HMS Howe - The Last British Battleship to See Combat
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 9 ก.พ. 2025
- In today's video, we'll be looking at the final King George V-class battleship. HMS Howe, a ship often overshadowed by her sisters. Not quite to the same extent as Anson, admittedly, but still.
When you have ships like Prince of Wales and Duke of York to compare to, it's perhaps unsurprising.
However, Howe has some notable things of her own. She was the first modern British battleship in the Pacific since Prince of Wales sank. She endured relatively long in service, for a post-WW2 British battleship. And she managed to avoid any notable damage for her entire service.
Not a bad run, all things being equal.
Further Reading:
www.amazon.com...
www.amazon.com...
www.amazon.com...
www.amazon.com...
My father served on board HMS Howe on Arctic convoy duties in 1943. He was a Royal Marine Bandsman. HMS Howe had at least one Bulldog mascot. It was often said that the ship was invested with rats from the day the keel was laid! Mr father received the Russian Ushakov medal in June 2015 after which the UK MOD finally recognised the Arctic Convoys as a separate theatre of war, so my father received the Arctic Star to add to his medals.
Infested.
@@DaiElsan Correct! Spoolchoking error!
Actually, invested works as being sarcastic humor as well.
I went drinking with Royal Marines Bandsmen and women when I was in exchange from the RAAF. Bad idea. I’ve never been so drunk in my life and worse the following day I had a full day if rehearsals, performance a sit down with the CO and a presentation to the school of music students, all of which they knew. All I wanted to do was go into a darkened room and die, all of which they knew. Great bunch but I felt well and truly dudded by the pus!
I think it's interesting that the KGV class varied from the American standard of designing the armor scheme to counter the ship's own weapons. It appears to me that the RN took the very realistic view that these 14" armed ships could (and would) end up facing ships with 15" and 16" armament at longer ranges than ships like QE and Nelson were designed for.
The USN North Carolina class was originally supposed to mount a 14" main battery (3 turrets of 4 guns each) but was up-gunned while under construction to 16" MK6 guns with 3 guns per turret. Up-gunned but not up-armored, both NC and Washington went to war with the "lighter" armor. As things finally turned out, I don't think having the heavier armor protection hurt the KGVs at all and can be argued that it helped POW and Howe when it came to cases.
Washington sank a battlecruiser in November of 1942. The KGV were extremely good ships but the 16" shells went through Kirishima like a hot knife through butter; it appears 19 hits were made on the IJN ship, none exploded, but it sank inside of 12 hours. 19 holes near 17" across grossly effects seaworthiness. Armor wise the KGV were better ships than the USN had. Also, the KGV didn't have a vibration problem. That said the KGV had two vices. First, it's AA system could have been better, the 5" 38 was the best dual purpose gun. Second, the KGV didn't have the range of the US fast battleships. BTW, what doomed PoW was a torpedo hitting a propellor shaft. That's pretty much the same thing that happened to Bismarck. Also, the USS Pennsylvania sank from progressive flooding cause by a torpedo hit to her propellor shaft during Okinawa. She was never properly patched and after the nuclear tests she was too radioactive to refuel the generators, her pumps stopped, and she sank.
The "mistake" with the KGV class was that the British expected everyone to play by the rules, and they ended up as the only ones who did, that's how they got the KGVs and the Nelsons.
British were fools in going backwards to a 14” weapon with less penetrating power. Doesn’t make sense. The 15” weapon should have been employed to match European powers at least. Everyone in naval design knew bigger is better when it comes to guns.
@@Easy-Eight To boot, the West Virginia with its 16” guns and modern FC system devastated the Japanese battleships in the Sur Strait engagement. Bigger is better.
What about habitation?
What a treat to wake up to!
A surprise to be sure but a welcome one
On jawad.
Hello there!!
If Howe hadn’t sailed to Sydney Australia my grandfather wouldn’t have met my Nan and this message wouldn’t be listed here neither would my family be in existence. My grandfather would tell me Howe was so big it would take the day to walk around it. Oh and also there was an ice cream parlor aboard for the trips to the pacific.
And here I thought only the USN had ice cream. Learned my new thing for the day. Thanks
Grandpa went to Australia or Grandma went to Britain?
It was pobably no picnic onboard if she wasn't tropicalized.
The British were funny that way.
Thanks for this, I'd not heard or seen anything about the later KGVs.
I'd love to see footage on the AA batteries this class carried, especially the 5.25" and octuple pom poms, which I've heard could chew a plane into jigsaw fragments.
I was thinking that. As Howe is in the BPF all things torpedo , and some other gear is put ashore, for more of all things "pom-pom".
@robertsolomielke5134 right, that's a pretty good idea
14:58 Great photo of HMS Howe sailing past Rangitoto Island in the Waitemata Habour Auckland, New Zealand.
Another good video thank you. I believe that one of the reasons for the delayed completion of HMS Howe is that a considerable number of tradesman were seconded from the Fairfield' shipyard to the John Brown Shipyard (also on the Clyde) to expedite the construction of her sistership, HMS Duke of York.
I saw Cape Town in one of the final shots as Howe was anchored just outside the harbor. In the background is Table Mountain, from the timeline it would have been late 1945 during the South African summer. I have tried to get my older relatives to talk about the war but they brush it off as a minor inconvenience causing a ration on certain luxury goods. My father served in all 4 theaters of action but we can’t find his campaign medals. According to Mum he served on the Repulse and the Sheffield but my Father’s oldest son denies this although he has tracked down the war record.
When I asked "How and why" this wasn't the answer i was expecting but I'm certainly not disappointed
Honneur et gloire a la Royale Navy qui a toujours défendu avec courage et sacrifice les valeurs de notre liberté . Je n'oublierai jamais ce qu'a fait nos frères britanniques en 1940, alors que je n'avais que deux ans, pour me permettre de grandir dans un monde de liberté . Reconnaissance éternelle .
Couldn't help thinking what a great posting for a sailor if you were onboard for the whole war. Freezing to start with but then lots of travel around the world with stop offs in the UK and the whole war with virtually no risk. Of course you couldn't know that but thats how it turned out. Heaps of sea time and some very interesting locations.
How often have I seen videos, where it was said, that there were 4 ships in this class! When I commented, that three were 5 ships and wrote the names plus service time, neither did I get a response, nor was the mistake in the video corrected.
I wonder if that's because they look up 'King George V battleship' and up pops the earlier 1911 launched KGV class dreadnought, of which there were, of course, four vessels; KGV, Audacious, Ajax and Centurion? An easy mistake if you're not British or don't really follow battleship history.
@michaelchallen this might appear as an explanantion. But sadly it isn't. Each time I saw videos that said "4 KGV ships" named the ships KGV, Prince of Wales, Duke of York and Anson". Once there was a video that listed the ship names as follows: KGV, Prince of Wales, Duke of York, Howe (missing the Anson).
@@ralfhtg1056 ah, in that case, that's outrageous as these people put themselves across as historical channels, and can't even make alterations when you tell them their mistake, no-ones perfect I know but to not do some homework when told is dreadful and a good reason not to believe half of what you see online.
Of passing interest, Howe's bell hangs in St Giles Kirk, Edinburgh.
Much, too much, is made of the infamous (un)reliability of the quad 14" gun turret.
In reality, while definitely not perfect, they really weren't that bad, comparable to the WW1 era British 15" gun.
As far as Prince of Wales goes, she was a brand new ship and didn't have the teething troubles worked out.
King George V herself was also quite new when fought Bismark in a VERY long gun battle.
Duke of York experienced problems due to the arctic storm she was in the middle of during the Battle of the North Cape.
KGV and DoY actually performed quite well for the first part of their respective battles, tending to have issues only after about half an hour. Much of this was done to handling errors as the crew got fatigued after continuous firing for extended periods, and as the ammunition was used up and having to be fetched from deeper in the magazines, thereby slowing the reload rate and missing the salvo.
Yes some of the tolerances etc were too tight for a moving, bending ship, especially one taking place in a force 8 storm (18-25ft waves), but in standard gunnary practice after the initial problems had been fixed, they reported higher reliability than the older 15" guns.
Overall, I think these guns/turrets are unfairly maligned.
“Her sister.. the Prince of Wales”
Just sounds funny to rheneat
Could have made a stout CG after the war.
Bring her out of the yards in 1960 and go for another twenty years.
SPG 51, SPS 48, SPS 40, Talos dual launchers fore and aft, luxourious EW suite, helo deck, and she'd be a stout cold warrior proud to sail in any ocean, at any time.
Just get rid of the topside brass, and let the Captain sail.
I don't think HMS Howe was the last British battleship to see action. I remember reading somewhere in the US Navy's history of the Korean War that there was a British Battleship also in the shore bombardment force.
Not that I’m aware of. Vanguard never fired her guns in anger, and the surviving KGVs were all on training duty after WW2 ended.
Very technically, King George V was the last to fire her guns in anger. She fought the Japanese a little longer. But the title is in reference to Howe being the last British battleship *built* that saw combat.
(Compared to Vanguard, which did not)
You're probably thinking of HMS Belfast which is a cruiser.
@@andynct A beautiful old lady she's moored in the Thames near tower bridge as a museum now. I've toured her a couple of times and took my sister's kids once they had a blast climbing into the turret and down into the bowels of the engine room.
@@andynct Apparently described by a US Admiral off Korea at the time as 'That straight-shooting ship.'
How much of a flex is it to use a brand new battleship to escort convoys. Imagine being a U boat captain trying to sneak up on some merchant ships and BOOM 40000 tonnes of steel full of beer and annoyed British seamen spoiling for a fight.😮
Capital ships were not equipped to combat U-boats.
Duke of York fought against Scharnhorst, supported by a heavy cruiser, 3 light cruisers and about 8 destroyers. More than 2000 shells and 50 torpedoes were fired by the British. 13 visible hits from the Duke of York destroyed the main turret A and parts of the secondary artillery. But none of them were fatal for the German battleship. In contrast to the 14 torpedo hits. According to AJ Watts.
The Duke was too close to Scharnhorst, her shells were just passing through without exploding.
Scharnhorst was doomed when Norfolk knocked out her radar early doors, the same way Bismarck was doomed when Norfolk knocked out her radar early doors.
And?
Anyone have an update on that laboratory turntable in Dounreay that contained parts of HMS Howe's gun turret that made news in 2019? Did they scrap it?
The only surviving British built iron/steel battle ship is in Japan.
Now now. Let's not be hasty. Vanguard was the last. She fought the tug boats to go get a beer.
😄
I wonder just why the US are keeping the 4 WW2 Battleships New Jersey , Wisconsin , Iowa and Missouri in such splendid order with $10m dollars allocated last week for the replacement of the teak deck , dry docking and a full repaint on New Jersey . Could it be that we may see a recall to duty in some form ? possibly peace keeping whilst keeping the huge guns trained on Putins location ?? Bearing in mind that the cst of an equivalent light cruiser today would be the same as reactivating the 4 ships , starts to make a lot of sense .
Nope.
Americans are generous in donating to preserve them.
What has Putin got to do with WW2 battleships?
@@JohnHand-z9z
He apparently doesn't understand the concept of a museum ship.
🙄
I don’t think you will ever see the reactivation of one of those 4 ships. They are too dangerous to operate. The propellent for-the guns has aged out. One hit in the magazine and the ship is lost. Tough to justify the risk when no one else has one to fight.
The Yanks appreciate their heritage, the British are busy spaffing theirs up the wall.
Then why did P of W take such a beating against Bismarck?
She didn't. For a battleship not fully ready for combat, she inflicted more important damage on Bismarck than Bismarck & Prinz Eugen did on her.
What have you read about the main battery? In simple terms after being worked up the battery worked fine. Think about battle of north cape, held in freezing conditions and high seas, hardly the same as pootling in flat pacific waters in the tropics…
I don't remember exactly where I read it but I remember reading that Howe was considered a very unhappy ship.
Would you be happy sailing up into the arctic wondering if you’re going get torpedoed?
@lynby6231 in any Navy, there are ships that are considered happy ships and such that are not. A happy ship is one where in modern terms, the leadership culture works and the crew and officers have a strong sense of belonging and team spirit. A good WW2 example for the Royal Navy was HMS Repulse. An unhappy ship is the exact opposite. This is often most noticeable with ships of the same class. One early war USN was quoted remarking on how much better the general spirit of the crew on USS Lexington was than on USS Saratoga
The Vanguard could have fought the Iowas if Britain and France didn't back down in the Suez Crisis. What a shame
10 fourteen inch guns
Anson
King Georgia v
Prince of wales
Howe
Duke of york
Last bb built
Vanguard
The Scharnhorst wasn't a battleship. Germany only had two battleships, Bismarck, and Tirpitz. Scharnhorst and her sister ship Gneisenau were in fact battlecruisers.
If you look closely, that's actually true, but the Gneisenau should have been modified with guns, but also armor and length, and then it would have been more of a battleship. It isn't, so it's true.
@@enemymine6514 S&G were not fit to fight a single battlecruiser (Renown) 2v1. No battleship can say the same.
Battlecruisers, by definition, traded armour for speed, but the Sch/Gn - sisters traded firepower (at least caliberwise) for speed. And besides that the germans classified them as Schlachtschiffe, battleships.
Thus, they were fast battleships, like french Strassbourg and Dunkerque. And modified italians, Dorias and Cavours.
@@SennaAugustus Can you find a battlecruiser for which this statement is true? S&G had the problem that they encoutered Renown in a storm and they were very bad at seakeeping. If the weather had been better...then Renown's escorting destroyers would have joined the fight.
Calling the Scharnhorst a Battlecruiser only works if you use the old british definition of a battlecruiser being a capital ship that is able to run faster than 25 knots. By this definition the King-George-V-class would also be battlecruisers and indeed in the early stages of developement they were refered to as "fully armored battlecruisers". But the Germans always referred to the Scharnhorst as "light battleships" and nowadays this is the accepted term. The key reason for this is that the Scharnhorst-class was fully armored and actually even better protected then the Bismarck-class. Bismarck's beltarmor had a maximum thickness of 320mm, on the Scharnhorst it was 350mm. While there are many competing definitions of what is a battlecruiser and which ships are or are not battlecruisers they all agree that battlecruisers cannot have better protection than the contemporary battleships of their own navy. And therefore the term "light battleship", due to the smaller guns being installed, is now being used for the Scharnhorst-sisters.
Just checking I'm still shadow banned.
One could only imagine if there were 3 quadruple turrets on the KGVs. Anyhow one of my favorite ww2 battleships
The only thing i can say about the British Battleship Class of the King George V’s is that when they met with equal forces, they lost the battles. When met with less capable forces or out numbering their opponents, they were defeated. History doesn’t lie, it is what it is. The American design and even the German designs were more capable ships. The German being better protected with bigger guns and the American NC Class with better guns in primary weapons and secondary weapons plus better AA capability. Add to that their lack of seaworthiness and i don’t think they were very good battleships. The 14” gun was not a first rate weapon for that time period.
Where were they defeated? The Prince of Wales eventually had to take on the Bismark and the Prinz Eugen by itself where she got battered but still managed to get a few good hits in on Bismark, starting a fuel leak and flooding one deck. The Duke of York took on scharnhaust and survived. The only class of this ship that was lost in battle was the Prince of Wales and that was due to torpedo bomber attack.
@@chriscollier7469 She didn't get battered at all. She mission killed the Bismark, she is the reason the Bismark ended up as scrap.
You talk utter bollox.
@@jester5ify very mature
When was a KGV defeated?