HMS Captain wasn't a case of people just not having figured out turret ships, it was the case of her designer in particular not knowing what he was doing. The Royal Navy had wanted nothing to do with her and ultimately bowed under public pressure. Also worth mentioning is HMS Monarch, which also mounted turrets, a full sailing rig, and carried her guns a deck higher, and was built at the same time, did not suffer the Captain's stability issues. She also wasn't designed by an amateur with little experience actually building ships.
According to what I've read, another issue with the Vassa was that the king wanted a grand spectacle of a launch and so all of the guns were run out. This meant that the lowest gun ports were open and, when the ship wallowed under sail, water was able to pour in. The Vassa likely would have sunk anyway, but having a bunch of holes in the side to let water in couldn't have helped her any.
It's awesome! Even though I'm geographically required to dislike everything swedish I still think they deserve a tip of the hat for turning their silliest military blunder into a museum
The best part about vasa is that some engenieer did send a letter to the king telling him about the problems, which he responded with ”im the king, do what i say or face the execusioner” only you know, a lot more elegantly
This being so close to the top of comments (just 8 comments down) is so good. We usually have to scroll deeply down in most other Whistler's group videos.
@@Makabert.Abylon true, but there is a interesting conundrum here. Ships like that had more cannons than the army. ONE SHIP. Later, 1single british 1st rate ship-of-the-line had more guns that the total number used by all armies in the battle of Waterloo. It would be like a single US aircraft carrier having more airplanes than US and Russia airforces together
@@carloshenriquezimmer7543 A single U.S. carrier _does_ contain more aircraft than most nations, and the U.S. Navy is the second largest air force in the world, right behind the U.S. Air Force.
I remember the Vasa when it was a blacken, skeletal hull just pulled out of the water. It was being sprayed 24/7 with a chemical liquid for years, so as not to crack apart when later dried.
Sounds like the Mary Rose. She was constantly sprayed with work from the day she was risen in 1982 up until 2017. She's now in a sealed controlled climate.
Just tewatched drachinifiels old video on the Novgorod. 2 ships out of planned 4 is not really a fleet. And the ship was working once they figured out to ignore the rudder and use the engines instead.
The way I recall the Vasa story (I am Swedish) it was not only Swedens first official investigation in a disaster of any kind, it was also actually made fairly well... fairly as well as thorough and basically it ended not in canings, but when it was done what blame was left landed at the feet of the then already dead (by natural causes) master ship builder.
All the more remarkable that the first turret ship USS Monitor was seaworthy despite being such a novel design. Its designer John Ericsson was born in Sweden so perhaps he had ancestral memory of the Vasa.
Describing Monitor as seaworthy flys in the face of history. It was very capable as a river/sheltered harbour craft and not for the open ocean. Coastal transits under tow were at the edge of her capabilities and she was lost during such a journey.
@@johnculver2519 Vasa sank without ever managing to leave the sheltered waters to begin with, in what is currently Stockholm harbour - quite far away from anything resembling open sea. As such, Monitor definitely was more seaworthy than it was.
It wasn’t quite a matter of sinking twenty minutes after going in the water - she was actually floated out in the spring of 1627 and spent over a year at the quayside for fitting-out before setting off on her maiden voyage on the 10th of August 1628. And the King wasn’t there to see it. It wasn’t sunk by Baltic winds, either, nor did it ever leave the harbour; she was sunk by two gusts of wind coming over the heights of Södermalm *right in the middle* of Stockholm - easily within sight of the palace and right between what are now the Beckholmen dockyard and the Viking Line terminal.
A concept sometimes used is the artillery barge. It is towed in place to just support some land operation. Just a river barge sturdy enough for someone to fire a gun on.
One thing I didn't consider with the Wasa was that it was an experimental design. It's hard to consider the square rigger broadside firing wooden floating castle novel but, well, it had to start somewhere.
if you do get to see the Vasa, do it, it was really beautiftul and they replace the missing pieces but keep it a different color so you can see what was actually let. one thing I remember, maybe falsely, when it was being designed,, the designer was a master designer and had the reputation to denie the King's request. but he died during the construction and the son's designer took over. while he was good, his reputation was not as strong and he had to follow the King's order and therefore the extra deck was added.
Gustav Adolphus' uncle, Erik XIV, actually built a longer ship, Mars Makalös (Mars Unmatched). She was sunk in battle with Lübeck in the Baltic, and has been located and explored.
You got a time stamp for that lol. I’ve watched it 4 times now and my ADHD keeps getting the best of me 🤣🤣 Edit…. Just kidding!!!! 13:30 hahhahahah Simon. What is happening?! Love it too though lol! Legend
So... the Novgorod entry seems to be infested with old myths. 1) The guns wouldn't cause the entire ship to spin around. It was the guns themselves that would spin around, because the locks in their turntables were too weak to hold them in place. The guns were located in the center, and did not produce enough explosive force or have the leverage to affect the ship's course. 2) While the ship took nearly an hour to turn using its rudder, it turned out that the ship could turn with frightening speed just using its propellers, enough to cause dizziness in the crew. Once the crew figured out best way to handle her, the Novgorod was actually very agile, and was in no way uncontrollable. 3) The Novgorod was successful enough that a second warship and a royal yatch would also be built as round ships. What actually kept the concept from continuing was that round ships were always going to be both slow and rather difficult to build as large warships (because of their large beam). Popov apparently continued to advocate for larger ocean going round ships, but they just didn't offer enough over traditional designs.
@@GrouchierBear The first time I heard about the round battleship I figured it might work if they had a large round top deck and twin side by side hulls under it, like two Battleship hulls, or a cruiser and two frigates for an outrigger type design, egg shaped maybe even. With the current tech you could make a behemoth of an Air Craft Carrier that way.
Well there was also the issue that the size of the engines needed to move a round ship left no room for the coal bunkers, so the ships has terrible range, which is something of an issue in RUSSIA, even for a river monitor.
Don’t worry about it. Those things are built in modules like Legos and are way overbuilt to handle much of what the sea throws at them. If you’re going around the Caribbean Islands the only thing you might … might have to worry about is going aground but that is so unlikely to happen. Most cruise ships are very safe and have redundant safety systems. They will have a muster drill before you leave port so you know where to go in an emergency. This is required and you will be asked to leave if you don’t participate. The Costa Concordia in Italy was the captain’s carelessness and showing off. The Carnival “poop cruise” was a truly unfortunate anomaly where the passengers and crew were left miserable but alive. Enjoy your cruise. You’ll have a blast. You might even get hooked.
@annenelson5656 Until Internet Historians HILARIOUS video about the Costa Concordia Sinking and how it all stemmed from gross idiotic negligence via the captain I had never knew about any of that incident. Like the fact they not only tried to keep it from the passengers that the ship run aground and was damaged badly taking in water and slowly tilting on its side. But if I remember correctly the Captain and a large portion of the crew all basically bailed on the ship after gaslighting all the passengers and left them all to fend for themselves confused and pissed off as I would be if I was lied too and then watched the captain and crew hitail it off the ship without trying to even evacuate all thier passengers let alone even some of them smfh. I'm not a huge ship guy but I believe "MOST" captains and ship companies still believe in the sentiment of a captain should only leave his post once every single life aboard has been evacuated and put in life boats or rafts. If not that a captain should go down with his ship if necessary. So to lie to your passangers and then only evacuate yourself and crew was one of the most abhorrent disgraceful things any one has ever seen especially in the eyes of other captains...
@@annenelson5656Now I may have gotten some details wrong if not Imternet Historian could been over playing some with the details to lean into comedy but that's what I remember once I looked into the actual incident a little more. And it all happened cause the captain was trying to impress some chick and was too worried about getting laid Inevitably neglecting his focus on and attention along with poor communication between his crew taking his orders. But what a insane f*ck up followed by a DISGRACEFUL cowardice handling of the entire situation after they knew for sure they were screwed. I understand not trying to panick thousands of passengers and cause chaos. But to blatantly tell everyone that it's ok and the ship is fine when being well aware that no actually the ship is severely damaged Sinking and falling over... All because he wanted to make sure him and his close crewmembers got off first instead of trying to evacuate everyone first since ya know he's the CAPTAIN AKA the one in charge and is suppose to initiate protocols and demands. Once he bailed it was utter pandemonium of confusion and fear. I believe he ended up doing some jail time for this later on but it was a long time ago I learned about all this. Just find it crazy it has not gotten more coverage from TH-camrs or Globally considering just how bad the entire scenario was from the reason they grounded. The negligence from the captain. The narcissistic self centered way he went about it after CAUSING THE WHOLE NIGHTMARE all to try and impress some girl. My God. Should be remembered in history as one of the biggest idiotic accidents to ever happen on a boat and the seas. But outside of that one instance I do believe cruise ships have a good reputation for not crashing, Sinking or any other issues outside of the "Titanic" debacle from over 100 years ago. I assume when building essentially a skyscraper amusement park that floats and carries tens of thousands of humans. They over build them because if they don't or if they were cheap or lazy it could easily cost a company BILLIONS but worse off be a tragedy of unspeakable proportions with all the deaths via drowning or being stranded at sea to even becoming shark food smh...
@@Slvl710to be fair all the government does with tax payer money is waste it lmao. Or send it to other countries or give it to people who are not even citizens of said country let alone help build it and pay into the taxes smh. But I understand what your saying lol. It would be Such a EXPENSIVE f*ck up that someone would actually have to be held accountable this time rather than the classic "Were firing the scapegoat but paying him a severance package of 110 million dollars just so he knows he messed up! This will send a message" lmao. Which is what Boeing did a couple years ago after the issues with the 2 huge crashes. And as you can tell every other day clearly the issue at Boeing wasn't only not addressed at all or any major changes came to pass. But instead it seems they doubled down on all the things that causes the while mess as thier planes are falling apart constantly in mid flight. Lives are at stake but all they care about is being cheap and stuffing thier CEO/Board of executives pockets with cash.
I'm glad Simon knows the facts: no one cares about the well made, properly functioning stuff. We want to see horrible ideas that had no right to exist, but somehow did!
And OceanlinerDesigns did two videos on poorly designed warships months ago. Which I feel like they must've seen considering all but one of the ships from this video are also in OceanlinerDesigns' videos...
one quibble about the captain - it was the pressure of the wind on her masts which pushed her over, as her steel masts were of much stronger construction than necessary, and the sails were attached far more firmly than required, so they perfectly acted as a gigantic lever
round boats work great for handling logs in bays and big millponds. they put the motor in a swiveling mount in the middle of the boat, and just turn the motor instead of turning the boat.
This was fantastic. Please record more naval videos. Designing a ship is not an easy task, especially back in the days of stick built ships, but ignoring lessons learned in blood and seawater is never a good idea.
I have not yet watched the video, here are mine 1- HMS Captain - the RN should have known better than to have this monstrosity 2- Espania class (1909) a Dreadnaught barely larger than an armoured cruiser 3- All Cruiser Submarines ever built (Surcouf, M-class, K-Class etc) - most of these vessels crush depth was less than their length, so you dive too steeply and your bow crushes before the aft of vessel decends below the surface...and that is just for starters. 4- CSS HL Hunley - not really a submarine (it sucessfuly submerges but often fails to surface) and more away of killing sailors which it did times in its service but ill credit that it did manage to sink one vessel ( Housatonic) along with itself in one operation! . 5- the three Light Cruisers of the Koln Class (1928) - if your hull is "flexing" in a moderate swell, their is something critically wrong with the design of the ship you are on....wear a life jacket at all times! Honourable mentions The Novgorod class monitor- Ok in a river as a monitor, but never consider putting it to eithe a large lake or sea where the swell can build. Bismarck and Tirpitz - never are two ships so overrated for their displacement mosly due to using an obsolete distributed armour scheme from 1914, rather than a modern armour scheme from the 1930's - The IJN, USN and RN could/did have built a similarly capable vessel for between 5k and 7k tons Displacement as demonstrated by the KGV and North Carolina classes and the best Axis battleships in Europe are the Littorio class of the RM which are far superior in so many ways.
You forgot the HMS Hood and the Yamato Class, not to mention the "Large Light Cruisers" (at least they were converted to functional aircraft carriers).
@@gregwasserman2635 well Greg in my opinion Hood is ok for 1919 when built, but without a huge overhaul in the 1930's it becomes less a than "ideal", but it is nothing that could not have been fixed if the RN had given it a refit, instead of HMS Royal Oak which even refitted was less useful by 1939 than HMS Queen Elizabeth or Warspite Yamato there is nothing badly wrong with (well there is the useless 25mm AA), other than Japan makes a mistake in keeping them a massive secret - they are to be deterrent to war with the US and UK if they don't know that they exist. As for Fishers follies, you are correct they made much better A/c and the now spare 15" turrets from Glorious and Courageous in storage go onto HMS Vanguard and Furious 18" are used on Monitors.
@@steveclarke6257, the HMS Hood had one battle where the enemy was firing back...and it blew up. The 4 other R class battleships survived until the end of WW 2. As for the Yamato class, they were wonderful targets. They had terrible AA guns and their main battery had a poor rate of fire compared to contemporary US battleships. Funny you bring up the Vanguard. It makes my dishonorable mention list. Decent design with dated main battery.
@@gregwasserman2635 HMS Hood was an excellent ship when she was commissions but 20+ years of technological innovation rendered her less capable though a rebuild would have cured that. Yamato was a very powerful Battleship which was swarmed by a massive air assault no ship could have survived, except a submarine which had dived. But let's not forger KM Bismarck. Totally unable to shoot down any of the small number obsolescent Swordfish which attacked her and crippled the ship. And when faced with much lighter Battleships which were not (a: well overdue for refit and b: so new they still had workmen on board) was rendered useless as a fighting unit within minutes. What a hunk of over praised junk. As for Tirpitz, the only time she fired her guns was a brave bombarding of a defenseless weather station. How bravely done in the style of Baby killer Hipper. And lets not forget those German WW2 destroyers which were so unstable they had to retain up to 1/3 of their fuel as ballast
@@johnfisher9692, interstingly, the Bismarck had no trouble destroying the Hood. It was a poor design and the RN should have not completed it. RN battlecruisers proved to be very fragile. The Yamato class was of very little use. It was a fuel hog and not all that fast. The USN fast battleships were far more useful. The Iowa class, I was told while on a tour of the USS Missouri, could turn inside a Fletcher class destroyer. They could also keep up with the carrier task forces in WW 2 with ease. Though completed late in the war, they saw a lot of action complared to the Yamato class, both ships spending most of their short careers in port. I'm sure their main guns would have been useful in the Solomons, but they burned way too much fuel.
Thank you for finally bringing up this type of ship now you can also state that you solve the Baltic Sea anomaly which is one of these ships from the early 1900s and it sank and it's overturned
Vasa syndrome is a term used in both management and marketing circles referring to problems in communication and management affecting projects sometimes causing them to fail, its basis lies with the warship Vasa.
Regarding the Novgorod and the Russian circular ironclads: The bit about them spinning around like teacup rides every time their guns were fired is actually a myth. In reality their broad flat hulls made them extremely stable gun platforms. If anything, the opposite was kind of true; the hull was so broad that it shielded the rudder from water flowing across it, meaning that even when hard over the ship hardly turned at all; it could take over an hour to make a full 360 degree turn; in the end the solution turned out to be to ignore the rudder completely and instead to run the engines on each side in opposite directions, much like how a tank steers, which gave the ships remarkably good maneuverability; while having half the engines at full ahead and the other half at full reverse could reportedly make the crew dizzy, with practice they could be turned practically on a dime, albeit at the cost of losing speed, which they didn't have much of to begin with. The myth of them spinning like a top comes from the way the guns were mounted, each of her two 11-inch main guns being sat on their own turntables so they could each be aimed independently. As built, the locking mechanisms on these turntables were too weak and tended to break whenever the guns fired, the recoil sending them spinning wildly while the ship itself steamed resolutely ahead, happily ignoring all attempts to make her turn.
As for the Vasa, she was designed by a Dutchman. And during construction the king ordered a lot of changes, as you said. When the fingerpointing began, the blame fell on the Dutch designer, who had died before completion of the ship, and thus, on account of beiing both dead and a foreigner, was assigned all the blame. If you visit the museum and happen to be Dutch, expect a lot of jibes in you're direction. The Swedes like to point out it was a Dutch design while conveniantly forgetting the Swedish changes. PS, if you want to see another impressive ship, visit the Yamato museum in Kure, they have a 1/10 model of said ship and it is truly wonderful.
The construction of Vasa was like modern movie-making -You begin with something you think is going to be amazing but then the producers demand rewrites and reshoots until it premieres as something that sinks like a rock at the box office.
Kublai Khan's ships should also be included. They were hastily made very badly put vessals that capsized in a simple storm. But they took major part of Mongol Army invading Japan. Changing history forever. Mongol kingdom never recovered after that and also left question what if Mongols had conquered Japan?
I'm surprised you didn't add the Kronan as a runner-up to the Vasa. 50 years after the Vasa, Sweden basically did the same thing, but as a *triple-decker*. The Kronan at least managed to get into battle before falling over and sinking.
Something to do with the smooth water resistance. The term smooth-water resistance refers to all relevant resistance components that occur during the undisturbed straight course of a ship. These include wave resistance, friction resistance, towing resistance and wind resistance due to self-driving wind. Under real conditions, further resistance components are added in the sea. And especially the friction resistance would be very high with a round design of the fuselage. The pointed fuselage already has a much lower friction resistance. And the lowest resistance is achieved with the bulb bow and pointed trunk.
oh Simon, you might want to have the researcher look into the history of Coracles in the UK area, after all, they were "round boats / ships" used around the time Stonehenge was built. and there is currently a fishing boat available in Florida called roundboat that is based on the old coracle design.
The really funny thing about the first entry is that the Swedes did this TWICE. In 1670 they built the Kronan (Crown) as their Flagship. Another top heavy beast with three decks worth of cannons. Almost the same story happened here then, in her first Battle she did a turn under full sail, listed to one side too much, took on water through the cannonports and down she went. Here's a Song about it: th-cam.com/video/G8zG-I4iF8A/w-d-xo.html
The Kamchatka… so idiotic that it couldn’t tell the difference between fishing trawlers and Japanese Torpedo Boats… or The open sea and Japanese Torpedo Boats… or the Russian Imperial Cruiser “Aurora” and Japanese Torpedo Boats.
Believe it or not, the circular warship thing was actually fairly effective, it just wasn’t as useful as anticipated and wasn’t able to be used on larger ships bigger than a monitor.
Here's a grand idea! Let's put thick glass ...hell double paned thick glass all over a structure that moves and flexes constantly because it's a boat on the ocean. Make sure to use as much glass as possible because it also makes great shrapnel when used on a warship designed to be shot at. They obviously had the wrong side designing their boats during war. Like they wanted as many of their own sailors taken out as possible
Understanding physics, the moment I saw the second ship,I just burst out laughing and couldn't stop laughing every time I saw the ship. It is literally a sailing joke to anyone with knowledge of fluid dynamics!
Next time one of my home projects doesn't meet expectations I'm going to comfort myself with the knowledge that military projects with huge budgets and teams of experts have fucked up on a scale that I could never hope to equal.
The real issue with steam power in the era of Warrior, Black Prince, Captain and Monarch was not the reliability of steam engines but rather efficiency and range. The engines and boilers of that time were too inefficient to be the sole means of propulsion and would have needed vastly greater coal bunkers than were practicable on a vessel required to undertake weeks long patrols. It was not until the development of compound (multiple expansion) engines and higher boiler pressures (>100 psi) that a pure steamship would have sufficient endurance. ad even then it required the prior establishment of harbours and coaling stations worldwide (hence the strategic importance of places such as The Falkland Islands).
Regarding the Vasa: It was designed by a Dutch shipwright. If you as a Dutch shipwright can't find work in the united provinces in the 17th century; you're probably not a very good shipwright.
The cost of the Vasa for the current US Navy would be $1,271,985,000,000 ($1.27 trillion dollars). That would be one single ship costing more than the economies of the bottom 115 countries combined.
Being German and having had quite a few of Family Relatives who served on both WWI and WWII Warships and having been blessed inheriting all their Photo-Albums, Diaries etc. I 100% agree with the Video. It's pretty funny if you think about how horrible the Soldier Life was on Warships back in History compared to nowadays, yet nobody complained and took it as it is. My or well, all of our Generations reading this Comment would be unable to work on those old Warships Prost & Cheers from Berchtesgaden in the Bavarian Alps
I mean there have been some round tugs that have kinda been made I believe. They have multiple engines based around the outer for steering. Also there is the good old hovercraft that is also round. Maybe its just a too early for its own good.
Nah. No amount of ballast would have kept the Vasa upright. You can go see the ship in Stockholm - the part underwater is like 1/5 of her entire height sans the mast. Add to that all the gilded carved decorations the king felt necessary to have, and the cannons and cannonballs, Vasa never stood a chance. Also, when the Swedish state finally decided to lift the wreck up, some Finnish students snuck in the night before and installed a statue of Paavo Nurmi on the foredeck...
These five warships were covered by "your friend Mike Brady of Oceanliner Designs" in, I think, the same exact order. He has two videos covering terrible warship designs, made nine and ten months ago.
i come to watch about the round circle ship, me and the wife are now thinking of a trip to Stockholm to see the other ship as recommended, a rather expensive video but entertaining lol
Corricles are a circular relatively shallow tea dish shaped boat I’ve heard about from some TH-cam videos I saw ages ago and don’t remember much about so don’t trust any of the details I remember as fact and I don’t know if I spelled it correctly either so if you’re interested in the subject of round boats then hopefully I got the spelling close enough that you can get better information off the internet with this as a starting point. I think it’s mostly a sort of boat that is used in marshy areas and poled or paddled by one person who uses a sort of figure eight motion with the paddle to both steer and propel the boat in whatever direction they want to go in because there’s no front or back on the boat, I don’t remember exactly but I think they might have mentioned something about checking fish and eel traps as something you might do in such a boat and being so small and shallow is useful in marshlands but you wouldn’t be able to shift position in the boat very easily so being able to go around in a circle without changing positions would be beneficial in that environment.
HMS Captain wasn't a case of people just not having figured out turret ships, it was the case of her designer in particular not knowing what he was doing. The Royal Navy had wanted nothing to do with her and ultimately bowed under public pressure. Also worth mentioning is HMS Monarch, which also mounted turrets, a full sailing rig, and carried her guns a deck higher, and was built at the same time, did not suffer the Captain's stability issues. She also wasn't designed by an amateur with little experience actually building ships.
According to what I've read, another issue with the Vassa was that the king wanted a grand spectacle of a launch and so all of the guns were run out. This meant that the lowest gun ports were open and, when the ship wallowed under sail, water was able to pour in. The Vassa likely would have sunk anyway, but having a bunch of holes in the side to let water in couldn't have helped her any.
Had to laugh a bit when TH-cam found it appropriate to insert an advertisment for a cruise line in the middle of this listing of ‘Idiotic' ships.
i got one too 😅
TH-cam has been inserting double ads lately. Really pissing me off
aaaaaadddddbloooooooooooocccckkkk!
TH-cam has ads? I haven't seen an ad in over 20 years now, had no clue youtube had ads now.
Ironic
I've been to the Vasa museum and cannot recommend it enough. One of the most impressive museum exhibits I've ever seen.
It's awesome! Even though I'm geographically required to dislike everything swedish I still think they deserve a tip of the hat for turning their silliest military blunder into a museum
@@Karl_Marksman It feels like the best thing to do given the circumstances. :)
I was waiting for him to say "This Video is Sponsored by World of Warships!"
Same here
I'm already 5 years deep. No codes would help anyways 😂😂😂
😂
the first ad i got was for a cruise 😂
WoW's CEO is eating his hat at this video and yelling at this PR team for not managing to bend this man's will to take on a sponsorship.
The best part about vasa is that some engenieer did send a letter to the king telling him about the problems, which he responded with ”im the king, do what i say or face the execusioner” only you know, a lot more elegantly
0:40 - Chapter 1 - Vasa
4:35 - Chapter 2 - Novgorod
7:40 - Chapter 3 - Hoche
10:25 - Chapter 4 - HMS captain
13:35 - Chapter 5 - Tomozuru
This being so close to the top of comments (just 8 comments down) is so good.
We usually have to scroll deeply down in most other Whistler's group videos.
If you are in Stockholm, a visit to Vasa is a must. Should be at the top of the list!
Agree. Been to it and it's a marvel to see in person.
Sounds good, I've been to Stockholm many times, however he did just say that you should visit the museum. Right at the start of the video 🙄
Never miss a chance to visit the top heavy swedish girl.
100%, it's a hell of a museum 🚢
The Vasa gave her life for tourism.
5% of GDP in a single ship. Crazy. It would be 1.4 trillion $ today for the US, 2 times the entire US defense budget... for a single ship. DAMNNNNNNN
And i thought the price for war machines today was ridiculous
monarchies use money differently
@@Makabert.Abylon true, but there is a interesting conundrum here. Ships like that had more cannons than the army. ONE SHIP.
Later, 1single british 1st rate ship-of-the-line had more guns that the total number used by all armies in the battle of Waterloo.
It would be like a single US aircraft carrier having more airplanes than US and Russia airforces together
@@carloshenriquezimmer7543 A single U.S. carrier _does_ contain more aircraft than most nations, and the U.S. Navy is the second largest air force in the world, right behind the U.S. Air Force.
@@THE-X-Force The US army, if you count helicopters, is not too far down the list either.
I remember the Vasa when it was a blacken, skeletal hull just pulled out of the water. It was being sprayed 24/7 with a chemical liquid for years, so as not to crack apart when later dried.
Sounds like the Mary Rose. She was constantly sprayed with work from the day she was risen in 1982 up until 2017. She's now in a sealed controlled climate.
13:35 Either Simon records from rooms in his home, or he's quite comfortable running around in what appear to be dino-socks in the office. Love it!
One of the b&w shots (at about 8:40) of the Hoche looks a lot like Jabba the Hut’s barge from Star Wars E6!
" The disaster they were nailing together"
Haha i love it !
I've been to the Vasa Museum. I agree, it's definitely worth the visit.
Just tewatched drachinifiels old video on the Novgorod.
2 ships out of planned 4 is not really a fleet.
And the ship was working once they figured out to ignore the rudder and use the engines instead.
The way I recall the Vasa story (I am Swedish) it was not only Swedens first official investigation in a disaster of any kind, it was also actually made fairly well... fairly as well as thorough and basically it ended not in canings, but when it was done what blame was left landed at the feet of the then already dead (by natural causes) master ship builder.
Round boats do work: the kuphar was used for thousands of years. You just don't clad them in stele and load guns on them :)
Coracles are still made and sailed. You're a few thousand tons away from the same set of hydrodynamic principals being relevant.
All the more remarkable that the first turret ship USS Monitor was seaworthy despite being such a novel design. Its designer John Ericsson was born in Sweden so perhaps he had ancestral memory of the Vasa.
Describing Monitor as seaworthy flys in the face of history. It was very capable as a river/sheltered harbour craft and not for the open ocean. Coastal transits under tow were at the edge of her capabilities and she was lost during such a journey.
I think the CSA hunley is awesome as well. The first submarine to “successfully” sink another ship lol
Actually the monitor was anything but seaworthy she sunk in open ocean.
There was a class of monitor that someone misplaced a decimal when they worked out the weight and it went right to the bottom on launch
@@johnculver2519 Vasa sank without ever managing to leave the sheltered waters to begin with, in what is currently Stockholm harbour - quite far away from anything resembling open sea. As such, Monitor definitely was more seaworthy than it was.
It wasn’t quite a matter of sinking twenty minutes after going in the water - she was actually floated out in the spring of 1627 and spent over a year at the quayside for fitting-out before setting off on her maiden voyage on the 10th of August 1628. And the King wasn’t there to see it.
It wasn’t sunk by Baltic winds, either, nor did it ever leave the harbour; she was sunk by two gusts of wind coming over the heights of Södermalm *right in the middle* of Stockholm - easily within sight of the palace and right between what are now the Beckholmen dockyard and the Viking Line terminal.
Sadly Simon getting details wrong isn't exactly a new thing...
A concept sometimes used is the artillery barge. It is towed in place to just support some land operation. Just a river barge sturdy enough for someone to fire a gun on.
One thing I didn't consider with the Wasa was that it was an experimental design. It's hard to consider the square rigger broadside firing wooden floating castle novel but, well, it had to start somewhere.
8:05 warships shouldn't have grand architecture, you say?
*stares in Imperium of Man*
*cathedral with guns intensifies*
The US Navy builds Littoral Combat Ships and laughs hilariously.
if you do get to see the Vasa, do it, it was really beautiftul and they replace the missing pieces but keep it a different color so you can see what was actually let. one thing I remember, maybe falsely, when it was being designed,, the designer was a master designer and had the reputation to denie the King's request. but he died during the construction and the son's designer took over. while he was good, his reputation was not as strong and he had to follow the King's order and therefore the extra deck was added.
The people who built the Vasa were most definitely laughing about how the ship was gonna sink while they were building it
I have seen Vasa close-up, and that ship is really big. Absolutely worth a visit.
For what it's worth, this fan happens to love any video about ships of any kind
Designed purely to give the enemy a laugh and a morale booster! 😄
4:00 So the Vasa ultimately WAS victorious, outliving all her contemporaries ...
Gustav Adolphus' uncle, Erik XIV, actually built a longer ship, Mars Makalös (Mars Unmatched). She was sunk in battle with Lübeck in the Baltic, and has been located and explored.
Nice blazer, slacks, AND JUST SOCKS lmao.
I LOVE IT!!
has anyone else noticed this blazer has holes in the elbows?
i saw the yellow socks too lmao
You got a time stamp for that lol. I’ve watched it 4 times now and my ADHD keeps getting the best of me 🤣🤣
Edit…. Just kidding!!!! 13:30 hahhahahah Simon. What is happening?! Love it too though lol! Legend
@@042509am Thank god for your ADHD. I really didn't want to go look for it lmao
As an Asian, what’s so notable about not wearing shoes indoors 🤷♂️
14:23 love the socks! :D
Military ships not only have to face the enemy vessels and targets it also have to fight the sea itself. A lesson hard learned by modern shipbuilders.
Great script George .
Love the socks Simon 😂😂❤
How many of the ships were cribbed from Drachinefel's videos?
So... the Novgorod entry seems to be infested with old myths.
1) The guns wouldn't cause the entire ship to spin around. It was the guns themselves that would spin around, because the locks in their turntables were too weak to hold them in place. The guns were located in the center, and did not produce enough explosive force or have the leverage to affect the ship's course.
2) While the ship took nearly an hour to turn using its rudder, it turned out that the ship could turn with frightening speed just using its propellers, enough to cause dizziness in the crew. Once the crew figured out best way to handle her, the Novgorod was actually very agile, and was in no way uncontrollable.
3) The Novgorod was successful enough that a second warship and a royal yatch would also be built as round ships. What actually kept the concept from continuing was that round ships were always going to be both slow and rather difficult to build as large warships (because of their large beam). Popov apparently continued to advocate for larger ocean going round ships, but they just didn't offer enough over traditional designs.
Ok there comrade.
@@kahnadah In my forty four years, I don't think anybody's every accused me of being a vatnik before. New milestone.
@@GrouchierBear The first time I heard about the round battleship I figured it might work if they had a large round top deck and twin side by side hulls under it, like two Battleship hulls, or a cruiser and two frigates for an outrigger type design, egg shaped maybe even.
With the current tech you could make a behemoth of an Air Craft Carrier that way.
Well there was also the issue that the size of the engines needed to move a round ship left no room for the coal bunkers, so the ships has terrible range, which is something of an issue in RUSSIA, even for a river monitor.
@@Karagianis Makes sense. A ship with that hull profile probably needed a lot of machinery to get up to a useful speed.
The vasa museum is Totaly Great! Everyone must go There! When In Stockholm
Saw the Vasa and it is more impressive and interesting than described here. The museum is a must see.
I'm going on a cruise and now wonder about the top heavy, stability concerns of a 16 deck "paradise" cruise ship!
Don’t worry about it. Those things are built in modules like Legos and are way overbuilt to handle much of what the sea throws at them.
If you’re going around the Caribbean Islands the only thing you might … might have to worry about is going aground but that is so unlikely to happen.
Most cruise ships are very safe and have redundant safety systems. They will have a muster drill before you leave port so you know where to go in an emergency. This is required and you will be asked to leave if you don’t participate.
The Costa Concordia in Italy was the captain’s carelessness and showing off. The Carnival “poop cruise” was a truly unfortunate anomaly where the passengers and crew were left miserable but alive.
Enjoy your cruise. You’ll have a blast. You might even get hooked.
it costs too much to make a bad cruise ship, they dont have government money to waste
@annenelson5656 Until Internet Historians HILARIOUS video about the Costa Concordia Sinking and how it all stemmed from gross idiotic negligence via the captain I had never knew about any of that incident.
Like the fact they not only tried to keep it from the passengers that the ship run aground and was damaged badly taking in water and slowly tilting on its side. But if I remember correctly the Captain and a large portion of the crew all basically bailed on the ship after gaslighting all the passengers and left them all to fend for themselves confused and pissed off as I would be if I was lied too and then watched the captain and crew hitail it off the ship without trying to even evacuate all thier passengers let alone even some of them smfh. I'm not a huge ship guy but I believe "MOST" captains and ship companies still believe in the sentiment of a captain should only leave his post once every single life aboard has been evacuated and put in life boats or rafts. If not that a captain should go down with his ship if necessary. So to lie to your passangers and then only evacuate yourself and crew was one of the most abhorrent disgraceful things any one has ever seen especially in the eyes of other captains...
@@annenelson5656Now I may have gotten some details wrong if not Imternet Historian could been over playing some with the details to lean into comedy but that's what I remember once I looked into the actual incident a little more.
And it all happened cause the captain was trying to impress some chick and was too worried about getting laid Inevitably neglecting his focus on and attention along with poor communication between his crew taking his orders. But what a insane f*ck up followed by a DISGRACEFUL cowardice handling of the entire situation after they knew for sure they were screwed. I understand not trying to panick thousands of passengers and cause chaos. But to blatantly tell everyone that it's ok and the ship is fine when being well aware that no actually the ship is severely damaged Sinking and falling over...
All because he wanted to make sure him and his close crewmembers got off first instead of trying to evacuate everyone first since ya know he's the CAPTAIN AKA the one in charge and is suppose to initiate protocols and demands. Once he bailed it was utter pandemonium of confusion and fear. I believe he ended up doing some jail time for this later on but it was a long time ago I learned about all this. Just find it crazy it has not gotten more coverage from TH-camrs or Globally considering just how bad the entire scenario was from the reason they grounded. The negligence from the captain. The narcissistic self centered way he went about it after CAUSING THE WHOLE NIGHTMARE all to try and impress some girl. My God. Should be remembered in history as one of the biggest idiotic accidents to ever happen on a boat and the seas.
But outside of that one instance I do believe cruise ships have a good reputation for not crashing, Sinking or any other issues outside of the "Titanic" debacle from over 100 years ago. I assume when building essentially a skyscraper amusement park that floats and carries tens of thousands of humans. They over build them because if they don't or if they were cheap or lazy it could easily cost a company BILLIONS but worse off be a tragedy of unspeakable proportions with all the deaths via drowning or being stranded at sea to even becoming shark food smh...
@@Slvl710to be fair all the government does with tax payer money is waste it lmao. Or send it to other countries or give it to people who are not even citizens of said country let alone help build it and pay into the taxes smh.
But I understand what your saying lol. It would be Such a EXPENSIVE f*ck up that someone would actually have to be held accountable this time rather than the classic "Were firing the scapegoat but paying him a severance package of 110 million dollars just so he knows he messed up! This will send a message" lmao.
Which is what Boeing did a couple years ago after the issues with the 2 huge crashes. And as you can tell every other day clearly the issue at Boeing wasn't only not addressed at all or any major changes came to pass. But instead it seems they doubled down on all the things that causes the while mess as thier planes are falling apart constantly in mid flight. Lives are at stake but all they care about is being cheap and stuffing thier CEO/Board of executives pockets with cash.
The moral of all of these stories: don’t make your ships too top-heavy.
I'm glad Simon knows the facts: no one cares about the well made, properly functioning stuff. We want to see horrible ideas that had no right to exist, but somehow did!
Wish this video could include some unrealized cocnepts as well, was hoping to see Simons take on the picrete warship concept.
Drachinifel did a ~15 video on the Russian Circular Warships 5 years ago.
And OceanlinerDesigns did two videos on poorly designed warships months ago. Which I feel like they must've seen considering all but one of the ships from this video are also in OceanlinerDesigns' videos...
one quibble about the captain - it was the pressure of the wind on her masts which pushed her over, as her steel masts were of much stronger construction than necessary, and the sails were attached far more firmly than required, so they perfectly acted as a gigantic lever
round boats work great for handling logs in bays and big millponds. they put the motor in a swiveling mount in the middle of the boat, and just turn the motor instead of turning the boat.
I went to "Settings" and set the playback speed to 0.75, and now Simon's witty monologue is much easier and more enjoyable to follow.
This was fantastic. Please record more naval videos. Designing a ship is not an easy task, especially back in the days of stick built ships, but ignoring lessons learned in blood and seawater is never a good idea.
“Hot steaming turd!” Now that’s funny as hell
I have not yet watched the video, here are mine
1- HMS Captain - the RN should have known better than to have this monstrosity
2- Espania class (1909) a Dreadnaught barely larger than an armoured cruiser
3- All Cruiser Submarines ever built (Surcouf, M-class, K-Class etc) - most of these vessels crush depth was less than their length, so you dive too steeply and your bow crushes before the aft of vessel decends below the surface...and that is just for starters.
4- CSS HL Hunley - not really a submarine (it sucessfuly submerges but often fails to surface) and more away of killing sailors which it did times in its service but ill credit that it did manage to sink one vessel ( Housatonic) along with itself in one operation! .
5- the three Light Cruisers of the Koln Class (1928) - if your hull is "flexing" in a moderate swell, their is something critically wrong with the design of the ship you are on....wear a life jacket at all times!
Honourable mentions
The Novgorod class monitor- Ok in a river as a monitor, but never consider putting it to eithe a large lake or sea where the swell can build.
Bismarck and Tirpitz - never are two ships so overrated for their displacement mosly due to using an obsolete distributed armour scheme from 1914, rather than a modern armour scheme from the 1930's - The IJN, USN and RN could/did have built a similarly capable vessel for between 5k and 7k tons Displacement as demonstrated by the KGV and North Carolina classes and the best Axis battleships in Europe are the Littorio class of the RM which are far superior in so many ways.
You forgot the HMS Hood and the Yamato Class, not to mention the "Large Light Cruisers" (at least they were converted to functional aircraft carriers).
@@gregwasserman2635 well Greg in my opinion Hood is ok for 1919 when built, but without a huge overhaul in the 1930's it becomes less a than "ideal", but it is nothing that could not have been fixed if the RN had given it a refit, instead of HMS Royal Oak which even refitted was less useful by 1939 than HMS Queen Elizabeth or Warspite
Yamato there is nothing badly wrong with (well there is the useless 25mm AA), other than Japan makes a mistake in keeping them a massive secret - they are to be deterrent to war with the US and UK if they don't know that they exist.
As for Fishers follies, you are correct they made much better A/c and the now spare 15" turrets from Glorious and Courageous in storage go onto HMS Vanguard and Furious 18" are used on Monitors.
@@steveclarke6257, the HMS Hood had one battle where the enemy was firing back...and it blew up. The 4 other R class battleships survived until the end of WW 2. As for the Yamato class, they were wonderful targets. They had terrible AA guns and their main battery had a poor rate of fire compared to contemporary US battleships. Funny you bring up the Vanguard. It makes my dishonorable mention list. Decent design with dated main battery.
@@gregwasserman2635 HMS Hood was an excellent ship when she was commissions but 20+ years of technological innovation rendered her less capable though a rebuild would have cured that.
Yamato was a very powerful Battleship which was swarmed by a massive air assault no ship could have survived, except a submarine which had dived.
But let's not forger KM Bismarck. Totally unable to shoot down any of the small number obsolescent Swordfish which attacked her and crippled the ship.
And when faced with much lighter Battleships which were not (a: well overdue for refit and b: so new they still had workmen on board) was rendered useless as a fighting unit within minutes. What a hunk of over praised junk.
As for Tirpitz, the only time she fired her guns was a brave bombarding of a defenseless weather station. How bravely done in the style of Baby killer Hipper.
And lets not forget those German WW2 destroyers which were so unstable they had to retain up to 1/3 of their fuel as ballast
@@johnfisher9692, interstingly, the Bismarck had no trouble destroying the Hood. It was a poor design and the RN should have not completed it. RN battlecruisers proved to be very fragile. The Yamato class was of very little use. It was a fuel hog and not all that fast. The USN fast battleships were far more useful. The Iowa class, I was told while on a tour of the USS Missouri, could turn inside a Fletcher class destroyer. They could also keep up with the carrier task forces in WW 2 with ease. Though completed late in the war, they saw a lot of action complared to the Yamato class, both ships spending most of their short careers in port. I'm sure their main guns would have been useful in the Solomons, but they burned way too much fuel.
Thank you for finally bringing up this type of ship now you can also state that you solve the Baltic Sea anomaly which is one of these ships from the early 1900s and it sank and it's overturned
I've seen the Vasa in her museum. Well worth visiting when in Stockholm.
Apparently Joe Jackson was not the only one shoeless
Vasa syndrome is a term used in both management and marketing circles referring to problems in communication and management affecting projects sometimes causing them to fail, its basis lies with the warship Vasa.
Actually it's the other way around. Common misconception
I'd still rather be on most of these ships than the Kamchatka 😅
Do you see torpedo boats?
Regarding the Novgorod and the Russian circular ironclads: The bit about them spinning around like teacup rides every time their guns were fired is actually a myth. In reality their broad flat hulls made them extremely stable gun platforms. If anything, the opposite was kind of true; the hull was so broad that it shielded the rudder from water flowing across it, meaning that even when hard over the ship hardly turned at all; it could take over an hour to make a full 360 degree turn; in the end the solution turned out to be to ignore the rudder completely and instead to run the engines on each side in opposite directions, much like how a tank steers, which gave the ships remarkably good maneuverability; while having half the engines at full ahead and the other half at full reverse could reportedly make the crew dizzy, with practice they could be turned practically on a dime, albeit at the cost of losing speed, which they didn't have much of to begin with. The myth of them spinning like a top comes from the way the guns were mounted, each of her two 11-inch main guns being sat on their own turntables so they could each be aimed independently. As built, the locking mechanisms on these turntables were too weak and tended to break whenever the guns fired, the recoil sending them spinning wildly while the ship itself steamed resolutely ahead, happily ignoring all attempts to make her turn.
“….as she was basically a skimming stone with some whopping big cannons bolted on.”
LMFAO 🤣
“Imagine a teacup ride powered by 82 pounds of gunpowder…”
I need somebody to make this happen 😂
Novgorod is basically the bumper boat from hell.
14:23 Simon's toddler socks totally drawing my attention away from the ships. 😂
As for the Vasa, she was designed by a Dutchman. And during construction the king ordered a lot of changes, as you said. When the fingerpointing began, the blame fell on the Dutch designer, who had died before completion of the ship, and thus, on account of beiing both dead and a foreigner, was assigned all the blame. If you visit the museum and happen to be Dutch, expect a lot of jibes in you're direction. The Swedes like to point out it was a Dutch design while conveniantly forgetting the Swedish changes. PS, if you want to see another impressive ship, visit the Yamato museum in Kure, they have a 1/10 model of said ship and it is truly wonderful.
The construction of Vasa was like modern movie-making -You begin with something you think is going to be amazing but then the producers demand rewrites and reshoots until it premieres as something that sinks like a rock at the box office.
"We've seen the analytics. We know what you're all about. You like the sh*t ones."
YEAH THATS WHY I SUBSCRIBED TO BUSINESS BLAZE
Kublai Khan's ships should also be included. They were hastily made very badly put vessals that capsized in a simple storm. But they took major part of Mongol Army invading Japan.
Changing history forever.
Mongol kingdom never recovered after that and also left question what if Mongols had conquered Japan?
I'm surprised you didn't add the Kronan as a runner-up to the Vasa. 50 years after the Vasa, Sweden basically did the same thing, but as a *triple-decker*. The Kronan at least managed to get into battle before falling over and sinking.
As soon as you mentioned Gustavus, I immediatly heard Sabaton singing in my head lol
got to love the honesty of fact boi.
Hearing Simon say "be reet" has made my day 😂
Something to do with the smooth water resistance. The term smooth-water resistance refers to all relevant resistance components that occur during the undisturbed straight course of a ship. These include wave resistance, friction resistance, towing resistance and wind resistance due to self-driving wind. Under real conditions, further resistance components are added in the sea. And especially the friction resistance would be very high with a round design of the fuselage. The pointed fuselage already has a much lower friction resistance. And the lowest resistance is achieved with the bulb bow and pointed trunk.
oh Simon, you might want to have the researcher look into the history of Coracles in the UK area, after all, they were "round boats / ships" used around the time Stonehenge was built.
and there is currently a fishing boat available in Florida called roundboat that is based on the old coracle design.
Thank you, that was fun and interesting at the same time.
Great video as always Simon!
Thanks broccoli macaroni! Love my fans
The really funny thing about the first entry is that the Swedes did this TWICE. In 1670 they built the Kronan (Crown) as their Flagship. Another top heavy beast with three decks worth of cannons. Almost the same story happened here then, in her first Battle she did a turn under full sail, listed to one side too much, took on water through the cannonports and down she went.
Here's a Song about it: th-cam.com/video/G8zG-I4iF8A/w-d-xo.html
The Kamchatka… so idiotic that it couldn’t tell the difference between fishing trawlers and Japanese Torpedo Boats… or The open sea and Japanese Torpedo Boats… or the Russian Imperial Cruiser “Aurora” and Japanese Torpedo Boats.
The Novgorod: my favorite! 😀 That, and HMS Captain.
The Vasa museum is incredible!
Vasa sinking is important as it prompted the creation of oversight for military acquisitions that is still around today.
I always enjoy a video featuring a lot of top-heavy ladies, thank you.
Believe it or not, the circular warship thing was actually fairly effective, it just wasn’t as useful as anticipated and wasn’t able to be used on larger ships bigger than a monitor.
Simon do a story on the 4 Gerald R Ford aircraft carriers each individually . Id love to hear about that.
Here's a grand idea! Let's put thick glass
...hell double paned thick glass all over a structure that moves and flexes constantly because it's a boat on the ocean. Make sure to use as much glass as possible because it also makes great shrapnel when used on a warship designed to be shot at. They obviously had the wrong side designing their boats during war. Like they wanted as many of their own sailors taken out as possible
the "shiny hat" term is pretty much perfect given how many different hats the current swedish king has been photographed wearing
Vasa was the first, and we get a lot of flack for. That didn't stop others to do the same thing. We learned from our mistakes...
Get to the real question:
Do you see torpedo boats?
Satie playing during the French ship segment.
Why arent the 2 LCS classes (Freedom and Independence) of the US Navy on this list?
Understanding physics, the moment I saw the second ship,I just burst out laughing and couldn't stop laughing every time I saw the ship. It is literally a sailing joke to anyone with knowledge of fluid dynamics!
Next time one of my home projects doesn't meet expectations I'm going to comfort myself with the knowledge that military projects with huge budgets and teams of experts have fucked up on a scale that I could never hope to equal.
The real issue with steam power in the era of Warrior, Black Prince, Captain and Monarch was not the reliability of steam engines but rather efficiency and range. The engines and boilers of that time were too inefficient to be the sole means of propulsion and would have needed vastly greater coal bunkers than were practicable on a vessel required to undertake weeks long patrols. It was not until the development of compound (multiple expansion) engines and higher boiler pressures (>100 psi) that a pure steamship would have sufficient endurance. ad even then it required the prior establishment of harbours and coaling stations worldwide (hence the strategic importance of places such as The Falkland Islands).
Regarding the Vasa: It was designed by a Dutch shipwright.
If you as a Dutch shipwright can't find work in the united provinces in the 17th century; you're probably not a very good shipwright.
The cost of the Vasa for the current US Navy would be $1,271,985,000,000 ($1.27 trillion dollars).
That would be one single ship costing more than the economies of the bottom 115 countries combined.
This made me smile!
Being German and having had quite a few of Family Relatives who served on both WWI and WWII Warships and having been blessed inheriting all their Photo-Albums, Diaries etc.
I 100% agree with the Video.
It's pretty funny if you think about how horrible the Soldier Life was on Warships back in History compared to nowadays, yet nobody complained and took it as it is.
My or well, all of our Generations reading this Comment would be unable to work on those old Warships
Prost & Cheers from Berchtesgaden in the Bavarian Alps
Surprised u didn't talk about the Mary Rose, Henry the 8th's Flagship. Though had close echoes to the Vasa ship.
I mean there have been some round tugs that have kinda been made I believe. They have multiple engines based around the outer for steering. Also there is the good old hovercraft that is also round. Maybe its just a too early for its own good.
Nah. No amount of ballast would have kept the Vasa upright. You can go see the ship in Stockholm - the part underwater is like 1/5 of her entire height sans the mast. Add to that all the gilded carved decorations the king felt necessary to have, and the cannons and cannonballs, Vasa never stood a chance.
Also, when the Swedish state finally decided to lift the wreck up, some Finnish students snuck in the night before and installed a statue of Paavo Nurmi on the foredeck...
These five warships were covered by "your friend Mike Brady of Oceanliner Designs" in, I think, the same exact order. He has two videos covering terrible warship designs, made nine and ten months ago.
I kinda like the idea of unique designs of warships if they were done correctly.
i come to watch about the round circle ship, me and the wife are now thinking of a trip to Stockholm to see the other ship as recommended, a rather expensive video but entertaining lol
Coracles were very old when the Novogorod was designed, and they're not famous for their ease of control. If only Popov had known.
Thanks for sharing.
Corricles are a circular relatively shallow tea dish shaped boat I’ve heard about from some TH-cam videos I saw ages ago and don’t remember much about so don’t trust any of the details I remember as fact and I don’t know if I spelled it correctly either so if you’re interested in the subject of round boats then hopefully I got the spelling close enough that you can get better information off the internet with this as a starting point. I think it’s mostly a sort of boat that is used in marshy areas and poled or paddled by one person who uses a sort of figure eight motion with the paddle to both steer and propel the boat in whatever direction they want to go in because there’s no front or back on the boat, I don’t remember exactly but I think they might have mentioned something about checking fish and eel traps as something you might do in such a boat and being so small and shallow is useful in marshlands but you wouldn’t be able to shift position in the boat very easily so being able to go around in a circle without changing positions would be beneficial in that environment.