King George V class - Design, Service and Myths
Vložit
- čas přidán 23. 11. 2021
- The first 1,000 people to use this link will get a 1 month free trial of Skillshare: skl.sh/drachinifel11211
Today we talk with historian Matt Warwick on the development history of the King George V class battleships, why they were built, what they could have been, how they performed and what is and isn't accurate when it comes of common perceptions of them.
Follow him on Twitter @mpwarwick
An archive of Drydock Questions and free naval photos - www.drachinifel.co.uk
Model ships of many periods - store.warlordgames.com?aff=21
Want to support the channel? - / drachinifel
Shirt/mug/hoodie - shop.spreadshirt.com/drachini...
Poster? - www.etsy.com/uk/shop/Drachinifel
Want to talk about ships? / discord
Want to get some books? www.amazon.co.uk/shop/drachinifelDrydock
Pinned post for Q&A :)
Hi, Since WW1 era submarines were mostly used in attacks when surfaced/at periscope depth, taking advantage of their small size and weather/night cover, it seemed like the ability to submerge is not as critical to convoy raiding/disrupting duties. Has there been any ideas around making torpedo boats (which also attack taking advantage of spotting limits) more ocean-going and long range, thus more adept at convoy raiding? Or, is it that to make something that size you might as well build a destroyer?
do aircraft carrier decks have drains or/and does the top have a camber like a road, to reduce water pooling?
I heard that HMS Warspite when doing shore bombardment of Normandy during the D-day landings was able to successfully jam the radar of the German's guns was this common during WW2?
Damage assessment of Jean Bart after the Casablanca Battle, please :) especially the 16inch hits
What would’ve happened if the U.S knew about the Pearl Harbor attack?
I was literally looking for a documentary on the KGVs last night and all I could find were your old 5min guides. The world truly works in strange ways.
I'm convinced he knows the thoughts of subscribers, he's done this on me more than once
@@JevansUK believe in Drachism!
@@JevansUK
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,. .
, ,?
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
44
. .
@@JevansUK
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,. .
, ,?
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
44
. .
@@splenditsanguinor.. what's your point with the endless nothing post?
Just recently found this channel and have been so busy devouring all the content. Your channel is simply the best resource for WW1-WW2 sea power. My Grandfather was a Gunners Mate on the Massachusetts and said he had the privilege of seeing the Rodney in Boston during her refit and then the King George V with the British Pacific Fleet. He said the Rodney just looked like raw brutal power personified. He said the KGV actually had an aura about her they all knew she was part of the duo that dismantled the Bismarck. He told me at some island they were doing shore bombardment and they were in awe of the pace the KGV and either Howe or Anson can’t remember the name of the sister there but he said they were putting out a barrage that they could only dream of he said it was about 5 for every 3 the Mamie got off. So while many like to disparage the 14” guns he was thoroughly impressed. One question as well I love the Adm King and Lee videos any plans for Halsey or Tovey, Cunningham, Somerville, Vian and the rest?
I visited USS Massachusetts a few years ago when I first visited the USA.
Impressive ship and thank you for your grandfather's service
He is awesome and very informative. His guadalcanal and age of sail videos are my favorite.
Any of his guests are the top knowledge on said subject. I learned more about the zero by his guest because he had more info then what every video on the zero repeats. Things like the navy wasnt as interested in it being an awesome dogfighter because they knew zoom tactics would tactically be more important.
Welcome in the Drach's dimension... Drachinifel did an amazing video about fire support
Thanks for sharing your pops story. My pop was in Skandinavia, trying to shoot down British bombers, I hope you won't hold that against me. Thanks to men like your pop I'm not wearing a brown or black shirt today. I'm thankful for that.
Folowed drach from before The drydock. I realy love The Chanel. And The british humor. But we need to Get irn brew to make The original drachsnifiel lube in bigger quanteties.
My favorite British Battleship class in WW2.
It's quirky, but not gimmicky. A unique, but balanced design.
It's kind of funny how ventilation/air conditioning would probably never make anyone's short fact sheet about a ship, but it might have the single largest impact on crew experience and efficiency (after food and drink). The guns don't load and fire themselves. The targets don't pick themselves, the ship doesn't steer itself. People have to do all these things, and if they aren't thinking or working at their peak, it doesn't matter so much how fast you go or how big your guns are or how much armor you have.
US submarines having air-conditioning tr a prime example
Or how much longer it took in drydock to repair damage to something like an Iowa because the belt was internal, which both meant replacing parts of the belt was more of a faff, but also that the outer skin of the ship was much more susceptible to damage from lower callibre shells (like from a cruiser or destroyer, or another battleship's secondaries).
But repairability has no bearing on the fighting stats (pretty much top trumps) people like to compare, and that things like games use.
@@sergarlantyrell7847 That's exactly why all engineers should be mechanics or machinists first. Then they wouldn't be so eager to design things that make things hell for the men on the ground. My education specifically included classes that were meant to address this, but the way things are these days I believe that was to better prepare us for the reality that the suits would demand we design things to be as difficult to maintain as possible so as to enforce the unethical... fuck that, outright evil... concept of planned obsolescence.
@@XH1927 unless we can work out how to stop materials fatiguing, planned obselesance is unavoidable.
Things like bearings will eventually wear out but you can generally replace those... The thrust bearings on a propellor shaft would be a right pain to replace but that's pretty unavoidable.
But when you're at the point where your hull, or airframe or chassis is has reached its predicted fatigue life & needs to be thoroughly examined each maintainance cycle for minute cracks, the repair requirements start making it too expensive to keep going.
By which point (25-40 years on) technology has usually moved on sufficiently that the thing, on top of being a maintainance hog, is no longer competitive and so is outright replaced. I'm not sure how that's supposed to be "evil" though... Just a consequence of material science & rapidly advancing technology.
@@sergarlantyrell7847 That's major maintenance and overhauls, not designing a thing to fail prematurely like modern cars and other consumer products. To put it another way, what you cited is planning FOR obsolescence, not designing a death date into your product and making it hard or impossible to repair.
Battleships have a certain lethal beauty that inspires legends about them.
But are surprisingly small when seeing them 'in person' - saw New Jersey in Portsmouth while she was on her way to Lebanon in the 80's.
There's something about those boxy Queen Anne's Mansions on late British battleships that really does it for me.
@@ToomasKiisk Reminds me of Napoleonic era fortification designs something about them just says "come get some if you think your hard enough".
@@philipdawes2661 Well yeah, when you see them next to a Nimitz class carrier or something like that. They are still huge ships though. Sometimes they have the appearance of being smaller than they are, at least when in service, because about 2/3s of their hull depth sits below the waterline, whereas with a carrier it’s the opposite. If you see a museum battleship, it’s sitting a good 10+ feet higher in the water because it’s not weighed down with ammo and supplies, so it looks much bigger and more impressive.
Very true
2 hours on my favourite treaty battleships? Drach, you truly are too kind
OMG I didn't notice how long it was 😍
@@LordInter That, I suspect, is probably what she said😉
@@silverhost9782 ba doom tish
Same. I'm definitely biased, but there is a lot to be said for the unconventional design standing out.
Probably the most cost-effective of all the new battleships. One of the few new battleships that really were needed, and they were ready early enough to take part in the decisive actions. Three KGVs did cost less than one, single Iowa. And it was the only battleship class where more than one vessel did what battleships are designed to do; fighting enemy battleships; 3 out of 5 KGVs fought other battleships.
"3 out of 5 KGVs fought other battleships".
And all of them either sank the enemy or mission-killed it.
Well said.
They were ready when needed and did what they needed to do.
Only one of those three (DoY, at North Cape) were actually necessary for the battleship action in question, however. The engagements involving Bismarck were in good visibility, enough for carrier strikes, and in KGV’s case, Rodney already had the upper hand over the badly wounded Bismarck even if carriers couldn’t have been used instead.
The KGVs were well-designed, and probably win the gold medal for protection, but I really don’t think this class was strategically all that useful any more than other contemporary battleship classes were, especially with Hood being a much more capable vessel than often assumed to be (even w/out potential refits) and being able to fill in for them. At the very least, Anson and Howe should have been cancelled.
Edit: and when I say the KGVs weren’t more useful than other classes, I mean that WWII-era battleships in general were stupid ideas that shouldn’t have existed, KGVs included.
@@bkjeong4302 Well, strategically speaking, one fast battleship is little different to another. It's big, it's got big guns and it goes at a decent clip. You could add on other details, such as the increased endurance of the American fast battleships, but broadly speaking, they amount to the same thing.
In that regard, Britain needed every fast battleship they could get their hands on during WW2, especially after the loss of Hood, Prince of Wales and Repulse. Even after sinking Bismarck and finally containing the Regina Marina, the Royal Navy still had enormous obligations and not enough capital ships (battleships or carriers) to do it as well as they liked. The British offensives in the Indian Ocean and Pacific were delayed in part because so much of the navy's strength was still needed at home, even after Overlord and Dragoon. Even in 1945, it's easy to say that Anson and Howe weren't needed in retrospect, but there was no way to know that at the time. For all the British knew, Anson and Howe might've ended up fighting Yamato through some strange confluence of circumstances.
One additional note: I think that you might be overestimating British carriers in the early war. British carrier strike power in 1941 (and American, really) was a far cry from 1944/45.
@@bkjeong4302 Hood entered the fight against Bismarck without her main rangefinder, the only thing better than local control she had was the little rangefinder on top of the conning tower; the top of the main mast had no rangefinder on it
About the HMS Hood, it had reasonable armor in both belt and deck, the total thickness of deck is actually very respectable at over 6”, unfortunately it was in multiple layers which reduced the effectiveness. The shell hit from Bismarck struck under the main belt (at the time Hood exploded she was actually angled well, and well within the range where plunging fire is a non-issue, so the shell must’ve penetrated underwater where there is no armor)
The hit on the Prince Of Wales' propeller shaft mounting is roughly analogous to the hit near Bismark's rudder, in that it didn't create terminal damage on its own but the knock-on effect was ultimately catastrophic.
At least in Whales' case it was because said hit (from a larger warhead) resulted in greater damage to the ship. Damage which, in addition to flooding, would result in loss of power, speed, and control. As opposed to the "invincible" Bismarck where it was more: Oh noes, Our rudder box (along with other systems on the ship) weren't properly protected! Now one of our rudders is jammed, and our triple screw layout doesn't allow for effective thrust differential to compensate.
As I see it, Bismarck stubbed its toe, and Whales got a broken leg.
Any damage to the screws and rudders of a ship is deadly.
@@richardschaffer5588 THAT'S PRETTY MUCH MY POINT.
@@airplanenut89 I think it's broadly accepted a hit in the rudders, props, of any battleship is catastrophic. I think that's what these guys imply and also the Iowa museum guy says much the same.
The Cruise of the Bismarck
The 400 men assigned to the Bismarck's anti-aircraft guns maintained a furious barrage, but the crews, which had been on watch almost continuously for 5 days, were near exhaustion and their fire was not as effective as previously. The planes attacked simultaneously from a number of points, diving to the attack at an angle of about 50 .
One torpedo struck amidships on the port side, one on the starboard quarter, and possibly a third on the port quarter; The torpedo which hit the starboard quarter wrecked the steering gear, jamming the rudders and causing the Bismarck to turn slowly in circles to the starboard. Frantic efforts were made to repair the damage: It was announced that the man who succeeded in freeing the rudders would be given the Knight Insignia of the Iron Cross. Divers succeeded in centering one rudder, but the other could not be freed, Efforts were made to steer the ship by her engines, but after a short period, instead of proceeding on her intended southeasterly course, the Bismarck was actually northwest of her position when the attack was made. There appears to have been further controversy among the officers. The captain, when asked by an officer whether he should try to blow off the jammed rudder, is reported to have replied, "Do what you like; I am through with it." The ship's best speed was now reduced to 10 to 12 knots.
A nearly 2 hour Drach video all on the KGV's??? This is awesome!!
Agreed. Work might have to wait.
A few years ago I attended a silversmithing course, and one of the other students, a chap called Peter, was a former crew member on HMS Anson, this being post WII. He told me about being punished for some misdemeanour, resulting in him standing on the afterdeck holding a rifle out in front of him with the muzzle pointing directly at him and the butt end furthest away. This had to be maintained for a considerable time. This was on the day King George VI was visiting Portsmouth (I think it was Portsmouth) and was being taken out by launch to another ship. He spotted the hapless rating and enquired as to what was happening. On being told, he there and then requested that this punishment be stopped immediately as a sanction. Peter was the last person in the Navy to receive this punishment apparently.
His next posting was on a minesweeper and the crew detested the captain, but had sussed out that for some reason he in turn detested any extraneous noises that weren’t a part of the ship’s daily working. Peter volunteered to place a large empty tobacco tin inverted on top of the mast, such that it would clang incessantly in the wind. The entire crew denied they could hear anything.
Sheffield?
Wow, how much do you have to suck as a commander when the entire crew would do that? lmao! 🤣🤣🤣
I enjoyed Drach bringing on a new naval histiographer. The guest was bright and knowledgeable showing that "formal" education doesn't necessarily mean competence. Passion and diligent research is just as good.
Arguably better, and I’m saying this as someone pursuing a history degree.
I’ve often found that many times, formally educated (as you put it) historians tend to adhere to the historiographical orthodoxy. Always playing it safe, generally they’re all dead boring, and can best be described as “beige.” Or in other words, I find they often practice bad history as they don’t really scrutinize the work which has gone before them. This is a general statement from my own experience, it is not a rule.
Those who approach it from the angle of the amateur more often than not, bring something new to the table. Specifically a different angle of understanding the topic, one in which the formally trained historian wouldn’t.
Drach, I am constantly amazed at the amount of high quality content you put out every week for what is basically a one man (ship’s) band
Same here. Full crew rowing in Drach s cave? The man is amazing!
I assume, at 311.000 subscribers, one can live of that. I do not think one can produce that amount of content next to a full time job & family etc. But that is just my guess. And it is great, one can live of that.
@@Loretta2004 I think he's an engineer by trade, works in Croydon designing skyscraper buildings or something like that.
@@simonpitt8145 He quit his main job earlier in 2021 (late 2020?), because of budgets cuts enforced on Croydon's council. One of the reasons why the Patreon Drydocks swollen to insanity inducing lengths... like the rest of us engineers don't have jobs ourselves.
It's amazing to have been there since his earliest days. Still the "Wizard of Oz" hidden behind robo-voiced videos. But the passion and knowledge was there. I've been able to see the gradual and steady improvement towards professionalism over several years.
I can't thank you enough for this.
yeah you can. simply name your firstborn child "Drach"
In terms of armour thickness and steel quality the KGV are the best armoured ships of their time and the fact that the 14 inch gun penetrated the heaviest armour of Bismarck shows that it was at least adequate
Yet a lot of sources (including some actual naval historians) wrongly claim the KGVs were underarmoured compared to things like the Iowas, which is total BS.
The accounts I've read, show no penetration of Bismarcks belt armour by any of the British ships in the action. Rodney and King George V pummeled Bismarcks superstructure and turrets creating havoc, but not going through the deck armour. That's why torpedoes were used at the end of the action. Prince of Wales effectively ended the Bismarck's mission by destroying its forward oil tanks beyond its belt armour. All the Bismarck could do was abort and run for repairs. Prince of Wales actually did quite well considering its bridge was hit and most of its main armament was out of action, due to the fact that the ship was not worked up, and suffering many problems with the quadruple turrets. Dockyard matey's were still on board trying to rectify the faults.
@@malcolmtaylor518 kgv and Rodney both hit and penetrated Bismarcks conning tower. Also half of Bismarcks side is buried so it’s impossible to tell if any hits penetrated the belt on that side
@@malcolmtaylor518 Rodney did penetrate the belt armour several times.
@@malcolmtaylor518 This comment makes no sense at all. Bismark was listing, she was listing heavily. That means flooding. Given the design of battleships that flooding is not going to be coming from outside the citadel as the citadel is literally designed to maintain buoyancy even if the rest of the ship is a ruined scrapheap.
What this means is rounds from PoW and/or Rodney HAD to have penetrated the Bismarks armour, otherwise her buoyancy would not have been affected enough to create a list, she may have settled somewhat but not listed. The fact she was listing is corroborated and noted by British witness on multiple vessels, as well as from German survivors.
This myth that the British guns did not penetrate Bismarks belt is exactly that, a myth. Fast sinkings of battleships such as what happened to Hood are relatively rare, generally even if pummelled into utter wrecks with multiple holes through the armoured belt battleships tend to sink slowly. The torpedoes were not used because Bismark was not sinking, they were used to hasten the process, because she WAS sinking before either torpedoes were used, or the order to scuttle was given. And as I said, that means there WERE penetrations of her main armoured belt.
It's interesting how much the world changed between the designing the KGVs and WW2, it really annoys me when people apply 1945 standards to everything.
Another great thing about the KGV's is that the Brits could relatively quickly and cheaply produce 5x capital ships when they absolutely needed them, rather than 2 or 3 with slightly bigger guns.
It actually would have been cheaper and faster if they had gone for 9x15-inch guns
They already had equipment to produce 15 in guns modifying, them to produce a gun with a longer caliber would have been cheaper then producing entirely new equipment for the 14-inch guns
The super heavy 15 inch shells already existed
It would have been one less turrent to design and more part standardization
@@jamesricker3997 Not true:
A change to 15 inch guns would have resulted in an 18 month delay until 1942. The London Naval Treaty of 1936 also stipulated a 14 inch maximum gun size, with an opt out clause, which Britain was reluctant to exercise, as the Admiralty was hoping to persuade the other naval powers to stick to 14 inch guns. There are also other reasons that they went with 14 inch.
ON the reliability of the turrets/gunnery systems - the 'fire to exhaustion' exercise performed by the USS Idaho during WW2 gives a very good example of how even in the best of circumstances you will not get 100% output.
(The exercise was designed around firing all the main battery guns until the magazines were empty)
I assume the exercise is successful if you run out of shells before your crew drops.
@@lostpony4885 It was an interesting read - to check how the crew, systems and processes stood up to continuous firing." expending 597 rounds in 156 salvos. The average salvo interval was 1 minute, 24 seconds, but only 20 of these were full six-gun salvos; the average was 3.82. She suffered no fewer than 205 separate casualties during the firing, mostly requiring adjustment of the gas check pads or rammers. Powder handling, however, was flawless, 2,400 one-hundred pound bags of powder being handled without mishap” - casualties being a failure of 'something' preventing a full salvo.
So when compared to the KGV class, they performed remarkably well considering.
@@philipdawes2661 I bet they did not perform this exercise in a force 10 gale [a la Duke of York v Scharnhorst].
@@fyorbane Exercise conditions, so no external 'circumstances', only internal procedures and equipment reliability.
@@philipdawes2661 Exactly my point. Exercise conditions is one thing, but in the real world of combat in very difficult conditions things are very different.
This might be about the best video you've made yet, Drach! Truly an in-depth analysis of the KGV design that shows us almost a "Bill Garzke, or Norman Friedman-like" view of the design development and the decisions that eventually created this important Treaty battleship. The other expert who gave us digests of the official design history (didn't catch his name) was an excellent choice, he'd obviously spent many hours poring over the original documents and had reached the conclusion that these ships hadn't received their due from history. Well, I'm convinced. Given Treaty restrictions the RN created a formidable ship and got them into commission in time to play an important role in the war. That's what matters in the time of "The Gathering Storm." The details about the turrets jamming in the Bismarck engagement and the Battle of North Cape were previously unknown to me and don't reflect as badly on the ships as the impression you get from more broad-brush accounts in secondary sources.
Good going!
My favorite ship of all time, very underrated. Always thought they looked very modern with their blocked superstructure and wouldn't be so out of place today. Built many models of these ships. Thank you for the very informative discussion.
Yeah I never really was interested in ships or battleships but thought I haven't got one an picked KGV purely on how she looked
The talk about the turret was fascinating I just presumed it was all faults with the design, and hadn't thought about the human element or the sea states they were fighting in or the fact they were firing more rounds than 6 battleships over an entire battle.
Or the fact that they only really got to stress test them in combat, and that they actually worked fine for a good 30 or 40 salvos or so before they started running into problems. Very informative.
@@RCAvhstape Old saying.... "Fight like you train. Train like you fight."
Same, I always assumed it was teething problems that were solved over time...I had never looked at firing duration or sea conditions😊
Yep, it really shows the difference when you realize that Oldendorff's entire fleet only fired 285 shells at Surigao Strait and even KGV beat 300 rounds handily, and DoY almost 450.
Rate of fire is suuper important.
I like these 5 minute (more or less) guides.
Thanks again Drach for your amazing videos... I just have to cancel my afternoon meetings and explain to the customers and managers that I must have my Wednesday rum ration and if someone stay on my way, the person will be flogged 😂
Flog them ‘round the fleet !
And. If they think you’re drinking on the job
Flog them if they can’t take a joke
@@philvanderlaan5942 excellent idea 🤣
"Build ships for brawling rather than sniping" somewhere Adm. Nelson smiled.
Dammit Drach, I have an exam in 50 minutes. Now I have to decide between this or revising US supreme court cases.
I guess Drach won since you went on CZcams instead of studying :-)
KGVs have 10 more 14in guns than the Supreme Court,. Easy choice really.
@@CSSVirginia funniest comment today, I chuckled visibly.
Also; KGV is The Royal Navy, easy choice really. What other navy had had such a success over such a long time with so many developments? It was the RN that built and upheld the Empire, and it was not their fault when it faltered.
I never thought the KGVs were bad ships, and I'm an American. I always thought the British were a bit too obsessed with downsizing their main batteries but this video at least explained that there were very good reasons for it. I mean, look at their combat histories, clearly not a bad design one bit.
They were in general a very good design considering they were the only ones to stick to the treaty.
I always found the KGV class to be a very good design, although in my opinion they should have cheated the treaty by a few hundred tons and installed the 2 additional 14inch guns, since it was obvious that both Axis powers were cheating massively (we are talking 5000 tons and more)
There were designs with 12 14" guns, but the decrease in armour wasn't considered to be worth it, and so the twin turret was adopted. The King George V simply can't accommodate due to the smaller B barbettes, and the increase in weight would also present its own problems. And even with only 10 14" guns, the KGV still have higher broadside weight than the Bismarck and Richelieu. If the Royal Navy intended to cheat, then 15" would be the best choice, but a broadside of 9 15" guns are considered to be uneconomical. Examinations at 15" designs also reveal some ugly features such as lower top speed, turret-mounted catapults,...
The King George V are lovely as they're, and i'll fight anyone who unjustifiably question their abilities.
It probully wouldn't have gotten past parliament and also if britan cheats on the treaty it discredits the whole idea and it would allow the axis powers to get away with more or abandon it all together.
Better option: slightly more cheated and 9x16” aka Lions. Or 9x15” but there were no guns except those 4 twin barrel turrets for Vanguard. Economy before war, reality during war.
@@captain61games49 cheating by a few hundred tons is not obvious, how exactly should the Axis powers know about this? The Brits also didn't know the exact size of the Axis BBs, although it was obvious that they were overweight.
Fully agree on Parliament, however.
@@frostedcat So you think they're on an equal footing with the NorCals and Bismarcks?
Engine rooms were hot. Workspace temperatures of 130 degrees F were not uncommon in period warship boiler rooms. They lived on water and salt tablets. Imagine for a minute if you will how much worse it had been for coal fueled ships of the previous wars, stoking the boilers with a shovel, while a mate sprayed the pile with oil for an "extra kick".
I've heard stories of the stokers in warships being covered in burns due to boiling water dripping from overhead steam lines, and near lethal temperatures inside the boiler spaces.
My grandfather was a merchant mariner on various ships postwar, and has quite a few stories about this sort of thing. Including seeing the chief engineer coming off shift naked except for a towel hanging from his 'member.' A delightful sight to see coming down the corridor, I'm sure.
He also notes that one of his captains was always placed in command of steamships because he couldn't bring a diesel ship into dock: large ship based diesels take some time to switch from forward into reverse, and this particular skipper was a student of the '30 point turn' method of berthing. You can imagine the frustration in the engine room when the telegraph changed from 'ahead' to 'astern' *again*
In my grandfather's war diary he described HMS Cleopatra's boiler and engine rooms as a "tinplate hell" in real figures that's 54°c .
Definitely not OSHA approved working conditions, but then again, these guys weren't Cambridge, Oxford, Harvard or MIT material.
So the impression I have about the KGV's after this, and what else I've seen, is that they were workhorses. They didn't stand out in any particular way, but were good enough at everything to be relied on as effective enough in whatever role was required of them.
Between them they sank 2 German capital ships. For me that says money well spent.
@@ScienceChap there really werent that many german capital ships to sink really, so 2 is a really high score.
Then you have the ole' reliable Queen Elizabeth under Warspite.
One of my favorite battleship classes, something about them is so beautiful even though they are so utilitarian. I’ll have to say the Littorio-class and KGV-class are the best looking to me of the WWII era. Great content as always!
KGV have always been favorites of mine ... historically speaking.
The KGVs have always been very high on my list of WW2 era battleships. They were a really good design, though I have always been partial to the South Dakotas (at least on paper).
This video really shows why South Carolina was able to fit 9 16 inch guns, it was all in the armour, with less thick armour over smaller areas, it was able to get to the desired number of guns, but sacrifice armour.
Isn't that thing armed with 8x12" guns?
The North Carolina had 16" guns. The South Carolina only had 12" guns.
You mean South Dakota? The South Carolina class were basically pre-dreadnought BBs with dreadnought main guns.
And the South Dakota herself took quite a beating and survived, so I dunno why the dunk on her.
@@Maddog3060 Maybe because of her habit of vast overclaiming and stealing credit for the work of others while actually accomplishing almost nothing, as seen at Santa Cruz (vast AA overclaiming, and it was pilots from Enterprise and Hornet that actually did most of the damage to the Japanese aircraft involved) and Second Guadalcanal?
North Carolina*
I have always been impressed by the ability of the Royal Navy to plan long term. They don't always succeed, and their long term focus can sometimes leave them on the back foot when faced with rapid technology advancement. That said, the RN is always thinking about the long term consequences of their decisions for building ships. This cannot always be said for other nations (*cough, cough Germany cough*). The Admiralty doesn't always make accurate predictions, but they're always thinking years ahead, and plan their building programs accordingly.
You seen the state of the Royal Navy lately?
historicaly, definieltly. But nowdays the RN is a bit less independent, and has a lot, lot less clout in the political spectrum, compared to the 1930s Admiralty, to actually be able to enforce such a long term plan
“Long term consequences”
Proceeds to equip its cruisers with ww1 levels of common shells, with mild steel caps attached.
Proceeds to equip cruisers with old Fire Direction Equipment, (specifically Leander herself), didn't actually use fire control direction equipment, as well as a large number of cruisers post-Leander. They got refurbished WWI equipment.
@@chnghemeng2845 with what money would they be able to replace them? Britian was broke after WW1, WW2 just took the Empire behind the shed and shot it.
Wars aren't fought by what you wish you had but what you have
That was totally geeky - That guest speaker Matt certainly knew his ships - I especialy like that each fact was put within its context and possible future needs.
Arrived home seriously pissed off from a bad day at work... and then I see this. Thanks!
I would love to see more videos in future with Matt, he’s incredibly knowledgeable and interesting to listen to!
Many years ago this ship was one of my first Tamya model kits (waterline series). It got me hooked on these ships.
I love your vids and the time and effort you put into making them. Very informative. 🙂👍
1:46:04 this table really does put it into context yes it's a smaller gun, but looking at this table it doesn't matter what it faces it will penetrate at 16,000 yards and if it's deck penetration at 26,000 yards nothing will go through the Yamato's deck and it can penertrate points on all other ships, just like the other ships will find this issue penetrating any point of King George V's deck
To be fair, unless your name was Warspite or Scharnhorst, you weren’t hitting at 26k yards.
@@Abysslord1234 very true
@@Abysslord1234 Even those two got lucky to hit at that distance.
Problem is, some adversaries have the bad form to not get within 16,000 yards. During 1914-1916, the head of BuOrd, Admiral Strauss, kept pushing 14" guns because they could penetrate any existing BB at 12,000 yards. But Dogger Bank was at about 20,000 and Jutland was at more than 15,000. In WWII, West Virginia opened up on Yamashiro at something over 22,000. What do you do when the opponent doesn't want to fight the fight the way that is optimal for you?
@@stevevalley7835 because most fights are closer and yes West Vaginia opened up at 22,000 yards but the ship wasn't sunk at 22,000 yards, 22,000 yards is 16,600 yards off King George V's guns maximum, the Royal Navy was also the best trained navy on the planet with the joint longest ranged hit ever which was more than 22,000 yards, and that was against at least a competent enemy, in not the best condition humanly possible which occurred at Surigao Straight. The Royal Navy is really not the ones who have to worry about range here.
Fascinating My Grandfather was on HMS Anthony and escorted POW back to Iceland after the Battle of the Denmark straight, he always maintained that we (the Royal Navy) came a lot closer to losing POW in that battle than most realised, she was very low in the water.
His brother, my great uncle, was the meteorological rating on KGV when engaging Bismarck, interestingly he pointed out how much damage, firing a broadside did to things like trunking even just in practice, so its no great surprise that the guns ran into minor issues in protracted engagements with all that procession force on the ship structure.
The rate of fire vs. fewer but bigger shells per hit debate started long before the KGV (II) class was developed and the things being discussed here. This was seen in the RN going from 12" to 13.5" to 15" where as the German Navy went 9.5" to 11" to 12" then a big jump to 15" in service though they did plan to build ships with 13.8" or so Austro-Hungarian guns.
There is also the economics behind all this. Great Britain mortgaged the Empire to pay for W W I. Then in reaction to the start of the Great Depression the United Kingdom defaulted on the loan payments. There was also the rebuilding of the Renown and the QE's that was done in the latter 1930's.
There is also the fact that the RN Design Office was run down in the 1920's, especially the battleship section. So in the 1930's there was great pressure placed on fewer designers for not only BB work but CV, CA, CL, DD, DE and Sub work as well.
POW and Arizona were both killed by Golden BB's. In Arizona a bomb that detonated above the armor deck caused a paint locker to catch fire. Burning paint went into a black powder magazine above the main gun magazine via an open hatch. The black powder was put there for the aircraft catapults on top of the turrets. Since the only other way to fire them was with compressed air and that would have involved making a hole in the turret top. In both ships cases prewar damage study and planning could not have accounted for the damage hat actually occurred.
Great topic and fascinating discussion. This reminds me of the Friedman Design History books on the USA.
Thanks, didn’t know that about Arizona. Hood and Bismarck were also destroyed by unlikely hits, and Scharnhorst might also be considered unlucky. The trouble with assigning these losses to golden BBs is that shells that hit have to hit somewhere, and every hit has a good chance of doing some unforeseen catastrophic damage. Battleships are highly complex machines so stuffed full of explosives and flammable material that magazine explosions are not as rare as you would like them to be, while shock damage from torpedoes can lead to loss of power and machinery damage even if the torpedo defense system is not breached. Makes writing wargame rules difficult when you don’t have any “average” damage.
WOW !!! Thanks for this. Been waiting for a deeper dive from you into the KGVs Always liked these ships. Given the RNs worldwide commitments, these ships gave terrific service all over the globe in some extreme conditions from the Arctic, N Atlantic to Indian and Pacific oceans. The RN got it's money's worth.
Building the 1/350 scale King George V has been loads of fun, the model has tons of detail, and she ends up having a really nice profile. The quad turrets make her very unique.
I've been building the predreadnought Lord Nelson and the IRN Tesaravich along side KGV, what is so amazing is all three are the same scale, but the KGV is so much more massive.
I'm trying to decide on my next 1/350 scale ship, its between the USS Texas or HMS Dreadnought herself or HMS Nelson/Rodney. Any opinions from fellow Drach fans would be appreciated.
Being from the USA, I'm leaning towards Texas, as she is our first super Dreadnought and she still exists as a museum ship. But HMS Dreadnought was THE ship which changed everything, as for the Nelson's, they are such a unique looking ship. Hmmmm grrrrr.
Whatever the choice, just always stick with the same scale. Do the Texas. Then the Dreadnought. And then a 1/350 scale Type VII Uboat just to see how tiny they were to the big ships.
Post pix somewhere please! I love model making but have neither time nor funds to pursue it.
I love that half a million people are into this level of detail! I would think a channel like this (Despite being amazing) would not get so many views due to how detailed it is and how not clickbaity it is. It makes me optimistic to see that people can get past the surface BS on youtube and find real quality like this!
I do wish someone made a comedic video where they portray the different nations at the different naval conferences. Japan in the background quietly designing the Yamato while everyone else in the room are discussing 14” guns could definitely be used.
Japan left the treaty system before they started working on the Yamatos.
@@bkjeong4302 True, but they cheated more than anyone else (much more even than the USN, the next biggest cheaters) with their treaty ships. They understated the actual tonnage of ships built under the treaty by many thousands of tons. Of course everyone had design teams quietly working away anyway in case the treaty broke down. The Yamato probably came from that team.
41:09:
Wargaming: *proceeds to give KGV 13 mm and 25 mm deck armor and most of the British battleships less than 70 mm of deck armor*
This was a fantastic video. Thank you for collaborating with Mr Warwick on the story of the King George V class battleships. I find these to be the most interesting ships in the British WWII fleet. It's such a shame KGV or Duke of York were both scrapped. One of them would have made a fantastic museum ship.
I agree it would’ve been nice to have a museum ship but the reality was Britain was broke for a long time after World War II
This was really informative for a specific class. I hope more will follow thanks drach!
The amount of Wednesday videos where special guests and experts are speaking is amazing! I’m glad to see so many people willing to speak with you and us about naval history!
The best barbeque machines in WoWS
BEST BB to farm in low tiers
WG made them weakly armoured too. Go figure
If only the armour was realistic in any way
Please don't remind me of the absolute travesty those ships are
I was interested in getting the game but after seeing that the meta is dominated by super shits that were never built or original designs that look like something out of a post-apocalyptic steampunk fanfic then I lost all interest
This will likely get buried.
However, regarding the AA performance of PoW at her sinking I think it is correct to hammer on about the issue of "not having the ability to show what she can do" due to the torpedo strike.
It's worth discussing her excellent AA performance at Operation Halbert in the Medditereanan and subsequently comparing that with what happened at her sinking.
I'm not saying she would have been saved by her AA suite had it been operating at 100%, but perhaps she would have given a better account of herself (that said, clearly she did as well as she possibly could in the circumstances).
Excellent presentation and a great collab'!!
My only recommendation, to speed up any reading of text as shown in various points, would be to have highlighted any particularly relevant text as those points were being made in the narration - similar to the way a lot of CZcams political commentators do when reviewing the statements of political figures and the courts. It's a way of harmonising the visual and audio elements to get the most pertinent points across! This is just a minor consideration in, what was otherwise, a superbly entertaining and thoroughly educational video - exactly what we have routinely come to appreciate from Drach'!!
This was really interesting learning more about the KGVs and I especially love the slides providing additional visuals and data!
To be sure, the KGV class of Treaty Battleships are superb designs in both theory and execution especially when one recalls that they more strictly observed the Treaty limitations than any other naval power at the time. Even the U.S. evoked the escalator clause, swapping 3 Quad 14 inch mounts for 3 triple 16 inch mounts after construction began and finished with a somewhat unbalanced design which lacked armored protection against its own guns.
As for the Italians, French and Germans, the Treaty limitations insofar as weight was concerned was completely ignored with all of the aforementioned exceeding 40k tons Standard displacement and the Bismarck class exceeded 45k. Under these considerations the British, still within the weight limit were able to provide superior deck and side belt armor, a usable aviation department, torpedoes and 4 superior, large caliber, secondary, multipurpose 5.25 twin turrets plus advanced air and fire control radar compared to any of the other ships.
Richelieu is a 35,000 ton design.
@@adamtruong1759
In regard to the French Richelieu design; the French government received a formal complaint from the British regarding the Richelieu design violating the Washington and London Naval treaties. Their pre-war/rebuild displacement was "37,250 Long Tons" and "43,200" after their 1943 rebuild in the U.S. The French government in 1937 expressed their opinion/judgement, that the British had abrogated the Naval treaties due to their agreement with Germany (France's enemy) which allowed Germany to build ships that grossly exceeded the Treaty of Versailles.
In any event, the Richelieu was damaged by several allied naval operations which saw the French heavy surface units as potential German assets. Subsequently, she was repaired/updated in the U.S. in 1943 and had a standard displacement of over 43k long tons, (47.5 full load) which was comparable to "Jean Bart".
The newest class's of French battleships were superior to the Italian "Vittorio Veneto" type which began with a standard displacement of around 40k long tons as completed. For one thing the Italian ships side armor only extended about .5 meter below the designed waterline.
Regarding the 35k ton standard displacement, the French originally intended to build within that limit and, in fact, their proposed but uncompleted ships of that class are listed as 35k tons standard displacement.
By the time the French were building these ships, (post 'Dunkerque/Strasbourg' BattleCruiser designs), they were in response to potentially hostile Navies whose current heavy units under construction were obviously greatly in excess of the treaty displacement. The IJN's actions, informing the treaty signatories that it wasn't planning on remaining within the London limitations, signalled the building of the Yamato class whose existence also threatened French interests in Indochina.
So the Richelieu as constructed, (later updated in the U.S. after being attacked twice by allied forces and gaining about 5k tons) was ~7% over the Treaty's Standard Displacement. By this time the escalator clause had been used by the U.S. to replace the 14" main battery design of the North Carolina class with a new 16" gun. 12, 14 inch guns were exchanged for 9, 16 inch. The North Carolina class went slightly overweight also, but was only armored against the U.S. 14 inch guns. The new 16" American main battery fired a 2700 lb. A.P. shell versus an improved 2240 lb. A.P. for the older Colorado class (Maryland, West Virginia, Colorado). So despite the firepower, the U.S. design of the same period lacked the Richelieu and Jean Bart's balanced design where speed, armor, and firepower were very nicely balanced. Superior to both their Italian and German counterparts and on less displacement.
There are records that detail how well the French battleships stood up when attacked by British and U.S. heavy surface units in 1940 and 1942. Since the French battleships were subsequently repaired and updated in the U.S., extensive records are easily found in the public domain.
9500 ts more is strictly observing) (:-))
a one hour fifty min vid of the King George V - Ok then. (afternoon plans cancelled)
It's great to come HOME to a video like this - thank you, Drachinifel!
PS:
I forgot the "home" - makes quite for a difference in meaning...
Great conversation, and lots of really interesting information! Thank you both for bringing this to us.
Drach thanks for all the work you put into the channel, we all benefit. As usual, great guest.
Another good Drachinifel video perfect for my long morning of working on university assignments ;)
Thank you for this analysis of the KGV class. I have been fascinated with this inter-war compromised design for a long time. The balance of protection, speed and firepower within the tonnage limits imposed, and the choices in armour and armament are quite interesting. I was not aware of the shell output the ships had achieved during the war, I'm impressed. I have always heard about the issues they had faced, but never combined with the success of the systems.
Yes, this seems to be something that has really been about only in more recent times. I think a lot of the unfair criticism has come from ill informed fan boys of other battleships and countries. Hopefully with videos like this and the excellent books available now on these ships will help to enlighten these people.
That was great ! I loved the mix between going into the geeky details and putting this details in context and explaining why they mattered or not.
This was an exceptionally interesting deep dive particularly with the use of primary sources. It's easy for them to get missed when discussing ship design.
Couple of questions/requests.
What was the weight difference between the actual 10 14 inch guns and the hypothetical 9 15 inch? As in, could you have kept the higher armoured deck whilst also having that armament?
Secondly, would it be possible for some of the images to be available. They'd make quite a cool randomised screensaver! I'd need to learn how to do such a thing, but I'm willing to try.
Finally, on the topic of a future video I was wondering if it would be possible to have a discussion of the the lion class and admirality requirements for them. Did the ideas change, and how were they and the KGVs planned to be used together?
Thank you again to you and your guest!
I really enjoyed this deep dive and look forward to more like it.
Imagine a KGV with similar layout to a Nelson and 12 guns, That would have been quite something!!
British actually wanna make kgv class with 3 triple turret 16inch
@@soto1649
Known as the Lion-Class.
Wonderful. That answers questions I didn’t even knew existed. Thanks very much.
An excellent Q&A lecture! I always wondered what the thought process behind the KGVs was and this laid it out very well.
Agincourt got scrapped so the British needed a dakka ship to replace them.
Ain't never enff dakka!
HMS WAAARGGGHHHier
1:01:11 I love the pic of a North Carolina next to a KGV. Really shows the different design philosophies...
amazing videos as always drach... i dont know if enough information is available but id love if you did this kind of video on the nelson class should sufficent information be able for you, superb content as always keep it up!!
Just an outstanding review of an iconic battleship. Just another example of the quality of your exceptional channel.
My favourite class of Battleships hands down
So... got any plans to do the same for the rest of the treaty battleships? Including the Bismarck class and the Littorio/Vittorio Veneto class even if we think they didn't even trying.
Really great video to listen while working.
I enjoy reading all the comments from people, great discussion.
Speaking as a total amateur in this field, I must say that this video was very easy to understand. Very nice side diagrams, for example. Overall, the newb-friendliness of this entire channel is very nice.
Reserved for tonight. Definitely better option than Netflix👍
Well that's not a rhum ration anymore, it's the whole bloody barrel !
Utterly love these long form videos. Have listened to the Zero ones a couple of times each, and will be revisiting this one again once I've let the first experience percolate in the grey matter a while
Thank You both for compiling and sharing this information.
1:31:08 The kind of questions I really do appreciate, as so often a ship is mentioned as being at a particular engagement, then it just appears to vanish after that. Case and point the 6 escort carriers at the Battle of Samar, we all know about the heroic story of the Roberts, yet the escort carriers appear to just materialize just for that engagement, then almost no one mentions where they went after that as if the crews just ceased to exist after the Battle of Samar.
I know progress never stops, but I miss the age of the battleship. Now we have stand off missiles and carrier airstrikes. But in the battleship era you had to be ready to stand in there and give and receive shots. Battleship gun battles are the naval equivalent of MMA.
Though a leader of land armies, the great Duke of Wellington summed it up perfectly. "Hard pounding, Gentlemen. Let's see who pounds the longest."
Thanks, Drach for another great vid!
Brilliant work guys. Thank you for sharing. Is something I have always wondered about, the design requirements/restrictions and engineering decisions that tell the story of how they came to be the way they are.
Super interesting, keep up the good work! Definitely interested in a follow-up lecture on the 14" guns.
KVG with torpedos
Wargaming: write that down, write that down!
Yes Britain was very lucky they made these ships King George V and Duke of York really made a great contribution to the war effort
Good stuff Drach! Thanks for the video.
Great video, as always! For a future video, I'd love to see the Admiral Scheer - that ship's story will be more than 5 minutes, of course.
I love these more in-depth videos with warships from WW2, but I think that on some level it would have been interesting to get a short briefing on what applies today. Gunfire and extreme amounts of armor in the traditional sense are not relevant today, but warships must still be able to protect themselves. I understand that it is about defense levels and that the last line of defense is usually close in weapons such as Phalanx. With, among others, the Norwegian Aegis frigate Helge Ingstad anno 2009 (F313) in fresh memory and how this ship slowly sank after a collision with an oil tanker due to very thin steel and poor watertight integrity. The ship should technically have remained afloat even if it took on water through the propeller shaft and stuffing boxes. It has also been questioned whether thicker and/or more solid steel would have meant that the breach along the side from the starboard torpedo launchers to the stern would have been less severe. I'm not an engineer or technical expert, but I have a feeling that today's warships are far from being as solidly built as they once were. It all obviously depends on keeping the dangers at a distance. The ships are simply not built to withstand a direct hit from, for example, rockets and mines.
Arguably... Modern anti ship weapons are made to counter the completely lacking armour on modern warships. Most modern vessels have, at best, 3 inches of armour plate, and to use a gaming term, are built like glass cannons. As much ordinance and long range as possible, and hope you kill the enemy before they either notice you are there at all, or before they can kill you.
If you were to have a well armoured heavy cruiser with even potentially 4-6 inches of armour everywhere (Keeping in mind this is not how things were done, cruisers would have more armour than this, especially around critical areas) Alongside sufficient internal partitioning and torpedo protection. Having such vessels on mass would require larger anti ship missiles, eventually to the point where they might not be carried by carrier aircraft if it escalates. Cue renaissance of battleships having a place in warfare as they shrug off most firepower that is in use today... if the industries to make thick steel plate armour for ships was still around.
@@Destroyer_V0 Some antiship missiles already have armour penetrating capabilities, like the warhead of the p700 Granit. There's an image showing a cross-section of it's warhead, and it has a thick armoured nose of 4 inches. Like a supersonic fritz-x, it's going straight through a ship if it hits the deck armour in dive mode. There was also a missile test of the Moskit where the missile goes through the target ship lengthwise. Besides, you can't armour the radar of a ship, which anti ship missiles do target, and without that you have a very expensive target ripe for immolation. Armour penetration for modern anti ship missiles is secondary to high explosive, as they are currently meant to burrow into the hull of giant CVs and gut them. Reintroduce battleships and you'll end up with antiship missiles meant purely for armour penetration.
I think you could some up the design of the King George the V class with one phrase.
"They're fine, not great, but not that bad either."
I came in today after getting the Blue Mountain coffee!!! Thanks for letting me know about your channel. I. Love. It!!!!
Amazing video yet again! I love your channel 👍
Hell yes, I’m going to be listening to this tonight.
Great discussion! I keep thinking how tragic that Prince of Wales was lost because they had zero air cover, but desperate times lead to desperate decisions. God rest all who perished with her.
This is my favourite class of battleships. Thank you so much for this!
What an enjoyable hour, with my favourite battleship class! One area not mentioned was fire control, which was adequate for surface action (although not as good as US or German systems) throughout the war but entirely inadequate for AA fire until lend-lease US equipment was installed late in the war. Anson and Howe, being later to complete, both benefited from improvements in radar directed gunnery control, especially in AA gunnery and had the most up-to-date radar fit out and Gun Directors. The 5.25” guns could not train or elevate fast enough to follow high-speed German and Japanese aircraft, but did receive Remote Power Control by 1945 for the Pacific deployment. They were also not very watertight.
As far as changing things in the KGV design is concerned, I agree with all the suggestions in the video but also would have replaced the 5.25” with an equivalent number of 4.5” in between-deck mountings (as on the Aircraft Carriers, Valiant and Renown) - faster firing, faster training, and just as effective against the actual air threat of torpedo bombers and dive bombers. Saves quite a lot of weight and frees up the 5.25” mountings for use in the AA Cruisers. The other thing I would have changed is putting in a proper Electical system - a system split into 2 ring mains was very old-fashioned and vulnerable to damage, US BBs had much better electrical systems and used electricity for many things that the British used hydraulics or steam power for (not sure about other nations but judging by their automobiles , Bismarck would have been well served by Robert Bosch electrics). The use of oil lamps rather than battery powered emergency lights is another indication of the backward state of some of the RN’s standard systems.
I also thought the comparative review of BBs was very fair. If you had to ask yourself, which of all these ships would I want to go to war in, my pick would be USS Massachusetts (they have ice cream) , but Anson (they have Pink Gin) would be a pretty close second.
As a former soldier, I know that the only guarantee is that a weapon system will fail. A rifle will jam, for example. It takes second to clear a stoppage when the round is less than an ounce. When the round weighs over a ton, a stoppage can become a real problem. A 66% success rate is very good under fire, in moving seas with ice. I have always loved the KGVs. Really handsome, purposeful looking battleships.
I have always felt Prince of Wales was a hard luck ship. What I mean is before she was had a proper shakedown and trials, she is called upon to combat Bismark. At the time of her loss, the task group was undersized, it was what RN had to send and in some circles too much. HMS Hermes is questionable as an asset or just another target. It is like all the luck for the class skipped Prince of Wales.
Fantastic video, great content. Well done guys.
Thanks for this video. I love the King George V class. Duke of York is my favorite. They are such beautiful ships
I have a newfound respect for these ships now.
If you look closely, you can see the hundreds of "witherer" medals on the deck.
What are those
@@Randomclips9564 World of Warships reference
@@Randomclips9564 It's the World of Warships award you get for killing a ship with fire...
@@talltroll7092 actually witherer is from getting 60k damage with fire or flooding
Cool to see Matt Warwick here, I've followed him on Twitter for a while. Great video!