Visit curiositystream.com/Historigraph and use the code 'Historigraph' to get a years membership for just $14.99 More videos you might like: Battle of Jutland: th-cam.com/video/JbWGRNoxGt8/w-d-xo.html Battle of Heligoland Bight: th-cam.com/video/eONRecE6PSg/w-d-xo.html Dreadnought: The Battleship that Changed Everything: th-cam.com/video/iFZXdyGlJy0/w-d-xo.html Battle of Coronel: th-cam.com/video/9kSgltDuc6c/w-d-xo.html Battle of the Falkland Islands: th-cam.com/video/cBCCnqiVOUk/w-d-xo.html Battle of Taranto: th-cam.com/video/dqko_tiX24E/w-d-xo.html To help make future Historigraph videos a reality, consider supporting the channel on Patreon: www.patreon.com/historigraph
Where was this a U-Boat-desaster? Wasn't more like a U-Boat-blessing or U-Boat-accomplishment, while it also was a Brittish-cruiser disaster? Also an astonishing display ineptitude of the three captains for a country with such a gloryous naval tradition. How did they become captains?
There was one british sailor, that was sunk three times during that incident. He was sunk on Aboukir, got on Hogue, was sunk again, reached Cressy and was promptly sunk a third time. He survived the war.
He went on to return to the service in World War II and reach the rank of Commander, and passed away at the ripe old age of 90 in 1989. Midshipman Wenman Humfrey "Kit" Wykeham-Musgrave.
It's amazing how deep propaganda runs when you describe a successful military operation as a disaster. "Disaster" has a connotation of unitentionality. War is very intentional. Some people cheered this event and some people were obviously hurt by it. That's the disgusting nature of war, and to suggest otherwise is propaganda imo.
The moment he mentioned these reservists were mostly from the same area I knew this was gonna be one of the pals battalions stories where a village, town, city’s male population just drops.
One of the most well known stories of a pals battalion up here in Scotland is the story about the Heart of Midlothian football club. I'm not a Hearts fan but it bears remembering.
The U-9 was quite the historic vessel. Just two months prior to this, the U-9 became the first submarine EVER to reload their tubes while still submerged. This was THE ship that finally convinced the Admiralty to take submarines seriously. U-9 went on to sink HMS Hawke and became one of only two ships to be awarded the Iron Cross (alongside the SMS Emden). And to top it all off the U-9 survived the war, being surrendered to the British and broken up in 1919.
Well, Not all survived the war, the commander of U9 then, Otto Weddingen died when the HMS Dreadnought rammed its new U-Boat, U29 in 1915! This was also the only time the Dreadnought was involved in sinking a maritime vessel
It's crazy how quickly ships became obsolete back then. Nimitz is still active after 50 years but back then if a ship was 15 years old it was basically worthless
Well between 1914 and 1945 there were the world wars which although being horrifying wars caused rapid technological development in terms of almost everything
Most people don't know but there are tons of engineers, scientists and designers stting 24/7 on chairs thinking: "How could we make "this" more lethal?". The same thins is happening now: Back in 2002 we had the Nokia 1100 as the top notch cell phone tech. Then just 20 yrs later...
@@oliverwilson11 There effectively was no development of battleships from the early 1920's to just before WW2, due to the naval treaties. The Japanese, British and Americans did continue with carriers in that period, however.
Another great video Josh, we’ll done. My wife had a relative who lost their life whilst serving on the Hogue, Chief Stoker Henry Thomas Mason. Thanks for bringing the story to life.
I’m from Rochester so I just want to thank historiograph for presenting our local history so well. This one incident and failure by the admiralty devastated many local families who lost what were only teenagers.
12:00 See you called it a disaster, but that's entirely accurate. This was a an astonishing success for the U-boat. The ships just sitting there was quite a blunder new recruits or not.
Hardly astonishing, the first cruiser hit was fair enough and the captain would've got his iron cross for that. The other two were obviously engaged in rescue operations and stopped in the water. Thats why there was a lot of pressure for submarine warfare to be banned and the captain of the U-boat to be charged with a war crime. Tens of thousands of sailors died in two world wars due to this incident and no Royal Navy warship was allowed to stop to pick up survivors if a uboat was thought to be in the area. Very few Bismark survivors were rescued, the vast majority were left to die when a uboat was detected.
What is missing in the video: U9 was for that time very modern. It was built 1910. It became the most successful U-boat of the whole worldwar and survived it. It was one of only two boats that were awarded to wear the Iron Cross on its tower. It sank 4 warships and 18 merchandising ships.
It's very interesting to see the change in warfare from regular surface-to-surface combat to having to look everywhere across the ocean for an enemy. Furthermore, it's amazing what we come up with to counter such threats, from more advanced AAA to radar and sonar.
Strategically I wonder if this incident was of benefit to Britain? Considering they had practically no anti-submarine doctrine at the outbreak of war, losses like this (though tragic in human terms) would have been far worse if inflicted on first rate ships instead, which may have happened more if such examples as this hadn't been there to learn from...
I doubt it would have changed anything. Going back to the big picture, whether the U-boats managed to sink a single or even a few first rate ships, it would not have changed the ultimate blockade of the German seaways. The numerical superiority of the RN was apparent before and after the Battle of Jutland. The RN could afford losses. German U-boats sank a handful of valuable ships in WWII including two battleships and a carrier off the top of my head, and again, it did little to make any meaningful change in momentum.
@@JRyan-lu5im The superiority of the Royal Navy was far more pronounced in ww2 though. Had the Germans managed more such sinkings (of valuable warships) in WW1, and maybe been more aggressive with their fleet, or at least pulled off a victory. They may very well have broken the blockade.
I remember reading about this about 40 years ago. It's still astonishing that Captain's actually brought their ships to a complete halt. I understand the concept of submarine warfare was little understood let alone experienced, but stopping your ship when someone's shooting at your ass is just not smart. You can't save anyone if your ship is headed to the bottom.
It's easy to say that in hindsight, because we know _U-9_ was sticking around. But these guys didn't know that... and it's not terribly surprising reservists didn't have the stomach to leave comrades in the freezing waters on the off chance the u-boat had stuck around and had more torpedoes.
@@boobah5643 you may slow your shit down I mean they were only doing 10 knots for god sakes. But you don't stop your ship flat out unless you've got a screen. Even though submarines or something new torpedo boats weren't. Okay so the first shift gets torpedoed and capsizes the second ship stops and by strange coincidence it gets torpedoed. So what is the third ship do? She stops so that all three cruisers get to rest on roughly the same area on the bottom. That way they can keep each other company and then you got what remains of three cruisers Cruise flailing around in The frigid North Sea. I would love to know if either one of the captains has stopped had a plan or this was it.
@@boobah5643 I am not necessarily talking about you but being in the area. I am talking about the various threats they could potentially be in the area that's why the cruisers were there. To deter those threats ranging from destroyers to torpedo boats. You think a torpedo boat would be up to put a fish in them with them standing still? Of course do you think a destroyer would be able to? Of course. It would be better than a training exercise.
Let's look at this in the proper context. Forget all about the Battle of the Atlantic and the US sub campaign in the Pacific; that is still in the future. At the time of this incident, only a single ship had ever been sunk by a submarine in wartime. That was 50 years earlier during the American Civil War, by a hand cranked contraption that could barely make it out of harbor and proved to be more dangerous to her own crews than to the enemy. That could just be dismissed as pure random luck. The capabilities of subs at the beginning of the war were very limited; submerged endurance was minimal, torpedoes were short ranged and unreliable, periscope optics were rudimentary, range was just enough to reach the northern and southern tips of the British Isles, and mechanical reliability was problematic (U9 missed the first group war patrol because of breakdown). The initial patrol of the U-boats at the start of the conflict resulted in no successful engagements and the loss of 2 of the subs. 1 of these was rammed by a British cruiser, with the immediate sinking of the sub and almost no damage to the cruiser. So what is a British cruiser captain to think? 1) I am a captain in His Majesty's Royal Navy, the greatest sea power on earth, and I am steaming around the English Channel (the very name demonstrating British dominance of the seas). Reputation alone adds to my defense. 2) The threats I need to worry about are mines (already proven dangerous in multiple previous conflicts), or German cruisers and destroyers. 3) Submarines are a newfangled thing that we have all heard about but have not previously proven themselves to be more than a potential nuisance. 4) Subs haven't sunk ships. But a ship has just run over a sub with no problem, so that's probably how future encounters will be resolved. 5) Lookouts will spot any danger. (There is no such thing as radar or sonar, and for centuries eyeballs have detected every threat before it could come within shooting range.) 6) The unwritten law of the sea is that you don't shoot at someone engaged in rescuing the crew of a sinking ship. That is abhorrently ungentlemanly. This unstated mutual understanding goes back to the days of sail, and it is almost unthinkable that someone would breach that code of conduct. 7) These are fellow sailors and townsmen, and they cannot be left to the sea. So, all in all, though it may seem to have been incredibly witless to have followed such a course of action, that is our perspective in hindsight and knowing the danger subs would eventually become, but that view does not reflect the logic of the time. Edit: I have been corrected about the first ship sunk by torpedo in comments below, but I'm not going to rewrite this whole thing.
My Great Grandfather was on HMS Cressy his wife was pregnant when he left so my Grandmother never got to meet him as he was lost. A Dutch trawler saved many and the Dutch people along with the families of those that were on the three ships campaigned to have the wrecks declared as war graves as the Admiralty had sold them for scrap to a salvage company. The salvage company was German. I would like to say thank you to the Dutch people for what they have done, I will never forget.
Even though my family name is totally unrelated to the name of the ship, this action has always interested me. I remember a Discovery Channel documentary called Submarines: Sharks of Steel talking about this action. "Britain might rule the waves but not necessarily what lay underneath."
Brilliant video. The action was a testament to just what sort of potential submarines would have in the coming years. This action (along with a few others) would also contribute to the Royal Navy developing their anti-submarine doctrine, and this would, in part, be carried on into the future. This attack (along with the sinkings of HMS Hawke and HMS Pathfinder) would also prompt research to start into anti-torpedo systems (something that would eventually result in torpedo blisters and bulges). A few associated facts about the people and ships involved in this action: 1. On the 15th of October 1914 (some three weeks after the loss of the Live Bait Squadron), Weddigen (still in command of of U-9) would sink the protected cruiser HMS Hawke, which was sailing alone and not taking any evasive maneuvers. That enhanced Weddigen's legend, and made U-9 one of the most successful submarines of the war. Incidentally, U-9 and SMS Emden would be the only two German warships to be awarded the Iron Cross. 2. Weddigen, for all his successes, would be lost when in command of U-29 in March 1915. U-29 had tried to torpedo the battleship Neptune in the Pentland Firth, but was spotted. HMS Dreadnought and HMS Bellerophon moved in to attack, and Dreadnought ended up ramming U-29, sinking her with all hands. For the revolutionary battleship, this would be her only enemy kill, and earned Dreadnought the distinction of being the only battleship to ever definitively sink a submarine by herself.
There was a _lot_ of technical advancement in the 1850-1950 period. And the British Admiralty had more-or-less squirreled away all the iron and steel ships they'd built before WWI. HMS _Warrior_ was commissioned in 1860, and while she was decommissioned in 1883 the Royal Navy used her as a ship until 1927; her sister ship, HMS _Black Prince_ served in one way or another until 1923.
My great great uncle Leading Seaman William George Bearman perished on HMS Aboukir. This event was a tragic and senseless loss of life, indicative of the hopeless military leadership in England at the time. I keep the commemorative scroll up on the wall as a sobering reminder - lest we forget.
It's crazy how dangerous can be any weapon if you don't prepared to it. And it's sad what people who can escape such tragedic end don't get blamed and don't suffer from that actions.
They chose foolishly, there’s no heroics about it. What would’ve made them heroes was sinking this sub or chasing it off, and then returning for the rescue. By acting like the recruits they were, they doomed the very people they were trying to save.
@@jki808 Like you'd have done any better in their boots. Its not their fault their government provided them with no training and that their instinct to save their friends and family outweighed their instinct to destroy the submarine which sank them.
Excellent video! I really like how you take the time to focus on the human loss and tragedy alongside everything else. One slight correction, however, is that the islands off the west of Normandy are British Crown Dependencies, and thus very much not French.
THE ARROGANCE of the British Admiralty was astounding. When serving there, Churchill sent thousands to their deaths during the Dardanelles Campaign, commenting that "we only lost some OLD ships" while never mentioning the sailors who died.
When you've been undisputed masters of the ocean for a hundred years; arrogance is to be expected. Churchill was the worst though. His attitude in both World Wars was 'We will win because we're British!', regardless of factors like enemy troop strength, morale, weaponry etc and terrain.
That's why I'm a firm believer that politicians and generals should be fighting right on the front lines. It's too easy to disregard life when one is safely behind a desk, miles away from danger.
Forget the sinking of Royal Oak. Forget HMS Venturer sinking U-864 while both were submerged. Forget convoy PQ 17. This is the greatest submarine action of all time. Why? Because of all the other impressive submarine actions that followed in both world wars, none of them, NONE of them, had this much impact. 3 cruisers sunk in just an hour. More than 1400 sailors dead. This was done not by an enemy fleet, but by a single 600 ton u-boat crewed by just 29 men. After this event, the submarine was never questioned again. Naval warfare was never the same as it was before. And to think that this was followed by the loss of HMS Audacious and the defeat at Coronel just a month later. 1914 was not a great year for the Royal Navy, in spite of the victories at Heligoland Bight and at the Falkland Islands.
Not really. To lose three totally obsolete armoured cruisers was militarily pretty much insignificant for the RN. Bigger impact was the huge loss of life and the home front cry following that. Lesson was learned, the submarines were taken more seriously from that on.
I think there is a more impressive feat at WW2 when US submarine USS Parche with Commander Ramage at command sunk 5 Japanese ships in 34 mad minutes (unconfirmed officially but believed by many accounts, resulting MoH awardee for Commander Ramage). Although it is done by more modern submarine, sinking 5 ships in 30 minutes is still unthinkable especially their torpedo team reload speed on Balao class submarine. th-cam.com/video/ZnB82cT1LQI/w-d-xo.html
@@wilsonlisan5002 the point is that by ww2 sinking ships by submarine was well established. Here they're doing something that had never been done before, before this attack numerous people argued submarines weren't likely to be effective. the very fact that the US Navy had submarines was a result of the knock on effects of this attack, similar to Pearl Harbor/Taranto and the ascendancy of the Aircraft Carrier.
I read about this! It was in a book called ‘1914 1918 A History Of The First World War’, quite a hefty one at seven-hundred and fifty-ish pages all of them with small text and humongous pages, but well worth a read!
They shoulda rather just set em to full steam at port towards the germans and jumped off of it to swim home, perfect way to decommission obsolete equipment (and to train the Germans how to lead ships with the torpedos but that's another story)
@@rob5944 If you’re referring to TimothyB’s comment, it’s a saying amongst Royal Navy submariners, especially nowadays, it’s not specifically aimed at this incident in particular nor does it intend on detracting from the human cost of sunken ships.
He made correct choices after 1940? Did you miss advocating declaring war on the USSR during the Winter War, the Greece debacle, sending Prince of Wales and Repulse to the Far East unsupported, Project Habakkuk, his desire to open the second front in the Balkans and describing Italy as 'the soft underbelly of Europe'?
The British learned quickly, within 3 years they had a convoy system, ASW weapons that worked (depth charges) and were getting ready for sonar. Ww2 was both sides learning the lessons and expanding. The US and Japan were the ones who didn't learn (and the former by 1945 was the most successful submarine based nation)
I had never heard of this until recently when I was listening to the Audiobook "The Lion at Sea" by Max Hennessy, needless to say I educated myself, good to see a video about it
To me the utter waste of human life transcends the nationalities of the combatants involved, it's just a very sad story. All those young men died for no tangible reason.
@@uncletookie9102 your fine. It's not what I'd call rambling, more and outpouring of ones feelings and emotions and there's nothing wrong with that! There is a regrettable case of a U-boat being repeatedly attacked by Allied forces (whilst safeguarding survivors of a ship it'd sunk). The reasons for these highly questionable acts have never been satisfactorily explained, that said it was gladly an isolated incident. In the main, I'm sure that both sides acted with chivalry and gallantry. However, as time has gone life, quite rightly, has become more and more valued (and as I myself have become a little older and experienced a sudden loss to my health). Therefore any cause to the loss of that life, especially thorough deliberate means is a lamentable one. Take the current war in the Ukraine of instance. Even when Russia suffers a defeat, someone inevitably has to pay for that with their life. That is why I said before the very beginning a negotiated settlement should, if at all possible could, of been found. Anything to avoid all the death, suffering and destruction that would surely follow. Prime Minister Chamberlain is often highly criticised over his appeasement of Adolf Hitler, but I disagree. In addition to claims he was playing for time,. I think he genuinely wanted to avoid the realistic scenario of a repeat of the horrors of the first World War. A considerable proportion of the public did too, and his government was a democratically elected one. A similar feeling pervaded France although this carried on, even has hostilities began, even in the West. To me this is understandable, after all nearly all of the fighting had taken place on French soil and they had little to show for their hard won victory, even less than the rest of us. Germany, although the invader was left in chaos, searching for something or someone to blame, Russia in total anarchy, Britain more or less bankrupt (some might say never to truly recover). The US was the only real victor, save for its war dead of course. It's presence on the world's stage enhanced, economy grown, and the same applied in the second world war, only even more so. Alas I digress, but I believe it underlines my point, what was it all for? Nothing really, all that dying and crying while our resources were squandered when they should of been but to much better uses elsewhere. Even today, instead of investing in renewable energy we're now facing higher bills and power cuts, when in this day and age it should be cheaper and reliable. Our new leader now says she is going to borrow yet more money to cap prices instead of daring to tackle the suppliers. So, the good old taxpayer foots the cost again huh? What's new my friend, now how's that for a good old ramble.....
Brilliant. I've known about this for years but not all the details. The irony of this was that when the British got their revenge,they were unaware of it. When Wedigan's new command, U29 was rammed and sunk by HMS Dreadnought in 1915, the identity of its commander was unknown. The irony compounded by the revolutionary all big gun Dreadnought's only action involving a ram, whilst operation in a squadron under Sturdee.
WOW. Your sub gets destroyed by the most powerful and terrifying battleship in the world. And it's not even killed by the cannons, they just ran it over. Absolutely amazing
The "Live Bait Squadron" was so fitting a nickname... By losing obsolete, rotting, old ships to new weapons, the British learned invaluable lessons without losing much combat capabilities. Must have been one hell of a nightmare to serve on those old buckets for the sailors, though... May they rest in peace.
@Wilhelm Eley Blah. That kind of stuff happened even worse in so many different wars with so many different nations. Take the USA's first encounter with the Germans in land battle in WW2, 1943 in Tunisia. Several Tank Battalions worth of tanks were wiped out... because they had been delivered training ammunition and got counter attacked by German tanks. Or the way the Soviets ran most of their WW2 campaigns. Or the way Chiang Kai Chek and Mao Zedong wasted hundred thousands of Chinese soldiers with utter disregard, becaus ehe knew there were millions more to draw from.
I mean the submarine captain im sure would have weighed his options, the risk to his one submarine to inflict the sinking of 3 armored cruisers, as old as they might be, is a worthy risk. A big early morale boost, even if he lost his submarine.
Great video. Thanks. I've been looking for a video detailing the loss of these three sister ships for a while now. I'm also from Chatham, Kent. Even though Maggie Thatcher closed the Dockyard down in the '80s, it's still a proud Naval Town with lots of Navy history. And a visit to the Dockyard is a great day out too. ;-)
...hm. 4000 yards apart, that's 2 miles of separation. Meaning the farthest ship was over 4 miles away. So it wasn't really 3 on 1, it was more like 1 on 1, 3 times in a row. Not only could these old ships not outrun the sub on the surface but apparently they were never trained to use the guns properly. So they were not "better than nothing".
@@Dreska_ I'm not too knowledgeable about ship speeds tbh but def found his claim of a sub being faster ("not only could these old ships not outrun the sub on the surface" he says) than a ship weird... I mean give the ship too small an engine and there's that but... Surface ships prolly have an easier job being speedy cuz they have less water drag. Ye it's complicated and I better just do some research lol.
The "Live Bait Squadron" was an alarmingly accurate moniker for these ships. The assumption they were "better than nothing" cost the RN 1500 sailors. I hope they split crews up after this so they were not all neighbors, friends & relatives. The USN had to learn that lesson the hard way too. All five Sullivan brothers were lost when the USS Juneau was sunk at Guadalcanal in 1942. DDG-68, an Arleigh Burke class destroyer was named for them.
Great great uncle Frederick Clarke re-enlisted for ww1, lived in Walworth, was on Houge, survived sinking, survived ww1, believed to have emigrated to Canada.
Heyyy, a story about chatham! Nice to see ny hime area get some recognition, even if it is a disaster Edit: I agree with the idea that men from the different towns would've known eachother. Even now, Rochester, Gills and Chatham work hand in hand with a lot of things, its very rare to stay exclusively in 1 town for work and education. Heck, my partner is from Gills and im from Chatham.
It was ruthless of the submarine captain to sink the last ship as well At that point the British weren't conducting a military patrol anymore but a rescue operation
While it doesn't excuse it there's a mitigating factor. Both the second ships had already launched their boats so in some ways they were in a better situation to save sailors than if they still had them rigged. Still, It's not something I could have done.
I have no idea why but the word "cruiser" is such a mesmerizing word. I mean battlecruiser? The HMS Hood. Heavy cruiser? The Prinz Eugen. Light cruiser? The infamous Admiral Belgrano. Best space battlecruiser? The Resurgent-class star destroyer.
Good video except for one mistake - a submarine at 50' deep is not battered by bad seas at all. It is calm and still. The danger is in submerging or surfacing in heavy seas as they are vulnerable to capsizing.
In this video you clearly enunciate "Metal Fish" referring to the German torpedoes. I thought after a previous video where it sounded like "Messer Fisch" (Knife Fish) that German torpedoes were henceforth to be known as Messerfisch.
The UK sold the salvage rights and the wrecks started being cut up in 2011. The wrecks were not AFAIK, declared as war graves which is rather unfortunate.
Oh man Churchill is often the bad guy in WWI stories but here he finally gets a W by withdrawing the live bait squadron… but unfortunately gets overruled.
The narrator in the video reported that most of the reservists were local to Chatham, when in reality there were many from the northeast, Anglia, Wiltshire all over England. The reason I say that as my Grandfather perished aboard HMS Aboukir married with four children that date 22/09/14 was his eighth wedding anniversary he was 34. Born in Hartlepool on a visit to Hartlepool I visited the library and acquired local 1914 newspapers on reports of the incident. The newspaper reported that there were huge loss of lives from the northeast. Most of my grandfather’s training occurred at Chatham from Royal Naval records. According to a Dutch historian on the subject some of those that perished were buried in the Netherlands.
I understand that “modern” had many meanings. I recall one referring to the duration shortly after WW2. I wish that you’d use the word when many nuances coincide.
@@historigraph With the current phrasing, it should be the U-Boat's perspective. How about the "Carrier disaster at Pearl Harbor", "British disaster at el-Alamein" or the "Nelson disaster at Trafalgar".
Interesting names.. Aboukir - Aboukir Bay, aka the Battle of the Nile, Cressy, obviously the battle. Hogue I had to look up.. apparently a 1692 battle.
Visit curiositystream.com/Historigraph and use the code 'Historigraph' to get a years membership for just $14.99
More videos you might like:
Battle of Jutland: th-cam.com/video/JbWGRNoxGt8/w-d-xo.html
Battle of Heligoland Bight: th-cam.com/video/eONRecE6PSg/w-d-xo.html
Dreadnought: The Battleship that Changed Everything: th-cam.com/video/iFZXdyGlJy0/w-d-xo.html
Battle of Coronel: th-cam.com/video/9kSgltDuc6c/w-d-xo.html
Battle of the Falkland Islands: th-cam.com/video/cBCCnqiVOUk/w-d-xo.html
Battle of Taranto: th-cam.com/video/dqko_tiX24E/w-d-xo.html
To help make future Historigraph videos a reality, consider supporting the channel on Patreon: www.patreon.com/historigraph
I have to ask, were you using Rule the Waves/Rule the Waves 2 for the ship models? They look incredibly similar to the ones in game.
@@Thomas-rk4rl nope, the ship models are vectors that wee custom made for the video
Where was this a U-Boat-desaster? Wasn't more like a U-Boat-blessing or U-Boat-accomplishment, while it also was a Brittish-cruiser disaster? Also an astonishing display ineptitude of the three captains for a country with such a gloryous naval tradition. How did they become captains?
@@historigraph Thank you for the response!
@@historigraph what happened to the captains of the 3 cruisers did they make it back alive just found your channel your videos are really interesting
There was one british sailor, that was sunk three times during that incident. He was sunk on Aboukir, got on Hogue, was sunk again, reached Cressy and was promptly sunk a third time. He survived the war.
What a legend!
(or plot armor?🤔)
You wouldn't want to serve with him, he was obviously a "Jonah"😂
@@roum22 or stick right by his side, depending on your point of view....
He went on to return to the service in World War II and reach the rank of Commander, and passed away at the ripe old age of 90 in 1989. Midshipman Wenman Humfrey "Kit" Wykeham-Musgrave.
I can't decide whether he is the luckiest man alive or the unluckiest man alive.
I'd say it was a cruiser disaster. For the U-Boat it was a great day.
best day of their lifes probably lol
A shameful day
Yes exactly!! I thought this was going to be about a U-Boat disaster at first.
Such is war
It's amazing how deep propaganda runs when you describe a successful military operation as a disaster. "Disaster" has a connotation of unitentionality. War is very intentional. Some people cheered this event and some people were obviously hurt by it. That's the disgusting nature of war, and to suggest otherwise is propaganda imo.
The moment he mentioned these reservists were mostly from the same area I knew this was gonna be one of the pals battalions stories where a village, town, city’s male population just drops.
One of the most well known stories of a pals battalion up here in Scotland is the story about the Heart of Midlothian football club. I'm not a Hearts fan but it bears remembering.
@Gordon Freeman Newfoundland regiment 1st July 1916, lets never forget them
The U-9 was quite the historic vessel. Just two months prior to this, the U-9 became the first submarine EVER to reload their tubes while still submerged. This was THE ship that finally convinced the Admiralty to take submarines seriously. U-9 went on to sink HMS Hawke and became one of only two ships to be awarded the Iron Cross (alongside the SMS Emden).
And to top it all off the U-9 survived the war, being surrendered to the British and broken up in 1919.
One have to admire the commanders of that u-boat. Respect!
Is that the same HMS Hawke that collided with RMS Olympic?
@@pelnapkins4379 the very same, yes.
@@Arclite02 quite the influence it had on history then!
Well, Not all survived the war, the commander of U9 then, Otto Weddingen died when the HMS Dreadnought rammed its new U-Boat, U29 in 1915! This was also the only time the Dreadnought was involved in sinking a maritime vessel
It's crazy how quickly ships became obsolete back then. Nimitz is still active after 50 years but back then if a ship was 15 years old it was basically worthless
Well between 1914 and 1945 there were the world wars which although being horrifying wars caused rapid technological development in terms of almost everything
@@TheDiloEmpire
The naval arms race from the 1890s to 1914 was faster than from 1914 to 1945
@@oliverwilson11 ok, I didn't know that, thank you for telling me
Most people don't know but there are tons of engineers, scientists and designers stting 24/7 on chairs thinking: "How could we make "this" more lethal?". The same thins is happening now: Back in 2002 we had the Nokia 1100 as the top notch cell phone tech. Then just 20 yrs later...
@@oliverwilson11 There effectively was no development of battleships from the early 1920's to just before WW2, due to the naval treaties. The Japanese, British and Americans did continue with carriers in that period, however.
Another great video Josh, we’ll done. My wife had a relative who lost their life whilst serving on the Hogue, Chief Stoker Henry Thomas Mason. Thanks for bringing the story to life.
"Thanks for bringing the story to life."
...sorry, the story was dead before he published this video?
aren't you spoiled for attention
@@touristguy87 🤡🤓🤡🤓🤡🤓🤡🤓🤡
@@millionelectricvolts6117 I take it that you're feeling like a 5-year old who's been scared by a clown. Try Santa.
Think I had a great uncle on HMS Hogue: also a stoker; also died. Edit: great-great uncle who was armourer's crew.
Lmao stop lying
I’m from Rochester so I just want to thank historiograph for presenting our local history so well. This one incident and failure by the admiralty devastated many local families who lost what were only teenagers.
12:00 See you called it a disaster, but that's entirely accurate. This was a an astonishing success for the U-boat. The ships just sitting there was quite a blunder new recruits or not.
"inaccurate"
Hardly astonishing, the first cruiser hit was fair enough and the captain would've got his iron cross for that. The other two were obviously engaged in rescue operations and stopped in the water. Thats why there was a lot of pressure for submarine warfare to be banned and the captain of the U-boat to be charged with a war crime. Tens of thousands of sailors died in two world wars due to this incident and no Royal Navy warship was allowed to stop to pick up survivors if a uboat was thought to be in the area. Very few Bismark survivors were rescued, the vast majority were left to die when a uboat was detected.
What is missing in the video: U9 was for that time very modern. It was built 1910. It became the most successful U-boat of the whole worldwar and survived it. It was one of only two boats that were awarded to wear the Iron Cross on its tower. It sank 4 warships and 18 merchandising ships.
It's very interesting to see the change in warfare from regular surface-to-surface combat to having to look everywhere across the ocean for an enemy. Furthermore, it's amazing what we come up with to counter such threats, from more advanced AAA to radar and sonar.
No joke like you can be attacked from every single direction when you’re at sea it would be terrifying
Strategically I wonder if this incident was of benefit to Britain? Considering they had practically no anti-submarine doctrine at the outbreak of war, losses like this (though tragic in human terms) would have been far worse if inflicted on first rate ships instead, which may have happened more if such examples as this hadn't been there to learn from...
I doubt it would have changed anything. Going back to the big picture, whether the U-boats managed to sink a single or even a few first rate ships, it would not have changed the ultimate blockade of the German seaways. The numerical superiority of the RN was apparent before and after the Battle of Jutland. The RN could afford losses.
German U-boats sank a handful of valuable ships in WWII including two battleships and a carrier off the top of my head, and again, it did little to make any meaningful change in momentum.
Go aboard one of these three ships on 09/22/14 and repeat what you've stated above.
@@donreed : I doubt he has a time machine.
@@donreed he did say strategic not tactical 😂
@@JRyan-lu5im The superiority of the Royal Navy was far more pronounced in ww2 though.
Had the Germans managed more such sinkings (of valuable warships) in WW1, and maybe been more aggressive with their fleet, or at least pulled off a victory. They may very well have broken the blockade.
I remember reading about this about 40 years ago. It's still astonishing that Captain's actually brought their ships to a complete halt. I understand the concept of submarine warfare was little understood let alone experienced, but stopping your ship when someone's shooting at your ass is just not smart. You can't save anyone if your ship is headed to the bottom.
It's easy to say that in hindsight, because we know _U-9_ was sticking around. But these guys didn't know that... and it's not terribly surprising reservists didn't have the stomach to leave comrades in the freezing waters on the off chance the u-boat had stuck around and had more torpedoes.
@@boobah5643 you may slow your shit down I mean they were only doing 10 knots for god sakes. But you don't stop your ship flat out unless you've got a screen. Even though submarines or something new torpedo boats weren't. Okay so the first shift gets torpedoed and capsizes the second ship stops and by strange coincidence it gets torpedoed. So what is the third ship do? She stops so that all three cruisers get to rest on roughly the same area on the bottom. That way they can keep each other company and then you got what remains of three cruisers Cruise flailing around in The frigid North Sea. I would love to know if either one of the captains has stopped had a plan or this was it.
@@boobah5643 I am not necessarily talking about you but being in the area. I am talking about the various threats they could potentially be in the area that's why the cruisers were there. To deter those threats ranging from destroyers to torpedo boats. You think a torpedo boat would be up to put a fish in them with them standing still? Of course do you think a destroyer would be able to? Of course. It would be better than a training exercise.
Let's look at this in the proper context. Forget all about the Battle of the Atlantic and the US sub campaign in the Pacific; that is still in the future.
At the time of this incident, only a single ship had ever been sunk by a submarine in wartime. That was 50 years earlier during the American Civil War, by a hand cranked contraption that could barely make it out of harbor and proved to be more dangerous to her own crews than to the enemy. That could just be dismissed as pure random luck.
The capabilities of subs at the beginning of the war were very limited; submerged endurance was minimal, torpedoes were short ranged and unreliable, periscope optics were rudimentary, range was just enough to reach the northern and southern tips of the British Isles, and mechanical reliability was problematic (U9 missed the first group war patrol because of breakdown).
The initial patrol of the U-boats at the start of the conflict resulted in no successful engagements and the loss of 2 of the subs. 1 of these was rammed by a British cruiser, with the immediate sinking of the sub and almost no damage to the cruiser.
So what is a British cruiser captain to think?
1) I am a captain in His Majesty's Royal Navy, the greatest sea power on earth, and I am steaming around the English Channel (the very name demonstrating British dominance of the seas). Reputation alone adds to my defense.
2) The threats I need to worry about are mines (already proven dangerous in multiple previous conflicts), or German cruisers and destroyers.
3) Submarines are a newfangled thing that we have all heard about but have not previously proven themselves to be more than a potential nuisance.
4) Subs haven't sunk ships. But a ship has just run over a sub with no problem, so that's probably how future encounters will be resolved.
5) Lookouts will spot any danger. (There is no such thing as radar or sonar, and for centuries eyeballs have detected every threat before it could come within shooting range.)
6) The unwritten law of the sea is that you don't shoot at someone engaged in rescuing the crew of a sinking ship. That is abhorrently ungentlemanly. This unstated mutual understanding goes back to the days of sail, and it is almost unthinkable that someone would breach that code of conduct.
7) These are fellow sailors and townsmen, and they cannot be left to the sea.
So, all in all, though it may seem to have been incredibly witless to have followed such a course of action, that is our perspective in hindsight and knowing the danger subs would eventually become, but that view does not reflect the logic of the time.
Edit: I have been corrected about the first ship sunk by torpedo in comments below, but I'm not going to rewrite this whole thing.
@@mikearmstrong8483 the first two okay, the third should have kept moving
My Great Grandfather was on HMS Cressy his wife was pregnant when he left so my Grandmother never got to meet him as he was lost. A Dutch trawler saved many and the Dutch people along with the families of those that were on the three ships campaigned to have the wrecks declared as war graves as the Admiralty had sold them for scrap to a salvage company. The salvage company was German. I would like to say thank you to the Dutch people for what they have done, I will never forget.
Even though my family name is totally unrelated to the name of the ship, this action has always interested me. I remember a Discovery Channel documentary called Submarines: Sharks of Steel talking about this action. "Britain might rule the waves but not necessarily what lay underneath."
Brilliant video. The action was a testament to just what sort of potential submarines would have in the coming years. This action (along with a few others) would also contribute to the Royal Navy developing their anti-submarine doctrine, and this would, in part, be carried on into the future. This attack (along with the sinkings of HMS Hawke and HMS Pathfinder) would also prompt research to start into anti-torpedo systems (something that would eventually result in torpedo blisters and bulges).
A few associated facts about the people and ships involved in this action:
1. On the 15th of October 1914 (some three weeks after the loss of the Live Bait Squadron), Weddigen (still in command of of U-9) would sink the protected cruiser HMS Hawke, which was sailing alone and not taking any evasive maneuvers. That enhanced Weddigen's legend, and made U-9 one of the most successful submarines of the war. Incidentally, U-9 and SMS Emden would be the only two German warships to be awarded the Iron Cross.
2. Weddigen, for all his successes, would be lost when in command of U-29 in March 1915. U-29 had tried to torpedo the battleship Neptune in the Pentland Firth, but was spotted. HMS Dreadnought and HMS Bellerophon moved in to attack, and Dreadnought ended up ramming U-29, sinking her with all hands. For the revolutionary battleship, this would be her only enemy kill, and earned Dreadnought the distinction of being the only battleship to ever definitively sink a submarine by herself.
It's rather amazing the number of ships that were produced which had relatively short service periods.
There was a _lot_ of technical advancement in the 1850-1950 period. And the British Admiralty had more-or-less squirreled away all the iron and steel ships they'd built before WWI. HMS _Warrior_ was commissioned in 1860, and while she was decommissioned in 1883 the Royal Navy used her as a ship until 1927; her sister ship, HMS _Black Prince_ served in one way or another until 1923.
Naw, it's more astonishing that ships have LONG service periods. Seawater is brutal.
@@boobah5643 Yes ships soon become VERY obsolete. From being kings of the seas to sitting ducks.
My great great uncle Leading Seaman William George Bearman perished on HMS Aboukir. This event was a tragic and senseless loss of life, indicative of the hopeless military leadership in England at the time. I keep the commemorative scroll up on the wall as a sobering reminder - lest we forget.
It's crazy how dangerous can be any weapon if you don't prepared to it. And it's sad what people who can escape such tragedic end don't get blamed and don't suffer from that actions.
I find this really tugs at the heartstrings. Choosing between safety or trying to save your mates who are stranded in the water. Horrible.
that's war for ya
They chose foolishly, there’s no heroics about it. What would’ve made them heroes was sinking this sub or chasing it off, and then returning for the rescue. By acting like the recruits they were, they doomed the very people they were trying to save.
@@jki808 Like you'd have done any better in their boots. Its not their fault their government provided them with no training and that their instinct to save their friends and family outweighed their instinct to destroy the submarine which sank them.
It just shows how unprepared for anti-submarine warfare they were back then...
Excellent video! I really like how you take the time to focus on the human loss and tragedy alongside everything else.
One slight correction, however, is that the islands off the west of Normandy are British Crown Dependencies, and thus very much not French.
THE ARROGANCE of the British Admiralty was astounding. When serving there, Churchill sent thousands to their deaths during the Dardanelles Campaign, commenting that "we only lost some OLD ships" while never mentioning the sailors who died.
When you've been undisputed masters of the ocean for a hundred years; arrogance is to be expected.
Churchill was the worst though. His attitude in both World Wars was 'We will win because we're British!', regardless of factors like enemy troop strength, morale, weaponry etc and terrain.
Churchill was a real asshole.....
"was"? 😅
That's why I'm a firm believer that politicians and generals should be fighting right on the front lines. It's too easy to disregard life when one is safely behind a desk, miles away from danger.
I would love to see/hear/know the follow up conversations between those commanders who advocated for and against pulling the ships off patrol.
Forget the sinking of Royal Oak. Forget HMS Venturer sinking U-864 while both were submerged. Forget convoy PQ 17. This is the greatest submarine action of all time. Why? Because of all the other impressive submarine actions that followed in both world wars, none of them, NONE of them, had this much impact. 3 cruisers sunk in just an hour. More than 1400 sailors dead. This was done not by an enemy fleet, but by a single 600 ton u-boat crewed by just 29 men. After this event, the submarine was never questioned again. Naval warfare was never the same as it was before.
And to think that this was followed by the loss of HMS Audacious and the defeat at Coronel just a month later. 1914 was not a great year for the Royal Navy, in spite of the victories at Heligoland Bight and at the Falkland Islands.
Not really. To lose three totally obsolete armoured cruisers was militarily pretty much insignificant for the RN. Bigger impact was the huge loss of life and the home front cry following that. Lesson was learned, the submarines were taken more seriously from that on.
Yeah, loss of prestige and loss of crew but otherwise a pretty insignificant loss of obsolete ships.
I think there is a more impressive feat at WW2 when US submarine USS Parche with Commander Ramage at command sunk 5 Japanese ships in 34 mad minutes (unconfirmed officially but believed by many accounts, resulting MoH awardee for Commander Ramage). Although it is done by more modern submarine, sinking 5 ships in 30 minutes is still unthinkable especially their torpedo team reload speed on Balao class submarine.
th-cam.com/video/ZnB82cT1LQI/w-d-xo.html
@@wilsonlisan5002 the point is that by ww2 sinking ships by submarine was well established. Here they're doing something that had never been done before, before this attack numerous people argued submarines weren't likely to be effective. the very fact that the US Navy had submarines was a result of the knock on effects of this attack, similar to Pearl Harbor/Taranto and the ascendancy of the Aircraft Carrier.
Wrong sinking the ijn shinano was the single greatest EVER submarine action. It's still the largest ship ever sunk by a sub to this day! 👍🏻😎
I read about this! It was in a book called ‘1914 1918 A History Of The First World War’, quite a hefty one at seven-hundred and fifty-ish pages all of them with small text and humongous pages, but well worth a read!
Great video! What a staggering human toll from just a single sub. Those ships had no business even being out there, what a tragic waste.
They shoulda rather just set em to full steam at port towards the germans and jumped off of it to swim home, perfect way to decommission obsolete equipment (and to train the Germans how to lead ships with the torpedos but that's another story)
@@hunormagyar1843 Yeah because scrapping their parts would be too easy
Royal Navy Ships, staggered line. Commander, we're outnumbered 3 to 1!
Otto Weddigen: *_Then it is an even fight._*
Nice Halo 3 reference!
That was a great and detailed illustration of this very U-Boat attack. Thank you sir.
Really enjoy your pre ww2 content hoping you do more in the future.
I'm starting to feel that early 20th century British naval history is this channel's specialty
If anyone is interested, the German company Das Werk makes a scale model of the SM U9 in 1:72.
"They are better then nothing."
"Only if nothing kills at least 1500 people!"
He was killed in March 1915, when rammed by HMS Dreadnought which split his sub in two
Great info easy to read, great narration, and even better production
Good video mate
Keep doing the good work 😄
There are two kinds of vessels in the world, submarines and targets.
And submarines quickly sort out targets into two kinds: *damaged* targets and *artificial reef* targets. 😁
HMS Dreadnought when she sees a submarine: "Why not both?"
That's a rather insensitive comment I think.
@@rob5944 If you’re referring to TimothyB’s comment, it’s a saying amongst Royal Navy submariners, especially nowadays, it’s not specifically aimed at this incident in particular nor does it intend on detracting from the human cost of sunken ships.
@@SeaGamer4life yes, I've heard it quoted before. As I say I thought the time and place to do so a little inappropriate.
A story that involved Winston Churchill pre-1940 where he actually makes the correct choices, how unusual
He made correct choices after 1940? Did you miss advocating declaring war on the USSR during the Winter War, the Greece debacle, sending Prince of Wales and Repulse to the Far East unsupported, Project Habakkuk, his desire to open the second front in the Balkans and describing Italy as 'the soft underbelly of Europe'?
@@DomWeasel hey im not reading that! 💯
you should be banned from comments until you turn 18
@@memberberry5898 not reading this either💯
His failure at Gallipolli and his refusal to let ANZAC forces head home in 1941-'42 was his greatest mistakes.
It's amazing how quickly the victors forget the lessons of the First World War, especially when it comes to submarines.
Not really submarines are hard to deal with anyways. Their only weakness is technically aircraft.
The British learned quickly, within 3 years they had a convoy system, ASW weapons that worked (depth charges) and were getting ready for sonar.
Ww2 was both sides learning the lessons and expanding. The US and Japan were the ones who didn't learn (and the former by 1945 was the most successful submarine based nation)
I had never heard of this until recently when I was listening to the Audiobook "The Lion at Sea" by Max Hennessy, needless to say I educated myself, good to see a video about it
Great detailed history! i knew the story years ago. Now I KNOW the story! Thanks! SUBSCRIBED!
It still boggles me that there were submarines advanced enough in WW1 to used in war like this
Submarines capable of these operations had been around since the 1880s.
germany was focusing a lot of resources on them
U-9 and U-47 are just Legends!
I’m very happy you actually made a video about this I actually already knew about this attack but I am so happy you made a video about it now.
To me the utter waste of human life transcends the nationalities of the combatants involved, it's just a very sad story. All those young men died for no tangible reason.
@@uncletookie9102 your fine. It's not what I'd call rambling, more and outpouring of ones feelings and emotions and there's nothing wrong with that! There is a regrettable case of a U-boat being repeatedly attacked by Allied forces (whilst safeguarding survivors of a ship it'd sunk). The reasons for these highly questionable acts have never been satisfactorily explained, that said it was gladly an isolated incident. In the main, I'm sure that both sides acted with chivalry and gallantry. However, as time has gone life, quite rightly, has become more and more valued (and as I myself have become a little older and experienced a sudden loss to my health). Therefore any cause to the loss of that life, especially thorough deliberate means is a lamentable one. Take the current war in the Ukraine of instance. Even when Russia suffers a defeat, someone inevitably has to pay for that with their life. That is why I said before the very beginning a negotiated settlement should, if at all possible could, of been found. Anything to avoid all the death, suffering and destruction that would surely follow. Prime Minister Chamberlain is often highly criticised over his appeasement of Adolf Hitler, but I disagree. In addition to claims he was playing for time,. I think he genuinely wanted to avoid the realistic scenario of a repeat of the horrors of the first World War. A considerable proportion of the public did too, and his government was a democratically elected one. A similar feeling pervaded France although this carried on, even has hostilities began, even in the West. To me this is understandable, after all nearly all of the fighting had taken place on French soil and they had little to show for their hard won victory, even less than the rest of us. Germany, although the invader was left in chaos, searching for something or someone to blame, Russia in total anarchy, Britain more or less bankrupt (some might say never to truly recover). The US was the only real victor, save for its war dead of course. It's presence on the world's stage enhanced, economy grown, and the same applied in the second world war, only even more so. Alas I digress, but I believe it underlines my point, what was it all for? Nothing really, all that dying and crying while our resources were squandered when they should of been but to much better uses elsewhere. Even today, instead of investing in renewable energy we're now facing higher bills and power cuts, when in this day and age it should be cheaper and reliable. Our new leader now says she is going to borrow yet more money to cap prices instead of daring to tackle the suppliers. So, the good old taxpayer foots the cost again huh? What's new my friend, now how's that for a good old ramble.....
Great video once again and I like the new animation style!
No one:
British admiralty: 1500 lives lost is better than nothing
Brilliant. I've known about this for years but not all the details. The irony of this was that when the British got their revenge,they were unaware of it.
When Wedigan's new command, U29 was rammed and sunk by HMS Dreadnought in 1915, the identity of its commander was unknown. The irony compounded by the revolutionary all big gun Dreadnought's only action involving a ram, whilst operation in a squadron under Sturdee.
The u-boat was cut in half, too.
WOW. Your sub gets destroyed by the most powerful and terrifying battleship in the world. And it's not even killed by the cannons, they just ran it over. Absolutely amazing
The "Live Bait Squadron" was so fitting a nickname...
By losing obsolete, rotting, old ships to new weapons, the British learned invaluable lessons without losing much combat capabilities.
Must have been one hell of a nightmare to serve on those old buckets for the sailors, though... May they rest in peace.
"Live Bait Squadron" or on the other term "Fresh Scapegoat Squadron". 💀☠️
@Wilhelm Eley Blah. That kind of stuff happened even worse in so many different wars with so many different nations.
Take the USA's first encounter with the Germans in land battle in WW2, 1943 in Tunisia. Several Tank Battalions worth of tanks were wiped out... because they had been delivered training ammunition and got counter attacked by German tanks.
Or the way the Soviets ran most of their WW2 campaigns.
Or the way Chiang Kai Chek and Mao Zedong wasted hundred thousands of Chinese soldiers with utter disregard, becaus ehe knew there were millions more to draw from.
I mean the submarine captain im sure would have weighed his options, the risk to his one submarine to inflict the sinking of 3 armored cruisers, as old as they might be, is a worthy risk. A big early morale boost, even if he lost his submarine.
Great video. Thanks. I've been looking for a video detailing the loss of these three sister ships for a while now. I'm also from Chatham, Kent. Even though Maggie Thatcher closed the Dockyard down in the '80s, it's still a proud Naval Town with lots of Navy history. And a visit to the Dockyard is a great day out too. ;-)
Just discovered your channel. Really high quality!
And U-9 went on to sink the cruiser HMS Hawke next month
Great video. Well explained and excellent animation.
...hm. 4000 yards apart, that's 2 miles of separation. Meaning the farthest ship was over 4 miles away.
So it wasn't really 3 on 1, it was more like 1 on 1, 3 times in a row. Not only could these old ships not outrun the sub on the surface but apparently they were never trained to use the guns properly. So they were not "better than nothing".
Wait, the U-boat was faster than those surface ships? Damn...
@@hunormagyar1843 no, it wasn't
@@Dreska_ I'm not too knowledgeable about ship speeds tbh but def found his claim of a sub being faster ("not only could these old ships not outrun the sub on the surface" he says) than a ship weird... I mean give the ship too small an engine and there's that but... Surface ships prolly have an easier job being speedy cuz they have less water drag. Ye it's complicated and I better just do some research lol.
Another example of British military incompetence. Still very incompetent even to this day.
When Winston Churchill is the voice of reason, you know the situation is ridiculous.
You wouldn't be alive if it wasn't for him. Your ignorance is astounding.
@@spectreman2532 I would heavily debate that. The same could easily be said for stalin
@@spectreman2532 that doesn't change the validity of his statement.
@@talleywa5772 churchill made dogshit choices in ww2. what is it that you think he did so well in?
The "Live Bait Squadron" was an alarmingly accurate moniker for these ships. The assumption they were "better than nothing" cost the RN 1500 sailors. I hope they split crews up after this so they were not all neighbors, friends & relatives. The USN had to learn that lesson the hard way too. All five Sullivan brothers were lost when the USS Juneau was sunk at Guadalcanal in 1942. DDG-68, an Arleigh Burke class destroyer was named for them.
Great great uncle Frederick Clarke re-enlisted for ww1, lived in Walworth, was on Houge, survived sinking, survived ww1, believed to have emigrated to Canada.
keep these coming, excellent one
nice, the first U-Boat had such an great victory
Heyyy, a story about chatham! Nice to see ny hime area get some recognition, even if it is a disaster
Edit:
I agree with the idea that men from the different towns would've known eachother. Even now, Rochester, Gills and Chatham work hand in hand with a lot of things, its very rare to stay exclusively in 1 town for work and education.
Heck, my partner is from Gills and im from Chatham.
What a great battle, excellent job!
It was ruthless of the submarine captain to sink the last ship as well
At that point the British weren't conducting a military patrol anymore but a rescue operation
While it doesn't excuse it there's a mitigating factor. Both the second ships had already launched their boats so in some ways they were in a better situation to save sailors than if they still had them rigged. Still, It's not something I could have done.
It was, but do you really think the British wouldnt have done the same?
I have no idea why but the word "cruiser" is such a mesmerizing word.
I mean battlecruiser? The HMS Hood.
Heavy cruiser? The Prinz Eugen.
Light cruiser? The infamous Admiral Belgrano.
Best space battlecruiser? The Resurgent-class star destroyer.
When trying to save somebody the first thing you can do is save yourself. Don't be trying to save people in an active combat zone.
Good video except for one mistake - a submarine at 50' deep is not battered by bad seas at all. It is calm and still. The danger is in submerging or surfacing in heavy seas as they are vulnerable to capsizing.
In this video you clearly enunciate "Metal Fish" referring to the German torpedoes. I thought after a previous video where it sounded like "Messer Fisch" (Knife Fish) that German torpedoes were henceforth to be known as Messerfisch.
The UK sold the salvage rights and the wrecks started being cut up in 2011. The wrecks were not AFAIK, declared as war graves which is rather unfortunate.
Great video by the way!
cool thanks for that video. Capt. Otto Weddigen comes from my Home Town Herford, in Germany, NRW
Forgive me if I'm wrong but isn't the photo used for Rear Admiral Arthur Christian actually a photo of Rear Admiral Horace Hood?
Yes... I'm at a loss as to how that happened.
Must have got mixed up in photoshop when I was putting the assets together. My apologies
Naval history absolutely fascinates me.
Thoroughly interesting video, as per usual :)
Gotta love the bedtime stories soundtrack in the background...makes any gloomy video just that much better
As always excellent job
The biggest crime here is that there was a Cressy class cruiser called the Cressy
Not a Disaster but a well-executed martial action. The word disaster implies an unintentional misfortune....
When I heard the name Aboukir I knowed it's Egyptian port in fact that's the place where napoleon lost his navy to the British,what a coincidence
Oh man Churchill is often the bad guy in WWI stories but here he finally gets a W by withdrawing the live bait squadron… but unfortunately gets overruled.
These videos are really interesting love the graphics
Thank you for the brilliant work behind your videos. If possible, could you use the metric system as well? Much obliged in advance. 👍
it's incredible that one submarine sank 3 ships
If you think thats Special look at german uboat killcounts from WW1 and 2.
Excellent information. Thank You
The u-boat got a number one victory royal
That sub commander deserved the Pour le Merit and every sailor on the sub, the Iron Cross first class.
Not a U boat disaster. Rather a U boat success.
The narrator in the video reported that most of the reservists were local to Chatham, when in reality there were many from the northeast, Anglia, Wiltshire all over England.
The reason I say that as my Grandfather perished aboard HMS Aboukir married with four children that date 22/09/14 was his eighth wedding anniversary he was 34.
Born in Hartlepool on a visit to Hartlepool I visited the library and acquired local 1914 newspapers on reports of the incident. The newspaper reported that there were huge loss of lives from the northeast. Most of my grandfather’s training occurred at Chatham from Royal Naval records. According to a Dutch historian on the subject some of those that perished were buried in the Netherlands.
I understand that “modern” had many meanings. I recall one referring to the duration shortly after WW2. I wish that you’d use the word when many nuances coincide.
To be fair, couldn't this be described as the first U-boat success?
I suppose that depends on your perspective!
@@historigraph Very much. Or your service branch!
@@historigraph With the current phrasing, it should be the U-Boat's perspective. How about the "Carrier disaster at Pearl Harbor", "British disaster at el-Alamein" or the "Nelson disaster at Trafalgar".
An honor captain will have spare the last boat but will have show it
Very very excited for the next. Please dont terry.
Good example of why the "leave no man behind" mantra should not be so automatic.
Interesting names.. Aboukir - Aboukir Bay, aka the Battle of the Nile, Cressy, obviously the battle. Hogue I had to look up.. apparently a 1692 battle.
Salute the brave sailors on both sides who endured this insanity.
Spit on the politicians and leaders of the time for enabling this.
Excellent video thanks 🙏
Grim work, expertly executed.
Nicely informative video
Where is there a disaster? Germany here: For me it is just a sea battle from WW-I...
beating partime sailors is no massive victory lol even over 100 years ago
I would consider that to be a profound success, not a disaster.