If you like in-depth military history videos, consider supporting me on PayPal, Patreon or SubscribeStar or PayPal: paypal.me/mhvis --- patreon.com/mhv/ --- www.subscribestar.com/mhv TIMESTAMPS (thanks to 101jir) Battleships: 10:32 (Introduction and disclaimers up to this point) Aircraft Carrier: 26:03 Battlecruiser: 38:34 Heavy Cruiser: 44:44 Light Cruiser: 55:00 Escort Carrier: 58:39 Destroyers: 1:01:05 Submarines: 1:08:10 Destroyer Escort: 1:15:21
@Usammityduzntafraidofanythin
5 жыл бұрын
So is that paypal, subscribestar, patreon, paypal, paypal, subscribestar, patreon, or paypal?
@DoddyIshamel
5 жыл бұрын
Hey, The swordfish night service thing is due to radar, Britain was pretty ahead in Radar and the swordfish was one of the first airframes to use it since it was a two man set up and early radar needed a dedicated operator, but bigger heavier aircraft couldn't fly from carriers, especially escort carriers. The Swordfish was also used in night/dawn attacks flown from Malta where it was guided in by radar from other RAF planes as well, again it is the general advantage Britain had in Radar rather than any attribute of the swordfish that let this happen.
@No_1OfConsequence
5 жыл бұрын
With regard to the Battlecruiser, the German "pocket battleships" were the closest thing to traditional battlecruiser of the early 1900s. The Scharnhost class was only designated as a "battlecruiser" due to the 11 inch main armament. The Kongo class conversion from battlecruiser to fast battleship is a case in point. The Alaska class produced by the Americans was the closest to a true battlecuiser. The performance of the Lion in various engagements is proof the ammunition handling was far more important than mere armor thickness in battlefield performance. The upgrades to the Renown class is a good case to study as well, with the difference in refits between Renown and Repulse. The HMS Hood was in dire need of a refit when the battle of the Denmark strait occured. In regard to cruisers, the Pensacola and Northampton classes were initially designed as light cruisers due to their armor. Rather their lack there of.
@ETAlnes
4 жыл бұрын
Fart at: 7:10
@nickdrexler8071
3 жыл бұрын
@@DoddyIshamel u mean 3 man set up? Or pilot +2^^^
@101jir
5 жыл бұрын
Timestamps: Battleships: 10:32 (Introduction and disclaimers up to this point) Aircraft Carrier: 26:03 Battlecruiser: 38:34 Heavy Cruiser: 44:44 Light Cruiser: 55:00 Escort Carrier: 58:39 Destroyers: 1:01:05 Submarines: 1:08:10 Destroyer Escort: 1:15:21
@fireraid2336
5 жыл бұрын
This should be pinned.
@giulioaprati338
5 жыл бұрын
101jir marry me😂
@M.M.83-U
5 жыл бұрын
Thanks
@brancaleone8895
5 жыл бұрын
you are a true übermensch
@JPF123
5 жыл бұрын
Thank you
@mcfontaine
5 жыл бұрын
My stepdad served on the aircraft carrier HMS Victorious. They did something like 18 convoys in less than 18 months. He could hardly talk about it because of how dreadful it was. He described pushing burning, armed & fuelled plane off the flight deck into the sea during a dive bomber attack in the Med. All while, as he put it “I was covered in my best friends brains”. Brave, brave men.
@gaberobison680
3 жыл бұрын
To illustrate the whole “early carriers were REALLY experimental thing”: Imagine choosing a DaVinci sketchbook plane to oppose a battery of 16 inch guns inside the range of those guns
@johnd2058
Жыл бұрын
USN fleet exercises with really early carriers kept ending with cruisers jumping out of fogbanks and wiping them out, so the second generation were equipped with cruiser-size cannons for defense.
@LuqmanHM
5 жыл бұрын
Please invite Drachinifel if you do another video about warships. Thanks 😁
@justinpyke1756
5 жыл бұрын
I wouldn't mind having a chat with him at some point. IF that were to occur, it wouldn't be for awhile since I have my hands full with other things for the next month or so.
@LuqmanHM
5 жыл бұрын
@@justinpyke1756 tq so much justin..plz do continue your work i really appreciate it 😁
@stephenippolito5668
5 жыл бұрын
That would be awesome. In 5 minutes more or less!
@paulcateiii
5 жыл бұрын
I'll get in my u-boat and go with the deep version
@seanmac1793
4 жыл бұрын
Be careful don't exceed your test depth
@TheRedandWhit
5 жыл бұрын
In regards to the Soviet’s. In the black sea they have no one to fight, and Sevastopol is taken, so that’s your main naval base gone. In the Baltic where the krigsmarine is, your main navel base at Kroonstad(Leningrad) is under siege and therefor have on supply for naval operations. That leaves Vladivostok, Murmansk and Archangels. Vladivostok doesn’t need explaining. Its really only Murmansk and Archangels that are operational throughout the war.
@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized
5 жыл бұрын
good points, yeah, makes a lot of sense, still need to read a bit into this.
@Septimus_ii
5 жыл бұрын
But presumably they weren't just in dock in Leningrad and the captured Sevastopol, so where did they go? Did they just sit in harbour at the other docks or did they try and operate and get quickly sunk?
@Sarsol1989
5 жыл бұрын
Also if i recall correctly, the Gulf of finland was blocked by a net for a few years, so subs could not sortie out.
@rscientist821
4 жыл бұрын
@@Septimus_ii in the black sea, there was little axis shipping and german air force dominance which left the subs with little to do but help evacuate sevastopol and be bombed by the Luftwaffe. In the baltic, the subs were effective at disrupting german shipping and laying mines, despite the considerable german air forces and destroyers there. However the germans installed an anti submarine net across the gulf of finland which by itself sunk several submarines and confined the rest to port. The subs stationed in polyarniy disrupted shipping and laid mines around norway, despite being one of the smaller soviet sub fleets. Later on some long range subs from the far east came via the panama canal to reinforce the northern fleet. all other pacific subs had nothing to do as the soviet union wasn't at war with japan and once they were, there was little left to do after the silent service sunk some three quarters of their merchant fleet. Pretty much all submarine action was in the arctic, with one unsuccessful torpedo atteck on tirpitz and a successful conversion of a submarine to sail power after an encounter with a mine.
@yathusanthulasi
5 жыл бұрын
Oh wow a 1 hour 40 min video (including the short version) on ships! Should be fun to watch!
@Archangelm127
5 жыл бұрын
"Hey, gunner! You are now a pilot." I had to pause the video I laughed so hard.
@TheAngelobarker
5 жыл бұрын
Should have just named this. Ww2 ship class guide 201
@No_1OfConsequence
5 жыл бұрын
The reason the Swordfish was more capable for night fighting was that the crew was all on the top of the plane, and the speed of the plane itself was an advantage at night due to the maneuvering characteristics of the bi plane, and the altitudes at which it was limited to.
@drewdederer8965
5 жыл бұрын
The CVEs had the 5 inch gun on the fantail (all the way on the back). Likely reason, starshell launcher for convoy duty (or maybe just trolling Chokai).
@HeIsAnAli
5 жыл бұрын
> Introducing Chōkai to a *_FUN & ENGAGING_* time. FTFY
@bkjeong4302
2 жыл бұрын
The idea White Plains sank Chokai has been disproven-that hit to the torpedo launchers never occurred, as Chokai’s wreck shows.
@No_1OfConsequence
5 жыл бұрын
To sum up, the British carrier design was focused on operations in range of land based aircraft, thus the armored flight deck vs the armored deck of American ships that was below the hanger deck. The exception being the Ark Royal the was designed to operate in the Pacific theater and had a doublr hanger deck to increse aircraft capacity over the Illustrious class that was the British production standard through WW2.
@charlesbaker7703
5 жыл бұрын
"Naval strategy is built strategy" and Justin's comment that navies need to think 10,20,30 years down the road reminds me that the US has been getting 40+ years out of their supercarriers (since Forrestal). America was the exception at about 30 years but that was (I'm guessing) post Cold War draw-down of the most worn-out ship.
@JohnRodriguesPhotographer
5 жыл бұрын
The results of the attack on Pearl Harbor, forced the USN to center the fleet on the carriers. This brought the carrier minded tacticians to the forefront. Forcing the change of tactics.
@chopchop7938
5 жыл бұрын
They had already started to think along the carriers strengths. PH just sped up the process.
@captinobvious4705
5 жыл бұрын
I have to admit, I did not see the length before making this video before deciding to watch it instead of the other.
@joelmccoy9969
3 жыл бұрын
The IJN was the only Navy to force their weapons manufacturers to develop long-range, high-speed, high-power torpedoes with ship-borne re-loading mechanisms that didn't require the ships to leave the contested area to replenish their torpedo tubes. They rearmed from onboard inventory. Japanese torpedo dominance in the Pacific was without serious challenge until August of 1943. Americans were/are myopically obsessed by a 'Gun Club' theology. By doing this the IJN maximized effectivity of the allowed tonnage of the Washington Treaty. A more aggressive Japanese Navy could have swept the Solomon Seas throughout 1942 of all American cruisers.
@seanmac1793
5 жыл бұрын
19:30 that was hillaroius
@justinpyke1756
5 жыл бұрын
I was hoping somebody would notice that. :D
@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized
5 жыл бұрын
is this an inside joke on the Last Jedi?
@justinpyke1756
5 жыл бұрын
@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized Yeah, hahaha.
@spookyshark632
5 жыл бұрын
Rian Johnson is the guy in World of Warships that always goes at ramming speed.
@chocolad4221
5 жыл бұрын
Holy shit when u said deep i didnt think 1 HOUR LEVEL DEEP
@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized
5 жыл бұрын
well, what you expect from a video with a short version of 20 minutes :D
@wannabecriminalman
5 жыл бұрын
Carriers subverted our expectations! That automatically makes them superior regardless of context!
@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized
5 жыл бұрын
:D
@USSAnimeNCC-
5 жыл бұрын
The minute I saw ships I came as fast as I can teach now senpai
@ironstarofmordian7098
5 жыл бұрын
God damn I wish I had a couple of functional Mk. 14 to send your way because of this comment. No anime in my ocean!!!!!!
@thelvadam2884
5 жыл бұрын
@@ironstarofmordian7098 Animes are everywhere especially around warships, just look at the game World of Warships, it is full of weebs and even had multiple collabs with anime Studios
@@ironstarofmordian7098 C'mon it's $CURRENT_YEAR, let's use some more up-to-date weapon, like RGM-84 Harpoon ;)
@ironstarofmordian7098
5 жыл бұрын
@@BicyclesMayUseFullLane I'm a nostalgic kinda guy. The MK. 14 will suit me fine
@drewdederer8965
5 жыл бұрын
Per Richard Worth's" "In the Shadow of the Battleship". Several of the French Cruisers had 600 tons of coal bunkers as "armor" (that didn't count for tonnage, despite being entirely oil-fired). EVERYONE fudged, just some more than others.
@George_M_
4 жыл бұрын
The one five inch gun on the escort carriers helped sink a Japanese heavy cruiser at Samar, if you'll recall. So not entirely useless.
@grimgorkeisenpelz9392
5 жыл бұрын
Yes! I just watched 5 minutes but I like it a lot. If I had the opportunity to do another degree, it would be military history with a focus on naval warfare. So, as I do not have that opportunity, I gladly watch this video. And thanks for the hint with Drachnifiels channel. I like that one too.
@PaulCabana
5 жыл бұрын
Not even 5 minutes in and I learned something new. Thanks!
@gordonmcinnes5055
5 жыл бұрын
The Swordfish 3 (from 1943) had radar and the Swordfish in the Med would most often be used at night against ships, they could be used on improvised Merchant Aircraft Carriers, they were easy to fly with STOL capabilities and they were relatively cheap and easy to produce. It is my understanding that the Swordfish sank more Axis shipping that any other allied aircraft.
@richardvernon317
5 жыл бұрын
Swordfish actually had 1.5 metre ASV radar in 1941 and it was used in finding and attacking the Bismarck by the Swordfish from HMS Victorious and Ark Royal.
@jpmtlhead39
9 ай бұрын
The Swordfish by 1939 was already Obsolete by any standards. But by a single struck of luck,the Swordfish gain a "Notoriety" that Honestly he didin't Deserved. He was a old, slow, Obsolete aircraft that by and Higher Intervention,one of is Torpedos hit the Rudder of a Fast Moving Battleship, wich was the Magnificent Bismarck How One in a million "Shoot" can Change and have such a historical impact,like that Swordfish Torpedo hit.
@model-man7802
3 жыл бұрын
At first they were CVE then at some date they went to CVL so depending on the date both were correct.The 5 inch gun was originally for the ships self protection then they removed them and added a AA gun.
@jameshenderson4876
5 жыл бұрын
Excellent episode. Thank you both very much.
@bartwozniak7611
4 жыл бұрын
About the submarines, do not forget that the americans submarines had major issues with their torpedos, which were their primary weapon. The Mark 14 torpedo wasso bad, that there were submarinesgoing to patrol armed only with mines... only in the 1943, the mark18 torpedo corrected this issue...
@lauritzdittrich8301
5 жыл бұрын
Hmm, for me Maximum Load seems to refer to how much you can load on the ship before sinking it.
@trevynlane8094
3 жыл бұрын
Atlanta class had no depth charge racks, but they were the only US cruiser armed with torpedo tubes, which were later removed in favor of more AAA
@chrisboerma7585
Жыл бұрын
I relatively recently found out about the "Light Carriers" built on light cruiser hauls... the Independence Class Carriers. I'd love to hear more about those if you could do a video on those.
@Volunteer-per-order_OSullivan
5 жыл бұрын
I-400-class submarine so useful.
@ousou78
5 жыл бұрын
It was an interesting concept. I wonder why the Americans didn't try to experiment the concept too. I guess with balistic missiles equiped sub there is no need for a submarine/aircraft carrier today but in the 50s/60s it could have been usefull.
@paulsteaven
5 жыл бұрын
@@ousou78 USN were too focus on the Carriers so they ditch the I-400 class but imagine if the Soviets got the I-400 class first, Cold War would be different.
@ousou78
5 жыл бұрын
@@paulsteaven Indeed things could have gone differently. I'm pretty sure in one documentary I saw on KZitem, it was said that the Americans destroyed the I 400 after examinating it to prevent the Soviets from putting there hands on it or trying to experiment the concept themself.
@JohnRodriguesPhotographer
5 жыл бұрын
Fletcher class had a few that could carry and launch sea planes. These were reverted to standard when it was determined to be redundant. Later modifications removed the midshipmen 5 inch turret, replacing it with 40mm. This was also done with the aft torpedo launcher and later both launchers.
@No_1OfConsequence
5 жыл бұрын
The Atlanta class had torpedoes, and anti submarine facilities in a stark contrast to the rest of American cruiser design. Two of the three light cruisers lost by the Americans in WW2 were the Atlanta and Juneau, lost in the Naval Battle of Guadalcanal. The 5 inch gun on the rear of the the CVE was for signaling and AA use, as well as a last ditch anti surface armament. The USS White Planes scored a hit on the IJN Chokai (Takeo Class heavy cruiser) during the battle of Samar on the torpedo tubes that resulted in the destruction of the IJN Chokai.
@masonsweetman9613
5 жыл бұрын
Great video learnt a lot from that. Keep up the great work
@hypocycloidiaspora
2 жыл бұрын
Great video, and yes I would like to see more videos like this. I think it would be interesting to hear about naval vessels like the tenders and oilers.
@PrinceOfParthia74
3 жыл бұрын
9:43 "you don't watch a 20 minute video" *nervous laughter*
@macewills80
4 жыл бұрын
"Hey Tank Commander! You are now a pilot!"
@trevynlane8094
3 жыл бұрын
The main reason the Swordfish stayed in service so long was because its replacement, the Fairey Albacore, was so much worse that it (the Albacore) was retired before the Swordfish. The Swordfish was eventually replaced by the all metal monoplane Fairey Barracuda in 1944.
@joechang8696
4 жыл бұрын
concerning aircraft carriers, the key is engine horsepower. At around 900 (A6M) to 1200 (F4F, SBD-5 & Val), the aircraft becomes a viable offensive weapon. This probably happened around mid 1930's. To a degree, it was probably predict out a couple of years. So knowing that aircraft carriers would become significant in the early 1930's. Also, look at the ship mix in the Naval Act(s) of 1940. The US definitely knew then that carriers would be the spearhead, although the 2 North Carolinas, 4 South Dakota's and probably a couple of Iowa's had been previously authorized.
@LordInter
3 жыл бұрын
The fuel mentioned in the washington treaty for for the Royal Navies global empire rather then the significantly smaller mostly defensive coastal fleet with no global empire of the USN
@timberwolf1575
3 жыл бұрын
Uh, no. This is incorrect. The US "coastal defense" fleet was routinely dealing with Pacific defense. There was a significant US naval interest in long range pre-WWI because the USN had to defend the Phillipines, Hawaii, and the west coast. All you have to do is look at WWI era ships and their coal bunkers to realize that fuel was a big issue to the USN as well.
@podemosurss8316
5 жыл бұрын
What is your opinion about the "treaty ships" built by nations that were outside the treaty but yet still influenced by it? I mean, as I mentioned in the other video the concept of a "10000 ton cruiser" got the attention of the Spanish navy, that was eager to modernise yet lacked the funds to build a big and heavy navy so they went with two classes of cruisers built around the treaty: the 1927 Méndez-Núñez class ("light", 9200 tons, 8x152mm, 4x101mm guns) and the 1936 Canarias-class ("heavy", 9900 tons, 8x203mm guns), which were to complement each other.
@AssassinAgent
5 жыл бұрын
I could listen one of these until I die from old age... I can never get enough historical knowledge
@thelvadam2884
5 жыл бұрын
hello ther
@AssassinAgent
5 жыл бұрын
@@thelvadam2884 And who the fuck are you? I guess you aren't from BOTS :P (sarcasm totally works in text form)
@thelvadam2884
5 жыл бұрын
@@AssassinAgent whats this BOTS you talking about? Rumors tell they are just super toxic Unicum players 😉
@donaldhill3823
5 жыл бұрын
Seems to me that because the US Subs Gato were built to keep up with and operate with the fleet it was more capable then the UBoats in going after all surface targets.
@garydouglass3597
4 жыл бұрын
So at 1:18:10 you say there is "tons of stuff" you couldn't cover. Well, get on it, man! We'll wait right here for it.
@neilatkinson5142
4 жыл бұрын
The Washington treaty gave cruisers a maximum armament of 8inch to accommodate the 7.5 inch Frobisher class which obsoleted both protected and armoured cruisers.
@dangerotterisrea
5 жыл бұрын
Brilliant as always! Do more of these if you can 😏
@No_1OfConsequence
5 жыл бұрын
Sorry for the comment barrage, but they were done in real time with the video, as I listened to it. In regard to DEs, the US built the design epitomized by the the USS Samuel B Roberts, with 2 5 inch guns, 3 torpedo tubes, a Hedgehog anti submarine mortar system, 4 depth charge throwers, and 2 depth charge racks. AAA armament was a couple of twin 40mm Bofors mounts, and several 20mm Orlikon cannons.
@axslashel
5 жыл бұрын
The Japanese did not build that many escort carriers but I think they built quite a fair number of light carriers that were actually as fast as the fleet carriers but with fewer aircraft. Though these were mostly used as extra strike carriers and not for escort duty.
@crazyjack3357
2 жыл бұрын
So I'm guessing WW2 Corvettes are like the destroyer escorts but faster?
@DZ-iu3je
5 жыл бұрын
21:41 It's entirely misleading to say battleships somehow redeemed themselves by providing AA covers from time to time. The point wasn't whether a certain BB could not be used. Battlefield commanders will find use for every piece of hardware. The point is how the exact same roles can be performed to the same level or better by other ships in less or equivalent resource/production consumption. The cases where battleships were used especially in the pacific put them as over-costly and undervalue machines. I am not sure how much you can argue otherwise elsewhere. All that doesn't make battleships inherently useless. It's just the scenarios where battleships would be critically important weren't realized. The pacific was a case when Japanese surface fleet were practically grounded after the effective annihilation of their carrier fleet and fleet air arm. Plus all the other issues with Japanese navies. Still, it's misleading to point to those miserable compromise use cases as proof of battleship's usefulness.
@timberwolf1575
3 жыл бұрын
You also have to consider imponderables like the fights that didn't happen. How often did the presence of a BB discourage enemy action? EDIT: BBs also provided a huge fleet support role. BBs had larger sickbays, reserve fuel storage, and specialized equipment not available on smaller ships.
@bkjeong4302
2 жыл бұрын
THANK YOU. Battleships really had no place in WWII, and their role in providing AA (especially for the American side) is massively overhyped.
5 жыл бұрын
Light Cruisers ”typical role” deffinitely should allso say ”Scouting”. On numerious occations, small detachments of Cruisers with or without radar scouted ahead of larger ships or followed/kept track of enemy ships. Since scouting was allso the primary intended purpouse, I think it’s rather important to include the fact that they did actually performe it. Just from the top of my head I come to think of the hunt for the Bismarck and the battle of North Cape. CL’s deffinitely performed their intended role there. But! Not to destroy the narrative of your video, this next thing is allso kinda huge. Submarines ”intended role” should allso say ”fleet action” since that’s how the US Navy saw submarines primary role before the war broke out. This is actually a rather important, yet strange, fact.
@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized
5 жыл бұрын
> But! Not to destroy the narrative of your video, this next thing is allso kinda huge. > Submarines ”intended role” should allso say ”fleet action” since that’s how the US Navy saw submarines primary role > before the war broke out. This is actually a rather important, yet strange, fact. yeah, and in both cases "engaging warships" is there in parenthesis, since it was not universal. So, it is more of an representation issue not "allso kinda huge".
@derptank3308
5 жыл бұрын
Oh boy Something to listen to whilst in Art class
@USSAnimeNCC-
5 жыл бұрын
I'm listening to this while building warship in Minecraft
@No_1OfConsequence
5 жыл бұрын
Fun fact, the US built 175 Fletcher class DDs from 1942 to 1944.
@greenflagracing7067
2 жыл бұрын
BBs as AAA ships? Sounds like a class looking for a role. Atlanta class CLAA = 16 5/38 guns. Iowa class BB = 20 5/38.
@tankmanmatt111
5 жыл бұрын
My favourite class, Seaplane Tender... Not joking it's my favourite and I have no idea why
@tankmanmatt111
5 жыл бұрын
@@syaondri Yeah I love float planes
@johndunkelburg5143
5 жыл бұрын
The crews of the CVEs remarked that it stood for “Combustible, Vulnerable, and Expendable”.
@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized
5 жыл бұрын
lol, well, they were not really intended for "frontline" (battle) service, so "working as intended".
@Noble713
5 жыл бұрын
@26:30 my understanding is the acronym CV was for "Cruiser, aViation"
@justinpyke1756
5 жыл бұрын
From NavWeaps: "The following is taken from "United States Naval Aviation 1910-1995, Appendix 16: US Navy and Marine Corps Squadron Designations and Abbreviations": On 17 July 1920, the Secretary of the Navy prescribed a standard nomenclature for types and classes of NAVAL VESSELs, including aircraft, in which lighter-than air craft were identified by the type "Z" and heavier-than air craft by the letter "V". The reference also speculates that: "The use of the "V" designation has been a question since the 1920s. However, no conclusive evidence has been found to identify why the letter "V" was chosen. It is generally believed the "V" was in reference to the French word volplane. As a verb, the word means to glide or soar. As a noun, it described an aeronautical device sustained in the air by lifting devices (wings), as opposed to the bag of gas that the airships (denoted by "Z") used. The same case may be regarding the use of "Z". It is generally believed the "Z" was used in deference to Count Ferdinand von Zeppelin. However, documentation has not been located to verify this assumption."" In short, nobody has actually determined where the "V" came from for certain, but this is the best understanding we have. Perhaps a more recent work has uncovered something, but I'm unaware of it. www.navweaps.com/index_tech/index_ships_list.php
@Alpostpone
5 жыл бұрын
45:50 "Entire fleet is babies!" - Heavy Weapons Guy
@thelvadam2884
5 жыл бұрын
Is that a World of Warships reference?
@Alpostpone
5 жыл бұрын
@@thelvadam2884 Glad you asked. It's Team Fortress 2 reference.
@thelvadam2884
5 жыл бұрын
@@Alpostpone ahh okay thx,i dont play TF2 but your Quote " Entire Fleet is babies " made me think of world of warships ; were Battleship players (aka heavy weapons guy) are usally the less skilled and more whiny part of the Community
@oscarlamuela4344
5 жыл бұрын
I would love to see a video about how radios and radio coms worked o WW2
@jerry2357
5 жыл бұрын
Why did you go for the fairly narrow class destroyer escort rather than the broader class of anti-submarine escort, which would include frigates, sloops and corvettes, which carried out the same role? Incidentally, why did the Americans go for only 3 inch guns on their destroyer escorts, when even the small British and Canadian corvettes carried a 4 inch gun? 4 inch guns were standard on all the British escorts.
@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized
5 жыл бұрын
on my video of US & IJN ship building most people asked what the destroyer escort is, since that was the "smallest" class (technically the subs were, but hey). Sloops and corvettes are just too small. Not to mention that the whole thing would be even more complicated, those 2 videos together took 50 hours to make.
@jerry2357
5 жыл бұрын
The Black Swan class anti-submarine sloops were a very similar size to the American destroyer escorts, and were more heavily armed. The River and Loch class frigates were also similarly sized and used in similar anti-submarine roles. I accept that the corvettes were smaller than the other types, but the frigates and sloops were comparable with the destroyer escorts. I don’t understand why you didn’t link the destroyer escorts, frigates and sloops together when discussing anti-submarine escorts, since all were of a similar size and employment.
@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized
5 жыл бұрын
> I don’t understand why the general answer to this question is nearly always: make a video that takes like 20 hours to make and then ask the question again, you probably won't. Because the video will be either extremely short or not be finished at all.
@reign_of_stuka8991
5 жыл бұрын
Question: What would you class the Japanese Submarine Carrier?
@reign_of_stuka8991
4 жыл бұрын
Very true
@neilatkinson5142
4 жыл бұрын
The British pushed for the revised tonnage definition as they wanted water excluded due to their newly designed anti torpedo defences.
@perfectwhine742
4 жыл бұрын
7:10 Did he rip one into the microphone? O.O
@jeereemee4959
4 жыл бұрын
Nice video. Where did you get all these ship side view drawings?
@napoleonibonaparte7198
5 жыл бұрын
Where are the avisos and the corvettes.... :(
@bificommander
5 жыл бұрын
I'm curious about frigates vs corvettes. What exactly is the difference? Corvettes sound like the were to frigates/DE's what frigates to destroyers, even slower, weaker and cheaper. But what was the dividing line between them.
@dorMaler
2 жыл бұрын
the only cause for the washington naval treaty is the panama-canal where the us couldnt send the mega ships through..
@jonnyc429
5 жыл бұрын
Ww2 ship class guide - balls deep
@omarrp14
5 жыл бұрын
Is there such thing as a shape charge munition for ships? Like HEAT for ships so HEAS I guess
@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized
5 жыл бұрын
not that I know of, HEAT usually is rather slow and has limited range, I guess that is the main issue.
@JacatackLP
5 жыл бұрын
OmarRPG it’s important to note one of the reasons HEAT worked so well against tanks in WW2 was that it only has to puncture into one compartment, where as warships are broken up internally into many different rooms and compartments.
@kclcmdrkai1085
5 жыл бұрын
Didn't the availability or lack of sufficient fuel in 1942-43 restricted the usage of the Yamato Class BB at Guadalcanal while the Americans still had sufficient air support to strike at incoming & outgoing bombardment TFs??
@JohnRodriguesPhotographer
5 жыл бұрын
Soviet subs operated in the Baltic. Not a target rich environment.
@napoleonibonaparte7198
5 жыл бұрын
Do modern navy stuff next
@BicyclesMayUseFullLane
5 жыл бұрын
Well, IIRC, there's Destroyers, Cruisers, Frigates, Carriers, and even more "Destroyers". All of those could run circles around their WW2 counterpart, and most of them could probably severely maul, if not sink a WW2 battleship.
@venerabledun1131
5 жыл бұрын
i would love to help out on these naval videos and put my own insight into them cause i love it
@venerabledun1131
5 жыл бұрын
and cause its my main area of historical knowledge and it would be good to do something with it and subsequently something other than the things in my GSCE spec
@glynwelshkarelian3489
5 жыл бұрын
Aircraft carriers: decades ago Jeremy Clarkson visited a USN nuclear carrier and literally got lost! He left his quarters without a sailor and could not find his way back.
@davidkaminski615
4 жыл бұрын
In the US there are several vintage warships preserved as museums. Some of them have a surprising amount of area open to the public. I've had the privilege of touring several battleships and carriers over the years and getting lost in them is quite easy if it wern't for the tour arrows!
@c_o_n_t_e_n_t3420
3 жыл бұрын
tell me more about uss chub
@philippkern9031
5 жыл бұрын
Can you please make a video about the sovjet navy ww2 ?
@jpmtlhead39
9 ай бұрын
Never understood ( for many years i know the reason) why the British "Insisted" in calling the Magnificent HMS Hood a Battle Cruiser,when she had all the Characteristics of a very Powerfull Battleship...??!! A ship 262 meters long,with 8 15 inch guns and a displacement of almost 48.000 tons and a speed of 32 knots being a Battle Cruiser,well only the British can explain that. Because if the HMS Hood is a battle Cruiser,what to call the Prinz Eugen,The Gneisenau or the Scharnhorst... Pocket Battleships like the British call them, Battleships ( wich they were not) or Heavy Cruisers...??!!!🤔
@TheSleepingMeerkat
5 жыл бұрын
I think the one point I do hesitantly disagree with is that battlecruisers had become obsolete as a concept by World War Two. I'd argue this point due to the resurgence of 'large cruisers' designs during the 1930s and 1940s such as the Alaska's, the Churchill's and the Deutschland's, albeit most of the said designs never hit the water so that weakens my argument slightly but hey ho. I would argue that the fact that you have most of the major navies at the time designing ships with guns ranging from 9.2-inch to 12-inch guns for commerce raiding and cruiser killing, which was the original purpose of the battlecruiser, and some actually building them states how the concept was not seen as obsolete. And yes you can state how the USN and the Kriegsmarine never described their designs as battlecruisers and so to call them battlecruisers would be inaccurate. However, I would also say it wouldn't be the first time that a ship that fits the characteristics of a ship type but was called something else, such as the 'large light cruisers' of the Courageous class. And I would argue that these ships not being called battlecruisers is due to the connotations of this ship type which is of a capital ships and so a navy would avoid using that term because there's the potential of their respective governments is less likely to build the 'large cruisers' and any battleship program that they might want, obviously not the case for Germany. Although the name of class types is simply semantics that really only mean what any person wants them to mean like how I would describe the Scharnhorst as battlecruisers due to how they were used during the war and the design characteristics of the class.
@stephaniewilson3955
4 жыл бұрын
The US submarine fleet had a lot more success once they had a torpedo that worked.
@MoptopGames
5 жыл бұрын
Can someone please get Justin a better mic
@johntherecluse5121
3 жыл бұрын
Please, I would never enter into such a ridiculous treaty. I'd just tell them tough. Design whatever ships you want and we'll do the same. If you think we're a threat to you then design whatever you want to deal with us. None of this weights and other nonsense that doesn't suit our needs.
@ineednochannelyoutube5384
5 жыл бұрын
Isnt it 'C'ruiser/a'V'iation?
@bkjeong4302
5 жыл бұрын
I actually find it odd that for all the (deserved) criticism the Axis get for making battleships after they became obsolete at their intended role, the Allies did the same thing and few call them out for it. Yes the Allied WWII-era battleships were more active but, for the most part, they didn’t accomplish anything other warships couldn’t have done. This especially applies to the much-vaunted (and admittedly superbly designed) Iowa-class which ended up being used as gigantic CLAAs, when two actual CLAAs would have been much more cost-effective than one Iowa.
@nukclear2741
4 жыл бұрын
Once again, not immediately obsolete, they switched roles, obsolescence arrives at earliest in 41, at latest 44. Pearl for 41, The Yamato class ships for 44. After all, you can't flip a tank with a 500 pound bomb. A 14 inch shell can (and did).
@27000ants
5 жыл бұрын
How to increase your naval knowledge in 3 months: Play Kancolle
@thelvadam2884
5 жыл бұрын
Poi ~
@BicyclesMayUseFullLane
5 жыл бұрын
I dunno man. From what I can see, all you can learn from that game is what the hull classification of a ship is, and some trivia about that said ship.
@Ray-lf1eo
5 жыл бұрын
I love stories about uboats, i totally *submerge* into the.
@nukclear2741
4 жыл бұрын
@@syaondri ha do you mined.
@RonJohn63
5 жыл бұрын
1:14:42 Given what their cold war subs were like, the level of technological sophistication and lack of naval tradition, they had to be pretty crappy.
@ignacejespers8201
5 жыл бұрын
The Soviet navy in the cold war wasn't that bad. Thanks to the efforts of Gorchkov, the Red Fleet would pose a substantial threat to the US for the biggest part of the Cold War. They had some problems with some of their submarines as they were often rushed into production with early models suffering some serious catastrophies
@timberwolf1575
3 жыл бұрын
@@ignacejespers8201 That and quality control was both a strength and a weakness for the USSR. On the one hand, they only built to the level of quality needed to do the job. On the other, identifying the quality level needed to do the job was never quite as clear cut as the administrative class thought.
@crazywarriorscatfan9061
2 жыл бұрын
.
@dirtbones
4 жыл бұрын
Way too much talking offpoint and not actually about the classes and their differences.
@brianbedient2108
5 жыл бұрын
This is not a DEEP GUIDE, this is a "making-of", since you spent virtually no time adding information or examples to the first videos content, but rather mumbled back and forth over metrics and sources like you guys were at a bar drinking a beer. Disappointed.
@Fretti90
5 жыл бұрын
Yamato....."Hotel"..... I see that you are a man of culture aswell ;)
@ousou78
5 жыл бұрын
She is not an Hotel!
@ironstarofmordian7098
5 жыл бұрын
@@ousou78 you can't sleep at the bottom of the of the ocean so you're right!
@Fretti90
5 жыл бұрын
@@ironstarofmordian7098 r/woooooosh
@filthyweaboo2694
5 жыл бұрын
@@ironstarofmordian7098 i.imgur .com/ByKD8GM.jpg not knowing kancolle is a warcrime, go to gulag or something.
@phoenixjz4782
5 жыл бұрын
It's worth noting Kancolle didn't invent this - it was a wartime nickname of the battleship. So that might not be what was being referenced.
@Cragified
5 жыл бұрын
Casablanca's rear 5" gun was there to fire star shell so returning aircraft could more easily locate the ship and also to find WP to make smoke if needed and lastly to fire window shells. Which afaik was not actually ever used.
@beetooex
5 жыл бұрын
Is that window as in chaff?
@Cragified
5 жыл бұрын
@@beetooex Yes there was a chaff shell for the 5"/38.
@Cragified
5 жыл бұрын
@Jay Barker One 5" gun isn't going to be effective AA even with VT shells. Also if you notice where the 5"/38 was mounted on the CVEs it is in a piss poor place for AAA use due to the flight deck blocking the forward arc.
@beetooex
5 жыл бұрын
Thanks for these insightful comments guys. Really interesting.
@jeffreyhueseman7061
5 жыл бұрын
The 5 in gun was a relic of the ship they converted. Cheaper to build than remove it.
@podemosurss8316
5 жыл бұрын
About the whole "building carriers like crazy in 1920", I have to point that the first combat action involving a carrier was conducted in 1925, on the 2nd Rif war between Spain and the Rif rebels (northern Morocco). You might wonder how can you use a carrier in a colonial war, and the thing is that the Spanish navy (half of it, at least, including its more powerful vessels) was deployed for supporting the Spanish forces there for fighting alongside the coast. In 1925 the Spanish fleet supported a landing sparheaded by the Spanish Marines and the "Tercio" (Light Infantry regiment, in 1937 it was renamed to "Legión Española"). In total, two squadrons (22 planes) onboard the carrier Dédalo, one of fighters and another of light bombers conducted raids and scouting missions during the landing, called "landing of Alhucemas" ("Desembarco de Alhucemas"). It also was going to feature tanks, but the water current diverted them into another location.
@sniper.93c14
4 жыл бұрын
Podemos URSS you can ask America about using Carriers in colonial wars since they’ve used them for the past 50 years in oil colony wars
@victorskwrxsti7899
5 жыл бұрын
I really love how navies around the world built same classifications of ships but designed under completely different doctrines and made each types and classes so unique. RN Cruisers were mainly built for long range cruising to protect sea lanes between mainland and oversea colonies, while IJN CA was to open up breakthrough point in night battle against enemy fleet so DesRon with heavily armed DDs lead by CL can successfully run torpedo run.
@justinpyke1756
5 жыл бұрын
Indeed!
@marcppparis
5 жыл бұрын
Who would opt for the “shallow “ version????
@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized
5 жыл бұрын
I think the regular version is way more straightforward. And also efficient.
@marcppparis
5 жыл бұрын
Military History not Visualized True but we get an extra 50mins of you and Justin goodness
@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized
5 жыл бұрын
still recommend watching the other version first, so you get another 20 minutes.
@scandor8599
5 жыл бұрын
@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized Probably more accurate to consider both videos as one 70minute long video
@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized
5 жыл бұрын
I think you mean 100 minutes, 80 + 20, if I am not mistaken.
@No_1OfConsequence
5 жыл бұрын
I think the big gun capital ship was grossly premature. The record of BBs after 1941 demonstrated that with proper air cover, the battleship was almost immune to air attack and their guns were able demolish the most hardened targets.
@turdferguson3803
3 жыл бұрын
Any ship with proper air cover is immune to air attacks. The fact battleships were so heavily reliant on needing air cover to even survive just goes to show how much aircraft had come to dominate naval warfare by that point. They were still pretty important in the Mediterranean theater because ships could be accompanied by land based aircraft, and they could be useful but it's not even debatable that aircraft carriers made them obsolete for their intended role.
@00yiggdrasill00
5 жыл бұрын
An hour and twenty minutes on my favorite military branch by my favorite military historian. You just made my week.
@stevewindisch7400
4 жыл бұрын
Sorry to say, I watched this excellent video over a year and a half late. But I wanted to point out that a much underrated class of naval ships are mine technology vessels (in WW2, called Mine Layers and Minesweepers). A huge number of warships and other vessels were sunk or damaged by sea mines during and shortly after World War Two: By many accounts, over 2,400 sunk and thousands more damaged. The constant repairing of warships damaged by mines was a huge drain on resources and used highly-valuable dry dock space. Extensive sea mine barrages often had important Strategic value, such as the near-total blockade of the eastern Baltic, besides the obvious tactical value. Aircraft were also used to lay mines, but were usually restricted to doing so in shallower waters. Did sea mines have a greater impact over-all than some of the warship classes listed? Hard to say. But one thing was certain: most of the belligerent warship veterans of WW2 were either sunk, in mothballs, or scrapped by the time those 500,000 to 700,000 sea mines were finally removed several years after the war (but not all, many were never found and continued to cause damage for decades).
@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized
4 жыл бұрын
these videos together took I think 30-50 hours and the cut-off was Destroyer Escorts.
@Leptospirosi
5 жыл бұрын
Great video, especially the part putting carrier development in perspective in regard of aircraft capabilities and breathtaking shifting role of CV were experiencing in the early 30th, In this light, it becomes more understandable as, some new naval power still behind in BB department (Italy, France and Germany) preferred to postpone CV in favour of other vessels, while well established ones (Japan UK and US) which had more BB in hands then they need after the treaty, had resource to spend on new concept like CV Something can be added to this video about Battle cruisers: looking back at the begin of WWI, BB were conceptualized as stubby, wide, battle barges as heavily armed and armoured as possible. As the old Ironclads and Galleons before those, they were required to stay and take a beating, rather then being able to get somewhere fast. Looking at the USN and German line all along the war it is easy to perceive this trend, and the British too leaned a lot in that direction with the exception of the Queen Elizabeth class, and even after that they did, with the slower and well protected Royal Oak class. The thing about hydrodynamics is that, the longer the ship in respect to it's wideness, the faster it will be on a given power, and this is the reason because Battle cruisers were all very large ships with a very high ratio between length and wideness. Hood, Mackensen, Renown, Kongu, Amagi and Lexington were all above 250m in length, while the larger BB at the time, the Queen Elisabeth class, barely reached 200m which is a whopping 50m less! This posed a problem in protection, because the longer the ship, the larger the citadel to armour, because engines has to be very big sucking space to weapons stealing width space which could not host effective armour spacing. The turrets with their ammunition magazines had to be shifted more forward and backward, to the extremes of the hull, where before they could find space in the middle due to smaller engines and wider hulls. A narrower hull means less floatability and lateral stability with an increasing weight of ineffectively spaced armour required by large and heavy turret as requested by Battle cruisers. This is the reason because a new ship classification had to be introduced, but it was never deemed as a true "ship of the line" as it was clearly seen at Jutland. What actually happened after WWI was that turbine engine (first seen on the Queen Elisabeth) became much more efficient and smaller in size allowing more power to be deployed in a more compact size. In the meantime, weapons did not enlarged that much keeping mostly between 15 and 16" and this allowed for a better ratio between speed and "size" of the ship. in the end all the Super-dreadnought ships built after WWII were actually in Battle cruiser length class, but due to better power to size ratio, they were also able to become wider and so to have a better internal disposition of secondary armaments, engine protection and, most of all torpedo shielding, The rules of hydrodynamics also dictate that, after a certain speed, no matter what the gimmicks are, it becomes not worth trying to create faster ships because fuel becomes the main concern, a trend that can be easily seen with the new ship generations even today, where speed is something that has changed very little if not decreased in respect of what we saw in the mid 30th. All these fact brought to an end the whole concept of the "battle cruiser", also because longer ship posed very difficult problems to solve for facilities in shipyard, weight and ability of the hulls to withstand rough sea. One last final consideration about Heavy cruisers: What allowed the French to stay "inside" the Washington treaty was not because they were better then others at designing ships: it was the fact that their engine technology was so much superior and efficient to everyone else, being able to produce "enough" power using less space. What on the contrary leaded the Italian and the Japanese to exceed the limits was not the "will" to do that, but rather the inability to produce efficient ships inside those limits in term of armour speed and range (where requirements varied a lot between Japan and Italian. To give a tangible example of this, the Littorio class engines weighted almost twice the ones on the Richelieu class and was almost 1/3 larger, and yet it produced less power and was less efficient in fuel consumption. The second best about engine advancement were the USA, with exceptional fuel efficiency but those engines were not nearly as powerful as the French ones. And to better understand that it was not all in the willingness to cheat the treaty, the Richelieu class exceeded that limits as much as the Italian did, but with less reasons because the French could have easily build a perfectly valid ship "inside" those limits due to their superior technology. Something about Italian submarines as well: quite a few of them were basically not up to standard when WWII broke off and the first navy in number of submarines was the soviet one so figure out... The major problem with the Italian submarines in WWII was the lack of coordination in the supermarina bout how to use them so in the end the did not did too well in the Mediterranean It has to be said that, the kind of warfare conducted in the Mediterranean was much more favourable to the Royal navy because of their bases in Malta and the sheer number of Italian ports in reach that could be patrolled looking for unsuspecting vessel to torp.: in the Atlantic on the contrary under "Betasom", they did extremely well given just 32 submarines present on the theatre: it is not well know, but excluding Germany, Italy has the largest number of vessel sunk per submarine, totalling 109 allied merchant ships and 593,864 tons of shipping sunk. several Italian Submarine commander are among the top 50 "aces" of WWII in ton sunk
Пікірлер: 248