Did you notice that 'Tab A' and 'Slot 'B' were painted on two steel parts? This made construction so simple a child could build the ship.
@mbryson2899
8 ай бұрын
Clear, to the point, and full of facts- nicely done! The importance of Japan developing the ability to develop and construct her own capital ships significantly changed the balance of power in the Pacific, thank you for walking us through it.
@jonathanlong6987
8 ай бұрын
Also, the Meiji leaders believed the best navy was British & the best army the Prussian/German. Thus, these became the models for their navy & army.
@WildBillCox13
8 ай бұрын
Aesthetically pleasing ships, especially after their late 1930s refits.
@rohanthandi4903
8 ай бұрын
Who cares how they looked
@williamashbless7904
8 ай бұрын
Your info and delivery are first rate.
@rickkephartactual7706
8 ай бұрын
Excellent video, please keep them coming. I throughly enjoy them.
@franksposato6072
8 ай бұрын
Could you please review the wreck of the Hiei someday? It seems very likely that she broke apart just like the Titanic but backwards. She took torpedo hits from 3 USN Destroyers on opposite sides of her hull amidships, sinks by the stern, rips in half, and now the entire bow half still needs to be found.
@centralcrossing4732
8 ай бұрын
Possibly. I won't guarantee it as I haven't really touched wrecks on the channel outside of Lusitania. I'll cover the sinking of Hiei someday though.
@franksposato6072
8 ай бұрын
@@centralcrossing4732 there is a really good article about her sinking that Robert Lundgren wrote. He is the man responsible for putting together the entire understanding of how her sister Kirishima was sunk by Washington in the battleship duel a couple nights later. This is very new information for anyone interested in this history and is becoming a very big deal. Thank you for all your great work
@bobkohl6779
8 ай бұрын
Comment and well done!
@larrymaroney4390
8 ай бұрын
Excellent video , I have noticed Japanese Battleships guns have a unique feature . They often have 3 clamping rings ,and a small platform attached to the gun barrels. What is this for,I can't seem to find the reason.
@tomlindsay4629
8 ай бұрын
Great photos and information, thanks for posting!
@powellmountainmike8853
5 ай бұрын
Well done ! Interesting video.
@christophersnyder1532
8 ай бұрын
Great as usual, I know I may have mentioned this long ago, but I do have Warship Pictorial's book on the Kongo class, as well as Kongo, and Haruna, from Super Drawings In 3D, from Kagero Publications. I surmise you will needn't discuss the Kongo class destroyer, which is perfectly fine by me. Take care, and all the best, and have a great new year.
@stevecausey545
8 ай бұрын
Excellent work!
@manilajohn0182
8 ай бұрын
WELL DONE...
@TOPDadAlpha
8 ай бұрын
Great video.
@warhawk4494
8 ай бұрын
Good video man. Merry Christmas yall.
@petestorz172
8 ай бұрын
"Unmatched in the Pacific" is true only in the sense that the US did not do battle cruisers. OTOH, the two New York class battleships, which had ten 14"/45 main guns came into commission around the same time as Kongo and Hiei. Ironically, when WW2 came, the Kongos (the IJN's oldest battleships) were some of the IJN's most used battleships, the Fuso and Ise class being too slow (compared to IJN carriers), the Nagato class' speed being marginal, and the Yamato class being fuel guzzlers.
@centralcrossing4732
8 ай бұрын
I said that because the US battleships started life in the Atlantic fleet, not the Pacific. Thanks for commenting.
@rohanthandi4903
8 ай бұрын
Boggles my mind how many miles they put on these ships while their era of battlecruser were either scrapped, blown up at jutland or turned into training ships. Shows how even with 50% of their GDP dedicated to the navy Japan had to resort to doing multiple rebuilds on ww1 hulls. And a ww1 hull with more armor slapped on is still just a ww1 hull. 2 of these ships got smoked in surface combat, one was fatally damaged by an 8 inch shell through the rudder machinery room which as far as I know is the only case of a modern capital ship being damaged beyond repair by a cruiser caliber weapon
@centralcrossing4732
8 ай бұрын
It actually makes sense as to what the Japanese were doing with these ships. While the battlecruiser era was over, it must be kept in mind that the circumstances between each navy who operated them was different. Germany had no choice but to dispose of them following ww1. Britain also had to remove them under the Washington Naval treaty(WNT) and because they realized the concept they followed was only useful under particular circumstances like the Falklands. Japan needed these ships. They couldn't replace them under the WNT and their navy was smaller than British and United States Navies. They were permitted to update the ships in reconstruction, given the tonnage total wasn't exceeded. This applied to all of Japan's existing capital ships. Being a ww1 hull didn't really matter. Most forget that the majority of battleships used in ww2 were ww1 leftovers thanks to the naval holiday. What really hurt these ships was being battlecruisers upgraded into battleships. Prior to the 1920s, capital ships suffered from a lack of an 'immunity zone.' This is a set range where the vessel's armor can protect the citadel from its own caliber of gun. HMS Hood was the final capital ship built without an immunity zone, so these ships were highly vulnerable. The lack of an immunity zone is a partial factor into the 8 inch gun's effect on Hiei's rudder. Hiei was also devastated beyond the rudder, and the crew actually serviced the emergency rudder. As they began to use the emergency rudder, it was attacked by aircraft which destroyed it too. Only then was the decision to scuttle given, yet the ship's commanders were investigated and had their careers ruined. Kirashima, no matter how much armor was added, wasn't going to survive an engagement against 2 brand new battleships with 16 inch guns, no vessel would. The added armor was really only on the deck, which wasn't being hit at the ranges fought, but it didn't matter. Your initial comment has very real points that shouldn't be overlooked. That said, it is easy to criticize these ships outside of the circumstances in which they were created and used. What Japan did with them makes sense and was necessary when thinking about the details to their stories. Thank you for commenting.
@rohanthandi4903
8 ай бұрын
@@centralcrossing4732 Im aware of the reasons why. My observation was that Japan spent an absurd amount of money and effort (secretly not demilitarizing Hiei, multiple full engine rebuilds and armor add ons) to keep these ships up to date. In exchange for that they got fast and pretty fuel efficient ships but not ones that were very effective at anything. Like CV escort is all they are good for. think about it. In surface operations these ships were screwed. The USN only operated newer battleships, like there is no scenario where these ships engage a US capital ship and are at any kind of advantage. Like even a pair of them with like 10 DDs couldn't fully beat the Cruiser force on nov Friday the 13th 1942. By OCT 1944 these ships were geriatric and im amazed Kongo scored hits with her main caliber on one of the DDs in leyte. You must admit age was a factor with the losses at sea tho, maybe not Karishma but defs Kongo and Hiei. Old fittings and obsolete armor schemes Good day sir
@centralcrossing4732
8 ай бұрын
@@rohanthandi4903 Hiei had indeed been demilitarized, there was no secret about it. Turret 4 was removed along with the secondary armament, the armor belt was removed, the fire control system was temporarily removed, the torpedo tubes were removed, and many boilers were removed/deactivated. The ship was a mere training vessel, which was legal by treaty terms. The USN was using new battleships because that's basically what they had left following Pearl Harbor. Every argument you've made applies to all of Japan's battleships with Yamato and Musashi being the only exceptions, but even then they could be taken out by what the US was using. I don't really pin age as an issue with the exception of the lacking immunity zone. The ships were rebuilt twice and heavily maintained, like every Japanese warship. It all really comes back to why battleships aren't used anymore, they were largely useless for what they cost. It's not a Kongō problem but a battleship problem. Even vessels like Iowa were largely useless and complete wastes. I just don't agree with pinning these issues to the Kongō class specifically when it impacted every battleship across the board.
@rohanthandi4903
8 ай бұрын
@@centralcrossing4732 100%. My biggest pet peeve is anyone who defends building or rebuilding a BB post 1925 haahahh. The IJN doctrine of a BB fleet in being and island strongpoints was like, how you fight the pacific war in 1910. Its defs a battleship problem in general but im saying out of the 10 BBs these had the issue the worst. worst armed and least protected were these guys. But ya i 10000000% agree with you that battleships were of little offensive strategic use in the pacific. Unless u count bombardment of beaches lmao. Not exactly the role they were designed for, they were the equilivent of nuclear weapons in the pre nuke world.
@rohanthandi4903
8 ай бұрын
@@centralcrossing4732 They skirted the treaty hard on demilitizing Hiei,
@williampaz2092
8 ай бұрын
I have never understood the concept/reasoning behind battlecruisers. Yes, they are supposed to be “Cruiser Killers” but it is actually less expensive to build two heavy cruisers than one battlecruiser. Just send two cruisers against one. Another thing about battlecruisers is their protection, or rather, their complete lack there of. “Speed equals protection” simply does not add up unless you’re running away. And in any case pitting battlecruisers with a 9” armored belt against battleships with at least 12” armor is a very rough game. Why not just spend the extra money and build a battleship with more powerful engines and get what you really want - the fastest, strongest ship?
@centralcrossing4732
8 ай бұрын
I think it's safe to say each nation's take on the battlecruiser was done to get battleship qualities on a hull without paying the same price. Even in Germany's case where we see their battlecruisers with an armour belt of 300mm (11.8in), they still kept the cost about 10 million marks less than the companion battleship. I think it's also worth mentioning that the heavy cruiser didn't exist at the same time battlecruisers were being built. HMS Hawkins was the first one and it didn't enter service until 1919, Hood of course was the last battlecruiser completed the following year. So the heavy cruiser did effectively replace the battlecruiser and was used how the battlecruiser was intended. Now asking why not just spend extra money to get all of the qualities in one massive ship is an easy one to answer. Combining what we now know to be the fast battleship in pre ww1 terms would have been ridiculous. Propulsion machinery was not very powerful, and some nations used reciprocating engines on capital ships until the 1910s. The size of the ship would exceed shipyards and would have a ridiculous price, one that could be dangerous for a nation's economy if built in large numbers. The battlecruiser was just the combination of what nations had available at the time, but technological advances phased them out rather quickly.
@davidvonkettering204
8 ай бұрын
Some dude down there V doesn't like your Japanese pronunciations. Ah EE OO EY O aiueo. is a quick trick that works. Another fantastic job, love the MASS of the construction and how the Japanese immediately heard about the 13.5" guns and said "I WANT THAT!". Merry Christmas and Happy New Years to all you floating metal box fans out there!! Thanks CC!! Love, David
@centralcrossing4732
8 ай бұрын
Thank you. I don't really pay attention to pronunciation comments as I've had many commenters contradict one another on the same words in the past. Corrections from commenters are as reliable as Google pronunciations. Besides, it doesn't add or change anything to the story, so if that's the criticism, then I'm happy.
@davidvonkettering204
8 ай бұрын
@@centralcrossing4732 As well you should be!! Cheers!
Пікірлер: 34