Destroyers - Concept and Development (1860-1914)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 2 апр 2019
- Today we look at the initial conceptualisation of the destroyer, it's origins and it's initial development up until World War 1
(1st week of the month - Patreon Request Video)
Want to support the channel? - / drachinifel
Want to talk about ships? / discord
Music - / ncmepicmusic
Pinned post for Q&A :)
If the Japanese had continued to observe the Washington and London Naval Treaties, what would an early/mid-1930s replacement for the Kongo-class or Fuso have looked like?
Wonderful stuff :) The late 1800's to early 1900's was a fascinating period of naval development :) When you do the next DD's are you going to mention oddities like Destroyer leaders, one I can think of was HMS Swift that at one point in her career had 6-inch gun aboard.
Why did the Germans use turtleback armor in their battleships and what were the negative effects of this armor layout? P.S just call me “James”.
Heres a real quick one, at 18:15 in the video you showed a ship and I was wondering what ship that was.
"18:50 Bilge Keels" Could you explain how they work and when they were first used?
Ive always found it ironic that one of the smallest ships in a navy have the most intimidating name of "destroyer"
And yet, it’s oh so fitting. lol
The real question is.. why do you have Ian from forgotten weapons as a display pic? xD..
Short for "torpedo boat destroyer"; they came into being to fight small fast torpedo armed only boats.
Xavier Stewart the realest question is why do YOU not have Ian as a pfp
@@zekaisersnek6357 good point, well made.
Drachinfel: *(Mentions Torpedo Boats)*
Kamchatka: *(Runs around screaming that the doom is upon them, the Japanese are here)*
the japanese north sea torpedo boat squadron(s), 1, 2 & 3, yes.
*laughs in Second Squadron*
*laughs in English fishing fleet*
Laughs in empty ammo magazine
Aurora: *Gets shot by friendlies. Wishes a revolution would come along and do away with these idiots.*
I'd argue that Japanese Torpedoboats were quite effective during the Russo-Japanese war.
They managed to disrupt and diminish effectiveness of the 2nd pacific sq. Without actually being present.
Kamchatka
Kamchatka
Kamchatka
Kamchatka
@@pierresihite8854 Kamchatka
“Looking to protect yourself, or deal some damage “ -Destroyer Salesmen probably
Fire at your enemies and run away laughing
Or a blacksmith if you play Skyrim.
*slaps deck of DD* "this bad boy fit so many torpedoes in it!"
@@xerxeskingofking" this bad boy can ruin far bigger ships days if you use them right" unnamed destroyer salesman
Peter Bradley You were supposed to destroyer the torpedo boats, not join them!
Mid to late 1800s were so weird! Those fast torpedo boats and early destroyers, surrounded by tall ships and pre-dreadnoughts. The way technology jumped in just under a century, after centuries of black powder and sails, always blows my mind.
But those pre dreadnought ships look so cool IMHO.....especially the French ships with their top heavy designs.
End napoleon era beginning modern war: complete transition 1918.
Furthermore mind blowing info is that in 1903 we took flight, 1919 the first transatlantic flight took place, 1947 first supersonic flight, 1957 first object launched into space and in 1969 we landed on the moon. We went from just learning how to fly to being on the moon in a span of 66 years.
So basically:
Every non-British navy ever
"Let's have small boats that launch torpedos and kill bigger ships by being too fast to shoot at properly" torpedo-boats
British navy
"Let's have slightly larger torpedo boats to kill their torpedo boats. Also put torpedos on it, why not?"
Every non-British navy:
"*hey* *wait* *that's* *illegal*"
British navy: "Sorry, I don't make the rules. Oh, wait, I do! Hahahaha, destroyer go brrrrrrr!"
Sorry chaps but it's the Royal Navy pip pip.
The Tribal Class would have won the War by itself if Admiral King hadn't got in the way...and the Chesapeake Incident never happened.
quotations need to be inside of the asterisks fyi:
*"hey* wait that's *illegal"*
So yes, we built a big small ship to counter your small ships built to counter our big ships. Thus you may no longer counter for we have countered your counter, Bob's your uncle! (The death of Jeune École, early twentieth century, colourised)
To be fair, the Imperial German torpedo boats were torpedo boats mainly in name, and were actually more like small destroyers with more emphasis on torpedo armament. The G101 class from 1912 had a displacement of around 1700 tons, made 33 knots and was armed with 4x 8.8 cm(3.46 inch) guns and 6x 500mm(19.7 inch) torpedo tubes. Over time they evolved more and more into full fledged destroyers as well, the G96 and V170 classes being a complete match for their british contemporaries.
And some of those German "torpedo boats" had export versions in other navies who did designate them as destroyers.
The last time i was this early Halsey was still guarding the San Bernardino Strait!
Lol
That's pretty savage
Where is tf 34 the world wonders.
aj roth 😂😂😂😂
5:56 "Giant Deadly Lifeboats" sounds like a good band name.
Maddog3060, I’m gonna ask if I can copy it, even though I plan to do it anyway
It took the USN until 1912 to start constructing 300+ foot, 1,000+ ton, 29.5 knots destroyers with the Cassin class. They had the general outline of the hundreds of four pipers in succeeding classes. Since the US only had a few scout cruisers, the "Thousand Tonners" had to serve in that role, and had a fairly long range of about 4,000 nm, all on oil fuel. The armament was four of the new and very effective 4"/50 gun, standard destroyer gun until the first Farragut class vessels of 1932, armed with four or five of the new and even more effective 5"/38 DP guns. From the Cassin class to the Farragut class, the basic layout and armament underwent very few changes for about 20 years, surely a record for major fleet classes of vessels.
Sar Jim Well, the Washington Naval treaty kinda does that to ya... It was 10 years before they could contemplate building another destroyer class after the Washington Naval treaty was signed, and it was probably to replace the Cassin class or one of its successors, under the clauses of said treaty. So yeah, unsurprisingly, the armament took a massive leap in development.
@@novatopaz9880 That would be true if the Treaty limited the construction of destroyers, but it didn't. The reason why no new classes were built was the US had hundreds of perfectly serviceable destroyers after WWI and didn't need new ones until some of the older classes became obsolescent by 1932.
Sar Jim exactly not much of a reason to build new types of destroyers when the you already have so many ships of the class, shoot out of the flush deckers there were 111 wickes class and 156 Clemsons not much points building a ton of new designs during peace until they became fully obsolete
@@sarjim4381 The problem was that the USN froze the design in 1917 with the Wickes and Clemson classes at a time when the RN had already come up with a greatly superior general-purpose design in the form of the V and W classes. Those had much better seakeeping qualities and a better thought-out arrangement for the main batteries. The Wickes and Clemson classes were specialized for torpedo attack on an enemy battle line, and so had poor seakeeping and habitability. The greatest problem was that the US produced over 250 of these ships, completing the last of them around 1920, long after the design had been seen as obsolescent, and this mass of inferior destroyers and the postwar arms treaties prevented the USN from either replacing them or event developing effective flotilla leader and even light cruiser designs for at least 10 years.
Regarding the latter, the "Spring Styles' section at www.shipscribe.com lists a number of prospective design drawings for flotilla leader designs.
I so badly wish they had kept some of those 4 stacker 1000 tonners as museum ships..... I could see the use for shallow draft vessels in and around the coast as well for fishing etc. Could've been the modern riverboat cruise boat for a while as well.
I recently searched "Drachinfel destroyer development" and by the second or third letter of destroyer, it had autocompleted. Congrats!
The "Mothership" concept sounds like something that would be right at home in many a Sci-Fi universe's navy.
Indeed; dixit E.E."doc" smith - The ship shown was the HMS Vulcan, the French tried the same concept with La Foudre, both arrived at the same conclusions; The TBs were too small to be of service, everytime the sea was not flat as a lake. The Italian Caio Duilio had a compartment in her stern to house a small torpedo boat of the 26.5 t Clio class, and some German commerce raiders carried midget TBs of the LS class in WW2 such as the Kormoran.
Example: David Weber's "Honor Harrington" series. :)
UNSC Infinity has joined the chat.
Torpedo boats are closer in concept than fighter aircraft to what a space carrier would deploy, I think.
i mean... the carrier is basically a mothership so...
Japan: has torpedo boats.
2nd Russian Pacific squadron in the Atlantic: "Help! We are surrounded!"
I've always found it fascinating how Torpedo Boat Destroyers ended up similar to the Torpedo Gun Boats they superseded. I've taken it to mean the TGB concept was sound but required turbine power plants to achieve the speeds needed to be effective.
In fact, the elderly torpedo gunboats were modified even before WW1 as fleet minesweepers.
I know I am three years late to the party here but I just want to say how much I enjoy seeing the old black and white photographs of all these wonderful old ships, and it's also very interesting to ponder the fact that when taken these were photos of the most cutting edge naval technology available and the pride of many a crew and their captain!
Good morning to the usual suspects. Excellent topic! Destroyers and their development is not a common topic. Those little guys just don't have the appeal of battleships or aircraft carriers for most people but they have quite story to tell.
Morning!
@@treeshakertucker5840 Morning indeed. I have no idea why I'm still up at 0445, but that won't last much longer.
Good Morning! :) I wonder why nobody brought back the term "Unprotected Cruiser" for large, heavily armed, ocean going Destroyers? By WW2 especially the main thing I can think of to differentiate it would be Range, or possibly gun caliber between Destroyers and Cruisers, and I doubt it would be that radical to change the designation, as Heavy Cruisers were given the equally old designation of "Armoured Cruiser".
@@bskorupk The only real difference between an unprotected cruiser and a destroyer before WWI was the cruiser was designed more for overseas colonial service while destroyer was designed for fleet protection. By the time the destroyer had grown to the size of small light cruisers, the term "unprotected cruiser" had fallen out of favor, and large destroyers started to be called sloops, frigates, and leaders.
The USN recognized the crossover had really occurred in 1943 when the French Destroyer " Le Fantastique" at 434 feet, 3,500 tons, and five 5.4" guns was large enough to earn the light cruiser designation when it was refitted 1943 with eight 40mm Bofors and ten 20mm guns before being added to USN fleet.
Ohayo
@Drachinifel Can you add a part three that includes Cold War destroyers and what was the design philosophy from the Gun based to missile based systems.
Post WWII, certainly in the RN, destroyers tend to be more anti aircraft focused, as opposed to frigates that are more anti submarine focused, although both can do a lot of general purpose surface warship work.
For Episode Four, include the evolution of Star Destroyers from the Galactic Republic, through Clone Wars, and the First Order. May require at least 8 episodes.
@@amerigo88
Although it should be mentioned that they were star destroyers in name only, as they couldn't adequately defend against stars (unlike torpedo boat destroyers).
The problem with covering any ship built after the 1950s is that many of the technology used is still classified. So there are frustrating gaps in our knowledge of them.
Also Drachinifel wants to stay away from modern day politics. And arguably the Cold War never ended. So anything post WW2 would be sketchy.
@@ieuanhunt552 yup, even the 2nd pacific squadron video had some controversy. Cold war videos would be a minefield, since if he even slightly critiqued/complemented a single aspect of one side, he'd be dealing with tons of people from the US going "no, the US is the best in the world, it's impossible for anything to be as good as something from the US, let alone be better!" Meanwhile you'd have Russians screaming about "Russian steel" or something.
For the record, I recognize there were intelligence reports about Japanese torpedo boats, but no competent person would engage targets based entirely off of an unsubstantiated intelligence report without confirmation. The Kamchatka did the equivalent of hearing that ISIS somehow had a tank in the US, and rather than question how that was even logistically possible, they immediately opened fire on the first truck they see parked outside of their base.
It's 5:01 AM... I should slee- (Drachinifel Notification) I stand corrected! :)
Hi
@@danthelad3585 "Wazzup!" ruclips.net/video/NsJLhRGPv-M/видео.html
@@danthelad3585hello
Though the Germans called their boats Große Torpedoboote these were functionally equivalent to foreign destroyers and were often called such colloquially and in foreign service were usually classed as destroyers. The Austro-hungarian navy had a similar situation referring to their larger boats as Torpedofahrzeug officially while the term Zerstörer was used by many of the crews.
It's not quite like that. The German doctrine called for offensive use of large torpedo boats, with their guns being only for self defence. A destroyer proper, of course, has its guns to protect the battle line.
@@klobiforpresident2254 Though that was their primary purpose they were still expected to act as escort ships for the battleline just as British destroyers will expected to serve double duty as both escorts and launch torpedo attacks against the enemy fleet.
Besides every navy had differing views about the relative importance of those two roles but all expected their destroyers to serve double duty. The Russians likewise viewed the escort part as secondary to torpedo attacks.
@@ErichZornerzfun
Nonetheless, doctrinally German destroyers were closer to torpedo boats than to what most other major navies developed destroyers for.
@@klobiforpresident2254 That isn't true while British Doctrine emphasized the escort role that wasn't universal the Russian, American, and Japanese navies also emphasized the torpedo craft role as the primary purpose of their destroyers, the Russians didn't even adopt the term destroyer till later reffering to such vessels as torpedo-cruisers or torpedo-gunboats.
'Hard Lying: the birth of the Destroyer' by Peter Smith is one of my favorite books.
I always find the speed of these ships quite incredible for their time - 36 knots in 1900s must have made them some of the quiskest man made things on the planet. Think of the speed of early cars. Just watching one of these in motion must have been quite a sight in itself
@Drachinifel for Drydock Q and A. Could you please talk about the Royal Navy prize money system especially in the 18th and early 19th century, How prize money was distributed by rank and also how, occasionally even ordinary sailors could make serious money, with a few examples, ie, Anson's crew etc? Thanks, you have a great channel.
I would love to hear the story of the HMS Birkenhead, Drac style.
He already has done a drydock on prize money in the RN.
@@Ushio01 Not really about what I asked, but good on you for knowing best.
The problem with the example of Ansons crew is that the only reason the (remaining) sailors became rich was because so few of them survived!! The able seaman and ordinary seaman and landsmen shared (in differing proportions) 2 eighths of the Prize value … Not a lot amongst a ships company given the Admiral in command got an eighth share, the Captain 2 eighths (plus the Admirals share if under direct Admiralty orders) ..and so on....
Imagine the sheer terror from the first ship to be hit by a plane-delivered torpedo
Pearl Harbor?
@@kovona 2 iq comment.
@@kovonathe first Areal Torpedo Attack was in 1915 in WW1 when a British aircraft sunk a Turkish Supply ship.
While aerial torpedo attacks weren’t unknown by WW2, there were some newer techniques being used in the torpedos in the Pearl Harbor attacks.
One of the big advancements used in the attack was the use of wooden fins on the torpedos to prevent them from diving to deep after being dropped in the water. It was the only reason any of the torpedos worked as without the fins, the Torpedos would have nosedived into the seabed.
@@EneTheGenemake sure in the future not to just insult, but to provide information to correct any misconceptions or mistakes made by the previous commenter.
Thanks 👍
@@americankid7782 I had an emotional reaction to the commenters lack of knowledge. In the future I will attempt to follow up my insult with something of value, or to leave to insult out completely.
I still hold that anything called a "destroyer" should be smaller than a "frigate" which was the "do everything" ship during the age of sale. Modern destroyers are now actually cruisers and frigates pretty much relegated to ASW.
the definitions have merged but the role of the "frigate" got taken over by the Cruiser. Ironically however in the 80's the US Navy Oliver Hazard Perry Class Frigates would actually make very good Cruisers since they had good cruising range and were cheap and plentiful enough that you could send them out on their own to "cruse" without depriving Aircraft Carriers of their escort.
sail*
Thé modern frigate started out as a dedicated anti submarine ship.
Now some Frigates are as powerful and large as Destroyers
The koreans did it right...they dont call there 3,000ton warships "frigates" they call them Destroyer escorts which is more proper imo...tho it's closer to a Corvette really
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fernando_Villaamil
Fernando Villaamil Fernández-Cueto (November 23, 1845 - July 3, 1898) was a Spanish naval officer, remembered for his internationally recognized professionalism, for being the designer of the first destroyer warship in history.
On January 19, 1887, the Destructor, the first torpedo boat destroyer, was formally handed over to the Spanish Navy, with great expectations from the European naval community.
Thanks for the video. I had not realised how far back the torpedo boats and destroyers went. Older then you think.
I found the fact that some boats used railway engines very interesting as the London North Eastern Railway built the experimental locomotive W1 class in 1929 using two Yarrow boilers which were built by the John Brown shipyard.
Whatever its benefits as a ships engine they did not translate into a locomotive engine and she was taken into the LNER's Doncaster Works in 1936 and rebuilt with a conventional boiler.
Perfect thing to wake up to; naval history always goes well with morning coffee.
I would love to see a video about naval mine operations, laying and sweeping and whatever else is involved.
My great uncle was lost on HMS Ardent at Jutland
well i would almost cheer but i know the german navy was full of commies and it would have been an overall good to loose them as bad as it is.
MUH Geschichte Well, sorry to hear of your problem, All humanity are all our relatives.
well, all living beings are our relatives if you stretch it far enough, but i seriously developed some hate fo the german navys crew as they woul cause germany much trouble when gettin involve dint eh small civil war the spartakists put up @@Aubury
War and revolution on the collapse of imperial Germany, after four years of carnage, across all of Europe, the end of illusions, that generation had seen it all. Save your hatred for war, the politicians who lead them to war, the cancer of nationalism. The poor sods who came through this nightmare, one might consider being unreasonably angry with the state, for whom they sacrificed so much for, only defeat on the battlefield, starvation by the blockade, and Spanish Flu.
Its always hard to know what to say.
My uncle was a stoker on HMS Hood
When did the nickname ‘tin can’ come along? It certainly describes these early vessels!
Probably when they started making cans out of tin
World war one was the first use i believe. In the era of battleships and dreadnoughts, the sailor's said the destroyers plating was as thick as a tin can.
It's videos like this that make your channel so great. Post WWI and into WWII and beyond is well covered, the origin is a less covered but fascinating subject, thanks for the superb work.
You need to do a vid on Jackie Fisher.
@keith moore :D Well he was a veritable dynamo and didn't give a flying heck about who he was speaking to. He was a passionate and brilliant talker, very emotive, to the point that the King once asked him to "Kindly stop shaking your fist in my face" and another anecdote I read had him sending the flags for 'Plague' and 'Disease' to a military hospital in Canada when they asked if they could borrow some flags to Celebrate the Queen's birthday. He was undoubibly a genius though in his field, certinally not right with everything (his idea that speed = armour proved to have its flaws at Jutland) but he basically got the RN ready for WW1.
@keith moore Definately not closeted, he had a wife who he was devoted to and had several kids, also a DEEPLY religious man who would often attend multiple sermons a day (as well as using the bible in his arguments and language) so he probably wasn't gay. Or if he was, he was incredibly closeted. The books about him dancing with his men seems to be a thing that he chose to do, he didn't care about formality of rank and position, and was very open to even very junior officers coming and having a chat with him, him being at their dances was probably a very deliberate thng to help break down the sense of a barrier between him and absolutely anyone else of rank in his position. You could probably call him a bit eccentric, but he was utterly driven with his ideals and was a very forceful personality. When him and Churchill fell out their rows must have been epic, considering that both were master orators and had ego's the size of jupiter.
The stuff I've read paint Fisher as charasmatic and friendly, unless you pissed him off and then he was death on short legs he told one opponent of his reforms "I crush those who get in my way." to his face. In the Admiralty :p And I think the whole fraternizing with junior officers was all part of his thing, he wanted to revolutionize the navy, and its junior officers were the way ahead. He even had a veritable batch of acolytes fittingly nicknamed 'The fish pond' of which Jellico was a member.
So probably not gay, because wife and kids (plus religion where sodmy = hell) but deeply charasmatic, determined to make his mark, absolutely driven and absolutely sure that he was right, passionate about the men under his command, a terror when angered and a saint when he was on oyur side.
@keith moore well military history's replete with people's who's opinions of their own abilities and of themselves didn't really match the hype. Beatty and MacArthur are two examples there. As well as primadonna's with monstrous ego's and personalities. Patton and Monty for example.
Embrace the power of "and".
Isn't it a tad unfair to say that Jutland proved Fischer's Battlecruiser idea wrong? I thought the issue with the BCs at Jutland was more to do with bad ammo practices than the overall design. Plus Fisher's BCs were not meant to fight in the line of battle vs enemy Battleships, but rather to engage enemy cruisers and squash them. Fisher's concept seems to have been proven valid at the Falkland islands, where BCs engaged their intended foe with great success (as well as less dramatic action, like Dogger Bank and Heligoland Bight, where the BCs seem to have done fine). Jutland seems to have been more the fault of Beatty (or maybe Jellicoe) than Fischer, for both further degrading the survivability of the BCs, and then putting them in a position they were never designed to stand up to in the first place.
Great work! I can't wait for parts 2 and 3 :D
This was a very welcome video as it cleared up a number of questions I had prior to its release. I look forward to the follow up videos completing the series. Thanks again.
As always, I love your work Drach. This was a fantastic video. Your easily my favorite channel on RUclips.
0300 in the Rockies. guess its time to learn about DD development!
William Faulkner wrote a short story, "Turnabout" about a small fast single torpedo boat used in WW1 against German Ports as far away from London as Kiel. The single torpedo was carried in a tube built into the keel of the boat & release was Basically drag on the propeller pulling the torpedo out, armed as the boat would pull a tight u-turn at the final moment to flee. Sometimes the torpedo hung up & it was necessary to crank a winch to pull the armed torpedo back into place & Try again.
Best War Story I've ever Read!
I think archive/gutenberg has it.
Love your videos thanks for giving me something to listen to and learn from during my monotonous work day.
The Ultimate Destroyer role: Potato Hurling Platform!
Many of the early Torpedo Boat Destroyers cracked in half unexpectedly, with their development led by Sir Jackie Fisher. Just like his batllecruisers at Jutland.
To be fair, at least something hit the battlecruisers.
It was an acute condition versus the chronic metal fatigue failure of the torpedo boats.
A truly amazing video well thought out what presented. Easy to see why you become clearly the definitive source on RUclips for naval history of all navy’s.
You have no idea how helpful this is, been focused on this subject for weeks now.
Great job on the Warships podcast dude 🙂👍🏼
If there is an afterlife for naval vessels then wherever she is now I'm sure every time Drach mentions the words "torpedo boats" the soul of the Kamchatka reflexively screams and sails in circles
Excellent video, well presented and very informative. Thank you!
Destroyers! Very happy to see video about them.
I was hoping that you would cover this subject, thank you!
This channel is a goldmine! I love it thank you
As always, my thanks for your research, insight and edification. I wish that I had something to throw your way.
Once again I have learned that there is so much that I did not know. I had no idea I would be this interested in knowing the origins of the destroyer.. and of course I knew so little about how they developed. Thank you for making this video, I am looking forward to the next part.
Great discussion. Thanks! If any of you visit Charleston, SC, go to Patriot's Point and check out the Laffey. Great story. Apparently our boys in one of the forward 5 inch turrets took out an oncoming kamakaze that would finished the crippled ship... Quite a lucky shot!
Very interesting I didn't know much at all about these early ships. Thank you.
THANK YOU FOR MAKING THIS SERIES I AM FOREVER IN YOUR DEBT!
I appreciate this particularly because of the photographs.
Loved it Drachinfel
One of my favorite books dealing with the development of Destroyers is simply called "Destroyer" by Ewart Brookes
It mainly covers the development of RN DD's from their first inception to the end of WW2 and gives great accounts of many famous DD actions.
A truly fascinating read and if you don't have it I very much recommend you getting your hands on a copy.
Love your Naval History videos- keep it up, mate!
👏👍 looking forvard for part 2!!
Speaking of Destroyers, don't think I have seen the US Fletcher Class covered. They played a major roll in the Pacific during WWII.
Thinking Allowed if by “major role” you mean “swarmed the pacific like bees,” then yes, I would say they did. :p
This was part one he didn't get to WW2 yet.
Looking fwd to pt 2 cheers.
Oh, nice, I was just wondering about this last week! I was thinking they'd be forked from the same general place as cruisers, only emphasising different traits, but it turns out to be more interesting than that.
i would suggest to do more videos over the naval workhorses - the small units like minsweepers, sloops etc.
Waking up to a long video by Drac is the start of a very good day.
The royal navy names for ships sometimes makes me wonder what makes them think of those names
Random, i guess
There used to be a web group Society of Daisy with absolutely hilarious and fanciful names for Victorian- and Edwardian-era ships like HMS Incontinent and the like ;-)
They keep reusing old names. 10 HMS Rattlesnake for example.
Very enjoyable Drachinifel 🌊🌊🌊🌊
thank you keep on binging your content
I am not a military maritime buff but by accident I came upon this site and now I am hooked! I’ve developed a curiosity about the evolution of warships over time, from sail to steam to reciprocating engines to turbines. And all the various caliber guns required for different purposes. And the materials and construction methods used, from wood to iron to steel. And how new technologies shook up the established order: radar, targeting systems, oil-fired replacing coal-fired power plants, the torpedo, the submarine, sonar, 15” guns firing explosive shells that could sink a capital ship with a single volley, and on and on.
You, Mr. Narrator, are responsible for my descent into the maelstrom of maritime military minutiae, thanks to your well-written and -narrated, logically constructed videos. Just the right length and amount of detail. How can I resist watching just one more?
Throughout, as the navies of the great powers are compared, in the 19th and 18th centuries, Britain’s industrial might enabled that country to first out-design, and then out-build everybody else - example, the dreadnaught class - and thus rule the waves for two centuries.
Would love to see a video on the proposed carrier for the royal navy in the 60's CVA-01 HMS Queen Elizabeth
👍 Impatient to see more ! Thanks
Great stuff!! Any chance for a review of the Novik-class destroyers? Novik herself was arguably the best ship of her type at the time of her launch, and the class on the whole proved to be some of the most effective ships for the Imperial Russian Navy in the First World War.
I love this channel and I look forward to the follow-up squadrons to come. I saw an interesting vid recently vid on the battle of Cárdenas Bay, a rare Spanish victory in the Spanish American war, where the US torpedo boat USS Winslow got into some difficulties. I'd never heard of this action before.
Thanks for the great information
A video of my favorite ship in world of warship and IRL beside carrier my birthday isn't until September Drachinifel
Great video. Thanks!
Heard my notification bell could not wake up this morning, hence the late post . Anyway good video , I thought that I had a pretty good grasp of the destroyers history. I would seriously love to see your reference library. Have to admit up front that mine is mainly WW2 uboats. but don't you find that you can get burnt out on a single subject, especially when it gets so noticeable that nothing new is coming out it's just rehashing what you already have. Oh how I miss the days when I used too help out at the submarine museum,and my collection of uboat books far outstripped there's. and had access to the arcive. Anyway I'm reminiscing. Good morning good work looking forward to the next two. Thank you
Nice one! thank you!
Excellent video. If you don't already have a copy, I recommend a book entitled 'The First Destroyers' by David Lyons. It comes with a pull-out plan of HMS Velox, ( make sure it is there before you pay for the book ). As an ex-marine engineer, the propulsion development is particularly interesting. As you say, some of them reached very high speeds, but under ' artificial' conditions, such as carrying more stokers than they could realistically accommodate on a patrol.
Keep these videos coming - this is one of the more intelligent and educational channels on RUclips. Well done !
I love how the Royal Navy had this huge battle ship navy and then a British engineer invented a problem for it
Same with HMS Dreadnought that almost immediately made all other ships in the Royal Navy obsolete in combat.
A very good video! Thank you very much!
Jackie Fisher, or The ＦＡＳＴ Controller
Awesome picture at the end there from about 22:50 !
Great show 😀
I actually want to be here for a very, very long time
Can not wait for part 2 and 3!
Excellent introduction to the development of the destroyer and the motivation that incentivized its development as the industrial revolution ramped up. A story of a true universal force multiplier that offset another force multiplier- the original Torpedo Boats designed to attack much larger vessels.
Me: oh it was nice for him to make it two parts and only 20mins.
Sees part two is one hour: 😅
Most enjoyable...God bless Charlie Parsons!
very good. I have a book the history of Destroyers with many pictures of the earlier boats and ships
Very interesting piece, D. That takes it up through, what, tier IV? We'll let you save up some doubloons so's you can research the subsequent classes.
Good video. Thanks
Thanks!
Thank you, Sir, for filling in my knowledge gaps on the subject. Currently fighting the RN with the Italian navy in HOI4. Your channel is a huge help, considering I'm an army person.
First thing I learned... way more than 5 minutes. Jam packed with history and facts. I am a land lubber. Great education on sea based military.
A very interesting time in maritime development. The Turbinia although not a naval vessel but more for showcasing and refining new technology is certainly worth a look at.
Really enjoying your videos. I noticed on these pre and WWI destroyers that there are those large funnel shaped fresh air in takes, but the WWII destroyers don't have them. I can't imagine the fresh air requirements got less, so my question is how or where does the fresh air come from on the WWII destroyers?
For those that are interested, you can go and visit the worlds first steam turbine powered ship (Turbinia) at the Discovery Museum in Newcastle Upon Tyne. It's development is an interesting story in it's own right en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbinia
Awesome video, as always. The other ships and boats all have their place in the grand scheme of things, but having served in the Gator Navy, and then the Tin Can Navy, I say Destroyers are the backbone of the fleet. I was a Quartermaster onboard a Tin Can 1/67-7/66, so I might be prejudiced in that regard.
The Quartermaster is a tar.
He shoots the truck light for a star.
And wonders where the heck we are.
In the old destroyer Navy!
@Matthew Robinson - I once "shot a helicopter light" while navigating through Saudi Arabia. Realized my mistake when it lifted off and began moving horizontally. Great Fun but my NCO's were less amused.
@@amerigo88 LOL. An ensign on my ship once tracked a cloud on radar. Presumeably it was a friendly.
Thank you. So many historical videos are incredibly dry and tedious. There was not a great deal of passion and reliance on the formula of a good story, however this was informative, to the point, and pleasantly entertaining.
He's good like that... just enough sarcasm and cynicism to leaven the dryness and keep tedium at bay
It’s actually amazing to see ship evolution. Its like watching Darwin’s theory of evolution
That's because it is Darwin's Theory. Just artificially orchestrated by us.
Are you going to make a video about the Italian MAS-boats of WWI? They sank one dre-dreadnought and one dreadnought battleship so they proved quite effective