WW2 Ship Class Guide - Deep Version
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 5 июл 2024
- Covering all major warship classes of the Second World War mainly looking at their intended pre-war role and what missions they actually performed. Looking mostly at the US Navy, Royal Navy, Imperial Japanese Navy and Kriegsmarine.
Classes covered Battleships, Carriers, Battle Cruisers, Heavy Cruisers, Light Cruisers, Escort Carriers, Destroyers, Submarines, and Destroyer Escorts. Ships HMS Warspite, Yamato, Shokaku, Hood / Admiral Class, Prinz Eugen, Cleveland, Casablanca, Fletcher, Type VIIC U-Boat and Buckley Class.
Drachinifel's Channel: / drachinifel
Justin's Twitter: / cbi_pto_history
Stephen's Twitter: / hembreehistory
»» SUPPORT MHV ««
» paypal donation - paypal.me/mhvis
» patreon - / mhv
» subscribe star - www.subscribestar.com/mhv
» Book Wishlist www.amazon.de/gp/registry/wis...
»» MERCHANDISE - SPOILS OF WAR ««
» shop - www.redbubble.com/people/mhvi...
»» SOCIAL MEDIA ««
» minds.com - www.minds.com/militaryhistory...
» facebook - / milhistoryvisualized
» twitter - / milhivisualized
» twitch - / militaryhistoryvisualized
» RallyPoint - www.rallypoint.com/organizati...
» tumblr - / militaryhistoryvisualized
Military History NOT Visualized is a support channel to Military History Visualized with a focus personal accounts, answering questions that arose on the main channel and showcasing events like visiting museums, using equipment or military hardware.
» SELECTED SOURCES «
Symonds, Craig L.: World War II at Sea. A Global History. Oxford University Press: New York, 2018
Jordan, John: Warships After Washington: The Development of the Five Major Fleets 1922-1930
Evans, David C.; Peattie, Mark R.: Kaigun - Strategy, Tactics, and Technology in the IMPERIAL JAPANESE NAVY 1887-1941. US Naval Institute Press: United States, 2012.
Wayne, Hughes P. Jr: Fleet Tactics. Theory and Practice. Naval Institute Press: Annapolis, Maryland, 1986.
Chesneau, Roger; Gardiner; Robert: Conway’s All the World’s Fighting Ships 1922-1946. Naval Institute Press: Annapolis, 1980
Gardiner, Robert (Ed.): The Eclipse of the Big Gun. The Warship 1906-45. Conway’s History of the Ship. Conway Maritime Press: London, 1992.
Gardiner, Robert (Ed.); Lavery, Brian (Con.Ed): The Line of Battle - The Sailing Warship 1650-1840. Conway’s History of the Ship. Conway Maritime Press: London, 1992.
Evers, Heinrich: Kriegsschiffbau. Ein Lehr- und Hilfsbuch für die Kriegsmarine. Zweite, verbesserte Auflage. Springer-Verlag: Berlin, 1943.
Loose, Bernd; Oesterle, Bernd: Das große Buch der Kriegsschiffe. Maschinengetriebene Schiffe des 19. und 20. Jahrhunderts. Motorbuch Verlag: Stuttgart, 2. Auflage, 1997.
Milner, Marc: Battle of the Atlantic. The History Press: Gloucestershire, 2003 (2011).
Willmott, H. P.: The Last Century of Sea Power - Volume I: From Port Arthur to Chanak, 1894-1922. Indiana University Press: Indianapolis, USA: 2009.
Boyd, Carl; Yoshida, Akihiko: The Japanese Submarine Force and World War II. Naval Institute Press, Annapolis, MD, 2002 (1995).
Stern, Robert C.: Type VII U-boats. Brockhampton Press: London (UK), 1991.
Skulski, Janusz: Battleship Yamato. Anatomy of the Ship. Conway Maritime Press: London, 1988.
» CREDITS & SPECIAL THX «
Song: Ethan Meixsell - Demilitarized Zone
#ww2 #militaryhistory #navalhistory
If you like in-depth military history videos, consider supporting me on PayPal, Patreon or SubscribeStar or PayPal:
paypal.me/mhvis --- patreon.com/mhv/ --- www.subscribestar.com/mhv
TIMESTAMPS (thanks to 101jir)
Battleships: 10:32 (Introduction and disclaimers up to this point)
Aircraft Carrier: 26:03
Battlecruiser: 38:34
Heavy Cruiser: 44:44
Light Cruiser: 55:00
Escort Carrier: 58:39
Destroyers: 1:01:05
Submarines: 1:08:10
Destroyer Escort: 1:15:21
So is that paypal, subscribestar, patreon, paypal, paypal, subscribestar, patreon, or paypal?
Hey, The swordfish night service thing is due to radar, Britain was pretty ahead in Radar and the swordfish was one of the first airframes to use it since it was a two man set up and early radar needed a dedicated operator, but bigger heavier aircraft couldn't fly from carriers, especially escort carriers. The Swordfish was also used in night/dawn attacks flown from Malta where it was guided in by radar from other RAF planes as well, again it is the general advantage Britain had in Radar rather than any attribute of the swordfish that let this happen.
With regard to the Battlecruiser, the German "pocket battleships" were the closest thing to traditional battlecruiser of the early 1900s. The Scharnhost class was only designated as a "battlecruiser" due to the 11 inch main armament. The Kongo class conversion from battlecruiser to fast battleship is a case in point.
The Alaska class produced by the Americans was the closest to a true battlecuiser. The performance of the Lion in various engagements is proof the ammunition handling was far more important than mere armor thickness in battlefield performance.
The upgrades to the Renown class is a good case to study as well, with the difference in refits between Renown and Repulse.
The HMS Hood was in dire need of a refit when the battle of the Denmark strait occured.
In regard to cruisers, the Pensacola and Northampton classes were initially designed as light cruisers due to their armor. Rather their lack there of.
Fart at: 7:10
@@DoddyIshamel u mean 3 man set up? Or pilot +2^^^
Timestamps:
Battleships: 10:32 (Introduction and disclaimers up to this point)
Aircraft Carrier: 26:03
Battlecruiser: 38:34
Heavy Cruiser: 44:44
Light Cruiser: 55:00
Escort Carrier: 58:39
Destroyers: 1:01:05
Submarines: 1:08:10
Destroyer Escort: 1:15:21
This should be pinned.
101jir marry me😂
Thanks
you are a true übermensch
Thank you
My stepdad served on the aircraft carrier HMS Victorious. They did something like 18 convoys in less than 18 months. He could hardly talk about it because of how dreadful it was. He described pushing burning, armed & fuelled plane off the flight deck into the sea during a dive bomber attack in the Med. All while, as he put it “I was covered in my best friends brains”. Brave, brave men.
To illustrate the whole “early carriers were REALLY experimental thing”: Imagine choosing a DaVinci sketchbook plane to oppose a battery of 16 inch guns inside the range of those guns
USN fleet exercises with really early carriers kept ending with cruisers jumping out of fogbanks and wiping them out, so the second generation were equipped with cruiser-size cannons for defense.
I'll get in my u-boat and go with the deep version
Be careful don't exceed your test depth
Casablanca's rear 5" gun was there to fire star shell so returning aircraft could more easily locate the ship and also to find WP to make smoke if needed and lastly to fire window shells. Which afaik was not actually ever used.
Is that window as in chaff?
@@beetooex Yes there was a chaff shell for the 5"/38.
@Jay Barker One 5" gun isn't going to be effective AA even with VT shells. Also if you notice where the 5"/38 was mounted on the CVEs it is in a piss poor place for AAA use due to the flight deck blocking the forward arc.
Thanks for these insightful comments guys. Really interesting.
The 5 in gun was a relic of the ship they converted. Cheaper to build than remove it.
Yamato....."Hotel"..... I see that you are a man of culture aswell ;)
She is not an Hotel!
@@ousou78 you can't sleep at the bottom of the of the ocean so you're right!
@@ironstarofmordian7098 r/woooooosh
@@ironstarofmordian7098 i.imgur .com/ByKD8GM.jpg
not knowing kancolle is a warcrime, go to gulag or something.
It's worth noting Kancolle didn't invent this - it was a wartime nickname of the battleship. So that might not be what was being referenced.
"Hey, gunner! You are now a pilot." I had to pause the video I laughed so hard.
Please invite Drachinifel if you do another video about warships. Thanks 😁
I wouldn't mind having a chat with him at some point. IF that were to occur, it wouldn't be for awhile since I have my hands full with other things for the next month or so.
@@justinpyke1756 tq so much justin..plz do continue your work i really appreciate it 😁
That would be awesome. In 5 minutes more or less!
I really love how navies around the world built same classifications of ships but designed under completely different doctrines and made each types and classes so unique. RN Cruisers were mainly built for long range cruising to protect sea lanes between mainland and oversea colonies, while IJN CA was to open up breakthrough point in night battle against enemy fleet so DesRon with heavily armed DDs lead by CL can successfully run torpedo run.
Indeed!
Should have just named this. Ww2 ship class guide 201
Oh wow a 1 hour 40 min video (including the short version) on ships! Should be fun to watch!
An hour and twenty minutes on my favorite military branch by my favorite military historian. You just made my week.
About the whole "building carriers like crazy in 1920", I have to point that the first combat action involving a carrier was conducted in 1925, on the 2nd Rif war between Spain and the Rif rebels (northern Morocco). You might wonder how can you use a carrier in a colonial war, and the thing is that the Spanish navy (half of it, at least, including its more powerful vessels) was deployed for supporting the Spanish forces there for fighting alongside the coast. In 1925 the Spanish fleet supported a landing sparheaded by the Spanish Marines and the "Tercio" (Light Infantry regiment, in 1937 it was renamed to "Legión Española"). In total, two squadrons (22 planes) onboard the carrier Dédalo, one of fighters and another of light bombers conducted raids and scouting missions during the landing, called "landing of Alhucemas" ("Desembarco de Alhucemas"). It also was going to feature tanks, but the water current diverted them into another location.
Podemos URSS you can ask America about using Carriers in colonial wars since they’ve used them for the past 50 years in oil colony wars
In regards to the Soviet’s. In the black sea they have no one to fight, and Sevastopol is taken, so that’s your main naval base gone. In the Baltic where the krigsmarine is, your main navel base at Kroonstad(Leningrad) is under siege and therefor have on supply for naval operations. That leaves Vladivostok, Murmansk and Archangels. Vladivostok doesn’t need explaining. Its really only Murmansk and Archangels that are operational throughout the war.
good points, yeah, makes a lot of sense, still need to read a bit into this.
But presumably they weren't just in dock in Leningrad and the captured Sevastopol, so where did they go? Did they just sit in harbour at the other docks or did they try and operate and get quickly sunk?
Also if i recall correctly, the Gulf of finland was blocked by a net for a few years, so subs could not sortie out.
@@Septimus_ii in the black sea, there was little axis shipping and german air force dominance which left the subs with little to do but help evacuate sevastopol and be bombed by the Luftwaffe.
In the baltic, the subs were effective at disrupting german shipping and laying mines, despite the considerable german air forces and destroyers there. However the germans installed an anti submarine net across the gulf of finland which by itself sunk several submarines and confined the rest to port.
The subs stationed in polyarniy disrupted shipping and laid mines around norway, despite being one of the smaller soviet sub fleets. Later on some long range subs from the far east came via the panama canal to reinforce the northern fleet.
all other pacific subs had nothing to do as the soviet union wasn't at war with japan and once they were, there was little left to do after the silent service sunk some three quarters of their merchant fleet.
Pretty much all submarine action was in the arctic, with one unsuccessful torpedo atteck on tirpitz and a successful conversion of a submarine to sail power after an encounter with a mine.
The reason the Swordfish was more capable for night fighting was that the crew was all on the top of the plane, and the speed of the plane itself was an advantage at night due to the maneuvering characteristics of the bi plane, and the altitudes at which it was limited to.
To sum up, the British carrier design was focused on operations in range of land based aircraft, thus the armored flight deck vs the armored deck of American ships that was below the hanger deck. The exception being the Ark Royal the was designed to operate in the Pacific theater and had a doublr hanger deck to increse aircraft capacity over the Illustrious class that was the British production standard through WW2.
The CVEs had the 5 inch gun on the fantail (all the way on the back). Likely reason, starshell launcher for convoy duty (or maybe just trolling Chokai).
> Introducing Chōkai to a *_FUN & ENGAGING_* time.
FTFY
The idea White Plains sank Chokai has been disproven-that hit to the torpedo launchers never occurred, as Chokai’s wreck shows.
Excellent episode. Thank you both very much.
An interesting observation, that carrier aircraft had the same evolution of tasks as land aircraft: scouting, counter-scouting, bombing, strategic bombing. And now that I think about it, the cavalry had a similar evolution (if we ignore chariots): First they were used for scouting, then also to drive other scouts away, then to pursue fleeing infantry, and then charging infantry formations
I have to admit, I did not see the length before making this video before deciding to watch it instead of the other.
Great video, especially the part putting carrier development in perspective in regard of aircraft capabilities and breathtaking shifting role of CV were experiencing in the early 30th, In this light, it becomes more understandable as, some new naval power still behind in BB department (Italy, France and Germany) preferred to postpone CV in favour of other vessels, while well established ones (Japan UK and US) which had more BB in hands then they need after the treaty, had resource to spend on new concept like CV
Something can be added to this video about Battle cruisers: looking back at the begin of WWI, BB were conceptualized as stubby, wide, battle barges as heavily armed and armoured as possible. As the old Ironclads and Galleons before those, they were required to stay and take a beating, rather then being able to get somewhere fast. Looking at the USN and German line all along the war it is easy to perceive this trend, and the British too leaned a lot in that direction with the exception of the Queen Elizabeth class, and even after that they did, with the slower and well protected Royal Oak class.
The thing about hydrodynamics is that, the longer the ship in respect to it's wideness, the faster it will be on a given power, and this is the reason because Battle cruisers were all very large ships with a very high ratio between length and wideness. Hood, Mackensen, Renown, Kongu, Amagi and Lexington were all above 250m in length, while the larger BB at the time, the Queen Elisabeth class, barely reached 200m which is a whopping 50m less! This posed a problem in protection, because the longer the ship, the larger the citadel to armour, because engines has to be very big sucking space to weapons stealing width space which could not host effective armour spacing. The turrets with their ammunition magazines had to be shifted more forward and backward, to the extremes of the hull, where before they could find space in the middle due to smaller engines and wider hulls. A narrower hull means less floatability and lateral stability with an increasing weight of ineffectively spaced armour required by large and heavy turret as requested by Battle cruisers. This is the reason because a new ship classification had to be introduced, but it was never deemed as a true "ship of the line" as it was clearly seen at Jutland.
What actually happened after WWI was that turbine engine (first seen on the Queen Elisabeth) became much more efficient and smaller in size allowing more power to be deployed in a more compact size. In the meantime, weapons did not enlarged that much keeping mostly between 15 and 16" and this allowed for a better ratio between speed and "size" of the ship. in the end all the Super-dreadnought ships built after WWII were actually in Battle cruiser length class, but due to better power to size ratio, they were also able to become wider and so to have a better internal disposition of secondary armaments, engine protection and, most of all torpedo shielding, The rules of hydrodynamics also dictate that, after a certain speed, no matter what the gimmicks are, it becomes not worth trying to create faster ships because fuel becomes the main concern, a trend that can be easily seen with the new ship generations even today, where speed is something that has changed very little if not decreased in respect of what we saw in the mid 30th.
All these fact brought to an end the whole concept of the "battle cruiser", also because longer ship posed very difficult problems to solve for facilities in shipyard, weight and ability of the hulls to withstand rough sea.
One last final consideration about Heavy cruisers: What allowed the French to stay "inside" the Washington treaty was not because they were better then others at designing ships: it was the fact that their engine technology was so much superior and efficient to everyone else, being able to produce "enough" power using less space. What on the contrary leaded the Italian and the Japanese to exceed the limits was not the "will" to do that, but rather the inability to produce efficient ships inside those limits in term of armour speed and range (where requirements varied a lot between Japan and Italian. To give a tangible example of this, the Littorio class engines weighted almost twice the ones on the Richelieu class and was almost 1/3 larger, and yet it produced less power and was less efficient in fuel consumption. The second best about engine advancement were the USA, with exceptional fuel efficiency but those engines were not nearly as powerful as the French ones. And to better understand that it was not all in the willingness to cheat the treaty, the Richelieu class exceeded that limits as much as the Italian did, but with less reasons because the French could have easily build a perfectly valid ship "inside" those limits due to their superior technology.
Something about Italian submarines as well: quite a few of them were basically not up to standard when WWII broke off and the first navy in number of submarines was the soviet one so figure out... The major problem with the Italian submarines in WWII was the lack of coordination in the supermarina bout how to use them so in the end the did not did too well in the Mediterranean It has to be said that, the kind of warfare conducted in the Mediterranean was much more favourable to the Royal navy because of their bases in Malta and the sheer number of Italian ports in reach that could be patrolled looking for unsuspecting vessel to torp.: in the Atlantic on the contrary under "Betasom", they did extremely well given just 32 submarines present on the theatre: it is not well know, but excluding Germany, Italy has the largest number of vessel sunk per submarine, totalling 109 allied merchant ships and 593,864 tons of shipping sunk. several Italian Submarine commander are among the top 50 "aces" of WWII in ton sunk
"Naval strategy is built strategy" and Justin's comment that navies need to think 10,20,30 years down the road reminds me that the US has been getting 40+ years out of their supercarriers (since Forrestal). America was the exception at about 30 years but that was (I'm guessing) post Cold War draw-down of the most worn-out ship.
I've just discovered your channel and am enjoying it thoroughly! The discussion on warship armor, displacement, and complement, with Mr. Pike, is amusing. When people are precise in thought and diligent in accuracy, explaining these categories to laymen isn't necessary
really. The different countries design terminology - loadouts -
the ship's different stages & rolls during it's
life - treaty compliance -
etc. - etc. - etc.
Needless to say there's going to be huge margins in these areas.
So I'd say to you folks
"give it your best shot &
screw the laypeople"!
They are slowing down the show! Thanks.
"-J_J-"
Great video learnt a lot from that. Keep up the great work
I think the big gun capital ship was grossly premature. The record of BBs after 1941 demonstrated that with proper air cover, the battleship was almost immune to air attack and their guns were able demolish the most hardened targets.
Any ship with proper air cover is immune to air attacks. The fact battleships were so heavily reliant on needing air cover to even survive just goes to show how much aircraft had come to dominate naval warfare by that point.
They were still pretty important in the Mediterranean theater because ships could be accompanied by land based aircraft, and they could be useful but it's not even debatable that aircraft carriers made them obsolete for their intended role.
Not even 5 minutes in and I learned something new. Thanks!
Great video, really enjoyed the more detailed discussion as a follow up to the normal video. I’m sure they’re very time intensive but would love you guys to more of these in depth follow ups.
well, these two together took 50 hours, sadly, currently - looking at the view numbers - this is not sustainable. Although, the vast majority of the time was invested in the visualized video, so the in-depth discussions likely may continue.
Great video, and yes I would like to see more videos like this. I think it would be interesting to hear about naval vessels like the tenders and oilers.
Yes! I just watched 5 minutes but I like it a lot. If I had the opportunity to do another degree, it would be military history with a focus on naval warfare. So, as I do not have that opportunity, I gladly watch this video.
And thanks for the hint with Drachnifiels channel. I like that one too.
The results of the attack on Pearl Harbor, forced the USN to center the fleet on the carriers. This brought the carrier minded tacticians to the forefront. Forcing the change of tactics.
They had already started to think along the carriers strengths. PH just sped up the process.
Brilliant as always! Do more of these if you can 😏
Holy shit when u said deep i didnt think 1 HOUR LEVEL DEEP
well, what you expect from a video with a short version of 20 minutes :D
The IJN was the only Navy to force their weapons manufacturers to develop long-range, high-speed, high-power torpedoes with ship-borne re-loading mechanisms that didn't require the ships to leave the contested area to replenish their torpedo tubes. They rearmed from onboard inventory. Japanese torpedo dominance in the Pacific was without serious challenge until August of 1943. Americans were/are myopically obsessed by a 'Gun Club' theology. By doing this the IJN maximized effectivity of the allowed tonnage of the Washington Treaty. A more aggressive Japanese Navy could have swept the Solomon Seas throughout 1942 of all American cruisers.
Per Richard Worth's" "In the Shadow of the Battleship". Several of the French Cruisers had 600 tons of coal bunkers as "armor" (that didn't count for tonnage, despite being entirely oil-fired). EVERYONE fudged, just some more than others.
Carriers subverted our expectations! That automatically makes them superior regardless of context!
:D
The minute I saw ships I came as fast as I can teach now senpai
God damn I wish I had a couple of functional Mk. 14 to send your way because of this comment. No anime in my ocean!!!!!!
@@ironstarofmordian7098
Animes are everywhere especially around warships, just look at the game World of Warships, it is full of weebs and even had multiple collabs with anime Studios
@@thelvadam2884 Nooooooo oooooooooh oooooooooh!!!!!!!!
@@ironstarofmordian7098 C'mon it's $CURRENT_YEAR, let's use some more up-to-date weapon, like RGM-84 Harpoon ;)
@@BicyclesMayUseFullLane I'm a nostalgic kinda guy. The MK. 14 will suit me fine
Fletcher class had a few that could carry and launch sea planes. These were reverted to standard when it was determined to be redundant. Later modifications removed the midshipmen 5 inch turret, replacing it with 40mm. This was also done with the aft torpedo launcher and later both launchers.
What is your opinion about the "treaty ships" built by nations that were outside the treaty but yet still influenced by it? I mean, as I mentioned in the other video the concept of a "10000 ton cruiser" got the attention of the Spanish navy, that was eager to modernise yet lacked the funds to build a big and heavy navy so they went with two classes of cruisers built around the treaty: the 1927 Méndez-Núñez class ("light", 9200 tons, 8x152mm, 4x101mm guns) and the 1936 Canarias-class ("heavy", 9900 tons, 8x203mm guns), which were to complement each other.
19:30 that was hillaroius
I was hoping somebody would notice that. :D
is this an inside joke on the Last Jedi?
@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized Yeah, hahaha.
Rian Johnson is the guy in World of Warships that always goes at ramming speed.
Sorry to say, I watched this excellent video over a year and a half late. But I wanted to point out that a much underrated class of naval ships are mine technology vessels (in WW2, called Mine Layers and Minesweepers). A huge number of warships and other vessels were sunk or damaged by sea mines during and shortly after World War Two: By many accounts, over 2,400 sunk and thousands more damaged. The constant repairing of warships damaged by mines was a huge drain on resources and used highly-valuable dry dock space. Extensive sea mine barrages often had important Strategic value, such as the near-total blockade of the eastern Baltic, besides the obvious tactical value. Aircraft were also used to lay mines, but were usually restricted to doing so in shallower waters.
Did sea mines have a greater impact over-all than some of the warship classes listed? Hard to say. But one thing was certain: most of the belligerent warship veterans of WW2 were either sunk, in mothballs, or scrapped by the time those 500,000 to 700,000 sea mines were finally removed several years after the war (but not all, many were never found and continued to cause damage for decades).
these videos together took I think 30-50 hours and the cut-off was Destroyer Escorts.
The one five inch gun on the escort carriers helped sink a Japanese heavy cruiser at Samar, if you'll recall. So not entirely useless.
Strictly for the WW2 geek. Very good detailed information
Hmm, for me Maximum Load seems to refer to how much you can load on the ship before sinking it.
Who would opt for the “shallow “ version????
I think the regular version is way more straightforward. And also efficient.
Military History not Visualized True but we get an extra 50mins of you and Justin goodness
still recommend watching the other version first, so you get another 20 minutes.
@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized Probably more accurate to consider both videos as one 70minute long video
I think you mean 100 minutes, 80 + 20, if I am not mistaken.
At first they were CVE then at some date they went to CVL so depending on the date both were correct.The 5 inch gun was originally for the ships self protection then they removed them and added a AA gun.
I relatively recently found out about the "Light Carriers" built on light cruiser hauls... the Independence Class Carriers. I'd love to hear more about those if you could do a video on those.
I think it was "Castles of Steel" (but I might be wrong) that pointed out that the true inheritor of the "Battlecruiser" lineage was the "heavy cruiser," and that the evolution from the Armoured Cruiser wasn't in parallel between the two ships, but rather it went Armoured Cruiser > Battlecruiser > Heavy Cruiser.
Atlanta class had no depth charge racks, but they were the only US cruiser armed with torpedo tubes, which were later removed in favor of more AAA
I think this was recounted in ‘To War in a Stringbag’. I’ll have to reread it though.
The Atlanta class had torpedoes, and anti submarine facilities in a stark contrast to the rest of American cruiser design. Two of the three light cruisers lost by the Americans in WW2 were the Atlanta and Juneau, lost in the Naval Battle of Guadalcanal. The 5 inch gun on the rear of the the CVE was for signaling and AA use, as well as a last ditch anti surface armament. The USS White Planes scored a hit on the IJN Chokai (Takeo Class heavy cruiser) during the battle of Samar on the torpedo tubes that resulted in the destruction of the IJN Chokai.
The Swordfish 3 (from 1943) had radar and the Swordfish in the Med would most often be used at night against ships, they could be used on improvised Merchant Aircraft Carriers, they were easy to fly with STOL capabilities and they were relatively cheap and easy to produce. It is my understanding that the Swordfish sank more Axis shipping that any other allied aircraft.
Swordfish actually had 1.5 metre ASV radar in 1941 and it was used in finding and attacking the Bismarck by the Swordfish from HMS Victorious and Ark Royal.
The Swordfish by 1939 was already Obsolete by any standards.
But by a single struck of luck,the Swordfish gain a "Notoriety" that Honestly he didin't Deserved. He was a old, slow, Obsolete aircraft that by and Higher Intervention,one of is Torpedos hit the Rudder of a Fast Moving Battleship, wich was the Magnificent Bismarck
How One in a million "Shoot" can Change and have such a historical impact,like that Swordfish Torpedo hit.
Nice video. Where did you get all these ship side view drawings?
How about gunboats, LC, LCS are they count as a ship type's use on WW2
9:43 "you don't watch a 20 minute video" *nervous laughter*
About the submarines, do not forget that the americans submarines had major issues with their torpedos, which were their primary weapon. The Mark 14 torpedo wasso bad, that there were submarinesgoing to patrol armed only with mines... only in the 1943, the mark18 torpedo corrected this issue...
"Hey Tank Commander! You are now a pilot!"
the closed storage deck didn't work too well. Later special damage control methods, exhaust gas in empty tanks and lines, made it possible.
I'm curious about frigates vs corvettes. What exactly is the difference? Corvettes sound like the were to frigates/DE's what frigates to destroyers, even slower, weaker and cheaper. But what was the dividing line between them.
Can you please make a video about the sovjet navy ww2 ?
I would love to see a video about how radios and radio coms worked o WW2
Please do a new vid on post war/cold war/modern ships and how Aircraft, Missile, and other technologies impacted it's evolution...
Seems to me that because the US Subs Gato were built to keep up with and operate with the fleet it was more capable then the UBoats in going after all surface targets.
So I'm guessing WW2 Corvettes are like the destroyer escorts but faster?
from what I remember half the Soviet submarine fleets' subs were mini subs meant for coastal patrol.
You should do an in-depth video on EVERY SINGLE ship and boat in all participating navies of WW2.
lel
ruclips.net/channel/UC4mftUX7apmV1vsVXZh7RTw it's not MHV, but he's really good
The Washington treaty gave cruisers a maximum armament of 8inch to accommodate the 7.5 inch Frobisher class which obsoleted both protected and armoured cruisers.
The germans also build destroyers with 6" guns. So they had torpedo boats with destroyer guns, destroyers with cruiser guns and cruisers with battleship guns.
I loved this video. The only thing I would have liked to have seen was some discussion of torpedo boats which were made by all combatants and were used extensively by the British, Italians, United States, Soviets and Germans. Perhaps the subject of the torpedo boat could be covered extensively in an independent video?
i would love to help out on these naval videos and put my own insight into them cause i love it
and cause its my main area of historical knowledge and it would be good to do something with it and subsequently something other than the things in my GSCE spec
I-400-class submarine
so useful.
It was an interesting concept. I wonder why the Americans didn't try to experiment the concept too.
I guess with balistic missiles equiped sub there is no need for a submarine/aircraft carrier today but in the 50s/60s it could have been usefull.
@@ousou78 USN were too focus on the Carriers so they ditch the I-400 class but imagine if the Soviets got the I-400 class first, Cold War would be different.
@@paulsteaven Indeed things could have gone differently.
I'm pretty sure in one documentary I saw on RUclips, it was said that the Americans destroyed the I 400 after examinating it to prevent the Soviets from putting there hands on it or trying to experiment the concept themself.
Where are the avisos and the corvettes.... :(
Why didn't you get into the Alaska class?
The Japanese did not build that many escort carriers but I think they built quite a fair number of light carriers that were actually as fast as the fleet carriers but with fewer aircraft. Though these were mostly used as extra strike carriers and not for escort duty.
concerning aircraft carriers, the key is engine horsepower. At around 900 (A6M) to 1200 (F4F, SBD-5 & Val), the aircraft becomes a viable offensive weapon. This probably happened around mid 1930's. To a degree, it was probably predict out a couple of years. So knowing that aircraft carriers would become significant in the early 1930's.
Also, look at the ship mix in the Naval Act(s) of 1940. The US definitely knew then that carriers would be the spearhead, although the 2 North Carolinas, 4 South Dakota's and probably a couple of Iowa's had been previously authorized.
Didn't the availability or lack of sufficient fuel in 1942-43 restricted the usage of the Yamato Class BB at Guadalcanal while the Americans still had sufficient air support to strike at incoming & outgoing bombardment TFs??
The main reason the Swordfish stayed in service so long was because its replacement, the Fairey Albacore, was so much worse that it (the Albacore) was retired before the Swordfish. The Swordfish was eventually replaced by the all metal monoplane Fairey Barracuda in 1944.
Swordfish could carry radar. Short ranged though and mostly for ASW duties.
What about space battleship class
@26:30 my understanding is the acronym CV was for "Cruiser, aViation"
From NavWeaps:
"The following is taken from "United States Naval Aviation 1910-1995, Appendix 16: US Navy and Marine Corps Squadron Designations and Abbreviations":
On 17 July 1920, the Secretary of the Navy prescribed a standard nomenclature for types and classes of NAVAL VESSELs, including aircraft, in which lighter-than air craft were identified by the type "Z" and heavier-than air craft by the letter "V". The reference also speculates that: "The use of the "V" designation has been a question since the 1920s. However, no conclusive evidence has been found to identify why the letter "V" was chosen. It is generally believed the "V" was in reference to the French word volplane. As a verb, the word means to glide or soar. As a noun, it described an aeronautical device sustained in the air by lifting devices (wings), as opposed to the bag of gas that the airships (denoted by "Z") used. The same case may be regarding the use of "Z". It is generally believed the "Z" was used in deference to Count Ferdinand von Zeppelin. However, documentation has not been located to verify this assumption.""
In short, nobody has actually determined where the "V" came from for certain, but this is the best understanding we have. Perhaps a more recent work has uncovered something, but I'm unaware of it.
www.navweaps.com/index_tech/index_ships_list.php
7:10 Did he rip one into the microphone? O.O
Question: What would you class the Japanese Submarine Carrier?
Very true
The fuel mentioned in the washington treaty for for the Royal Navies global empire rather then the significantly smaller mostly defensive coastal fleet with no global empire of the USN
Uh, no. This is incorrect. The US "coastal defense" fleet was routinely dealing with Pacific defense. There was a significant US naval interest in long range pre-WWI because the USN had to defend the Phillipines, Hawaii, and the west coast. All you have to do is look at WWI era ships and their coal bunkers to realize that fuel was a big issue to the USN as well.
Sorry for the comment barrage, but they were done in real time with the video, as I listened to it.
In regard to DEs, the US built the design epitomized by the the USS Samuel B Roberts, with 2 5 inch guns, 3 torpedo tubes, a Hedgehog anti submarine mortar system, 4 depth charge throwers, and 2 depth charge racks. AAA armament was a couple of twin 40mm Bofors mounts, and several 20mm Orlikon cannons.
So at 1:18:10 you say there is "tons of stuff" you couldn't cover. Well, get on it, man! We'll wait right here for it.
The slow start to US submarine war was due to faulty magnetic detonators and the MK 14 firing pin design. The Germans sank the HMS Royal Oak, HMS Barham, HMS Eagle, and HMS Ark Ark Royal (2 WW1 era battleships and 2 aircraft carriers) and the HMS Audacious, the first British escort carrier. The majority of German successful attacks on capital ships were in the Mediterranean (3 out of 4).
I could listen one of these until I die from old age... I can never get enough historical knowledge
hello ther
@@thelvadam2884 And who the fuck are you? I guess you aren't from BOTS :P (sarcasm totally works in text form)
@@AssassinAgent whats this BOTS you talking about? Rumors tell they are just super toxic Unicum players 😉
Is there such thing as a shape charge munition for ships? Like HEAT for ships so HEAS I guess
not that I know of, HEAT usually is rather slow and has limited range, I guess that is the main issue.
OmarRPG it’s important to note one of the reasons HEAT worked so well against tanks in WW2 was that it only has to puncture into one compartment, where as warships are broken up internally into many different rooms and compartments.
OMG, the point about the Tirpitz (and following) being a threat even while not shooting a single bullet. How could i forget that. Wasn't it THAT german admiral who voted AGAINST scraping the big german surface ships exactly for that reason? Detterent-Fleet. Just enough ships to "stop" a larger Opponent from doing sth stupid. Somewhat like the strategic logic behind the French Force de Frappe. "Who needs a big army, if you have a few Nuclear Missles?" Reminds me somehow about Playing World of Tanks Tier V with a KV-1. If you know what you do, you have an easy game in the sense you do not shoot that much - 'cause people try to AVOID you out of fear.
The us navy apparently didn't want the escort carriers as they were designed by the same firm doing the liberty ships.
So he went higher up 😆
Oh boy
Something to listen to whilst in Art class
I'm listening to this while building warship in Minecraft
tell me more about uss chub
My favourite class, Seaplane Tender... Not joking it's my favourite and I have no idea why
@@syaondri Yeah I love float planes
Why did you go for the fairly narrow class destroyer escort rather than the broader class of anti-submarine escort, which would include frigates, sloops and corvettes, which carried out the same role?
Incidentally, why did the Americans go for only 3 inch guns on their destroyer escorts, when even the small British and Canadian corvettes carried a 4 inch gun? 4 inch guns were standard on all the British escorts.
on my video of US & IJN ship building most people asked what the destroyer escort is, since that was the "smallest" class (technically the subs were, but hey). Sloops and corvettes are just too small. Not to mention that the whole thing would be even more complicated, those 2 videos together took 50 hours to make.
The Black Swan class anti-submarine sloops were a very similar size to the American destroyer escorts, and were more heavily armed. The River and Loch class frigates were also similarly sized and used in similar anti-submarine roles. I accept that the corvettes were smaller than the other types, but the frigates and sloops were comparable with the destroyer escorts.
I don’t understand why you didn’t link the destroyer escorts, frigates and sloops together when discussing anti-submarine escorts, since all were of a similar size and employment.
> I don’t understand why
the general answer to this question is nearly always: make a video that takes like 20 hours to make and then ask the question again, you probably won't. Because the video will be either extremely short or not be finished at all.
Fun fact, the US built 175 Fletcher class DDs from 1942 to 1944.
Isnt it 'C'ruiser/a'V'iation?
Do modern navy stuff next
Well, IIRC, there's Destroyers, Cruisers, Frigates, Carriers, and even more "Destroyers".
All of those could run circles around their WW2 counterpart, and most of them could probably severely maul, if not sink a WW2 battleship.
Very good vid and very interesting. It does leave me curious about several things. Japan and Italy walked out of the treaty, why? Over what issues? American submarines destroyed lots of Japanese surface ships? Why? Japan didn’t have asw protection? Italy had large submarine force but not used?
I don’t expect answers to these questions but maybe ideas for future videos 😇
I can recommend some books re: your Japanese questions. In very short, the internal Japanese debates over whether or not they should remain in the treaty system came to a head in the aftermath of 1st London, and by 2nd London the so-called "fleet faction" had won out.
Japanese ASW was poor for much of the war since it had been neglected in the interwar years. It started to improve later in the conflict, but it was too little too late.
I can't speak to Italy unfortunately. "Mussolini's Navy" published by USNI Press might have something in there. I'm sure there are other works, but it isn't an area of the literature that I have a lot of knowledge of.
I would really appreciate some book recommendations on the subject. I just thought it was interesting if they envisioned their submarine fleet in an offensive anti surface fleet role that they sort of neglected a defense of this same tactic
I really enjoy your interaction with MHV you always seem to bring up interesting points that always make me wonder, “oooh why was that” etc. Keep up the great work
I will check out that Mussolini book as well. I just remember hearing they had a relatively advanced navy but rarely left port after Taranto for fear or losing ships.
@@TheBigSleazy Re: Japanese and naval arms limitation:
"From Mahan to Pearl Harbor" by Sadao Asada is the standard work on the subject. "The Washington Conference, 1921-22" edited by Maurer and Goldstein and "At the Crossroads between Peace and War" edited by Maurer and Bell are the two standards on the Washington Naval Treaty and the London Naval Treaty respectively. "Race to Pearl Harbor" by Pelz is a book specifically about the 2nd London Naval Treaty, but I haven't read it since it is long out of print (first published in 1974). If you looking for an interesting counterpoint to some of Asada's assertions, see Gow's biography of Kato Kanji entitled "Military Intervention in Pre-war Japanese Politics."
Re: Japanese ASW
"Kaigun" by Evans and Peattie discusses ASW a bit, and also compliments Asada's more politics-focused "From Mahan to Pearl Harbor." Another brief summary can be found here:
dreadnoughtproject.org/friends/dickson/ijn%20asw.pdf
Justin Pyke appreciate the info I’m gonna start tracking some of these down ASAP
Under Battlecruisers, no Renown and Repulse?
Yeah
The crews of the CVEs remarked that it stood for “Combustible, Vulnerable, and Expendable”.
lol, well, they were not really intended for "frontline" (battle) service, so "working as intended".