I literally choked laughing when you said "queen Mary was somewhat more performance impaired: it exploded". The dry humor is what makes these videos so much better than normal historical videos.
HMS Tiger studied the Russian tactics at Tsushima and marginally improved upon them. "Shoot a lot, score barely any hits, take many hits, but unlike the Russians, do not capsize and sink." Good enough I suppose.
☑️ Quite frankly, the only useful service Tiger provided at Dogger Bank and Jutland was to act as a diversionary target to soak up some of the German shells that would've otherwise been fired at other British battlecruisers, potentially blowing up more of them.
Drachisms Of The Day: "And her crew's gunnery was downright terrible. Even by Beatty's standards." 6:30 "Up ahead, Queen Mary was somewhat more performance-impaired, as it exploded." 8:14
Throughout WW1, two guns from 3" to 4" did exactly that. The RN doubled the number of heavy AA guns and standardized on four guns in the 1920s. By 1933, the RN had the heaviest AA batteries of all the Great Power navies, with the octuple 2pdr mount and the quad .50. Billy Mitchell may have been right about the power of aviation IN THE FUTURE (from 1936-1940) but until then aircraft were little threat to capital warships. And his predictions for heavy bombers and level bombing remained unfulfilled through the end of WW2.
@@rinzler9171 you do realize that the "Great Marianas Turkey Shoot" was mostly an air-to-air battle, don't you? Over 10 planes shot down by aircraft for every 1 that was shot down by US AA fire, and roughly 3 times more aircraft were lost when US submarines sank their carriers out from underneath them than were shot down by AA fire.
@@erichammond9308 Good point about the CAP (combat air patrol) being the best form of air defense in WW2 - especially once the Americans figured out how to do it efficiently. However, it's also important to not under-estimate the importance of ship-based anti-aircraft weapons. One of the interesting points that caught my eye when reading detailed accounts of the Royal Navy ship losses in the campaign for Crete is how often the ships (with no air support) were able to hold off the attackers and stay out of serious trouble until they started to run out of anti-aircraft ammunition - especially when they were in groups of ships that could support each other. It's also noteworthy how many air attacks missed or did no or little damage to British cruisers in the Norwegian campaign where again they didn't have air cover - but also didn't get run out of ammunition (that last is based on reading British Cruiser Warfare: The Lessons of the Early War 1939-1941 by Alan Raven). Sure there were a few effective attacks, but they were the exception not the norm. I think the ship-based weapons - whether Royal Navy or US - when good quality weapons were present in numbers and used effectively by a skilled crew - forced the Axis pilots to choose between less accurate bomb/torpedo runs and a higher probability of being hit. Being human, they would generally choose the first option, unless they misjudged matters or simply lacked the experience to understand the choice they were making. As the saying goes: there are old pilots, and there are bold pilots, but there are no old bold pilots. Late war radar controlled guns and guns firing shells with radar based fuses (these exploded when they detected the metal of a plane) only made the ship-based gunnery even more effective - though still nowhere near as good as a well-run CAP with good aircraft and experienced pilots.
@@brucetucker4847 Given their lack of 'training' Crews may well have kept the doors into the Magazines closed between volleys. No idea if the rumours that they were often kept open for ROF benefits are true but frankly, if they WERE their lack of 'shakedown' may have been advantageous, with bad habits not being learned.
Glen McGillivray The idea that magazine doors were left open in combat is ludicrous. It does not improve rates of fire as the guns were fed by hoists that involved automatically closing door systems. Neither did they store propellant outside the magazines as the hoists for the guns were inside. Everybody knew the volatility of the cordite propellant, why else was it stored in armoured magazines? Ships had exploded outside of combat, notably HMS Barham which was blown to fragments in the Medway off Sheerness. The fact is that the Battlecruisers exploded at Jutland because they were a bad idea, used incorrectly and had their thin cruiser armour penetrated by Battleship size shells which detonated in or around their propellant magazines.
@@SvenTviking their concept was Cruiser Hunter-killers. It wasn't a bad idea, given the global nature of the British empire at the time. The bad idea was giving them battleship sized guns without moderate protection. Any ship with battleship guns will have the potential to deal massive damage to battleships: Good. But they will take the level of damage expected to be inflicted on cruisers: Bad. Combine with increased size of magazines? Terrifying. Really should have gone for slightly up-gunned cruiser caliber weapons and had batteries of 20 or so cruiser cannons. The Germans worked out early on their battle-cruisers would likely end up facing battleships (given their naval inferiority to the British at the time): so they split the difference and gave them middling Armour and protected their magazines carefully. Still they would have lost a number of ships at Jutland if the British had shells that worked reliably... Oh yeah I should add a question to the Q and A about the differences between British and German battle-cruiser design, and where the Germans got the mass for more armor that the British could not fit without slowing their ships.
@8:17 Exploding does have a way of effecting a fighting ships performance. (The incredibly understated humor in these videos is perhaps my favorite part)
"There's something wrong with our bloody ships. You there!" "Us, sir?" "Why haven't you exploded yet?" "Well, we're trying, sir. But we can't seem to annoy the Germans enough, sir." "Well, stop being durable!" "Can't help it, sir."
"Well, why don't you try bloody well hitting the Germans first! Hit hard! And then Keep On Hitting! That ought to annoy them." "Err, that's not your quote, Sir..."
Brent Keller lmfao ! Sounds like a Monty Python skit :)
4 года назад+17
Meanwhile a Japanese naval atache is observing the Tiger fighting, noticing the distinct lack of exploding, shaking his head going "Much dishonour...."
A piece of tiger’s machinery still exists at the internal fire museum in cardigan, Wales I think it might be the last pieced of working machinery that was present at Jutland
William Murdoch I think it’s the only like fully operational piece of machinery its a steam powered dynamo. There could be other pieces of kit about but I’m not sure in what state of operation they are in
One of the four 14 ton Browett & Lindley generating sets installed on Tiger was in store for many years at Greenwich, now in steam at Internal Fire Museum in Wales. It was removed when Tiger was scrapped and worked for many years at Storthes Hall Hospital.
I'm surprised Beatty didn't dispose of the superfluous parts and just yell Fire, since it didn't really matter where the guns were pointed. In defense of the gunners, though, they hadn't been in a shooting war for the previous 200 years and were somewhat out of practice.
@@deltavee2 not out of practice...the RN never stopped being obsessive about gunnery practice. I'm trying to think when the RN would have last fought in anger before Jutland. Sure as hell less than 200 years. The opium wars maybe. Or the Crimea. But still. Gunnery was always an obsession for the RN :) Beatty's take on it was just.... Wrong.
@@AdamMGTF No serious fleet engagements since Trafalgar. Read The Rules of The Game by Andrew Gordon. It recounts in great detail the defects of the RN at Jutland and in the years leading up to it. Beattie comes across as a classic narcissist.
Hood might have done better in WWI, but tragically due to lack of funds never got the urgently needed interwar refit, that would have replaced the engines and put the weight savings into better armor that all knew was needed. Instead Hood ended up facing not only a real battleship, but the brand new state of the art Bismarck, as seriously outclassed as the doomed pre-dreadnought cannon fodder at Jutland, bringing to mind another famously futile British sacrifice bunt: the suicide charge of the light brigade.
@@b_de_silva Yes, the Hood was always given great press, but she was never considered 'unsinkable' by any reputable military or naval experts. Other 'unsinkable ships included the Titanic, Yamato, and even the Bismarck herself. Every great ship seems to get that tagline. However, the Hood was a national treasure and that boast helped British morale.
"The end result was, by all accounts, a fairly good-looking ship . . ." He says about the prettiest battlecruiser ever. Gotta love that British understatement. ;D
HMS Tiger "I may be terrible at everything, but by God, I'll do it so badly you cant even kill me" So basically the ship version of Darkness from Konosuba
@@TheLiamis No, she actually had terrible luck (which exists in Konosuba), which allowed her to have such incredible strength. Just like how Aqua’s incredible magic power was offset by her rock-like intelligence.
Drach, even your short videos are far more entertaining than 99.99% of everything on cable and broadcast TV. Your longer videos are well worth the wait. So don't worry about it, we'll be here with baited breath.
Drach Please do a video on what ever Topic that you want to do . Your vids are great and we enjoy them . How is that for a request ? Thank you for your efforts .
Learn on junk, you learn to adapt, kids in early days of autos, tinkered around all the time, WWII rolls around and Uncle Sam had a base of mechanic minded recruits.
@@hymanocohann2698 There's wisdom to that, but I think learning the basics of "everything" works on junk, learning to be very good at your very specific job is better taught at the correct target environment. Driving schools giving you a new Audi when your first car will be a banged up old honda... yikes.
Let's not forget that 1940s Kongou were classified as Fast Battleships due very extensive reftis (including increased hull armor) when Tiger would as it was mentioned in best case scenario received Renown treatment which would still put her in disadvantage in duel with her Japanese more heavy armored cousins.
Regarding Tiger vs Scharnhorst and Gneisenau, the reason for Admiral Lütjens refusing to engage Convoy HX 106 because it was escorted by Ramilles wasn't that he doubted his ships' ability to take Ramilles. It was that he was under very strict orders from Hitler not to engage capital ships at all. The same would've applied to Tiger. Had Lütjens defied those orders and tried to fight Ramilles, even given the inferior guns on his ships I suspect that he would've won that engagement. He did after all outnumber Ramilles 2 to 1, and his ships were 11 knots faster and also better armored. Thus, I disagree with the assessment that Tiger would've had less utility than an R-class early in the war. Even if she had a very limited refit, her speed would've allowed her to be used in duties other than just convoy escort. And Revenge herself did little of any importance during WW2, so discarding her to keep Tiger (or keeping her as the training ship instead of Iron Duke) would've been no big loss. And in terms of the logistics of keeping the BL 13.5-inch Mk V gun in service for a single ship? That would be somewhat of an issue, but remember that those guns were still in use as land-based artillery in railway mounts as well. Three of them were brought to Dover as part of the battery of cross-channel guns. So it's not as if Britain discarded their stores of shells and charges for guns of that caliber. And if Tiger's refit came in the late 1930s, it's possible that she could've had her 13.5-inch guns replaced with the same BL 14-inch Mk VII used on King George V. IIRC, those guns were designed so that they could work with the turrets, cradles, and shell hoists of the 13.5-inch Mk V, because initially there was consideration of using Iron Duke's remaining turrets to test-fire the new gun design.
@Sean m Apparently Captain Hoffmann of Scharnhorst suggested to Lütjens the idea of using his ship as a decoy to draw Ramilles out of position (a fairly low-risk strategy, given Scharnhorst's superior armor and extreme speed advantage) so that Gneisenau could get within range to attack the convoy while remaining outside Ramilles' gun range. Given that Ramilles failed to identify Scharnhorst, it's possible that they didn't realize Gneisenau was also present, in which case such a tactic would've had some chance of success. There also would've been the option of simply trying to bombard the convoy from long range. The 28cm SK C/34 had a maximum range of 40km, though the odds of actually hitting a moving target at that range would be near zero. The BL 15"/42 Mk I in an older non-refitted mount like on Ramilles was limited to 20 degrees elevation and a maximum range of 26km with super charges (which I don't think had been issued yet in 1941) or 21km without them. So if they stayed at least 22km away, they could've fired on the convoy without Ramilles being able to respond. The accuracy at such ranges would've been low (though Scharnhorst *had* a year earlier scored a hit on Glorious from around 24km away), but it also would've been low-risk (at least so long as they didn't stick around long enough for reinforcements to arrive).
uh, guns on Scharnhorst/Gneisenau not inferior, just smaller diameter. After war testing of that gun by Allies showed the 28cm armor piercing shell was almost identical in performance to the 38cm shells as used on Bismarck and Tirpitz. It's a giant rifle so to speak, and ballistically, the 28cm as used in this case was a very fine performing gun.
@@TheMadNorsky I don't know the exact numbers on those particular guns, but of course a huge factor is when the gun was designed. The 11 inch guns on the Scharnhorsts and Deutschlands were probably much better than WW1 German 11 inch guns, simply because they were of a much newer design. Apparently the Americans found out during testing that their new 12 inch guns (designed for the Alaska class) were about on par with the old 14 inch guns on their old "standard" battleships. And that is also a considerable difference in caliber, yet the new guns were simply more potent in general than old guns of the same caliber.
The retention of HMS Tiger would have resulted the scraping of HMS Iron Duke. The Washington Naval Treaty disposal schedule lists were based on the age the ships ships. Thus the question would be whether HMS Tiger had a better chance of reactivation in the late 1930s than the historically retained HMS Iron Duke. Historically HMS Tiger's 13.5-inch guns and mounting were retained and still in storage in 1939. HMS Iron Duke was still carrying out 13.5-inch shoots as a gunnery training and trials ship until 1939.
The alternate possibility would've been retaining both Tiger and Revenge, but relegating Revenge to the training ship role. Though it would've been interesting if Tiger had retained instead of Iron Duke, and then both she and Hiei both got restored to full combat capacity after Japan pulled out of the treaties.
@@RedXlV HMS Lion and HMS Princess Royal had seen hard war service. Post war the naval powers agreed that 1 year of war service equated to 2 of peacetime wear and tear on hull but more importantly on machinery. All of the 13.5-inch gun battle-cruisers had nothing like the combat power of the Revenge class battleships. The 13.5-ch gun battle-cruisers were older and with exemption of HMS Tiger were in need of major mid life refits to met fleet needs of the 1920s. The 1930 London Naval Treaty saw the destruction of the reserve fleet with 8 light cruisers, over 50 destroyers, ?submarines going for scrap, and the battle fleet reduced from 18 to 15 battleships and battle-cruisers. Also four 7.5-inch gun cruisers were to be disarmed as training cruiser. The Admiralty was concerned with the loss of the two 13,5-inch battleships from the "Boys" training squadron as 20 percent of peace time initial enlistment of the RN was 15 and 16 year olds.
As I have posted before, the loss of three battlecruisers at Jutland was the result of almost suicidal ammunition handling processes as addressed by Brown, Friedman and Hobbs. None of three were destroyed by shells reaching the magazines. Beatty after Dogger Bank thought that a few more hits would have slowed the German battlecruisers enough to finish them off. Note that none of the battlecruisers (or their sisters) that blew up at Jutland blew up at Dogger Bank. Beatty initiated a policy in Battlecruiser Squadron of boosting the rate of fire by placing ready ammunition (shells and powder bags OUT of their stowage cans) in the turret, the handling room and outside the magazine. The result, with the flash doors left open and even wired open, was a powder trail from the turrets through the barbettes to the magazines. Even a partial penetration or spalling of heated fragments from the turret or barbette could have set off the train. This situation was covered up during the war and in the official reports and histories, only coming out as the 50 year rule on security of government documents expired. There was nothing wrong with the ships and their designs. A detailed review of range and bearing between the British ships and German ships shows that none the of German hits blamed for the exploded ships should have fully penetrated armor decks, but could have gotten partial penetration on turret roofs or barbettes. HMS Tiger was the one ship that refused to follow the squadron policy and maintained proper ammunition handling procedures, which gave the turret and magazine crews time to respond to the crisis. Against the German 28cm and 30.5cm guns (but not 38cm) at the same bearing and range scenario, even the HMS Renown and Repulse would have been reasonably safe from a magazine hit. Once rebuilt after the war with 9" belts and reinforced decks, they could have, with Tiger, been able to close with the "Kongos" in the Far Eastern war the RN planned for from 1919-1936 and badly hurt them, though they might have taken some severe damage from the Japanese 14" guns outranging them after their first rebuilds (the British turrets had 20 degree elevation and the Japanese at least 33), especially if the Japanese seized air superiority or supremacy over the battle line allowing for aerial spotting. The Japanese could have opened at 33,000 yds while the British were limited to not much more than 25,000 yards. Truthfully, unless rebuilt along the lines of the HMS Renown, HMS Tiger would have been a liability against the Japanese from 1933 on, so scrapping her in 1931 after the London Treaty was not such a loss.
Let's be honest; at Jutland Tiger's abysmal gunnery wasn't upped by hitting Seydlitz. Seydlitz had a magnetic attraction to naval cannon shells, EVERYONE hit Seydlitz.
She sounds like me in wows. Line up a perfect shot, 1 round veers off to the left the other to the right. 300 shots later a cruiser accidentally runs into one of my stray shells. I survive the round with 3%hp
Now somewhere, I think it was one of Massie's books, I read that Tiger had a reputation as a repository for every deserter, defaulter, and attitude case. Strange, if true, that they would put all the bad apples on the sleekest, most modern unit.
When she was due to be manned, the RN was fully stretched with war manning of existing ships, and so Tiger had to take what she could get, which was the depot sweepings, and the discipline cases recently released from the brig. Only by paying off an existing big ship could a better quality crew have been found.
I have always admired British BC's, not so great action records, but some of the finest looking ships built. And lets face it, a lot of darn cool names also!
An entertaining and educational episode, as usual. Well done and thank you Sir. Please consider, perhaps as a Drydock question, why was Beatty not cashiered by the Admiralty? In each of the Battle Cruiser actions there was a massive screw up that cost the Royal Navy dearly. Allowing unsafe ammunition handling practices is not only incompetent, but criminal. No USN officer in command, who managed to survive Jutland and Dodger Bank would have had a career future.
Possibly because Beatty was a flamboyant public figure, who was very aggressive, which played out well with the public. Maybe Beatty should have been more obsessed with accuracy rather than rate of fire.
@@Marc83Aus: The simple reason is that historically, the side with the greatest volume of fire wins, land or sea battles. But does appear that the Battlecruisers lost that day were keeping their "Flash Tight" doors open to increase their rate of fire. Because of this a hit on the turret could and did flash down to the main magazines.
Its directly because of the RN's reverence for tradition - "rate of fire won the day at Trafalgar (as it did), so rate of fire will win the day in 1916". In aid of reloading speed, not only were blast doors left open but cordite charges were left lying around on turret floors. I suspect Tiger's officers despaired of their gunner's skills and so said "OK lads, slow and steady will do".
One of my favorite British Warships. It's very cool, that you tried to predict a possible future for the Tiger. She was upgraded from the Lion class, because of the Kongo class and a one vs one would have been very cool.
One of history's inexplicable mysteries: Why was Beaty not court-martialled and shot for treason? There is a level if incompetence that is just inexcusable.
Tiger is one of the best examples for my theory of belt armor thickness not being the cause of the loss of the battlecruisers at Jutland or Hood in the Denmark Strait. Even Tiger, and Lion suffered no main armor belt penetrations/perforations. The issue was the foolish over-riding of the safety systems for quicker rate of fire which allowed flash to enter the magazines. It is what I believe killed HMS Hood. It was not Bismarck, at least not directly. It was leaving flash doors open in battle, and stowage of propellant and shells in the working spaces of her aft turrets which burned and flashed into the magazines. The battlecruiser was NOT an obsolete design. The farther away the enemy opens fire on you, the steeper the fall of shell is and the harder it is to penetrate thick main belt armor. Anything coming in at angles steeper than 45 degrees would not be able to penetrate even 9 inches of belt armor. The danger is to the deck armor, not the side armor.
@@bkjeong4302 Ted Briggs believed that flash through a gunhouse floor destroyed Hood. Also in war in the heat of battle things can and often are disregarded. There is no evidence Hood's belt armor was penetrated but people want to go with that theory when it's been shown there was no way Bismarck's shells could have penetrated the deck armor.
Before I get one minute into this post I feel the need to express my appreciaton for all your work and scholarship ( was that a unintentionarry pun (?)., I hope not. Regardless, I find your work to be entrancing. Although I am not a rabid consumer of naval history/nonmenclature and do not find it EXTREMELY fascinating, I do find your work to be precise, matter-of-fact and sometimes enthralling. Please, keep up the good work, have a good life beyond this, eternally gratefull, Murray.
I always thought it was a mistake to scrap Tiger. One valuable factor on the WWII naval battlefield which is extremely hard to upgrade is speed. One on one a modernized Tiger was a match for a Scharnhorst or a Kongo. Her 8 gun broadside vs 6 on Renown make her shell weight landed similar and having better odds of scoring hits. I assume by the 1940s the training issues would be sorted out 😉 She was also the equal of Hood in her lines, perhaps prettier. That’s not worth much in a fight but she’d look nice in a parade.
Armed with modern 14 inch guns that were designed to fit her gun mounts and given modern machinery and dual purpose secondary guns she would have been a valuable addition to the RN of WW2.
The Kongos were designed by George Thurston, a British naval arcitect, and the Kongo was built in the UK. Like the Tiger I guess they were designed along the lines of an improved Lion.
I have read that the 14" gun used on the KGV BB's was designed to fit in the 13.5" mounts used in Iron Duke and Tiger. Depending on the supply Tiger could have been refitted with those guns.
"...Not exploding on the job." Well. You know British Battle-cruisers and their ammo storage... *Sweats nervously as tomorrow is the 78th Anniversary of The Battle of the Denmark Strait.*
Q&A I've got 2 questions. 1. could you do a video on the Diddo class vs Atlanta class 2. Portholes on capital ships. Were they there there due to the lack of air conditioning?? Or were they there for some other reason??
Another thing to consider for modernization. All 15 of the retained units started as oil fueled ships. Tiger would have required conversion from coal to oil, an added expense, Not actually difficult. Both the USN and IJN did this as well. But it was something to consider. She would also be the only 13.5" ship in service, another consideration. The Kongo's were a class of 4 ans there were 4 BB's also with 14" guns.
Logistics led to the scrapping of the Tiger. With the shells for it's main battery out of production that left just a limited amount in stockpiles. Perhaps it should have been mothballed and left should an emergency like WWII came up. If it's stores of shells could be transported to a Pacific ammunition dump it could have served as a shore bombardment platform at least until it's ammunition ran out. The Pacific demands amphibious landings and such a ship would be needed. Perhaps by the time ammunition ran out a replacement ship would be available. In hindsight she could perform convoy escort duty providing protection from surface raiders. Turns out that the German fleet was bottled up in WWII and few capital ships ventured out. The Germans did send out surface raiders most notably small auxiliary cruisers which the Tiger could counter. Even with main batteries dead it could be fitted with antiaircraft guns and functioned as a floating flak battery for a harbor.
That ship had nice lines and it took a beating so you have to give it credit. I would of liked to have been there when the opposing fleets both limped into port. What a smack down that was at Jutland.
The doctrine of speed in firing over accuracy proved a deadly failure. The sailors left the safety flash doors open to speed up firing lead to huge explosions.
Fantastic video as always....I've always liked the Tiger class. Beautiful lines and a surprisingly durable design. It's a shame she wasn't retained but that could be said for alot of ships from that era. As someone with OCD that rear turret layout does give me a fit.
One of my uncles served on the Tiger at Jutland. He was a stoker (ex coal minor). He joined at HMS Raleigh and within a month he was shipped up to Scapa! I remember my father saying that, as a young boy, he was showed around the ship by my uncle in Cardiff Docks. The ship was taking a 'farewell' tour of the UK before she was sold for scrapping. I believe that large numbers of the crew were from a district of Cardiff known as "Tiger Bay" - somewhat poetic. Sadly, my Uncle Tom (for that was his name) died around 1948 from what we would call today Alzheimer's. I have a photograph of him in his naval rig. After Jutland, Tom came home on leave. His father (my grandfather) asked him what it was like. Tom's reply: "Noisy and hot, Dad!
There has been some suggestion that her design was inspired by the Japanese Kongo class, of which Kongo herself was the last Japanese naval ship which was built in the UK, and there certainly is a strong resemblance between Tiger and the Kongos, particularly with regards to the gun turret arrangement.
Ironically she would wonder what the bleeding heck a BB or a BC was... Unless you mean a Ball Bareing? BC can't be the British commonwealth, was still the empire when she was launched 😂
All good stuff Waiting on part 2 3 and 4 of the 2d Pacific fleet. Ahhhhhh those 2,000 opium laced smokes I had a great uncle who was with the great white fleet and have a few old pictures 2 being 70 m.m. type one showing part of the fleet in china with Chinese gun boats at the harbor entrance guns pointed at the fleet. Let's see 2 river gun boats vs a few battle ships one British one French. Well symbolic I guess
Not sure of the posting links policy due to the new EU laws, but British Pathe and Movietone both have short clips of the Tigers namesake cruiser joining the fleet in 1959 posted on RUclips.
Excellent and comprehensive history of this ship. To me it seems her bad reputation stems mainly from being rushed into service without proper training and served with an Admiral whose 'gung ho' attitude didn't allow the ship to be used to it's best potential. The German BC's get massive praise for their toughness yet you clearly show that the British BC's were equally as capable of taking punishment and it was mainly poor stowage of their propellant that cause the losses. Plus a generous slice of both luck and skill for the Germans to hit the British ships turrets. Both Lion and Tiger took almost as many hits as the much more heavily armoured German BC's yet at the end of the day were still combat capable and spoiling for a continuation of the battle the next day while the German ships were hors de combat and running for home with their tails firmly between their legs.
John Fisher Well given how Lion herself was extremely close to exploding twice, only to be saved by one man and basically luck, I can’t say the same for Lion. Tiger maybe but even then, the hit on ‘Q’ turret partially detonated the ready charges and easily could have spread down into the ship itself. It wasn’t just the handling of the powder itself, the powder was a lot more volatile than german or American equivalents.
@@RelativeGalaxy7 The idea you can have a shell explode next to a powder charge of any kind and not have it explode seems pretty ridiculous to me, I have never understood the point of the volatility argument
@@bkjeong4302 And the British BC's were shot at by the entire German battle line earlier that day, when visibility was far better. Not exactly fair to the British is it? Put it this way. Thinner British armour Vs efficient German AP shells while Thicker German armour Vs poor quality British AP shells. Seems to me the German ships had the better deal. But the point I'm making is that the British BC's were NOT the tin cans waiting to explode as many pro German fanatics crow about. They were tough ships able to take and dish out punishment. Take volatile cordite and dangerous handling procedures out of the equation and the British BC's stood up to the test of battle. As Drach said in the video, Tiger and Lion suffered almost as many HITS! as Seydlitz and Lutzow. And while the shells were smaller those hits were from shells which functioned as they were supposed to, while the British mostly exploded on contact. The next morning the British BC's were looking for a rematch while the German BC's were toothless wrecks running for home.
John Fisher Missing my point. Much of the severe damage the German battlecruisers went through was inflicted by Jellicoe’s main battleline, rather than by Beatty’s squadron. On the other hand, most of the damage done to Beatty’s ships came from German BCs, even if the German BBs were also shooting at them (the correct term for battlecruisers is CC, but I’m using BC here because you’re doing the same) You’re making this out to be a battlecruiser vs. battlecruiser conflict where the British suffered less damage than the Germans (looking at the surviving ships), regardless of who actually inflicted that damage. A better analysis would be to argue that British BBs heavily damaged German BCs without suffering much damage in return. I do agree that poor propellant handling led to the severe British losses. Lastly, please stop referring to me as a “pro-German (or other nation) fanatic”. On my other comments on this channel I have made it very clear I don’t think of German (or other) designs as being invincible or world-class if there were genuine and severe problems with them (a la “incremental armour in WWII”)
Seems a shame she was never used in WW II. She was in effect a British Kongo class ship, and the Japanese used their Kongo class extensively during the war, more so than any other class of capital ship they operated.
In 1943 there were a number of battle class destroyers built that had well armered turrets and were capable of a good thirtyfour knots. In the very early sixties i served on one of these for three years in the med These were very really good ships and there were four of these class ships that all served in the same group forbthat perjiod of time. Would be nice to see a videomof these.
Problem was that Britain might have been on the winning side in WW1 (And WW2) but in exception to all previous wars, the winner paid the bill for the war. America refused to relieve some of the dept, which in turn handicaped Britain preparing for WW2. This was of cause deliberate as the two countries were competing as world powers.
@@TayebMC irrespective of available resources (somewhat unrealistic), I think a Renown-style upgrade would have seen her a much more versatile ship than one of the R Class battleships.
Good evening, Talking about the refit, may I suggest that they scrap one of the r’ class and use the canons + turret’s for the tiger as the speed was a huge improvement over the r’class. Maybe instead of sending PoW send repulse and the refitted tiger. Just spinning wheels here.
Are you planning on covering HMS New Zealand? She had quite an interesting and charmed life, not to mention some national pride value for Kiwis such as me.
Enjoyed this video, always like info on BC especially Tiger. I did want to mention a couple of things. First the RN retaining Tiger to be upgraded violated the Washington Treaty of 1922. There were only two ways to keep the ship 1. the loss of one of the R class or QE class. 2. do what the Japanese did. Convert her to a training ship by reducing guns and engines, which in fact was useful if the plan (like the Japanese)was to modernize and return to service. The main reason to keep Tiger for modernization was to have another fast ship to deal with the German Panzershiffs. In fact, in basic numbers, Tiger compares very well to the French Dunkerque and Strasbourg. But a super-duper rebuilt is not needed since capital ship construction can start in 1937, with anticipated completion dates of 1941. You are entirely correct in that Tiger would be challenged by the Scharnhorsts so send her off to the Mediterranean. Better armed and faster than the Italian rebuilt battleships, Tiger may have made Cape Matapan a total VICTORY. Regarding ammo you are way off. The RN had a large store of 13.5 shells (and guns and complete turrets) since Iron Duke served as a Gunnery training ship. Also the RN did not uniformly have 15" guns on their battleships.. Rodney and Nelson had 16" guns and the new KGVs would have 14". So there is quite a mix. Additionally, when Richelieu came over to the allied side and its distinct 15" shells. the US manufactured new 15" shells for the Richelieu. QED. Yes, it could have been a fast carrier escort in the Pacific provided it was refurbished with new AA guns (which was often done in the US for RN ships. However, I tend to think it would have been lent to the Soviets like Royal Sov. A number of older ships were laid up due to manpower shortages. Don't mean to sound negative as I did enjoy your presentation and hope you do more.
A) He *did* mention the "caliber mix" issue, at 13:00. A mix of 13.5, 14, 15 and 16 inch guns is 33% more "logistical crap" to deal with than just 14, 15 and 16. B) It's not just "do we have enough shells," it's logistics: "how can we get them to where the ship that uses them will be." To carry a sufficient amount of 4 different size shells from A to B, requires 4 completely different routines for everything involved in "getting shells from A to B." Again, it introduces 33% more complication than just 3 different sizes. It's why NATO has, over almost all its history, tried desperately to standardize anything it can within the member nations: every additional type of "X" that *any nation* uses makes it that-much-harder to keep *every nation* supplied with enough "X" for its needs. C) The US did not "make a new 15" gun for Richelieu." Per Wiki: Since the gun cradles were undamaged, the guns were simply *replaced by barrels taken from Jean Bart,* which had been recovered at Casablanca during Operation Torch. D) Had the RN put that much work into refurbishing Tiger, there is *no way* they would have lent her to the Soviets--would you spend half-the-purchase-price of a car to refurbish it, and then hand the keys to somebody whose prior experience operating a motor vehicle was in demolition derbies? (when the Soviets returned the Royal Sovereign to the RN, much of her equipment was unserviceable. It appeared to the inspectors that the main battery turrets had not been rotated while the ship was in Soviet service, and were jammed on the centreline. As a result of her poor condition, she was sold for scrap.)
The policy of building battle cruisers as derivatives of an existing battleship class, rather than reinventing the wheel every time, would appear to make sense. If the US had followed along, then CC1 and 2 would have been ordered as developments of the Colorado class, been more sound ships than the 1916 battlecruiser design. and potentially, make it into commission before the treaty went into effect as Maryland did. Then CC3 and 4 would have been broken up on the ways with the South Dakotas, that is assuming that any battlecruiser based on the SoDaks would be so huge that the waiver would not be written into the treaty the way Saratoga and Lexington were waivered. Without that waiver, Akagi and Kaga would not have been built as carriers either. Meanwhile, not having Lexington and Saratoga as carriers would free up enough tonnage under the treaty for the US to built 3 additional Yorktowns.
kamakazi339 Well, sometimes, longer means it’s pencil-thin and you get the same amount out of that length as if you’d just compressed its mass into a short and thick one. However, Drach seems to have something of a universal thickness that never changes no matter how long it gets. Oh, sorry, what I meant to say was “Haha, dick joke.”
An interesting watch, good one.. And here I go again. Looking at the pictures of those ships I noticed lifeboats. I guess if they were built by a physic person they would have removed them because they would rather explode than let the crew use them. Kind of sad, I would rather prefer the lifeboat option. I guess if anyone got into one of the lifeboats and then it exploded it would launch them into obit you think?
When I heard you say she only had 2 AA guns to start with, I thought of the teacher in Willy Wonka and The Chocolate Factory that was aghast when Charlie only had 2 Wonka Bars: "Two?! WHADDA YOU MEAN ONLY HAVE 2 GUNS?!"
I suspect your correct, her 13.5-inch guns doomed her retention after the war. One odd caliber ship in a 15-inch armed Home Fleet makes for a logistics nightmare ...and uncertainty in the squadron's battleline tactics. Especially after the Royal Navy observing Blucher sailing with the German battle-crusiers.
I have seen some speculation in forums that HMS Tiger was, or may have been, considered for purchase by Holland for its Far East fleet in the late '20s or early '30s. Does anyone have any actual information on this?
Can I request a review about the USN's cancelled Battleship the south Dakota class actually the only got to the point of laying its keel but by 1920's the ships construction was halted due to the Washington naval treaty the armor platings were given to other ships and also used to strengthen the Panama canal and the existing 16"/50 caliber guns were transferred to the Us army for use as coastal defense batteries
![Run Away - Tzuyu(TWICE) ツウィ 쯔위 [Music Bank] | KBS WORLD TV 240906](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/KnHNNyAYiu0/mqdefault.jpg)
Pinned post for Q&A :)
When you mention the royal navy having the lower safety Levels to increase the number of shells they fire, how many shells could they fire a minute.
If the Nelson class had of had the engines of the Hood would it of played a bigger role in WW2?
Similar to a question in the last Drydock episode, which ship would you have rather seen preserved: HMS Warspite or USS Enterprise?
Drachinifel what would have happened if the Royal Navy had more destroyers (say Tribals) at the start of the war?
Drachinifel why did the Italian fleet perform so poorly in ww2?
I literally choked laughing when you said "queen Mary was somewhat more performance impaired: it exploded". The dry humor is what makes these videos so much better than normal historical videos.
He always has a little snip or pun sume where. I wish I new what show it was, he made fun of Americans. It was the best.
@@johnalexander178 the one where he talks about the Mk 14 torpedoes and the long lances are filled with his humour. They are awesome
Tiger was, I must admit, a good looking ship. A surprisingly tough one as well.
I learned not to drink while watching Drach
Or, in this case dry, then very very rapidly wet humour as the stability of the magazines suffers a critical existence failure
"Tiger, will you blow up please?"
Tiger:
"HMS Tiger has learned the first aspect of not being sunk: not to blow up."
Okay, this needs more ups.
HMS Tiger studied the Russian tactics at Tsushima and marginally improved upon them.
"Shoot a lot, score barely any hits, take many hits, but unlike the Russians, do not capsize and sink."
Good enough I suppose.
oh, and design a binocular thrower into the flag bridge so the admiral doesn't have to go outside...
Insinuating the Russians scored any hits of note. Forget the Battle of the Philippine Sea, I think Tsushima should be "the great Pacific turkey shoot"
☑️ Quite frankly, the only useful service Tiger provided at Dogger Bank and Jutland was to act as a diversionary target to soak up some of the German shells that would've otherwise been fired at other British battlecruisers, potentially blowing up more of them.
😊
Drachisms Of The Day:
"And her crew's gunnery was downright terrible. Even by Beatty's standards." 6:30
"Up ahead, Queen Mary was somewhat more performance-impaired, as it exploded." 8:14
This video was worth a replay just for the humor.
Generally when a ship experiences a catastrophic explosion, performance will take a dive. As will the entire ship really.
@@admiraltiberius1989 same seems to go for airplanes, I observe
Don't forget the "alloud aircraft notification systems"
The performance-impaired one was a (under)statement worthy of Beatty himself!
Every time I hear "2 anti-aircraft guns" slated to protect a capital ship I can hear Billy Mitchell laughing through the ether.
Throughout WW1, two guns from 3" to 4" did exactly that. The RN doubled the number of heavy AA guns and standardized on four guns in the 1920s. By 1933, the RN had the heaviest AA batteries of all the Great Power navies, with the octuple 2pdr mount and the quad .50. Billy Mitchell may have been right about the power of aviation IN THE FUTURE (from 1936-1940) but until then aircraft were little threat to capital warships. And his predictions for heavy bombers and level bombing remained unfulfilled through the end of WW2.
Everything I hear "planes > ships" I think of the Turkey Shoot, when the 3rd Gen US Battlewagons repulsed waves of Japanese formations effortlessly.
@@rinzler9171 you do realize that the "Great Marianas Turkey Shoot" was mostly an air-to-air battle, don't you? Over 10 planes shot down by aircraft for every 1 that was shot down by US AA fire, and roughly 3 times more aircraft were lost when US submarines sank their carriers out from underneath them than were shot down by AA fire.
@@erichammond9308 Good point about the CAP (combat air patrol) being the best form of air defense in WW2 - especially once the Americans figured out how to do it efficiently. However, it's also important to not under-estimate the importance of ship-based anti-aircraft weapons. One of the interesting points that caught my eye when reading detailed accounts of the Royal Navy ship losses in the campaign for Crete is how often the ships (with no air support) were able to hold off the attackers and stay out of serious trouble until they started to run out of anti-aircraft ammunition - especially when they were in groups of ships that could support each other. It's also noteworthy how many air attacks missed or did no or little damage to British cruisers in the Norwegian campaign where again they didn't have air cover - but also didn't get run out of ammunition (that last is based on reading British Cruiser Warfare: The Lessons of the Early War 1939-1941 by Alan Raven). Sure there were a few effective attacks, but they were the exception not the norm. I think the ship-based weapons - whether Royal Navy or US - when good quality weapons were present in numbers and used effectively by a skilled crew - forced the Axis pilots to choose between less accurate bomb/torpedo runs and a higher probability of being hit. Being human, they would generally choose the first option, unless they misjudged matters or simply lacked the experience to understand the choice they were making. As the saying goes: there are old pilots, and there are bold pilots, but there are no old bold pilots. Late war radar controlled guns and guns firing shells with radar based fuses (these exploded when they detected the metal of a plane) only made the ship-based gunnery even more effective - though still nowhere near as good as a well-run CAP with good aircraft and experienced pilots.
And how many AA guns were defending the ships Mitchell sank?
They trained her so poorly that she didn't know to leave her flash doors open.
I thought of that too!
I thought of that too!
@Michael
What class of ship was that?
Flash doors work when they're closed.
@@BOORAGG One would hope so!
"Queen Mary was somewhat more performance impaired, as it exploded..."
Nothing like the dry and sardonic humor of a Brit.
Well, that quote is kind of true, he didn't lie.
Indeed. That's one thing I find I like about Drach's commentary.
People all over the world have this same sense of humor, stop pidgeon holing, it’s dumb
jb76489 But the Brits are known for it.
@@jb76489 The British are famed for the art of the understatement
"Colonel, we've managed to avoid exploding." "Good job lads."
better than the Hood..
@@knusern666 HMS Tiger never got hit by 15" shells.
@@brucetucker4847 Given their lack of 'training' Crews may well have kept the doors into the Magazines closed between volleys. No idea if the rumours that they were often kept open for ROF benefits are true but frankly, if they WERE their lack of 'shakedown' may have been advantageous, with bad habits not being learned.
Glen McGillivray The idea that magazine doors were left open in combat is ludicrous. It does not improve rates of fire as the guns were fed by hoists that involved automatically closing door systems. Neither did they store propellant outside the magazines as the hoists for the guns were inside. Everybody knew the volatility of the cordite propellant, why else was it stored in armoured magazines? Ships had exploded outside of combat, notably HMS Barham which was blown to fragments in the Medway off Sheerness.
The fact is that the Battlecruisers exploded at Jutland because they were a bad idea, used incorrectly and had their thin cruiser armour penetrated by Battleship size shells which detonated in or around their propellant magazines.
@@SvenTviking their concept was Cruiser Hunter-killers. It wasn't a bad idea, given the global nature of the British empire at the time.
The bad idea was giving them battleship sized guns without moderate protection.
Any ship with battleship guns will have the potential to deal massive damage to battleships: Good. But they will take the level of damage expected to be inflicted on cruisers: Bad. Combine with increased size of magazines? Terrifying.
Really should have gone for slightly up-gunned cruiser caliber weapons and had batteries of 20 or so cruiser cannons.
The Germans worked out early on their battle-cruisers would likely end up facing battleships (given their naval inferiority to the British at the time): so they split the difference and gave them middling Armour and protected their magazines carefully. Still they would have lost a number of ships at Jutland if the British had shells that worked reliably...
Oh yeah I should add a question to the Q and A about the differences between British and German battle-cruiser design, and where the Germans got the mass for more armor that the British could not fit without slowing their ships.
Tiger: Doesn't explode
Beatty: "There seems to be something wrong with this bloody ship today."
"Certainly the most beautiful warship in the world then, and perhaps ever." - John Keegan, 1988
@8:17 Exploding does have a way of effecting a fighting ships performance. (The incredibly understated humor in these videos is perhaps my favorite part)
One of my favourite quotes from Drach is "Terminal existence failure"
* affecting
@George Phillips That would be "British Humour" 😉
"There's something wrong with our bloody ships. You there!"
"Us, sir?"
"Why haven't you exploded yet?"
"Well, we're trying, sir. But we can't seem to annoy the Germans enough, sir."
"Well, stop being durable!"
"Can't help it, sir."
"Well, why don't you try bloody well hitting the Germans first! Hit hard! And then Keep On Hitting! That ought to annoy them."
"Err, that's not your quote, Sir..."
Brent Keller lmfao ! Sounds like a Monty Python skit :)
Meanwhile a Japanese naval atache is observing the Tiger fighting, noticing the distinct lack of exploding, shaking his head going "Much dishonour...."
Hold my pint!
@@KrillLiberator m
A piece of tiger’s machinery still exists at the internal fire museum in cardigan, Wales I think it might be the last pieced of working machinery that was present at Jutland
Surely there is something remaining on HMS Caroline?
William Murdoch I think it’s the only like fully operational piece of machinery its a steam powered dynamo. There could be other pieces of kit about but I’m not sure in what state of operation they are in
@@lol62002 I see.
One of the four 14 ton Browett & Lindley generating sets installed on Tiger was in store for many years at Greenwich, now in steam at Internal Fire Museum in Wales. It was removed when Tiger was scrapped and worked for many years at Storthes Hall Hospital.
HMS Tiger,
Gunnery 1/10
Luckiness 9/10
Looks 10/10
One of the originators of Draw Aggro team player
hit 3 of 300.... good god, and I thought my aim sucked
If you're going to suck, being lucky is all that's left.
You missed... Speed 11/10
Tawelwch Gaming reckon I could have done better throwing the shells myself.
"Even by Beatty's standards" now that was funny. Beatty's motto "ready fire, aim"
I'm surprised Beatty didn't dispose of the superfluous parts and just yell Fire, since it didn't really matter where the guns were pointed. In defense of the gunners, though, they hadn't been in a shooting war for the previous 200 years and were somewhat out of practice.
@@deltavee2 not out of practice...the RN never stopped being obsessive about gunnery practice.
I'm trying to think when the RN would have last fought in anger before Jutland. Sure as hell less than 200 years. The opium wars maybe. Or the Crimea.
But still. Gunnery was always an obsession for the RN :)
Beatty's take on it was just.... Wrong.
@@AdamMGTF No serious fleet engagements since Trafalgar. Read The Rules of The Game by Andrew Gordon. It recounts in great detail the defects of the RN at Jutland and in the years leading up to it. Beattie comes across as a classic narcissist.
> Beatty's motto "ready fire, aim" ....miss, duck, fuuuuuu...
FTFY.
@@michaelmcneil4168 & How does my Uniform look?
HMS Tiger: takes 21 hits without exploding. Scrapped.
HMS Hood: never been used in battle. Dubbed "The Unsinkable."
Hood might have done better in WWI, but tragically due to lack of funds never got the urgently needed interwar refit, that would have replaced the engines and put the weight savings into better armor that all knew was needed. Instead Hood ended up facing not only a real battleship, but the brand new state of the art Bismarck, as seriously outclassed as the doomed pre-dreadnought cannon fodder at Jutland, bringing to mind another famously futile British sacrifice bunt: the suicide charge of the light brigade.
Hood was never considered, nor known as, 'The Unsinkable.
@@BOORAGG It's very much unsinkable since the battle of denmark strait.
@@BOORAGG she was dubbed "the unsinkable, the mighty hood"
@@b_de_silva Yes, the Hood was always given great press, but she was never considered 'unsinkable' by any reputable military or naval experts. Other 'unsinkable ships included the Titanic, Yamato, and even the Bismarck herself. Every great ship seems to get that tagline. However, the Hood was a national treasure and that boast helped British morale.
"The end result was, by all accounts, a fairly good-looking ship . . ." He says about the prettiest battlecruiser ever. Gotta love that British understatement. ;D
I personally think HMS Hood looks better
@@yankeesandy2545 Agreed, Tiger IMO looks like the Kongo, nothing really stands out about it to me.
Nah reconstructed Renown is the best looking British BC
Well, since it's all subjective, no. Lots of contenders for that spot.
I love that Drach keeps in little bloopers like the one at 5:15 . It adds levity, making his presentations so much more human and approachable :)
Being early to a Drachinifel video is something to be treasured.
Not sure on the links policy due to the new EU laws, but British Pathe has a short clip of the Tigers namesake cruiser joining the fleet in 1959.
5:15
The tripping over words followed by a “blaughhh” has to be one of the most relatable things I’ve seen on RUclips. I do the same all the time.
HMS Tiger "I may be terrible at everything, but by God, I'll do it so badly you cant even kill me"
So basically the ship version of Darkness from Konosuba
Lol she Intentionally missed her shots just so she could take more hits.
Oh, would those terrible German ships had their wicked way with her?
@@TheLiamis No, she actually had terrible luck (which exists in Konosuba), which allowed her to have such incredible strength. Just like how Aqua’s incredible magic power was offset by her rock-like intelligence.
Drach, even your short videos are far more entertaining than 99.99% of everything on cable and broadcast TV. Your longer videos are well worth the wait. So don't worry about it, we'll be here with baited breath.
"Aircraft Notification Systems". Perfect description!
Tiger's tiger symbol 12:08 looks like it's screaming in terror instead of roaring. Presaging maybe?
Drach Please do a video on what ever Topic that you want to do . Your vids are great and we enjoy them . How is that for a request ? Thank you for your efforts .
Ship with rubbish training becomes a training ship
Perfect, just show the history of the ship and say "Don't do this".
Learn on junk, you learn to adapt, kids in early days of autos, tinkered around all the time, WWII rolls around and Uncle Sam had a base of mechanic minded recruits.
@@hymanocohann2698 There's wisdom to that, but I think learning the basics of "everything" works on junk, learning to be very good at your very specific job is better taught at the correct target environment. Driving schools giving you a new Audi when your first car will be a banged up old honda... yikes.
@@hymanocohann2698 In WWIII if we ever need Virtual Signaling Corps we can thank twateer.
The irony, right
Let's not forget that 1940s Kongou were classified as Fast Battleships due very extensive reftis (including increased hull armor) when Tiger would as it was mentioned in best case scenario received Renown treatment which would still put her in disadvantage in duel with her Japanese more heavy armored cousins.
Regarding Tiger vs Scharnhorst and Gneisenau, the reason for Admiral Lütjens refusing to engage Convoy HX 106 because it was escorted by Ramilles wasn't that he doubted his ships' ability to take Ramilles. It was that he was under very strict orders from Hitler not to engage capital ships at all. The same would've applied to Tiger.
Had Lütjens defied those orders and tried to fight Ramilles, even given the inferior guns on his ships I suspect that he would've won that engagement. He did after all outnumber Ramilles 2 to 1, and his ships were 11 knots faster and also better armored.
Thus, I disagree with the assessment that Tiger would've had less utility than an R-class early in the war. Even if she had a very limited refit, her speed would've allowed her to be used in duties other than just convoy escort. And Revenge herself did little of any importance during WW2, so discarding her to keep Tiger (or keeping her as the training ship instead of Iron Duke) would've been no big loss.
And in terms of the logistics of keeping the BL 13.5-inch Mk V gun in service for a single ship? That would be somewhat of an issue, but remember that those guns were still in use as land-based artillery in railway mounts as well. Three of them were brought to Dover as part of the battery of cross-channel guns. So it's not as if Britain discarded their stores of shells and charges for guns of that caliber. And if Tiger's refit came in the late 1930s, it's possible that she could've had her 13.5-inch guns replaced with the same BL 14-inch Mk VII used on King George V. IIRC, those guns were designed so that they could work with the turrets, cradles, and shell hoists of the 13.5-inch Mk V, because initially there was consideration of using Iron Duke's remaining turrets to test-fire the new gun design.
@Sean m Apparently Captain Hoffmann of Scharnhorst suggested to Lütjens the idea of using his ship as a decoy to draw Ramilles out of position (a fairly low-risk strategy, given Scharnhorst's superior armor and extreme speed advantage) so that Gneisenau could get within range to attack the convoy while remaining outside Ramilles' gun range. Given that Ramilles failed to identify Scharnhorst, it's possible that they didn't realize Gneisenau was also present, in which case such a tactic would've had some chance of success.
There also would've been the option of simply trying to bombard the convoy from long range. The 28cm SK C/34 had a maximum range of 40km, though the odds of actually hitting a moving target at that range would be near zero. The BL 15"/42 Mk I in an older non-refitted mount like on Ramilles was limited to 20 degrees elevation and a maximum range of 26km with super charges (which I don't think had been issued yet in 1941) or 21km without them. So if they stayed at least 22km away, they could've fired on the convoy without Ramilles being able to respond. The accuracy at such ranges would've been low (though Scharnhorst *had* a year earlier scored a hit on Glorious from around 24km away), but it also would've been low-risk (at least so long as they didn't stick around long enough for reinforcements to arrive).
RedXlV t
uh, guns on Scharnhorst/Gneisenau not inferior, just smaller diameter. After war testing of that gun by Allies showed the 28cm armor piercing shell was almost identical in performance to the 38cm shells as used on Bismarck and Tirpitz. It's a giant rifle so to speak, and ballistically, the 28cm as used in this case was a very fine performing gun.
@@TheMadNorsky I don't know the exact numbers on those particular guns, but of course a huge factor is when the gun was designed. The 11 inch guns on the Scharnhorsts and Deutschlands were probably much better than WW1 German 11 inch guns, simply because they were of a much newer design. Apparently the Americans found out during testing that their new 12 inch guns (designed for the Alaska class) were about on par with the old 14 inch guns on their old "standard" battleships. And that is also a considerable difference in caliber, yet the new guns were simply more potent in general than old guns of the same caliber.
The retention of HMS Tiger would have resulted the scraping of HMS Iron Duke. The Washington Naval Treaty disposal schedule lists were based on the age the ships ships. Thus the question would be whether HMS Tiger had a better chance of reactivation in the late 1930s than the historically retained HMS Iron Duke. Historically HMS Tiger's 13.5-inch guns and mounting were retained and still in storage in 1939. HMS Iron Duke was still carrying out 13.5-inch shoots as a gunnery training and trials ship until 1939.
The alternate possibility would've been retaining both Tiger and Revenge, but relegating Revenge to the training ship role.
Though it would've been interesting if Tiger had retained instead of Iron Duke, and then both she and Hiei both got restored to full combat capacity after Japan pulled out of the treaties.
@@RedXlV HMS Lion and HMS Princess Royal had seen hard war service. Post war the naval powers agreed that 1 year of war service equated to 2 of peacetime wear and tear on hull but more importantly on machinery. All of the 13.5-inch gun battle-cruisers had nothing like the combat power of the Revenge class battleships. The 13.5-ch gun battle-cruisers were older and with exemption of HMS Tiger were in need of major mid life refits to met fleet needs of the 1920s. The 1930 London Naval Treaty saw the destruction of the reserve fleet with 8 light cruisers, over 50 destroyers, ?submarines going for scrap, and the battle fleet reduced from 18 to 15 battleships and battle-cruisers. Also four 7.5-inch gun cruisers were to be disarmed as training cruiser. The Admiralty was concerned with the loss of the two 13,5-inch battleships from the "Boys" training squadron as 20 percent of peace time initial enlistment of the RN was 15 and 16 year olds.
"Sir, we've been hit!"
"Ahhhhhhh shit..................... why haven't we exploded yet?"
As I have posted before, the loss of three battlecruisers at Jutland was the result of almost suicidal ammunition handling processes as addressed by Brown, Friedman and Hobbs. None of three were destroyed by shells reaching the magazines. Beatty after Dogger Bank thought that a few more hits would have slowed the German battlecruisers enough to finish them off. Note that none of the battlecruisers (or their sisters) that blew up at Jutland blew up at Dogger Bank. Beatty initiated a policy in Battlecruiser Squadron of boosting the rate of fire by placing ready ammunition (shells and powder bags OUT of their stowage cans) in the turret, the handling room and outside the magazine. The result, with the flash doors left open and even wired open, was a powder trail from the turrets through the barbettes to the magazines. Even a partial penetration or spalling of heated fragments from the turret or barbette could have set off the train. This situation was covered up during the war and in the official reports and histories, only coming out as the 50 year rule on security of government documents expired. There was nothing wrong with the ships and their designs. A detailed review of range and bearing between the British ships and German ships shows that none the of German hits blamed for the exploded ships should have fully penetrated armor decks, but could have gotten partial penetration on turret roofs or barbettes. HMS Tiger was the one ship that refused to follow the squadron policy and maintained proper ammunition handling procedures, which gave the turret and magazine crews time to respond to the crisis. Against the German 28cm and 30.5cm guns (but not 38cm) at the same bearing and range scenario, even the HMS Renown and Repulse would have been reasonably safe from a magazine hit. Once rebuilt after the war with 9" belts and reinforced decks, they could have, with Tiger, been able to close with the "Kongos" in the Far Eastern war the RN planned for from 1919-1936 and badly hurt them, though they might have taken some severe damage from the Japanese 14" guns outranging them after their first rebuilds (the British turrets had 20 degree elevation and the Japanese at least 33), especially if the Japanese seized air superiority or supremacy over the battle line allowing for aerial spotting. The Japanese could have opened at 33,000 yds while the British were limited to not much more than 25,000 yards. Truthfully, unless rebuilt along the lines of the HMS Renown, HMS Tiger would have been a liability against the Japanese from 1933 on, so scrapping her in 1931 after the London Treaty was not such a loss.
HMS Tiger: "Ha! Who says I'm a bad shot? I say those who shoots me seventeen times but fail to sink me are the ones who are bad shots!"
That only stands up if Tiger had sunk 2-3 ships with her 2-3 hits.
My great grandad served on Tiger. I found a couple of his journals from that time in my aunts house while we were clearing it out after she passed.
Let's be honest; at Jutland Tiger's abysmal gunnery wasn't upped by hitting Seydlitz. Seydlitz had a magnetic attraction to naval cannon shells, EVERYONE hit Seydlitz.
The loss of the HMAS Perth and the USS Houston pin the Sunda Straight would be a story of heroic death against impossible odds.
She sounds like me in wows. Line up a perfect shot, 1 round veers off to the left the other to the right. 300 shots later a cruiser accidentally runs into one of my stray shells. I survive the round with 3%hp
I never get tired of the intro.
spent 4 years in united states navy on aircraft carrier really enjoy your presentation on defferent ships thank you.
2:49
'Iron Dukes on steroids"
Hahahah Lol
😂🤣😄
That made me laugh
Got me too
Now somewhere, I think it was one of Massie's books, I read that Tiger had a reputation as a repository for every deserter, defaulter, and attitude case. Strange, if true, that they would put all the bad apples on the sleekest, most modern unit.
When she was due to be manned, the RN was fully stretched with war manning of existing ships, and so Tiger had to take what she could get, which was the depot sweepings, and the discipline cases recently released from the brig. Only by paying off an existing big ship could a better quality crew have been found.
So arguably the most rational warship crew afloat?
Me: Behold HMS Tiger the greatest Battlecruiser of all Time
Guy: Why's that?
Me: She wasn't blown to pieces after taking a single hit
Seydlitz: Am I a joke to you?
@@Lgs260495 Yes... ;)
@@Lgs260495 HMS Tiger- "Yes you are...."
HMS Renown - stares disapprovingly
That title though😂
I have always admired British BC's, not so great action records, but some of the finest looking ships built. And lets face it, a lot of darn cool names also!
Now this is why I watch this channel!
HMAS Australia would be quite a good ship to cover. (No bias at all)
Jurassic Aviator either
An entertaining and educational episode, as usual. Well done and thank you Sir. Please consider, perhaps as a Drydock question, why was Beatty not cashiered by the Admiralty? In each of the Battle Cruiser actions there was a massive screw up that cost the Royal Navy dearly. Allowing unsafe ammunition handling practices is not only incompetent, but criminal. No USN officer in command, who managed to survive Jutland and Dodger Bank would have had a career future.
Possibly because Beatty was a flamboyant public figure, who was very aggressive, which played out well with the public. Maybe Beatty should have been more obsessed with accuracy rather than rate of fire.
Beattie had high connections.
Her exploded sisters, were caught with their doors open, ignoring "safety" in order to get more shots off really can blow your ship up.
When only 1% of your shells are hitting why even try firing faster.
@@Marc83Aus: The simple reason is that historically, the side with the greatest volume of fire wins, land or sea battles. But does appear that the Battlecruisers lost that day were keeping their "Flash Tight" doors open to increase their rate of fire. Because of this a hit on the turret could and did flash down to the main magazines.
Its directly because of the RN's reverence for tradition - "rate of fire won the day at Trafalgar (as it did), so rate of fire will win the day in 1916". In aid of reloading speed, not only were blast doors left open but cordite charges were left lying around on turret floors. I suspect Tiger's officers despaired of their gunner's skills and so said "OK lads, slow and steady will do".
@@kenoliver8913 Its all well and good until your, blows up.
One of my favorite British Warships. It's very cool, that you tried to predict a possible future for the Tiger. She was upgraded from the Lion class, because of the Kongo class and a one vs one would have been very cool.
A certain Admiral reportedly muttered: 'There seems to be nothing wrong with this bloody ship today.'.
One of history's inexplicable mysteries: Why was Beaty not court-martialled and shot for treason? There is a level if incompetence that is just inexcusable.
Failures from higher ranking officers are often treated with no punishment or promotion, history proves this
Tiger is one of the best examples for my theory of belt armor thickness not being the cause of the loss of the battlecruisers at Jutland or Hood in the Denmark Strait. Even Tiger, and Lion suffered no main armor belt penetrations/perforations. The issue was the foolish over-riding of the safety systems for quicker rate of fire which allowed flash to enter the magazines. It is what I believe killed HMS Hood. It was not Bismarck, at least not directly. It was leaving flash doors open in battle, and stowage of propellant and shells in the working spaces of her aft turrets which burned and flashed into the magazines. The battlecruiser was NOT an obsolete design. The farther away the enemy opens fire on you, the steeper the fall of shell is and the harder it is to penetrate thick main belt armor. Anything coming in at angles steeper than 45 degrees would not be able to penetrate even 9 inches of belt armor. The danger is to the deck armor, not the side armor.
General Obi Wan Kenobi sloppy powder discipline and open magazine scuttles generally minimize survivability
Any evidence that Hood also had her magazines left exposed a la the Jutland CCs?
@@bkjeong4302 Ted Briggs believed that flash through a gunhouse floor destroyed Hood. Also in war in the heat of battle things can and often are disregarded. There is no evidence Hood's belt armor was penetrated but people want to go with that theory when it's been shown there was no way Bismarck's shells could have penetrated the deck armor.
@@GeneralKenobiSIYE You need to check out Drach’s video on this very topic. Quite illuminating.
Before I get one minute into this post I feel the need to express my appreciaton for all your work and scholarship ( was that a unintentionarry pun (?)., I hope not. Regardless, I find your work to be entrancing. Although I am not a rabid consumer of naval history/nonmenclature and do not find it EXTREMELY fascinating, I do find your work to be precise, matter-of-fact and sometimes enthralling. Please, keep up the good work, have a good life beyond this, eternally gratefull, Murray.
I always thought it was a mistake to scrap Tiger. One valuable factor on the WWII naval battlefield which is extremely hard to upgrade is speed.
One on one a modernized Tiger was a match for a Scharnhorst or a Kongo. Her 8 gun broadside vs 6 on Renown make her shell weight landed similar and having better odds of scoring hits.
I assume by the 1940s the training issues would be sorted out 😉
She was also the equal of Hood in her lines, perhaps prettier. That’s not worth much in a fight but she’d look nice in a parade.
Armed with modern 14 inch guns that were designed to fit her gun mounts and given modern machinery and dual purpose secondary guns she would have been a valuable addition to the RN of WW2.
Any time you spend producing these videos is much appreciated
Turret layout is pretty similar to the kongo class... at least from my own memory of that class
The Kongos were designed by George Thurston, a British naval arcitect, and the Kongo was built in the UK. Like the Tiger I guess they were designed along the lines of an improved Lion.
I have read that the 14" gun used on the KGV BB's was designed to fit in the 13.5" mounts used in Iron Duke and Tiger. Depending on the supply Tiger could have been refitted with those guns.
That's one I haven't read before. Interesting.
"...Not exploding on the job."
Well. You know British Battle-cruisers and their ammo storage...
*Sweats nervously as tomorrow is the 78th Anniversary of The Battle of the Denmark Strait.*
tobias GR3Y
That one was just bad luck, not bad ammo storage or bad design.
Q&A
I've got 2 questions.
1. could you do a video on the Diddo class vs Atlanta class
2. Portholes on capital ships. Were they there there due to the lack of air conditioning?? Or were they there for some other reason??
1. Do you mean Dido? 😂
2. Bloody good question sir! Worth putting in the Q&A post of a newer video so it may get answered!?
6:37 The real question is: was her gunnary terrible by 2nd Pacific Squadron standards?
no. you're talking about the Gold Standard of terrible gunnery and Tiger failed yo hit a single ship of her own fleet.
Another thing to consider for modernization. All 15 of the retained units started as oil fueled ships. Tiger would have required conversion from coal to oil, an added expense, Not actually difficult. Both the USN and IJN did this as well. But it was something to consider. She would also be the only 13.5" ship in service, another consideration. The Kongo's were a class of 4 ans there were 4 BB's also with 14" guns.
hello Drachinifel do you think you are going to make a video on the Ise class battleship but with the late war version ? Have a nice day :-)
Logistics led to the scrapping of the Tiger. With the shells for it's main battery out of production that left just a limited amount in stockpiles. Perhaps it should have been mothballed and left should an emergency like WWII came up. If it's stores of shells could be transported to a Pacific ammunition dump it could have served as a shore bombardment platform at least until it's ammunition ran out. The Pacific demands amphibious landings and such a ship would be needed. Perhaps by the time ammunition ran out a replacement ship would be available.
In hindsight she could perform convoy escort duty providing protection from surface raiders. Turns out that the German fleet was bottled up in WWII and few capital ships ventured out. The Germans did send out surface raiders most notably small auxiliary cruisers which the Tiger could counter.
Even with main batteries dead it could be fitted with antiaircraft guns and functioned as a floating flak battery for a harbor.
If it were up to me she would have been preserved as a museum ship. Such beautiful lines. It's a real shame she was unceremoniously scrapped.
Are there many museum ships from this era?
That ship had nice lines and it took a beating so you have to give it credit. I would of liked to have been there when the opposing fleets both limped into port. What a smack down that was at Jutland.
The doctrine of speed in firing over accuracy proved a deadly failure. The sailors left the safety flash doors open to speed up firing lead to huge explosions.
Very interesting. I enjoyed your suppositions about the Tiger if she had survived until WW2.
Fantastic video as always....I've always liked the Tiger class. Beautiful lines and a surprisingly durable design. It's a shame she wasn't retained but that could be said for alot of ships from that era. As someone with OCD that rear turret layout does give me a fit.
One of my uncles served on the Tiger at Jutland. He was a stoker (ex coal minor). He joined at HMS Raleigh and within a month he was shipped up to Scapa! I remember my father saying that, as a young boy, he was showed around the ship by my uncle in Cardiff Docks. The ship was taking a 'farewell' tour of the UK before she was sold for scrapping. I believe that large numbers of the crew were from a district of Cardiff known as "Tiger Bay" - somewhat poetic. Sadly, my Uncle Tom (for that was his name) died around 1948 from what we would call today Alzheimer's. I have a photograph of him in his naval rig. After Jutland, Tom came home on leave. His father (my grandfather) asked him what it was like. Tom's reply: "Noisy and hot, Dad!
I'm glad he survived, sad that he passed so young and from such an awful disease.
I'm content with this being my birthday present lol
Congrats on another full lap around our Solar System!!
Cheers on accomplishing another seasonal series. A long and happy life for you!
There has been some suggestion that her design was inspired by the Japanese Kongo class, of which Kongo herself was the last Japanese naval ship which was built in the UK, and there certainly is a strong resemblance between Tiger and the Kongos, particularly with regards to the gun turret arrangement.
Its the same design mate
Always thought HMS Tiger was the prettiest of the Dreadnought Era BBs and BCs...
Ironically she would wonder what the bleeding heck a BB or a BC was... Unless you mean a Ball Bareing? BC can't be the British commonwealth, was still the empire when she was launched 😂
Repulse and Renown looks much much better than her , but she was really fine and amazing indeed
Adam Bainbridge
BB is battleship
BC is battlecruiser
This guy is incredible !!… Thank you.
All good stuff
Waiting on part 2 3 and 4 of the 2d Pacific fleet.
Ahhhhhh those 2,000 opium laced smokes
I had a great uncle who was with the great white fleet and have a few old pictures 2 being 70 m.m. type one showing part of the fleet in china with Chinese gun boats at the harbor entrance guns pointed at the fleet.
Let's see 2 river gun boats vs a few battle ships one British one French. Well symbolic I guess
Not sure of the posting links policy due to the new EU laws, but British Pathe and Movietone both have short clips of the Tigers namesake cruiser joining the fleet in 1959 posted on RUclips.
Excellent and comprehensive history of this ship.
To me it seems her bad reputation stems mainly from being rushed into service without proper training and served with an Admiral whose 'gung ho' attitude didn't allow the ship to be used to it's best potential.
The German BC's get massive praise for their toughness yet you clearly show that the British BC's were equally as capable of taking punishment and it was mainly poor stowage of their propellant that cause the losses. Plus a generous slice of both luck and skill for the Germans to hit the British ships turrets.
Both Lion and Tiger took almost as many hits as the much more heavily armoured German BC's yet at the end of the day were still combat capable and spoiling for a continuation of the battle the next day while the German ships were hors de combat and running for home with their tails firmly between their legs.
John Fisher Well given how Lion herself was extremely close to exploding twice, only to be saved by one man and basically luck, I can’t say the same for Lion. Tiger maybe but even then, the hit on ‘Q’ turret partially detonated the ready charges and easily could have spread down into the ship itself. It wasn’t just the handling of the powder itself, the powder was a lot more volatile than german or American equivalents.
@@RelativeGalaxy7 The idea you can have a shell explode next to a powder charge of any kind and not have it explode seems pretty ridiculous to me, I have never understood the point of the volatility argument
The German battlecruisers were being shot at by more ships, and received their worst damage from Jellicoe’s battleline. Not exactly a fair comparison.
@@bkjeong4302 And the British BC's were shot at by the entire German battle line earlier that day, when visibility was far better. Not exactly fair to the British is it?
Put it this way. Thinner British armour Vs efficient German AP shells while Thicker German armour Vs poor quality British AP shells.
Seems to me the German ships had the better deal.
But the point I'm making is that the British BC's were NOT the tin cans waiting to explode as many pro German fanatics crow about. They were tough ships able to take and dish out punishment. Take volatile cordite and dangerous handling procedures out of the equation and the British BC's stood up to the test of battle.
As Drach said in the video, Tiger and Lion suffered almost as many HITS! as Seydlitz and Lutzow. And while the shells were smaller those hits were from shells which functioned as they were supposed to, while the British mostly exploded on contact.
The next morning the British BC's were looking for a rematch while the German BC's were toothless wrecks running for home.
John Fisher
Missing my point. Much of the severe damage the German battlecruisers went through was inflicted by Jellicoe’s main battleline, rather than by Beatty’s squadron. On the other hand, most of the damage done to Beatty’s ships came from German BCs, even if the German BBs were also shooting at them (the correct term for battlecruisers is CC, but I’m using BC here because you’re doing the same)
You’re making this out to be a battlecruiser vs. battlecruiser conflict where the British suffered less damage than the Germans (looking at the surviving ships), regardless of who actually inflicted that damage. A better analysis would be to argue that British BBs heavily damaged German BCs without suffering much damage in return.
I do agree that poor propellant handling led to the severe British losses.
Lastly, please stop referring to me as a “pro-German (or other nation) fanatic”. On my other comments on this channel I have made it very clear I don’t think of German (or other) designs as being invincible or world-class if there were genuine and severe problems with them (a la “incremental armour in WWII”)
I greatly enjoyed the speculations at the end of the video. Thanks once again. Can't wait for the next ones!
Seems a shame she was never used in WW II. She was in effect a British Kongo class ship, and the Japanese used their Kongo class extensively during the war, more so than any other class of capital ship they operated.
In 1943 there were a number of battle class destroyers built that had well armered turrets and were capable of a good thirtyfour knots.
In the very early sixties i served on one of these for three years in the med
These were very really good ships and there were four of these class ships that all served in the same group forbthat perjiod of time.
Would be nice to see a videomof these.
Stunning looking ship. Would love to have seen it kept and upgraded for WWII.
Problem was that Britain might have been on the winning side in WW1 (And WW2) but in exception to all previous wars, the winner paid the bill for the war. America refused to relieve some of the dept, which in turn handicaped Britain preparing for WW2. This was of cause deliberate as the two countries were competing as world powers.
@@TayebMC irrespective of available resources (somewhat unrealistic), I think a Renown-style upgrade would have seen her a much more versatile ship than one of the R Class battleships.
If. Money was available, it would have been better spent on Hood
@@glennsimpson7659 and Repulse and QE2s and the next generation of heavy cruisers and, and, and. I get your point.
Good evening,
Talking about the refit, may I suggest that they scrap one of the r’ class and use the canons + turret’s for the tiger as the speed was a huge improvement over the r’class. Maybe instead of sending PoW send repulse and the refitted tiger. Just spinning wheels here.
Are you planning on covering HMS New Zealand? She had quite an interesting and charmed life, not to mention some national pride value for Kiwis such as me.
Enjoyed this video, always like info on BC especially Tiger. I did want to mention a couple of things. First the RN retaining Tiger to be upgraded violated the Washington Treaty of 1922. There were only two ways to keep the ship 1. the loss of one of the R class or QE class. 2. do what the Japanese did. Convert her to a training ship by reducing guns and engines, which in fact was useful if the plan (like the Japanese)was to modernize and return to service. The main reason to keep Tiger for modernization was to have another fast ship to deal with the German Panzershiffs. In fact, in basic numbers, Tiger compares very well to the French Dunkerque and Strasbourg. But a super-duper rebuilt is not needed since capital ship construction can start in 1937, with anticipated completion dates of 1941. You are entirely correct in that Tiger would be challenged by the Scharnhorsts so send her off to the Mediterranean. Better armed and faster than the Italian rebuilt battleships, Tiger may have made Cape Matapan a total VICTORY. Regarding ammo you are way off. The RN had a large store of 13.5 shells (and guns and complete turrets) since Iron Duke served as a Gunnery training ship. Also the RN did not uniformly have 15" guns on their battleships.. Rodney and Nelson had 16" guns and the new KGVs would have 14". So there is quite a mix. Additionally, when Richelieu came over to the allied side and its distinct 15" shells. the US manufactured new 15" shells for the Richelieu. QED. Yes, it could have been a fast carrier escort in the Pacific provided it was refurbished with new AA guns (which was often done in the US for RN ships. However, I tend to think it would have been lent to the Soviets like Royal Sov. A number of older ships were laid up due to manpower shortages. Don't mean to sound negative as I did enjoy your presentation and hope you do more.
A) He *did* mention the "caliber mix" issue, at 13:00. A mix of 13.5, 14, 15 and 16 inch guns is 33% more "logistical crap" to deal with than just 14, 15 and 16.
B) It's not just "do we have enough shells," it's logistics: "how can we get them to where the ship that uses them will be." To carry a sufficient amount of 4 different size shells from A to B, requires 4 completely different routines for everything involved in "getting shells from A to B." Again, it introduces 33% more complication than just 3 different sizes. It's why NATO has, over almost all its history, tried desperately to standardize anything it can within the member nations: every additional type of "X" that *any nation* uses makes it that-much-harder to keep *every nation* supplied with enough "X" for its needs.
C) The US did not "make a new 15" gun for Richelieu." Per Wiki: Since the gun cradles were undamaged, the guns were simply *replaced by barrels taken from Jean Bart,* which had been recovered at Casablanca during Operation Torch.
D) Had the RN put that much work into refurbishing Tiger, there is *no way* they would have lent her to the Soviets--would you spend half-the-purchase-price of a car to refurbish it, and then hand the keys to somebody whose prior experience operating a motor vehicle was in demolition derbies? (when the Soviets returned the Royal Sovereign to the RN, much of her equipment was unserviceable. It appeared to the inspectors that the main battery turrets had not been rotated while the ship was in Soviet service, and were jammed on the centreline. As a result of her poor condition, she was sold for scrap.)
The policy of building battle cruisers as derivatives of an existing battleship class, rather than reinventing the wheel every time, would appear to make sense. If the US had followed along, then CC1 and 2 would have been ordered as developments of the Colorado class, been more sound ships than the 1916 battlecruiser design. and potentially, make it into commission before the treaty went into effect as Maryland did. Then CC3 and 4 would have been broken up on the ways with the South Dakotas, that is assuming that any battlecruiser based on the SoDaks would be so huge that the waiver would not be written into the treaty the way Saratoga and Lexington were waivered. Without that waiver, Akagi and Kaga would not have been built as carriers either. Meanwhile, not having Lexington and Saratoga as carriers would free up enough tonnage under the treaty for the US to built 3 additional Yorktowns.
Fisher dream ship:
100,000 tons
8 x 18 inch guns - all in single turrets
50 knots speed
'splinter-protection only' armor
☮
Hot diggity boys, we are getting dangerously close to an actual 5-minute video!
Longer is always better ;)
@@kamakazi339 That's what she said.
kamakazi339 Well, sometimes, longer means it’s pencil-thin and you get the same amount out of that length as if you’d just compressed its mass into a short and thick one. However, Drach seems to have something of a universal thickness that never changes no matter how long it gets.
Oh, sorry, what I meant to say was “Haha, dick joke.”
An interesting watch, good one.. And here I go again.
Looking at the pictures of those ships I noticed lifeboats. I guess if they were built by a physic person they would have removed them because they would rather explode than let the crew use them. Kind of sad, I would rather prefer the lifeboat option. I guess if anyone got into one of the lifeboats and then it exploded it would launch them into obit you think?
1:30 now I'm just wondering how many British ship I could be playing in but they may have them be premium 🤔
Is your magazine going to explode due to a shell? Just do as HMS Tiger did and say no. The magazine legally can't explode without your consent.
When I heard you say she only had 2 AA guns to start with, I thought of the teacher in Willy Wonka and The Chocolate Factory that was aghast when Charlie only had 2 Wonka Bars:
"Two?! WHADDA YOU MEAN ONLY HAVE 2 GUNS?!"
I suspect your correct, her 13.5-inch guns doomed her retention after the war. One odd caliber ship in a 15-inch armed Home Fleet makes for a logistics nightmare ...and uncertainty in the squadron's battleline tactics. Especially after the Royal Navy observing Blucher sailing with the German battle-crusiers.
I feel that almost by definition any ship that doesn't explode on the job is to be considered a good ship.
The Kamchatka?
Would love to see a video on the USS Helena which was sunk at Pearl and then repaired
Breaking up Tiger was a crime against art!
I need to start quoting Drach in daily speach... "performance impaired" ~8:15
I have seen some speculation in forums that HMS Tiger was, or may have been, considered for purchase by Holland for its Far East fleet in the late '20s or early '30s. Does anyone have any actual information on this?
Great video, RUclips now has ads, they seem to think I may be interested in Fabletics. Delusional algorithms.
5:15
Me on every project I had to present in front of the class
Can I request a review about the USN's cancelled Battleship the south Dakota class actually the only got to the point of laying its keel but by 1920's the ships construction was halted due to the Washington naval treaty the armor platings were given to other ships and also used to strengthen the Panama canal and the existing
16"/50 caliber guns were transferred to the Us army for use as coastal defense batteries
Ahhh, my cousin.
Can you please do an episode on me and my sisters?
I just need 7k xp to get her
@@USSAnimeNCC- She's great fun, but kinda made of paper it feels like
Well that sounds interesting...
Kongo could you please rephrase that second sentence, that sounds really odd like that...
@@ousou78 Done.
Sorry about that.