I really love the nicknames that the British sailors gave these three ships HMS Furious = Spurious: HMS Courageous = Outragous and HMS Glorious = Uproarious... All thouroughly deserved.
One wonders how somebody with such a detached grasp of reality can actually be promoted to 1st Sea Lord. All kidding aside, could the British leadership of that era really have been that stupid? What the hell was he thinking, if at all? And which numbnuts put him in charge?
@@mikearmstrong8483 The British Empire hadn't faced an existential threat since Napoleon. They were the richest and most powerful nation on earth, so no-one was stupid enough to fight them in a total war; which meant that practical combat experiance was very lacking. All this culminated in a bunch of old men, (often promoted based on how clean their ships were) trying to work out what to do with very rapidly evolving technology. This is the reason, not the excuse for the lack of common sense.
@@josephlongbone4255 Earlier in his career, Fisher was the first captain of the turreted ironclad Inflexible, which had two masts mainly for signaling and lookout, and tradition as much as practicality. To quote naval historian and author Anthony Preston: "...Fisher, having worked his men up to fighting efficiency, then turned them to drilling aloft. And only when the most modern steam-powered battleship in the world could shift a topsail quicker than her squadron-mates was she judged to be efficient."
Totally lol. Imagine a premium furious with a single 18 inch gun + all the smaller ones as secondaries. These would be hilarious ships to play. Actually id love to have these at tier 7 lets say with furious having her 2 18 inch guns. That would be absolutely hilarious
I thought exactly the same thing when I saw my first pics of the new Hyuga. It's a frigging carrier. The JSDF Naval blokes assured us it could "never" operate fixed wing . . . which it now magically can. Wow! Those kami are really tricky!
Circumventing naval treaties, restrictions and your own government to build capital ships you aren't supposed to have is a long and time honored tradition, from the Courageous to the Panzerschiffs to the "aircraft destroyers" of the JSDF.
For one thing I don't buy into the Baltic scheme being serious. Having the Kiel canal, German navy could always respond to such an invasion in force and, together with army intervention, defeat it - even if the climatic battle happened to be unsuccessful: the brigdehead supply route would be the perfect target for submarines. I suspect that the whole scheme was really just a misinformation campaign made to hopefully trick the Germans into wasting their limited resources on shore defenses in Pomerania (laying naval mines and building coastal batteries that could otherwise be used for offensive mining and on the Western front respectively). And that these 3 relatively inexpensive ships were built mostly just to add substance to the deception.
I'm afraid not, Fisher was fucking nuts. This is well documented. Thankfully those resources went into Gallipoli which was a much cheaper option and actually had a chance of success (if the British had moved faster with the troops)
Sir Fisher is indeed wanna them to be a "large light cruiser". Her armor could be way more tooooooooooooooooo thin even for a battlecruiser, but still thicky for enemy light cruisers and considerable for heavy cruisers. With the same shallow draught and equal(even faster) speed, she can chase them to the ends of the sea(quite literally since the shallow draught is intend to opreated as a monitor) and blow them to hell with the 15 inch cannons. They are indeed inexpensive ship but still equals to about 1.5-1.6x Hawkins Class, to believe a ship with such a cost will be just a decetion is ridiculous. However, from another perspective - 50% extra cost to have the same armor, equal or higher speed, addition with far more superior range (ridiculously 18kt/10,000nm and 20kt/6,000nm, if they can survived in WWII as battlecruiser no doubt they can chase the annoying Deutschland-Class more efficiency) ,seaworthiness, and four 15 inch cannon that will let all captains of enemy cruisers pissed in their pants, it's obviously far more cost-effective than Hawkins and most of Heavy Cruiser or so-called "large/super cruiser".(Yeah Alaska i m diss you, how can you get 70% of cost of a Iowa with poor 12 inch guns?) I would rather that when the Washington Naval Treaty was signed, the restricted so-called "heavy cruisers" were these "Outrageous-Class" things instead of those 10k ton, literally "large light cruisers".
@@jeffery7281 Glad to see someone else noticed, these are just the British equivalent to the USS Alaska, just 25 years earlier and much cheaper. Unfairly disparaged imo.
I’m willing to bet that they were looking at Furious in its “most heavily armed aircraft carrier” incarnation when the clause about aircraft carrier armament went into the Washington Naval Treaty
Almost certainly, considering the British were the sole party with modern flat-topped aircraft carriers as we'd know them today at the outset of negotiations.
For years, I thought these ships were astoundingly ludicrous. Now? I am not so sure. Basically, they were huge, fast monitors. Designed to shell Northern Germany if the British/Russians landed troops there. And if you compare them to British Monitors of the time? They are a little more than double the displacement - with double the main guns. And a heck of a lot faster. Though with far inferior torpedo protection. (same with the Furious as almost built) Clearly, they were a waste of money in their original role as the planned amphibious landings never occurred. And they were ill-suited to battlecruiser duties. But I at least, now, get what Fisher was thinking when he asked for these ships.
The answer to a question nobody asked a capital ship sized ship with for 15in guns and 3 in of belt armor which might just keep you safe from an early tank from the second world war. And then if this wasn't bad enough they were so structurally light they needed reinforcements then to add insult to injury they were damaged by the muzzle blast from their own guns. These ships were probably the moment Jackie Fisher jumped the shark
Drach didn't quite get Fischer's strategy for these ships quite right, but they were obviously somewhat problematical in design and manufacture. All the strange alterations after not in the original design were, of course, very stupid, but such was life among the majority of most leading Naval authorities of the time. But it is somewhat of a testament to the foresight of Fischer that these hulls all later became the leading edge of naval technology in their day. Venture nothing, gain nothing. Fischer was most certainly not an idiot concerning naval strategy as was Churchill, but his advanced ideas needed people to use them in an intelligent fashion, and such were obviously far and few between in the British Navy. Gut one could argue that had Beatty used the Fischer's battlecruisers properly, not only would he not have lost any of them, but the Germans might well have simply turned tail and run home before the Grand Fleet had even a chance catch them. Ironically too, the Navy's habit of ignoring safety regulations on the handling of shells and powder would not have presented a problem if the battle cruisers were actually used as intended by Fischer, though I can't say whether or not Fischer would really have approved of ignoring all safety procedures as was done at the time.
Fisher's ultimate vision was, the battlecruiser - heavies like the Hood, and lights like the Renown and Courageous - will eventually replaced any cruisers and even battleships. In his opinion, if we don't consider carriers that appeared later (he even foreseed that naval aviation forces will changed the situation of naval warfare in middle 1910s) , there will be only two types of warships in the future navies - destroyers and battlecruisers. And, as we know, WWII proved that he's right.
Rather than being conceived for the Baltic expedition there is another "theory" that they would act as scouting cruisers for the main battle fleet as their size would allow them to maintain high speed in severe North Sea weather which would often prove to be an impediment to the existing classes of cruisers. I have always found this view to be more credible. Peter Baillie
@@ericamborsky3230 Yeah... it's like a "battlecruiser of battlecruiser". Besides, a fully well-armored battlecruiser will be very costly equal or even more expensive than battleships - Hood spent over 6 million pounds. A "simplified" battlecruiser, with reducing armor and number of turrets, design only for high-speed scout, pursuit and interception - such a "light battlecruiser" will be far more cheaper, in fact even close to heavy cruiser - the Renown Class cost only slightly less than 3 million pound each, half of the Hood and about two of Hawkins-Class heavy cruiser. Despite Renown and Repulse plus together might no equals to a Hood, any of her will obviously superior than two heavy cruisers - no matter which heavy cruisers. Courageous is a further step on this route, and Fisher's ultimate vision was the battlecruiser - heavies and lights - will eventually replaced any cruisers. In his opinion, if we don't consider carriers that appeared later, there will be only two types of warships in the future navies - destroyers and battlecruisers. WWII proved that he's right.
What impresses me is that prior to 1908 The Royal Navy was noted for being very conservative until Fisher became admiral. Fisher inspired those under him to think outside the box and thus the HMS Dreadnought and the whole range of battle cruisers. So it was that we see some very strange ships being built. At this time no one really knew just what would be the perfect aircraft carrier, since there were very few aeronautic engineers in the world at the time. But as their experience increased the RN eventually got it right and the rest of the world followed suit.
The American's invented naval aviation. They were the first to take off and land on a ship. They invented and used the tail hook for the first landing on a ship. The American's were the first to use a Landing Signals Officer. Clearly the world followed the American's. The British gained a slight advantage but only for a very short period. The American's had learned much from the Langley. With the Lexington class aircraft carriers, 1927, the American's started building the largest aircraft carriers and during WW2 the American's dominated the world with the most powerful and most numerous carriers of any nation.
@@chopchop7938 The first aircraft which took off from a ship, HMS Hibernia, and would have landed on an Irish American carrier had the island of saints not got in the way of landing the scholarship.
@@RSPYC Don't say dumb things or bring modern politics into this stuff, Jackie Fisher while slightly insane was an intelligent man, he envisioned the Dreadnought and lived in an age when naval warfare was rapidly changing and evolving. He had the patronage and support needed to see his building plans carried through and it is because of him that the RN was able to holds its position as one of the world's premiere navies.
adam dubin Was there some vicious rivalry between Fisher and the other admirals on the level of tabloids today . Ie I heard Fisher a little short guy was a womanizer during the war .
I dont even want to know if it ever fired either of those 18" guns...the recoil would have capsized it if they fired on the same side...that or simply tore the ship apart...
Just remember is it weren't for Courageous and Glorious we would not have gotten HMS Vanguard, a very well built battleship. Once more Jackie Fisher proving that the Royal Navy is in reality his navy...
Vanguard was not outdated when launched, in the early 50s battleships had a real but declining use and using the guns from old ships was price effective as hell
If they would have built these 3 ships with say, 4 dubbel turrets with 12" guns then they should at least be able to hit someting. Perhaps "the ultimate cruiser killer", the Alaska class of WW1......?!
The reason of only 4x 15 inchs instead of more guns with smaller caliber is because the Courageous is design to pursuit enemy's high-speed ships. When you're in pursuit, the number of cannons doesn't very important, because of two things: First, due to the layout of main batteries, most of cruisers/battleships are in fact can not firing more than two main turrets to attack enemy ships in pursuit, unless you're G3/I3 or Nelson. So in this point, 2 turrets w/4 guns won't be a significant cut on firepower. Second, and very obviously one, is anyway you can hardly hit something when you're chasing someone at 30+ knots in rough North Sea. At this point, large caliber shells make sure that if any shell just lucky enough to land on enemy, it will be more promising than smaller cannons to blow them to hell. Further more, if enemy cruisers realized that someone is chasing them with 15 inch cannons, they will definitely not even think of fighting back, because any sane commander would not try to take a bet on the hit rate of the enemy's heavy shells with his/her poor tiny tin can, no matter how poor the rate is.
@@jeffery7281 IIRC, they were only armed with 2 turrets because Jackie fisher only had 6 turrets to utilize. He would've had 8 if Churchill hadn't diverted 2 for the Erebus class monitors. A massive waste if anything.
Wasn't the lack of success of (and consequent ban on) landing on _Furious_ back when it only had the forward flight deck (the configuration that required landing aircraft to sideslip around the superstructure), rather than after the aft flight deck was added?
The ships have similar specifications for different reasons. Under the treaty of Versailles, germany was allowed to keep 6 old pre dreadnought battleships and could replace these with shipd limited to 10,000 tonnes with maximum calibre 11 inch guns. Rather than build, slow battleships, they wanted something more like a cruiser that could be a useful commerce raider and cheated a little on tonnage to get faster ships. The Corageous was designed as a shallow draft light cruiser with guns that could support a proposed amphibious assault on Germany via landings in the north sea. These guns were too unwieldy (slow firing and not enough) to be useful in light cruiser or destroyer battles.
Steven Li The German pocket battleships were a little faster than that. More importantly, because of their diesel engines they could get up to their maximum speed very, very quickly, which meant they could scoot out of harms way when they really needed to.
Yeah, but Deutshland's 11 inch guns are proven to be no so overwhlming when combat with cruisers, which is important to a "semi" or "pocket" battlecruiser. Spee can't sunk any of three british cruisers in the Battle of the River Plate.
Hi, wow! cant wait. lol I have never seen any (German) pics of the coffer dam repair. or any bomb damage pics- . The Tirpitz crew member ( official photographer?) gave sold his collection to usnip. I dont think they have ever released any of them. The salvage pics posted are without explanation and mostly poor quality. I am very curious to see what info/ pics you have found.Which British ships rocked dangerously when firing a broadside? thanks- sam
Everything in the Soviet/Russian Navy is a cruiser. They even call their subs cruisers. The Oscar's are "Atomniy Podvodny Kresery I Ranga (Atomic Powered Cruiser Submarine First Rank)"
Q & A, If you used the all or nothing armor scheme on such a ship, would there be a section in the middle, perhaps containing some of the boilers, which could be left unarmored? and would this cost only speed if damaged? or are boiler explosions too destructive? or is the structure in the middle too critical to prevent breaking the ship in half?
Ships regularly had thinner armour over their machine spaces compared to their magazines. Even the KGVs had 15" armour at the magazines and only 14" for the midsection. However, leaving it entirely without armour would be unfeasible as any hit at all could score a mission kill or start a fire leading to the destruction of the ship.
@@waverleyjournalise5757 makes sense except that thinner armor anywhere would disqualify a ship from the all or nothing armor category, and notably 14" armor over the boilers would certainly prevent a shell from passing out the other side before detonating, which is the purpose of nothing armor.
@@alan6832 All or nothing doesn't mean that every piece of armour aboard is the same thickness - such as the transverse bulkheads and deck armour. It's more important to have better protection at the magazines, but they will save weight where they can.
@@waverleyjournalise5757 Then it is a misnomer All means maximum thickness is English and nothing means no armor. Anything in between is a lie, and foolish since the shell must either be stopped or pass out the other side, though there might be a legitimate issue with shells from secondary armament, it is still a lie.
Yeah, considering that "Furious" basically had no armor, structurally speaking, I would guess they were probably terrified to fire that 18" gun! Idk but it seems to me if they had tried to fire off a broadside instead of just firing while retreating they maybe could have TORN THE SHIP IN HALF. If you consider that "Courageous" had structural damage due to a storm. It's strange to think what firing off 4 15" guns would actually do. And it actually makes me wonder. Let's say "Courageous" just so happened to end up with an enemy ship on each side with the front 2x15" guns firing to starboard & the aft 2x15" guns firing to port. NOW, if both guns fired a salvo at the same time, would the ship have been torn in two? And if not actually TORN, then totally warped the structure of the ship? I mean, idk, did they actually have any kind of test or guidelines back then to let them know what a structure could take?
In order, the HMS Invincible of the 1980s (built for a pseudo-cruiser role but a light aircraft carrier to anyone with eyes), and JDS Hyuga, the Japanese "helicopter destroyer" (it's a light aircraft carrier, but since Japan's constitution forbids building anything larger than destroyers they have to call it that and until recently had to swear up and down it couldn't operate fixed-wing aircraft).
@@InchonDM Thank you. I'd known about the Japanese sub hunting "Destroyers" but didn't know what the first one was, or the larger one in the second photo. I'm assuming it's the replacement class?
@@snowstalker36 Yep, that would be the JDS Izumo, which is as big in size and displacement as the WW2 Kaga (though much lighter since it's not carrying battleship armor). I misspoke earlier--the Izumos are the ones being potentially converted to fixed-wing capacity, though the Hyugas were also never fooling anyone with being "helicopter destroyers".
we need to start building beautiful ships again.. no more of these "arctic survey" ships, of which they didn't even use the name the public wanted....RIP Boaty MCboatface, you could have been the greatest
It Is the tumblehome, after warships started to be built of iron and steel a tumblehome was probably the least stable firing platform that was properly designed, firing a broadside would see the ship roll like a barrel.
Didn't someone ask Bismarck what he'd do if the British landed their army in Mecklenburg and he said he'd send a policeman around to arrest them? That's why no invasion in Pomerania.
Well, I was thinking? They could have beaten the Japanese idea of a half carrier By all 3 being done as carriers But keep the two 15 inch gun turrets just under the flight deck level so you would have a hybrid carrier/ heavy cruiser design! Ok the two main guns could only fire port or starboard and not front or back? But still this would have been a great chance to have the worlds first set of heavy cruiser carriers. Having the aircraft and the main guns to fight long ranges together! Yes they would have had a half sized hanger because of the two main guns armory and stores, and they would have had to re-design the funnel off the the starboard side making it slim not fat and the bridge would need to be like a carriers. But with a bit of careful work these 3 ships would have been great.
Maybe Lexington is good enough. Replaced the 4x twin 8-inch turret with some 10 or 12 inch things, and, tada! You got a battlecruiser, just cut between the hull and the superstructure then suck a flight deck!
This is the version of RN ships designed, built and operated by the Carry On team. Imagine instead of a toilet factory, they were running a ship yard!!!
Fischer had a plan to open up a new front against Germany with an amphibious operation in the north sea. These ships were intended to support with shore bombardment.
I find this class fascinating, obviously the 15 inch and 18 inch were too big and cumbersome for such light ships, but they were much more successful as aircraft carriers. They would have been very successful using airplanes to provide close support for and invasion in the North Sea. Of course the conversiin came aftr ww1.
@@ONECOUNT They were beautiful ships. But you are right. Given the crude fire control of the day, a small number of slow firing guns are probably not going to be effective in a fast moving cruiser action as was the case in Helgoland.
@@ONECOUNT Britain needed the Washington treaty because the empire was bankrupted by ww1 and could ill afford another expensive arms race immediately after the war to end all wars.. The USA needed the washington treaty because they were building a huge fleet of 1915 vintage designs that did not incorporate the lessons of jutland. Note that in 1921, the British conducted shell trials against the sms baden and later against a caisson representing new armour schemes. They did not share this information with the Americans . All british battleships designed after 1921 contained arguably the best armour protection systems. On the other hand, the Americans were building ships that were obsolete before they left the drawing boards. Putting 12 inch guns onto cruisers would classify them as capital ships. The 12 inch turrets were dated and the rate of fire too slow. I think that the british arrived at their ideal cruiser type when they launched Sheffield with 4 triple 6 inch. This was a well balanced design with reasonable armour and carrying enough firepower to be a threat to a heavy cruiser. You are right that the courageous class should have more guns. Putting 12 inch guns onto cruisers would classify them as capital ships. The 12 inch turrets were dated and the rate of fire too slow. I would suggest that the 7.5 inch used on the Hawkins class but modified with brass casings and rammer in order to speed up the rate of fire. I don't think however that the British really liked the big cruisers. The counties suffered by not having enough armour and were mediocre when compared to their 14000 tonne german, 12000 tonne Italian and 13000 tonne japanese counterparts. On the other hand, British light cruisers were outstanding designs. I think that the british arrived at their ideal cruiser type when they launched Sheffield with 4 triple 6 inch. This was a well balanced design with reasonable armour and carrying enough firepower to be a threat to a heavy cruiser. Imagine if Furious or Argus had been able to go to sea at jutland and fly off a couple of flights of sopwith cuckoo torpedo bombers ( I love the humor of Tom Sopwith ). That battle could have resulted in annihilation of the german fleet if a number of battleships were slowed by torpedo hits.
@@Will_CH1 I think that the Royal Navy had the capability to utilize aviation at Jutland if it had its act together. But that is us with 2020 hindsight we dont take into account the years between the wars perfecting naval aviation. My idea also presupposes that the Admiralty had a clear vision of the future of naval aviation in the 1920s. That the British could steal a march on both the Jaapanese and the Americans.
She would never have been in that situation in the first place if her commanding officer was competent. The visibility was good enough to send up aircraft to check where the enemy was, and he never even tried. Glorious would probably have found the Twins first and left the area too early to even get fired upon if not for that.
@@bkjeong4302 Yea i wasn't really being serious even with 4x15in Guns she would have been in deep do-do, the rate fire of incoming 11in Shells would have decided the outcome unless she had got in telling blows with her first 2-3 Salvos on both ships.
Since Germany 11-inch gun was proven can't even effectively blowed cruisers outta the sea when Spee can't sunk any of three British cruisers in the Battle of the River Plate, and the 29-knot Nels... I mean Renown effectively 'repulsed" Scharnhorst and Gneisanau in North Sea, I'm quite think about that things will be (maybe even totally) different if Glorius was encounted Scharnhorst and Gneisanau as a battlecruiser.
I really love the nicknames that the British sailors gave these three ships HMS Furious = Spurious: HMS Courageous = Outragous and HMS Glorious = Uproarious... All thouroughly deserved.
Iirc, the nicknames Furious, Glorious and Courageous were given by the fleet were, respectively, Spurious, Curious and Outrageous.
@@squirepraggerstope3591 Never heard HMS Glorious refered to as anything but "Uproarious" before. Curious is a new one on me.
@@Kettenhund31There are likely several variations. The one I quoted seems to have been used predominantly to refer to the three together as a class.
@@squirepraggerstope3591 Thank you for the information, sir.
Military personnel have a warped & somewhat dark sense of humor
More appropriate names:
HMS DUBIOUS
HMS LUDICROUS
HMS RIDICULOUS
HMS SUSPICIOUS
or else:
HMS VULNERABLE
HMS COMBUSTIBLE
HMS EXPENDABLE
😂😂😂😂🙈
@@jonathanball8237 Back in the day, they did call her the HMS Curious.
@@lawrencelewis8105 along with HMS Spurious and HMS Outrageous
@@davidpnewton HMS Auspicious
I've read that RN wags referred to them the HMS Spurious and HMS Uproarious.
“This flushdeck cruiser and this destroyer” oh the burn!
Steven Li i
One of the best Drachisms ever :-D
ahh burning wreck
This DesTroYeR...
Flushdeck? Do you mean Throughdeck? You are talking about the Invincible Class right?
"Let's turn these into carriers!"
What about the guns and the funnel? How will the planes land?
"What?"
😂😂😂😂😂
You have to hand it to Fischer: He never failed to entertain.
Entertain insanity that is
Admiral Fisher's ideas
Dreadnought: Great Idea
Invincible: Not a very good idea
Couragous: Yep did not think that one through
Don't forget the fantastic K-class Which achieved nothing other than killing their own submariners.
One wonders how somebody with such a detached grasp of reality can actually be promoted to 1st Sea Lord. All kidding aside, could the British leadership of that era really have been that stupid? What the hell was he thinking, if at all? And which numbnuts put him in charge?
@@mikearmstrong8483 The British Empire hadn't faced an existential threat since Napoleon. They were the richest and most powerful nation on earth, so no-one was stupid enough to fight them in a total war; which meant that practical combat experiance was very lacking.
All this culminated in a bunch of old men, (often promoted based on how clean their ships were) trying to work out what to do with very rapidly evolving technology.
This is the reason, not the excuse for the lack of common sense.
@@josephlongbone4255
Earlier in his career, Fisher was the first captain of the turreted ironclad Inflexible, which had two masts mainly for signaling and lookout, and tradition as much as practicality. To quote naval historian and author Anthony Preston:
"...Fisher, having worked his men up to fighting efficiency, then turned them to drilling aloft. And only when the most modern steam-powered battleship in the world could shift a topsail quicker than her squadron-mates was she judged to be efficient."
@@mikearmstrong8483 wasn't the inflexible the one that had sails with completely no effect as it had 18 inches of solid iron armour?
A ship designed solely by the theory of "Bet I can get this crazy thing built!"
USS Tillma IV And Tillma IV-2 would Like to know your location
Just for comedy value I’d love these ships to be added to World of Warships, particularly Furious in her hybrid carrier form... :-)
Graham Strouse They already have the full refit Furious.
Totally lol. Imagine a premium furious with a single 18 inch gun + all the smaller ones as secondaries. These would be hilarious ships to play. Actually id love to have these at tier 7 lets say with furious having her 2 18 inch guns. That would be absolutely hilarious
@@Kellen6795 2 18" guns at tier 8. seven ripple firing tubes down each side. Give it BB health and a rn heal. Its the anti-smolensk
@@JKSSubstandard That sounds absolutely hilarious! Make sure its got a nice hydro as well.
Nasty portrait of Jackie, my favorite madman!
Ineffective warships perhaps, but oh so very pretty! Naval superiority permits this sort of thing, I suppose!
I thought exactly the same thing when I saw my first pics of the new Hyuga. It's a frigging carrier. The JSDF Naval blokes assured us it could "never" operate fixed wing . . . which it now magically can. Wow! Those kami are really tricky!
Circumventing naval treaties, restrictions and your own government to build capital ships you aren't supposed to have is a long and time honored tradition, from the Courageous to the Panzerschiffs to the "aircraft destroyers" of the JSDF.
@@polygondwanaland8390 Especially for Japan.
For one thing I don't buy into the Baltic scheme being serious. Having the Kiel canal, German navy could always respond to such an invasion in force and, together with army intervention, defeat it - even if the climatic battle happened to be unsuccessful: the brigdehead supply route would be the perfect target for submarines. I suspect that the whole scheme was really just a misinformation campaign made to hopefully trick the Germans into wasting their limited resources on shore defenses in Pomerania (laying naval mines and building coastal batteries that could otherwise be used for offensive mining and on the Western front respectively). And that these 3 relatively inexpensive ships were built mostly just to add substance to the deception.
I'm afraid not, Fisher was fucking nuts. This is well documented. Thankfully those resources went into Gallipoli which was a much cheaper option and actually had a chance of success (if the British had moved faster with the troops)
They could choose to block the Kiel canal by sinking ships inside the canal
Sir Fisher is indeed wanna them to be a "large light cruiser". Her armor could be way more tooooooooooooooooo thin even for a battlecruiser, but still thicky for enemy light cruisers and considerable for heavy cruisers. With the same shallow draught and equal(even faster) speed, she can chase them to the ends of the sea(quite literally since the shallow draught is intend to opreated as a monitor) and blow them to hell with the 15 inch cannons.
They are indeed inexpensive ship but still equals to about 1.5-1.6x Hawkins Class, to believe a ship with such a cost will be just a decetion is ridiculous.
However, from another perspective - 50% extra cost to have the same armor, equal or higher speed, addition with far more superior range (ridiculously 18kt/10,000nm and 20kt/6,000nm, if they can survived in WWII as battlecruiser no doubt they can chase the annoying Deutschland-Class more efficiency) ,seaworthiness, and four 15 inch cannon that will let all captains of enemy cruisers pissed in their pants, it's obviously far more cost-effective than Hawkins and most of Heavy Cruiser or so-called "large/super cruiser".(Yeah Alaska i m diss you, how can you get 70% of cost of a Iowa with poor 12 inch guns?)
I would rather that when the Washington Naval Treaty was signed, the restricted so-called "heavy cruisers" were these "Outrageous-Class" things instead of those 10k ton, literally "large light cruisers".
@@jeffery7281 Glad to see someone else noticed, these are just the British equivalent to the USS Alaska, just 25 years earlier and much cheaper. Unfairly disparaged imo.
@@jeffery7281 Well said
I’m willing to bet that they were looking at Furious in its “most heavily armed aircraft carrier” incarnation when the clause about aircraft carrier armament went into the Washington Naval Treaty
Almost certainly, considering the British were the sole party with modern flat-topped aircraft carriers as we'd know them today at the outset of negotiations.
Thanks again! Just when I REALLY NEED a good laugh. Sometimes you are much better than stand up comedy.
This is easily the funniest of these I've watched yet. The VITRIOL! The disdain!
This little video. I love the dry sense of humor
Your sarcastic humour is brilliant and makes your videos really entertaining. Imformative but fun to watch.
I do so very love your dialog, both informative and humorous.
So, the proper title for this would be: Fun with Tin Foil.
For years, I thought these ships were astoundingly ludicrous.
Now?
I am not so sure.
Basically, they were huge, fast monitors.
Designed to shell Northern Germany if the British/Russians landed troops there.
And if you compare them to British Monitors of the time?
They are a little more than double the displacement - with double the main guns.
And a heck of a lot faster.
Though with far inferior torpedo protection.
(same with the Furious as almost built)
Clearly, they were a waste of money in their original role as the planned amphibious landings never occurred.
And they were ill-suited to battlecruiser duties.
But I at least, now, get what Fisher was thinking when he asked for these ships.
This might actually be funnier in some ways than your "Voyage of the Damned" video XD
The classic "Eggshell armed with Hammers" come to mind Even the Lexingtons would have proper warship grade hulls when converted.
These ships are absolutely obscene. I want one.
The answer to a question nobody asked a capital ship sized ship with for 15in guns and 3 in of belt armor which might just keep you safe from an early tank from the second world war.
And then if this wasn't bad enough they were so structurally light they needed reinforcements then to add insult to injury they were damaged by the muzzle blast from their own guns.
These ships were probably the moment Jackie Fisher jumped the shark
Brilliant Commentary!!!
Drach didn't quite get Fischer's strategy for these ships quite right, but they were obviously somewhat problematical in design and manufacture. All the strange alterations after not in the original design were, of course, very stupid, but such was life among the majority of most leading Naval authorities of the time. But it is somewhat of a testament to the foresight of Fischer that these hulls all later became the leading edge of naval technology in their day. Venture nothing, gain nothing.
Fischer was most certainly not an idiot concerning naval strategy as was Churchill, but his advanced ideas needed people to use them in an intelligent fashion, and such were obviously far and few between in the British Navy. Gut one could argue that had Beatty used the Fischer's battlecruisers properly, not only would he not have lost any of them, but the Germans might well have simply turned tail and run home before the Grand Fleet had even a chance catch them. Ironically too, the Navy's habit of ignoring safety regulations on the handling of shells and powder would not have presented a problem if the battle cruisers were actually used as intended by Fischer, though I can't say whether or not Fischer would really have approved of ignoring all safety procedures as was done at the time.
Fisher's ultimate vision was, the battlecruiser - heavies like the Hood, and lights like the Renown and Courageous - will eventually replaced any cruisers and even battleships. In his opinion, if we don't consider carriers that appeared later (he even foreseed that naval aviation forces will changed the situation of naval warfare in middle 1910s) , there will be only two types of warships in the future navies - destroyers and battlecruisers.
And, as we know, WWII proved that he's right.
I'm surprised these things didn't break up when firing their main batteries.
They came close.
Rather than being conceived for the Baltic expedition there is another "theory" that they would act as scouting cruisers for the main battle fleet as their size would allow them to maintain high speed in severe North Sea weather which would often prove to be an impediment to the existing classes of cruisers. I have always found this view to be more credible.
Peter Baillie
But didn't they already have actual battlecruisers to do just that?
@@ericamborsky3230 Yeah... it's like a "battlecruiser of battlecruiser".
Besides, a fully well-armored battlecruiser will be very costly equal or even more expensive than battleships - Hood spent over 6 million pounds. A "simplified" battlecruiser, with reducing armor and number of turrets, design only for high-speed scout, pursuit and interception - such a "light battlecruiser" will be far more cheaper, in fact even close to heavy cruiser - the Renown Class cost only slightly less than 3 million pound each, half of the Hood and about two of Hawkins-Class heavy cruiser. Despite Renown and Repulse plus together might no equals to a Hood, any of her will obviously superior than two heavy cruisers - no matter which heavy cruisers.
Courageous is a further step on this route, and Fisher's ultimate vision was the battlecruiser - heavies and lights - will eventually replaced any cruisers. In his opinion, if we don't consider carriers that appeared later, there will be only two types of warships in the future navies - destroyers and battlecruisers.
WWII proved that he's right.
What impresses me is that prior to 1908 The Royal Navy was noted for being very conservative until Fisher became admiral. Fisher inspired those under him to think outside the box and thus the HMS Dreadnought and the whole range of battle cruisers. So it was that we see some very strange ships being built. At this time no one really knew just what would be the perfect aircraft carrier, since there were very few aeronautic engineers in the world at the time. But as their experience increased the RN eventually got it right and the rest of the world followed suit.
The American's invented naval aviation. They were the first to take off and land on a ship. They invented and used the tail hook for the first landing on a ship. The American's were the first to use a Landing Signals Officer. Clearly the world followed the American's. The British gained a slight advantage but only for a very short period. The American's had learned much from the Langley. With the Lexington class aircraft carriers, 1927, the American's started building the largest aircraft carriers and during WW2 the American's dominated the world with the most powerful and most numerous carriers of any nation.
Did they fuck.
@@chopchop7938 Pure drivel.
@@chopchop7938 The first aircraft which took off from a ship, HMS Hibernia, and would have landed on an Irish American carrier had the island of saints not got in the way of landing the scholarship.
So, Chop Chop was right?@@robertewing3114
Jackie Fisher was slightly mad. His letters were full of exclamation marks, capital letters and vigorous underlining.
He also knew a bunch of gullible chumps in parliament who were willing to endorse his ideas no matter how crazy they sounded...
ur2c8 He would have loved RUclips comment sections...
A Trump close relative?
@@RSPYC Don't say dumb things or bring modern politics into this stuff, Jackie Fisher while slightly insane was an intelligent man, he envisioned the Dreadnought and lived in an age when naval warfare was rapidly changing and evolving. He had the patronage and support needed to see his building plans carried through and it is because of him that the RN was able to holds its position as one of the world's premiere navies.
adam dubin
Was there some vicious rivalry between Fisher and the other admirals on the level of tabloids today . Ie I heard Fisher a little short guy was a womanizer during the war .
I thought those names were familiar, thank god someone changed then to something useful
The Rodney would be an interesting post. She had a strange gun plan
A little known yet fun side note: these ships are what inspired General Motors in the 1970s to do badge plate engineering.
Aircraft carrier with 1 18 gun
Well chap it fires plane size shells clearly
"things you wouldn't even do in rule the waves"
Clearly designed to win at Top Trumps.
I dont even want to know if it ever fired either of those 18" guns...the recoil would have capsized it if they fired on the same side...that or simply tore the ship apart...
the industrial activity needed to support the creation of these concepts must have been immense.
Just remember is it weren't for Courageous and Glorious we would not have gotten HMS Vanguard, a very well built battleship. Once more Jackie Fisher proving that the Royal Navy is in reality his navy...
Vanguard was obsolete long before launch and a massive waste of money...so the fact these ships led to her existence actually makes them EVEN WORSE.
Vanguard was not outdated when launched, in the early 50s battleships had a real but declining use and using the guns from old ships was price effective as hell
Very good. You packed a lot in.
First Sea Lord Blackadder’s Cunning Plan.
3 inches of armour. For reference, if memory serves that is the same maximum thickness as an Arethusa or Leander class light cruiser.
The thinest parts of the Kongo class battlecruiser’s belt armor was thicker
This Guide still cracks me up!
If they would have built these 3 ships with say, 4 dubbel turrets with 12" guns then they should at least be able to hit someting. Perhaps "the ultimate cruiser killer", the Alaska class of WW1......?!
The reason of only 4x 15 inchs instead of more guns with smaller caliber is because the Courageous is design to pursuit enemy's high-speed ships. When you're in pursuit, the number of cannons doesn't very important, because of two things:
First, due to the layout of main batteries, most of cruisers/battleships are in fact can not firing more than two main turrets to attack enemy ships in pursuit, unless you're G3/I3 or Nelson. So in this point, 2 turrets w/4 guns won't be a significant cut on firepower.
Second, and very obviously one, is anyway you can hardly hit something when you're chasing someone at 30+ knots in rough North Sea. At this point, large caliber shells make sure that if any shell just lucky enough to land on enemy, it will be more promising than smaller cannons to blow them to hell.
Further more, if enemy cruisers realized that someone is chasing them with 15 inch cannons, they will definitely not even think of fighting back, because any sane commander would not try to take a bet on the hit rate of the enemy's heavy shells with his/her poor tiny tin can, no matter how poor the rate is.
@@jeffery7281 IIRC, they were only armed with 2 turrets because Jackie fisher only had 6 turrets to utilize. He would've had 8 if Churchill hadn't diverted 2 for the Erebus class monitors. A massive waste if anything.
I can’t help but see these things as the Deutschlands (AKA “pocket battleships) of WW1
Wasn't the lack of success of (and consequent ban on) landing on _Furious_ back when it only had the forward flight deck (the configuration that required landing aircraft to sideslip around the superstructure), rather than after the aft flight deck was added?
That is probably what inspired the Deutschland Class.
MrArcher7 somehow this is faster than the Deutschland class, which can only do 28 knots (I think)
The ships have similar specifications for different reasons. Under the treaty of Versailles, germany was allowed to keep 6 old pre dreadnought battleships and could replace these with shipd limited to 10,000 tonnes with maximum calibre 11 inch guns. Rather than build, slow battleships, they wanted something more like a cruiser that could be a useful commerce raider and cheated a little on tonnage to get faster ships. The Corageous was designed as a shallow draft light cruiser with guns that could support a proposed amphibious assault on Germany via landings in the north sea. These guns were too unwieldy (slow firing and not enough) to be useful in light cruiser or destroyer battles.
Steven Li The German pocket battleships were a little faster than that. More importantly, because of their diesel engines they could get up to their maximum speed very, very quickly, which meant they could scoot out of harms way when they really needed to.
Yeah, but Deutshland's 11 inch guns are proven to be no so overwhlming when combat with cruisers, which is important to a "semi" or "pocket" battlecruiser. Spee can't sunk any of three british cruisers in the Battle of the River Plate.
@@jeffery7281 she only had 6 of these guns in two turrets, so two cruisers already split her firepower
can you do a video on the japanese submarine that was built to launch an aircraft and then pickup said aircraft and store it
How about doing one on Austro Hungary's Tatra class destroyers of WW I.
its the incredulity of it all. Dammit man.. what were you thinking? You fools, you damned fools XD
Wargaming: adds completely made-up American battleship-carriers.
Half-converted HMS Furious and pre-refit USS Lexington: are we a joke to you?
Thank you for posting this wonderful video. Please tell us more about British "one off" warships. When will you do another Tirpitz video?
Sam Stewart Tirpitz special is probably a week or two away
Hi, wow! cant wait. lol I have never seen any (German) pics of the coffer dam repair. or any bomb damage pics- . The Tirpitz crew member ( official photographer?) gave sold his collection to usnip. I dont think they have ever released any of them. The salvage pics posted are without explanation and mostly poor quality. I am very curious to see what info/ pics you have found.Which British ships rocked dangerously when firing a broadside? thanks- sam
3:13 maybe they ran out of room in the warehouse and they needed somewhere to store them ?
Combine british cruiser gunnery with having only 4 15 inch guns, no wonder they only had one hit.
To the classification:
Didn't the Soviets call their Kiev class ships "heavy aircraft cruisers" so they could pass the Bosporus strait?
Everything in the Soviet/Russian Navy is a cruiser. They even call their subs cruisers. The Oscar's are "Atomniy Podvodny Kresery I Ranga
(Atomic Powered Cruiser Submarine First Rank)"
@@nektulosnewbie Cruiser navy
I wouldn't have been surprised to see a German carrier with an 18inch gun if I'm honest.
I want this added to Azure Lane so we can have a vanguard with 15 inchers. :p
Glorious is in the game. But as a carrier.
………………………..
Brits were smoking tea, not drinking it lol
Q & A, If you used the all or nothing armor scheme on such a ship, would there be a section in the middle, perhaps containing some of the boilers, which could be left unarmored? and would this cost only speed if damaged? or are boiler explosions too destructive? or is the structure in the middle too critical to prevent breaking the ship in half?
Ships regularly had thinner armour over their machine spaces compared to their magazines. Even the KGVs had 15" armour at the magazines and only 14" for the midsection. However, leaving it entirely without armour would be unfeasible as any hit at all could score a mission kill or start a fire leading to the destruction of the ship.
@@waverleyjournalise5757 makes sense except that thinner armor anywhere would disqualify a ship from the all or nothing armor category, and notably 14" armor over the boilers would certainly prevent a shell from passing out the other side before detonating, which is the purpose of nothing armor.
@@alan6832 All or nothing doesn't mean that every piece of armour aboard is the same thickness - such as the transverse bulkheads and deck armour. It's more important to have better protection at the magazines, but they will save weight where they can.
@@waverleyjournalise5757 Then it is a misnomer All means maximum thickness is English and nothing means no armor. Anything in between is a lie, and foolish since the shell must either be stopped or pass out the other side, though there might be a legitimate issue with shells from secondary armament, it is still a lie.
Hi, relative here of Albert Victor Bowden here chief electrical artificer of HMS Courageous 1939.
Yeah, considering that "Furious" basically had no armor, structurally speaking, I would guess they were probably terrified to fire that 18" gun! Idk but it seems to me if they had tried to fire off a broadside instead of just firing while retreating they maybe could have TORN THE SHIP IN HALF. If you consider that "Courageous" had structural damage due to a storm. It's strange to think what firing off 4 15" guns would actually do.
And it actually makes me wonder. Let's say "Courageous" just so happened to end up with an enemy ship on each side with the front 2x15" guns firing to starboard & the aft 2x15" guns firing to port. NOW, if both guns fired a salvo at the same time, would the ship have been torn in two? And if not actually TORN, then totally warped the structure of the ship? I mean, idk, did they actually have any kind of test or guidelines back then to let them know what a structure could take?
Imagine if Yamato was armored that lightly
So what ships exactly are those NOT CARRIERS early in the video?
tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BlatantLies
In order, the HMS Invincible of the 1980s (built for a pseudo-cruiser role but a light aircraft carrier to anyone with eyes), and JDS Hyuga, the Japanese "helicopter destroyer" (it's a light aircraft carrier, but since Japan's constitution forbids building anything larger than destroyers they have to call it that and until recently had to swear up and down it couldn't operate fixed-wing aircraft).
@@InchonDM Thank you. I'd known about the Japanese sub hunting "Destroyers" but didn't know what the first one was, or the larger one in the second photo. I'm assuming it's the replacement class?
@@snowstalker36 Yep, that would be the JDS Izumo, which is as big in size and displacement as the WW2 Kaga (though much lighter since it's not carrying battleship armor). I misspoke earlier--the Izumos are the ones being potentially converted to fixed-wing capacity, though the Hyugas were also never fooling anyone with being "helicopter destroyers".
3:08 You're the navy expert... what does your research say?
outrageous class
Studholme brownrigg, if any of the brown Riggs see this I am related to you!
we need to start building beautiful ships again.. no more of these "arctic survey" ships, of which they didn't even use the name the public wanted....RIP Boaty MCboatface, you could have been the greatest
0:34
A capital carrier and a lowercase carrier
Good video as usual.
What was the weird unnamed french ship that was mentioned in the beginning?
The Lost Beaver the French pre-dreadnoughts of the 1890's. :)
Other than their tumblehome design I don't really see what is weird about the french pre-dreadnoughts
It Is the tumblehome, after warships started to be built of iron and steel a tumblehome was probably the least stable firing platform that was properly designed, firing a broadside would see the ship roll like a barrel.
@@Drachinifel Can/have you done a video on those french ships? xD
@@Fulmir- one is on the list
Wow, you have way to much free time on your hands, gotta love it though.
On the face of it, Fisher et al were fools, but they did perceive that air power was the coming thing even if they failed to see the extent.
dalton knox
True.
Jackie Fischer was always ahead of his time!
A bit of experience here for later use in carrier design would have been the only benefit.
HMS Outrageous series.
Nice narrative
"Admiral Jackie Fisher, shown here as played by Stephen Fry..."
These have to be the most british ships ever built.
No! Not my belovit pommerania!! :-(
We can only defend with freshly smoked fish and hemp fabrics.
And your cute little dogs!
His fabulous cats as he called his ships
Didn't someone ask Bismarck what he'd do if the British landed their army in Mecklenburg and he said he'd send a policeman around to arrest them? That's why no invasion in Pomerania.
All the policeman were at the western front 😢
HMS Spurious, HMS Outrageous, HMS Curious.
He doesn't mince his words does he?
If they had been given triple twelve inch turrets instead, they might have been more successful as battlecruisers.
No. Their armor is still far too light.
Or triple 13.5 inch guns
HMS Spurious/Curious, HMS Outrageous and HMS Uproarious.
Well, I was thinking? They could have beaten the Japanese idea of a half carrier By all 3 being done as carriers But keep the two 15 inch gun turrets just under the flight deck level so you would have a hybrid carrier/ heavy cruiser design! Ok the two main guns could only fire port or starboard and not front or back? But still this would have been a great chance to have the worlds first set of heavy cruiser carriers. Having the aircraft and the main guns to fight long ranges together! Yes they would have had a half sized hanger because of the two main guns armory and stores, and they would have had to re-design the funnel off the the starboard side making it slim not fat and the bridge would need to be like a carriers. But with a bit of careful work these 3 ships would have been great.
Maybe Lexington is good enough.
Replaced the 4x twin 8-inch turret with some 10 or 12 inch things, and, tada! You got a battlecruiser, just cut between the hull and the superstructure then suck a flight deck!
I keep comming bact to this video (and part 2). Why? :D
How about cavalry horse shuttle.
This is the version of RN ships designed, built and operated by the Carry On team. Imagine instead of a toilet factory, they were running a ship yard!!!
They talk about British naval power and experience... But sometimes they did really wonkey shit
The Love Boat.
this class of cruisers....... -_-......why?
Fischer had a plan to open up a new front against Germany with an amphibious operation in the north sea. These ships were intended to support with shore bombardment.
I find this class fascinating, obviously the 15 inch and 18 inch were too big and cumbersome for such light ships, but they were much more successful as aircraft carriers. They would have been very successful using airplanes to provide close support for and invasion in the North Sea. Of course the conversiin came aftr ww1.
@@ONECOUNT They were beautiful ships. But you are right. Given the crude fire control of the day, a small number of slow firing guns are probably not going to be effective in a fast moving cruiser action as was the case in Helgoland.
@@ONECOUNT Britain needed the Washington treaty because the empire was bankrupted by ww1 and could ill afford another expensive arms race immediately after the war to end all wars.. The USA needed the washington treaty because they were building a huge fleet of 1915 vintage designs that did not incorporate the lessons of jutland. Note that in 1921, the British conducted shell trials against the sms baden and later against a caisson representing new armour schemes. They did not share this information with the Americans . All british battleships designed after 1921 contained arguably the best armour protection systems. On the other hand, the Americans were building ships that were obsolete before they left the drawing boards.
Putting 12 inch guns onto cruisers would classify them as capital ships. The 12 inch turrets were dated and the rate of fire too slow. I think that the british arrived at their ideal cruiser type when they launched Sheffield with 4 triple 6 inch. This was a well balanced design with reasonable armour and carrying enough firepower to be a threat to a heavy cruiser.
You are right that the courageous class should have more guns. Putting 12 inch guns onto cruisers would classify them as capital ships. The 12 inch turrets were dated and the rate of fire too slow. I would suggest that the 7.5 inch used on the Hawkins class but modified with brass casings and rammer in order to speed up the rate of fire.
I don't think however that the British really liked the big cruisers. The counties suffered by not having enough armour and were mediocre when compared to their 14000 tonne german, 12000 tonne Italian and 13000 tonne japanese counterparts. On the other hand, British light cruisers were outstanding designs. I think that the british arrived at their ideal cruiser type when they launched Sheffield with 4 triple 6 inch. This was a well balanced design with reasonable armour and carrying enough firepower to be a threat to a heavy cruiser.
Imagine if Furious or Argus had been able to go to sea at jutland and fly off a couple of flights of sopwith cuckoo torpedo bombers ( I love the humor of Tom Sopwith ). That battle could have resulted in annihilation of the german fleet if a number of battleships were slowed by torpedo hits.
@@Will_CH1 I think that the Royal Navy had the capability to utilize aviation at Jutland if it had its act together. But that is us with 2020 hindsight we dont take into account the years between the wars perfecting naval aviation. My idea also presupposes that the Admiralty had a clear vision of the future of naval aviation in the 1920s. That the British could steal a march on both the Jaapanese and the Americans.
3:53 dude wtf even is that ship hahahaha
A light cruiser with 15 inch guns
can u guys make a guide to the Illustrious class cv or did u already do it
In robo-voice, but will redo in human at some point
whatever the british were smoking back then...
i want some
3:09 crack head energy
The Furious is clearly a pre-Internet shitpost.
alternatively Fishers deathtraps
3 inches of armor FEAR IT
IT was a Zwitter, half carrier half cruser hmm... May the RN Do Not now what they want...
Jacky Fisher was a genius. Until he wasn't.....
Glorius could have done with those 15in Guns in 1940 when she ran into the Scharnhorst and Gneisanau
And torpedo tubes
She would never have been in that situation in the first place if her commanding officer was competent. The visibility was good enough to send up aircraft to check where the enemy was, and he never even tried. Glorious would probably have found the Twins first and left the area too early to even get fired upon if not for that.
@@bkjeong4302 Yea i wasn't really being serious even with 4x15in Guns she would have been in deep do-do, the rate fire of incoming 11in Shells would have decided the outcome unless she had got in telling blows with her first 2-3 Salvos on both ships.
Since Germany 11-inch gun was proven can't even effectively blowed cruisers outta the sea when Spee can't sunk any of three British cruisers in the Battle of the River Plate, and the 29-knot Nels... I mean Renown effectively 'repulsed" Scharnhorst and Gneisanau in North Sea, I'm quite think about that things will be (maybe even totally) different if Glorius was encounted Scharnhorst and Gneisanau as a battlecruiser.
HMS Furious should have been name HMS Foolish. Fisher really lost it on these. Experimenting in Large? Wrong.
Battlepips!