Not really......all of the battle cruisers that were lost....were due to violations of ammo handling ......even doing things KNOWN to be unsafe....since even Napoleonic times
That is simply not true. You can look at post Jutland German designs. The biggest lesson the Germans learned from the biggest naval battle of steam and steal era was WE NEED BIGGER GUNS!!!
Unless of course if by "overgunned cruiser" you mean the cruiser grade hull that will fall apart after a single salvo. Not looking at a certain class of "Large Light Cruisers" in particular.
They were seriously considering burning diesel fuel; yet there steam was generated with coal. That doesn't make any sense. If you're not burning oil, what chance do you have of using diesel fuel
I have a question. Have you noticed those boats that found on pretty much every kind of warship? The ones that are pretty much the size of yachts and found either in boatpocks, places on the deck somewhere or on davits. What are they for? No they're most definately not lifeboats before someone goes "they're obviously lifeboats" considering their size and design for the time (some have whole arse cabs and look quite fancy) and if the various ocean liners have anything to teach us when it comes to lifeboats. That can't be their job. So do you know why warships would carry such boats with them.
It's a little jarring when you use both Imperial and metric as when you describe the British 13.5inch gun then bounce to their shell weight of 600kg. It is just my opinion that German only ever built ONE Battlecruiser, Von Der Tann. From Moltke class forwards the ships which later comprised 1stSG were designed to supplement the battle line which makes them Light Fast Battleships no matter what the Germans (or anyone else) called them. It is what they were designed to do which classifies them.
I used Kg for the shell mass because that's how the Germans compared it to their shells. I consider it inappropriate to individually reclassify ships in comparison to how the operators classified them. The German Navy was in the best position to classify their ships, and that is how the historical record will remain. Modern day opinions do not matter in historical context.
@johnfisher9692 - I appreciate your opinion / analysis of the classifications. ( and agree ) BUT . . . agree with @centralcrossing4732 closing remark, "Modern day opinions do not matter in historical context." Since History books are written by the 'winners' . . . . . ! ( ouch ). take care, rh
@@richardhobbs7107 History books are not written by the winners: It is true that those who win political, military, and economic victories are in a privileged position to promulgate their perspective on the past [1]. The winners get to use their propaganda as a basis for setting policy. But official propaganda is not all of history. It’s only part of it, and historians don’t uncritically accept whatever is put in front of them. No matter what the winners present to the public, there are always internal documents which can tell a different source. For example, the laudatory inscriptions may say that Emperor Foo conquered the province of Absurdistan and established peace and prosperity for all. But the tax records in Foo’s chancery may indicate a lack of Absurdistani revenue and poor receipts for the rest of the empire, and private letters from troops (or their officers, at any rate) might lament endless fighting in Absurdistan. Or in the case of this video, Tirpitz own statements. The allies didn't make up what was said by individuals on the losing side. Moreover, the losing side rarely just vanishes. Though their versions of history aren’t necessarily circulated as widely, there’s still going to be a minority talking among themselves, grumbling about the circumstances of the conflict, how the other side cheated, and so on. Indeed, there are notable cases of losers writing history with dire consequences for the future. In the US, certain southerners invented the Lost Cause myth, pretending that the Civil War was a noble struggle for the abstract principle of states’ rights rather than treason and a defense of slavery, leading to things like the rise of the Klan and, to this day, people openly flying Confederate flags. And in Germany, the losers of WWI invented the myth of the “stab in the back,” the idea that Germans were betrayed by internal enemies like socialists and Jews. There is, naturally, a direct line from that to WWII and the Holocaust. And, of course, there’s archaeological evidence. Physical remains don’t care who won or lost and will reflect various economic and cultural trends regardless of what the “winners” want people to believe. So, then, the problem here is basically a naive view of history. It assumes that the only sources of history are official sources, and it ignores the many, many other kinds of other sources historians use and how they approach them. We also overlook that historians exist in the nations that lost. They subsequently research and publish their findings on the topic (that's actually how I got a lot of information for this video). They follow the same rational approach that historians in the victorious nations do, and I often find that their research mirrors one another, the same conclusions are drawn. (Credit to most of this comment goes to Matt Riggssby)
Longitudinal frames were a huge advance in shipbuilding.
Thanks for posting!
Germany's best battlecruiser class to see service!
At that time at least, it was better to be an underarmed fast battleship, than an overgunned cruiser.
Not really......all of the battle cruisers that were lost....were due to violations of ammo handling ......even doing things KNOWN to be unsafe....since even Napoleonic times
That is simply not true. You can look at post Jutland German designs. The biggest lesson the Germans learned from the biggest naval battle of steam and steal era was WE NEED BIGGER GUNS!!!
Unless of course if by "overgunned cruiser" you mean the cruiser grade hull that will fall apart after a single salvo. Not looking at a certain class of "Large Light Cruisers" in particular.
You always have the best topics, keep bringing us even more surprises!
Take care, and all the best.
For one of those Navy building programs about that time, the Kaiser said they had to get the cost past millions of bad tempered German farmers. 😂
You never fail to bring us obscure yet fascinating information. Thank you for that!
Totally agree, well said.
Lol.. to show the propellers properly he used a picture of her capsized and being towed to scrap.. absolutely hillarious
The flinger of derf
The term 'coal' is doing a lot of lifting there
They were seriously considering burning diesel fuel; yet there steam was generated with coal. That doesn't make any sense. If you're not burning oil, what chance do you have of using diesel fuel
I have a question.
Have you noticed those boats that found on pretty much every kind of warship? The ones that are pretty much the size of yachts and found either in boatpocks, places on the deck somewhere or on davits. What are they for?
No they're most definately not lifeboats before someone goes "they're obviously lifeboats" considering their size and design for the time (some have whole arse cabs and look quite fancy) and if the various ocean liners have anything to teach us when it comes to lifeboats. That can't be their job. So do you know why warships would carry such boats with them.
Why Tirpitz still wanted small guns...it was obvious that every paramater of capital warships was increasing
Because he believed that combat would happen at 10,0000 meters or less.
Where the superior rate of fire of the 20.8 cm gun would be decisive
@@jamesricker3997 But armor was also increasing in thickness and quality
It's a little jarring when you use both Imperial and metric as when you describe the British 13.5inch gun then bounce to their shell weight of 600kg.
It is just my opinion that German only ever built ONE Battlecruiser, Von Der Tann.
From Moltke class forwards the ships which later comprised 1stSG were designed to supplement the battle line which makes them Light Fast Battleships no matter what the Germans (or anyone else) called them. It is what they were designed to do which classifies them.
I used Kg for the shell mass because that's how the Germans compared it to their shells.
I consider it inappropriate to individually reclassify ships in comparison to how the operators classified them. The German Navy was in the best position to classify their ships, and that is how the historical record will remain. Modern day opinions do not matter in historical context.
@johnfisher9692 - I appreciate your opinion / analysis of the classifications. ( and agree )
BUT . . . agree with @centralcrossing4732 closing remark, "Modern day opinions do not matter in historical context." Since History books are written by the 'winners' . . . . . ! ( ouch ).
take care, rh
@@richardhobbs7107 History books are not written by the winners:
It is true that those who win political, military, and economic victories are in a privileged position to promulgate their perspective on the past [1]. The winners get to use their propaganda as a basis for setting policy.
But official propaganda is not all of history. It’s only part of it, and historians don’t uncritically accept whatever is put in front of them. No matter what the winners present to the public, there are always internal documents which can tell a different source. For example, the laudatory inscriptions may say that Emperor Foo conquered the province of Absurdistan and established peace and prosperity for all. But the tax records in Foo’s chancery may indicate a lack of Absurdistani revenue and poor receipts for the rest of the empire, and private letters from troops (or their officers, at any rate) might lament endless fighting in Absurdistan.
Or in the case of this video, Tirpitz own statements. The allies didn't make up what was said by individuals on the losing side.
Moreover, the losing side rarely just vanishes. Though their versions of history aren’t necessarily circulated as widely, there’s still going to be a minority talking among themselves, grumbling about the circumstances of the conflict, how the other side cheated, and so on. Indeed, there are notable cases of losers writing history with dire consequences for the future. In the US, certain southerners invented the Lost Cause myth, pretending that the Civil War was a noble struggle for the abstract principle of states’ rights rather than treason and a defense of slavery, leading to things like the rise of the Klan and, to this day, people openly flying Confederate flags. And in Germany, the losers of WWI invented the myth of the “stab in the back,” the idea that Germans were betrayed by internal enemies like socialists and Jews. There is, naturally, a direct line from that to WWII and the Holocaust.
And, of course, there’s archaeological evidence. Physical remains don’t care who won or lost and will reflect various economic and cultural trends regardless of what the “winners” want people to believe.
So, then, the problem here is basically a naive view of history. It assumes that the only sources of history are official sources, and it ignores the many, many other kinds of other sources historians use and how they approach them.
We also overlook that historians exist in the nations that lost. They subsequently research and publish their findings on the topic (that's actually how I got a lot of information for this video). They follow the same rational approach that historians in the victorious nations do, and I often find that their research mirrors one another, the same conclusions are drawn.
(Credit to most of this comment goes to Matt Riggssby)
Nothing like the Bismarck and turpitz battle ship
That was a class of battle ships of a later generation though
Tirpitz!
Those were based on the Byran class battleship
@@jamesricker3997 " Bayern class "