How amazing it would be to tour the Grand Old Lady and the Gray Ghost, HMS Warspite and USS Enterprise, the two most decorated warships of their respective navies.
I honestly think Britain not retaining a battleship, an object so central to our culture is criminal. It's like China scrapping the whole Great Wall for bricks
Thanks - I enjoyed that. As part of the lessons learned after the loss of HMS Prince of Wales the remaining ships of the KGV class were modified (as far as practical) to improve their action damage control provisions - principly additional electrical generating capacity and detailed improvements to their torpedo defence measures. Also, when DoY did eventually serve with the British Pacific Fleet the ship's company apparently were rather unpopular with the crews of the other RN battleships in theatre - which were perhaps a little jealous of the publicity this ship had earned thanks to the Scharnhorst action. By the way, in the Royal Navy at least a group of warships operating in company were normally referred to a 'squadron' rather than a 'convoy' - if you will excuse a old man's pedantry.
My grandfather served on Duke of York throughout WW2. He was in the merchant navy before the outbreak of war but immediately joined the Royal Navy upon hearing the declaration against Germany. Unfortunately, he didn't say much in his later years about the action against Scharnhorst except to say that it was a fierce battle mainly fought in the dark. He was one of the lucky ones that survived the whole conflict.
My Grandad was also on the Duke of York during these days. He was a stoker and was on board during the sinking of the Scharnhorst. He’s the reason i served in the Royal Navy myself.
@@AllanHumphreys I'm sure our grandfather's would have known each other. I tried to join up when I left school in 1983 but I have asthma and wasn't accepted. I often think I missed out in life by not serving in the senior service. I have a picture of my grandfather in uniform but can't see his rank insignia on it, I seem to remember he strained the tank of CPO but I can't be 100% sure as I don't have his service record and I've been unable to get a copy. Any help in this would be appreciated. He was offered a commission after the end of the war but he turned it down as like a lot of others he'd had enough and just wanted to get home. I'm sure he always regretted that decision.
Glad Bates got that mention. Insane bravery. And Duke of York did used to list a bit as he moved around her. The Captain liked Bates to remain close to the keel line. Those bollocks weighed so much, that sometimes they did upset the sea keeping.
I been aboard HMS Belfast recently, She can be found on the Thames River in London and has detailed accounts of the Battle of North Cape. Much Recommend if you are in London! Also Skynea History should make a video on Belfast. The Belfast is actually in Good condition compared to the USS Texas.
At 15900lbs, a broadside from a KGV actually outweighed one from Bismarck at 14112lbs. They also equalled Bismarck for range. They were better armoured, having an all or nothing armour system, with thicker belt armour, and carried dual purpose secondary gun batteries rather than Bismarck's split systems, which added weight and logistical burdens.
Not to mention, a KGV 133mm gun was hyper accurate when it came to shooting down aircraft, practically sniping them out of the sky with direct hits, which came at the surprise of japanese pilots. However, the turrets themselves were slow and quite heavy, which is why, for the lion class, the new 133mm turrets found on vangaurd were selected instead.
@@Tundraviper41I’m not arguing with you. But if what you say is true then, Respectfully, why didn’t Prince of Wales shoot down more Japanese planes before she was sunk? Or, why didn’t she shoot down enough Japanese bombers to escape?
It's good to see coverage of the lesser-known KGV class members and her crew, especially Harold Bates climbing up the mast to fix battle damage during a running battle in severe weather,
My father was transferred to Tirpitz Watch from the Royal Navy to the South Dakota when she and the Alabama performed the same duties. I still have his Blue Nose Certificate signed by her Captain and a Fleet Airarm aircraft recognition waterline model of her. 👍🏻🏴🇺🇸
I have a model of the Prince of Wales plus most of the great battleships of that time like the Hood, Bismarck and the Yamato and many more. The Dreadnoughts of WW2 were my favorite battleships.
One of those old "Secrets of World War II" episodes is about the sinking of Scharnhorst. One of the men on the bridge of Duke of York remembers Adm Fraser being "extremely confident, quiet,... and delightful." I couldn't help but think, "My good man, I'm picking up on your sarcasm."
Thanks so Duke of York and Washington served together in the North sea ,then both went on to engage a German battle cruiser and Japanese battle cruiser in night actions dominated by the use of superior radar.Cheers.😊
It was British radar on the HMAS Shropshire that picked up the Kirishima well before the Washington. You know we did not sit still waiting for the USN to join us in WW2
@@jacktattis HMAS Shropshire was at Surigao strait and her radar detected the force led by IJN Fuso and Yamashiro which clashed and were destroyed by Admiral Jess Oldendorf 's West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Maryland , Tennessee, California, This occurred 24th October 1944. Washington and South Dakota under Admiral Willis Lee were screened by 4 American destroyers, when they clashed with and sank IJN Kirishima This occurred 15th November 1942.
Time 4:39 D.OY. was joined by Renown on anti-Tirpitz convoy escort! Potentially putting another, even weaker battlecruiser in the way of an enemy 15" battleship. The British Navy were hardly fast learners! Renown was not even allowed to fire into the blazing Bismarck wreck in 1941. It was useful in the Pacific as a fast large anti aircraft gun platform.
Renown was warned to stay away as she wasn’t needed. If Bismarck had somehow lost KGV and Rodney, Renown would have absolutely attacked Bismarck and tried to stop her. Somerville had formed a plan how to do this with his 3 ships of force H, Renown, cruiser Sheffield and Ark royal. She had a reputation as a very good gunnery ship and her performance against Scharnhorst and Gniesenau would have meant she and DoY would have completely overpowered Tirpitz
A great video about a ship that did her duty. If any of the KGV Class were to have been preserved, then HMS Duke of York would have run King George V pretty close.
3 of the KGV class ships between them sank 2 german battleships, making them one of the most successful classes of battleship ever. The Iowas sank nothing larger than a single Japanese destroyer.
pardon me whilst i laugh hysterically at this statement, and its battleship "member envy" the KGV class sank an overblown cruiser (Scharnhorst) and happened to be present to finish off a practically helpless Bismarck along with "every ship a sail" as Churchill stated. aside from that the only BB on BB action the British fleet partook in was shooting up a couple French battleships that were literally at anchor. There are only 2 WW-2 Battleships that went toe to toe with an equal and sunk an actual battleship, these would be the aforementioned Bismarck (that sank Hood and chased off PoW (a KGV class battleship) with her tail tucked, and USS Washington, that sank the Japanese IJN Kirishima in the second battle of Guadalcanal in a 1 on 1 fight after the USS South Dakota retired from the fight.
@mikeholton3914 Sorry bud. The Scharnhorst was a schlachtschiffe and was meant to latterly receive 15 inch guns in a refit. - The Bismarck was still very dangerous for initial salvos, but Brits got on target first with lucky shots that damaged fire control (which didn't happen 3 days prior) - The Kirishima was actually just a battlecruiser that had some armour upgrades. - Perhaps look at Letye Gulf.
If a fighter pilot shoots down one enemy, he is successful because he didn't get killed Similarly, if a battleship beats another battleship, it is successful
They were built without sheer at the bow, in order to allow the forward guns to fire forward at a low elevation. This proved to be poor for sea keeping and of limited use in action, thus Vanguard was built with a sheer bow.
My great uncle served on Duke of York in Mediterranean with taskforce H to the battle of the North Cape against the scharnhorst the finally to the Pacific but too late to see any action due to being laid up at Gibraltar with a ship wide electrical fault
Thank you very much Skaneateles for a masterful and joyful video.I never knew what happened to the German battleship shornhorse.You gotta love a computer who trys to spell for you,always having disastrous results .Many thanks Skynea.😊😊😊I bet Hitler threw a temper tantrum along with a melt down when the news reached him.I can imagine him saying something along the lines of I CANT BEAT THOSE DAM BRITISH ON THE HIGH SEAS! BAHUMBUG!!!😂😂😂
I would say Duke of York is one of only a few Capital ships to actually fire its guns and successfully hit an enemy surface combatant. Especially since that combatant was a battleship, yes Scharnhorst was a fairly weak Battleship but the fact it almost outran the British proved that focusing on speed was perhaps it's best defense.
KGVs were very good ships considering the Treaty limits that constrained their tonnage. The flared bow that eventually made it on to the Vanguard would have improved the design though.
In many ways DoY's achievement is greater than KGV's The engagement with Scharnhorst took place in winter, in the dead of night and in a howling snow storm and she still achieved many hits that killed the German BB. Ton for Ton the KGV's were amongst the best of the WW2 designed battleships, as opposed to Bismarck which was not treaty compliant by any measure and was inefficient.
@@B52Stratofortress1Comparable American Systems a joke surely Your radar was useless it was the Aussie cruisers that picked up the enemy planes well before the USN
I don't think the KGV's were bad designs, but for treaty battleships i still have to say that the South Dakota's are the best. I gotta simp for my girl Alabama
Would 3 triple turrets have made more sense? The original plan for 3 quad turrets required to much weight.three triple turrets would provide a common design concept. How reliable was the quad turrets?
As originally designed, the quad turrets were too precise. That is, the tolerances for components were designed too finely, which meant even small flexes of the ship when sailing around could jam the turrets. Once that was fixed, the turrets were quite effective. This is also illustrated in how KGV and PoW used their guns against Bismarck, as opposed to how DoY fought against Scharnhorst. As for triple turrets, that would arguably be more effective. However, a triple turret for the 14" gun didn't exist when the decision was made not to compromise some armour for a 12 gun broadside. Designing a twin turret would be much faster. Moreover, a triple gun layout would also result in losing another gun, which was also not something the RN was too keen on. Armour was important, but so was armament.
There was a big weight saving that was achieved by using that 2 gun turret, that weight got used on armor, so if they had used 3x4 gun turrets, then the ship would have been less well protected,
Let him that is a true-born gentleman And stands upon the honour of his birth, If he suppose that I have pleaded truth, From off this brier pluck a white rose with me.
Seems to me that after the sinking of HMS hood the Royal Navyhad the better of the German fleet and eventually took their capital ships down. Except for Tirpitz which was down to the RAF and it's mighty Lancaster's
the British fleet had far and away more ships to throw out there than the Germans did. strategically the German fleet was never in any mood to engage the brits in a "Jutland" type fleet action, they were wanting to avoid warships and attack convoys. remember the only chance the Germans had to win was to close the Atlantic. you dont ship bullets and beans from North America on battleships, you need freighters, and the German navy was intent on sinking as many of them as possible. a ship like a Scharnhorst, or a Bismarck could literally wipe out a convoy by itself if it encountered one. this was what they were intended to be used for, regardless of what the WoW amateurs say about the BB on BB clashes, the Germans were interested in hunting convoys, they built big BB's because they fely they could handle anything in the Brit fleet one on one and the Brits weren't sending the Grand Fleet out to escort each convoy with multiple battleships.
This has nothing to do with the scenario in the Arctic: 48 x 4 cm anti-aircraft guns are grouped into 6 batteries (each with 8 guns), meaning you can fight 6 targets at the same time. In the Mediterranean with 3 destroyers as escort against a multidimensional attack of Fliegerkops X + Italian torpedo bombers, that can end badly, right?
One of the only two out of 29 battleships of the WWII generation to ACTUALLY DO HER JOB. For all the talk about preserving Warspite or even Vanguard, IMO it’s DoY that should have gotten that honour.
Scharnhorst was NOT a battleship. No other class of ship with 11” guns has ever been called a battleship. With 31 knot speed it’s clearly a (poorly armed) BattleCruiser.
@@hazchemel what, it didn’t have 11” guns? Sure it was supposed to be up-armed, but it wasn’t. Name me one other class of “battleship” built after WWI that didn’t have at least 14” guns. I’ll wait.
@@CorePathway I observe you have changed your criterion. First you wrote ' No other class of ship with 11” guns has ever been called a battleship.' Now you have added 'after WW1' and increased the gun calibre. Presumably someone made you aware of your ignorance about the Nassaus? As to the Scharnhorsts. Their builders called them battleships, and their armour was thicker than that of the Washingtons. I don't recall anyone ever calling the Washingtons battlecruisers. Do you?
@@anonymusumYou clearly haven't seen pictures of some of the French pre-Dreadnought battleships I'll take well designed and effective battleships over 'pretty' anyday
@@johnfisher9692 You can have it both. And regarding to the French pre-Dreadnoughts: I didn´t write "the ugliest". Although Furious as a carrier comes close.
![เปิดบ้าน โคตรสวย ป๋องกพล รู้จักตั้งนาน เพิ่งรู้ว่ารวย!!! l [Nickynachat]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/tmgCF_2HfYI/mqdefault.jpg)
Too bad at least one of the class wasn't kept as a museum. Of course, the ship the Brits really should have kept was Warspite!
How amazing it would be to tour the Grand Old Lady and the Gray Ghost, HMS Warspite and USS Enterprise, the two most decorated warships of their respective navies.
Yes a true warrior
I honestly think Britain not retaining a battleship, an object so central to our culture is criminal.
It's like China scrapping the whole Great Wall for bricks
I’d rather have DoY around instead, frankly.
True. As an English guy our governments have always undervalued our military.
Thanks - I enjoyed that.
As part of the lessons learned after the loss of HMS Prince of Wales the remaining ships of the KGV class were modified (as far as practical) to improve their action damage control provisions - principly additional electrical generating capacity and detailed improvements to their torpedo defence measures. Also, when DoY did eventually serve with the British Pacific Fleet the ship's company apparently were rather unpopular with the crews of the other RN battleships in theatre - which were perhaps a little jealous of the publicity this ship had earned thanks to the Scharnhorst action.
By the way, in the Royal Navy at least a group of warships operating in company were normally referred to a 'squadron' rather than a 'convoy' - if you will excuse a old man's pedantry.
My grandfather served on Duke of York throughout WW2.
He was in the merchant navy before the outbreak of war but immediately joined the Royal Navy upon hearing the declaration against Germany.
Unfortunately, he didn't say much in his later years about the action against Scharnhorst except to say that it was a fierce battle mainly fought in the dark.
He was one of the lucky ones that survived the whole conflict.
My late uncle was also on the Duke of York during that time. May he and all his ship mates rest in peace. 🙏🏻
My Grandad was also on the Duke of York during these days. He was a stoker and was on board during the sinking of the Scharnhorst. He’s the reason i served in the Royal Navy myself.
@@AllanHumphreys I'm sure our grandfather's would have known each other.
I tried to join up when I left school in 1983 but I have asthma and wasn't accepted. I often think I missed out in life by not serving in the senior service.
I have a picture of my grandfather in uniform but can't see his rank insignia on it, I seem to remember he strained the tank of CPO but I can't be 100% sure as I don't have his service record and I've been unable to get a copy. Any help in this would be appreciated.
He was offered a commission after the end of the war but he turned it down as like a lot of others he'd had enough and just wanted to get home.
I'm sure he always regretted that decision.
Glad Bates got that mention. Insane bravery. And Duke of York did used to list a bit as he moved around her. The Captain liked Bates to remain close to the keel line. Those bollocks weighed so much, that sometimes they did upset the sea keeping.
I been aboard HMS Belfast recently, She can be found on the Thames River in London and has detailed accounts of the Battle of North Cape.
Much Recommend if you are in London!
Also Skynea History should make a video on Belfast. The Belfast is actually in Good condition compared to the USS Texas.
The broadside of a KG5 was better than many of its contemporaries abiding by the treaty - its 14" shells had a higher bursting charge than some 15"
At 15900lbs, a broadside from a KGV actually outweighed one from Bismarck at 14112lbs. They also equalled Bismarck for range. They were better armoured, having an all or nothing armour system, with thicker belt armour, and carried dual purpose secondary gun batteries rather than Bismarck's split systems, which added weight and logistical burdens.
Not to mention, a KGV 133mm gun was hyper accurate when it came to shooting down aircraft, practically sniping them out of the sky with direct hits, which came at the surprise of japanese pilots. However, the turrets themselves were slow and quite heavy, which is why, for the lion class, the new 133mm turrets found on vangaurd were selected instead.
@@Tundraviper41 Certainly with Radar proximity fuses.
@@Tundraviper41I’m not arguing with you. But if what you say is true then, Respectfully, why didn’t Prince of Wales shoot down more Japanese planes before she was sunk? Or, why didn’t she shoot down enough Japanese bombers to escape?
@@williampaz2092Pretty easy to google what happened to Prince of Wales,and how.
It's good to see coverage of the lesser-known KGV class members and her crew, especially Harold Bates climbing up the mast to fix battle damage during a running battle in severe weather,
My father was transferred to Tirpitz Watch from the Royal Navy to the South Dakota when she and the Alabama performed the same duties. I still have his Blue Nose Certificate signed by her Captain and a Fleet Airarm aircraft recognition waterline model of her. 👍🏻🏴🇺🇸
I have a model of the Prince of Wales plus most of the great battleships of that time like the Hood, Bismarck and the Yamato and many more. The Dreadnoughts of WW2 were my favorite battleships.
One of those old "Secrets of World War II" episodes is about the sinking of Scharnhorst. One of the men on the bridge of Duke of York remembers Adm Fraser being "extremely confident, quiet,... and delightful."
I couldn't help but think, "My good man, I'm picking up on your sarcasm."
GREAT photographs of these magnificent battlewagons.
I am very proud to say my late uncle was on board HMS Duke of York during this time in WW2. May he rest in peace. 🙏🏻
Thanks so Duke of York and Washington served together in the North sea ,then both went on to engage a German battle cruiser and Japanese battle cruiser in night actions dominated by the use of superior radar.Cheers.😊
It was British radar on the HMAS Shropshire that picked up the Kirishima well before the Washington. You know we did not sit still waiting for the USN to join us in WW2
@@jacktattis HMAS Shropshire was at Surigao strait and her radar detected the force led by IJN Fuso and Yamashiro which clashed and were destroyed by Admiral Jess Oldendorf 's West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Maryland , Tennessee, California, This occurred 24th October 1944.
Washington and South Dakota under Admiral Willis Lee were screened by 4 American destroyers, when they clashed with and sank IJN Kirishima
This occurred 15th November 1942.
@@andhelm7097 Thank you
Time 4:39 D.OY. was joined by Renown on anti-Tirpitz convoy escort! Potentially putting another, even weaker battlecruiser in the way of an enemy 15" battleship. The British Navy were hardly fast learners! Renown was not even allowed to fire into the blazing Bismarck wreck in 1941. It was useful in the Pacific as a fast large anti aircraft gun platform.
Renown was warned to stay away as she wasn’t needed. If Bismarck had somehow lost KGV and Rodney, Renown would have absolutely attacked Bismarck and tried to stop her. Somerville had formed a plan how to do this with his 3 ships of force H, Renown, cruiser Sheffield and Ark royal. She had a reputation as a very good gunnery ship and her performance against Scharnhorst and Gniesenau would have meant she and DoY would have completely overpowered Tirpitz
"Finally, we're going somewhere WARM!" - Duke of York's crew in December 1944, probably
(12:50) "I'm surprised he didn't weigh down HMS DoY with the weight of his ________". Is the answer waterlogged boots? They can be heavy..... 🙃
Thank you !
Great construction photos
A great video about a ship that did her duty. If any of the KGV Class were to have been preserved, then HMS Duke of York would have run King George V pretty close.
3 of the KGV class ships between them sank 2 german battleships, making them one of the most successful classes of battleship ever. The Iowas sank nothing larger than a single Japanese destroyer.
pardon me whilst i laugh hysterically at this statement, and its battleship "member envy" the KGV class sank an overblown cruiser (Scharnhorst) and happened to be present to finish off a practically helpless Bismarck along with "every ship a sail" as Churchill stated. aside from that the only BB on BB action the British fleet partook in was shooting up a couple French battleships that were literally at anchor. There are only 2 WW-2 Battleships that went toe to toe with an equal and sunk an actual battleship, these would be the aforementioned Bismarck (that sank Hood and chased off PoW (a KGV class battleship) with her tail tucked, and USS Washington, that sank the Japanese IJN Kirishima in the second battle of Guadalcanal in a 1 on 1 fight after the USS South Dakota retired from the fight.
They were late in the war
@@scottterry1659 good point. weren't that many IJN BB's left by then
@mikeholton3914 Sorry bud. The Scharnhorst was a schlachtschiffe and was meant to latterly receive 15 inch guns in a refit. - The Bismarck was still very dangerous for initial salvos, but Brits got on target first with lucky shots that damaged fire control (which didn't happen 3 days prior) - The Kirishima was actually just a battlecruiser that had some armour upgrades. - Perhaps look at Letye Gulf.
@@mikeholton3914Kirishima was in no way an equal to the Washington... to talk about "overblown cruisers" this ship was one.
Don’t forget her cat whiskey who slept through the battle with Scharnhorst
Thank you for sharing. It is history worth remembering (to steal a line from THG). Have a great day and stay safe.🙂🙂
If a fighter pilot shoots down one enemy, he is successful because he didn't get killed
Similarly, if a battleship beats another battleship, it is successful
Duke of York is my favorite, followed by Sydney, uss Delphy, uss New Jersey, DE. Samuel b Roberts and of course Enterprise
Amazing how low these ships ran in the water and not drive themselves under!!
They were built without sheer at the bow, in order to allow the forward guns to fire forward at a low elevation. This proved to be poor for sea keeping and of limited use in action, thus Vanguard was built with a sheer bow.
Great job again. Keep up the good work.
You can say BULLOCKS!
My great uncle served on Duke of York in Mediterranean with taskforce H to the battle of the North Cape against the scharnhorst the finally to the Pacific but too late to see any action due to being laid up at Gibraltar with a ship wide electrical fault
I believed the Destroyer attacks who scored several Torpedo hits which drastically reduced speed of Scharnhorst.
Thank you very much Skaneateles for a masterful and joyful video.I never knew what happened to the German battleship shornhorse.You gotta love a computer who trys to spell for you,always having disastrous results .Many thanks Skynea.😊😊😊I bet Hitler threw a temper tantrum along with a melt down when the news reached him.I can imagine him saying something along the lines of I CANT BEAT THOSE DAM BRITISH ON THE HIGH SEAS! BAHUMBUG!!!😂😂😂
I would say Duke of York is one of only a few Capital ships to actually fire its guns and successfully hit an enemy surface combatant. Especially since that combatant was a battleship, yes Scharnhorst was a fairly weak Battleship but the fact it almost outran the British proved that focusing on speed was perhaps it's best defense.
KGVs were very good ships considering the Treaty limits that constrained their tonnage. The flared bow that eventually made it on to the Vanguard would have improved the design though.
In many ways DoY's achievement is greater than KGV's
The engagement with Scharnhorst took place in winter, in the dead of night and in a howling snow storm and she still achieved many hits that killed the German BB.
Ton for Ton the KGV's were amongst the best of the WW2 designed battleships, as opposed to Bismarck which was not treaty compliant by any measure and was inefficient.
Their fire control and radar gunlaying systems were also really good for their time. But often overlooked compared to the comparable American systems.
@@B52Stratofortress1Comparable American Systems a joke surely Your radar was useless it was the Aussie cruisers that picked up the enemy planes well before the USN
I don't think the KGV's were bad designs, but for treaty battleships i still have to say that the South Dakota's are the best. I gotta simp for my girl Alabama
@@nashtheneet The South Dakota class and the KGV were very close in capability
@@jacktattis oh yeah im aware, i just prefer the main battery of the South Dakota's. Also American bias
W, great video
What would have happened if POW wasn't so new and had time to fix the little problems with her turrets?
A the Knightly Vampire Mummy, Nice Ship
Battle of the North Cape, Scharnhorst
off topic but didnt a few war ships basically drive into rocks over by nova scotia canada? Did you ever tell that story?
Lmao well said about that intrepid, big balled sailor 😂 They truly were the Greatest generation. We stand on the shoulders of Giants.
A very interesting video…but in the Royal Navy a ships crew as you call them are actually called the ships complement.cheers Roly🇬🇧.
Complement when talking numbers. Ships Company when talking people and roles.
Would 3 triple turrets have made more sense? The original plan for 3 quad turrets required to much weight.three triple turrets would provide a common design concept. How reliable was the quad turrets?
As originally designed, the quad turrets were too precise. That is, the tolerances for components were designed too finely, which meant even small flexes of the ship when sailing around could jam the turrets. Once that was fixed, the turrets were quite effective. This is also illustrated in how KGV and PoW used their guns against Bismarck, as opposed to how DoY fought against Scharnhorst.
As for triple turrets, that would arguably be more effective. However, a triple turret for the 14" gun didn't exist when the decision was made not to compromise some armour for a 12 gun broadside. Designing a twin turret would be much faster. Moreover, a triple gun layout would also result in losing another gun, which was also not something the RN was too keen on. Armour was important, but so was armament.
There was a big weight saving that was achieved by using that 2 gun turret, that weight got used on armor, so if they had used 3x4 gun turrets, then the ship would have been less well protected,
Interesting. My grandad was a gunner on the Duke of York.
We've got photo he took of Hiroshima after the bomb.
Duky 🥰
13:08 #Bollox! 😂😂😂
Let him that is a true-born gentleman
And stands upon the honour of his birth,
If he suppose that I have pleaded truth,
From off this brier pluck a white rose with me.
Seems to me that after the sinking of HMS hood the Royal Navyhad the better of the German fleet and eventually took their capital ships down. Except for Tirpitz which was down to the RAF and it's mighty Lancaster's
the British fleet had far and away more ships to throw out there than the Germans did. strategically the German fleet was never in any mood to engage the brits in a "Jutland" type fleet action, they were wanting to avoid warships and attack convoys. remember the only chance the Germans had to win was to close the Atlantic. you dont ship bullets and beans from North America on battleships, you need freighters, and the German navy was intent on sinking as many of them as possible. a ship like a Scharnhorst, or a Bismarck could literally wipe out a convoy by itself if it encountered one. this was what they were intended to be used for, regardless of what the WoW amateurs say about the BB on BB clashes, the Germans were interested in hunting convoys, they built big BB's because they fely they could handle anything in the Brit fleet one on one and the Brits weren't sending the Grand Fleet out to escort each convoy with multiple battleships.
A famous ship that would be ashamed of the current titleholder - no mention of different shells used by RN regarding visibility through snowstorm?
? Weird post. What is the "current title holder"?
I thought the Scharnhorst was a Battle Cruiser not a Battleship
She was actually an undergunned fast battleship. She was very well armoured, but 11 inch guns were inadequate.
Thanks for the information@@dovetonsturdee7033
This has nothing to do with the scenario in the Arctic:
48 x 4 cm anti-aircraft guns are grouped into 6 batteries (each with 8 guns), meaning you can fight 6 targets at the same time.
In the Mediterranean with 3 destroyers as escort against a multidimensional attack of Fliegerkops X + Italian torpedo bombers, that can end badly, right?
My dad served on her…
One of the only two out of 29 battleships of the WWII generation to ACTUALLY DO HER JOB.
For all the talk about preserving Warspite or even Vanguard, IMO it’s DoY that should have gotten that honour.
Which would be the other one to do her job?
IS THAT TRUE ABOUT PRESERVING A BATTLE SHIP,@@evo5dave
USS Washington vs. IJN Kirishima
Battle of Surigao Strait cries in corner.
So does those involved with the Bismarck actions
She may be disliked in WoWs players. I rather enjoyed her when I use to play the game
Scharnhorst was NOT a battleship. No other class of ship with 11” guns has ever been called a battleship. With 31 knot speed it’s clearly a (poorly armed) BattleCruiser.
Check the records, better late than never.
@@hazchemel what, it didn’t have 11” guns? Sure it was supposed to be up-armed, but it wasn’t. Name me one other class of “battleship” built after WWI that didn’t have at least 14” guns. I’ll wait.
But better armoured than your USS Alaska
@@CorePathway I observe you have changed your criterion. First you wrote ' No other class of ship with 11” guns has ever been called a battleship.' Now you have added 'after WW1' and increased the gun calibre. Presumably someone made you aware of your ignorance about the Nassaus?
As to the Scharnhorsts. Their builders called them battleships, and their armour was thicker than that of the Washingtons. I don't recall anyone ever calling the Washingtons battlecruisers. Do you?
@@dovetonsturdee7033 if you are comparing Scharnhorst to ships laid down in 1907…
In the end one of the ugliest battleships sank one of the most beautiful ones.
Ugly?
You mean solid. Purposeful. Capable?
@@ScienceChap And most certainly *not* ugly.
@@ScienceChap I meant ugly.
@@anonymusumYou clearly haven't seen pictures of some of the French pre-Dreadnought battleships
I'll take well designed and effective battleships over 'pretty' anyday
@@johnfisher9692 You can have it both. And regarding to the French pre-Dreadnoughts: I didn´t write "the ugliest". Although Furious as a carrier comes close.