Evolution of US Navy Destroyers - A Complete Guide
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 5 มิ.ย. 2024
- Dive now into endless and fierce sea battles! Download here: bit.ly/NWYT-BW
Use the gift code “NWYT” and claim your time-limited gift.
Go to Profile/More/Giftcode and enter "NWYT"
Looking to learn about US Navy Destroyers, how they came to be, and how they evolved to be a crucial part of the US Navy fleet? Or just looking for something entertaining to watch?
Either way, sit back and relax. You are in for some #NotWhatYouThink!
0:00 Intro
1:45 How/Why destroyers were invented
2:20 Bainbridge and Truxtun Class
3:07 Flivvers (Smith and Paulding Class)
3:56 Thousand Tonners (Cassin, Aylwin, O'Brien, Tucker and Sampson Class)
4:57 Flush-Deckers (Caldwell, Wickes and Clemson Class)
6:49 Goldplaters (Farragut, Porter, Mahan, Gridley, Somers, Bagley, Behnham and Sims Class)
9:40 Livermore (Benson and Gleaves Class)
10:33 Fletcher Class
12:21 Twenty Two Hundred Tonners (Allen M. Sumner and Gearing Class)
13:18 Norfolk Class
14:23 Mitscher Class
15:14 Forrest Sherman Class
15:57 Farragut Class
17:10 Charles F. Adams Class
18:26 Bainbridge Class
19:36 Spruance Class
21:35 Kidd Class
22:15 Arleigh Burke Class
24:19 Zumwalt Class
26:00 The Next (36th) Class of Destroyers
27:18 Summary
FOOTAGE SOURCES:
- Footage courtesy of U.S. Navy used under the Creative Commons Attribution license. Thank you for that! Note: "The appearance of U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) visual information does not imply or constitute DoD endorsement."
- National Archives Catalog
- Charles Walker TH-cam Channel! Check him out: / walkerusn
Music (in order):
Changing - Fabien Tell
Super Hero - Bonnie Grace
Prescient - Howard Harper-Barnes
Oceanic Adventure - Bonnie Grace
Deyja - Hampus Naeselius
Kirkjufell - Mochas
A Journalist;s Dream - Out to the World
Beat Street - V.V. Campos
Legions - Jo Wandrini
Upon Entering Another Realm - Brendon Moeller
Clearer Views - From Now On
Final Target in Sight - Trailer Worx
Torpedo - Tigerblood Jewel
Marches - Tigerblood Jewel
Expert Sleeper - Brookii
Before Nightfall - Christoffer Moe Ditlevsen
Forest Run - Bonnie Grace
Minority Report - V.V. Campos
Universal Solution - Robert Ruth
Are you Ready - Philip Ayers
KEY REFERENCES:
www.gao.gov/products/GAO-16-613
www.gao.gov/assets/680/678850...
destroyerhistory.org/flushdeck/
destroyerhistory.org/goldplater/
destroyerhistory.org/benson-g...
www.gyrodynehelicopters.com/m...
www.loc.gov/item/dc1148/
usnhistory.navylive.dodlive.m...
steelnavy.com/JAGBainbridge.htm
www.cbo.gov/publication/56675
fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/... (Spruance annual operational cost)
news.usni.org/2021/02/16/repo...
steelnavy.com/JAGBainbridge.htm
![ไม่ต้องมีที่ที่ให้ฉันอยู่ แต่ขอแค่มีฉันอยู่ก็พอ (Spaceless) - getsunova [SHORT FILM]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/MuT0d_cvJkc/mqdefault.jpg)
We hope that by now, you have a favorite class of destroyers! Let us know in the comments.
And when you are ready to take a little break, maybe check out the sponsored game: bit.ly/NWYT-BW
Good sir I’d like to say your content is genuinely some of the best military content I’ve ever seen on TH-cam
My favorite class of destroyer is either the Fletcher class or Gearing class destroyers.
1 hour ago?!
Thanks GOD!
@@badhrihari1705 Perks of being a TH-cam creator X-D
I like how all ships are like ships and then the Zumwalt went 🗿
So weird looking 😂
Fishing boat
Zumwalt, Ford and F-35 are everything wrong with military procurement. SMH
I kinda like the futuristic style but it really fucking bothers me it's a called a "destroyer" with a tonnage than rivals freaking battlecruisers.
Well because we're in technology where ships can no longer hide to radar so stealth is pretty much overused Wither Ships or Jets all contain stealth
Well, from going to less than 1 minute videos to 30 minute videos. Wow
We have been making 4 short (1-min) videos and 1 long video, almost every week :-)
@@NotWhatYouThink I love the short vids, but the longer ones (10min +) are really great.
@@NotWhatYouThink yes but it's rare :(
28 minutes the others are only 5 to 10 minutes
@@NotWhatYouThink but 28 mins is very cool!
The videos with #sorts are the 1 minute ones
Warships most of history: Representations of a nations Pride and Power
Modern Ships: *angles*
They're *angular* representations of pride and power. Every bit you shave off the RCS makes the ship a bit more survivable. That's nothing to scoff at in the age of supersonic sea-skimming missiles
I mean, it's not all that different than tank designs after WW2. Everyone realized "Oh, hey, tanks seem to bounce more rounds with sloped/angled armor" and now every nation's tanks look a lot more similar than they used to.
@@piranhaplantX I don't know if I agree about similarity, but I do agree regarding the general trend of changes.
There's an incredible amount of diversity within modern ship designs. Even three ships developed as part of the same program - the Alvaro de Bazan, De Zeven Provincien, and Sachsen class - look NOTHING alike. Combat system, radars, weapons systems, design philosophy, priorities, funding issues - all these things combine to create radically different designs even starting from similar places (again, T45 and Horizon class come from the same program originally and look nothing alike, and are armed very dissimilarly outside VLS).
Edit: T45 and Horizon was a terrible choice of example, lmao. Disregard that - look at the Gorshkov class and the Type 45, both developed by second tier powers to fulfill the area AAW mission, but look and are configured nothing alike.
Modern ships are ugly
@@Boxttell11 ding ding your opinion is wrong
WWI Destroyers : 1000 tons
WWI Battleship : 10,000 tons to 12,000 tons (example : USS Alabama BB-8, displacement 11,565 Metric Tons)
Modern destroyer : 15,000 tons
Battleship didn't extinct, they just turn into "Destroyer"
An actual modern battleship from WW1- 25,000 tonnes
Hence i love old ships like the clemson swarm
Also they look so dammn good that its outa the question
@@ThereItIs_ 57,000 at full load
@@jakegrant5698 I think it was due to the Washington Agreement.
@@jaredgarbo3679 you think what was due to the Washington naval treaty?
You should do this with aircraft carriers
And Cruisers
And battleships
@@arya0794 From naval strength measurements into massive coral reefs...
And submarines
and battlecruisers. there's even a modern entry!
11:27 ahh yes, 200mm AA guns, almost the size of cruiser main batteries.
Which was incorrect. We should have said 20mm, not 200mm.
@@NotWhatYouThink *200cm
@The light Drake i know, I was making a joke
@@Fred_the_1996 *200m
@@Boxttell11 200hm
Having served in three Gearing class tin cans, I have a bias towards them. Very fine ships. This is one of the best videos on destroyer evolution I’ve yet seen.
Means a lot coming from you, Ed 😊
Were all destroyers called tin cans or just the destroyer escorts.
They are a bit before my time. lol
The Gearings are amazing ships.
@@ycplum7062 all dds are tin cans
the entire hull type
because literally all of them had the like 13mm of plate needed to support her displacement and nothing more for armor
The Gearing were a fine tin can DD-863 was the one I served on.
The most radical change in destroyers that I feel wasn't really touched on enough is the transition from a weapons platform that incidentally has radar, to a radar platform that incidentally has weapons - and the general trend from ships fighting other ships directly being the primary job of the Navy, to something that has happened extremely rarely and may never happen again in the near future. To someone in the 1940s, this would seem utterly alien and nonsensical.
The 1910s Battle of Jutland was almost the *last* clash of capital ships. They didn't know *when* things would "never be the same again" but they knew things were changing as early as 1910. "The writing was on the wall". Battle lines just weren't how Navy tactics worked and binoculars and ballons were already really popular information gathering sources. They understood radio in both World Wars.
In the 1800s, you might suggest that they would be surprised to be told "even modern warships will not fight the same way; having more guns won't really be the biggest thing." In the 1800s the progress of Artillery still hadn't achieved the feat the Paris Gun would, so in 1800 they would have wanted V2 rockets maybe *before* stopping to consider that what they really wanted was radar specifically and radio technologies in general.
You get as far back as the 1700s though and you already see the *brightest* most forward thinking individuals with knowledge of expensive disasters involving ostentatious warships having a bad run in with the weather, and you already see the *first* little inklings of people thinking there might be a deep, fundamental flaw in the practicality of how the world runs navies for hundreds of years (1200-1700 being 500 years)
The people of the 1700s would not have dreamed of warfare by satellites and computers. They would think such knowledge to be too beyond human ability and would not think heaven had wars inside heaven. They would think that would be how gods and faeries meddle with Man. They *would* have predicted the Sinking of Titanic though: they were perfectly aware of dramatic literary irony and took divine punishment of hubris quite seriously as well.
They would have guessed many things many years ago, but not everything and not quite all the way back.
Almost like tanks and even aircraft today. It comes full circle to infantry again.
@@jeff2758 aircraft’s less impacted due to drones, but you are right we are to the end of tanks
Not really, there are still a lot of examples of ships sinking other ships since ww2. Aircraft and submarines will do most of the work sure, but the occasional ship to ship battle will still happen. Otherwise what's the point of missiles and training for this scenario
A never ending source of chuckle. At this rate they'll soon be as big as the Iowa and they'll still call them "Destroyers".
"Star Destroyers" 🚀
It'll destroy an entire fleet just by itself
but if the destroyers are that big, just think of how big the damn cruisers and carriers will be...
@@moore2077
Carriers will remain the same probably, just look better. Battleships are significantly smaller than modern super carriers still
@@zopoua.992 yes i think this too, the gerald r ford is probally the biggest carriers they will make
The 4 Stack/Flush Deck classes, even being 20 years old and definitely obsolete by WWII, absolutely deserve total acclaim for serving well beyond their time during the crises when every hull was needed. The fact they also served not only as destroyers but also seaplane tenders, fast light troop transports, mine layers, mine sweepers, and misc. auxiliaries probably makes them the most versatile ever US Navy design. For an extreme example of the use the class could be made of check out the USS Moosehead, IX-98, orig. USS Turner, DD-259.
Don't forget wrecking a big drydock, too.
I served in the US Navy from 1974 to 1995, West coast/Alaska sailor.
I remember the USS Turner Joy, I believe it was a (D.E.) Destroyer Escort.
Back before they were re-named F.F. or F.F.G.
But I don't think I ever saw a ship named the USS Turner.
Probably before my time I suppose.
@bobd9193 USS Turner was an old flush deck 4-stacker that thru the end of WWII had a fascinating role as an experimental platform for developing radar and CIC technologies and she even pioneered some underway refueling and replenishment procedures.
Unfortunately the Turner/Moosehead was scrapped in '47 (she would have been a fascinating destroyer/experimental platform display for the technological advancements that helped win the war)!
I love the Arlie Burke class the most. Didn't know Zumvalt was that massive
They had to dredge the Kennebec River deeper to allow passage of the Zumwalt compared to the Burke Class. Both ships built at Bath Iron Works in Bath, Maine
Yeah I'm quite fond of them myself seeing as I served on one.
I loved the look of Arlie Burke class even before the LAST SHIP series. But as a civilian, I had no idea how capable it was until I was educated from watching a tv drama 😁
I spent 5 years on a Spruance (DD-969 USS Peterson) and in 93 we crossed the Atlantic with the Arleigh Burke and a few other boats. The AB had to pull into Rota Spain immediately after crossing to get one of the main engines replaced as it had broke down during the crossing. We started calling the new ships, Already Broke. All ribbing aside though, they are very fine ships and I have many shipmates who have and still are serving on them.
It's Arleigh Burke.
Good old Fletcher. There are lots of things to love about more modern ships but the Fletcher was something special (imho).
agreed
It's been called the perfect warship at the right time. All the other destroyers at the time had bad tradeoffs of speed, armor or weaponry, the Fletcher got it all right.
Love the fletcher class! Great ships with an interesting history.
The kidd class is probably my favourite. The stern gun remined me of the ww1 and 2 destroyers but it still has a flght deck. Perfection.
Kidd class was best!
Arleigh burke for me
Your destroyer is evolving...
Wow... he transformed into a chunky B L O C C
Yay
I served on a Spruance class, the USS FIFE DD-991 from 1989-1991 during Operation Desert Shield/Storm as a Radioman. Miss those days so much. All the ports we hit, the comaraderie, loved my job rating.
Thank you for this “evolution guide”. Hopefully you can do more NATO destroyer evolution guides, or perhaps another class of ship
Not just NATO, he should probably cover the IJN DDs that sparked the DD technological revolution of the 1930s too.
Should do a video on how the US Navy needs to ask the Royal Navy to turn off the Type 45's radar, just so the US Destroyers can get some training in.
@@steweygrrr yeah id like to see that, the atagos kongos, mayas, and the Korean ones like the Sending the great
@@halzan7467 kinda mentioned in this interwar destroyer design video from Drach
th-cam.com/video/0rlLlsYQ6lQ/w-d-xo.html
Blob
To be noted the Spruance hulls were redsigned into Ticonderoga Class cruisers.
And... Kidd Class?
My first ship and "duty station", USS HEWITT DD-966 Spruance Class (Spru-cans) destroyers of the late 70s-80s.....great memories!
Interesting to see how the price goes up over time - but so are the capabilities.
Destroyers were small, cheap utility ships in WWI and WWII, but by today they are filling the same role as cruisers did - they pack quite a punch on sea and land targets. Plus, they're capable enough in air defense and anti-submarine warfare.
So, they're no longer what you would think a destroyer is.
It does fit the name more
Well one would think a destroyer is meant to destroy things
Actually 29 Charles F. Adams were built. 23 for the U.S. Navy and 3 for the Royal Australian Navy & another 3 for the German Navy. Both German and Australian units were given US DDG hull numbers during construction in US shipyards. Which is just one of the reasons the Arleigh Burke-class starts at DDG hull number 51. The only surviving Adams class is a German unit laid up as a museum. D186 Mölders was preserved and is now on display as a museum ship at the Deutsches Marinemuseum at Wilhelmshaven. As an old tin can sailor, I loved the video, and as you can guess I served aboard a DDG. USS Cochrane DDG-21 out of Pearl and later Yokosuka.
Destroyers are the unsung heroes of sea battles you normally hear about battle ships and carriers more but destroyers were extremely dangerous considering how small a target they were and the speed and so many of them were lost attempting to save their fleets by charging the enemy and attempting maneuvers that would doom them I always had respect for any capitain of a destroyer and his crew
Fletcher, obviously. Such a lovely ship, and such a big part of history.
I was an EW Spruance sailor. USS THORN DD-988. We took her from Ingalls shipyard in Pascagoula,Ms and homeported in Charleston. 1980-82. You were spot on when you said that class fell short of weaponry. Loved the ship and sailors as well as the ship. Was sure glad I wasn’t on a few of the ww2 tin cans that were still in the fleet at the time. Was also surprised to hear when they sunk her too. Think in 90’s. Seemed like a short lifespan. B/52’s going 50+ years. Ships only 20? Not my wheelhouse but sure seems like we can make better decisions on longevity.-Tom iossi EW2.
Really enjoyed the history of them. Thank you
My favorite Destroyer class..... I would have to say without a doubt, the Spruance class. Specifically the USS Peterson DD-969. The Pete was my first ship and I served on her for 5 years from 92-97. If I had to pick one that I didn't serve on I would go with the Fletcher Class being my 2nd.
Fletcher Class for "Greyhound", tied with K Class for "In Which We Serve", two destroyer focused naval war dramas.
My dad served on the destroyer shown at 17:49 the USS Richard E Byrd. He was delighted to see his ship on the water again 😁.
Me too, 1985-90
Now that’s a name found in conspiracy. Byrd and the Hollow Earth, which is increasingly making its rounds in media to normalize the idea.
This was great, thank you. I served on 2Charles F. Adams DDG's and thoroughly enjoyed my time on them. Hated to see them go.
The Zumwalt is nearly as long as and has a higher displacement as a Baltimore class cruiser. That’s insane.
At this point I think it’s fair to say that modern destroyers are closer to the classic idea of what a cruiser is meant to be as technology has moved them well beyond filling a strictly point defense role for larger capital ships.
Zumwalt is too expensive. US should make a smaller and cheaper zumwalt just like B-2 and B-21.
I always wondered why the navy is adamant on them being destroyers despite having roughly the same size and mission as cruisers. I served on a flight 2, pretty large ships. We classify some other navy’s destroyers as cruisers based on their size, like the new Chinese one.
Something I was just always curious about
Fletchers are my favorite, simply because I feel a ship's retrospective worth depends on its service history.
Fromm 800,000 dollar, 1,300 ton ships to 7.5 billion dollar 15,000 ton ships. Absolutely insane. Awesome video.
you can afford to build 375 WWI destroyers (modified price for inflation) for the price of one modern destroyer.
Yes finally a long video
Yes
We have been making 1 long video almost every week since January.
Sounds like you will be doing some binge-watching X-D
@@NotWhatYouThink oh, I see.
@@NotWhatYouThink That’s news for me, guess I too have some binge watching to do!
@@NotWhatYouThink :)
I am sad not to see my 2 ships mentioned. You mentioned the Mitsher, a DL, and you mentioned the Coontz class ships that were DLG's before being re-classified DDG's. You even mentioned the Bainbridge DLGN-25 only because it was nuclear powered. You never mentioned the other DLG's, the Leahy class, I served on 2 of them, and the Belknap class. You even missed the California and South Carolina DLGN's. My first DLG was assigned to DESRON 6, the first all guided missile destroyer squadron homeported in Charleston, SC.
I salute all people who served on a Navy ship.
Sam, you seem to be knowledgeable in regards to the existing ships. May I ask if you could critique my FFG(x) design with a point of view of what it is lacking??
@@louisdifrancesco1474 Existing ships?? I only know what I read or see in videos. As an old school sailor I think most ships are under gunned and under manned. The LCS and the Zumwalt's are a good example, if a battle occurs with a major naval power and they are getting closer to our ships, those 2 I mentioned better use their speed to run. The FFG's in todays world are basically the same as the DE's in the 60's, primarily escort duty and ASW work. There is much talk today about what our ships must face in an all out war. They need more weapons for anti-ship
fighting and I don't know the assignments of crew in todays ships but I mentioned the LCS and Z's, they have such small crews and even the Burkes, they are almost the same size as the DLG's I served on and their crew is more the 100 people smaller. In battle when a ship takes a hit is it able to keep fighting while it is kept from sinking and/or repaired. As far as your FFG(x) design,m weapons and manpower, very expensive items. Like I said, I'm old school. In my early years in the Navy I was trained by WWII veterans.
@@geraldtodd6633 Hi Sam Thanks for the reply, BUT I did NOT get your opinion to my proposal.
Pls tell me about guns and other equipment with your critical eye of past difficulties.
For guns, compared to current LCS/FFG's I have 4 with over lapping fields (not counting the secondary guns). Compared to my twin's DD of WWII, my design has 3 times more rounds and are automated for loading. That crew reduction is robots vs human. Robots can be blown away during battle and not require medical care/support. However, that gun is still out of service, & that is a second reason to incur the expense of 4 vs 1 or 2 forward mounts.
BUT I cannot see my blind spots, so, pls give me your opinion so I can improve my design or argument.
@@louisdifrancesco1474 Well, I am not aware of your FFG(x) design. You say you have 4 guns, not counting the secondary battery. That is more guns than any FFG today. Are the 4 guns 2", 3", or 5"? These are the standard USA gun sizes nowadays. You said your main gun ammo loadout is 3 times of a WWII dd. If your design is comparable to a modern day FFG it is so much larger than a WWII DD and can probably carry a lot more ammo. When you say robots are you referring to automated loading systems for weapons? I still know nothing about your design
@@geraldtodd6633 I am sorry Sam, here is the design
USS Constellation FFG(x) Proposal (Hydrofoil Sailing Ship)
th-cam.com/video/uJ7GJDjLmy0/w-d-xo.html
Length is 300ft
width is 155ft
height is 150ft
It looks like a large tube with steeply sloped sides and several hanager/elevator hatches and more amphibious ramps/hatches. It has both GE LM2500 turbines from the Arleigh Burke Destroyers as well as kite sails that hang at 700-3000ft elevation. The kite sails have generators at the end of each airfoil to delivery power to the RADAR sets, DEW, Railgun, Sensor Systems, and mutual fire support armaments on the sail.
The Hull has 4 Mk 45 - 5"/54 with -15degree to +85degree vertical and 250degree traverse. 1,500rounds at each mount. There are 64 secondary gun systems located along the 4 corners as well. There are vertical launch tubes for 16 UGM-133 Trident D ICBM's and/or 128 VLS standard tubes. However, the exhaust ports go straight down to the sea instead of making a U-Turn. On the 2 flight/hanger decks, there is room for 36 F/A-18 Hornets plus 2 C-130 Hercules. There are extra GE LM2500 turbines that power electrical generators for RADAR, DEW, LASER, supercomputer electronics, and electric motors for waterjet pumps. These waterjet pumps exhaust at either/or the 4 corners of the hull or from the struts.
The hydrofoils range in sizes to allow lifting the max load of 24KT DWT verse empty 6KT comprised of 5ft thick armour belt/hull structure at speed ranging from 5mph to 150mph. The hydrofoils slide up the 130ft long struts to allow 100ft keel to sea level clearance. That should remove any surface effects of waves up to sea state 10. Stability is mandatory for aircraft launch/recovery.
The SPY(x) RADAR arrays have increased from 14ft on Arleigh Burke Destroyers to a min of 20ft with expandability to 80ft. The design shows 2 arrays of 20ft on each side to create a VLA "astronomical" Radio Telescope type of system with a full supercomputer to analyze the return, and if possible create return signals that cancel out the ship's present.
The lower 3 decks are housing amphibious invasion force of 48 M-1 Abrams tanks and 300 HHMWV as a placeholder for the exact loadout of a Marine Expediation Unit (MEU). The passenger/berthing space is tight barracks holding 3,000 Marines/Army. This is different then ship crew/aviator crew berthing deck that is 2 person private staterooms with head/shower holding 600 personnel.
The CIC & etc deck is ~35,000ft for the supercomputer, drone control, galley, etc. Sleeping is on its own deck from the activities deck to support around the clock operations of 5 shifts air duty crews/aircraft and 5 shifts ship crews.
I imagine 10 FFG(x) form a loose flotilla with 20 aircraft amongst them. I expect 20 (flotilla) Air Strike Groups that are 400-700miles apart spread along the Asia - Africa coast. The air patrols are flying from one flotilla to the next flotilla, stay over their shift, then fly the next shift to either forward or backwards on this 20 Air Strike Group chain. I figure 3 FFG(x) focus on aircraft housing, 3 FFG(x) focus on replenishment (fuel, armaments, consumables, etc), 3 FFG(x) focus on repair/servicing over a shift period, and 1 FFG(x) that is Command & Control.
I served onboard USS O'Bannon (DD-987) Spru-can and USS Yorktown (CG-48) Tico; and a frigate and a few amphibs. Tico's were originally to be DDG class, but with surface-to-surface and surface-to-air, they were redesignated as CG class. With that said, the Tico's were, by far, my favorite ship to sail on. Only because of retirement did I leave her.
Ive never really been a fan of the zumwalt class but, since 2019 ive been liking it more, plus spruance, and arleigh burke are my most favorite destroyers not including other countries.
Arleigh Burke will never go away for the next 50 years...they are so well built and so technically advanced even by 21st century standard
Your best video yet! So much detail. Spruance are my favorites.
Imagine taking a zumwalt class destroyer back In time and showing them the technology of the future...now that would be cool !
keyword: Showing. Since the guns don't have any ammo.
Zumwalt: This ship could be yours if your country feels $1 million per gunshot is worth it...
People of the Past: We REALLY hate our neighbors. We'll take it.
⌛ That's a violation of the Temporal Prime Directive 🌀⏳
going back in time without taking zumwalt class or anything is cool enough
The Zumwalt class, designed by engineers who grew up playing with transformers rather than studying. Admiral Zumwalt was an arse-hole, the ship named after him is the material expelled by your Zumwalt
Got to say, I'm adoring these dives into Naval Warfare! Keep up the awsome work.
Destroyers are evolving into light cruisers.
Heavy cruisers.
no no no no no. they are light cruisers
@@maxlm07 no no no, battleships
@@newspaperbin6763 yes
The tonnage is growing into the realm occupied by the heaviest surface combatants generally produced. Excluding the final extreme tonnages.
Subscribed based on the strength of this video. I simply cannot understate how good this video is, and seemingly a concise video counterpart of Friedman's "Design History" series. Much of the video footage yo0u displayed I've never seen before. I am sooo looking forward to further videos in this light. Well done!
Thank you very much! A lot of time went into researching and gathering the footage, so we are happy to hear people like you appreciate the quality of the content ... and thanks for the sub! 😉
The Charles F Adams class was my first ship to serve on so it holds many fond memories being the last of the Steam Powered Destroyers
Yess - and they where BEAUTIFUL
DDG-23, 1985-90
DDG-18 USS SEMMES 1971-1974
I like your longer format videos! I like the 1 min ones too, but they always leave me wanting to hear more! :)
We typically do 4 shorts and 1 long every week. Check out our previous longs if you haven’t already 😊
@@NotWhatYouThink I have!!
I'd really enjoy a video similar to this one breaking down US Cruiser development too!
Love it. Happy I got on this channel. The shorts are great but sometimes I like diving in deeper. Keep it up 👍
yoooo this is really cool!!!
your stuff is one of the only things i would watch in the youtube shorts thing.
then you made a nearly 30 minute video! this was a really cool treat man. good stuff!
Well done! That was a good review of our Destroyer Class of Warships. You had to have done a ton of research to write and produce this show in such a concise manner. Very impressed. Happy Trails
The perfect video before a good night sleep
Hope you enjoyed it!
This is a awesome video, please make more of this amazing style!!! So informative!!
An extremely Thorough and comprehensive documentary! Well done!
I can't believe they made a ship version of the cybertruck
😂😂😂🤣
I can’t wait for the cyber airplane
Cybership
Very nicely done. Good info, great video, fantastic historical summary.
no
YES! Full length video excellent content! Keep them coming please good stuff!
Awesome. Can’t get enough of this and similar topics!!
3:43 *you have become the very thing you swore to destroy*
Wow really? 30mins video, I LOVE IT SO MUCH, AGAIN PLEASE
Just subbed to you, such a nice video to have on while doing work as it's very informative and you have a very relaxing voice!
Thank you for this excellent production. Great job laying out that much information in this amount of time!
You should update with the DDG(X). It's still a planned successor to both the Ticonderoga-Class Guided Missile Cruisers, and older flights of the Arleigh Burke-Class Guided Missile Destroyers. And also make a separate video for it since while new, it's kind of important, as it might eventually be the ship to end the spell of terrible Naval projects (Zumwalts, LCS, etc).
"It always came down to money" every history book should end with that line
Love your long form videos and I always learn something. Definitely a top tier TH-camr thank you🎉🎉
Wow, what a well-researched video! Thanks, very interesting.
Please make a frigate vs destroyer
Yeah l am really confused
At 11:27ish 6 - 200 millimeter “Oerlikon 20(0)mm cannon” are those in the treaty? That’s almost 8” gun
We misspoke! It is 20mm, not 200mm.
@@NotWhatYouThink I knew just have tooo much time on my hands. 20 mm still good round one of the CIWS’s uses that size not sure if it’s the same round from WW-2
We had M-14’s, M1911’s & unknown shotgun(s) on my submarines first boat 6 - 21” forward torpedo tubes Mk-14’s, Mk-37’s & Astor Disaster(*) I can neither confirm or deny
and second boat same small arms but 4 midships torpedo tubes Mk-48’s, mines, Harpoon & Tomahawks
Oerlikons are 20mm aa guns
@@AgentDearestZ I know/knew that but he slipped in the VERY RARE 200mm models the different 5”era killed me (and hopefully the enemy as well) there were 3 different 5” finally settling on the 5”-38 I don’t know if ammunition is different sure would hate to have a bunch of 5” ammunition but it wouldn’t fit the weapon we have fortunately most American torpedoes are 21” although we started working on a larger model to go after deep diving Russian boats and I believe those larger tubes are only on the Seawolfs (not SSN-575)
@@AgentDearestZ I knew but I didn’t say 200mm they had the Freudian slip
I was SO happy to see a LONG vid from you guys!!!! Thank you for the HATD work of producing, recording, and posting this!! I PROMISE I will Share it FAR and WIDE!!! You ALL Rock!!!!!
Thanks Matt! We have a few long videos posted over the past two months. Check them out also if you haven’t already ☺️
@@NotWhatYouThink I've been going through ALL the videos and found a few more long ones!! ALL your vids are AWESOME!!! A DEEP Dive into the Missouri Class...Including the USS Iowa explosion... Would be an INCREDIBLE learning experience!!! Please consider it! And again, Thank you SO much for ALL your vids!! I'm always EXCITED to see them in my video que!!! #NWYTROCKS!!!
I love this information, not what I learn at school. Thank you for this keep it up.
bro congrats I cant believe that u jumped from 12k subs to 200k subs! That was freaking fast!
Nice video. I love the latest Burke class variant "Flight III", but I will always have a soft spot for the Zumwalt class. There's just something about it. I am hoping that the Navy gets the gun situation sorted out, makes a few tweaks, and builds a new variant of the Zumwalts as the replacement for the Aegis cruisers. Then the purists out there can stop complaining about a Destroyer with "cruiser-range" guns. LOL
Sadly I have to disagree zumwalt is IMO ugly
@@abstracz1027 imo it looks awesome,
@@refineddoggo6657 it's so ugly that no mother would even want to love it.
Not IMO it was Gold Plated and unarmed
Served in Vietnam on USS Henry B Wilson, DDG-7, an Adams class ship...mostly for gunfire support missions...my father-in-law served aboard USS Gyatt in WWII before she became DDG-1...
Nuclear powered plants are steam plants as well. I have always wondered at the naming of military ships (destroyer, corvette, cruiser, battle ship, etc), your explanation provided this knowledge. Thanks. Good video.
The Zumwalt-class displaces more than the WWII-era New Orleans-class heavy cruiser and the first US dreadnought battleship, the South Carolina-class (1910).
So besides being enormously useless, they're also just enormous.
I can’t be the only one that prefers the look of ww2 destroyers over modern ones
You're not, if only they kept battleships and the look of ww2 era warships in modern day and added friggates, it would've been good
@@chbryann6743 So... aesthetics over effectiveness?
Loving this channel, a great source of information I didn't already know.
Thank you for this video, it is great. What a wonderful assortment of footage.
I remember specially a ras in mediterranean sea with the spruance class Comte de Grasse DD-974, I was on the A11 Marques de la Ensenada in the spanish navy.
In my opinion, the Adams class DDG was one of the most beautiful warships ever made. Great silhouette.
Couldn't agree more. But then I'm partial. I served aboard USS Cochrane DDG 21 from November 1981 to May 1984, first in the engineering plant making those 1200 psi boilers work their magic, and then as gunnery officer.
@@1958zed I served as CIC officer on a Gearing class FRAM I destroyer. Never served on an Adams class. Loved operating with them though especially when they poured on the coal and showed a large bow wake and high rooster tail.
Love this video, I keep coming back to watch it:) Very well done!
Loved it. Great information, thank you. And of course, you kept your sense of humor.... “to being torpedo launching ships rather than torpedo targets.”
I didn't think that ships could sail so close to each other.
I just wanted to say i think everyone appreciates your videos and loves them too hope u see this
There is another thing to consider about why some of the modern classes were retired early. The Spruance, Kidd, and OHP (which were technically 'frigates' but were basically small destroyers) were all built with one main mission in mind - locating and sinking enemy Submarines. The 'next war' was always thought to be one against the USSR, and the navy's main missions were finding and sinking the enemy SSBNs as well as protecting carrier groups from enemy SSKs, with anti-air and anti-surface missions at a distinct second place. Submarines were going to be the primary vessel used by the enemy, so the navy was built around fighting Submarines. It was not just the USN, look at the Royal Navy - they decided against building supercarriers and went for the little harrier-carriers of the Invincible class, as they were more handy for anti-Submarine missions.
The problem was, this 'fantasy war' against the Soviets never happened, but what *did* happen was near continuous wars from the end of WW2 until the present day, against countries with less well funded (but in the early days often boosted by the Soviets) militaries, and in particular against navies that did not possess a single Submarine. The USN has fired in anger against ships, boats, fighter jets, tanks, artillery, infantry, buildings, anti-ship missile installations, Toyota Hilux trucks with HMGs bolted to the bed - but never since WW2 have they fought against a Submarine. This has meant that while the carriers, assault ships, AA escorts, etc. have had plenty of 'work' to do since 1945, the anti-submarine ships have been purple elephants, with politicians forcing admirals to bolt ad-hoc Tomahawk launchers to them in order to give them *something* to do - there was nothing more ridiculous than seeing during the Vietnam and first Gulf wars the old Iowa class battleships that belonged in a museum being called back to service and constantly being in demand by admirals, their guns constantly blazing when they were on duty, while the modern anti-Submarine destroyers just sailed aimlessly up and down the coast looking for non existent Submarines.
Burkes did well as they were truly multi-mission ships - they could be loaded out for AA escort, strike, or even (if for some reason it becomes needed) full anti-Submarine warfare roles. Since there are no wars against forces that possess any Submarines right now, and it is highly unlikely there will be a war against a foe that possesses any Submarines in the next 20 years, there was no reason to keep the Spruance, Kidd and OHP classes - Burkes are simply far more capable, and are not left in the shade by WW2-era battleships.
Navies are for use against lesser Nations only. If US, China, Russia and the EU ever fought each other it would be with ICBMs and over in hours with all losing.
ww2 type wars are long gone.
20:15. When I was a kid, I had stacks of books on navy ships from around the world. I remember thinking the same exact thing about the Spruance class. The Russian ships had guns mounted on every square inch, and we had no visible weapons.
I just looked up all classes yesterday. Talk about good timing! This is fantastic. Keep it up.
From destroyers to aircraft carriers??
Interesting arleigh burke has a similar style shape as the takao class of the IJN
love how you organized the video!
It cracks me up that we call things that big "destroyer"
Lol I love it how nations call certain ships destroyers, when they are clearly cruisers. Zumwalt being 15k tonnes and having 203mm cannons lol. Puts it at what, large light cruiser/heavy cruiser?
Large light cruiser
"Not-as-big-as-medium-size-cruisers-but-bigger-than-light-cruisers cruiser"
Reclassify it as "combat cruiser"
@@royellwilkinson6177 Yeah I was leaning more towards large light cruiser considering the lack of armour. A equivalent ship to compare the Zumwalts to would be the late Worcester class large light cruisers, launched in 1948 if memory serves.
@@royellwilkinson6177 I was leaning more towards large light cruisers too. Due to the lack of armour. A good class of ship to compare the zumwalts to would be the worcester class of large light cruisers, launched in 1948 if memory serves.
How about another destroyer video but a Chinese version
Would help for the rest of the world to know a lot more about their navy after all
Might prepare us for when we all start working for them in 5 years.
Facinating. Some of this I knew, but this is more revealing. I did 20 yrs. most on tin cans. USS H. W. Tucker, USS N. K.Perry, USS Compton, USS Cromwell and USS Hewitt and the USS Lexington, my first ship. SMC, USN Ret. Two of them just TDY 14 and 18 days. My favorite, the Spruance class, USS Hewitt DD 966.
The Zumwalt class is my favorite as I was allowed to tour the USS Lyndon Johnson days before the navy took possession. Thank you for this video.
I was nice to see a couple of my ships in this video. USS Berkeley DDG-15 and USS Merrill DD-976.
I like the Arleigh Burke more because it is a multirole platfom combined with the new LRASM Long Range Anti Ship Missile and the tomohawk maritime stike cruise missile gives it a better chance of destroying a far away surface threat. But the US navy should think about equipping it with a anti torpedo torpedo and long range torpedoes.
I hated the class but I it grew in me not my fav at all but still a nice looking shop the zumwalt can kiss my ask however any class before the zumwalt is gorgeous
Do LOTS of these videos! This class history is excellent.
I love your videos about the military and other things as well, this is such a great channel
At least I won't get bored watching the whole video considering that I'm already comfortable watching amazing short videos from this channel, and I'm willing to watch a longer easy to learn video
The kidd class. The zUSS KIDD was my first ship i served on when I joined the navy in 84
Wow, how long you served there?
@@Player-257 Standard 24 months or
@@francisewing1718 I served on a Spruance destroyer for over 4 years. They were quit versatile in the 80's and 90's.
I served 3 yrs on a USN destroyer, from '72 to '75, the USS Jonas Ingram (DD938) built in 1957. Really enjoyed this history of the Destroyer class in the USNavy !!! Thank you !!!
We are glad you enjoyed the video, Greg!
More interesting videos to come :-)
So glad I found this channel! Great content, so well produced.
Thanks Michael!
Zumwalt is a mistake. It's a pocket cruiser, not a destroyer. It has no escort capability and does not fit any kind of niche in the USN. USN needs fleet escort capable destroyers and cruisers. Without a main armament, Zumwalt doesn't even fill the role of a stand alone pocket cruiser.
Someone’s pocket got filled.
@@skoll_5682 -😂 cursed
It was supposed to fill the niche of sea to shore fire support. And if it had been built in the amount planned and the ammunition had been as cheap as planned, that could have actually worked. The problem is, that they were fit for the time when there was no real adversary for the US which is simply an outdated szenario....
Eh..
Nothing compare to the Japaneses.
Oh we have no CV's...this is just a helicopter *destroyer*...that can launch F-35...but it's just a DD.
Or the Russians...
Eh... this is just a destroyer
With AA missiles...
Huge guns...
Oh, did I forget to mention that it's also an aircraft carrier?
Me: Thinks about a simple chocolate
Not what you think: NOT WHAT YOU THINK!
Me: so no choco for little gaster blaster?:c