You were the chosen one! It was said that you would destroy the Torpedo Boats, not join them! Bring balance to the Navy battles ... not leave them in darkness!
After they became the thing they swore to destroy, giant torpedo boats, they did it again. Destroyers are now large multi mission surface ships, the very thing torpedo boats were first designed to destroy.
"...and the Imperial Japanese Navy, in the late war, was...mostly sunk."
5 лет назад+246
David Beamer If you see a modern ship, it’s the US Navy. If you see an old ship, it’s the Royal Navy. If you see no ship at all, it’s the Imperial japanese navy.
Hi, "Military History Visualized", I am Academy-trained Naval Officer having spent 28 years in the US Navy and survived three wars including completing 118 combat mission. Even after graduation from the US Naval War College, I have learned so much from your lectures; I am eternally grateful for the accuracy, documentation, and unbiased opinions you have provided YT viewers interested in the history of warfare and honestly learning about the truth about the human tragedy of World War II. I appreciate your extensive documentation, references and your background education which shows in your lectures. I lost two uncles in World War II on the European theater front while I lost another one against the Imperial Japanese Navy. To me, despite being military-trained, this was such a loss of lives for humanity - thank you for your respectful and deferential narrative about such a painful subject (for some of us Veterans). I hope that our younger generations realize, treat, and hopefully learned for previous armed conflict with respect and appreciation for all the sacrifices that were made by all the parties involved, regardless of one's political beliefs, denomination, genders, etc. My Peace be with you, Ciao, L, Captain US Navy Retired, Veteran (Kapitän zur See)
I'm a US submarine veteran... SSBN 2 boats; CV really means what he claims? Maybe initially but nomenclature, usage depends on who's using it. Carrier Vehicle. I find it hard to believe America is using French usage for ship designations. Capt of what?
I am a Vietnam era veteran. I am also the son of a US Navy WW2 veteran that served the entire war on an Escort carrier. In fact it was the first one in the US Navy. CVE-1 USS Long Island. I have studied WW2 naval history for the obvious reasons. I am very supportive of the theory that the escort carrier served a very important role in the war and may have supplemented the US Navy's dominance by early 1944. Also the escort carriers of both the US and Britain were crucial to the defeat of the U-boats in the Atlantic. Just my opinion.
My family still has the enemy identification books of my father. They contain drawings of just about every japanese ship and plane of ww2. He was with fleet marine force and so had access to them.
"Note that the British called their lend-lease destroyer escorts 'frigates', likely to annoy anyone who likes standards and clarity; like me." Well, annoying the Germans is a national pastime ;-) (I know you're not German, but couldn't pass up the joke.)
A.J.P. That’s like calling a Canadian an American. They get kind of shirty about it, in their very polite way. Considering Austria was around for hundreds of years before unified Germany, maybe its more like calling the UK “East America.”
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 by 101jir « 2:00 Battleships (Before this is introduction and disclaimers) 5:20 Aircraft Carriers 7:55 Battlecruisers 9:10 Heavy Cruisers 12:00 Light Cruisers 13:35 Escort Carriers 15:20 Destroyers 17:15 Submarines 19:35 Destroyer Escorts » SOURCES - since the description field is too small... *sigh* « Symonds, Craig L.: World War II at Sea. A Global History. Oxford University Press: New York, 2018 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). Rielly, Robin L.: Kamikazes, Corsairs, and Picket Ships. Okinawa, 1945. Casemate: Newbury, UK, 2010. 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. Williamson, Gordon: German Light Cruisers 1939-45. Osprey Publishing: 2003. Konstam, Angus: British Battleships 1939-45 (1). Queen Elizabeth and Royal Sovereign Classes. Osprey Publishing: 2009. Breyer, Siegfried; Koop, Gerhard: Schlachtschiff Bismarck. Eine technikgeschichtliche Dokumentation London Conference of 1930 -International Treaty for the Limitation and Reduction of Naval Armament Scan: www.loc.gov/law/help/us-treaties/bevans/m-ust000002-1055.pdf Text: www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-089_London_Treaty_1930.php en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hull_classification_symbol#United_States_Navy_hull_classification_codes www.britannica.com/technology/cruiser maritime.org/doc/subsinpacific.htm
Thankyou sir; as my primary understanding of war vehicles is that of aircraft from 1941 until present; I'm truly glad you took the time to help us "Zoomies" understand the details of naval vessels. I also REALLY appreciate the lack of background music or sound effects in your video. Remember that a lot of us seeking out this information have varying degrees of hearing impairment, either from guns, aircraft or both and additional noises make it impossible to follow the dialogue. Good work.
Sphinx Rising by that logic, he skipped over the entirety of the Italian navy and ignored various very effective classes in other areas. The point of its use was an example, this comment is pointless.
Oh, there are plenty of us here. I'd say many came to make sure this video hasn't gone too far wrong. And as I'm sure you know and just misspoke, Drach does all ships except active duty ones and that's just for political reasons.
I liked your nautical pun that "the displacement bar should be taken with a bit of 'leeway' ", although I suspect it was unintentional, and in any case, more apt for sailing ships than those powered by steam turbine.
10:30 Spain had a naval plan from 1927 (expanded after the treaty of London in 1930) to have cruisers operating in pairs: one heavy cruiser with 8x203mm guns and one light cruiser with 8x152mm and 4x101mm guns (+ torpedo tubes), complementing each other, with the heavy one (Canarias-class) having more powerful guns, and the light cruiser having quicker rate of fire (and more guns). This was put to test during the battle of Cape Palos in the Spanish Civil War (1938), in which the "light" cruiser Libertad was able to go toe to toe with the "heavy" cruiser Canarias during an artillery exchange (with both ships being lightly damaged). I say "light" and "heavy" because both cruisers had almost the same tonnage (9240 tons for the Libertad and 9900 tons for the Canarias). On the same battle, the "sister" ship of the Canarias, the cruiser Baleares was sunk by torpedoes from the republican destroyers.
@@USSAnimeNCC- DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULTDEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT
one should also keep in mind that water changes weight based on temperature and purity. this means a precise measurement is very difficult to pin down, as testing the value wouldn't reach a perfect match.
Hey, I justed wanted to say thank you for such a great and informative video! I'm just your average American citizen so before this I knew basically next to nothing about warships, and only got interested in learning because of a certain app I play on my phone (lmao) but you provided such a clear and easy to follow description of everything I was kind of blown away. I even tried watcing a few documentaries after your video and found yours to be so much more indepth and helpful! It was also nice to hear someone who wasn't American or British talking about WW2 for once (which btw your accent is amazing). Keep up the good work~ ❤️
This is a great video, MHV! Quality is as customary. Of special note is the clever idea of taking a base line of ships to set a standard, and then compare from there. One thing about HMS Hood: that ship was a battleship in everything but name. Armor values were far higher than those of the true tin can battlecruisers, HMS Repair and HMS Refit.
Perfect timing I've been spending the last two days playing Civ 6 with the (battle of the Pacific mod) most of the mods I've played tend to just be overblown what ifs or the equivalent of Dracula versus Yoda fights, but this one actually takes an account and limits what you are able to work with based on realistic ships of the line.
I dunno, the modern vessel classification can be pretty misleading, especially when compared to WW2 classification. Also, let's not get into JMSDF's... um, "interesting" take on it.
@@BicyclesMayUseFullLane It seems everything is called a destroyer now, save for a few cruisers - but the cruiser/destroyer distinction seems pretty vague. Russian Kirov class is sometimes called either (it's bigger than any current destroyer I know of, but not by that much, and seems built for the same role as a modern destroyer). Royal Navy destroyers have often been operating alone like a cruiser role, and the type 45 /Daring class is pretty big, again should it be a cruiser. At least US missile cruisers are used for the role their name suggests. But they never travel alone. Oh idk
I sincerely appreciate the preliminary breakdown of terminology, & the effort put into making an, easy to understand, visual representation of the data. I found the "This is what their intended purpose was, & this is what they really did" sections especially informative, & I think that most historical media on the subject(that I've happened upon) kind of lack that metaphorical connective tissue. I love the direct quotes with proper notation transitioning to context & observation. Thank you for your academic efforts, & a bigger thank you from myself & all the other autistic people that consider this comfort TV.
Thank you for putting in all the work to make this presentation. You bring a lot of clarity through your organization and use of categories to sort out classes. I see that names of types are mostly just labels of convenience - or sometimes a subterfuge.
That was excellent. The Fletcher was always one of my favourites, and I am fortunate to have been on one of the three to survive -- USS The Sullivans DD-537 in Buffalo NY.
I read somewhere, many many years ago, that the "V" was for "heavier than air", because the US Navy also operated dirigibles and blimps for some time. Thus the squadrons are VF, VA, etc (and VMF, VMA for Marine squadrons); dirigibles and blimp squadrons had a different letter for "lighter than air" (which I do not remember now) and I doubt there were ever any Marine blimp squadrons.
Sometimes this dudes accent throws me off. I was trying to figure out what _ship long tongs_ were... _It's ship long tons_ then again I'm sure my German would be 10x worse so who am I to criticize?
Another book that is a nice reference to all the ships of WWII is Richard Worth's "Fleets of WWII". It does not go in depth on every ship, but it presents EVERY ship and class in a few cogent points. It details changes and also fates of some of the individual ships. It has very few photos, but one of it's better points is its prose. It is a delight to read at times, and since it is not the kind of book you read cover-to-cover, but rather use as quick reference, there are some gems in there. If you like to play grand strategy games like Hearts of Iron, it can really help give you a grasp of what every country actually developed and built before and during WWII, so you can make the right building plan for your navy, whether you want to half-ass your navy, build a historical one, or try to buff it a bit compared to the historical one.
@@teacoffee5847 L means light and A means heavy, V means aviation (derived from the french for 'to fly' I believe). There are other suffixes too, iirc B means "large", so a CB is a large cruiser (very rare thanks to treaty regulations which would just classify it as a battleship).
Battleships were also used as a "fleet in being". Pretty much a deterrent to certain areas for fear of losing ships. More psychological then anything else. Bismarck's sister ship Tirpitz is famous for this. It did next to nothing in it's intended role and aside from a few commerce raids it sat in a fjord in Norway for most of the war. But just knowing it was in the area was enough for the British to divert supplies and troops to attempt to sink it even though Germany had no plans to move or use it in its intended war knowing it would just be sunk
Clevelands did not have dual purpose main batteries, most pre-war and WWII cruisers did not have DP main batteries. The post war Worcester class was the first (and only) USN 6" Mk16 DP armed cruiser, and even that used a special dual gun turret because of accuracy issues with the triple turrets on the non DP Mk 16s. During the war , the main exceptions were the Royal Navies Dido class and the US Navy Atlanta class, maybe some other class from other navies that I dont know.
listening to the whole video clearly helps: "One key aspect of some - yet not all - light cruiser was the use of dual-purpose guns as their main armament that allowed them to engage both surface targets and aircraft with their main batteries. Yet, although nearly all Navies tried this, few of them were successful until late and post-war."
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized I understand, I did watch the whole video, but what I'm trying to say is that it is confusing - you state that "a key aspect" is that "only some" cruisers had dual purpose batteries, of which "few were successful until late and post-war", which is not really logical in my opinion - a key feature that only some cruisers had and barely any were good at. At the same time you are giving an example of a ship, who did in no way have a dual purpose main battery, neither in theory nor in practice. Neither did any of the 39 ships built in the Brooklyn/St. Louis/Cleveland/Fargo lineage that you use as an example of Light Cruisers, or any of the comparable classes from other countries (e.g. the Town Class, Emile Bertin/La Galissonnière class, Condottieri class). Basically I feel that stating that a key aspect of light cruisers during the Second World War is having dual purpose batteries is not really correct. And this is really just constructive criticism, I trust your research, but I just feel that you might have formulated that point a bit confusingly.
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized well, you are German, than you should know that even the German heavy cruisers have amunition ( timefuzed HE shells ) they were able to shoot against aircraft. Also the US heavy cruisers. I saw one document, where survivor from Princ Eugen was describing how were they using their 20,3cm guns in AA role. But yes, it was very rare... The firecontrol was not suited for them.
@Kristof Kolumbus: first I am Austrian, second I don't care what you think I "should know" according to my background, which you have clearly no knowledge about. So maybe do your own homework before you throw around "you should".
Very amazing and intriguing video . My favorite is the battle cruiser and heavy cruiser class . I also want to add that someone actually used minecraft as a serious word
Also large cruisers weren't mentioned to but. Given how rare they were i can understand why they weren't mentioned to much. As they were a strange class. They interesting none the less but were to big to be a standard Heavy cruiser. But not large enough for to be a Battle cruiser these were the German Graf Spee pocket battle ships and the American Alaska class . Also the Flower Class corvettes were the smallest of the destroyer escort class but could still fit in that category as they to large and slow for a patrol boat class which is are coastal defense vessels and are not classified as warship class. I am sure most people know this already but just to anyone who may not know.
Well they were cheap, slow, but freed Destroyers, and Cruisers to other duties. 16 knots, 1 4" gun, but they had depth charges. They were good for what they were built for. Cheap convoy escorts.
It might be pointed out that the British had a different definition of what a battle-cruiser was, it was based on speed. For Jutland type battleruisers this was obtained by sacrificing armor. That doesn't mean they were battlecruisers because they were lightly armored. They were BC's because they were fast. Hood was a different breed and its design was changed drastically after Jutland. She sacrificed displacement instead of armor. She had the same protection and guns as the Queen Elizabeth class but was MUCH longer and weighed a lot more. The British had no concept of a fast battleship so kept the nomenclature of battlecruiser for her. She is almost in the same boat (see what i did there) as the Scharnhorst class where they were improperly called battlecruisers though they had superb armor.
There was a book written named, "Dreadnought". I don't remember the author at this time. According to the book Battlecruisers were invented by the British before World War 1 because, according to their naval planners, commerce raiding heavy cruisers were the main thread to British supply lines. The Battlecruisers were faster and better armed than heavy cruisers (12" guns vs 8" guns). The speed of the battlecruiser would allow the interception of heavy cruisers and the ability to stay out of range of the shorter range of the heavy cruiser main armament. At the same time the 12" guns, which out ranged the heavy cruisers, could pound them to pieces. Once the first world war began the battlecruiser fought in three different roles: 1. Against commerce raiding heavy cruisers - example - Battle of the Falklands. The British battlecruisers sunk and entire squadron of German cruisers with little or no loss. This was the mission they were designed for. 2. Raids, such as against the flemish coast - their speed could get them out of trouble from land based artillery and they could and did some decent damage. 3. Main battle line - In the battle of Jutland they ended up engaging the German high seas fleet. Unlike the battleships the battlecruisers ended up blowing up spectacularly and sinking with almost all hands. This was NOT the mission they were designed for. I heard about the British designation for Battlecruiser which had more to do with speed, hence the heavier armor of Hood, etc. My examples came from that book, which ended its history with the beginning of the first world war. I suspect that, if the book was correct about designs before the war, the definitions will have evolved during and after the war. The book is interesting reading but, out of around 15 or so chapters there were only 2 which dealt with "nuts and bolts" and the rest of the book was politics and personalities.
Book used but not harmed! LOL! I I enjoy your channel and Drachinifel! Keep up the great work!!! PS. A good follow up would be one the Buckley class would be: USS England DE-635.
The US did in fact make a class of DEs capable of some level of fleet engagement. They were armed with two 5 inch destroyer guns, and a triple torpedo launcher for anti surface engagements. The only instance where they served in this role with any degree of importance was the battle of Samar. 6 Jeep carriers and their screen of 3 destroyers and 4 DEs were attacked by a Japanese surface fleet of 4 battleships (including Yamato), 2 light cruisers, 12 destroyers, and 4-5 heavy cruisers. The DEs served admirably, with one providing smoke for the carriers throughout the whole battle, two launching torpedoes and engaging with guns before returning to the carriers to provide smoke, and one, the USS Samuel B. Roberts charging the enemy battle line with the friendly destroyers and engaging the Japanese heavy squadrons with guns and torpedoes. The Roberts scored one confirmed torpedo hit on a heavy cruiser, and shredded the superstructure of another apart with her guns. She was not hit once until the Japanese battleship Haruna came to help the Japanese cruisers losing a fight with a goddamn DE. The Haruna’s first salvo of 14 inchers hit the Roberts, but did not sink her. She continued to fire until her forward turret was knocked out and her aft turret blew up because it got so hot in there that the ammo blew up in the breach. There were only 2 shells left to fire when this happened. Captain Copland and his XO, Bob Roberts (the brother of the ship’s namesake) decided to abandon ship, as she had 0 operational weapons of any kind left to fire at the enemy and had her propulsion knocked out. In total, the US lost 1 DE, 2 destroyers, and one Jeep carrier in the battle, and despite being outgunned, slower, smaller, and unprepared, the Americans took the day and won the most improbable victory of the pacific war.
they were still not meant to fend off a serious force, and in that battle, they practically threw their lives away to save the carriers after the main US force moved to attack where the main japanese fleet was believed to be. the fact that Taffy 3 was suddenly in danger forced the DEs and DDs left to protect from minor threats and air attack to give the CVEs time to run like hell, a nearly impossible task for both groups (DD/DE and CVE) to do, but managed due to the relentlessness of the american planes (continuing to attack even AFTER running out of ammo meant for ground support not ship attack), poor decisions from the Japanese admiral, and the ferocity of the ships convincing the japanese that they were facing a much larger and more powerful force. by all rights, once the destroyers were sunk or disabled, the carriers should have been annihilated. just one more missed chance by the japanese to do something meaningful squandered. also, 2 cves were lost, one as a sacrifice to buy time, one to a kamikaze
i spotted a simple but important mistake, on the armament section at 0:41 on the video you say 9 x 45 cm (18.1 in) which is wrong, 18.1 is 46 cm or 460mm, while 45cm naval guns are 18in or 457mm the difference is small but noticeable. (sorry for bad english)
As cruisers could be on detached duty far from support, cruisers had fairly substantial repair facilities on board. That is, they had machine shops that could create many parts.
Coming back to this video, it might be nice to one day make a video about the Italian navy and its role in the Mediterranean overall. Most of the time we only hear about Taranto, but it might be a good example of a Fleet in Being for your videos.
AFAIK, not a single Casablanca class carrier was used as escort carrier. That were the previous designs, which were very important for convoy duty. The Casablancas turned out so well that the navy used them, and the old slow Battleships, to provide cover and support for the amphibious invasion fleets. This freed up the bigger fast carriers.
Well done here with these generally fair and accurate insights into our historical 20th century naval vessels. They will be a valuable asset for history students and , personally, a glorious nostalgic asset regarding my grandfather. Stay well and keep them flowing my friend. Dave, Cambridge.
Great video :) HMS Hood isn't a very good example of a Battlecruiser because it was much more heavily armored and more heavily armed than most Battlecruiser. HMS Renown would have been a better example as it had 3 inches less belt armer and 2 less main guns that battle ships built at the same time :)
The Battleships at Pearl were not the primary target. The new cruisers had higher priority but the pilots went for the battleships for glory as far as I remember. One of the reasons the attack is widely considered a failure.
In short BBs with beginning of the year 43 becomes big AA gun systems to protect the CVs. The fight ship vs ship was mostly done by CVs or cruisers and destroyer.
Not exclusively. The battleship HMS Duke of York sank the battleship Scharnhorst near the end of 1943, and battleships were used at Leyte Gulf in 1944 by both sides. American battleships sank the Japanese battleship Yamashiro, while other battleships came within a hairsbreadth of directly attacking Japan's last fleet carriers. Some different decisions by Halsey could have seen the Iowas come face to face with Yamato herself. Moreover, British and American battleships were kept stationed in the North Sea in 1944, desperately hoping to engage Tirpitz and finally finish the battleship off.
2:00 Battleships (Before this is introduction and disclaimers)
5:20 Aircraft Carriers
7:55 Battlecruisers
9:10 Heavy Cruisers
12:00 Light Cruisers
13:35 Escort Carriers
15:20 Destroyers
17:15 Submarines
19:35 Destroyer Escorts
*YoU'rE a HeRo!*
Thanks for doing it here and on the long form video too.
12:02 USS Flamethrower lol
@Aggressive Tubesock sir - your comment was not nice. I just want to inform you about this.
You forgot the minecraft
16:00 When the ship built to destroy torpedo boats becomes the go-to ship for torpedo attacks
YOU HAVE BECOME THE VERY THING YOU SWORE TO DESTROY
hello there
You were the chosen one! It was said that you would destroy the Torpedo Boats, not join them! Bring balance to the Navy battles ... not leave them in darkness!
After they became the thing they swore to destroy, giant torpedo boats, they did it again.
Destroyers are now large multi mission surface ships, the very thing torpedo boats were first designed to destroy.
@@JB-ym4up its come full circle
Thanks for the recommendation! :)
"...and the Imperial Japanese Navy, in the late war, was...mostly sunk."
David Beamer
If you see a modern ship, it’s the US Navy. If you see an old ship, it’s the Royal Navy. If you see no ship at all, it’s the Imperial japanese navy.
Vlad Melis the difference is that it happened after the war.
@ Wasnt this sentence about the Luftwaffe ? ...if you dont see any plane, its the luftwaffe
R.i.p
@@the_sapph1re370 Maybe they shouldn't have sunk our battleships.
Hi, "Military History Visualized", I am Academy-trained Naval Officer having spent 28 years in the US Navy and survived three wars including completing 118 combat mission. Even after graduation from the US Naval War College, I have learned so much from your lectures; I am eternally grateful for the accuracy, documentation, and unbiased opinions you have provided YT viewers interested in the history of warfare and honestly learning about the truth about the human tragedy of World War II. I appreciate your extensive documentation, references and your background education which shows in your lectures. I lost two uncles in World War II on the European theater front while I lost another one against the Imperial Japanese Navy. To me, despite being military-trained, this was such a loss of lives for humanity - thank you for your respectful and deferential narrative about such a painful subject (for some of us Veterans). I hope that our younger generations realize, treat, and hopefully learned for previous armed conflict with respect and appreciation for all the sacrifices that were made by all the parties involved, regardless of one's political beliefs, denomination, genders, etc. My Peace be with you, Ciao, L, Captain US Navy Retired, Veteran (Kapitän zur See)
I'm a US submarine veteran... SSBN 2 boats; CV really means what he claims? Maybe initially but nomenclature, usage depends on who's using it. Carrier Vehicle. I find it hard to believe America is using French usage for ship designations. Capt of what?
I'm also a retired minecraft veteren gamer
“Survived”? What were the chances of survival for those combat missions? 99.99%?
@@chengong388 shut up you idiot
I am a Vietnam era veteran. I am also the son of a US Navy WW2 veteran that served the entire war on an Escort carrier. In fact it was the first one in the US Navy. CVE-1 USS Long Island. I have studied WW2 naval history for the obvious reasons. I am very supportive of the theory that the escort carrier served a very important role in the war and may have supplemented the US Navy's dominance by early 1944. Also the escort carriers of both the US and Britain were crucial to the defeat of the U-boats in the Atlantic. Just my opinion.
Minecraft confirmed US Navy weapon.
damn.... beat me to it
lol
My family still has the enemy identification books of my father. They contain drawings of just about every japanese ship and plane of ww2. He was with fleet marine force and so had access to them.
"Note that the British called their lend-lease destroyer escorts 'frigates', likely to annoy anyone who likes standards and clarity; like me."
Well, annoying the Germans is a national pastime ;-)
(I know you're not German, but couldn't pass up the joke.)
What is he??!?
Joel Reirdon Austrian
Well that's still Grand German
A.J.P. That’s like calling a Canadian an American. They get kind of shirty about it, in their very polite way. Considering Austria was around for hundreds of years before unified Germany, maybe its more like calling the UK “East America.”
@@Mrhalligan39 I know dude, just want to be a bit mean on that topic cause I'm German^^
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 by 101jir «
2:00 Battleships (Before this is introduction and disclaimers)
5:20 Aircraft Carriers
7:55 Battlecruisers
9:10 Heavy Cruisers
12:00 Light Cruisers
13:35 Escort Carriers
15:20 Destroyers
17:15 Submarines
19:35 Destroyer Escorts
» SOURCES - since the description field is too small... *sigh* «
Symonds, Craig L.: World War II at Sea. A Global History. Oxford University Press: New York, 2018
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).
Rielly, Robin L.: Kamikazes, Corsairs, and Picket Ships. Okinawa, 1945. Casemate: Newbury, UK, 2010.
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.
Williamson, Gordon: German Light Cruisers 1939-45. Osprey Publishing: 2003.
Konstam, Angus: British Battleships 1939-45 (1). Queen Elizabeth and Royal Sovereign Classes. Osprey Publishing: 2009.
Breyer, Siegfried; Koop, Gerhard: Schlachtschiff Bismarck. Eine technikgeschichtliche Dokumentation
London Conference of 1930 -International Treaty for the Limitation and Reduction of Naval Armament
Scan: www.loc.gov/law/help/us-treaties/bevans/m-ust000002-1055.pdf
Text: www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-089_London_Treaty_1930.php
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hull_classification_symbol#United_States_Navy_hull_classification_codes
www.britannica.com/technology/cruiser
maritime.org/doc/subsinpacific.htm
3:10 Yamato had 46cm guns not 45cm
Yamato had 46cm guns man
Can you do more video like this... but focus on the Aviation battleship and cruisers... or maybe the seaplane and submarine tender...
Could you do a breakdown of the Kriegsmarine Navy As originally planned?
@@JeanLucCaptain
Plan Z - Practical, Effective, or High Seas Fleet Mk2?
ruclips.net/video/HvQj2oM69IY/видео.html
Thankyou sir; as my primary understanding of war vehicles is that of aircraft from 1941 until present; I'm truly glad you took the time to help us "Zoomies" understand the details of naval vessels. I also REALLY appreciate the lack of background music or sound effects in your video. Remember that a lot of us seeking out this information have varying degrees of hearing impairment, either from guns, aircraft or both and additional noises make it impossible to follow the dialogue. Good work.
Yamato had 460mm main battery, not 450mm (wich would be more in the line of 17.7 inches rather than 18.1, wich is actually 460mm)
Interesting that he skipped over American battleships entirely, but gushed over a Japanese battle ship that was hardly used effectively.
That is correct. Was going to write the same.
@@sphinxrising1129 yeah, I think Iowa was the best battleship class.
Sphinx Rising by that logic, he skipped over the entirety of the Italian navy and ignored various very effective classes in other areas. The point of its use was an example, this comment is pointless.
I wonder how many people here watches Drachinifel video he does video on wwi and wwii ship
likely more after this video
Oh, there are plenty of us here. I'd say many came to make sure this video hasn't gone too far wrong. And as I'm sure you know and just misspoke, Drach does all ships except active duty ones and that's just for political reasons.
I do, but I have been subscribed here for a longer time.
Thanks to RUclips recommendations I know for some time. He truly deserves a mention and a collaboration video in the future!?
i discovered him a few weeks ago
I liked your nautical pun that "the displacement bar should be taken with a bit of 'leeway' ", although I suspect it was unintentional, and in any case, more apt for sailing ships than those powered by steam turbine.
Yeah, was unintentional.
Not to go full broadsides, but I like the cut of your jib because I love me some nautical puns!! Thank you for getting that squared away!
There's also "not as straightforward as it seems" in the carrier section. I'm a twisted man HAHAHAHA all I see are puns
i’ve been looking for this type of video for years. i am not familiar with ships types and this was very helpful
10:30 Spain had a naval plan from 1927 (expanded after the treaty of London in 1930) to have cruisers operating in pairs: one heavy cruiser with 8x203mm guns and one light cruiser with 8x152mm and 4x101mm guns (+ torpedo tubes), complementing each other, with the heavy one (Canarias-class) having more powerful guns, and the light cruiser having quicker rate of fire (and more guns). This was put to test during the battle of Cape Palos in the Spanish Civil War (1938), in which the "light" cruiser Libertad was able to go toe to toe with the "heavy" cruiser Canarias during an artillery exchange (with both ships being lightly damaged). I say "light" and "heavy" because both cruisers had almost the same tonnage (9240 tons for the Libertad and 9900 tons for the Canarias). On the same battle, the "sister" ship of the Canarias, the cruiser Baleares was sunk by torpedoes from the republican destroyers.
Ah, yes. Minecraft is my favorite ship class.
Jonathan Stiles by minecraft is it like the sea mines?
Jonathan Stiles got confused for a second when I heard the word minecraft and I wasn’t sure which one
Minecraft is so powerful it transcends space and time
NICOLAS CAMPOS shut the fuck up
@NICOLAS CAMPOS no u
Did someone say
*MINECRAFT*
Building ship in Minecraft is what I do especially warship
@@USSAnimeNCC- DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT
DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULTDEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT
DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT
DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT
DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT
DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT
I thought it was a Mine Warfare Craft....
FRICK YEAHH
3:34 in 1986?
one should also keep in mind that water changes weight based on temperature and purity. this means a precise measurement is very difficult to pin down, as testing the value wouldn't reach a perfect match.
12:01 Ah, yes. Someone else puts a Demolition Expert build on his Cleveland too, I see. ;)
Hey, I justed wanted to say thank you for such a great and informative video! I'm just your average American citizen so before this I knew basically next to nothing about warships, and only got interested in learning because of a certain app I play on my phone (lmao) but you provided such a clear and easy to follow description of everything I was kind of blown away. I even tried watcing a few documentaries after your video and found yours to be so much more indepth and helpful! It was also nice to hear someone who wasn't American or British talking about WW2 for once (which btw your accent is amazing). Keep up the good work~ ❤️
This is a great video, MHV! Quality is as customary. Of special note is the clever idea of taking a base line of ships to set a standard, and then compare from there. One thing about HMS Hood: that ship was a battleship in everything but name. Armor values were far higher than those of the true tin can battlecruisers, HMS Repair and HMS Refit.
Perfect timing I've been spending the last two days playing Civ 6 with the (battle of the Pacific mod)
most of the mods I've played tend to just be overblown what ifs or the equivalent of Dracula versus Yoda fights, but this one actually takes an account and limits what you are able to work with based on realistic ships of the line.
you should do this again but with modern ship classes
as always, the views are a determining factor, which means, if you like it and want to see more, share it.
What’s the name of this channel again? Military... something, something. Can’t remember now. 😉
Zummwalt class battlecruisrr
I dunno, the modern vessel classification can be pretty misleading, especially when compared to WW2 classification.
Also, let's not get into JMSDF's... um, "interesting" take on it.
@@BicyclesMayUseFullLane It seems everything is called a destroyer now, save for a few cruisers - but the cruiser/destroyer distinction seems pretty vague. Russian Kirov class is sometimes called either (it's bigger than any current destroyer I know of, but not by that much, and seems built for the same role as a modern destroyer). Royal Navy destroyers have often been operating alone like a cruiser role, and the type 45 /Daring class is pretty big, again should it be a cruiser. At least US missile cruisers are used for the role their name suggests. But they never travel alone. Oh idk
Dude! I was always interested in ship classes but never found helpful information. Thank you very much.
I sincerely appreciate the preliminary breakdown of terminology, & the effort put into making an, easy to understand, visual representation of the data. I found the "This is what their intended purpose was, & this is what they really did" sections especially informative, & I think that most historical media on the subject(that I've happened upon) kind of lack that metaphorical connective tissue. I love the direct quotes with proper notation transitioning to context & observation. Thank you for your academic efforts, & a bigger thank you from myself & all the other autistic people that consider this comfort TV.
Drachinfiel is actually how I found you. Both great channels.
This is one of the best video from your channel. So much clear, precise information in less than half an hour. 👍⭐️👍⭐️👍⭐️
Glad it was helpful!
Thank you! I have always wanted this breakdown also. Particularly for the 'Cruiser' class
they're complicated. some carry big gun, some carry smaller gun, some even carry planes XD
Thank you for putting in all the work to make this presentation. You bring a lot of clarity through your organization and use of categories to sort out classes. I see that names of types are mostly just labels of convenience - or sometimes a subterfuge.
That was excellent. The Fletcher was always one of my favourites, and I am fortunate to have been on one of the three to survive -- USS The Sullivans DD-537 in Buffalo NY.
Arguably the best destroyer of the war. When were you on?
@@Rokaize Johnston would like to have a word with you about best DD
@@chrisb7198 I’m talking about the Fletcher class of destroyer.
@@Rokaize my apologies I miss understood your post.
"So it should be a flying cruiser..." I mean, the French built a submersible heavy cruiser. Is a flying cruiser really so outlandish?
The problem is they're not great at repelling firepower.... ruclips.net/video/305-tQfowis/видео.html
@@netherpixel3541 it seems more like a submarine with aircraft than a submersible carrier.
I read somewhere, many many years ago, that the "V" was for "heavier than air", because the US Navy also operated dirigibles and blimps for some time. Thus the squadrons are VF, VA, etc (and VMF, VMA for Marine squadrons); dirigibles and blimp squadrons had a different letter for "lighter than air" (which I do not remember now) and I doubt there were ever any Marine blimp squadrons.
Hon hon hon! Notre submersible is a cruiser! Zat way, we will outtank ze U-boats! Le genius is palpable ere.
2:07 "...was comissioned in world war one"
Subtitles: was comissioned in *Bababang*
lol
thanks for writing and saying the naval strategy quote
i asked a few videos ago and never found out, thx
Sometimes this dudes accent throws me off. I was trying to figure out what _ship long tongs_ were...
_It's ship long tons_
then again I'm sure my German would be 10x worse so who am I to criticize?
3:35 Minecraft
"aka USS Flamethrower" XD Someone must have played WoWs
Another book that is a nice reference to all the ships of WWII is Richard Worth's "Fleets of WWII". It does not go in depth on every ship, but it presents EVERY ship and class in a few cogent points. It details changes and also fates of some of the individual ships. It has very few photos, but one of it's better points is its prose. It is a delight to read at times, and since it is not the kind of book you read cover-to-cover, but rather use as quick reference, there are some gems in there.
If you like to play grand strategy games like Hearts of Iron, it can really help give you a grasp of what every country actually developed and built before and during WWII, so you can make the right building plan for your navy, whether you want to half-ass your navy, build a historical one, or try to buff it a bit compared to the historical one.
This is my favourite topic! I love WW2 ships, they are beautiful.
The Yamatos especially. The Soviet/Russian Kirov class battlecruisers are too.
Escorts carrier = CVE not CE
Astir01 what about small?
Yeah... CE would be an escort cruiser, wouldn't it?
@@b-chroniumproductions3177 not sure as CL and CA are light and heavy cruiser
@@teacoffee5847 L means light and A means heavy, V means aviation (derived from the french for 'to fly' I believe). There are other suffixes too, iirc B means "large", so a CB is a large cruiser (very rare thanks to treaty regulations which would just classify it as a battleship).
@@b-chroniumproductions3177 i knew the V, A and L i didnt know there was more prefixes than that! Everyday is a school day!
3:00 small mistake yamato had 46 cm guns not 45 ;)
Also s/zuikako/zuikaku/
There is Drachifinel, but I also recommend another great youtuber, navyreviewer and yes it's all in one word.
Great as always. Thank you for taking the time and effort to keep doing this.
Thanks for making this video it was a really good video
The most German disclaimer ever! "They do not specify which kind of tons" I love it!
Battleships were also used as a "fleet in being". Pretty much a deterrent to certain areas for fear of losing ships. More psychological then anything else. Bismarck's sister ship Tirpitz is famous for this. It did next to nothing in it's intended role and aside from a few commerce raids it sat in a fjord in Norway for most of the war. But just knowing it was in the area was enough for the British to divert supplies and troops to attempt to sink it even though Germany had no plans to move or use it in its intended war knowing it would just be sunk
*I can’t believe they made TNT from Minecraft into a real thing!*
I absolutely love the content you make, such a shame i did not see this channel before now...
subbed, liked, headbutted that bell button
Clevelands did not have dual purpose main batteries, most pre-war and WWII cruisers did not have DP main batteries. The post war Worcester class was the first (and only) USN 6" Mk16 DP armed cruiser, and even that used a special dual gun turret because of accuracy issues with the triple turrets on the non DP Mk 16s. During the war , the main exceptions were the Royal Navies Dido class and the US Navy Atlanta class, maybe some other class from other navies that I dont know.
listening to the whole video clearly helps:
"One key aspect of some - yet not all - light cruiser was the use of dual-purpose guns as their main armament that allowed them to engage both surface targets and aircraft with their main batteries. Yet, although nearly all Navies tried this, few of them were successful until late and post-war."
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized I understand, I did watch the whole video, but what I'm trying to say is that it is confusing - you state that "a key aspect" is that "only some" cruisers had dual purpose batteries, of which "few were successful until late and post-war", which is not really logical in my opinion - a key feature that only some cruisers had and barely any were good at.
At the same time you are giving an example of a ship, who did in no way have a dual purpose main battery, neither in theory nor in practice. Neither did any of the 39 ships built in the Brooklyn/St. Louis/Cleveland/Fargo lineage that you use as an example of Light Cruisers, or any of the comparable classes from other countries (e.g. the Town Class, Emile Bertin/La Galissonnière class, Condottieri class).
Basically I feel that stating that a key aspect of light cruisers during the Second World War is having dual purpose batteries is not really correct. And this is really just constructive criticism, I trust your research, but I just feel that you might have formulated that point a bit confusingly.
yeah, it was not the best of wording.
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized well, you are German, than you should know that even the German heavy cruisers have amunition ( timefuzed HE shells ) they were able to shoot against aircraft. Also the US heavy cruisers. I saw one document, where survivor from Princ Eugen was describing how were they using their 20,3cm guns in AA role. But yes, it was very rare... The firecontrol was not suited for them.
@Kristof Kolumbus: first I am Austrian, second I don't care what you think I "should know" according to my background, which you have clearly no knowledge about. So maybe do your own homework before you throw around "you should".
40 hours.. woo.. thanks for this video we all wanted but didn't know we wanted..
actually 50 after everything was done and the Deep Version added as well. Not counting Justin's work time btw.
Fantastic video. Really nice work.
Glad you mentioned the Cleveland Class. My Grandfather served aboard CL-57 USS Montpelier in WW2.
I like that the question is answered almost immidiately in the video, satisfying my curiosity instantly
Thanks for making this types of videos,would like to see more of this ww2 videos😁
Well done video, learned lots.
that was me who asked for a video like this! thank you!
Time What Is Time
I have to ask, would you do one for military formations? Companies, battalions, divisions, etc?
Hmmm I will think about it.
Well done Bernard! I now embarke on the vision of the longer one
Just a slight typo with the demonstration statistics. The guns say 9 x 45 cm (18.1 in) when the 18.1' guns on the Yamato class we're actually 46cm
Very amazing and intriguing video . My favorite is the battle cruiser and heavy cruiser class . I also want to add that someone actually used minecraft as a serious word
"Who needs a cruiser when you have HEAVY CRUISERS AMIRITE?"
- Tankfish
Also large cruisers weren't mentioned to but. Given how rare they were i can understand why they weren't mentioned to much. As they were a strange class. They interesting none the less but were to big to be a standard Heavy cruiser. But not large enough for to be a Battle cruiser these were the German Graf Spee pocket battle ships and the American Alaska class . Also the Flower Class corvettes were the smallest of the destroyer escort class but could still fit in that category as they to large and slow for a patrol boat class which is are coastal defense vessels and are not classified as warship class. I am sure most people know this already but just to anyone who may not know.
The Cleveland Class aka The Flamethrower class. Ah I see, you play WoWs as well.
Me and the boys setting enemy ships on fire
Thanks for the good content as always.if you do a WW1 and a modern version it would be amazing
as a Canadian I have to ask about corvettes, the ship that was used to win the battle of the Atlantic
daDuke42 to dam small and we don’t get credit for anything
5th largest navy by the end of the war doesn't sound to small to me
daDuke42 also we don’t get credit for anything and we’re to polite to take credit hell ive met people who think Canada didn’t even serve in ww2
Well they were cheap, slow, but freed Destroyers, and Cruisers to other duties. 16 knots, 1 4" gun, but they had depth charges. They were good for what they were built for. Cheap convoy escorts.
leftcoaster67 they also had hedgehogs and I’ve been on one of there really small
It might be pointed out that the British had a different definition of what a battle-cruiser was, it was based on speed. For Jutland type battleruisers this was obtained by sacrificing armor. That doesn't mean they were battlecruisers because they were lightly armored. They were BC's because they were fast. Hood was a different breed and its design was changed drastically after Jutland. She sacrificed displacement instead of armor. She had the same protection and guns as the Queen Elizabeth class but was MUCH longer and weighed a lot more. The British had no concept of a fast battleship so kept the nomenclature of battlecruiser for her. She is almost in the same boat (see what i did there) as the Scharnhorst class where they were improperly called battlecruisers though they had superb armor.
There was a book written named, "Dreadnought". I don't remember the author at this time. According to the book Battlecruisers were invented by the British before World War 1 because, according to their naval planners, commerce raiding heavy cruisers were the main thread to British supply lines. The Battlecruisers were faster and better armed than heavy cruisers (12" guns vs 8" guns). The speed of the battlecruiser would allow the interception of heavy cruisers and the ability to stay out of range of the shorter range of the heavy cruiser main armament. At the same time the 12" guns, which out ranged the heavy cruisers, could pound them to pieces.
Once the first world war began the battlecruiser fought in three different roles:
1. Against commerce raiding heavy cruisers - example - Battle of the Falklands. The British battlecruisers sunk and entire squadron of German cruisers with little or no loss. This was the mission they were designed for.
2. Raids, such as against the flemish coast - their speed could get them out of trouble from land based artillery and they could and did some decent damage.
3. Main battle line - In the battle of Jutland they ended up engaging the German high seas fleet. Unlike the battleships the battlecruisers ended up blowing up spectacularly and sinking with almost all hands. This was NOT the mission they were designed for.
I heard about the British designation for Battlecruiser which had more to do with speed, hence the heavier armor of Hood, etc. My examples came from that book, which ended its history with the beginning of the first world war. I suspect that, if the book was correct about designs before the war, the definitions will have evolved during and after the war. The book is interesting reading but, out of around 15 or so chapters there were only 2 which dealt with "nuts and bolts" and the rest of the book was politics and personalities.
In US Navy the V in CV stands for "heavier than air" or at least it did prior to and in WWII.
Dan McCarthy and that is why US Navy carriers can’t fly
Book used but not harmed! LOL! I I enjoy your channel and Drachinifel! Keep up the great work!!! PS. A good follow up would be one the Buckley class would be: USS England DE-635.
It's very nice and thorough.
Best class? Minecraft
Strike Force? Aircraft Carriers
Hotel? Yamato
The US did in fact make a class of DEs capable of some level of fleet engagement. They were armed with two 5 inch destroyer guns, and a triple torpedo launcher for anti surface engagements. The only instance where they served in this role with any degree of importance was the battle of Samar. 6 Jeep carriers and their screen of 3 destroyers and 4 DEs were attacked by a Japanese surface fleet of 4 battleships (including Yamato), 2 light cruisers, 12 destroyers, and 4-5 heavy cruisers. The DEs served admirably, with one providing smoke for the carriers throughout the whole battle, two launching torpedoes and engaging with guns before returning to the carriers to provide smoke, and one, the USS Samuel B. Roberts charging the enemy battle line with the friendly destroyers and engaging the Japanese heavy squadrons with guns and torpedoes. The Roberts scored one confirmed torpedo hit on a heavy cruiser, and shredded the superstructure of another apart with her guns. She was not hit once until the Japanese battleship Haruna came to help the Japanese cruisers losing a fight with a goddamn DE. The Haruna’s first salvo of 14 inchers hit the Roberts, but did not sink her. She continued to fire until her forward turret was knocked out and her aft turret blew up because it got so hot in there that the ammo blew up in the breach. There were only 2 shells left to fire when this happened. Captain Copland and his XO, Bob Roberts (the brother of the ship’s namesake) decided to abandon ship, as she had 0 operational weapons of any kind left to fire at the enemy and had her propulsion knocked out. In total, the US lost 1 DE, 2 destroyers, and one Jeep carrier in the battle, and despite being outgunned, slower, smaller, and unprepared, the Americans took the day and won the most improbable victory of the pacific war.
they were still not meant to fend off a serious force, and in that battle, they practically threw their lives away to save the carriers after the main US force moved to attack where the main japanese fleet was believed to be. the fact that Taffy 3 was suddenly in danger forced the DEs and DDs left to protect from minor threats and air attack to give the CVEs time to run like hell, a nearly impossible task for both groups (DD/DE and CVE) to do, but managed due to the relentlessness of the american planes (continuing to attack even AFTER running out of ammo meant for ground support not ship attack), poor decisions from the Japanese admiral, and the ferocity of the ships convincing the japanese that they were facing a much larger and more powerful force. by all rights, once the destroyers were sunk or disabled, the carriers should have been annihilated. just one more missed chance by the japanese to do something meaningful squandered.
also, 2 cves were lost, one as a sacrifice to buy time, one to a kamikaze
Small math error Battlecruiser 100mm deck = 4" not 3".
What's up US Navy, US Military?
Very Manly & Very Charming
I highly admire brave souls.
GodSpeed
Yeah Drachinifel!
i spotted a simple but important mistake, on the armament section at 0:41 on the video you say 9 x 45 cm (18.1 in) which is wrong, 18.1 is 46 cm or 460mm, while 45cm naval guns are 18in or 457mm the difference is small but noticeable.
(sorry for bad english)
I hate it when modern navies cut short the speed of the ships to below 30 knots...
just an OCD.
Would be nice to have another episode on support ships: Logistical, amphibious warfare, and, my favorite, the floating dry docks.
As cruisers could be on detached duty far from support, cruisers had fairly substantial repair facilities on board. That is, they had machine shops that could create many parts.
Where I live, Deestroyer escorts are actually called Frigates in an offical term
Are there any collaborations between this channel and Drach?
Light Cruisers also engaged in anti-submarine activity as well during WW2.
This was well done.
Coming back to this video, it might be nice to one day make a video about the Italian navy and its role in the Mediterranean overall. Most of the time we only hear about Taranto, but it might be a good example of a Fleet in Being for your videos.
Like always Great video! Good Work!
AFAIK, not a single Casablanca class carrier was used as escort carrier. That were the previous designs, which were very important for convoy duty. The Casablancas turned out so well that the navy used them, and the old slow Battleships, to provide cover and support for the amphibious invasion fleets. This freed up the bigger fast carriers.
What an amazing and helpfull video!!!
Glad you think so!
Thanks dude
Build an entire Navy design
the battleships "short code" is BB and its making me think of death stranding
Well done here with these generally fair and accurate insights into our historical 20th century naval vessels. They will be a valuable asset for history students and , personally, a glorious nostalgic asset regarding my grandfather. Stay well and keep them flowing my friend. Dave, Cambridge.
Oh shit you recommended Drachefinel? Man thats really surprising to me. I watch all his videos and didn't know you knew him as he is kind of unknown.
left a comment on his Tosa video lately.
Great video :) HMS Hood isn't a very good example of a Battlecruiser because it was much more heavily armored and more heavily armed than most Battlecruiser. HMS Renown would have been a better example as it had 3 inches less belt armer and 2 less main guns that battle ships built at the same time :)
thank you!
3:29 Notch was alive in WW2!?
And he was top
always has been
Awesome video!
The Battleships at Pearl were not the primary target. The new cruisers had higher priority but the pilots went for the battleships for glory as far as I remember. One of the reasons the attack is widely considered a failure.
love your videos soooo muchhhh
What’s my favorite Battleship class?
* THE ALMIGHTY MINEBLOX CLASS*
Are you planning to make a video on the naval warfare in the mediterranean?
the correct designator for an escort carrier is CVE and for a destroyer escort it is DDE
Yamato be like
.
.
.
.
.
Hotel じゃありません。。。。
Hotel Ja Arimasen... is it right...???
plus I can literally hear her voice saying that...
Hotel?
Trivago
@@Arelia39 Correct.
In short BBs with beginning of the year 43 becomes big AA gun systems to protect the CVs. The fight ship vs ship was mostly done by CVs or cruisers and destroyer.
Not exclusively. The battleship HMS Duke of York sank the battleship Scharnhorst near the end of 1943, and battleships were used at Leyte Gulf in 1944 by both sides. American battleships sank the Japanese battleship Yamashiro, while other battleships came within a hairsbreadth of directly attacking Japan's last fleet carriers. Some different decisions by Halsey could have seen the Iowas come face to face with Yamato herself. Moreover, British and American battleships were kept stationed in the North Sea in 1944, desperately hoping to engage Tirpitz and finally finish the battleship off.