My Grandfather a Navy master welder during WWII, told me he was assigned to work on the USS Montana class battleships. A larger but slower vessel than the Iowas. They were to do battle with the Yamato and Musashi. After they went down he and his crew were assigned to work on the new Essex class aircraft carriers; one of which was the USS Antietam where Dad served as a Signalman.
@@rossdawgsbrokenspirit9038 When he was sharing his stories of that time, I was a snot nosed kid with little interest in hearing what he said. But now I am 62, I kick myself for being that way. I was in the presence of living history, hearing 1st hand experiences from WWII. Now I have to strain my brain to remember what I heard. Young people; when your elders are talking, listen to what is being said. It is part of your history.
@@pcoyle2007 They might have been bigger, but they would be much slower (28 knots vs 33 for the Iowas) and therefore unable to keep up with the carriers. The Iowas lasted so long because they could fulfill the role of carrier escort if needed.
Foreigners may be mistaken, but the Yamato type was not "made big", but "made it as small as possible".The larger the ship's shadow, the higher the chance of being hit. I downsized it to avoid that. The fact that she was still the largest battleship meant that the triple 46cm guns were out of standard.
@@緑ノ里yamato may have the largest gun but not a long range gun the and yamato is not good in stormy seas due to it's weight and IOWA class battleships was built face to face yamato and his sister ship musashi
@albertamira5488 iowas were meant to be carrier escort ships hence their incredible top speeds and powerfull anti air suite. Also the wider hull form of the yamato class as opposed to the narrower and longer Iowa class made them slightly better in terms of stability in rough seas as It helped with rolling. And yamato just like iowa can fire her guns out over the horizon with help using a spotting aircraft so saying they weren't long range Is blatantly wrong.
Italian Battleships were design with the Mediterranean Sea in mind. They have a short endurance (compare to other battleship of the same size) because the Italian navy generally operates not far from its base.
After the Ariel attack on the naval base at Tarento by biplane torpedo bombers the Italian navy became very protective of its remaining battleships and didn't seem to keen to risk combat with the Royal Navy in the Mediterranean
@@michaelnaisbitt7926 and they find out that a new kind of sea war was getting on the sea power was now achieved with the carriers that they refused to built.
I was there 😢 the best and baddest ship. Best time except on that sad day 😢. 3rd Division Deck Department Jeffery Quesenberry (Country Boy) Moki Winslow (Hawaiian) Bm2 Grazt
For me the IOWA class battleships are by far the best looking of the group...sleek and fast with a very nasty punch. The fact that they were modernized at one point with Phalanx defense systems and Tomahawk cruise missiles just adds icing to the cake.
Though Japanese "Yamato" class battleships were the most formidable battleships ever built in the human history, their commission was too late. Aircraft carriers and carrier-based aircraft have already played the major role in the battle when two "Yamato" class battleships were introduced. In spite of their huge size and firepower, "Yamato" class battleships did not contribute so much.
That is not correct. The Yamato class was laid down in 1937 and entered service in 1941. The American Iowa class was laid down in 1940 and entered service in 1943. But why did America build the Iowa class? The US was supposed to be able to use the Iowa-class battleships as aircraft carriers. By the way, Japan was the first country to use aircraft attacks.
@@陰キャワイトさん You should not ignore the fact that there was a huge gap between the United States and Japan in terms of industrial output. Japan`s gross domestic product (GDP) was less than 10% of the United States, so the United States could afford to obtain both aircraft carriers and battleships while Japan had to choose aircraft carriers or battleships. Due to smaller industrial output, Imperial Japan had to choose battleships at the expense of aircraft carriers. From the beginning of Pacific War, Japan`s declaration of war against the United States was unrealistic and even suicidal. By the way, was Great Britain the first country to use torpedo planes (swordfish) to attack Italian battleship at the Gulf of Taranto if I remember correctly?
@@MrEjidorie Yes, but the number of pilots is also limited, so even if Japan used Yamato-class battleships as aircraft carriers at that time, I think it would have suffered the same fate due to the lack of pilots. It wasn't an aircraft carrier, it wasn't a battleship, it didn't have enough transport. I know it was stupid for Japan to declare war on America, but do you know "Hull Note" or "Ten Point" (November 26, 1941)? I think it was bad that the United States refused to negotiate with Japan at that time. I'm sorry, I was at a loss for words because I thought it was a story about two countries, Japan and America. At that time, Japan wanted to convey that one of its main forces was aircraft. (In fact, at the beginning of the war, the United States was less interested in air power than Japan.)
In case you’re wondering, while the Yamato was slightly shorter than the Iowa, Yamato was also much wider, making Yamato the bigger ship in terms of size Edit: Why are all of these Freeaboos talking about how Iowa was oh so much better than Yamato? I was simply clarifying a misconception about how big they were. Do you guys feel the need to start an internet debate everywhere you go?
Japan doesn't need to build skinny battleships simply because they don't need to go through the Panama Canal. Japan's naval doctrine dictates it to operate only in the Pacific and maybe the Indian Ocean while the US must maintain a two ocean (Pacific and Atlantic) navy
Actually the Nagato Class was not Built to those specs originally, so if you include the rebuilt version of the Nagato than you must do the same with the Richelieu Class as well. JEAN BART: Displacement Normal: 43,052 t (42,372 long tons) Full load: 49,196 t (48,419 long tons) Draft 10.9 m (36 ft) Complement 2,220 Length 247.85 m (813 ft 2 in) Beam 33.08 m (108 ft 6 in) Draft Full load: 9.9 m (32 ft 6 in) Which puts her in 5th place.
Jean Bart when actually complete was more like 52000 - 53000 tons full load and 11 m draft, need to look at the french updated plans for JB, she was way heavier with bulges and AA ammo.
The first bomb to hit the Yamato was dropped by Navy pilot Francis Ferry, flying a Helldiver. After the war he became a schoolteacher, and was Dean of Boys at Carlmont High in Belmont, on the San Francisco peninsula.
@@golden.lights.twinkle2329 There were many more required to sink Yamato, but that first hit did some serious damage. You needed a huge pair of steel balls to strap yourself into one of those dive bombers and aim the nose of your plane at the deck of a monster battleship that was trying to end you.
The U.S.A. was about to build the Montana Class (280 m , 70,000 ton) in WWII to fight against the Yamato Class. It would have been the largest battleship ever if it had been built. But only the first of the six had been built In the long run.
With all due respect to the producers of this video, I have one correction: the Iowa class was originally planned with 6 ships, but only 4 were built, those being the class namesake Iowa, the New Jersey, the Wisconsin, and the Mighty Mo…Missouri.
Same with there was supposed to be 3 Yamato Class battleships But the Shimano was converted to an aircraft carrier after the loss of its 4 main carriers at the battle of Midway.
To be more specific there were to be 4 Iowa's and then 5 Montana class Battleships but the Montana's were to be a larger ship with reduced speed over the Iowa's and they really wanted to put larger main guns on the Montana's but that would take more time in R&D so the Navy opted for 2 more Iowa's instead since they were already tooled for them however, they were never completed.
@@JoeXTheXJuggalo1 The Japanese actually planned for 5 Yamato's and the 4th had been laid down but there is no record of what her name would be. Yes, Shinano was well along but after the Midway catastrophe the IJN was short of carriers so they completed Shinano as a carrier. The US Navy found what was to be the turret face armor for Shinano and brought it back to the US for testing. A piece of it is on display at the Navy Yard Museum in Washington DC with a huge shell hole from a 16" 50 cal Mark VII gun which the Iowa's carry. The armor is 2ft thick.
@@LegalVideoMan Yes warship 111 and 797 is what they was called. Warship 111 started construction after the Yamato was launch. Due to the war, losing ships, and low resources it's hull about 25%-30% completed before it was halted and disassembled. The material was used to convert the WWI era Ise-Class battleships Ise and Hyuga into battleship carriers.
I was always under the impression that the Yamato class was massive compared to other battleships. It’s very surprising to see just how they compared. I thought that while the Iowa class were capable enough to possibly go toe to toe with them and likely even beat them for being faster but I never imagined them being nearly as big
@@Absolut531kmh I’m speaking about eye witness accounts of people that saw the ships for the first time. I’m not talking about technical specifications
it looks like Iowa ist to wide in the pictures. (So its size (witness) seems wrong - compare to ohter ships shown). Bismarck (36 m) and Yamato (37m) shoud be - visible - much wider - than the "slim and narrow" Iowa (33 m). But ist seems on the pictures.... that all three ships has quite the same witness. I have seen other pictures (Iowa vs. Bismarck) - on wich Bismarck look (overall) much wider ("bigger", "stronger") - than the fast and long but quite narrow Iowa.
@@Flenders1983 My thoughts exactly but I don’t know for sure what it actually looks like in rl. I can only go by the pictures and models I built as a kid
They was remarkable ships of the time. It's sad to see them go the way they did. It would of been amazing to see the Yamato or Musashi as a anchored museum in Japan.
@kxsho_002 not modern day ones. But yes Yamato was so large and very pretty! I must tell you Yamato and Musashi had another sister ship- shinano. Which was turned into a carrier actually. She was later sunk by American submarines
There was a 3 Yamato class ship being built but the imperal navy decided to try and convert her into a battleship/aircraft carrier hybrid. She was to keep one of the 18 in batteries. She was destroyed by US air raid before completion
@@ElRollioauEver since I moved over to Quora for a mainstay website to talk naval history, I've met like 4 people who claimed Iowa could hit enemy ships at 20+ miles.
Not sure if anyone caught it but I believe she said Yamato class had 16 in guns which actually it had 18 in guns and they were the largest guns on a battleship
Fun fact : the reason the King George V class only had ten guns was for stability reasons. Originally, they were supposed to carry twelve of them, but the stuff was so heavy that the ships became unstable, and the UK was forced to change the highest turret to a double one, in order to rebalance the whole thing.
@@Coolboi898 I don’t think the UK had officially withdrawn from the treaties. The US and UK were debating invoking some “escalator clause“ to have bigger guns. The UK and the US still tried keeping their new battleships at treaty limits, when they were building the KGV’s, and the North Carolinas and the South Dakotas. Part of the decision to keep 14 inch guns on the KGVs might’ve been a tonnage treaty issue.
The original design called for a 2 gun turret aft superimposed over Y turret. Yes, it became unstable. The 14 inch guns were a result of the Washington Treat.naval treaty. So they decided on 12 guns of 14 inch to have a large broadside due to the restrictions. The figuring was 12 shells fired in stead of 8, 9 or 10.
Not true, they decided to reduce the number of guns in order to use that weight for additional armour, a conscious decision, not a mistake. The KGV class fielded smaller calibre guns but were protected against higher calibre guns due to uncertainty regarding future treaties at the time they were laid down.
They were hamstrung by the london treaty which capped guns at 14 inches and 35k displacement. The Nelson and Rodney were also capped by the washington treaty at 35k displacement, but before the limitation on armament. Americans got to change their North Carolina class in time, but it was too late for KGV class. What beasts they would have been with 12 14 inch guns or 9 16 inch guns, as is, they were mighty ships with 10 14 inch guns :)
The North Carolina class were laid down to treaty specs as well. And were originally planned to have quad 14" turrets. But when we found out the Japanese weren't abiding by treaty limitations anymore they upgraded them to 16" triples.
@@Trains-With-Shane Correct, and the British couldn't afford to wait for next gen 16" guns to be ready for the KGV's, so they just stuck with the 14" guns.
The battlecruiser HMS Hood is the third biggest battleship class ever build with a displacement of 47,430 tons (46,680 long tons) and a length of 262.3 m. The battlecruiser HMS Hood was the largest warship in the world between 1922-1939.
@@Moggy471 Wrong. A battlecruiser was not a different class from a battleship. The Washington treaty which defined ship classes didn´t distinguish between battleships and battlecruisers. Both were regarded as capital ships as opposed to cruisers that was limited to 10.000 tons. In the 20´ties as far as the Royal Navy was concerned a battlecruiser was simply a fast battleship meant for raiding and for modern fast task forces rather than being a battleship "of the line" in the old sense, such as HMS Nelson. The thing is that Bismarck and most other modern battleships were fast raiders as well, but in contrary to Royal Navy in the 30´ties, neither Germany, France, Italy nor the US were using the term battlecruiser for their fast naval task forces of battleship raiders during WWII. Even though the old tactics of the battleship line were completely outdated by WWII these nations all sticked to the obsolete term "battleship".
Yamato, Iowas, Vanguard, Bismarck, then Hood. That would make her 5th. Also, at full load, the Richelieus, Litorios, North Carolinas would all eventually nearly equal Hood's weight during their wartime careers do to additional AA weight, all coming to about 45,000t to Hood's 47,000t.
@@jesperlykkeberg7438 So there's a lot to explain with regards to Hood: Firstly, following the battle of Jutland, the British started adding armour to the then under construction Admiral Class of 4 Battlecruisers. They were intended to be the next step of size increase over Renown and Repulse, and started off as traditional battlecruiser designs. Secondly, the idea of a "fast" battleship started off as mear escalation of the Dreadnought idea. That was the goal to design a leap in technology over her adversaries by being better armed with all large uniform fighting battery, and faster then her contemporaries by using turbines instead of the standard tripple expansion engine. As other nations eventually build their own dreadnought, the Orions were designed to make a similar jump again over the Dreadnoughts. The Queen E's were the 3rd big jump in the line, and they inspired the idea of the, "fast" battleship. A ship that could truly both hunt raiders and fight in the battleline. However they never managed their intended 25kt speed. So following the disappointment over the QEs not being fast enough, and the newfound worries over the very concept of a battlecruiser after Jutland, the admiralty started packing on a ton of weight in armour to the then building Admrials. However as post war treaties began to loom in the minds of the Admirals, and with clear issues to the Admirals being predicted due to all the weight on the hulls, they decided to cancel the 3 sisters to finish Hood to her modified design. So Hood is really the first successful fast battleship design, as she was specifically modified to fight properly in the battleline, and not just hunt raiders. If Iowa is a fast battleship, so too is Hood as they are nearly identical in belt, speed, and intended purpose.
If the Montana-class where build they would have been longer and bigger than Iowas and Yamatos, 281m long, wide as Yamato but with an estimated weight of 70,000t - 80,000t due to the fact Montanas wields 4 mk7 turrets.
The same could be said about the h44 or just h class in general the h44 was predicted to be about 2-3 times bigger than bismarck and weight upwards of 100k tons
The difference though is that the USA could build the Montana class but decided to build carriers. I don’t think Germany had the resources to build the H44 during WW2
@@fyieafgeyuv4402 the A-150-class is still a Yamato-class just with 6 51cm guns instead of 9 46cm guns and has slightly improved secondaries and AA than the Yamato-class, in terms of dimensions A-150s and Yamatos are the same only the A-150s would have been slightly heavier due to the 20.1" gun turrets being more heavily armoured and heavier than the 18.1" gun turrets.
@@harryjohnson9215 yep, based on the WW1 battlecruiser concept. They were completely rebuilt in the interwar period with new machinery and armour though. Still less armoured compared to the US battleships built from new in the same period
8:23 I have a question about the appearance of the battleship Yamato. It is indeed a fact that the battleship Yamato falls short in terms of speed, industrial technology, and combat history. However, as a Japanese individual, I find its design to be remarkably beautiful and sophisticated. The elegant curves, castle-like bridge, innovative bulbous bow, and the concentration of anti-aircraft guns in the center evoke a unique sense of beauty that I feel is absent in battleships from other countries. Is it because I am Japanese and possess a Japanese aesthetic sense that I find it beautiful? How do people from overseas feel about this?
@@Walaki Thank you. I believe that the battleship Yamato is one of the pinnacles of refined battleship design in human history. Prior to the Yamato, Japanese battleships underwent numerous modifications, resulting in a lack of cohesion in their shapes. However, I consider the Yamato to be the culmination of Japan's shipbuilding history.
Good you did your research. not a lot of people know that the battleship Vanguard was the last battleship every built in the world. Also even though it's not necessary I would say that it should have been mentioned that there was a 3rd Yamato Class battleship Shimano being built but it was converted to a aircraft carrier after the loss of its 4 main carriers (Akagi, Kaga, Soryu, and Hiryu) at the battle of Midway. Making her the Shinano Class super carrier and the largest carrier in the world at that time. There was also plans for a 4th and 5th Yamato Class battleships as well and they was supposed to be even bigger than the Yamato.
If you want to know anything about the Iowa Class, the Battleship New Jersey channel has just about everything that's not still classified. (Bet you think you know... lol) The curator probably even has the original blue prints. He's even climbed through one of the barrels.
The 4 United States Navy Iowa Class Battleships will always be my most favorite Class of Battleships! I also love the South Dakota Class, North Carolina Class, and New York Class Battleships as well!
Of all the battleships classes that fought in WWII, only the Iowa-class battleships survived and went on to serve for the entirety of the Cold War. It was only after the Soviet Union collapsed that they were finally retired.
Embora a classe Yamato nunca tenha de fato enfrentado ou Abatido qualquer outro navio seja americano ou não, podemos afirmar que com certeza teria dado um trabalho imenso se esse colosso tivesse chegado a Okinawa, objetivo da sua ultima missão que acabou por não se concretizar
That 2nd picture ofvthe Yamato class was the Musashi, sunk in the battle of leyte . The Yamato herself has no official picture. The only one I've seen was from a dive bomber sent to sink her off of Okinawa. The IJN never allowed photos
Such a feared ship due to its secrecy, where the US was so scared of it that they planned to use 10 Battleships and +400 aircraft to combat it. Luckily for the US, the aircraft where the only ones to sink yamato and musashi
The second image for the Yamato class shows the battleship Yamato during sea trials in October 1941. There are quite a few pictures from these sea trials which I will attach below. There are plenty of pictures of the battleship Yamato, more than the sister ship Musashi. However, only two photographs are known of the third ship of this class, the Shinano. Here are the pictures of the Yamato from 1941: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamato-class_battleship#/media/File:Yamato_sea_trials_2.jpg en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_battleship_Yamato#/media/File:Japanese_battleship_Yamato_running_trials_off_Bungo_Strait,_20_October_1941.jpg en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_battleship_Yamato#/media/File:Yamato_during_Trial_Service.jpg en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_battleship_Yamato#/media/File:Japanese_battleship_Yamato_fitting_out_at_the_Kure_Naval_Base,_Japan,_20_September_1941_(NH_63433).jpg
@@tzarcaz_4385: Sure, especially since the US Navy was fully aware that on October 24, 1944 they had almost incidentally sunk the Musashi by carrier-based air attacks in the Sibuyan Sea. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_battleship_Musashi#/media/File:Japanese_battleship_Musashi_and_a_destroyer_under_attack_in_the_Sibuyan_Sea,_24_October_1944_(NH_63432).jpg The US Navy was also well aware, that Yamato, along with Nagato, Kongo and Haruna was fleeing a handful of escort carriers and escort destroyers off Samar on October 25, 1944... You don't seem to realize that in April 1945, Task Force 58 with 8 aircraft carriers and six battleships with escort ships and almost 400 aircraft was on site as backing for the invasion of Okinawa and the battleship Yamato left the Japanese Inland Sea as a surprise to the Americans.
When it comes to what the biggest and best battleship I think its important to consider the history and for that you have to look back to WW1. The UK was the predominant naval force in the world and had a large number of very powerful battleships. These were armed predominantly with the Mk1 15" gun, a brilliant gun, powerful, relatively fast loading, accurate and simple. In the 1920s the Washington treaty came in limiting the building and power of new battleships, as the UK already had a load of ships and was struggling financially following WW1, they didn't bother much with building new ones, abiding by the treaty they wouldn't have been any bigger or better than the ones they already had, only really building the two Nelson class ships in the early 20s which were really still WW1 era ships. As the 20s became the 30s, basically every country other than the UK threw the treaty in the bin and started building bigger and better ships again. The UK eventually caught up and built the KGV class, really that was a 1930s design, good ships but they would be outclassed by ones subsequently built by other countries. The UK also updated and overhauled some of its remaining WW1 era ships, most notably the Queen Elizabeth class such as the legendary HMS Warspite, to bring them more in line with contemporary ships. Moving to Germany, their main ships of note being the Bismark and Tirpitz. Again really a mid 30s design. Debate has raged for years on whether the Bismark was a Battleship or a Battlecruiser. Personally I don't think the design of the shop is what matters, tactically it was generally used like a Battlecrusier so therefore its a Battlecruiser. British Battleships were still designed and run a bit like old Jutland style ships of the line that get in line and batter hell out of each other, power and weight of numbers reigns supreme and that worked for the Royal Navy, as Jutland told them, when you are in that position you don't need to win you just have to not lose. The Bismark was less of a blunt object, designed to be fast, target and engage an enemy then run away. The Bismark's legend kind of clouds judgement on it, it was a solid ship of good design, but its guns weren't any bigger or better and it wasn't armoured any better than contemporary ships, its main thing was a fire control system that was outrageously accurate. It targeted and sank the "mighty" Hood in essentially no time at all, sure it was an (un)lucky shell strike that did for the Hood but shells can only be lucky if they are on target to begin with and by all accounts they were on target basically straight away. Moving to Japan, the Yamato class is on paper the most powerful Battleship there has ever been. For some reason though I feel like they never lived up to their full potential. I'm not an expert on the Pacific theatre (or anything for that matter but particularly not that) I don't know if it was Japanese tactics that didn't use them properly or was just the general end of the road for battleships as the rise of the aircraft carrier came about. A more modern design than anything British or German, I would consider it a proper WW2 design of ship even though it was designed and most laid down before the start of the war. Finally the USA. For me I don't think there is any debate that the Iowa class of battleship is the most powerful and objectively "best" battleship. They were a proper WW2 era design, newer and better than anything else afloat, powerful guns, well armoured, excellent fire control and ridiculously fast, really a collection of all the best bits of preceding battleships. The fact they were still using them in the 1990s is crazy.
My father served as a signalman on HMS Vanguard on its first commission, including the Royal Tour to South Africa in 1947, a great voyage with some enjoyable shore leave in Cape Town, Durban and Port Elizabeth. He felt the superstructure was rather too big and high for the looks of the ship and he thought the King George V class were better looking in some ways.
@@Cinemaphile7783 the Wisconsin and the other ship that went to the middle east had Tomahawk box launchers on them. It was pretty cool to see them up close
What is really interesting in this and the accumulated comments that follows is we all love these huge battleships and so did the navy designers of the various powers and it was the natural process starting with HMS Dreadnought to continue to scale upward in all departments. Even in the late 1930's as war loomed on the horizon it was the conventional thinking of the Admirals of the naval powers that the biggest guns always wins. Only a few forward thinking admirals and aviators saw the real potential of the Carrier as a major weapons system and on Nov 11&12 1940 the British launched the first carrier born attack on the Italian Regia Marina from the HMS Illustrious crippling several battleships and sinking several others. Even by late 1941 most world navies were filled with big gun admirals and it took the attack on Pearl Harbor for these navies to begin to see the carrier as the new capital ship. While new battleships were launched and commissioned these world navies began to come over to the side of the carrier. The Imperial Japanese Navy would not build a single new Battleship after Midway but would construct many new aircraft Carriers. The US continued to build the Missouri and Wisconsin and went ahead and ordered two more, and the Royal Navy would complete the final two King George V class Battleships and begin building the last battleship ever laid down and completed with the HMS Vanguard. The French Navy would eventually complete the second of the Richelieu Class, The Jean Bart laid down in December 1936 and finally commissioned in early 1949. It is so sad that all these fine ships that survived the war have been scrapped and made into razor blades. Only the US the youngest of these major nations saw to preserve it's history and has kept a total of 8 of it's fighting ladies as museums. All four Iowa's, a pair of the South Dakotas, the USS North Carolina and the USS Texas all have one last mission to educate the public of the horrors of war and the costs of freedom.
I would say it's quite natural when considering the era, before mass media (as we know it today) and consumerist culture. Things were built to last because it wasn't as easy to replace.
@@tonygarratt5832 Now now. Boats built today can last as long as boats built in the past. Probably one of the biggest reasons why a boat taken off the water though is it's lower efficiency to a boat of newer design.
Iowa and Wisconsin are on the US Navy's list for being reactivated with new computer systems, new AA AEGIS combat systems, tripling Tomahawk cruise missile capacity, and possible rail gun or guns with the 16-inch main batteries to be capable of firing up to 100 miles with new missile-type shells. They are being considered for use in protecting Taiwan in the Taiwan Strait against any invasion force.
Pfft, look at USS Texas launched in 1912, commissioned in 1914 is still afloat, she's getting her hull fixed. The last dreadnought, fought in both World Wars......
Bismarck class was the most powerful battleship to sail until the Iowa and Yamato classes were launched. The Tirpitz variant was also the only BB out of this list to have a torpedo armament as well.
All extremely debatable, the Bismarck class is extremely overrated. As its closest contemporaries in terms of design date were either french (never saw much action vs the German fleet) Italian (to scared to lose the ship to really use them) and the British KGV class of which dominated in all the soft factors such as Radar assisted gunnery (look into the sinking of the Schanhorst to get a feel for that). (i dont know enough about the N.Carolina class to comment) but all these ships are pretty much the same in terms of overall effectiveness. As for torpedo armament you do know that was extremely common for ww1 era battleships? It was just removed from any later ones as it never saw any use and they might as well use the treaty displacement for armour. When it comes to Naval battles its not exactly a matter of who has the better ship, more just which crew is better at gunnery and if you get lucky. (or if your against the british they get cocky, example all ships lost at Jutland). Does the weather and time of day suit your ship, British ships had really good all weather capabilities as they had an empire to police. While the Germans designs didn't account for the little details of tropical weather as why would they? Night fighting suits the radar capable ships extremely well just look at what happens to the Italians...poor Zara that ship didn't deserve a 3 battleship point blank ambush. how about location? too north and german magnetic torpedos stop working while if in the south they tend to be more reliable than other navys. When it comes to a game hard factors are king, IRL soft factors are the real deal. When it comes to anything after 1935 and pre Iowa and Yamato are all basically the same, depending on other factors they can all win. As for these 2 theres a reason nobody tried to match them as the Carrier became No1 before they even saw action the only half assed attempt was the Vanguard fitted with old weapons as by then the Brits knew the class was dying but they already done all the work so they might as well complete the ship cheaply.
@@Youraveragegamer_97 Making? Even better the 15in guns are ripped straight from old ships. Look up the QE class made in WW1 (Warspite & 4 others) the turrets look oddly exactly the same...
6:13 "From the mist, a shape, a ship, is taking form And the silence of the sea is about to drift into a storm Sign of power, show of force Raise the anchor, battleship's plotting its course Pride of a nation, a beast made of steel Bismarck in motion, king of the ocean He was made to rule the waves across the seven seas To lead the war machine To rule the waves and lead the Kriegsmarine The terror of the seas The Bismarck and the Kriegsmarine"
Another battleship taken down by obsolete bi-wing torpedo bombers that first disabled the Bismarck to allow for it to be blown to bits by HMS King George V and HMS Rodney, and finally sunk by 3 torpedoes from the heavy cruiser HMS Dorsetshire.
That's what the Richelieu class looks like from above. You need to remember it was just an upscale Dunkerque class. From a top down view they look virtually identical, except for their length and beam. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_battleship_Richelieu#/media/File%3ARichelieu-1.jpg
yamato was and still is a very cool ship, pretty sad that it got destroyed but it had to be done for freedom, imagine how cool it is if we actually see an old ship in the museum and not a model lol
For freedom... XDXDXDXDXD It had to be done to beat the japanese and nothing more. stop preteinding everything the US does is for freedom. You all are some off the most oppressed people on the planet.
...at another battleship. See the actions at Leyte Gulf and the final sortie to Okinawa. San Shiki (also referred to as "Beehive") AA shells were used against US aircraft, although there are reports the gunnery officers did not like them since the driving bands were considered to cause extra wear to the barrel rifling.
It's a blessing and a curse that we never got a battle between an Iowa class and a Yamato class. Blessing because we don't want all those lives gone. Along with over a hundred tons of metals polluting the ocean. A curse, because God damn, that would've been one hell of a fight.
Metals polluting the ocean??? I think you forgot that Yamato and Musashi were about 150,000 tons of metals and oil at the bottom of the ocean after each was hit by about 18 torpedoes and 20 bombs by US Naval aircraft from 4 aircraft carriers. Over 390 dive bombers and torpedo bombers, with fighter cover, sank the Yamato, and over 250 sunk the Musashi.
KGV is underrated. They have the second thickes armor, 2nd only to Yamato. British steel quality was highly advanced for the period, raising the effective thickness by 15%, meaning her belt would have been better protected than Yamato if not for Yamato's belt being sloped at 19 degrees. US and German navy fanboys constantly rag on her for her guns, as they were "small and didn't function". While their gun size of 14-inches was small, due to British made super charges, could penetrate a lot more armor than their gunsize, Prince of Wales, perfectly penetrated Bismarck's 12.6-inch belt, while KGV and Duke of York penetrate 13.8-inch armor on Bismarck and Scharnhorst respectively. POW's guns only malfunctioned because she was fresh out of the commissioning ceremony. KGV and DOY's guns functioned perfectly. They were the second bet treaty era battleships, barely beat out by USS South Dakota, and they were the 4th best battleships ever made in my opinion.
@@MCLegend13 Still wouldn't have. KGV's guns were perfectly capable of penetrating South Dakota's armor. South Dakota just had some cartoonishly overpowered deck penetration, as 45 cal 16-inch guns firing super heavy shells could penetrate any and all deck armor, aside from maybe Yamato's.
@@metaknight115 I disagree the 14 inch quads were very capable don’t get me wrong but It’s still would have been better to go for the 15 or 16 inch as those are the calibres everyone else is going for at the time (apart from the Dunkirk’s and Scharnhorst’s) so it’s honestly shocking how they could have so easily just made a 15 or 16 inch turret but instead went for the 14 inch gun. But it gets worse why only 10 guns not 12 that would have made the capability much better and would potentially have a large enough barbet to replace all 3 quad 14s with triple 15s or even triple 16s the 2 quads and super firing twin just wouldn’t work Still none the less a capable gun and a capable ship.
Very interesting. The Iowas were second-largest, displacement-wise, and also the fastest battleships ever built. They could achieve a top speed of at least 33 knots, or about 36 mph. If the proposed Montana class had ever been built, they would have rivaled the Yamato for displacement, and with twelve 16"/50 caliber guns would have had immense firepower. Sadly none were ever built! Great video.
@@fredmoucatel2058 which is true, but that was only when the USS New Jersey was reactivated for service in Vietnam in the 1960's, +20 years after being first launched. All previous 20mm and 40mm antiaircraft batteries were stripped and nothing put in their place, making her much lighter and correspondingly faster.
@ジークハイル if you think that was a tangible plan, you are greatly mistaken. Yamato went down with basically no tactical achievements; bigger battleships woudnt have made a difference, even if Japan had the capacity to build them. In any case it wasnt like US didnt have the capacity to build bigger battleships. The only reason the US didnt create bigger battleships like montana was because they didnt need BBs; instead, they have been building over 20 CVs.
I hate how these presenters switch back and forth between metric and Imperial. you can tell they are European with an intended American audience. So they start out providing both measurements, but then when they get near the end, everything is in metric. Double check your work and keep it consistent!
Bismark was nothing special. It got one lucky hit on a Ww1 era Battlecruiser and became a legend due to this but was sank before her paint had chance to dry just days later. Overrated ship.
People dont realize how badass the Iowa class battleships were. 20ft longer than the Yamato, they were also about 10kts faster than the Yamato, and while the Yam's 18" guns were bigger and armour was thicker, the Iowas superior fire control systems would mean the Yamato would have been on fire long before those 18" guns could have even dreamed of hitting anything more than 20 miles away.
Yeah... No. The Iowa's radar at WW2 was crap, and anyone saying otherwise is talking about the upgrades installed later on when missiles became a thing. The Yamato's visual targeting systems were state of the art masterpieces, capable of seeing far beyond what the actual eye could see. Sure the Iowa would shoot near the target consistently thanks to her radar, but the Yamato would make a couple ranging shots then go to town on whatever poor soul it would be firing against. The usual argument for the Iowa is that: "My grandfather/uncle/friend/aunt/cousin/dog served in the Iowa and they said she would win" having experienced the Iowa as she was after the cold war. An almost entirely different ship compared to the 1945 version of herself
@@sche0707 And it was common knowledge that after a couple ranging shots, the visual systems the Japanese used were just as accurate, at the same distances, and the Yamato had an effective range of 46 km with its main guns, doubling the range of other battleships at the time, the important word in that is effective, meaning that while it wasn't as accurate as radar it wasn't missing its targets by kilometers, and all it would take would be a lucky shot while other ships were getting into range to begin disaster
An interesting design note for the various countries. It seems only the last Japanese and WWII era American battleships incorporated the enlarged fantail to accommodate spotter aircraft. The European countries had them but usually amidships, which probably limited some machinery.
3 of the 8 largest battleships ever made were sunk by aircraft, and the sinking of a 4th (Bismarck) was assisted by aircraft. The remaining 4 are all of the Iowa class and are museums.
I think the British had one WW 1 ship classified as a "Large Light Cruiser" that had 2 18 inch guns called HMS Furious. She had two near sister's mounting 4 15 inch guns. I think all 3 were later converted into Aircraft Carriers?
Her two sisters being Glorious and Courageous both of which sadly had short wartime careers as carriers however their guns were stored and eventually mounted on the new build Vanguard
@@stephenchappell7512 actually, HMS Vanguard was equipped with the turrets and mountings, from HMS Glorious and HMS Courageous, but the actual 15" guns themselves were taken from the RN's central 15" gun stockpile, and had previously been installed on HMS Queen Elizabeth (2 guns)HMS Ramillies(2 guns)HMS Resolution, HMS Royal Sovereign, HMS Erebus and HMS Warspite
@@MichaelHill-we7vt But weren't all those ships mentioned still knocking about (awaiting disposal) at the time of Vanguard's commissioning in May 1946?
@@stephenchappell7512 The RN maintained a "pool" of 15-inch guns which were available for installation on battleships when their guns were removed for re-lining and modernisation....the guns which were mounted on HMS Vanguard came from this "pool" but had been previously mounted on the ships I listed.....the two 15" guns on display in front of the Imperial War Museum in London also came from that same "pool"
CORRECTION: there are FOUR Iowa class battleships, not 6. Yes 6 were contracted but the last two were not completed. what remains of the 5th one, the Kentucky, is on the front of the Wisconsin as the bow was cut off of the unfinished Kentucky to repair damage to the original bow of the Wisconsin. Hence the nick name of Wisky for the battleship.
In profile, yes. But they were built narrower in beam than ideal for their length, in order to fit through the Panama Canal. This results in a very boxy central hull. This was only obvious when I built a model of one of them and thought, 'how ugly - like a canal barge writ large'.
I always wondered if Iowa ever went up against Yamato who would have come out on top? It may not be a popular opinion but I believe Iowa would have won. Better fire control, of course there all always lucky shots. And the Yamato was a beast heard to sink. I just felt the Iowa would hit more and more times and end up sinking the other ship.. just my opinion though. Anyone have a different opinion? Would love to hear your thoughts on it
The two giant Japanese battleships displaced 72,000 tons and had 9 - 18 inch guns. The American Iowa class, the voice over said 6 were built, that is incorrect, there were 4--- Iowa, Wisconsin, Missouri, and the New Jersey. The other two were scrapped in place (stopped being built) when the war ended. The Iowa's had 9- 16 inch main armament. I agree the Iowa's had an edge on the larger Japanese battleships because they were faster and had Radar ranged/plotting/aiming more accurate guns. The Iowa's were also built to fit through the Panama Canal at the beam, I think this was just inches on each side to fit.
@@tomtransport ya I forgot about the Panama thing they had to fit. Also I'm not exactly sure but were they not subject still to the WW1 treaty that limited the tonnage? Or was it amount owned?
@@jrodstech The tonnage (of each ship) was modified in 1938 to allow for higher tonnage because the treaty was modified that year. The 6 Iowa class battleships (4 were completed) were designed to be 58,000 tons fully loaded/ready for battle. After the war started in 1939 the Brits and the French scrapped any rules as to size.
@@jrodstechI imagine either the Iowa would wither the Yamato down with HE at long range or the Yamato would score a lucky and devastating critical hit. Yamato's armour was designed to withstand its own guns and the Iowa definitely shouldn't close range as it will negate the fire control advantage.
The U.S.S. New Jersey was decommisoned a final time on February 8th 1991, after providing some support in the Persian Gulf campaign. She was Iowa class, and still packed a good punch.
The first Littorio-class battleship had a speed of 32 knots. 9x381mm guns with a range of 32 km, the shell was the fastest around. Penetration power of the shell was superior than that of the Yamato. All of this was made between 1936 to 1940,year of entering in service of the Littorio and Vittorio Veneto. Far before all these major foreign battleships. We would have left to no one our battleships. It was better scrap them all rather than see one single of them wear the colors of some foreign countries.
The penetration is on-par with Yamato, not superior. This only came from it high speed if 850m/s. However, you are cherry picking, Yamato had a bursting charge of 74.6 lbs while Littorios bursting charge was only 22.4 lbs meaning a Yamato shell would do tonnes more damage than a Littorio. You may use the excuse "but yamatos shell was bigger" ok and? The British 15 inch Gun using the updated WW2 shell had a bursting charge of 48.5lbs, meaning that guns would also do more damage. The Italian guns were impressive, but weren't some crazy "italain science" that nationalists and Werhaboos believe in, they simply went for penetration instead of destructive power. The Brits didn't even want them anyway, they examined the ships then scrapped them.
@@GaryJones69420 dude, while Yamato shells needs literally minutes to arrive on target, Littorio shells arrives immediately. It doesn't matter how agile it is the Yamato, she doesn't have time to dodge. Moreover is bigger and more easy to hit than the Vittorio Veneto, that is also more faster.
@@danielefabbro822 wow, you know absolutely nothing about Naval warfare do you. 1. THe Littorio can't just 'dodge' Yamato shells if they don't know where they're going to land, it's impossible for a Battleship to dodge a shell by the time they actually see them arriving. 2. Yamato is 25 metres longer, that's barely going to make a difference in long range engagements. 3. "Littorio shells arive immediately" Yamato has a faster striking velocity, which means Littorio's shells actually slow down as they travel meaning that Littorio's shells are only abit faster, this isn't WoWs were shells arrive immediately. 4. Littorio had a worse rangefinder than Yamato, so on top of her shells being horribly inaccurate due to thier design they can't actually aim the guns well.
It would be deadly, but interesting if they all had an all out, ultimate "cage match" with every ship for itself, though the Yamato would probably ultimately win.
In anything other than perfect daylight conditions the Iowa would probably beat the Yamato class due to superior fire control systems. Especially at night
@ Anvil Airsoft TV No because the American guns couldn’t do anything. The US Navy tested the Yamato’s armour post war (probably spare parts or rejects or from the Shinano that was converted to a carrier). With a brand-new 16”/50 cal naval gun perfectly perpendicular at point blank range… the armour only cracked. Iowa’s shells would very accurately bounce off Yamato. All Iowa could do is run. In fact… battleships are so protected that not once during either World Wars was one ever sunk by gunfire alone. WWI it was all lightly armoured battle cruisers. Hood was a battlecruiser. So was Kirishima. Bismarck was scuttled. All other battleships that sank during the war did so against air attacks-mostly torpedoes or in the case of Tirpitz very large aerial bombs.
@@calvinnickel9995 Yamato's side armor might have stopped a 16" shell, but most shells come in "plunging" to the top of the ship and superstructure. Yamato had little armor there, that's why it was sunk so easily by planes.
The whole Battlecruiser / Battleship discussion is an ongoing one with the Admiral class. Its true she was laid down as a battlecruiser but the design was completely re worked during construction following on from lessons learned from Jutland and by the time she was ins service she was as well armed and armoured as any battleship afloat. It was only her remarkable speed (over thirty knots) that had the Royal Navy classify her as a battlecruiser.
@@Deevo037 and just about adequate armour Had she, had a chance to have her 1941(maybe 1940) refit (the British navy planed the refits ahead of time) She would of been considered a fast battleship But the war broke out before that And she was needed in action
No she was definitely a battlecruiser. Her ease of destruction in comparison to Bismarck (which was scuttled) proved that. Same with Kirishima. The Japanese reclassified her as a battleship but her armour scheme was still unbalanced.
@@calvinnickel9995 The story that Hood was poorly armoured is a bit of a furphy as she was at least as well armoured as a Queen Elizabeth battleship if not better. As for her destruction this video has a comprehensive analysis of it but in short it was an exceptionally unlikely lucky shell hit. ruclips.net/video/CLPeC7LRqIY/видео.html As for Bismark despite her undeniable robustness she was rendered combat incapable relatively early on and was unlikely to have been salvageable in any way. Kiroshima was an entirely different situation as the IJN were well known for even their heaviest units being comparatively lightly armoured to aid their speed.
@@calvinnickel9995 In the Royal Navy battlecruiser simply means "fast battleship". HMS was the largest warship in the world, and the strongest British battleship between 1922-1939. With its speed of 30 knots (56 km/h) Bismarck could be regarded as a battlecruiser as far as Royal Navy is concerned..
The Bismark looks nice, but she's a bit too ovalis for my taste. I think that King George V, Yamato, Warspite, Hiei, Iowa, South Dakota, Washington, and Scharnhorst look better than Bismarck
Die Iowa Class ist graphisch falsch dargestellt, da sie nur 33 Meter Breit ist (Panama Max.) Die Bismarck Klasse hat 36 Meter Breite,und ist somit 3 m. Breiter, als diese.
It is interesting to see the results of each country's usage philosophy and restrictions. Efforts were made to make the Yamato compact for a ship carrying a 46cm gun. In order to meet the U.S. battleships that could not exceed the Panamax.
7:15 ...only 4 entered service: Iowa, Missouri, New-Jersey and Wisconsin...! ...Illinois and Kentucky* were never finished...! *...but Kentucky's bow section was used to repair the bow of Wisconsin, which was dammaged when she collided with a destroyer in 1956...! 7:50 ...that's the early configuration... ...later in their career the 2 laterally 15cm secondary triple-turrets were replaced by AA-guns...!
It's funny to think by the second half of the war they were arguably becoming mostly obsolete and inefficient in terms of resources and manpower. Carriers with AA cruiser escort quickly became the optimal naval force.
Yep, that how our Navy lost Singapour & the far east, with no Aircraft Carrier's out there, believing they could hold Hong Kong & Singapour & other colenies with out carrier's. excuse my spelling bad head day lol
Re: "Carriers with AA cruiser escort quickly became the optimal naval force." Light cruisers like the U.S.S. Atlanta (CL-51), designed from the start as anti-aircraft platforms, were a potent tool in the naval arsenal of nations like the U.S., but they were not without vulnerabilities, as the fierce actions in the Solomon Islands in 1942-1943 demonstrated. They were less-expensive and time-consuming to produce, to be sure, but also much less well-protected from gunfire, torpedoes and bombs than battleships or heavy cruisers. There was still a big role to be played by the largest capital ships such as the battle-wagons and the largest heavy cruisers, once they had been outfitted with the latest radar-controlled AAA defenses and other counter-measures. They better withstood attacks by kamikazes and unmanned "Oka" guided bombs, too ~ both of which became increasingly a danger as the war went on in the Pacific. It is no accident that the least armored ships suffered the most from these suicide attacks, i.e., "jeep"or escort carriers, destroyers, DEs, light cruisers, etc. They were usually first hit since they comprised the outer pickets of the screening vessels, and thus sustained the most damage by virtue of being attacked first, but also because they were so lightly protected. Earlier in the war, the men in the smaller vessels of the surface navy wondered bitterly why the brass weren't sending the remaining battleships into combat in the South Pacific, like the destroyers and cruisers. It was because the old WW1-era dread-naughts consumed so much fuel that the high-command faced (for a time in 1942-early 1943 anyway) faced a dilemma of using either the carriers or the battle-wagons. There was not enough fuel reserve in the Pacific for both. Once the logistical situation improved and the newer fast battleships come into play in the latter part of 1943 and into 1944, that changed, but for a time fuel considerations were a big deal. Which of course bolsters your point, too - since cruisers use less fuel than battleships.
I love WW2 ships and tanks... it was a different time them... the last Era of true blood and guts ... in 2023 a single F-22 Raptor could probably wipe any of them out alone
I know Yamato is big but didn’t expect to be way bigger than I imagined. I just see Iowa and just think oh Yamato would be wider and slightly bigger. But Jesus it exceed my expectations. Now I know why she is the most suitable to be a Space Battleship. Iowa can’t be a Space Battleship because she is not wide enough to fit Wave Motion Technology.
This program stated that there were six Iowa class battleships. There were four: Iowa, Missouri, New Jersey, Wisconsin. More may have been planned but only these were built.
O melhor Couraçado da 2 GM foi a Classe Washington e North Caroline. Foi o projeto mais equilibrado e que salvou em Batalha em Guadalcanal o Couraçado South Dakota em pane elétrica, da destruição certa. Destruindo o Couraçado japonês Kirishima com 3 salvas de 16 Pol. Um Navio heróico.
It was more than three salvos, my friend. Washington fired a total of 75 16" shells at Kirishima in roughly three minutes. 20 of them hit her, 7 were below the waterline. This from Kirishima's Damage Control Officer. She never had a chance of surviving that barrage. She foundered and sank as the crew were being rescued by two destroyers. Kirishima almost rolled on to one of them as she went down. I love the North Carolina class too. They actually could have built them better, had they gone with plan XVI (the basic ship we know today) but with 30 knot top speed, and a 13.5" armor belt! (I forget which of the sub-plans of XVI it was.) The point being, they settled for less than it could have been. As great as they were, they could have been even better! Much like the Northampton class heavy cruiser. After building several, they realized the ships were 1000 tons under limit. So the Portland class was developed, and had better armor and longer range. Looking at the gun arrangement on the Pensacola class, one wonders why they didn't place the two twin turrets forward (less weight on the bow), and place the two triple turrets aft; where the ship is wider and more stable. These ships came in way under weight too! The Pensacola and Northampton class were dubbed "tinclads" because of their thin armor.
U.S. had plans for 100,000 ton battleships. Known as the Tillman Battleships design, they were to be armed with 24-16 inch guns. There were designs to put 21" guns on them when they were available. The Japanese had plans for the "Super Yamato", a 100,000 ton battleship with 12-21" guns. Germany had plans for 4-8 65,000 ton fast battleships, known as "H-Class Battleships" with 8-16" guns.
My Grandfather a Navy master welder during WWII, told me he was assigned to work on the USS Montana class battleships. A larger but slower vessel than the Iowas. They were to do battle with the Yamato and Musashi. After they went down he and his crew were assigned to work on the new Essex class aircraft carriers; one of which was the USS Antietam where Dad served as a Signalman.
I wish the Montana had been finished
@@pcoyle2007
Would have been nice to see at least the lead vessel as a floating museum in SF Bay or somewhere on the West Coast.
Men like your father won WW2
@@rossdawgsbrokenspirit9038
When he was sharing his stories of that time, I was a snot nosed kid with little interest in hearing what he said. But now I am 62, I kick myself for being that way. I was in the presence of living history, hearing 1st hand experiences from WWII. Now I have to strain my brain to remember what I heard.
Young people; when your elders are talking, listen to what is being said. It is part of your history.
@@pcoyle2007 They might have been bigger, but they would be much slower (28 knots vs 33 for the Iowas) and therefore unable to keep up with the carriers. The Iowas lasted so long because they could fulfill the role of carrier escort if needed.
Foreigners may be mistaken, but the Yamato type was not "made big", but "made it as small as possible".The larger the ship's shadow, the higher the chance of being hit. I downsized it to avoid that. The fact that she was still the largest battleship meant that the triple 46cm guns were out of standard.
船体は主砲発射時に安定させるために、小さすぎず大き過ぎずのギリギリを攻めたものでした。逆に戦艦アイオワはパナマ運河を通過するために、船体を細く造りました。それを考えると、主砲発射時の安定性からして大和型の方が砲撃力で勝っていたのかもしれません。
The yamato class was designed to be the battleship to win all war they just didn't realize usa would huse a ton of plane
@@緑ノ里yamato may have the largest gun but not a long range gun the and yamato is not good in stormy seas due to it's weight and IOWA class battleships was built face to face yamato and his sister ship musashi
@albertamira5488 iowas were meant to be carrier escort ships hence their incredible top speeds and powerfull anti air suite. Also the wider hull form of the yamato class as opposed to the narrower and longer Iowa class made them slightly better in terms of stability in rough seas as It helped with rolling. And yamato just like iowa can fire her guns out over the horizon with help using a spotting aircraft so saying they weren't long range Is blatantly wrong.
@@albertamira5488 The Iowa class should have been built to compete with the Kongo class. You mean the Montana-class that ended up in the plan?
Yamato is sleeping in the sea now, but he will be revived as Space Battleship Yamato to save the earth.
She'll fly to Iscandar and destroy the Gamilons!👍👍👍
And the galaxy class starship as well, which was destroyed
After the forward magazine explosion it will need a few decades of yard time and a whole bunch of steel. And money, buckets and buckets of money…
🙂
If She dont in just one year, Planet Earth WILL DISSAPPEAR!!!
Italian Battleships were design with the Mediterranean Sea in mind. They have a short endurance (compare to other battleship of the same size) because the Italian navy generally operates not far from its base.
After the Ariel attack on the naval base at Tarento by biplane torpedo bombers the Italian navy became very protective of its remaining battleships and didn't seem to keen to risk combat with the Royal Navy in the Mediterranean
@@michaelnaisbitt7926 not that they had much choice anyway considering how low they were on gas for all the war.
@@michaelnaisbitt7926 and they find out that a new kind of sea war was getting on the sea power was now achieved with the carriers that they refused to built.
They had a no way to exit the Mediterranean.
@@rudespo8701 Italy had little use for an aircraft carrier in ww2, they didn't build one because it wasn't in line with their perceived objectives
People don't seem to realize how big the Yamato was
It was so big you could actually fit an entire space ship inside it, along with a wave motion gun
Nailed it
Could it fit the Battlestar Galactica inside it?
Why fit a Spaceship inside of it, when you can make a Spaceship out of it?
And you can dwarf her with a container ship of today as well.
From what I know, the spacebattleship Yamato is actually smaller than the actual Yamato.
My older brother was a member of the USS Iowa's last crew. He was on it when the gun turret exploded, leading to her decommission.
I was there 😢 the best and baddest ship. Best time except on that sad day 😢.
3rd Division
Deck Department
Jeffery Quesenberry (Country Boy)
Moki Winslow (Hawaiian)
Bm2 Grazt
Iowa class battleships where like showboat every port visit every body wanted to see them ❤😊. AMAZING SHIPS
My understanding is that the beam of US warships was limited by what could pass through the Panama Canal
I Also believe the navy wanted the ships to be able to fit through the locks of the Panama canal. if needed.
Yes it was the limiting factor for all US warships and remains so today.
I heard the same. I think that’s why carriers are pretty much Atlantic/ Pacific only nowadays. I’m not 100%, but I think I remember seeing that.
@@glamdring0007Incorrect. All U.S. Naval Ships can’t fit through the Panama Canal . Please 🛑 spreading falsehood tales.
And the draught of the Yamato Class ships were made to be able to navigate the Inland Sea.
For me the IOWA class battleships are by far the best looking of the group...sleek and fast with a very nasty punch. The fact that they were modernized at one point with Phalanx defense systems and Tomahawk cruise missiles just adds icing to the cake.
Though Japanese "Yamato" class battleships were the most formidable battleships ever built in the human history, their commission was too late. Aircraft carriers and carrier-based aircraft have already played the major role in the battle when two "Yamato" class battleships were introduced. In spite of their huge size and firepower, "Yamato" class battleships did not contribute so much.
That is not correct. The Yamato class was laid down in 1937 and entered service in 1941. The American Iowa class was laid down in 1940 and entered service in 1943. But why did America build the Iowa class? The US was supposed to be able to use the Iowa-class battleships as aircraft carriers.
By the way, Japan was the first country to use aircraft attacks.
@@陰キャワイトさん You should not ignore the fact that there was a huge gap between the United States and Japan in terms of industrial output. Japan`s gross domestic product (GDP) was less than 10% of the United States, so the United States could afford to obtain both aircraft carriers and battleships while Japan had to choose aircraft carriers or battleships. Due to smaller industrial output, Imperial Japan had to choose battleships at the expense of aircraft carriers. From the beginning of Pacific War, Japan`s declaration of war against the United States was unrealistic and even suicidal.
By the way, was Great Britain the first country to use torpedo planes (swordfish) to attack Italian battleship at the Gulf of Taranto if I remember correctly?
@@MrEjidorie Yes, but the number of pilots is also limited, so even if Japan used Yamato-class battleships as aircraft carriers at that time, I think it would have suffered the same fate due to the lack of pilots. It wasn't an aircraft carrier, it wasn't a battleship, it didn't have enough transport.
I know it was stupid for Japan to declare war on America, but do you know "Hull Note" or "Ten Point" (November 26, 1941)? I think it was bad that the United States refused to negotiate with Japan at that time.
I'm sorry, I was at a loss for words because I thought it was a story about two countries, Japan and America. At that time, Japan wanted to convey that one of its main forces was aircraft. (In fact, at the beginning of the war, the United States was less interested in air power than Japan.)
Even when there is sound arguments against it I kind of love battleships, just beautiful machines
In case you’re wondering, while the Yamato was slightly shorter than the Iowa, Yamato was also much wider, making Yamato the bigger ship in terms of size
Edit: Why are all of these Freeaboos talking about how Iowa was oh so much better than Yamato? I was simply clarifying a misconception about how big they were. Do you guys feel the need to start an internet debate everywhere you go?
Yes,The Iowa's were longer and not as Beamy. It's not the first time someone is Shorting the Iowa's.
Their new destroyers are going to be really wide too. Too wide for Panamax.
Japan doesn't need to build skinny battleships simply because they don't need to go through the Panama Canal. Japan's naval doctrine dictates it to operate only in the Pacific and maybe the Indian Ocean while the US must maintain a two ocean (Pacific and Atlantic) navy
needed to be for stability for those 18.1 guns.
@@dayanwarna5270 Yep. They were EXTREMELY stable gun platforms, which led to very good accuracy, even with less advanced radar
Actually the Nagato Class was not Built to those specs originally, so if you include the rebuilt version of the Nagato than you must do the same with the Richelieu Class as well. JEAN BART: Displacement
Normal: 43,052 t (42,372 long tons)
Full load: 49,196 t (48,419 long tons)
Draft 10.9 m (36 ft)
Complement 2,220
Length 247.85 m (813 ft 2 in)
Beam 33.08 m (108 ft 6 in)
Draft Full load: 9.9 m (32 ft 6 in) Which puts her in 5th place.
Le Richelieu had 47 k ton displacement maximum ! not 44.698, see Wikipedia.
Jean Bart when actually complete was more like 52000 - 53000 tons full load and 11 m draft, need to look at the french updated plans for JB, she was way heavier with bulges and AA ammo.
The first bomb to hit the Yamato was dropped by Navy pilot Francis Ferry, flying a Helldiver. After the war he became a schoolteacher, and was Dean of Boys at Carlmont High in Belmont, on the San Francisco peninsula.
What was the second bomb?
@@golden.lights.twinkle2329 There were many more required to sink Yamato, but that first hit did some serious damage. You needed a huge pair of steel balls to strap yourself into one of those dive bombers and aim the nose of your plane at the deck of a monster battleship that was trying to end you.
The U.S.A. was about to build the Montana Class (280 m , 70,000 ton) in WWII to fight against the Yamato Class. It would have been the largest battleship ever if it had been built. But only the first of the six had been built In the long run.
Can't believe in 1921 the Nagato was that big. Ridiculous!
With all due respect to the producers of this video, I have one correction: the Iowa class was originally planned with 6 ships, but only 4 were built, those being the class namesake Iowa, the New Jersey, the Wisconsin, and the Mighty Mo…Missouri.
Big J is the most decorated battleship in American history - BB 62🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
Same with there was supposed to be 3 Yamato Class battleships But the Shimano was converted to an aircraft carrier after the loss of its 4 main carriers at the battle of Midway.
To be more specific there were to be 4 Iowa's and then 5 Montana class Battleships but the Montana's were to be a larger ship with reduced speed over the Iowa's and they really wanted to put larger main guns on the Montana's but that would take more time in R&D so the Navy opted for 2 more Iowa's instead since they were already tooled for them however, they were never completed.
@@JoeXTheXJuggalo1 The Japanese actually planned for 5 Yamato's and the 4th had been laid down but there is no record of what her name would be. Yes, Shinano was well along but after the Midway catastrophe the IJN was short of carriers so they completed Shinano as a carrier. The US Navy found what was to be the turret face armor for Shinano and brought it back to the US for testing. A piece of it is on display at the Navy Yard Museum in Washington DC with a huge shell hole from a 16" 50 cal Mark VII gun which the Iowa's carry. The armor is 2ft thick.
@@LegalVideoMan Yes warship 111 and 797 is what they was called. Warship 111 started construction after the Yamato was launch. Due to the war, losing ships, and low resources it's hull about 25%-30% completed before it was halted and disassembled. The material was used to convert the WWI era Ise-Class battleships Ise and Hyuga into battleship carriers.
I was always under the impression that the Yamato class was massive compared to other battleships.
It’s very surprising to see just how they compared.
I thought that while the Iowa class were capable enough to possibly go toe to toe with them and likely even beat them for being faster but I never imagined them being nearly as big
We recognise a ship "big" by their weight. While the iowa class was only 7 metres longer, yamato was much wider, and way way heavier.
@@Absolut531kmh I’m speaking about eye witness accounts of people that saw the ships for the first time.
I’m not talking about technical specifications
@@7gmeister though yamato do seem longer as they have larger weapons and its thicker
it looks like Iowa ist to wide in the pictures. (So its size (witness) seems wrong - compare to ohter ships shown).
Bismarck (36 m) and Yamato (37m) shoud be - visible - much wider - than the "slim and narrow" Iowa (33 m).
But ist seems on the pictures.... that all three ships has quite the same witness.
I have seen other pictures (Iowa vs. Bismarck) - on wich Bismarck look (overall) much wider ("bigger", "stronger") - than the fast and long but quite narrow Iowa.
@@Flenders1983 My thoughts exactly but I don’t know for sure what it actually looks like in rl.
I can only go by the pictures and models I built as a kid
戦艦は現代では無用の長物やけど、ヤッパ浪漫の塊やな。
日本人としては、大和、武蔵、長門、陸奥が誇りやけど、アメリカ軍のアイオワ級も映画で活躍してカッコ良い！
They was remarkable ships of the time. It's sad to see them go the way they did. It would of been amazing to see the Yamato or Musashi as a anchored museum in Japan.
@@JoeXTheXJuggalo1 さん
是非、広島県呉市の大和ミュージアムに来て下さい。
精密な1/10大和の模型を初めとする色んな展示品がありますよ。
それに、大和を造船したドックで「かが」を空母に改装中ですね。
@@oniwakamarukumano8328 that is good to know. If I ever visit Japan I will definitely go see it.
@@oniwakamarukumano8328 そしてかがは今年の五月くらいに海に帰ってくる模様
@@緑ノ里 さん
そうですか！
楽しみです！
I like Yamato :))
It's even larger than an aircraft carrier lol
Thank you
@@ちにぬ :))
@kxsho_002 not modern day ones. But yes Yamato was so large and very pretty! I must tell you Yamato and Musashi had another sister ship- shinano. Which was turned into a carrier actually. She was later sunk by American submarines
Special salute to the Japanese giant those, who built an evergreen battleship YAMATO. Love from 🇮🇳
There was a 3 Yamato class ship being built but the imperal navy decided to try and convert her into a battleship/aircraft carrier hybrid. She was to keep one of the 18 in batteries. She was destroyed by US air raid before completion
Shinano, she was actually sunk by the submarine USS Archerfish on 29 November 1944.
That and no one believed them when they stated what they sunk until much later. @@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684
Actually 4, Yamato, the sister ship Musashi, the conveted to AC class Shinano, and one wasn't produced.
RUclips comment sections man....
Can always count on someone to spout off some complete bullshit and try to present it as fact
@@ElRollioauEver since I moved over to Quora for a mainstay website to talk naval history, I've met like 4 people who claimed Iowa could hit enemy ships at 20+ miles.
Not sure if anyone caught it but I believe she said Yamato class had 16 in guns which actually it had 18 in guns and they were the largest guns on a battleship
Good call. Correct.
she said 9, 460mm guns or 18inch
@@xavierkerr2688 Yeah that was his American ears catching inches, but she definitely said 460mm
18.1 inch to be exact
@@Odin029. In America we measure with freedom fractions🤣, we are the only country to still have our battleships.
Fun fact : the reason the King George V class only had ten guns was for stability reasons. Originally, they were supposed to carry twelve of them, but the stuff was so heavy that the ships became unstable, and the UK was forced to change the highest turret to a double one, in order to rebalance the whole thing.
I also thought it was the Washington naval treaty I could be wrong tho. Correct me if I am
@@Coolboi898If it entered service by 1940, then the treaty didn't have any effect.
@@Coolboi898 I don’t think the UK had officially withdrawn from the treaties. The US and UK were debating invoking some “escalator clause“ to have bigger guns. The UK and the US still tried keeping their new battleships at treaty limits, when they were building the KGV’s, and the North Carolinas and the South Dakotas.
Part of the decision to keep 14 inch guns on the KGVs might’ve been a tonnage treaty issue.
The original design called for a 2 gun turret aft superimposed over Y turret. Yes, it became unstable. The 14 inch guns were a result of the Washington Treat.naval treaty. So they decided on 12 guns of 14 inch to have a large broadside due to the restrictions. The figuring was 12 shells fired in stead of 8, 9 or 10.
Not true, they decided to reduce the number of guns in order to use that weight for additional armour, a conscious decision, not a mistake. The KGV class fielded smaller calibre guns but were protected against higher calibre guns due to uncertainty regarding future treaties at the time they were laid down.
King George V class battleships were considered to be Treaty Battleships
They were hamstrung by the london treaty which capped guns at 14 inches and 35k displacement. The Nelson and Rodney were also capped by the washington treaty at 35k displacement, but before the limitation on armament.
Americans got to change their North Carolina class in time, but it was too late for KGV class. What beasts they would have been with 12 14 inch guns or 9 16 inch guns, as is, they were mighty ships with 10 14 inch guns :)
They miss out on the hood
@@seansands424 you'll trigger the "HOOD WAS A BATTLECRUISER" nerds ;)
The North Carolina class were laid down to treaty specs as well. And were originally planned to have quad 14" turrets. But when we found out the Japanese weren't abiding by treaty limitations anymore they upgraded them to 16" triples.
@@Trains-With-Shane Correct, and the British couldn't afford to wait for next gen 16" guns to be ready for the KGV's, so they just stuck with the 14" guns.
I like battleships and battlecruisers because are powerful, strong and magnificent!
Excellent. She got right to it and no empty talk along the way.
The battlecruiser HMS Hood is the third biggest battleship class ever build with a displacement of 47,430 tons (46,680 long tons) and a length of 262.3 m. The battlecruiser HMS Hood was the largest warship in the world between 1922-1939.
But it was certainly a battlecruiser which is a different class.
@@Moggy471 Wrong. A battlecruiser was not a different class from a battleship. The Washington treaty which defined ship classes didn´t distinguish between battleships and battlecruisers. Both were regarded as capital ships as opposed to cruisers that was limited to 10.000 tons. In the 20´ties as far as the Royal Navy was concerned a battlecruiser was simply a fast battleship meant for raiding and for modern fast task forces rather than being a battleship "of the line" in the old sense, such as HMS Nelson. The thing is that Bismarck and most other modern battleships were fast raiders as well, but in contrary to Royal Navy in the 30´ties, neither Germany, France, Italy nor the US were using the term battlecruiser for their fast naval task forces of battleship raiders during WWII.
Even though the old tactics of the battleship line were completely outdated by WWII these nations all sticked to the obsolete term "battleship".
@@jesperlykkeberg7438 Yeah. No.
Yamato, Iowas, Vanguard, Bismarck, then Hood. That would make her 5th. Also, at full load, the Richelieus, Litorios, North Carolinas would all eventually nearly equal Hood's weight during their wartime careers do to additional AA weight, all coming to about 45,000t to Hood's 47,000t.
@@jesperlykkeberg7438
So there's a lot to explain with regards to Hood:
Firstly, following the battle of Jutland, the British started adding armour to the then under construction Admiral Class of 4 Battlecruisers. They were intended to be the next step of size increase over Renown and Repulse, and started off as traditional battlecruiser designs.
Secondly, the idea of a "fast" battleship started off as mear escalation of the Dreadnought idea. That was the goal to design a leap in technology over her adversaries by being better armed with all large uniform fighting battery, and faster then her contemporaries by using turbines instead of the standard tripple expansion engine. As other nations eventually build their own dreadnought, the Orions were designed to make a similar jump again over the Dreadnoughts. The Queen E's were the 3rd big jump in the line, and they inspired the idea of the, "fast" battleship. A ship that could truly both hunt raiders and fight in the battleline. However they never managed their intended 25kt speed.
So following the disappointment over the QEs not being fast enough, and the newfound worries over the very concept of a battlecruiser after Jutland, the admiralty started packing on a ton of weight in armour to the then building Admrials. However as post war treaties began to loom in the minds of the Admirals, and with clear issues to the Admirals being predicted due to all the weight on the hulls, they decided to cancel the 3 sisters to finish Hood to her modified design.
So Hood is really the first successful fast battleship design, as she was specifically modified to fight properly in the battleline, and not just hunt raiders.
If Iowa is a fast battleship, so too is Hood as they are nearly identical in belt, speed, and intended purpose.
Nice video. Great graphics
If the Montana-class where build they would have been longer and bigger than Iowas and Yamatos, 281m long, wide as Yamato but with an estimated weight of 70,000t - 80,000t due to the fact Montanas wields 4 mk7 turrets.
The same could be said about the h44 or just h class in general the h44 was predicted to be about 2-3 times bigger than bismarck and weight upwards of 100k tons
The difference though is that the USA could build the Montana class but decided to build carriers. I don’t think Germany had the resources to build the H44 during WW2
@@Titankiller-fz4tn Difference is that the Montanas were actually realistic designs for the US to build, whilst the H44s were pure fantasy
How about the super yamato. It was an actual design
@@fyieafgeyuv4402 the A-150-class is still a Yamato-class just with 6 51cm guns instead of 9 46cm guns and has slightly improved secondaries and AA than the Yamato-class, in terms of dimensions A-150s and Yamatos are the same only the A-150s would have been slightly heavier due to the 20.1" gun turrets being more heavily armoured and heavier than the 18.1" gun turrets.
did anyone notice that the Italians, British, Japanese, and French share similar hulls? The US had it's unqiue design up until the Iowa class
Some of the Japanese battleships were built by the British
@@harryjohnson9215 yep, based on the WW1 battlecruiser concept. They were completely rebuilt in the interwar period with new machinery and armour though. Still less armoured compared to the US battleships built from new in the same period
Is that because they had to fit through the Panama Canal?
@@neilbuckley1613 yes, the Japanese logic behind the Yamato was that the US couldn’t sortie bigger ships
@@michaelbracho3956 They didn't seem to care with the Montana class
8:23 I have a question about the appearance of the battleship Yamato. It is indeed a fact that the battleship Yamato falls short in terms of speed, industrial technology, and combat history. However, as a Japanese individual, I find its design to be remarkably beautiful and sophisticated. The elegant curves, castle-like bridge, innovative bulbous bow, and the concentration of anti-aircraft guns in the center evoke a unique sense of beauty that I feel is absent in battleships from other countries. Is it because I am Japanese and possess a Japanese aesthetic sense that I find it beautiful? How do people from overseas feel about this?
She is immensely beautiful
I am from Greece and I find the Yamato gorgeous. I also really like the myoko class cruisers
@@Walaki Thank you. I believe that the battleship Yamato is one of the pinnacles of refined battleship design in human history. Prior to the Yamato, Japanese battleships underwent numerous modifications, resulting in a lack of cohesion in their shapes. However, I consider the Yamato to be the culmination of Japan's shipbuilding history.
I think HMS Vanguard was the most beautiful.
It's a beautiful battleship
大和型武蔵は１９４４年10月24日、レイテ沖決戦に向かう途中で米航空機の攻撃に見舞われた。 魚雷20本と直撃弾17発を受けて沈没、その直後に大爆発を起こして艦体は四散した。
世界で一番被弾して沈没した軍艦としてギネスにのっている。
戦艦武蔵がなかなか沈まなかったため、大和に対してアメリカは片側集中攻撃して沈めた。
I notice that the Nelson/Rodney class was again left out. Where would these 16 inch gunned monsters fit in?
11th
Good you did your research. not a lot of people know that the battleship Vanguard was the last battleship every built in the world.
Also even though it's not necessary I would say that it should have been mentioned that there was a 3rd Yamato Class battleship Shimano being built but it was converted to a aircraft carrier after the loss of its 4 main carriers (Akagi, Kaga, Soryu, and Hiryu) at the battle of Midway. Making her the Shinano Class super carrier and the largest carrier in the world at that time. There was also plans for a 4th and 5th Yamato Class battleships as well and they was supposed to be even bigger than the Yamato.
0:50 Justetake 15 secondes to see how beautiful the Richelieu class are
Well they're French after all .... And imagine the Chow! I mean Cuisine!
If you want to know anything about the Iowa Class, the Battleship New Jersey channel has just about everything that's not still classified. (Bet you think you know... lol) The curator probably even has the original blue prints. He's even climbed through one of the barrels.
The 4 United States Navy Iowa Class Battleships will always be my most favorite Class of Battleships! I also love the South Dakota Class, North Carolina Class, and New York Class Battleships as well!
Ok
Interesting that all the Iowa's, North Carolina's and the Texas (NY Class) are still seaworthy
@@kenp7814 not quite with the North Carolina's. Washington was scrapped in the early 60s.
@@jacobdill4499 I should have just said North Carolina, sorry if it bothered you
I think it's great the U.S. has so many Battleship's preserved as museum ship's.
Of all the battleships classes that fought in WWII, only the Iowa-class battleships survived and went on to serve for the entirety of the Cold War. It was only after the Soviet Union collapsed that they were finally retired.
The US could afford to maintain them after having bled the rest of the Allied nations of their gold reserves. Everyone else had to scrap theirs.
That’s because it was hiding behind air craft carriers it’s entire career 👍🏼
Embora a classe Yamato nunca tenha de fato enfrentado ou Abatido qualquer outro navio seja americano ou não, podemos afirmar que com certeza teria dado um trabalho imenso se esse colosso tivesse chegado a Okinawa, objetivo da sua ultima missão que acabou por não se concretizar
@ジークハイル portuguese pls
@ジークハイル ok
@ジークハイル ホルマリン漬け部部員 ほんまそれ‼︎大艦巨砲主義の上層部があかんのよ
If only Admiral Kurita hadn't been such a coward. Then Yamato would've gone down in history as she was meant be.
That 2nd picture ofvthe Yamato class was the Musashi, sunk in the battle of leyte . The Yamato herself has no official picture. The only one I've seen was from a dive bomber sent to sink her off of Okinawa. The IJN never allowed photos
Such a feared ship due to its secrecy, where the US was so scared of it that they planned to use 10 Battleships and +400 aircraft to combat it. Luckily for the US, the aircraft where the only ones to sink yamato and musashi
The second image for the Yamato class shows the battleship Yamato during sea trials in October 1941.
There are quite a few pictures from these sea trials which I will attach below.
There are plenty of pictures of the battleship Yamato, more than the sister ship Musashi.
However, only two photographs are known of the third ship of this class, the Shinano.
Here are the pictures of the Yamato from 1941:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamato-class_battleship#/media/File:Yamato_sea_trials_2.jpg
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_battleship_Yamato#/media/File:Japanese_battleship_Yamato_running_trials_off_Bungo_Strait,_20_October_1941.jpg
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_battleship_Yamato#/media/File:Yamato_during_Trial_Service.jpg
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_battleship_Yamato#/media/File:Japanese_battleship_Yamato_fitting_out_at_the_Kure_Naval_Base,_Japan,_20_September_1941_(NH_63433).jpg
@@tzarcaz_4385: Sure, especially since the US Navy was fully aware that on October 24, 1944 they had almost incidentally sunk the Musashi by carrier-based air attacks in the Sibuyan Sea.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_battleship_Musashi#/media/File:Japanese_battleship_Musashi_and_a_destroyer_under_attack_in_the_Sibuyan_Sea,_24_October_1944_(NH_63432).jpg
The US Navy was also well aware, that Yamato, along with Nagato, Kongo and Haruna was fleeing a handful of escort carriers and escort destroyers off Samar on October 25, 1944...
You don't seem to realize that in April 1945, Task Force 58 with 8 aircraft carriers and six battleships with escort ships and almost 400 aircraft was on site as backing for the invasion of Okinawa and the battleship Yamato left the Japanese Inland Sea as a surprise to the Americans.
@@ULTRA_2112 I think it was April 1945 instead of 1944.
@@Briguy1027
That's right, my fault.
I made a typo and will correct it now...
Thanks.
I drive by the USS. New Jersey everyday to work. It is a massive and beautiful ship.
Love Yamato, gotta be my favorite coral reef
When it comes to what the biggest and best battleship I think its important to consider the history and for that you have to look back to WW1. The UK was the predominant naval force in the world and had a large number of very powerful battleships. These were armed predominantly with the Mk1 15" gun, a brilliant gun, powerful, relatively fast loading, accurate and simple. In the 1920s the Washington treaty came in limiting the building and power of new battleships, as the UK already had a load of ships and was struggling financially following WW1, they didn't bother much with building new ones, abiding by the treaty they wouldn't have been any bigger or better than the ones they already had, only really building the two Nelson class ships in the early 20s which were really still WW1 era ships. As the 20s became the 30s, basically every country other than the UK threw the treaty in the bin and started building bigger and better ships again. The UK eventually caught up and built the KGV class, really that was a 1930s design, good ships but they would be outclassed by ones subsequently built by other countries. The UK also updated and overhauled some of its remaining WW1 era ships, most notably the Queen Elizabeth class such as the legendary HMS Warspite, to bring them more in line with contemporary ships.
Moving to Germany, their main ships of note being the Bismark and Tirpitz. Again really a mid 30s design. Debate has raged for years on whether the Bismark was a Battleship or a Battlecruiser. Personally I don't think the design of the shop is what matters, tactically it was generally used like a Battlecrusier so therefore its a Battlecruiser. British Battleships were still designed and run a bit like old Jutland style ships of the line that get in line and batter hell out of each other, power and weight of numbers reigns supreme and that worked for the Royal Navy, as Jutland told them, when you are in that position you don't need to win you just have to not lose. The Bismark was less of a blunt object, designed to be fast, target and engage an enemy then run away. The Bismark's legend kind of clouds judgement on it, it was a solid ship of good design, but its guns weren't any bigger or better and it wasn't armoured any better than contemporary ships, its main thing was a fire control system that was outrageously accurate. It targeted and sank the "mighty" Hood in essentially no time at all, sure it was an (un)lucky shell strike that did for the Hood but shells can only be lucky if they are on target to begin with and by all accounts they were on target basically straight away.
Moving to Japan, the Yamato class is on paper the most powerful Battleship there has ever been. For some reason though I feel like they never lived up to their full potential. I'm not an expert on the Pacific theatre (or anything for that matter but particularly not that) I don't know if it was Japanese tactics that didn't use them properly or was just the general end of the road for battleships as the rise of the aircraft carrier came about. A more modern design than anything British or German, I would consider it a proper WW2 design of ship even though it was designed and most laid down before the start of the war.
Finally the USA. For me I don't think there is any debate that the Iowa class of battleship is the most powerful and objectively "best" battleship. They were a proper WW2 era design, newer and better than anything else afloat, powerful guns, well armoured, excellent fire control and ridiculously fast, really a collection of all the best bits of preceding battleships. The fact they were still using them in the 1990s is crazy.
HMS Vanguard, soooooooo well balanced.
My father served as a signalman on HMS Vanguard on its first commission, including the Royal Tour to South Africa in 1947, a great voyage with some enjoyable shore leave in Cape Town, Durban and Port Elizabeth. He felt the superstructure was rather too big and high for the looks of the ship and he thought the King George V class were better looking in some ways.
I recently got to walk around the Wisconsin, an Iowa class ship. It was pretty cool.
I've been on the New Jersey, also Iowa class.
@@Cinemaphile7783 Did it have missiles on it or were those only on the ones that were part of desert storm?
@@afriendofafriend5766 I don't recall seeing anything that fired missiles no.
@@Cinemaphile7783 the Wisconsin and the other ship that went to the middle east had Tomahawk box launchers on them. It was pretty cool to see them up close
@@afriendofafriend5766 yes NJ has (I think) Tomahawk launchers. Pretty sure it’s 16 of them, in the middle and back of the superstructure.
What is really interesting in this and the accumulated comments that follows is we all love these huge battleships and so did the navy designers of the various powers and it was the natural process starting with HMS Dreadnought to continue to scale upward in all departments. Even in the late 1930's as war loomed on the horizon it was the conventional thinking of the Admirals of the naval powers that the biggest guns always wins. Only a few forward thinking admirals and aviators saw the real potential of the Carrier as a major weapons system and on Nov 11&12 1940 the British launched the first carrier born attack on the Italian Regia Marina from the HMS Illustrious crippling several battleships and sinking several others. Even by late 1941 most world navies were filled with big gun admirals and it took the attack on Pearl Harbor for these navies to begin to see the carrier as the new capital ship. While new battleships were launched and commissioned these world navies began to come over to the side of the carrier. The Imperial Japanese Navy would not build a single new Battleship after Midway but would construct many new aircraft Carriers. The US continued to build the Missouri and Wisconsin and went ahead and ordered two more, and the Royal Navy would complete the final two King George V class Battleships and begin building the last battleship ever laid down and completed with the HMS Vanguard. The French Navy would eventually complete the second of the Richelieu Class, The Jean Bart laid down in December 1936 and finally commissioned in early 1949. It is so sad that all these fine ships that survived the war have been scrapped and made into razor blades. Only the US the youngest of these major nations saw to preserve it's history and has kept a total of 8 of it's fighting ladies as museums. All four Iowa's, a pair of the South Dakotas, the USS North Carolina and the USS Texas all have one last mission to educate the public of the horrors of war and the costs of freedom.
Its crazy that a ship from 1943 such as the iowa is still up to this day
I would say it's quite natural when considering the era, before mass media (as we know it today) and consumerist culture. Things were built to last because it wasn't as easy to replace.
@@tonygarratt5832 Now now. Boats built today can last as long as boats built in the past. Probably one of the biggest reasons why a boat taken off the water though is it's lower efficiency to a boat of newer design.
Iowa and Wisconsin are on the US Navy's list for being reactivated with new computer systems, new AA AEGIS combat systems, tripling Tomahawk cruise missile capacity, and possible rail gun or guns with the 16-inch main batteries to be capable of firing up to 100 miles with new missile-type shells. They are being considered for use in protecting Taiwan in the Taiwan Strait against any invasion force.
Pfft, look at USS Texas launched in 1912, commissioned in 1914 is still afloat, she's getting her hull fixed. The last dreadnought, fought in both World Wars......
Bismarck class was the most powerful battleship to sail until the Iowa and Yamato classes were launched. The Tirpitz variant was also the only BB out of this list to have a torpedo armament as well.
All extremely debatable, the Bismarck class is extremely overrated. As its closest contemporaries in terms of design date were either french (never saw much action vs the German fleet) Italian (to scared to lose the ship to really use them) and the British KGV class of which dominated in all the soft factors such as Radar assisted gunnery (look into the sinking of the Schanhorst to get a feel for that). (i dont know enough about the N.Carolina class to comment) but all these ships are pretty much the same in terms of overall effectiveness.
As for torpedo armament you do know that was extremely common for ww1 era battleships? It was just removed from any later ones as it never saw any use and they might as well use the treaty displacement for armour.
When it comes to Naval battles its not exactly a matter of who has the better ship, more just which crew is better at gunnery and if you get lucky. (or if your against the british they get cocky, example all ships lost at Jutland).
Does the weather and time of day suit your ship, British ships had really good all weather capabilities as they had an empire to police. While the Germans designs didn't account for the little details of tropical weather as why would they? Night fighting suits the radar capable ships extremely well just look at what happens to the Italians...poor Zara that ship didn't deserve a 3 battleship point blank ambush.
how about location? too north and german magnetic torpedos stop working while if in the south they tend to be more reliable than other navys.
When it comes to a game hard factors are king, IRL soft factors are the real deal.
When it comes to anything after 1935 and pre Iowa and Yamato are all basically the same, depending on other factors they can all win.
As for these 2 theres a reason nobody tried to match them as the Carrier became No1 before they even saw action the only half assed attempt was the Vanguard fitted with old weapons as by then the Brits knew the class was dying but they already done all the work so they might as well complete the ship cheaply.
Imagine making 8 15in guns on a 1940s huge warship
@@Youraveragegamer_97 Making?
Even better the 15in guns are ripped straight from old ships.
Look up the QE class made in WW1 (Warspite & 4 others) the turrets look oddly exactly the same...
The graphics is wrong on the length of the Iowa class - it is scaled to 290 meter, not 270 meter. That's why it looks so long.
6:13
"From the mist, a shape, a ship, is taking form
And the silence of the sea is about to drift into a storm
Sign of power, show of force
Raise the anchor, battleship's plotting its course
Pride of a nation, a beast made of steel
Bismarck in motion, king of the ocean
He was made to rule the waves across the seven seas
To lead the war machine
To rule the waves and lead the Kriegsmarine
The terror of the seas
The Bismarck and the Kriegsmarine"
Another battleship taken down by obsolete bi-wing torpedo bombers that first disabled the Bismarck to allow for it to be blown to bits by HMS King George V and HMS Rodney, and finally sunk by 3 torpedoes from the heavy cruiser HMS Dorsetshire.
Fairey Swordfish owned Bismarck
Too bad the Yamato didn’t stay hidden and end up being surrendered. Would have made an awesome museum.
It would have been sunk in Operation Crossroads along with Nagato.
Destruction of IJN capital ships was part of the peace agreement.
Used the wrong wording of "surrender" more appropriately would have been "sacrificed"
0:40 why is Dunkerque illustration called Richelieu??
That's what the Richelieu class looks like from above. You need to remember it was just an upscale Dunkerque class. From a top down view they look virtually identical, except for their length and beam.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_battleship_Richelieu#/media/File%3ARichelieu-1.jpg
yamato was and still is a very cool ship, pretty sad that it got destroyed but it had to be done for freedom, imagine how cool it is if we actually see an old ship in the museum and not a model lol
Would be frickin awesome
For freedom... XDXDXDXDXD It had to be done to beat the japanese and nothing more. stop preteinding everything the US does is for freedom. You all are some off the most oppressed people on the planet.
Technically speaking The Yamato is the largest U-Boat ever.🤣
@@waynesimpson2074 lol 😂
@@Benji1969 Thank you kind Sir🤩Most people don't get it and just argue the point🤪
Narration was perfect.
And the Yamato never once fired its main battery guns once in anger.
...at another battleship. See the actions at Leyte Gulf and the final sortie to Okinawa. San Shiki (also referred to as "Beehive") AA shells were used against US aircraft, although there are reports the gunnery officers did not like them since the driving bands were considered to cause extra wear to the barrel rifling.
戦艦大和は戦後、新幹線に姿を変えました。
It's pronounced king George the 5th
And im glad you don't do what a lot of RUclipsrs do when making a list like this by including battlecruisers
It's a blessing and a curse that we never got a battle between an Iowa class and a Yamato class. Blessing because we don't want all those lives gone. Along with over a hundred tons of metals polluting the ocean. A curse, because God damn, that would've been one hell of a fight.
Considering all the lives that have been lost in WW2 already, it would be very interesting to see a 1 on 1 duel between the 2
Metals polluting the ocean??? I think you forgot that Yamato and Musashi were about 150,000 tons of metals and oil at the bottom of the ocean after each was hit by about 18 torpedoes and 20 bombs by US Naval aircraft from 4 aircraft carriers. Over 390 dive bombers and torpedo bombers, with fighter cover, sank the Yamato, and over 250 sunk the Musashi.
Just remember, bigger doesn’t necessarily mean bigger! Like KGV is one of the best but is a bit smaller
KGV is underrated. They have the second thickes armor, 2nd only to Yamato. British steel quality was highly advanced for the period, raising the effective thickness by 15%, meaning her belt would have been better protected than Yamato if not for Yamato's belt being sloped at 19 degrees.
US and German navy fanboys constantly rag on her for her guns, as they were "small and didn't function". While their gun size of 14-inches was small, due to British made super charges, could penetrate a lot more armor than their gunsize, Prince of Wales, perfectly penetrated Bismarck's 12.6-inch belt, while KGV and Duke of York penetrate 13.8-inch armor on Bismarck and Scharnhorst respectively. POW's guns only malfunctioned because she was fresh out of the commissioning ceremony. KGV and DOY's guns functioned perfectly.
They were the second bet treaty era battleships, barely beat out by USS South Dakota, and they were the 4th best battleships ever made in my opinion.
@@metaknight115 if they had been made with the 15 inch 45s they would have probably even beat the South Dakota’s
@@MCLegend13 Still wouldn't have. KGV's guns were perfectly capable of penetrating South Dakota's armor. South Dakota just had some cartoonishly overpowered deck penetration, as 45 cal 16-inch guns firing super heavy shells could penetrate any and all deck armor, aside from maybe Yamato's.
@@metaknight115 I disagree the 14 inch quads were very capable don’t get me wrong but It’s still would have been better to go for the 15 or 16 inch as those are the calibres everyone else is going for at the time (apart from the Dunkirk’s and Scharnhorst’s) so it’s honestly shocking how they could have so easily just made a 15 or 16 inch turret but instead went for the 14 inch gun.
But it gets worse why only 10 guns not 12 that would have made the capability much better and would potentially have a large enough barbet to replace all 3 quad 14s with triple 15s or even triple 16s the 2 quads and super firing twin just wouldn’t work
Still none the less a capable gun and a capable ship.
@@MCLegend13 Fair enough
Yamato class battle ship also had the ijn shinano
Very interesting. The Iowas were second-largest, displacement-wise, and also the fastest battleships ever built. They could achieve a top speed of at least 33 knots, or about 36 mph. If the proposed Montana class had ever been built, they would have rivaled the Yamato for displacement, and with twelve 16"/50 caliber guns would have had immense firepower. Sadly none were ever built! Great video.
Iowa class spec speed was 33 knots however they had been clocked at 36 knots flat out in calm seas .
@@fredmoucatel2058 which is true, but that was only when the USS New Jersey was reactivated for service in Vietnam in the 1960's, +20 years after being first launched. All previous 20mm and 40mm antiaircraft batteries were stripped and nothing put in their place, making her much lighter and correspondingly faster.
@ジークハイル if you think that was a tangible plan, you are greatly mistaken.
Yamato went down with basically no tactical achievements; bigger battleships woudnt have made a difference, even if Japan had the capacity to build them.
In any case it wasnt like US didnt have the capacity to build bigger battleships. The only reason the US didnt create bigger battleships like montana was because they didnt need BBs; instead, they have been building over 20 CVs.
@@blulight5881 Also I believe the navy wanted the ships to be able to fit through the locks of the Panama canal. if needed.
@@bluevalkyrie2517this is genuinely the main reason for any limit on US ship size at the time
One forgets how truly massive Yamato was
Same size as Mushashi.
@@golden.lights.twinkle2329 I mean they are sister ships so
I hate how these presenters switch back and forth between metric and Imperial. you can tell they are European with an intended American audience. So they start out providing both measurements, but then when they get near the end, everything is in metric. Double check your work and keep it consistent!
Very informative, ty. Had no idea Iowa was bigger than Bismarck and Vanguard.
But in a real combat, do you think Iowa could break down the Bismarck. I am not sure.
@@jamesmarrel8087 I think Iowa's got superior guns, armor, and fire control. With a speed advantage to help dictate range against Bismarck.
@@jamesmarrel8087 The Bismarck would get smacked.
Bismark was nothing special. It got one lucky hit on a Ww1 era Battlecruiser and became a legend due to this but was sank before her paint had chance to dry just days later. Overrated ship.
Not actually a Battleship but Hood was longer than vangaurd and Bismark.
People dont realize how badass the Iowa class battleships were. 20ft longer than the Yamato, they were also about 10kts faster than the Yamato, and while the Yam's 18" guns were bigger and armour was thicker, the Iowas superior fire control systems would mean the Yamato would have been on fire long before those 18" guns could have even dreamed of hitting anything more than 20 miles away.
Yeah... No. The Iowa's radar at WW2 was crap, and anyone saying otherwise is talking about the upgrades installed later on when missiles became a thing. The Yamato's visual targeting systems were state of the art masterpieces, capable of seeing far beyond what the actual eye could see. Sure the Iowa would shoot near the target consistently thanks to her radar, but the Yamato would make a couple ranging shots then go to town on whatever poor soul it would be firing against.
The usual argument for the Iowa is that: "My grandfather/uncle/friend/aunt/cousin/dog served in the Iowa and they said she would win" having experienced the Iowa as she was after the cold war. An almost entirely different ship compared to the 1945 version of herself
@@gerardfarresfranch7242 the USS Washinton and Adm Lee proved that radar could be used to fire accurately in 1943
@@sche0707 And it was common knowledge that after a couple ranging shots, the visual systems the Japanese used were just as accurate, at the same distances, and the Yamato had an effective range of 46 km with its main guns, doubling the range of other battleships at the time, the important word in that is effective, meaning that while it wasn't as accurate as radar it wasn't missing its targets by kilometers, and all it would take would be a lucky shot while other ships were getting into range to begin disaster
@@gerardfarresfranch7242 Unfortunately, ships move, so those two ranging shots only ranged where the ship was two minutes ago.
@@golden.lights.twinkle2329 My man, maths have been around for a very long time, no average neanderthal would be put in charge of the targeting
An interesting design note for the various countries. It seems only the last Japanese and WWII era American battleships incorporated the enlarged fantail to accommodate spotter aircraft. The European countries had them but usually amidships, which probably limited some machinery.
Scale is way off i think
3 of the 8 largest battleships ever made were sunk by aircraft, and the sinking of a 4th (Bismarck) was assisted by aircraft.
The remaining 4 are all of the Iowa class and are museums.
I think the British had one WW 1 ship classified as a "Large Light Cruiser" that had 2 18 inch guns called HMS Furious. She had two near sister's mounting 4 15 inch guns. I think all 3 were later converted into Aircraft Carriers?
Her two sisters being Glorious and Courageous both of which sadly had short wartime careers as carriers however their guns were stored and eventually mounted on the new build Vanguard
@@stephenchappell7512 actually, HMS Vanguard was equipped with the turrets and mountings, from HMS Glorious and HMS Courageous, but the actual 15" guns themselves were taken from the RN's central 15" gun stockpile, and had previously been installed on HMS Queen Elizabeth (2 guns)HMS Ramillies(2 guns)HMS Resolution, HMS Royal Sovereign, HMS Erebus and HMS Warspite
@@MichaelHill-we7vt
But weren't all those ships mentioned still knocking about (awaiting disposal) at the time of Vanguard's commissioning in May 1946?
@@stephenchappell7512 The RN maintained a "pool" of 15-inch guns which were available for installation on battleships when their guns were removed for re-lining and modernisation....the guns which were mounted on HMS Vanguard came from this "pool" but had been previously mounted on the ships I listed.....the two 15" guns on display in front of the Imperial War Museum in London also came from that same "pool"
CORRECTION: there are FOUR Iowa class battleships, not 6. Yes 6 were contracted but the last two were not completed. what remains of the 5th one, the Kentucky, is on the front of the Wisconsin as the bow was cut off of the unfinished Kentucky to repair damage to the original bow of the Wisconsin. Hence the nick name of Wisky for the battleship.
You neglected to mention that two of the six Iowa-class ships, the USS Illinois and USS Kentucky, were incomplete and scrapped.
The Kentucky's bow section lives on as part of the Wisconsin
海軍条約終了後に建造された新型戦艦の中に長門型がえらばれたのが意外。
The Iowas are just such beautiful ships. Rarely have warship's lines & proportions just been so RIGHT.
In profile, yes. But they were built narrower in beam than ideal for their length, in order to fit through the Panama Canal. This results in a very boxy central hull. This was only obvious when I built a model of one of them and thought, 'how ugly - like a canal barge writ large'.
The Roma is sleeping in the Asinara Gulf ( Sardegna).Rip🇮🇹
Was gonna comment on how many facts you got wrong, however when I started typing at #8 & had carpal tunnel by #5 I just said the hell w/it. 🤔🤨
They're fun to watch, but often got it wrong.
I always wondered if Iowa ever went up against Yamato who would have come out on top? It may not be a popular opinion but I believe Iowa would have won. Better fire control, of course there all always lucky shots. And the Yamato was a beast heard to sink. I just felt the Iowa would hit more and more times and end up sinking the other ship.. just my opinion though. Anyone have a different opinion? Would love to hear your thoughts on it
The two giant Japanese battleships displaced 72,000 tons and had 9 - 18 inch guns. The American Iowa class, the voice over said 6 were built, that is incorrect, there were 4--- Iowa, Wisconsin, Missouri, and the New Jersey. The other two were scrapped in place (stopped being built) when the war ended. The Iowa's had 9- 16 inch main armament. I agree the Iowa's had an edge on the larger Japanese battleships because they were faster and had Radar ranged/plotting/aiming more accurate guns. The Iowa's were also built to fit through the Panama Canal at the beam, I think this was just inches on each side to fit.
@@tomtransport ya I forgot about the Panama thing they had to fit. Also I'm not exactly sure but were they not subject still to the WW1 treaty that limited the tonnage? Or was it amount owned?
@@jrodstech The tonnage (of each ship) was modified in 1938 to allow for higher tonnage because the treaty was modified that year. The 6 Iowa class battleships (4 were completed) were designed to be 58,000 tons fully loaded/ready for battle. After the war started in 1939 the Brits and the French scrapped any rules as to size.
@@jrodstechI imagine either the Iowa would wither the Yamato down with HE at long range or the Yamato would score a lucky and devastating critical hit. Yamato's armour was designed to withstand its own guns and the Iowa definitely shouldn't close range as it will negate the fire control advantage.
No computer voice! Learn the correct names of ships...
Sounds Asian. Always says “crass“ instead of “class“. It’s got to be easier to use a human voice…
The U.S.S. New Jersey was decommisoned a final time on February 8th 1991, after providing some support in the Persian Gulf campaign. She was Iowa class, and still packed a good punch.
They talk about the class of battleship.
The class is named after the first ship built .
The first Littorio-class battleship had a speed of 32 knots.
9x381mm guns with a range of 32 km, the shell was the fastest around. Penetration power of the shell was superior than that of the Yamato.
All of this was made between 1936 to 1940,year of entering in service of the Littorio and Vittorio Veneto.
Far before all these major foreign battleships.
We would have left to no one our battleships. It was better scrap them all rather than see one single of them wear the colors of some foreign countries.
The penetration is on-par with Yamato, not superior. This only came from it high speed if 850m/s. However, you are cherry picking, Yamato had a bursting charge of 74.6 lbs while Littorios bursting charge was only 22.4 lbs meaning a Yamato shell would do tonnes more damage than a Littorio. You may use the excuse "but yamatos shell was bigger" ok and? The British 15 inch Gun using the updated WW2 shell had a bursting charge of 48.5lbs, meaning that guns would also do more damage. The Italian guns were impressive, but weren't some crazy "italain science" that nationalists and Werhaboos believe in, they simply went for penetration instead of destructive power. The Brits didn't even want them anyway, they examined the ships then scrapped them.
@@GaryJones69420 dude, while Yamato shells needs literally minutes to arrive on target, Littorio shells arrives immediately.
It doesn't matter how agile it is the Yamato, she doesn't have time to dodge.
Moreover is bigger and more easy to hit than the Vittorio Veneto, that is also more faster.
@@danielefabbro822 wow, you know absolutely nothing about Naval warfare do you.
1. THe Littorio can't just 'dodge' Yamato shells if they don't know where they're going to land, it's impossible for a Battleship to dodge a shell by the time they actually see them arriving.
2. Yamato is 25 metres longer, that's barely going to make a difference in long range engagements.
3. "Littorio shells arive immediately" Yamato has a faster striking velocity, which means Littorio's shells actually slow down as they travel meaning that Littorio's shells are only abit faster, this isn't WoWs were shells arrive immediately.
4. Littorio had a worse rangefinder than Yamato, so on top of her shells being horribly inaccurate due to thier design they can't actually aim the guns well.
@@GaryJones69420 I don't know where do you find these bullshits but you definitely have to learn something dude.
It's even embarrassing talk with you.
@@danielefabbro822 you're quite now aren't you bud
UK Should of kept the Vanguard and turned it into a museum.
なんで昔の人は城も戦艦も解体しちゃうのかねぇ…………
It would be deadly, but interesting if they all had an all out, ultimate "cage match" with every ship for itself, though the Yamato would probably ultimately win.
Read up on the Battle of Midway.
In anything other than perfect daylight conditions the Iowa would probably beat the Yamato class due to superior fire control systems. Especially at night
@ Anvil Airsoft TV
No because the American guns couldn’t do anything.
The US Navy tested the Yamato’s armour post war (probably spare parts or rejects or from the Shinano that was converted to a carrier).
With a brand-new 16”/50 cal naval gun perfectly perpendicular at point blank range… the armour only cracked.
Iowa’s shells would very accurately bounce off Yamato. All Iowa could do is run.
In fact… battleships are so protected that not once during either World Wars was one ever sunk by gunfire alone. WWI it was all lightly armoured battle cruisers.
Hood was a battlecruiser. So was Kirishima. Bismarck was scuttled.
All other battleships that sank during the war did so against air attacks-mostly torpedoes or in the case of Tirpitz very large aerial bombs.
@@calvinnickel9995 Yamato's side armor might have stopped a 16" shell, but most shells come in "plunging" to the top of the ship and superstructure. Yamato had little armor there, that's why it was sunk so easily by planes.
HMS Warspite would have won, it always did.
Good , well made top 10 video
What about HMS Hood?
I know she's a battlecruiser, but the Moltke-class battlecruisers were included Top 10 Biggest World War I Battleships.
The whole Battlecruiser / Battleship discussion is an ongoing one with the Admiral class. Its true she was laid down as a battlecruiser but the design was completely re worked during construction following on from lessons learned from Jutland and by the time she was ins service she was as well armed and armoured as any battleship afloat. It was only her remarkable speed (over thirty knots) that had the Royal Navy classify her as a battlecruiser.
@@Deevo037 and just about adequate armour
Had she, had a chance to have her 1941(maybe 1940) refit (the British navy planed the refits ahead of time) She would of been considered a fast battleship
But the war broke out before that
And she was needed in action
No she was definitely a battlecruiser. Her ease of destruction in comparison to Bismarck (which was scuttled) proved that.
Same with Kirishima. The Japanese reclassified her as a battleship but her armour scheme was still unbalanced.
@@calvinnickel9995 The story that Hood was poorly armoured is a bit of a furphy as she was at least as well armoured as a Queen Elizabeth battleship if not better. As for her destruction this video has a comprehensive analysis of it but in short it was an exceptionally unlikely lucky shell hit. ruclips.net/video/CLPeC7LRqIY/видео.html
As for Bismark despite her undeniable robustness she was rendered combat incapable relatively early on and was unlikely to have been salvageable in any way. Kiroshima was an entirely different situation as the IJN were well known for even their heaviest units being comparatively lightly armoured to aid their speed.
@@calvinnickel9995 In the Royal Navy battlecruiser simply means "fast battleship". HMS was the largest warship in the world, and the strongest British battleship between 1922-1939.
With its speed of 30 knots (56 km/h) Bismarck could be regarded as a battlecruiser as far as Royal Navy is concerned..
Fascinating.
Bismarck the most elegant,beautiful ship of them all!
Maybe.
The Bismark looks nice, but she's a bit too ovalis for my taste. I think that King George V, Yamato, Warspite, Hiei, Iowa, South Dakota, Washington, and Scharnhorst look better than Bismarck
Die Iowa Class ist graphisch falsch dargestellt, da sie nur 33 Meter Breit ist (Panama Max.) Die Bismarck Klasse hat 36 Meter Breite,und ist somit 3 m. Breiter, als diese.
I never realized the Iowa class is the longest. For some reason I always thought the Bismarck and Yamato were longer.
Yep. Iowa is larger that Bismarck, and Yamato is only bigger because she is much wider
Iowa is the same shape as the others, but with a big nose. I guess it was supposed to reduce drag and increase speed?
It is interesting to see the results of each country's usage philosophy and restrictions.
Efforts were made to make the Yamato compact for a ship carrying a 46cm gun.
In order to meet the U.S. battleships that could not exceed the Panamax.
@@scotth6814 not to good in rough seas
7:15 ...only 4 entered service: Iowa, Missouri, New-Jersey and Wisconsin...!
...Illinois and Kentucky* were never finished...!
*...but Kentucky's bow section was used to repair the bow of Wisconsin, which was dammaged when she collided with a destroyer in 1956...!
7:50 ...that's the early configuration...
...later in their career the 2 laterally 15cm secondary triple-turrets were replaced by AA-guns...!
It's funny to think by the second half of the war they were arguably becoming mostly obsolete and inefficient in terms of resources and manpower. Carriers with AA cruiser escort quickly became the optimal naval force.
Yep, that how our Navy lost Singapour & the far east, with no Aircraft Carrier's out there, believing they could hold Hong Kong & Singapour & other colenies with out carrier's. excuse my spelling bad head day lol
Yes but they still excelled at shore bombardment.
Re: "Carriers with AA cruiser escort quickly became the optimal naval force."
Light cruisers like the U.S.S. Atlanta (CL-51), designed from the start as anti-aircraft platforms, were a potent tool in the naval arsenal of nations like the U.S., but they were not without vulnerabilities, as the fierce actions in the Solomon Islands in 1942-1943 demonstrated. They were less-expensive and time-consuming to produce, to be sure, but also much less well-protected from gunfire, torpedoes and bombs than battleships or heavy cruisers.
There was still a big role to be played by the largest capital ships such as the battle-wagons and the largest heavy cruisers, once they had been outfitted with the latest radar-controlled AAA defenses and other counter-measures.
They better withstood attacks by kamikazes and unmanned "Oka" guided bombs, too ~ both of which became increasingly a danger as the war went on in the Pacific. It is no accident that the least armored ships suffered the most from these suicide attacks, i.e., "jeep"or escort carriers, destroyers, DEs, light cruisers, etc.
They were usually first hit since they comprised the outer pickets of the screening vessels, and thus sustained the most damage by virtue of being attacked first, but also because they were so lightly protected.
Earlier in the war, the men in the smaller vessels of the surface navy wondered bitterly why the brass weren't sending the remaining battleships into combat in the South Pacific, like the destroyers and cruisers. It was because the old WW1-era dread-naughts consumed so much fuel that the high-command faced (for a time in 1942-early 1943 anyway) faced a dilemma of using either the carriers or the battle-wagons. There was not enough fuel reserve in the Pacific for both.
Once the logistical situation improved and the newer fast battleships come into play in the latter part of 1943 and into 1944, that changed, but for a time fuel considerations were a big deal. Which of course bolsters your point, too - since cruisers use less fuel than battleships.
Carriers were also escorted by battleships too, well at least most of the times
I love WW2 ships and tanks... it was a different time them... the last Era of true blood and guts ... in 2023 a single F-22 Raptor could probably wipe any of them out alone
Nagato class most beautyfull of all time 🧐👍
Revise the list . HMS Hood had 46 k ton displacement . Making it number 5 . Which would make the Richelieu , kicked off the list 😂
Revise again the list . Le Richelieu had 47 k ton displacement maximum ! not 44.698, see Wikipedia.
Your lack of knowledge is as hopeless as your opinion
@@Solveig.Tissot And your knowledge is as hopeless as the French navy
You visual model between Yamato and Iowa class length is not correct. That 24ft. difference looks more like 100ft.
I know Yamato is big but didn’t expect to be way bigger than I imagined. I just see Iowa and just think oh Yamato would be wider and slightly bigger. But Jesus it exceed my expectations. Now I know why she is the most suitable to be a Space Battleship. Iowa can’t be a Space Battleship because she is not wide enough to fit Wave Motion Technology.
This program stated that there were six Iowa class battleships. There were four: Iowa, Missouri, New Jersey, Wisconsin. More may have been planned but only these were built.
We all know why the French battleships were fast lol.
To kick your butt ?
dang man even a dog wouldnt laugh
Because they had long hull profile and powerful machinery. That’s why.
I like the Richeliu, Littorio, and the Vanguard class so far. Yamato just slight shorter than iowa class in length.
Nagato looks neat too. Like Subatai of khan. Iowa gets silver.
Bismarck gets bronze I guess.
Go back to the picture of the Richelieu, and compare with others, is the most beautiful boat.
O melhor Couraçado da 2 GM foi a Classe Washington e North Caroline. Foi o projeto mais equilibrado e que salvou em Batalha em Guadalcanal o Couraçado South Dakota em pane elétrica, da destruição certa. Destruindo o Couraçado japonês Kirishima com 3 salvas de 16 Pol. Um Navio heróico.
It was more than three salvos, my friend. Washington fired a total of 75 16" shells at Kirishima in roughly three minutes. 20 of them hit her, 7 were below the waterline. This from Kirishima's Damage Control Officer. She never had a chance of surviving that barrage. She foundered and sank as the crew were being rescued by two destroyers. Kirishima almost rolled on to one of them as she went down.
I love the North Carolina class too. They actually could have built them better, had they gone with plan XVI (the basic ship we know today) but with 30 knot top speed, and a 13.5" armor belt! (I forget which of the sub-plans of XVI it was.) The point being, they settled for less than it could have been. As great as they were, they could have been even better!
Much like the Northampton class heavy cruiser. After building several, they realized the ships were 1000 tons under limit. So the Portland class was developed, and had better armor and longer range.
Looking at the gun arrangement on the Pensacola class, one wonders why they didn't place the two twin turrets forward (less weight on the bow), and place the two triple turrets aft; where the ship is wider and more stable. These ships came in way under weight too!
The Pensacola and Northampton class were dubbed "tinclads" because of their thin armor.
U.S. had plans for 100,000 ton battleships. Known as the Tillman Battleships design, they were to be armed with 24-16 inch guns. There were designs to put 21" guns on them when they were available. The Japanese had plans for the "Super Yamato", a 100,000 ton battleship with 12-21" guns. Germany had plans for 4-8 65,000 ton fast battleships, known as "H-Class Battleships" with 8-16" guns.