My dad sadly passed away two years ago. He joined the Royal Navy as a 15-year-old boy sailor. He was a telegraphist on board H.M.S. Cossack. He loved the life of a sailor, the Navy made a man of him he was a hard-working,hard-playing matelot. I still miss him.
Hi, just seen this article whilst researching HMS Cossack. My uncle Ken (Southworth) was a telegraphist on the Cossack. He was killed aged 19 in the U-Boat attack that crippled the Cossack. I'd bet they knew each other.
My Great Grandfather served on a Tribal class, HMS Eskimo, fortunately for him one of the few that survived the war, happy to see the human voice version of this, great video as always.
My Dad served on the HMCS Haida among other ships. My dad served from 1937 to 1967. He finished off the war on the HMCS Prince Robert a Canadian utility cruiser. After he passed away my brother looked up his service records and found out among other things that he spent the last 286 days of the war at sea.
Been on H.M.C.S. Haida a few times, when she was at Ontario Place, Toronto and her current moorage in Hamilton, Ontario.. Was amazed when they officer on board, giving a group of us a tour, that there are a minimum of 27 different thickness measurements when it came to deck and hull. Plus a good friend from school, his father served on H.M.C.S. Iroquois as a gunnery officer.. He told of us of those notorious PQ Convoys.. obviously as kids we were spell bound. LEST WE FORGET
Keep it up drachinifel! The 5 minute guides a nice, but my favorites are when you go into depth look at certain ships from a class. Either way, I like all your vids, so keep up the good work
my grandad's friend was on the HMS Ashanti, doing the north atlantic convoys to russia. he said they were amazing ships but you needed to go out every few hours and chip the ice off so it didnt build up and make the vessel top heavy :P
My Grandfather served on Eskimo and was with it when the bows were blown off and during the Russian convoys.I still have his original “HMS” war time cap tally.
Bobby Zangla Trust me my friend,you'll be better served paying attention in your English class.. Edit: Also pay attention to history books,and you won't need TH-cam..
Would love to see a video around the compromises that RN had to make around its destroyers. Differences between armaments between tribals, J K and Ns and L and Ms all similar but with different compromises due to cost, weight and sea worthiness etc
Second of 3 parts Part 1 HMS Dido th-cam.com/video/XnH-NsWFMnc/w-d-xo.html Part 2 Tribal Class th-cam.com/video/Fl7J3WUe31E/w-d-xo.html Part 3 HMCS Haida th-cam.com/video/K9m9P8ccPVg/w-d-xo.html
This is a great channel so it's worth keeping up the standards on all historical detail particularly in a case like this. There is a massive difference in implications between 1940 and 1941. The British violated Norwegian neutrality in 1940 and in so doing left the door open, one could argue, for Germany to follow the precedent and invade. 1941 Norway and France not to mention most of western Europe were under German occupation already.
Love that story, mm thinks someone, HMS Zulu's stern has been blown off by a mine and HMS Nubian's bow has been wrecked by a Hun torpedo. Hold my pink gin and bring me my welding torch! Genius.
My great-uncle served aboard HMS Nubian one of the surviving tribal class Destroyers, he was one of the Pom-Pom gunners. Nubian was awarded 13 battle honors only Warspite exceeds that total I can only hope we can see an episode dedicated to that ship alone
Nice video as usual. Thank you. There was also a post-WW2 Tribal class, the type 81 frigate. Pretty little boats with two raked stacks and a single-step hull. They were certainly in service at Portland where I saw them in 1964 onwards.
My grandad was a rangefinder operator on HMS Mashona during the hunt for the Bismarck. Mashona was sunk by a Luftwaffe attack on the way home. He survived and from what we can gather, saved the lives if some other sailors who were wounded. My grandad was awarded the DSO for his actions, but he never really talked about it. Used the medal to prop up a leg of an aquarium.
one of my grandads friends was on the Ashanti, escorting the russian convoys. he was a quiet old man, never really spoke to anyone about his time at sea but he was genuinely one of the coolest people I ever met and when I finally managed to coax some of his stories out, he seemed happy to tell them to someone.
One of the Canadian Tribals, HMCS Huron had it's bow cut off by a French destroyer during exercises in the Med in 1958. She put in to the naval dockyard in Toulon for three months while the crew lived in hotels soaking up the goodies of France. The yard welded a new bow on but the work was very poorly done with sand in the welds and it came apart on the way home to Halifax mid-Atlantic, barely making it home,
No, none of the Tribals were refitted with flight decks. A new generation of Canadian destroyers was designed and built for that. The earlier ones did not have flight decks but the were retrofitted after the fact. The first one HMCS St. Laurent was also the first one that I served on.
The human voice is so much better than the computer voice. The computer fails to capture the nuances we love so much The Tribals were powerful ships and their losses maily stemmed from the fact they were used in roles for which they were not designed. I doubt anyone thought aircraft would be so dangerous when these ships were being built. An analysis fof a 1 on 1 fight between Tribals and ships built around the same time would be interesting. Let's leave the Fletcher's out of it as they were five years younger and had war experience built into their design. Five years is long time given the way technology was increasing due to more money being spent vecause of rising tensions,and later, war
I think it’s fair to criticize a ship for being obsolete before or shortly after launch, or being too specialized towards dealing with a problem that rarely happened or could have been solved for effectively. Why? Because multiple ships that are universally accepted as bad ideas (the Yamatos most notably, or even battleships in general) have that exact reason as the main factor in why they are considered terrible. I see this sort of double standards where some ships are considered bad because they were outdated, yet other ships get a free pass because “nobody knew about these problems”. That’s not fair.
@@bkjeong4302 -- Don't forget that when Dreadnought first arrived, there was NO significant aerial threat to a surface ship. It wasn't until the late 1930s that naval air power was even considered as a threat, and a small one at that. US admirals were all in favor of using aircraft for target search and artillery spotting, but scoffed at the idea that aircraft could damage a surface ship sufficiently enough to sink it. The IJN proved that carrier-based air power was definitely a threat to any and all surface ships. Granted, the attack on Pearl Harbor led to the sinking/damage of all eight battleships tied up in harbor on that date, but while 2400 people were killed, many of the crews of those sunken/damaged ships survived, and fought on throughout the war. What should have been a major awakening to ALL naval command personnel was the attack on HMS Prince of Wales and Repulse. That one day demonstrated VERY clearly that surface ships without air cover were not capable of withstanding a concentrated attack by well-trained aircrew and capable weapons. The Japanese Kido Butai was in prime form before the commencement of hostilities, and it took the US a long time to catch up. As has been demonstrated throughout history, ALL militaries are capable of doing a bang-up job, as long as the confrontation is identical to the LAST war. Generals and admirals who buck the system and push for new and different tactics and strategies are usually side-tracked by their political leadership until proven correct. Witness the case of Billy Mitchell. He was court-martialed for being rude enough to suggest that bombers could be a threat to battleships in the 1920s, and it wasn't until fifteen years or more later that he was posthumously exonerated and promoted to brigadier.
Michael Sullivan You seem to have completely misunderstood my argument. I was speaking specifically about vessels that actually were obsolete upon launch. Dreadnought obviously doesn’t fit that category. I was talking about vessels built in the late 30s onwards. And you’re also missing my point completely, as my point is that we should criticize all obsolete-upon-launch ships as badly designed, because we’re already doing that with some ships while being more forgiving of others even if both were obsolete on launch.
I have a question unrelated to the Tribal Class. I was rewatching "In Which We Serve," when a question regarding the destroyer portrayed on the film struck me. I believe that the ship in question is supposed to be a member of the "J" and "K" class, if I am not mistaken. Royal Navy destroyers were designed to operate in the North Sea and North Atlantic, both with very severe weather. Why then did the Royal Navy design a destroyer with main mounts that were open in the back? It would seem that doing so would work a severe hardship on the gun crew as well as the equipment. Not to mention leaving the gun crew exposed to shell air bursts and impacts. Thank you.
I'd like to see a video on the S Class US submarines. I became interested in them when I found an 8x10 photo of an S Class submarine--S-23 I recall--docked at the recently built Port of Stockton about 1932. What is unusual is the Port is some 80 miles inland from the Golden Gate and Deep Water Ship Channel is perhaps 50 ft deep. What on Earth was a sub doing so far inland operating in the brackish waters of the Sacramento-San Joaquin river delta? Never have been able to find this out.
My Uncle was posted to the Athabasca but the train was late and he didn't make it before she sailed. She was sunk that sailing. He was re assigned to the HMCS Algonquin. I would like to know more about the Algonquin if possible.
My Uncle PO Robert George Farrow served and lost his life on HMS Somali. Would be interested in more info on this ship. Apparently it made the first capture of an enemy ship in WW2, and interestingly the Captain C Mead survived when it went down. Helped by a bottle of whisky then went on to be the Beach Commander at Juno ? Sad my Uncle did not survive so we could swing the lantern so perhaps someone else can add to the life of this ship.
As a former USN ET, I do appreciate your efforts, Drach. Keep up the good work. And I must say that I much prefer hearing your voice over that of your robot. Now if you could've used a robot that sounded like Charlize Theron......
Kinda, but geared more to anti destroyer work, and if GFermans havbe go with their scout cruisers I recon Tribals would look at these and collectively say "hold my beer". Also they would struggle to achieve the same performance against capital ships having roughtly half the torpedo firepower (But had definite advantage early in the war, having actual working torpedoess.)
Nope, Fletcher was a mainline Jack-of-all-trades destroyer type. Furthermore, Fletchers were a much later, post-treaty era design, so direct analogy is unavoidably unfair to treaty era ships. Tribals - one off artillery-focused group, intended to beef up existing destroyer fleet against superior japanese(Special type) and Italian(Navigatori class) vessels wherever necessary. This is how they were used, basically, and this is why despite their smaller number, they always ended up in the thick of action. Perhaps comparable to what Navigatori class ended up being, after they lost their esploratori("scout") designation and became destroyers. American destroyer leaders(Porter; Sommers) are much closer in purpose than Fletchers. But those, unlike Tribals, were dedicated leaders and were evenly distributed between destroyer squadrons as flagships .
the J,K,N class of destroyer that followed were the single funnelled contemporary of the Tribal class, mounting six turrets and double the torpedo armament and would also suffer high losses but my favourite of the pre war destroyer designs have to be the L,M class destroyers, another class of large destroyer that suffered heavy losses unfortunately.
Calling her guns "high muzzle velocity" is a stretch, that is a very moderate MV; they were pure surface action guns, though. British simply didn't want to pay and sacrifice enough(or couldn't develop, which is more or less the same) to have a suitable DP gun. When they tried, they failed anyways(L&M). 4" twin on Tribals wasn't especially capable of shooting things down(fire control!), it was more of a deterrent. However, in a typical nighttime surface action commander had to dedicate one mount to starshell duties anyways, so it wasn't an outright loss in capability.
I spoke on the absurdity of significant ASW capability being appended to the Fleet Destroyer concept in your video on the Atlanta class. I will make the point again for this excellent class of Fleet Destroyer. The last thing you want to do with a valuable warship, when in an enemy submarine operational zone, is leave it dead in the water (which cruisers and battleships had to do in order to recover floatplanes), or trawling along at very low speed and in straight lines. That latter is exactly the procedure for detecting and combating enemy submarines. Zut alors! But the Destroyer, you might well object, is the "Greyhound of the Sea"! She is neither slow, nor likely to move in straight lines . . . unless she is detailed to be left behind, holding a suspected enemy submarine at bay, while the more valuable component units in its task force escape. So we take a very fast, light, ship and make it do slow trawling . . . ASW trawling is done at 3-8 nauts per hour. Any faster and your hydrophones can't hear anything over the susurrus of the sea*. As for active SoNAR Illumination ("Pinging" SoNAR), world war 2 SoNAR illuminators had a very short effective range, i.e.: 100-200m to either side of the ship, except in very calm seas. When the carrier group suspects a submarine, it moves off at high speed, leaving behind a Fleet Destroyer or two to keep the enemy submarine at bay. While the tactic is effective enough as a deterrent to further interference from that particular enemy submarine, it also weakens the carrier group. Fleet Screening--especially carrier screening--requires your physical presence on site and, if your Fleet Destroyer is "back there somewhere", you aren't with the carrier(s). In a war of attrition that can be crucial. Two destroyers stripped from the enemy carrier group by one of your submarines . . . is a tactical victory. A cheaper, more expendable . . . no kidding . . . alternative was sought, and found, in the form of the ASW Frigate. Smaller, lighter in displacement, slower, optimised for the ASW Trawling Mission. An ASW Frigate doesn't need the same high speed performance as a Fleet Destroyer, and, in result, does not travel with the carrier group. Instead, the ASW Frigate sails with the Fleet Replenishment Train, which is composed of ships much slower than the Carrier group's Fleet Carriers, Fast Battleships, Cruisers . . . and Fleet Destroyers. The Fleet Destroyer merely waits for the ASW Frigate(s) to show up, then hands over to it (them) and races back to its intended role of Fleet Screening. That seems reasonable, doesn't it--to let specialist ships, more expendable ones, to boot, take the load off the Greyhounds of the Sea? Except . . . anyone remember that WW2 Carrier Air Wing Strike group that followed an enemy Destroyer back to its parent carrier group? Yep. I sure do. But, to make the Fleet Destroyer carry all that extra armament . . . its fantail overloaded with 30-50 500lb bombs . . . I mean Depth Charges . . . as if deck mounted torpedo ordnance wasn't enough risk on an unarmored ship already . . . is both superfluous and dumb. At best, the Fleet Destroyer only needs a few DC or a single Hedgehog to render it capable of its effort diverting ASW role. The ASW Frigate will soon be on the scene. What the Fleet Destroyer needs isn't more ASW ordnance--it needs more AA Dakka! *It's still like that today, btw.
Interesting comment - but I don’t think a Fleet Destroyer captain would want to be without sufficient depth charges to vigorously (ad hopefully successfully) prosecute a sub contact, or a number of successive sub contacts. You make a good point too about recovering sea planes - a device called a Hein mat was trialled before WW2 in some Cruisers which allowed a ship to trail a large mat over the stern or side at low speed, and the airplane to taxi onto the mat and be carried along by the ship before it was hooked on and swung inboard. Apparently an idea which lacked full practicality - Graf Spee tossed hers overboard the day war was declared as being a fire hazard!
USS Washington sailed through two halves of a destroyer? What the heck! Maybe I didn't hear that correctly? Maybe a special on warship collisions? Sure have been a bunch. I still can't figure out how they happen today with so much technology.
That would be an interesting topic. The destroyer HMS Glowworm famously rammed a German cruiser on purpose, the Australian aircraft carrier HMAS Melbourne sliced two allied destroyers in half during its career and there have been plenty of American collisions as well.
@@Dave_Sisson One american did such a wonderful job steering his boat under a ship, killing half his crew, they called him a hero and elected him president.
@@rwbimbie5854 That was an idiotic thing to say. 'His Boat was a Patrol Torpedo Boat. JFK didn't steer his "boat' under an enemy Destroyer. He was idling in a strait between Islands on a pitch black night waiting to ambush an enemy convoy. www.jfklibrary.org/learn/about-jfk/jfk-in-history/john-f-kennedy-and-pt-109 Read the story then, you owe the man an apology. Get your facts strait twit.
Excellent as ever. I do hope we see more detailed looks at other tribals - I'm sure an examination of the career of Cossack in more depth and the Altmark incident particularly would be welcomed. once again, many thanks.
I love the American practice of naming Destroyers after people, it's a good practice but the British naming system but is pretty fantastic in it's own right. Especially the Tribals. Its something that wouldn't be allowed today by the media and certain people in government. Yet I think the various tribes would be more then happy to have a Destroyer bear their names.
@@bkjeong4302 Depends on your preference. I like the American practice of naming Cruisers, Destroyers and Amphibs. Its been a constant for many years now. The British system has it's own merits and its extremely good in its own right. The naming of American Carriers, Submarines and Frigates has gone to crap and its sad.
Wasn't Vian's Cossack and the rest of her flotilla involved in attacking Bismark during her last full night on the surface. I can recall reading somewhere about repeated torpedo attacks in horrid weather (causing no hits for something like 40 torpedoes fired) in force 3 or worse weather harassing the BB all night long and keeping her spotted for the dawn torpedo attack?
Undoubtedly the best at the time of their building, pocket-light cruisers in 1936, but not the most advanced destroyer by 1945, still A-grade at that point. HMS Sikh with others, attacked the Bismarck, attacked an Italian battleship, sank two cruisers, sank a U-boat, escorted and screened Malta convoys, Arctic convoys, took part in the ill-fated Operation Agreement, in which also land-based Jewish Commandos and SAS took part in, immortalized by the movies "Tobruk" and "Raid on Rommel"...
Also, if beauty is in the eye of the beholder, then yes Tribal Class was the most beautiful, just as a Type 21 was far more beautiful than a type 22 or 23 or even 26. Stealth vessels now mean angular shapes...
What happend to the tribal class destroyer st. Laurent that i know existed my uncle sailed on her in the north atlantic squadron. in the canadian navy halifax to portsmouth ???? I have searched for years and found no info it would be nice to know for my family nothern canada
Hi drach is there any evidence a cutlass was used in the boarding action during the altmark incident. All I can think is habits die hard especially in the Royal Navy, it makes me chuckle when I think of a sailor acting like he’s in the 18th century! 💂🏻♀️🇬🇧
Surely its dido as in die doh not Dee doh? My sea cadet training ship was TS Dido, Bolton sea cadets. Other than that minor issue, another excellent episode
In WW2, aboard DD540, we were told that if you were in the water,as the ship sank, you were to put your thumb in your anus, to prevent being killed by depth charges exploding.
Most destroyer classes were ordered in groups of eight, with each 8-ship group sharing an initial letter. You'd see two or three 8-ship groups (e.g. the J-, K-, and N-class) built to each design. The Tribals are a bit of an exception to the convention, perhaps because they were developed from cruiser designs. A class of cruisers with those names would have made perfect sense alongside the Crown Colony-class cruisers.
Another thing about RN destroyers is that one of the 8 would be constructed as a flotilla leader, containing additional equipment to help coordinate the flotilla and would be named after a famous admiral with a surname that starts with the letter of the class e.g Jervis= J-class, Kelly= K-class, Napier= N-class
Another exception would be the lend-lease "Town" class, the prototypes "Arrow" and "Ambuscade" for the A-I classes and also the only "Battle" class DD to serve in WW2 was HMS Barfleur. Also 4 Weapon class DD were completed for service in WW2.
Our Naval Studies instructor told us that the Tribal class was designed to have four turrets and two funnels to greater impress the natives during port visits around the empire.
@@richardcooper9417 Perhaps, that's what the Brits had in mind in 1936 but it's a real stretch. The Canadians and probably the Australians had zero/zip/nada interest in scaring the fuzzy-wuzzies with 4.7 inch guns. (Why not send a cruiser or battle ship?)
@@richardcooper9417 I'm a navy veteran who served in the 1970s. I meet with a group of other Canadian navy vets each week (I'm the "kid"). Three of our members served on Tribals (Iroquois, Haida and Huron). Two of them fought in Korea along with seven other Canadian destroyers (C Class and Tribals). I'm also involved as one of the curators of a little museum devoted to the last one Haida and I will study this further. I expect that if I tell them that Tribals were meant to scare the natives somewhere, they will laugh until the cry but I will ask and get back to you. Likely , they will say that it sounds like a "Kipper" thing (Kipper=Canadian slang for an RN sailor). The Canadians often served with or near the very similar American Fletcher class and I can guarantee 100% that the Fletchers had no design criterion to impress natives. I think that you're re-writing history through the eyes of 2023 wokeness.
Excellent video, as always, made even "excellenter" by your referring to the ships properly, as feminine, rather than as neuter. Those Tribal Class cans were truly beautiful ships. I wonder if it'd be possible to do a side by side comparison against our Fletcher, Allen B. Sumner, and/or Gearing classes.
![ILLSLICK X YOUNGOHM - We're The same [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/yUJNkobYR0E/mqdefault.jpg)
My dad sadly passed away two years ago. He joined the Royal Navy as a 15-year-old boy sailor. He was a telegraphist on board H.M.S. Cossack. He loved the life of a sailor, the Navy made a man of him he was a hard-working,hard-playing matelot. I still miss him.
Thanks for that Harry. My uncle Walter Watkin was on the Cossack, on the Arctic runs to Russia
Hi, just seen this article whilst researching HMS Cossack. My uncle Ken (Southworth) was a telegraphist on the Cossack. He was killed aged 19 in the U-Boat attack that crippled the Cossack. I'd bet they knew each other.
My Great Grandfather served on a Tribal class, HMS Eskimo, fortunately for him one of the few that survived the war, happy to see the human voice version of this, great video as always.
My Dad served on the HMCS Haida among other ships. My dad served from 1937 to 1967. He finished off the war on the HMCS Prince Robert a Canadian utility cruiser. After he passed away my brother looked up his service records and found out among other things that he spent the last 286 days of the war at sea.
Been on H.M.C.S. Haida a few times, when she was at Ontario Place, Toronto and her current moorage in Hamilton, Ontario.. Was amazed when they officer on board, giving a group of us a tour, that there are a minimum of 27 different thickness measurements when it came to deck and hull. Plus a good friend from school, his father served on H.M.C.S. Iroquois as a gunnery officer.. He told of us of those notorious PQ Convoys.. obviously as kids we were spell bound. LEST WE FORGET
Capt. Vian.
Deadset legend. In the best traditions of the RN.
Keep it up drachinifel! The 5 minute guides a nice, but my favorites are when you go into depth look at certain ships from a class.
Either way, I like all your vids, so keep up the good work
Want to sail on a Tribal son? No sir, I'm detailed to bomb disposal, it's safer.
Nice work! Can't wait for the HMCS Haida.
Great video, My grandfather was on the HMS Sikh and it's almost criminal how often this class of destroyer is overlooked in history.
Beautiful ship class.
They were allegedly good ocean-going boats too.
my grandad's friend was on the HMS Ashanti, doing the north atlantic convoys to russia. he said they were amazing ships but you needed to go out every few hours and chip the ice off so it didnt build up and make the vessel top heavy :P
My Grandfather served on Eskimo and was with it when the bows were blown off and during the Russian convoys.I still have his original “HMS” war time cap tally.
Yay something to watch instead of paying attention in English class
lol
My last English class was in 1979, and I would have watched this instead if there was an Internet.
Your writing reflects that lack of attention.
Bobby Zangla Trust me my friend,you'll be better served paying attention in your English class..
Edit: Also pay attention to history books,and you won't need TH-cam..
If it was math class I would have fallen asleep which happened alot during my highschool days
Would love to see a video around the compromises that RN had to make around its destroyers. Differences between armaments between tribals, J K and Ns and L and Ms all similar but with different compromises due to cost, weight and sea worthiness etc
Second of 3 parts
Part 1 HMS Dido th-cam.com/video/XnH-NsWFMnc/w-d-xo.html
Part 2 Tribal Class th-cam.com/video/Fl7J3WUe31E/w-d-xo.html
Part 3 HMCS Haida th-cam.com/video/K9m9P8ccPVg/w-d-xo.html
HMCS Haida is a museum in Hamilton, Ontario Canada.
Paul Hudson
Live near her but haven’t visited her yet.
Everything is in Ontario...
@@HaloFTW55 It would be pretty difficult to anchor her in Alberta or Saskatchewan.
My late uncle served in HMAS Arunta during WW II - he was always very proud of that ship. Thanks for posting.
The Altmark incident was1940 old chap not 1941. I am sure this is an oversight!
Blame the mistake on Patreon not sending him the funds I opted to, for a cup of coffee or tea this month.
TEA! Damn it all!!!
This is a great channel so it's worth keeping up the standards on all historical detail particularly in a case like this. There is a massive difference in implications between 1940 and 1941. The British violated Norwegian neutrality in 1940 and in so doing left the door open, one could argue, for Germany to follow the precedent and invade. 1941 Norway and France not to mention most of western Europe were under German occupation already.
Matthew Dobbs Sorry buddy,but that's a laughable argument.
Matthew Dobbs I thoroughly agree with you on the first point though👍
The front half of HMS Maori is a popular dive site on the bottom of the harbour in Malta.
One of the most beautiful warships ever crafted, change my mind.
great video, thanks. my great-grandfather served on and survived the HMS Bedouin.
Speaking of the Tribals, you should do HMS Zubian from the original Tribal/F-class run from WW1.
Love that story, mm thinks someone, HMS Zulu's stern has been blown off by a mine and HMS Nubian's bow has been wrecked by a Hun torpedo. Hold my pink gin and bring me my welding torch!
Genius.
The history guy made this about HMS Zubian. th-cam.com/video/5rWQXvEiIHs/w-d-xo.html
I am also interested in the earlier Tribals. My Great-Grandfather died aboard Ghurka on the Dover Run when it hit a mine laid by UC-47.
My great-uncle served aboard HMS Nubian one of the surviving tribal class Destroyers, he was one of the Pom-Pom gunners. Nubian was awarded 13 battle honors only Warspite exceeds that total I can only hope we can see an episode dedicated to that ship alone
I think Nubian was tied with orion and jervis
Fascinating. As for HMCS Haida, the mighty jingles has put Haida's story well.
That's a name I haven't heard in a while.
I love Cossack too
Nice video as usual. Thank you.
There was also a post-WW2 Tribal class, the type 81 frigate. Pretty little boats with two raked stacks and a single-step hull. They were certainly in service at Portland where I saw them in 1964 onwards.
That picture of HMCS Eskimo post-torpedo is just insane! Tough little ship.
HMS Eskimo. She was British Royal Navy. So was HMS Mohawk. Go figure.
My grandad was a rangefinder operator on HMS Mashona during the hunt for the Bismarck.
Mashona was sunk by a Luftwaffe attack on the way home. He survived and from what we can gather, saved the lives if some other sailors who were wounded. My grandad was awarded the DSO for his actions, but he never really talked about it. Used the medal to prop up a leg of an aquarium.
It was the 3rd turret that was replaced with a twin 4 inch
one of my grandads friends was on the Ashanti, escorting the russian convoys. he was a quiet old man, never really spoke to anyone about his time at sea but he was genuinely one of the coolest people I ever met and when I finally managed to coax some of his stories out, he seemed happy to tell them to someone.
My grandfather was also on the Ashanti bit very little details about his time in the war ( he is still with us 96)
One of the Canadian Tribals, HMCS Huron had it's bow cut off by a French destroyer during exercises in the Med in 1958. She put in to the naval dockyard in Toulon for three months while the crew lived in hotels soaking up the goodies of France. The yard welded a new bow on but the work was very poorly done with sand in the welds and it came apart on the way home to Halifax mid-Atlantic, barely making it home,
My great great uncle was on HMS Maori from April 1940 to February 42 when she sank.
Well. That’s gonna be useful. Thanks for the video “sailor of the internet”.
What is your point?
Royal Canadian Navy had several ships in this class.Many were refitted with Hangars and Landing decks to carry Sea King helicopters, in the ASW role.
No, none of the Tribals were refitted with flight decks. A new generation of Canadian destroyers was designed and built for that. The earlier ones did not have flight decks but the were retrofitted after the fact. The first one HMCS St. Laurent was also the first one that I served on.
The human voice is so much better than the computer voice. The computer fails to capture the nuances we love so much
The Tribals were powerful ships and their losses maily stemmed from the fact they were used in roles for which they were not designed. I doubt anyone thought aircraft would be so dangerous when these ships were being built.
An analysis fof a 1 on 1 fight between Tribals and ships built around the same time would be interesting. Let's leave the Fletcher's out of it as they were five years younger and had war experience built into their design. Five years is long time given the way technology was increasing due to more money being spent vecause of rising tensions,and later, war
I think it’s fair to criticize a ship for being obsolete before or shortly after launch, or being too specialized towards dealing with a problem that rarely happened or could have been solved for effectively.
Why? Because multiple ships that are universally accepted as bad ideas (the Yamatos most notably, or even battleships in general) have that exact reason as the main factor in why they are considered terrible. I see this sort of double standards where some ships are considered bad because they were outdated, yet other ships get a free pass because “nobody knew about these problems”. That’s not fair.
@@bkjeong4302 -- Don't forget that when Dreadnought first arrived, there was NO significant aerial threat to a surface ship. It wasn't until the late 1930s that naval air power was even considered as a threat, and a small one at that. US admirals were all in favor of using aircraft for target search and artillery spotting, but scoffed at the idea that aircraft could damage a surface ship sufficiently enough to sink it.
The IJN proved that carrier-based air power was definitely a threat to any and all surface ships. Granted, the attack on Pearl Harbor led to the sinking/damage of all eight battleships tied up in harbor on that date, but while 2400 people were killed, many of the crews of those sunken/damaged ships survived, and fought on throughout the war.
What should have been a major awakening to ALL naval command personnel was the attack on HMS Prince of Wales and Repulse. That one day demonstrated VERY clearly that surface ships without air cover were not capable of withstanding a concentrated attack by well-trained aircrew and capable weapons. The Japanese Kido Butai was in prime form before the commencement of hostilities, and it took the US a long time to catch up.
As has been demonstrated throughout history, ALL militaries are capable of doing a bang-up job, as long as the confrontation is identical to the LAST war. Generals and admirals who buck the system and push for new and different tactics and strategies are usually side-tracked by their political leadership until proven correct.
Witness the case of Billy Mitchell. He was court-martialed for being rude enough to suggest that bombers could be a threat to battleships in the 1920s, and it wasn't until fifteen years or more later that he was posthumously exonerated and promoted to brigadier.
Michael Sullivan
You seem to have completely misunderstood my argument.
I was speaking specifically about vessels that actually were obsolete upon launch. Dreadnought obviously doesn’t fit that category. I was talking about vessels built in the late 30s onwards.
And you’re also missing my point completely, as my point is that we should criticize all obsolete-upon-launch ships as badly designed, because we’re already doing that with some ships while being more forgiving of others even if both were obsolete on launch.
I have a question unrelated to the Tribal Class. I was rewatching "In Which We Serve," when a question regarding the destroyer portrayed on the film struck me. I believe that the ship in question is supposed to be a member of the "J" and "K" class, if I am not mistaken. Royal Navy destroyers were designed to operate in the North Sea and North Atlantic, both with very severe weather. Why then did the Royal Navy design a destroyer with main mounts that were open in the back? It would seem that doing so would work a severe hardship on the gun crew as well as the equipment. Not to mention leaving the gun crew exposed to shell air bursts and impacts. Thank you.
I believe the 4.7s were specifically designed as dp but someone made the gunshield in such a way that their elevation was limited
I love these little gun-monsters
Need to do the River Class Frigates
Would be nice to see a video about the Daring class destroyers
Currently making a model of HMAS Arunta
What scale?
1:350
which Company is it from?
Peter Zellinger its a trumpeter Huron, with Australian Decals
Love to see it.
Aside from being fairly successful, their naming theme does deserve some recognition.
I'd like to see a video on the S Class US submarines. I became interested in them when I found an 8x10 photo of an S Class submarine--S-23 I recall--docked at the recently built Port of Stockton about 1932. What is unusual is the Port is some 80 miles inland from the Golden Gate and Deep Water Ship Channel is perhaps 50 ft deep. What on Earth was a sub doing so far inland operating in the brackish waters of the Sacramento-San Joaquin river delta? Never have been able to find this out.
Good looking ship.
My Uncle was posted to the Athabasca but the train was late and he didn't make it before she sailed. She was sunk that sailing. He was re assigned to the HMCS Algonquin. I would like to know more about the Algonquin if possible.
My Uncle PO Robert George Farrow served and lost his life on HMS Somali. Would be interested in more info on this ship. Apparently it made the first capture of an enemy ship in WW2, and interestingly the Captain C Mead survived when it went down. Helped by a bottle of whisky then went on to be the Beach Commander at Juno ? Sad my Uncle did not survive so we could swing the lantern so perhaps someone else can add to the life of this ship.
HMS Cossack. Was my model airfix was the name of the firm that produced it
As a former USN ET, I do appreciate your efforts, Drach. Keep up the good work. And I must say that I much prefer hearing your voice over that of your robot. Now if you could've used a robot that sounded like Charlize Theron......
P.S. Destroyers ROCK!
Probably the best looking class of destroyer ever built.
So they are basically the British Fletchers?
Kinda, but geared more to anti destroyer work, and if GFermans havbe go with their scout cruisers I recon Tribals would look at these and collectively say "hold my beer".
Also they would struggle to achieve the same performance against capital ships having roughtly half the torpedo firepower (But had definite advantage early in the war, having actual working torpedoess.)
I'd say they're closer to the Japanese Kagero class destroyers.
Nope, Fletcher was a mainline Jack-of-all-trades destroyer type. Furthermore, Fletchers were a much later, post-treaty era design, so direct analogy is unavoidably unfair to treaty era ships.
Tribals - one off artillery-focused group, intended to beef up existing destroyer fleet against superior japanese(Special type) and Italian(Navigatori class) vessels wherever necessary. This is how they were used, basically, and this is why despite their smaller number, they always ended up in the thick of action. Perhaps comparable to what Navigatori class ended up being, after they lost their esploratori("scout") designation and became destroyers.
American destroyer leaders(Porter; Sommers) are much closer in purpose than Fletchers. But those, unlike Tribals, were dedicated leaders and were evenly distributed between destroyer squadrons as flagships .
Tribal s are very heavily armed and carried about double the amount of ammo that most other destroyers carried for the main guns
The Tribals where beautiful and effective and tough.
Would be interesting to see a comparison between the Tribal class and the USN Porter class.
Hail Haida!
Drachinifel, you should consider a look at the Japanese destroyer Niizuki, reputed to have achieved the longest distance torpedo hit in history...
There's something so cursed about that picture of Eskimo with smashed bow and the fact that she was actually repaired.
Good video. I enjoyed the show.
The altmark incident was 16-17th Feb 1940 and not 1941 as stated
the J,K,N class of destroyer that followed were the single funnelled contemporary of the Tribal class, mounting six turrets and double the torpedo armament and would also suffer high losses but my favourite of the pre war destroyer designs have to be the L,M class destroyers, another class of large destroyer that suffered heavy losses unfortunately.
Calling her guns "high muzzle velocity" is a stretch, that is a very moderate MV; they were pure surface action guns, though. British simply didn't want to pay and sacrifice enough(or couldn't develop, which is more or less the same) to have a suitable DP gun. When they tried, they failed anyways(L&M).
4" twin on Tribals wasn't especially capable of shooting things down(fire control!), it was more of a deterrent. However, in a typical nighttime surface action commander had to dedicate one mount to starshell duties anyways, so it wasn't an outright loss in capability.
My first DD Model! There's nothing like being in a Type-VII and hunted by HMS Zulu. In a Sim, of course. Do the Benson class, if practicable. ;-)
5:50 The front fell off.
Don't worry, they towed the rest of the ship outside of the environment!
@@lewisirwin5363 Into another environment?
@@Timrath Google "the front fell off, its hilarious".
My grandfather served on Mashona and Ashanti during WWII as an RNVR officer.
5:06 Febuary 16th 1940*, Not 1941!
I spoke on the absurdity of significant ASW capability being appended to the Fleet Destroyer concept in your video on the Atlanta class. I will make the point again for this excellent class of Fleet Destroyer.
The last thing you want to do with a valuable warship, when in an enemy submarine operational zone, is leave it dead in the water (which cruisers and battleships had to do in order to recover floatplanes), or trawling along at very low speed and in straight lines. That latter is exactly the procedure for detecting and combating enemy submarines.
Zut alors! But the Destroyer, you might well object, is the "Greyhound of the Sea"! She is neither slow, nor likely to move in straight lines . . . unless she is detailed to be left behind, holding a suspected enemy submarine at bay, while the more valuable component units in its task force escape. So we take a very fast, light, ship and make it do slow trawling . . . ASW trawling is done at 3-8 nauts per hour. Any faster and your hydrophones can't hear anything over the susurrus of the sea*. As for active SoNAR Illumination ("Pinging" SoNAR), world war 2 SoNAR illuminators had a very short effective range, i.e.: 100-200m to either side of the ship, except in very calm seas.
When the carrier group suspects a submarine, it moves off at high speed, leaving behind a Fleet Destroyer or two to keep the enemy submarine at bay. While the tactic is effective enough as a deterrent to further interference from that particular enemy submarine, it also weakens the carrier group. Fleet Screening--especially carrier screening--requires your physical presence on site and, if your Fleet Destroyer is "back there somewhere", you aren't with the carrier(s).
In a war of attrition that can be crucial. Two destroyers stripped from the enemy carrier group by one of your submarines . . . is a tactical victory.
A cheaper, more expendable . . . no kidding . . . alternative was sought, and found, in the form of the ASW Frigate. Smaller, lighter in displacement, slower, optimised for the ASW Trawling Mission. An ASW Frigate doesn't need the same high speed performance as a Fleet Destroyer, and, in result, does not travel with the carrier group. Instead, the ASW Frigate sails with the Fleet Replenishment Train, which is composed of ships much slower than the Carrier group's Fleet Carriers, Fast Battleships, Cruisers . . . and Fleet Destroyers.
The Fleet Destroyer merely waits for the ASW Frigate(s) to show up, then hands over to it (them) and races back to its intended role of Fleet Screening. That seems reasonable, doesn't it--to let specialist ships, more expendable ones, to boot, take the load off the Greyhounds of the Sea?
Except . . . anyone remember that WW2 Carrier Air Wing Strike group that followed an enemy Destroyer back to its parent carrier group? Yep. I sure do.
But, to make the Fleet Destroyer carry all that extra armament . . . its fantail overloaded with 30-50 500lb bombs . . . I mean Depth Charges . . . as if deck mounted torpedo ordnance wasn't enough risk on an unarmored ship already . . . is both superfluous and dumb. At best, the Fleet Destroyer only needs a few DC or a single Hedgehog to render it capable of its effort diverting ASW role. The ASW Frigate will soon be on the scene. What the Fleet Destroyer needs isn't more ASW ordnance--it needs more AA Dakka!
*It's still like that today, btw.
Interesting comment - but I don’t think a Fleet Destroyer captain would want to be without sufficient depth charges to vigorously (ad hopefully successfully) prosecute a sub contact, or a number of successive sub contacts.
You make a good point too about recovering sea planes - a device called a Hein mat was trialled before WW2 in some Cruisers which allowed a ship to trail a large mat over the stern or side at low speed, and the airplane to taxi onto the mat and be carried along by the ship before it was hooked on and swung inboard. Apparently an idea which lacked full practicality - Graf Spee tossed hers overboard the day war was declared as being a fire hazard!
USS Washington sailed through two halves of a destroyer? What the heck! Maybe I didn't hear that correctly? Maybe a special on warship collisions? Sure have been a bunch. I still can't figure out how they happen today with so much technology.
That would be an interesting topic. The destroyer HMS Glowworm famously rammed a German cruiser on purpose, the Australian aircraft carrier HMAS Melbourne sliced two allied destroyers in half during its career and there have been plenty of American collisions as well.
@@Dave_Sisson One american did such a wonderful job steering his boat under a ship, killing half his crew,
they called him a hero and elected him president.
@@rwbimbie5854 That was an idiotic thing to say. 'His Boat was a Patrol Torpedo Boat. JFK didn't steer his "boat' under an enemy Destroyer. He was idling in a strait between Islands on a pitch black night waiting to ambush an enemy convoy. www.jfklibrary.org/learn/about-jfk/jfk-in-history/john-f-kennedy-and-pt-109
Read the story then, you owe the man an apology.
Get your facts strait twit.
Hoped this was about the early Tribals.
Yup bunking off doing any work for 7mins to watch this :D
I would like to see a review of the USS Anderson DD-411
2:16 - was that the usual way to store depth charges??!
Excellent as ever. I do hope we see more detailed looks at other tribals - I'm sure an examination of the career of Cossack in more depth and the Altmark incident particularly would be welcomed. once again, many thanks.
I love the American practice of naming Destroyers after people, it's a good practice but the British naming system but is pretty fantastic in it's own right. Especially the Tribals. Its something that wouldn't be allowed today by the media and certain people in government. Yet I think the various tribes would be more then happy to have a Destroyer bear their names.
Admiral Tiberius
British ship naming schemes in general are IMO the best of any navy.
@@bkjeong4302 Depends on your preference. I like the American practice of naming Cruisers, Destroyers and Amphibs. Its been a constant for many years now. The British system has it's own merits and its extremely good in its own right. The naming of American Carriers, Submarines and Frigates has gone to crap and its sad.
We name our attack helicopters after Native American tribes. The First Nations love the compliment.
@@admiraltiberius1989 What are the naming practices in the RN if not constant? That's how you get ships with pedigrees spanning centuries.
@@arpitakodagu9854 the US forsaked that for political reasons.
Captain, friendly destroyer spotted!
Where?
Screech....
Well shit ...
Wasn't Vian's Cossack and the rest of her flotilla involved in attacking Bismark during her last full night on the surface. I can recall reading somewhere about repeated torpedo attacks in horrid weather (causing no hits for something like 40 torpedoes fired) in force 3 or worse weather harassing the BB all night long and keeping her spotted for the dawn torpedo attack?
My Grandfather was rescued from Norway by HMS Maori in April 1940.
The navys here!!!
The Altmark incident was in february 1940, not 41, just a small detail.
10/10 Would gun fight again
Whatever happened to the WW1 U, V & W class destroyers that survived to serve in WW2?
Please add the K-class submarines to your list, they look quite interesting.
Ser Garlan Tyrell
They were also terrible, among the worst warships ever built.
@@bkjeong4302 ...exactly, which makes them interesting.
Were the Tribal class the best of the British destroyers? How did they compare with other destroyers?
Undoubtedly the best at the time of their building, pocket-light cruisers in 1936, but not the most advanced destroyer by 1945, still A-grade at that point. HMS Sikh with others, attacked the Bismarck, attacked an Italian battleship, sank two cruisers, sank a U-boat, escorted and screened Malta convoys, Arctic convoys, took part in the ill-fated Operation Agreement, in which also land-based Jewish Commandos and SAS took part in, immortalized by the movies "Tobruk" and "Raid on Rommel"...
Also, if beauty is in the eye of the beholder, then yes Tribal Class was the most beautiful, just as a Type 21 was far more beautiful than a type 22 or 23 or even 26. Stealth vessels now mean angular shapes...
yey tribal class
Be sure to be on the brigde for the noon day gun 👍
Any chance you could cover the various types of German WW2 destroyers?
What happend to the tribal class destroyer st. Laurent that i know existed my uncle sailed on her in the north atlantic squadron. in the canadian navy halifax to portsmouth ???? I have searched for years and found no info it would be nice to know for my family nothern canada
Hi drach is there any evidence a cutlass was used in the boarding action during the altmark incident. All I can think is habits die hard especially in the Royal Navy, it makes me chuckle when I think of a sailor acting like he’s in the 18th century! 💂🏻♀️🇬🇧
Surely its dido as in die doh not Dee doh? My sea cadet training ship was TS Dido, Bolton sea cadets. Other than that minor issue, another excellent episode
My Uncle was killed on HMS Matabele - form which there were only 2 survivors - Many were killed in he water by the ships own depth charges
In WW2, aboard DD540, we were told that if you were in the water,as the ship sank, you were to put your thumb in your anus, to prevent being killed by depth charges exploding.
Wasn't the boarding of Altmark the last time a boarding party (of any nation) used cutlasses in an action?
Are you going to do the Type 81 Tribal class, designed in the 1950s?
What was the naming convention for British destroyers?
Most destroyer classes were ordered in groups of eight, with each 8-ship group sharing an initial letter. You'd see two or three 8-ship groups (e.g. the J-, K-, and N-class) built to each design.
The Tribals are a bit of an exception to the convention, perhaps because they were developed from cruiser designs. A class of cruisers with those names would have made perfect sense alongside the Crown Colony-class cruisers.
Another thing about RN destroyers is that one of the 8 would be constructed as a flotilla leader, containing additional equipment to help coordinate the flotilla and would be named after a famous admiral with a surname that starts with the letter of the class e.g Jervis= J-class, Kelly= K-class, Napier= N-class
Another exception would be the lend-lease "Town" class, the prototypes "Arrow" and "Ambuscade" for the A-I classes and also the only "Battle" class DD to serve in WW2 was HMS Barfleur. Also 4 Weapon class DD were completed for service in WW2.
Our Naval Studies instructor told us that the Tribal class was designed to have four turrets and two funnels to greater impress the natives during port visits around the empire.
They were never used as colonial gun boats. It's an urban legend.
That was Capt. Hamish McLeod at Cranwell. I rather think he new what he was talking about. It was used for "good will" visits.
@@richardcooper9417 Perhaps, that's what the Brits had in mind in 1936 but it's a real stretch. The Canadians and probably the Australians had zero/zip/nada interest in scaring the fuzzy-wuzzies with 4.7 inch guns. (Why not send a cruiser or battle ship?)
@@abrahamdozer6273 These were much cheaper, but did the same job - spreading "goodwill".
@@richardcooper9417 I'm a navy veteran who served in the 1970s. I meet with a group of other Canadian navy vets each week (I'm the "kid"). Three of our members served on Tribals (Iroquois, Haida and Huron). Two of them fought in Korea along with seven other Canadian destroyers (C Class and Tribals). I'm also involved as one of the curators of a little museum devoted to the last one Haida and I will study this further. I expect that if I tell them that Tribals were meant to scare the natives somewhere, they will laugh until the cry but I will ask and get back to you. Likely , they will say that it sounds like a "Kipper" thing (Kipper=Canadian slang for an RN sailor). The Canadians often served with or near the very similar American Fletcher class and I can guarantee 100% that the Fletchers had no design criterion to impress natives. I think that you're re-writing history through the eyes of 2023 wokeness.
Thank you for the Vid mate, Can you cover some more Aussie Ships like the cruisers (Perth) and battleships (Brisbane) please? Keep up the good work :)
Do a video of the Cold War era daring class destroyers please!?
BATTLE CLASS destroyers please
My father served on the Ashanti.
Have you done the WW1 Achaean Class yet?
There was a Battle class after this one but no video on the subject?
where in the british empire did we have cossacks or tartars was i asleep in those history classes (which is possible)
Have you done anything on the UK post war Daring Class Destroyers ?
Excellent video, as always, made even "excellenter" by your referring to the ships properly, as feminine, rather than as neuter. Those Tribal Class cans were truly beautiful ships. I wonder if it'd be possible to do a side by side comparison against our Fletcher, Allen B. Sumner, and/or Gearing classes.
(Human Voice) 😂😂😂
Open bridge in the North Atlantic. Brr.