating in North Atlantic was actually looking for a fight with the German battle wagon
Roll Tide!
We needed Incomparable vs H43/44 vs Yamato.
Mr Rogers vs Everyone
Modernised G3 vs Lion class.
Re Iron Duke v Texas: 1. Texas never got Texas never got the increased elevation for her guns, so the two ships have the same maximum range. 2. The Iron Duke’s mark I shells with the larger busting charge were the ones that failed miserably at Jutland despite numerous hits. They were therefore replaced by Greenboys with a smaller bursting charge. 3. Since Iron Dukes gunnery officer was a guy named Dreyer, perhaps crew skill and training may have had something to do with her good shooting. The ships are basically the same in every way. If this combat occurred during the Great War one would expect the Royal Navy would have the edge as they had been actually fighting whereas the US Navy had been rehearsing.
Just remember - Luck. Hood was hit and sunk by a one-in-a-million hit. Bismark lost both front turrets (effectively) and the bridge with all personnel from one 16" hit. No matter how one-sided a battle, a battleship sized shell can do critical damage to the fighting ability of any ship regardless of armour - a shell hitting a turret doesn't need to penetrate to put it out of action, jams, shock killing the crew etc - ditto radar and directors. I often imagine Warspite getting a couple of decent hits at long range (which she was very good at!) against the Yamato and then proceeding to calmly pick it apart leaving a floating hulk...
Ibritish ships very often recceived those one-in-a-million hits! coincidence?
What would a Jutland-style clash of the fleets look like in mid-1942, with the following conditions?:
UK, USA, USSR, plus French battleships Richelieu and Jean Bart vs. Germany, Italy, and Japan
Bismarck still exists
Discounting other events, a hypothetical battle with the full capital ship strength of each side
No carriers involved
Hi there Drachnifel I just finished up your three part series on the Battle of Jutland . I found it VERY interesting . Your telling of the Battle of Jutland was rivoting . I think that Admiral Jellicoe and Admiral Scheer were both brilliant strategists. They made some boldest moves and sometimes not actually some of the best . But I was not happy that when you mentioned that Admiral Beaty just broke off contact with Jellicoe and did his own thing . Do you think that doing so put those sailors blood on his hands ? When they got back to England they should have had some kind of inquiry . In my opinion . Because someone should have had to answer to all the loss of lives and the loss of all that shipping . But all in all it kept me spellbound . Sir I commend you on that series . The eyewitness accounts and how it was laid out you sir are a brilliant historian . Thank you . Too bad Hipper ,Scheer , Jellicoe and Beaty couldn’t have went for a beer after the outcome of Jutland and discussed their strategies . Thank you again fo tor telling the greatest sea battle of all time . It sir was definitely the Clash of the Titans .
I love the USS Alabama. I have a special place in my heart for it. 🥰🥰🥰
South Dakota class could use radar to aim its guns, while Bismarck class had to rely on optics meaning South Dakota could open fire relatively accurately long before Bismarck and in any conditions on visibility.
Bismarck uses optical, radar and hydroacoustic sensors to direct its fire.
Always kinda wondered, just how one sided would the possible engagement between Bismarck vs HMS Ramillies of been?
Btw, love your work!
I think the old girl would of put up a valiant fight as was her disposition' before succumbing to Bismark' Ramiilles and her crew most certainly would not of backed down as her record proves.
Bismarck had to wait for Ramillies to arrive and on it`s arrive war would have been over!
thank you really enjoyed that
HMS Trafalgar predreadnought vs Ugg's Floaty Log vs the USA 2016 Olympic Women's Water Polo Team on a dark and stormy night in the Bay of Biscay.
Floaty log Vs Bismarck, let's goooooooo!
Alaska vs. Scharnhorst?
Baltimore vs. Deutschland? If the latter wins, how about Des Moines vs. Deutschland?
Admiral Hipper vs. Tone?
New Mexico vs. Bayern?
And for something a bit crazy, I'd like to hear your thoughts on what would have happened if Vice Admiral Mitscher had not taken the initiative to attack the Yamato with planes, and instead let Rear Admiral Deyo proceed with his force of three dreadnought (Arkansas, New York, and Texas) and seven super-dreadnought (Maryland, Colorado, Tennessee, Nevada, Idaho, West Virginia, and New Mexico) battleships to attempt to intercept the Yamato.
Cold war modernised Iowa vs a plausible (if unlikely) cold War modernised KGV vs a plausible cold war modernised Stalingrad class.
Actually the better matchup is the Iowa class versus the Soviet Kirov class. That is what they were brought back in service and upgraded to be a match for.
WALTERBROADDUS. Yeah, but that would be a fucking wash there is no way the Iowa is gonna beet the Kirov that out ranges it by 5 times.
@@Volunteer-per-order_OSullivan First, it does not have 5 times the range. The Iowa had anti ship UGM-109b Tomahawks or the optional nuclear. The Kirov's only have 20 anti ship missles. And the Iowa's are armored to fight other BB's. Even if the missle defenses fail, it can take the hits and still hit back. Also, extended range ammo then in development would have boost the gun range to 100 miles. It is fair fight match then and now.
Just to further what WALTERBROADDUS mentions, because no one had built armored ships for more than 30 years, no ASM in use by the soviets or any one else to be honest had armor piercing capabilities and because of that the russians believed that their kirovs or any of their surface ships had no chance and the iowas had to be destroyed by aerial attack or torpedoes- Sergei Gorshkov memories have a interesting story about it.
@@Solrac-Siul Wouldn't Soviet ASMs be nuclear if launched against a US warship? Armor won't help you much with that unless it detonates very far away.
American FC systems employed by far the most advanced stable vertical elements in the world. In practical terms, this meant that American vessels could keep a solution on a target even when performing radical maneuvers. In 1945 test, an American battleship (the North Carolina) was able to maintain a constant solution even when performing back to back high-speed 450-degree turns, followed by back-to-back 100-degree turns.7 This was a much better performance than other contemporary systems, and gave U.S. battleships a major tactical advantage, in that they could both shoot and maneuver, whereas their opponents could only do one or the other.
British systems...
@@54356776
Then why didn't the British use the US system?
www.combinedfleet.com/b_fire.htm
Ron52G pride? I don’t see the British Admiralty accepting any U.S. advancements on their ships, as that would mean British ships were lacking. I wonder how many more troops would of survived ww2 if pride wasn’t an issue... e.g. 8th Army daylight bombing campaign.
@@wrayday7149
How many men of the British Common Wealth got killed charging German machine guns in just one day during WW1
@@wrayday7149
The Brits had 60,000 casualties of those 20,000 dead in just one day of battle in WW1. I guess the US 8th Army Air Force did ok
I have another one. How about the USS Salem ( in WoWs, it’s a premium Des Moines class CA) vs the DKM Adm Hipper. What say you?
The USS Lexington, if it had been completed as a battle cruiser instead of as an aircraft carrier. Pitted against any actual battle ship or battle cruiser of WWII of your choice!
Any battleANYTHING would punch through Lady Lex' armour like cheap, wet TP.
Is there a place in Naval Warfare for 16 inch guns these days?
As a traditionalist and ex-guided cruiser man (CG-11), I sort of dream about bringing back a few of the old mothballed battlewagons, except with a couple of AB1 reactors by the Bechtel Corporation and RIM-161 Standard SM-3 Missiles, of course.
Johnnyc drums there sure is. With today’s technology the guns would have a range of 50 to 75 miles with modern propellants and rocket assisted shells. We could fire precision guided shells also and because of the battleships thick armor there are few weapons in today’s arsenal that could actually sink one.
@@joshlower1 ; Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles (TLAM) have their place but they're $1.87 million per copy (Block IV), soon to be replaced, and the old "Harpoon" is being reimagined.
Bring back the battle wagons.
Johnnyc drums I read with the new railguns and scramjet shells being developed they would be able to fire shell 300 to 500 miles at Mach 7. That will make cruise missiles obsolete
Unfortunately I think the old battle wagons days are over. They would cost too much to refit. It’s time we built new ones instead of aircraft carriers. Aircraft carriers bring the military industrial complex more money. That’s why they build them instead
Johnnyc drums scrap the Iowa’s and use there steel to build new ones
The voice of reason! S Dakota Class over Bismarck class - Thank You! N Carolina class vs Bismarck - more even yes, but with updated targeting radar and Bismarck being prone maybe to knocking its own radar out from own guns percussion ...... ?. .
I was thinking about this one: IJN Asashio (normal 610mm torpedo launchers) vs USS Kidd
Idk... With only 8 Harpoons on Kidd, the IJN might be able to survive and get within gun range but...😂😂😂
North Carolina vs Nagato is not even fair...
It's literally the same problem as with Japanese tanks. Comparing 1920/30 Designs with one's from 1940.
Well, at least the 1920 designs at least usually had enough firepower to really hurt enemy ships. 406+ mm guns designed during the twenties, especially with modern shells still hurt greatly. Most problems of older battleships, the american ships in particular, was the lack of speed. Especially since unlike firecontrol, deck armor and anti air armament, that was something, that could not particulary well be altered.
To go with an 37mm gun however against a KV tank was laughable. Or even some of the heavier armored tanks of the same time. The Char B1 bis and S 35s were pretty much immun against their own armament (and common anti tank weapons of other nations). It kind of fell apart however due to the fact, that they were ridiculously fuel inefficient, combined with incompetent leadership, and the notorious 1-Man turret.
Martin Baumgartner well, that’s literally Japan’s fault. Had they not attacked Pearl Harbor, the U.S. fleet would of never been salvaged, retrofitted and upgraded... meaning it would be more likely the IJN would of squared off against weaker U.S. ships in deep water where they couldn’t be salvaged and saved... as well as lessons learned about the need of aaa.
Wray Day well the Iowa Class battleships were already in various states of building, so the US was already modernizing it’s navy at that point in yime
xjm212x25 yes they were, but slowly and painfully. Pearl Harbor opened the taps to the War Dept to now build whatever they wanted and too hell with costs. Where the Navy had to plead and beg for modernization funds, now congress said get that done yesterday, it’s a national priority.
All right I have a question about Washington versus terpits would it still be a very close call if the battle took place after chingley took command of Washington and trained his gun recruit up to the expertise and sniper like precision that they had at the second naval Battle of Guadalcanal?
What about The H44 VS Yamato?
I would then suggest H44 Vs final stage of Lion class design, but H44 would have that in the bag really, 20 inch Vs 16 inch? Gonna give that to 20 inch.
I'm new to this channel so I apologize if you have answered this question elsewhere. In the Pacific conflict between the US and Japan, I have the impression that the Japanese had an initial advantage in night naval engagements because of better training and, perhaps, better optics. But, that as the war progressed, the Japanese advantage was negated by the rapid development and implementation of radar by the US. So... For your discussion of the North Carolina vs Nagato... How would they have fared.... At night in 1942?... Or at night in 1944? How good was fire control radar for ships over that period? Thanks!
Night fighting was definitely something the IJN trained very heavily for and held the initial upper hand in. North Carolina did however have a CXAM-1 radar set from the start so at shorter ranges she could still detect a target, albeit she could not use the radar for fire control.
I suspect in 1942 Nagato would've held a night advantage unless North Carolina closed in to a point where either visual spotting or searchlights came into play. By 1944 her refitted radar and fire control would give North Carolina a decisive advantage.
Note Washington tracking kirishima in 1942
hey Drachinifel,..............have you ever done an episode on the use of the Torpedo nets the dreadnoughts would extend out over the side of the ships. I recently saw a model of a dreadnought
with the torpedo nets extended and thought it to be quit unusual,........just a suggestion,....enjoy the channel,...thx
So what about Yorck (the german one) against Hipper? Which would have been better?
Simon Leichtmetall the Ersatz Yorck beats almost every cruiser. If you‘re talking about the Yorck from WoWS... well, that one never even had design plans. It‘s not even hypothetical, wargaming faked it.
rly nis that's actually wrong. The Yorck is based on a light cruiser design intended to replace the K-class, as they were unable to properly perform as raiders due to their small range. The new class of light cruisers had a larger range and 8x15cm guns in 4 turrets. But they were no match for an Admiral Hipper, as they're an entirely different class of ship.
The "Yorck" in WoWS is a heavy cruiser draft, that was designed during the Deutschland Class project. Design I/10 if I remember correctly. Which is also, why they used the guns of SMS Blücher as a placeholder.
Since I guess, that ship is meant, it kind of really depends of stuff like bursting charges and other crap. Considering we are talking about Germans however, probably Hipper would win, simply because a 16.000 ton ship can soak up more damage than a 10-12.000 ton shup.
Now if we use the SMS Yorck (Roon class cruiser), Hipper would certainly win. She is 10 knots faster, has a stronger main armament.. If you meant the "Ersatz Yorck" class, well, Ersatz Yorck is pretty much a german Admiral class. Around 28-30 knots fast, 4x2 38 cm guns, 300 mm of belt armor, and displacing around 35.000 tons. That is a battleship vs a heavy cruiser.