Thanks for watching everyone! It's almost 108 years to the day since Invincible went down, in part, inspiring the creation of the video. I hope you all found it entertaining and informative.
Throughout the battle of Jutland, Beatty's signaling was appalling, with poorly worded signals sending ships in the wrong direction. His Flag Lieutenant, Ralph Seymore was barley trained and should not have been insuch a vital position. However he was a personal friend of Beatty's and so his serious errors were ignored, at Jutland, Seymore's poor signaling left ships out of position and vulnerable to German gunfire. Beatty protected Seymore until criticisms of Beatty's performance emerged after WW1, Beatty abandoned Seymore who was discharged and took his own life in 1922.
That was a truly bone chilling account. One moment you're in combat...then in a blink, very next moment, your ship is gone along with the vast majority of your shipmates.
HMS Hood was not named after Rear Admiral Sir Horace Hood, Commander of the 3rd Battlecruiser Squadron at Jutland, who died on board of HMS Invincible. Her namesake was Admiral Samuel Hood ,1st Viscount Hood, 1724-1816 , of whom Horace Hood was a great-great-grandson.
It is a state of mind that we could only think that the wreak was German. And shows the idiotic superior mind set we have over other nationalities. Something which is going to cost us dear as the East becomes more powerful each year.
A very fine vid! More than 100 years ago, but war is still raging, with the same consequences! When will it end for good? Thank you pal, your channel has still too few subscribers, but keep up the hard work!❤
In Jack Campbell's Lost Fleet saga, ships named Invincible are trouble magnets that usually catch more than their fair share of the enemy's fire. Spacers believe this is because a ship that claims to be invincible (that is, unbeatable) is just asking for the living stars to prove it wrong. Maybe the British Royal Navy ought to think about this before it names another ship Invincible?
The term you're looking for is hubris: invincible, unsinkable, impenetrable. Sailors are superstitious. Considering the rammifications of your home sinking with no land in sight or just exploding into oblivion... I understand why.
@@alexwilliamson1486 Really?🤔 On 19 August 1916, the High Seas Fleet and the Grand Fleet came within 30 nautical miles of each other, but even the Grand Fleet did not want to repeat the Battle of Jutland.😁The Germans always knew that their fleet was far inferior to the ‘Grand Fleet’. The High Seas Fleet was always supposed to avoid battle with the Grand Fleet, Jutland was just a coincidence. And right, the purpose of the HSF was to be a ‘fleet in being’.
Great docu-video. I recently read a fantastic book mentioning this battle - the diary of a 19-year-old naval officer who died on HMS Invincible. The book is titled: Scrimgeour's small scribbling diary 1914-1916 The truly astonishing wartime diary and letters of an Edwardian gentleman, naval officer, boy and son. --- It's a fascinating and gripping eye-opener about life on board a British warship in the early years of WWI. Highly recommended (if you can find a copy). I acquired mine down at the local council tip in Devon, UK... I now regard it as a family heirloom!
Thank you for this history! An amazing battle from an amazing time, but also incredibly tragic. War is so stupid, yet we continue to engage in this endless stupidity.
The greater RoF of the often somewhat smaller calibre main guns, 11" vs 12" for example, proved a disaster for ships whose armour those 11" shells could readily penetrate in critical places. Note to Jackie Fisher: turns out speed is NOT armour; ARMOUR is armour. Remarkable, right? Meanwhile... The Germans were very fortunate that the Royal Navy hadn't developed the 'Green boy' armour piercing rounds else Jutland likely would've been an appalling massacre of their fleet. Those shells were, of course, developed to address the disturbingly poor performance of the AP rounds the RN used at Jutland. German ships famous for taking punishment and surviving, notably Seydlitz in particular, would instead have almost certainly been destroyed in fairly short order. Why? Because while the RN generally enjoyed an advantage in having larger calibre guns than their German opponents, that advantage was more than compensated for by the fact their AP shells proved disastrously poor at, well, penetrating and exploding armour if it was beyond a thickness that was lower than the shells' theoretical penetration OR particularly if armour was struck at an angle. A surprising number of them broke up or partly penetrated, their bursting charges failing to detonate in both cases. The Germans' shells proved far more reliable and effective. Seems remarkable there was no effective 'quality control' over the RN's projectiles, nor that they'd been tested effectively, yet such was the state of things. It's especially ironic that poor Jellicoe copped a lot of rubbish for his alleged 'failures' at Jutland when he sailed with ineffective shells that were, as I understand it, within the responsibility of the Ordnance dept or bureau (or whatever its title was); the irony is HE had been its head some years previously, a position in which he served with distinction. Clearly something went wrong. The story of those Green Boy shells would make a good video. It's pretty impressive how 'quickly' they were developed then deployed, given the nature of the task. One thing is all but certain: had the Germans faced significant RN forces in another major gunfight, they'd have found themselves being struck by 13.5" and 15" shells that did EXACTLY what they were supposed to do, and the results would've been MUCH worse than anything they'd encountered at Jutland.
The Germans always knew that their fleet was far inferior to the ‘Grand Fleet’. The High Seas Fleet was always supposed to avoid battle with the Grand Fleet, Jutland was just a coincidence. In another ‘fictitious’ battle between the two fleets, the heavily armoured battleships ‘S.M.S. Bayern’ and ‘S.M.S. Baden’, also armed with 8x15-inch guns, would have been involved😉. On 19 August 1916, the High Seas Fleet and the Grand Fleet came within 30 nautical miles of each other, but neither side wanted to repeat the battle of Jutland.
It must have been dreadful for the crew of th ship, who e¿went out looking foir battle and had their ship ripped up and sunk. The name did not fit, as it was defeated and destroyed, and it is worth noting the rew of other British ships thought she was a German ship, that had been hit, and did not realizae it was a British one.
Beatty was a fraud and a failure. His hubris and incompetence lead to the loss of several ships and thousands of lives. A classic example of someone who rose in rank way beyond his level of competence.
@@rdallas81 so, what the answer? Let's go to the ballot box, and stop them! It's the same all the world over, all Europe over! Come on guys, let's change the tide!
Putin’s an example of an otherwise competent leader holding onto power until the degradation of their mental capacity resulted in decisions that rapidly undermine an otherwise respectable legacy among their people. Unfortunately for America, both Trump and Biden were voted into office well past them reaching the start of this downward spiral, though it could be argued that Trump still wouldn’t have had any idea how the presidency worked even if he were elected in his prime.
@@Riccardo_SilvaIt'll never happen in the US because religious people will vote for anyone who they're made to think aligns with their beliefs and will pass restrictive laws they think is the way people should live. The problem is the they tend to be conned easily when they are told what they want to hear and many of the laws that get passed are unfair to people who are not christian (I am christian). They vote as an ignorant block and no matter how awful the person is, they will still support him regardless of his sins, crimes and behavior. It goes both ways of course, but I feel the religious agenda is far, far more dangerous for freedom in our country. I feel pretty hopeless because I don't really see eye to eye with the other sides agenda of constant grift, wasteful spending, high taxes, and repressive legislation. I don't even vote anymore the choice between a giant douche and a turd sandwich doesn't appeal to me so i'm as kind and helpful to others as I can be and respect other peoples property, right to worship whoever they want and speak as they wish and mind my own business which is anti-american at this point.
I seem to remember that Invincible didnt completely sink until a few days later when the Royal Navy sent a destroyer to put a few shells into the wreck, still floating on airpockets and standing on the sea bed
Very doubtful. Even if some bulkheads at the ends of the ship held against multiple main magazines exploding, those areas are crew quarters, provision storage and etc. while the crew would be at battlestations in the parts of the ship definitely obliterated by the explosions.
If Beatty was unaware of where the high seas fleet was that meant he ran away, not that he lead them into Jellicoe's trap. Yet it is Jellicoe that gets the undeserved bad rap for Jutland. I feel he could have done so much more with a better commander of the Battle Cruiser Squadron.
If one removes all of the safety features designed to prevent a flash fire from entering the magazines and leave bags of cordite lying about all over the place, no wonder the ship exploded. She was an accident waiting to happen. The Invincible’s loss can be laid at the foot of Beatty’s incompetence? As far as he was concerned, the most important thing in a sea battle was to overwhelm the enemy by weight of fire? Hence, the ignoring of safety protocols designed prevent a magazine explosion. In short, David Beatty was a prime example of the British upper classes at their worst. Because of his looks, pedigree, and his accent, he was promoted far beyond his level of competence? Before engaging the Germans, Beatty should have known that the older battle cruisers under his command were ill suited, due to their light armour protection, to challenge heavier German units without putting themselves at catastrophic risk of destruction? Therefore, apart from the communication SNAFU with Evan Thomas’ 5th Battle Squadron which prevented it from supporting Beatty a crucial stage of the initial battle cruiser action, his decision to close with the enemy represented a cardinal mistake, especially when one considers that his heavier guns held a significant range advantage over his German opponents. When it comes down to it however, Beatty’s job was to act as the eyes of the Grand Fleet, a task which he failed to carry out. Duking it out with the main units of the High Seas Fleet was not part of his job description? In effect, he left Jellicoe in the dark. His position reports with respect Germans course and heading were so vague that they were useless.Thanks to Beatty’s bungling, the commander of the Grand Fleet only discovered where German High Seas Fleet was when it was almost on top of him? If it weren’t for Jellicoe’s deft handling of this fleet, Beatty’s incompetence might have led to the British losing the war in an afternoon, especially if Hipper had caught the British in the midst of moving from their cruising column formation into their line of battle formation? A German massed torpedo attack at this moment of the battle would have inflicted crippling damage on the bunched up British Dreadnoughts. Such a disaster would have spelt the end for the British?
every time I see the photograph of the 2 parts of Invincible sticking up out of the sea, I am left slightly confused about the bow section. I •think• that I may have sort of figured it out. is the dark section the bottom of the bow almost keel on, and the upper grey portion the rest of the bow presented at an angle •away• from the plane of the picture?
Battlecruisers were meant to counter armoured cruisers and cruisers that were acting as commerce raiders. To this end, the British Battlecruisers performed perfectly in the battle of the Falklands. These ships were never intended to engage warships of equal size and firepower, and most certainly not enemy battleships; or battlecruisers for that matter. Beatty should have waited until the Queen Elizabeth class battleships of the fifth battle squadron arrived before engaging in a close-range gun battle, with the battleships closing on the range and his battlecruisers holding off at a longer range. Instead, he let his aggression and over zealous predisposition overcome his better judgement. And the poor sailors of his battlecruisers paid the price. There is some evidence that, in an effort to get off as many shots as possible as quickly as possible, the British gun crews developed unsafe practices such as leaving anti-flash doors and hatches open, as well as stacking extra shells and charges in the shell handling rooms and near the ammunition hoists to attain the maximum rapidity possible. This likely contributed to the magazine explosions that destroyed so many British Battlecruisers when they got hit in places that they should have been able to survive. As an aside, the Germans used a brass case containing the final charge to obturate their heavy guns because they used a sliding block breech. Much like a modern quick firing gun where the shell and its case are together as a single round. This allowed them to fire their guns more rapidly than the British, who used a Welin breech block which used an interrupted screw for obturation, requiring a rotation of the breech block that was supported by an arm that permitted it to swing away from the breech of the gun. This meant that the gun drill for the British guns was more complex and required more time to execute. That said, the British apparently placed rapidity above accuracy in that they allowed their gun crews to engage in the aforementioned unsafe practices.
It took the destruction of the 3 battlecruisers for the RN to learn about the importance of conditions storage but the Germans had had nearly the same issue earlier in the war. At the battle of Dogger Bank, the Seydlitz was nearly lost when HMS Lion's 13.5in shell partially displaced the barbette armour of the aft super firing turret allowing hot shell fragments in to ignite some of the brass cartridges for the 12in shells. This fire caused both the aft turrets to be burnt out and would have caused a magazine explosion except that the magazines were flooded. I think your statement in the last paragraph is incorrect, the British did stack shells and charges to increase the rate of fire, but that had nothing to due with the accuracy of British shooting, this was a product of the two different methods used by the British and Germans in their rangefinders. The German method was very accurate initially but drops as the battle is sustained, whereas the British, in the newer 15in ships with the larger rangefinders were accurate during the whole battle, when they could see the enemy. The older ships with shorter rangefinders were not as good due to its limitations.
@@robhartley3930 yes, it was a unlucky hit but her side armor should have been able to slow down the 15" shell enough to at least explode before it reached the 4" magazine. Also, i fail to understand how the 4" magazine fire spread to the 15" rear magazine. The prince of wales too received an underwater 15" hit that fortunately did not explode and hit a torpedo bulkhead right next to the secondary magazine. No one can say for certain but she was extremely fortunate.
I have known a few ex-WW2 RN officers. They were completely impervious to criticism of themselves or their set of friends & colleagues. Couldn't get through to them at all.
Günther Paschen, Lützow's artillery officer, was executed for criticism of the nazi regime in 1943. He had been the artillery instructor of the Kriegsmarine before and trained all of the german battleship artillery officers
Beatty was one of the worst examples of weak British senior officers on land and sea. And yes’ German plunging shot’ on insufficient deck armor twice destroyed British capitol ships. Slow learners even when Britannia’ ruled the waves.’
Perhaps in a ships value, the greatest British loss was the Queen Mary. The real folly was putting 1st generation battle cruisers in the battle line. Storage of cordite in turrets to aid rates of fire, was a folly that rests with high command at the admiralty, to aid rate of fire.
the real problem was to increase the rate of fire they broke safety rules by leaving the flash doors open between the guns in the turret and the door to the powder room so when an enemy projectile exploded in the turret the flash traveled down to the powder room causing the British ships to blow up
Truly, I always find it fascinating that Beatty was (at least in part) responsible for the lax enforcement of the safety procedures in the battlecruisers, especially with the anti flash doors. When those anti flash doors helped prevent Lion from being completely destroyed after the hit to q turret. At least his gunnery officer AC Grant, kept the anti flash doors in place. I go into this a lot more in my video on the losses in the description.
@@ImportantNavalHistory so would the Queen Mary, Invincible, and Indefatigable have survived if they were following the proper procedures such as the anti flash doors and magazines being closed?
Brave souls!Rip.Speed is not a weapon.It's been repeated again and again,with boats,planes and tanks.And people die.Admiral Beatty like Nelson.But he wasn't Nelson.Great documentary.Thanks.
The German ships are not battlecruisers, both technically and operationally. They were not designed according to the battlecruiser doctrine or had its purpose. So I still don't understand why they still want to force these ships into a shape they never had. The Germans called them Großer Kreuzer (Big Cruisers) and that is exactly what they were - a hybrid ship that was a combination of heavy cruisers and battleships. The Germans didn't skimp on armor to achieve high speed, instead they dispensed with oversized guns to reduce weight. And so the Germans broke with the entire battlecruiser principle. The German so-called battlecruisers were an independent German ship concept and as such should actually be called big cruisers or pre-fast battleships because they were closest to that shape.
Well, that’s basically what a battlecruiser originally was envisioned as, a big cruiser. A ship for far of trade protection and interdiction, or a powerful scouting force for fleet actions. The Germans just did it differently.
@@snebbywebby2587 The idea was to build a warship that could use its artillery to fight all fast, smaller enemy ships before they even came within range of its weapons. It should be able to evade battles with battleships thanks to its speed advantage of 26 knots compared to 21 knots. The concept was primarily aimed at armored cruisers. that is the battlecruiser doctrine and that is exactly what the ships were built for. which they impressively demonstrated in the Falklands Battle against Admiral Graf Spee's Auslands Geschwader, but were completely unsuitable for a battle like the one at Skagerrak/Jutland. and as I said, the ships of the Imperial Navy did not follow this concept and were built differently. interesting, however, is that there are 3 ships in German naval history that followed this concept; however, the British never called them battlecruisers, instead giving them the name pocket battleship
Yes I am well aware of what the German panzer kreuzers or großer kreuzers were. I’ve done a number of videos explaining them. However, for convenience and the fact every notable historian calls them battlecruisers it makes it much more understandable for people who may not know the subject as well. Thanks for the comment, have a great day :)
A ship's weapons are designed to hit objects at sea level. A zeppelin that's a a couple thousand feet in the air and several miles off just can't be hit with naval guns and their firing arcs.
'HMS Invincible: The DISASTROUS Loss of the World's First Battlecruiser' In Gaza thousands die, and that seems to be acceptable, but the loss of a battlecruiser is DISASTROUS.
Thanks for watching everyone! It's almost 108 years to the day since Invincible went down, in part, inspiring the creation of the video. I hope you all found it entertaining and informative.
I thought the Invincible was built in 1907,not 1909.plus she came before Indefatigable
Like I said, the preceeding indefatigable class. So, the invincible class did come first.
Throughout the battle of Jutland, Beatty's signaling was appalling, with poorly worded signals sending ships in the wrong direction. His Flag Lieutenant, Ralph Seymore was barley trained and should not have been insuch a vital position. However he was a personal friend of Beatty's and so his serious errors were ignored, at Jutland, Seymore's poor signaling left ships out of position and vulnerable to German gunfire. Beatty protected Seymore until criticisms of Beatty's performance emerged after WW1, Beatty abandoned Seymore who was discharged and took his own life in 1922.
"Seymore was barley [_sic_] trained... " If he was drunk, that wold explain a lot.
@@darylnd According to Historians Seymore was not qualified for the job. But Beatty protected him, till the criticism began.
@@billballbuster7186 I'm riffing on your typo, "barley," rather than "barely."
@@darylnd Smug ass wipe get a life
Beatty is incredibly reckless with this major blunder that claimed three battlecruisers.
That was a truly bone chilling account. One moment you're in combat...then in a blink, very next moment, your ship is gone along with the vast majority of your shipmates.
Happy I missed this experience.
Ironic that Adm. Hood was blown up from a magazine hit and in the next war, the Hood was destroyed the same way, leaving only three survivors....
That's not irony
Die Emden wurde vom Kreuzer Sydney Zerstört und im nächsten Krieg wurde die Neue Sydney durch ein Deutsches Schiff Zerstört.
ビスマルクの主砲弾がフットの火薬庫に直撃し瞬時に爆沈したの
@@westsonrises It is to me.
HMS Hood was not named after Rear Admiral Sir Horace Hood, Commander of the 3rd Battlecruiser Squadron at Jutland, who died on board of HMS Invincible. Her namesake was Admiral Samuel Hood ,1st Viscount Hood, 1724-1816 , of whom
Horace Hood was a great-great-grandson.
It is a state of mind that we could only think that the wreak was German. And shows the idiotic superior mind set we have over other nationalities.
Something which is going to cost us dear as the East becomes more powerful each year.
A very fine vid! More than 100 years ago, but war is still raging, with the same consequences! When will it end for good? Thank you pal, your channel has still too few subscribers, but keep up the hard work!❤
In Jack Campbell's Lost Fleet saga, ships named Invincible are trouble magnets that usually catch more than their fair share of the enemy's fire. Spacers believe this is because a ship that claims to be invincible (that is, unbeatable) is just asking for the living stars to prove it wrong. Maybe the British Royal Navy ought to think about this before it names another ship Invincible?
The term you're looking for is hubris: invincible, unsinkable, impenetrable. Sailors are superstitious. Considering the rammifications of your home sinking with no land in sight or just exploding into oblivion... I understand why.
The Brits outnumbered the Germans 151 to 99 in ships of all kinds. 113,000 tons vs 62,300 tons sunk, with the Germans winning.
Except their fleet never left port and proved to be a thorn in the side of the Royal Navy…so I think they inevitably LOST…
@@alexwilliamson1486 Really?🤔 On 19 August 1916, the High Seas Fleet and the Grand Fleet came within 30 nautical miles of each other, but even the Grand Fleet did not want to repeat the Battle of Jutland.😁The Germans always knew that their fleet was far inferior to the ‘Grand Fleet’. The High Seas Fleet was always supposed to avoid battle with the Grand Fleet, Jutland was just a coincidence. And right, the purpose of the HSF was to be a ‘fleet in being’.
Just discovered the channel and I absolutely loved this video
Thank you, I’m glad you enjoyed it!
Great docu-video.
I recently read a fantastic book mentioning this battle - the diary of a 19-year-old naval officer who died on HMS Invincible.
The book is titled:
Scrimgeour's small scribbling diary
1914-1916
The truly astonishing wartime diary and letters of an Edwardian gentleman, naval officer, boy and son.
---
It's a fascinating and gripping eye-opener about life on board a British warship in the early years of WWI. Highly recommended (if you can find a copy). I acquired mine down at the local council tip in Devon, UK... I now regard it as a family heirloom!
How the one who died in that battle can write a book about it...
Invincible, Glorious and Vanguard are british ships who'se history went against their names
That's very fair.
Great Video!
Thank you for this history! An amazing battle from an amazing time, but also incredibly tragic. War is so stupid, yet we continue to engage in this endless stupidity.
Churchill and Fischer obviously throughly evaluated the battlecruser performance at Jutland. Beatty as well?
Should have called it Vincible
The greater RoF of the often somewhat smaller calibre main guns, 11" vs 12" for example, proved a disaster for ships whose armour those 11" shells could readily penetrate in critical places.
Note to Jackie Fisher: turns out speed is NOT armour; ARMOUR is armour. Remarkable, right?
Meanwhile...
The Germans were very fortunate that the Royal Navy hadn't developed the 'Green boy' armour piercing rounds else Jutland likely would've been an appalling massacre of their fleet.
Those shells were, of course, developed to address the disturbingly poor performance of the AP rounds the RN used at Jutland. German ships famous for taking punishment and surviving, notably Seydlitz in particular, would instead have almost certainly been destroyed in fairly short order.
Why? Because while the RN generally enjoyed an advantage in having larger calibre guns than their German opponents, that advantage was more than compensated for by the fact their AP shells proved disastrously poor at, well, penetrating and exploding armour if it was beyond a thickness that was lower than the shells' theoretical penetration OR particularly if armour was struck at an angle. A surprising number of them broke up or partly penetrated, their bursting charges failing to detonate in both cases.
The Germans' shells proved far more reliable and effective.
Seems remarkable there was no effective 'quality control' over the RN's projectiles, nor that they'd been tested effectively, yet such was the state of things.
It's especially ironic that poor Jellicoe copped a lot of rubbish for his alleged 'failures' at Jutland when he sailed with ineffective shells that were, as I understand it, within the responsibility of the Ordnance dept or bureau (or whatever its title was); the irony is HE had been its head some years previously, a position in which he served with distinction. Clearly something went wrong.
The story of those Green Boy shells would make a good video. It's pretty impressive how 'quickly' they were developed then deployed, given the nature of the task.
One thing is all but certain: had the Germans faced significant RN forces in another major gunfight, they'd have found themselves being struck by 13.5" and 15" shells that did EXACTLY what they were supposed to do, and the results would've been MUCH worse than anything they'd encountered at Jutland.
The Germans always knew that their fleet was far inferior to the ‘Grand Fleet’. The High Seas Fleet was always supposed to avoid battle with the Grand Fleet, Jutland was just a coincidence. In another ‘fictitious’ battle between the two fleets, the heavily armoured battleships ‘S.M.S. Bayern’ and ‘S.M.S. Baden’, also armed with 8x15-inch guns, would have been involved😉. On 19 August 1916, the High Seas Fleet and the Grand Fleet came within 30 nautical miles of each other, but neither side wanted to repeat the battle of Jutland.
It must have been dreadful for the crew of th ship, who e¿went out looking foir battle and had their ship ripped up and sunk. The name did not fit, as it was defeated and destroyed, and it is worth noting the rew of other British ships thought she was a German ship, that had been hit, and did not realizae it was a British one.
⚓️
TY🙏🙏
И, ради, чего все эти сражения и войны..Это же тупость никчемная и бесполезная.
The Invincible wasn't
That’s a pretty cocky thought ,just name your one of your ships invincible?😂
Beatty was a fraud and a failure. His hubris and incompetence lead to the loss of several ships and thousands of lives. A classic example of someone who rose in rank way beyond his level of competence.
Today we just elect such people into our government, what a joke this country has become since 1914.
Yeah, but do do most American presidents, most European leaders, most.
Besides Putin, and Xi.❤
@@rdallas81 so, what the answer? Let's go to the ballot box, and stop them! It's the same all the world over, all Europe over! Come on guys, let's change the tide!
Putin’s an example of an otherwise competent leader holding onto power until the degradation of their mental capacity resulted in decisions that rapidly undermine an otherwise respectable legacy among their people.
Unfortunately for America, both Trump and Biden were voted into office well past them reaching the start of this downward spiral, though it could be argued that Trump still wouldn’t have had any idea how the presidency worked even if he were elected in his prime.
@@Riccardo_SilvaIt'll never happen in the US because religious people will vote for anyone who they're made to think aligns with their beliefs and will pass restrictive laws they think is the way people should live. The problem is the they tend to be conned easily when they are told what they want to hear and many of the laws that get passed are unfair to people who are not christian (I am christian). They vote as an ignorant block and no matter how awful the person is, they will still support him regardless of his sins, crimes and behavior. It goes both ways of course, but I feel the religious agenda is far, far more dangerous for freedom in our country. I feel pretty hopeless because I don't really see eye to eye with the other sides agenda of constant grift, wasteful spending, high taxes, and repressive legislation. I don't even vote anymore the choice between a giant douche and a turd sandwich doesn't appeal to me so i'm as kind and helpful to others as I can be and respect other peoples property, right to worship whoever they want and speak as they wish and mind my own business which is anti-american at this point.
Ah this is going to be good.
Anything about jutland is interesting.
Superb coverage of the death of a fine ship.
I seem to remember that Invincible didnt completely sink until a few days later when the Royal Navy sent a destroyer to put a few shells into the wreck, still floating on airpockets and standing on the sea bed
I wonder if it was possible that some unfortunate crew still clung on in those air pockets. 😞
Very doubtful. Even if some bulkheads at the ends of the ship held against multiple main magazines exploding, those areas are crew quarters, provision storage and etc. while the crew would be at battlestations in the parts of the ship definitely obliterated by the explosions.
@@alphax4785 Thank you for that. 🙂
HMS "I'm Sorry I Let My Name Down"
Excellent commentary.
Thank you.
There must be something wrong with our bloody ships today.
If Beatty was unaware of where the high seas fleet was that meant he ran away, not that he lead them into Jellicoe's trap. Yet it is Jellicoe that gets the undeserved bad rap for Jutland. I feel he could have done so much more with a better commander of the Battle Cruiser Squadron.
Yes, I regret the slur on Jellicoe and as you say, would have liked to see him with a different deputy, like Hood.
If one removes all of the safety features designed to prevent a flash fire from entering the magazines and leave bags of cordite lying about all over the place, no wonder the ship exploded. She was an accident waiting to happen. The Invincible’s loss can be laid at the foot of Beatty’s incompetence? As far as he was concerned, the most important thing in a sea battle was to overwhelm the enemy by weight of fire? Hence, the ignoring of safety protocols designed prevent a magazine explosion. In short, David Beatty was a prime example of the British upper classes at their worst. Because of his looks, pedigree, and his accent, he was promoted far beyond his level of competence? Before engaging the Germans, Beatty should have known that the older battle cruisers under his command were ill suited, due to their light armour protection, to challenge heavier German units without putting themselves at catastrophic risk of destruction? Therefore, apart from the communication SNAFU with Evan Thomas’ 5th Battle Squadron which prevented it from supporting Beatty a crucial stage of the initial battle cruiser action, his decision to close with the enemy represented a cardinal mistake, especially when one considers that his heavier guns held a significant range advantage over his German opponents. When it comes down to it however, Beatty’s job was to act as the eyes of the Grand Fleet, a task which he failed to carry out. Duking it out with the main units of the High Seas Fleet was not part of his job description? In effect, he left Jellicoe in the dark. His position reports with respect Germans course and heading were so vague that they were useless.Thanks to Beatty’s bungling, the commander of the Grand Fleet only discovered where German High Seas Fleet was when it was almost on top of him? If it weren’t for Jellicoe’s deft handling of this fleet, Beatty’s incompetence might have led to the British losing the war in an afternoon, especially if Hipper had caught the British in the midst of moving from their cruising column formation into their line of battle formation? A German massed torpedo attack at this moment of the battle would have inflicted crippling damage on the bunched up British Dreadnoughts. Such a disaster would have spelt the end for the British?
Im 2 Weltkrieg das selbe HMS Baham HMS Hood ,HMS Royl Oak alle Explodiert.
every time I see the photograph of the 2 parts of Invincible sticking up
out of the sea, I am left slightly confused about the bow section.
I •think• that I may have sort of figured it out.
is the dark section the bottom of the bow almost keel on, and the upper grey portion the rest of the bow
presented at an angle •away• from the plane of the picture?
Thank you, it was.
HMS Invincible Until She Wasn't doesn't have quite the same ring, does it?
Battlecruisers were meant to counter armoured cruisers and cruisers that were acting as commerce raiders. To this end, the British Battlecruisers performed perfectly in the battle of the Falklands. These ships were never intended to engage warships of equal size and firepower, and most certainly not enemy battleships; or battlecruisers for that matter.
Beatty should have waited until the Queen Elizabeth class battleships of the fifth battle squadron arrived before engaging in a close-range gun battle, with the battleships closing on the range and his battlecruisers holding off at a longer range. Instead, he let his aggression and over zealous predisposition overcome his better judgement. And the poor sailors of his battlecruisers paid the price.
There is some evidence that, in an effort to get off as many shots as possible as quickly as possible, the British gun crews developed unsafe practices such as leaving anti-flash doors and hatches open, as well as stacking extra shells and charges in the shell handling rooms and near the ammunition hoists to attain the maximum rapidity possible. This likely contributed to the magazine explosions that destroyed so many British Battlecruisers when they got hit in places that they should have been able to survive.
As an aside, the Germans used a brass case containing the final charge to obturate their heavy guns because they used a sliding block breech. Much like a modern quick firing gun where the shell and its case are together as a single round. This allowed them to fire their guns more rapidly than the British, who used a Welin breech block which used an interrupted screw for obturation, requiring a rotation of the breech block that was supported by an arm that permitted it to swing away from the breech of the gun.
This meant that the gun drill for the British guns was more complex and required more time to execute. That said, the British apparently placed rapidity above accuracy in that they allowed their gun crews to engage in the aforementioned unsafe practices.
Exactly! If only people would step back and see that the battle-cruisers were used appallingly at Jutland as ships of the line.
they never learned, hms hood in 1941 vs km Bismarck
It took the destruction of the 3 battlecruisers for the RN to learn about the importance of conditions storage but the Germans had had nearly the same issue earlier in the war. At the battle of Dogger Bank, the Seydlitz was nearly lost when HMS Lion's 13.5in shell partially displaced the barbette armour of the aft super firing turret allowing hot shell fragments in to ignite some of the brass cartridges for the 12in shells. This fire caused both the aft turrets to be burnt out and would have caused a magazine explosion except that the magazines were flooded.
I think your statement in the last paragraph is incorrect, the British did stack shells and charges to increase the rate of fire, but that had nothing to due with the accuracy of British shooting, this was a product of the two different methods used by the British and Germans in their rangefinders. The German method was very accurate initially but drops as the battle is sustained, whereas the British, in the newer 15in ships with the larger rangefinders were accurate during the whole battle, when they could see the enemy. The older ships with shorter rangefinders were not as good due to its limitations.
@@z1az285HMS Hood was destroyed by a different type of magazine explosion.
@@robhartley3930 yes, it was a unlucky hit but her side armor should have been able to slow down the 15" shell enough to at least explode before it reached the 4" magazine. Also, i fail to understand how the 4" magazine fire spread to the 15" rear magazine. The prince of wales too received an underwater 15" hit that fortunately did not explode and hit a torpedo bulkhead right next to the secondary magazine. No one can say for certain but she was extremely fortunate.
Hell yes! I've been looking forward to this one!
Hell yes?
That's technically a irrational statement.
Dotcom
Dotnet
Hello mate
You're not wrong of course
Invincible didn’t live up to her name!
The Breeches are called interrupted breech screws, that close the powder and shell in...
I have known a few ex-WW2 RN officers. They were completely impervious to criticism of themselves or their set of friends & colleagues. Couldn't get through to them at all.
Excellent.
Naming a ship the "Invincible" is almost as bad as naming it the "Unsinkable" 🤔
Günther Paschen, Lützow's artillery officer, was executed for criticism of the nazi regime in 1943. He had been the artillery instructor of the Kriegsmarine before and trained all of the german battleship artillery officers
Beatty was one of the worst examples of weak British senior officers on land and sea. And yes’ German plunging shot’ on insufficient deck armor twice destroyed British capitol ships. Slow learners even when Britannia’ ruled the waves.’
Really stupid name to call a warship, only the British would be stupid enough to call a ship by that name !!
The gunnery officer saved was Commander Dannreuther. Pronounced Dan-Royter not Dan-Roother.
Perhaps in a ships value, the greatest British loss was the Queen Mary. The real folly was putting 1st generation battle cruisers in the battle line. Storage of cordite in turrets to aid rates of fire, was a folly that rests with high command at the admiralty, to aid rate of fire.
He couldn't catch him because he was too Beattie.
😂😂😂😂😂😊😊😊😊😊😂😂😂😂😂😊😊😊😊😊😂😂😂😂😂😂😊😊😊😊😊😂😂😂😂😂😊😊😊😊😊😂😂😂😂😂😊😊😊😊😊😂😂😂😂😂😊😊😊😊😊😊😂😂😂😂😂😊😊😊😊😊😂😂😂😂😂😊😊😊😊😊😂😂😂😂😊😊😊😊😂😂😂😂😊😊😊😊😂😂😊😂😊😂😊😂😊😂😊😂😊😂😊😂😊😂😢🎉❤
the real problem was to increase the rate of fire they broke safety rules by leaving the flash doors open between the guns in the turret and the door to the powder room so when an enemy projectile exploded in the turret the flash traveled down to the powder room causing the British ships to blow up
Truly, I always find it fascinating that Beatty was (at least in part) responsible for the lax enforcement of the safety procedures in the battlecruisers, especially with the anti flash doors. When those anti flash doors helped prevent Lion from being completely destroyed after the hit to q turret. At least his gunnery officer AC Grant, kept the anti flash doors in place. I go into this a lot more in my video on the losses in the description.
@@ImportantNavalHistory so would the Queen Mary, Invincible, and Indefatigable have survived if they were following the proper procedures such as the anti flash doors and magazines being closed?
🐯🐯🐯🐯🐯🐯🐯🐯🐯1500
Brave souls!Rip.Speed is not a weapon.It's been repeated again and again,with boats,planes and tanks.And people die.Admiral Beatty like Nelson.But he wasn't Nelson.Great documentary.Thanks.
The German ships are not battlecruisers, both technically and operationally.
They were not designed according to the battlecruiser doctrine or had its purpose.
So I still don't understand why they still want to force these ships into a shape they never had.
The Germans called them Großer Kreuzer (Big Cruisers) and that is exactly what they were - a hybrid ship that was a combination of heavy cruisers and battleships.
The Germans didn't skimp on armor to achieve high speed, instead they dispensed with oversized guns to reduce weight.
And so the Germans broke with the entire battlecruiser principle.
The German so-called battlecruisers were an independent German ship concept and as such should actually be called big cruisers or pre-fast battleships because they were closest to that shape.
Well, that’s basically what a battlecruiser originally was envisioned as, a big cruiser. A ship for far of trade protection and interdiction, or a powerful scouting force for fleet actions. The Germans just did it differently.
@@snebbywebby2587 The idea was to build a warship that could use its artillery to fight all fast, smaller enemy ships before they even came within range of its weapons. It should be able to evade battles with battleships thanks to its speed advantage of 26 knots compared to 21 knots. The concept was primarily aimed at armored cruisers.
that is the battlecruiser doctrine and that is exactly what the ships were built for.
which they impressively demonstrated in the Falklands Battle against Admiral Graf Spee's Auslands Geschwader, but were completely unsuitable for a battle like the one at Skagerrak/Jutland.
and as I said, the ships of the Imperial Navy did not follow this concept and were built differently.
interesting, however, is that there are 3 ships in German naval history that followed this concept; however, the British never called them battlecruisers, instead giving them the name pocket battleship
Yes I am well aware of what the German panzer kreuzers or großer kreuzers were. I’ve done a number of videos explaining them. However, for convenience and the fact every notable historian calls them battlecruisers it makes it much more understandable for people who may not know the subject as well. Thanks for the comment, have a great day :)
hey did you guys see the blimp? i still dont get how they didnt get shot down in 5 mins?
A ship's weapons are designed to hit objects at sea level. A zeppelin that's a a couple thousand feet in the air and several miles off just can't be hit with naval guns and their firing arcs.
Keine Flak 1916 .
@@fakshen1973 the one they showed at 3 min was about to get wet lol
This was the Mahanian decicive engagement for each side. Did not come off obviously.
Ate 1930 na havia forcas navais alemaes enguanto a inglesa tinha 300 anos, batalha desigual e desproporcional.
Mesmo assim.deram.trabalho !
So it wasn't actually invincible?
'HMS Invincible: The DISASTROUS Loss of the World's First Battlecruiser' In Gaza thousands die, and that seems to be acceptable, but the loss of a battlecruiser is DISASTROUS.
This isn’t about Gaza, it’s about WW1.
Are you denying that both resulted in the depth of thousands of people?@@angrydoggy9170
Maybe gazans should not of voted for a terrorist government
Everything seems to be about gaza this week. Give it a few days, and the drones will be on to the next thing.@angrydoggy9170
This is about courageous and honorable men,not Babystabbers.