6 WWII Surface Warships that sank the Most Naval Vessels
Vložit
- čas přidán 28. 09. 2023
- Video Description: During World War II, few surface warships such as battleships, cruisers, and destroyers, rose to prominence through their extraordinary combat prowess. Through relentless engagement and remarkable firepower, they left an indelible mark on naval warfare, ultimately contributing to the Allied and Axis war efforts in significant ways. This video presents the top 6 surface warships that achieved the highest number of enemy ship sinkings during World War II.
----------------------------------------
Credits:-
www.turbosquid.com/it/3d-mode...
finescale.com/product-info/ki...
www.turbosquid.com/it/3d-mode...
www.amazon.in/USS-Massachuset...
www.turbosquid.com/it/3d-mode...
free3d.com/3d-model/takao-cla...
---------------------------------------------
FAIR-USE COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER
* Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, commenting, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favour of fair use.
The Buzz does not own the rights to these videos and pictures. They have, in accordance with fair use, been repurposed with the intent of educating and inspiring others. However, if any content owners would like their images removed, please contact us by email at-thebuzz938@gmail.com. - Zábava
My dad served on Hms Warspite from early 41 till same 43 and he always said she was a lucky ship.
God bless your Dad and his shipmates.
I wish they had kept her as a museum.
That ship saw some action! I would say our greatest ever warship after HMS Victory.
What do you mean your dad served on the warspite
It is an honour to you Dad who fought for his beloved Country.
My grandfather served on the Bismarck as a AA gunner he unfortunately died when the Bismarck sunk but my grandmother told me he loved what he was doing and she still has a letter from him about the ship and what he said about it
Gott segne ihn❤
@@Hannes2112 oh ja ich hätte zu gerne seine Geschichten gegört ❤️
That's so cool man, salute to him
Bismarck and Tirpitz were the best-looking battleships in my opinion.
Unfortunately Bismarck didnt have best type of AA guns for defense against low flying planes like torpedo bombers...
The Warspite was just about everywhere during WWII. Amazing story. Shameful that she was scrapped.
A lot of ships were scrapped that should have been saved.
Post WWII nobody in the general public cared. So no money. The UK in particular was broke was still paying off war time debts in 1979... There was a chance but she was too big to get under tower bridge so instead they saved HMS Belfast.
and WW1, she survived both wars, it was disrespectful to not make her a floating museum.
@radamanthium there could have been the possibility that she would have been sunk anyway to say that if Germany didn't scrap her then the allied countries would have sunk her or like many captured warships in that time met a fate of nuclear testing at bikini atoll as targets
its was a floating hulk by VE Day @@radamanthium
The Scharnhorst 11'' guns hit and sunk the Aircraft carrier HMS Glorious while at full speed from 26.000 meters or 26 Kms away.
Outstanding by any standards.
#Amazing #Outstanding #Warkraft
Warspite recorded hit at 26.400 meters.
I heard it was 24km = appx. 26,000 yards, and at that range they disabled Glorious' flight deck - they had to close considerably to sink her.
@@ifax1245yamato stradled whiteplains at 31 km
@@VIDEOVISTAVIEW2020 a straddle is not a hit.
The list is not complete. The german pocket battleship "Admiral Graf Spee" sank in the year 1939 nine enemy vessels in the south atlantic and the indian ocean.
Yes ! The title should be : The 7
WWII ships which bla bla...
(-including the 11" pocket battle-
ship Graf Spee).
@@petersoerent2554 I wrote my comment, because the Graf Spee sank 9 vessels and the Mogami only 5.
Yes but not one was a warship they were all. Merchant ships
@@daniellastuart3145 So it seems that i don't understand this video. Only three ships, that were sunk by Scharnhorst and Gneisenau, were warships. (Glorious, Ardent and Acasta). All others were merchant ships. But in total they are counted as 9 and 15.
@@daniellastuart3145The Japanese cruiser sank 3 merchant ships and they counted them. The title is naval vessels not navy vessels
Don’t forget that HMS Warspite’s swordfish floatplane also sank a U boat at Narvik.
True. Using a Swordfish as a dive bomber was unusual, but that time, it worked.
@@davidtownsend8875the only known hit of a swordfish dive bombing.
@@user-bu2ro8vg8b And the only ship sunk by a plane launched from a battleship.
The Warspite should have been saved as a National Treasure. I would have gone to England to see her.
Does that mean, you wouldn't have gone to see her if she was a museum ship in Shetland, where a significant fleet of the Royal Navy was based during WWs I and II or Rosyth, Glasgow, where the modern Royal Navy ships are built? The UK is more than England.
@@Thurgosh_OGYou're Scottish aren't you.
@@Thurgosh_OG Don't you pollute my meaning sir.
I am in part, very good comment.@@emonhunter8107
Yep, dock her next to the Enterprise, the other great crime of naval vandalism.
My Father was Marine gunner on Warspite from 1938 to 1943 and is partly responsible for many of these sinkings.
Scharnhorst and Gneisenau jointly sank, or captured, 22 ships in Operation Berlin, these are not included in the computation. If these are added to the talley reported these two are by far the most successful ship killers
They were feared for a reason. And they were 2 of the most beautiful ships of the war
shsh, dont confuse the English speaking people who dont know what a fact is,
if they dont wrote it by themself!
dont forget, the F-15 won WW2 for the Americans!
@@Arltratlo XD
seems unfair to compare merchant kills to kills other warships
this list is very inaccurate, graf spee sunk 9 ships, but where is it?
Early in WW2 allied navies weren’t aware of the extreme range of the Long Lance. That range wasn’t known until 1943
The bureau of ordnance boldly proclaimed that it was impossible to design a torpedo with that range. Given they were unable to design a torpedo that worked, not much of an expert opinion...
@@luisnunes3863 …I’d read British navy intel had passed on a report on the Long Lance to the US Navy. Which was studied and quickly dismissed
@@Idahoguy10157 Not surprising. These are the same people that blamed the utter failure of their mk XIV on the crews. There were reports from us intelligence, with eyewitnesses, also ignored.
There were four main factors which made the Type 93 "Long Lance" torpedo a highly successful weapon: 1. The exceedingly long range, as mentioned in the comments. 2. The size & power of the warhead was such that it devastated many vessels with only one hit. 3. The IJN drilled & planned how to use these torpedoes to maximum effect during surface engagements. They fired massive barrages of the LL on sighting enemy forces before the enemy began to maneuver. All Japanese cruisers & destroyers typically carried multiple launchers with reloads as well. 4. Surprise. As mentioned in the comments, USN BuOrd denied the possibility of such a powerful & long range weapon for several years.
@@dbyers3897 ….. by the end of the Solomons campaign the Long Lance performance was understood. So the US Navy used it’s radar advantage to reduce the threat. Air attacks on Japanese destroyers and cruisers made having the LL dangerous. Because of it’s warhead but especially because it used pure oxygen. Japanese warships had to jettison their LL torpedoes and vent the ships O2 storage when an air attack was imminent. Or risk the LL destroying the warship carrying it!
Mogami's total is off - in the battle of Sunda Strait she fired a single spred of torpedoes at USS Houston that missed, continued on into the Japanese invasion convoy on the far side of Houston (Houston was between Mogami and the transports), and sank five of Japanese ships in the invasion convoy: minesweeper W-2, troop transports SAKURA MARU and TATSUNO MARU, hospital ship HORAI MARU, and the invasion force flagship SHINSHU MARU (with CinC of the invading 16th Army LtGen Imamura Hitoshi onboard - Imamura was forced to abandon ship by jumping into the sea, but was picked up by a lifeboat and survived). This event was the single deadliest (in terms of the total number of ships sunk) torpedo attack by a surface ship during the entire war.
I looked up the Shinshu Maru out of curiosity, and not only did get sunk by the torpedoes you mention, but she was salvaged and later on "sunk by the submarine USS Aspro" after being abandoned after air attack. So she was sunk twice by torpedoes. Once by Japanese, once by American. Quite a record.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_amphibious_assault_ship_Shinsh%C5%AB_Maru
Thanks for your post. I have learned something new from it.
No culprit was found with 100% certainty. Mogami and Fubuki 'probably' did it was the ruling, pinning it on Mogami alone is just scapegoating
Yeah but they were IJA, so really were they friendly?
IJA for IJN cannot be considered as friendly fire.
I think Warspite is the most bad ass name ever given to a navy ship. She definitely earned that name
U.S.S. England DE 635 sank 6 Japanese submarines single handedly. No accounts dispute this, none in combination of hits by other vessels, no merchant vessels.
In less than two weeks!
HMS Starling sank, or shared in sinking, 15 U-boats. Anti Submarine warfare rarely gets the credit it deserves.
Just shows how bad this vid and list is. It's not biased it just misses the mark entirely.@@petearundel166
Some people dont seem to understand that transports are a valid and important target. Attacking the enemy logistics is what wins wars. Its like saying the u boats were irrelevant because they mostly sank convoys.
Well, the German Uboats were mostly irrelevant Indeed.
They didn't help the German army at the eastern front against the Soviets, they didn't stop the Soviets from entering Berlin and they didn't even prevent the D-Day landings either.
They were entirely useless for Germany.
70% of all the uboats were sunk anyway, taking thousands of men with them whom could have been used somewhere else more efficiently.
The resources and fuel oil watsed for these useless uboats could have been used more efficiently for tanks and ammunition instead of wasting it in the oceans for no good reason.
The Soviet Union didn't even rely on the American lend lease anyway (which amounted only 10% of the total Soviet war production).
90% of the Soviet weapons, tanks, artillery, trucks, guns, aircraft, engines were produced in the Soviet Union itself, so the American cargo ships were not vital for the Soviet war winning in the first place
@@xAlexTobiasxB I agree that the lend lease was exaggerated, and that the USSR fought on its own, but the convoys were vital for Britain. Also, the kriegsmarine didn't have a lot to do in Russia, and it couldn't fight the massive numbers the Royal Navy had on the surface, so they opted for the right choice.
@@hashteraksgage3281
Some Uboats were actually sucessful in sinking a few British battleships and even aircraft carriers, but these were just the very rare cases when some German Uboats were actually used to attack the British warships directly, which was only less than 1 % of all German Uboats deployed.
So if the remaining 99% of the German Uboats had been preferred to hunt down the British warships directly, they could have inflicted a lot more damage to the British navy and possibly sunk a lot more British battleships and aircraft carriers, instead of wasting their shots on cargo ships.
And even then it still wouldn't have helped the Germans on the Eastern front against the Soviet counter-attack or the American bombing raids, which is what ultimately defeated Germany.
So either way the Uboats were a waste of resources because the sea was not the main priority battlefield for Germany to begin with.
They should have used the resources and manpower for producing more tanks instead, this would actually have had a bigger impact on the battlefield *directly* .
Although it still would not have changed the outcome of the war at all, because there was no way for Germany to win against 3 Super Powers at the same time anyway, doesn't matter what tactics they would have used.
Let alone that from 1943 onwards, Germany was literally obliterated from the air by American and British bombers, day and night.
THIS is what actually inflicted the most damage to Germany, not the convoy ships.
Compared to US Sub Uboat are grossly overrated about how advance they are yet they failed to stop a convoy even in their hayday yet US Sub didn't even need a fancy tech to get a job done just a good captain and crew is enough to cripple entire Japan merchant fleet let alone often sinking their capital ship
@@reinchans german submarines sank almost 3 times more than what us subs did
For any Canadians here, according to the official website of the Canadian Tribal-class destroyer HMCS Haida, she is credited with sinking a total of 9 ships, though admittedly, one was a trawler, not a military vessel. I don't actually know why they engaged the trawler and the two other vessels it was with. If we're strictly talking about military vessels, Haida sank 8: 2 torpedo boats, 2 destroyers, a U-boat, a minesweeper and its escort vessel, and a patrol vessel, all between April 26, 1944 and September 6, 1944.
She is known as "The Fightingest Ship in the Royal Canadian Navy", and still exists today as a national historic site and the ceremonial flagship of our navy.
"Under Commander (later Vice-Admiral) Harry DeWolf, Haida and her crew did that work with a fearlessness that eventually earned the vessel the unofficial title of "Fightingest Ship in the Royal Canadian Navy." It was responsible for sinking 14 enemy ships in just over a year."
@@TheSafetySmith To be fair, since I specified the time period of late April to early September of 1944, my comment technically isn't incorrect. I used the number I found on the official HMCS Haida website. That number is also present on The Canadian Encyclopedia, where it says, "Between April and September 1944 alone, it sank nine enemy ships. In total, the Haida helped sink 14 ships during the Second World War." Parks Canada also states that she helped sink 14 enemy vessels. The sources I can see where they directly say that the HMCS Haida sank 14 vessels are CBC, Wikipedia, Perth & District Historical Society, unravelhalifax, and Michigan Technological University, with that last one being the only one I would consider to be a credible source. In general, more sources say she helped to sink 14 than those that say she sank 14. On the other hand, every source that mentioned the nine ships it sank between April and September credited the Haida exclusively.
Saying that she helped to sink those ships seems to imply that she was not always the primary reason why they sank. From this, I would draw a conclusion that while 14 ships sank during combat with the HMCS Haida, she might not have always been the main factor in their sinking. However, it would seem she _was_ given credit for sinking nine ships in less than half of a year.
Or maybe I've misunderstood and need to do more research.
Well the reason why the Canadians attacked the trawler was simple. Because they were the reason for parts of the Geneva Convention so tbf they weren’t picky on who they attacked 😂
@@Staxx0 Canadians weren't that bad in WW2. Fierce fighters, yes, but not quite the war criminals they were in WW1. There was probably an explainable reason for attacking the trawler. If there was one reputation Canadian soldiers had in WW2 besides being fierce and brutal fighters, it was their kindness towards civilians.
@@Ben_Kimber true but they were still more than ready to fight. Which tbh Canada was a lot more ruthless in ww1 than ww2 but I know they still didn’t like the Germans at all. 💀
USS Massachusetts has another distinction: She didn't lose a single sailor to action, accident or disease during the entire war.
Massachusets also hold the honor of firing the first, and last American 16"s in anger. And is one of very few battleships in the war who faced off against another battleship in direct combat.
@@againstalltyrants9001 Wisconsin fired her 16s in Desert Storm.
Action yes, but BB59 lost a couple to accidents. Top of my head a guy was electrocuted operating the circuit boards.
🇬🇧 That HMS Warspite does not lie in the port as a museum ship next to HMS Victory still hurts today, because what other ship would really have deserved this place? As a battleship that took part in the Battle of Jutland and fought in the Mediterranean in the Second World War, among other things, and was involved in the Normandy landings, she was one of the first warships ever to be hit by a guided bomb, the German Fritz-X, on 16 September 1943 and held her own. For me, one of the most legendary warships in naval history.
🇩🇪 Dass die HMS Warspite nicht als Museumsschiff neben der HMS Victory im Hafen liegt, schmerzt noch heute, denn welch anderes Schiff hätte diesen Platz wirklich verdient? Als Schlachtschiff, das an der Skageraggschlacht teilgenommen hat und im 2. Weltkrieg u.a. im Mittelmeer gekämpft und an der Landung in der Normandy beteiligt war, wurde sie am 16. September 1943 als eines der ersten Kriegsschiffe überhaupt von einer Lenkbombe, der deutschen Fritz-X getroffen und hielt stand. Für mich eines der legendärsten Kriegsschiffe der Marinegeschichte überhaupt.
@@retiredbore378 What is the point? The BL 6 inch MK XXIII has a maximum range of 23km and could fire at Eastbourne or Canterbury at most. If it works🙂
4:24 The Cesare suffered slight damage to the smokestack, starting a fire which was quickly put out.
After a few weeks he returned to regular service, participating in the clash at Capo Spartivento and in numerous convoy escort operations
One of Gneisenau's turrets still remains in Ørland, Norway.
it popped off like a russian tank turret?
Very imprecise about Warspite..the battle against the Italian fleet in 1940 took place in July and Giulio Cesare was only sligthly damaged, re-entering service after a very brief period
There are a lot of inaccuracies in most of this channels videos.
The Scharnhorst Amazing Salvo hit the HMS Glorious at 26.000 Meters.
Probably the longest Successfull decisive naval salvo hit in Naval history.
think that honor goes to HMS Warspite
@@DieWitness nope. It's the Scharnhorst.
@tensaibr nope it's both Warspite on Guilio Cesare and Scharnhorst on Glorious both at 24 km (15 miles)
@@edwardhuggins84 wrong .26.000 Meters.
And also have the USS Massachusetts 26..almost 27.000 Meters on the French Battleship Jean Bart.
@@jpmtlhead39 completely wrong from the Guinness World Records Website:
"The greatest range at which one ship's guns have successfully hit another vessel is 24 km (15 miles), a feat that occurred twice during the second world war. On 8 June 1940 the German battleship Scharnhorst hit the British aircraft carrier Glorious at that range in the North Atlantic, while a month later on 9 July, during the battle of Calabria the British battleship HMS Warspite hit the Italian flagship Guilio Cesare at a similar distance. Both are remarkable feats of gunnery considering that in each case both vessels involved in the exchange were moving at high speed."
The old HMS Rawalpindi was a slow ocean liner that literally attacked two modern battleships (the Scahrnhorst being one of them) , gaining a direct hit with her retrofitted OPEN WW1 era gun ..... has to be one of the bravest (and suicidal) acts of an underdog ship in WWII.
Up there with HMS Gloworm.
The German auxiliary cruiser Atlantis sank or captured 22 enemy ships.
USS Houston and HMAS Perth were against a much larger fleet. They’d used all their ammo and even resorted to Star shells and flares. Hollow victory for Mogami.
Sound like loser cope to me
Still 2 kills regardless!!!
maybe next time bring some ammo along!
if their fire control been so bad, why didnt they run home....
Brits always run home if they meet superior forces...
ask the French, they saw it in 1940!
@@Arltratlo If you are speaking from a naval perspective I can cite several instances where the Royal Navy or British Merchant Marine didn't run after meeting superior forces. Acasta and Ardent, defending Glorious against Scharnhorst and Gneisenau; Gloworm against Admiral Hipper; Exeter, Ajax and Achilles vs Admiral Graf See; Rawalpindi defending convoy against fan favs Scharnhorst and Gneisenau again!!! As for bring some ammo along, both Houston and Perth had expended munitions in the Battle of the Java Sea, after retiring to Java they weren't able to resupply due to materials shortages, then expended their remaining ammunition in the brave but futile Battle of the Sunda Strait!!! Conversely the PQ17 affair was a shocking betrayal where a convoy was ordered to scatter, and British naval escorts left isolated merchant ships to fend for themselves against a swath of u-boats and aircraft. Very few survived that utter debacle!!!
At least the Americans and British didn't attack defenseless merchant ships and ocean liners like the Japs and Nazi's routinely did.
Funny, that Scharnhorst-class sisters were chosen, when Pocket battleship Admiral Scheer sank more, even more than her famous sister the Graf spee. She was the most successful of all the Kriegsmarine surface warships.
Nearly but not quite. He/she sank the most merchant/cargo vessels out of all the regular German surface ships ( though several auxiliary cruisers sank even more ), but Scharnhorst did sink an aircraft carrier and two destroyers off Norway. These would be high value targets which would put the battlecruiser/battleship in number one spot where being successful is concerned.
The Graf spee captain scuttle her.
Hilfskreuzer Penguin - 16 ships sunk and 16 captured. 😐
"Surface ships", excluding the Big E. The Grey Ghost, USS Enterprise CV-6, while fighting from 41 to 45, sometimes as the sole carrier left in the Pacific was responsible for sinking 33 Japanese ships. Yes, it was her air groups that did it, not her guns, but that really puts into focus how much more deadly a carrier can be. Most decorated ship of WWII for the US Navy, and for a damn good reason.
You might find that Mogami sunk just as many friendly ships.
If I remember correctly, she would have a negative kill count
@@KINGLOGAN3095 Exactly.
Nice video. I have read several books on these ships, but you put them all in a way that I can comprehend. Thank You.
You can still visit USS Massachusetts at Battleship Cove in Fall River, MA. It's a cool museum ship.
At least the usa puts in the effort to preserve these ships
So glad that one of the very few battleships to actually fight in a surface engagement was preserved. All the other U.S. battleships that fought in surface engagements against other ships, even destroyers, were scrapped. Washington and South Dakota at Guadalcanal and the 6 dreadnoughts (5 of them from the Pearl Harbor attack) at Surigao Strait were all the combined battleships of the USA that fought against surface ships during WWI or WWII (WWI had zero surface battles for the whole U.S. Navy, not just battleships). Crazy when you think about it because the British, Germans, and Italians fought so many surface battles in the Atlantic and Mediterranean during WWII.
Fall River? Oh OK I thought Id heard that name before. Someone's daughter.
Excellent video!
How about the raider Kormoran? Sure, it targeted transports but in it's final battle it took out HMAS Sydney too.
The German Navy has never been the strongest, but quite a history of punching above its weight.
punching above its displacement, lol.
IJN Mogami is getting a lot of hate here, in her defence: "a sunk ship is a sunk ship, for so it should be counted on her tally, regardless of the flag"
Some commentators dont remember that the title is Naval Vessels Sunk.
There's 2 issues here. 1) There were several more successful, Naval ships, that were not full warships (like Armed Merchants) and 2) This video included Civilian passenger ships as Naval kills. Lots wrong in this video and a few claims that are sketchy.
Gulio Cesare took only one hit from Warspite and was operational again shortly after. And Warspite certainly didn't sink 8 vessels on her own.
Scharnhorst and Gneisenau almost always operated together and between them sank 24-26 ships, including one aircraft carrier. Most of these kills were shared.
Most of the information here was a little dicey. The Battle of Narvik is very confusing. Three of the German DDs were either scuttled or being scuttled when they were 'sunk'. It generally. It is generally agreed HMAS Canberra survived the battle of Savo Island, she actually suffered more damage from friendly fire rather than Japanese, and was scuttled in spite of her captains protests that ship was savable
Correction to Mogami's record: Approximately a dozen Japanese destroyers and cruisers were involved in the battle Sunda Straights which could be best described as a "cluster f***". Mogami is generally credited with the sinking four Japanese transport rather than either the Houston or Perth. No battle ships were involved in the Battle of Sunda Straight. Mogami should also be credited with the sinking of its sister ship Mikuma, which it rammed during the last stages of the Battle of Midway, rendering both vulnerable to air attack which sank the Mikuma. Merchant ships, as noted, really don't count since they are literally sitting ducks which can't fight back. If you want to be truly accurate, top honors should go to the Battleship Washington which sank the Japanese battle ship Kirishima during the Second Naval Battle of Guadalcanal. Similar honors should go to the British Battleships King George V and Rodney which sank the Bismarck and the Duke of York which sank the Scharnhorst. Historically speaking the KGV class of British Battleships was probably the most heavily engaged and successful battleship class of the war, with 3 ships (Kg V, Duke of York and Prince Wales or 60% of the class, engaging enemy battleships and ultimately sinking all enemy battleships engaged. DO YOUR RESEARCH!!!!
almost Amen. The exception being Bismarck - I know, I know.. this debate will never end and even if the ship was crippled AF, the finel nail to the coffin was the crew just scuttling the ship.
@AdalbertSchneider_ and more than one ship sunk in the pacific was give the coup de grace by being torpedoed by destoryers from their own side, yet the ships that landed the blows which necessitated the finishing blows still generally get credit for the kills, rather than them being considered "own kills". Bismark was dead regardless of how successful or not the scuttling attempts were, so the British ships involved really should get credit for the kill. The Bismark was on fire above and flooding to an almost certainly unrecoverable degree below even before any scuttling attempts. Now, to be fair, if the ship hadn't been on fire and shot to pieces, with a skilled and motivated crew still aboard, the flooding might have not been as certain of doom, but with the fires and damage wrecking communication and rendering damage control systems inoperable, well..
Merchant ships are a legit target
Sink one can sideline a fleet
@@tomhenry897 naval tankers are the best target.
@@AdalbertSchneider_ At the end of the day, KGV and Rodney caused Bismarck's destruction. Bismarck was an irreparable wreck after the battle. They destroyed the ship as a fighting vessel. The hulk was just helped to the bottom by the crew. It was a mercy kill
Wow USS Massachusetts was underrated. Sank all those French ships. Never knew this .
Raw crew also; 80% were new to the Navy and she'd only been off her shakedown cruise a few months. I also read somewhere that she hadn't received automatic servo-control of her guns yet. Meaning instead of the guns automatically being laid by fire control, the gun crew had to manually match their azimuth/elevation pointers with FC's. Great animation here. czcams.com/video/sDTsvSXJ1WU/video.html
@@ald1144 You could debate that Jean Bart should not even be considered a kill. She had not even been completed at the time of the battle. She only had one main turret operational, none of her secondary guns had been completed, and all the dual purpose smaller guns had been taken off the ship and placed around the town
Admiral Scheer should be on this list.
maybe 21 kills is to ahead to mention
Correction to Cesare record: RN Giulio Cesare was famously hit at great distance and damaged (66 dead) at Punta Stilo by Warspite, damaged but far from being rendered 'inoperable', in fact steamed back home on her own power, was repaired and and sailed again, until new more modern battleships came online - Cesare was laid up at Pola in 1942 in order to free manpower for other more useful vessels.
Wasn't Cesare given to the Soviets after WWII as a war prize and she was sunk mysteriously in the 1950s in Crimea?
@@nogoodnameleftyes the Paris Treaty assigned remaining Italian battleships and other vessels to the (other) Allies (technically Italy, or at least the royal government, having entered the Allied side in 1944 or late '43). UK USA and France left their fleet quotas for good, on the agreement ships were to be demolished. As for the Soviets, they wanted their ships no matter what, and the battered Cesare was transferred in 1949 (as Novorossijsk ) along with tall sailship Cristoforo Colombo to the Russians. The sister ship of the latter is still sailing as Amerigo Vespucci, one of the largest classic sailing vessel afloat, still a symbol of the Italian Navy. Battleship Cesare went down while at anchor in Sebastopol in 1955, hit by an old lurking wartime German magnetic mine, surprisingly still working. 600 men perished. Her fate is shared by all three Doria class battleships, all hit by bomb, torpedo or mine while peacefully at anchor, Leonardo Da Vinci in the first WW (due to internal explosion, not uncommon with smokeless powders at the time, but possibly enemy sabotage) and Doria hit by bombs in Trieste in an air attack late in WW2, slowly capsized due to flooding, left unchecked as the German authorities ruling over Trieste in February 1945 apparently kept no crew on the ship .
As for the "mysterious" sinking of Cesare, it is the stuff of legends, born out of disbelief over the strange survival for 10 years after the war of an entire string of 20+ German mines still anchored in the harbour or Sevastopol without anyone noticing or caring about. Water's murky. It is cold back there. And, theorically, batteries were long depleted but.. damn sturdy 'ol nazi construction, their chrome ethernal, f.....g mine was expected to do its work anyway, and it did. To be honest, authorities discovered criminals still trafficking TNT in Naples in the 70s , and traced the source, surprisingly, to fields of long forgotten German wartime mines nested on the bottom of the bay of Naples, still precisely aligned in position and being slowly harvested one by one to not alert anyone to the precious hidden source. Every old mine, after being deactivated underwater, was brought back to the surface with its precious explosive intact, worth the price of a decent new car .
@@sandrodunatov485 You believe the official Soviet story? I think it was sunk in a black ops mission. They already demined that area. I think the German mine story was so there would be no nuclear war.
@@nogoodnameleftAs far as I know, only two western European nations had capabilities in 1955 to pull out such an operation, an enormously risky, probably unfeasible and useless endeavour anyway. Neither Italy or UK had anything to gain from the sinking of an old dreadnought, or from waking such a bear gaining nothing in exchange. Executing such a mission would have required substantial materiel, up-to-date aerial and on-site direct photo recon, very large specific info gathering, advanced planning and specialized training even for the most skilled operators, and I don't fancy the 1950s as a happy time for european underwater specialists; so such an operation without total political commitment upstairs is pure speculation and lore as such commitment was unthinkable. A tale, but a captivating one.
USS England, a destroyer escort is credited with sinking 6 Imperial Japanese Navy subs in WWII. Does USS count among the surface warships that sank the most naval vessels?
I say yes.
This review was biased towards the U.S. warships, U.S.S. England sank Six Submarines, and they are still considered to be Warships.
@@johnsouto5221 Agreed, as they are counting any naval vessel sunk, merchant ship and submarines are naval.
Apparently not. Impressive for England she was only in the war for 18 months lol. HMS Starling did even better with being credited with at 11 U-boat kills in the war plus 2 more maybes.
A friend of mine's, father, was a design engineer on a refit of Warspite in between the wars.
Some German Merchant Raiders sank more ships, than all the above combined! hmmm strange history here
Good. Thanks.
An excellent video, however, one class of surface warships appears to be missing. The Kriegsmarine operated a very successful class of Surface Raiders, aka Auxiliary Cruisers that fought as surface warships. The most successful were Atlantis, 22 for 145,697 tons, Thor, 21 for 139,338 tons, Pinguin, 28 for 136,551tons, Michel, 17 for 121,994 tons of enemy ship sinkings.
Add another 4 sunk by mines dropped by Hilfskreuzer Penguin.
HMS Warspite the only ship to serve in both world wars and being worn out/ obsolete by the time WWII started. But still hard as nails!
Warspite was no were near obselete, look at the Arkansas, New Yorks, Bretagnes and all the German pre-dreadnoughts, before you say that.
@renown16 Compared to the Bismark,Tirpitz, Iowa class, Yamamoto class she was a very old, smaller ship. Very capable but old.
@@sr71blackbirddr true but Warspite would probably be able to stand up to Bismarck, she has a heavier broadside and good armor.
@renown16 Bismark was brand new, outpaced Warspite, was fitted with the latest optics for range finding and targeting welded Hull compared to conventional rivets, Warspite had great armour and had decent guns but I doubt she would of stood upto Bismark alone, but in the heat of battle and luck on her side who knows
@@sr71blackbirddrYamamoto was the name of a famous admiral while the battleship class should be Yamato
Action Perth and Houston saw in the Sunda straight was nothing short of heroic, one of my favorite naval last stands alongside HMS Glowworm and Drava.
This video is interesting
Germany had a lot of auxiliary cruisers which sank many allied merchant ships: Pinguin = 28 ships, Atlantis, Thor = 22 ships, Michel = 17, Kormoran = 10 merchant ships and 1 cruiser, Orion, Widder = 10
The Scheer was good for 15 or so.
Acording to heritage daily Admiral Scheer sank 17 merchant ships, as for other types of ships I do not know.
What is an auxiliary cruiser?
@@I_Have_The_Most_Japanese_Music goggle under ten flags comers raiders they looked like cargo ships
@@I_Have_The_Most_Japanese_Music The Germans would take a cargo ship, armed with some machine guns, and maybe some heaver stuff. Beauty was they could conceal the guns and could get close enough to another one to board.
The Germans constructed battle vessels with just beautiful lines. From Bismarck down to Graf Spree, all looked rakish.
You miss the Graf Spee. She sank 9 merchant ships.
Exactly
Hence the title "6 WWII Surface Warships that sank the Most *Naval* Vessels"
@@dominicbuckley8309 The video includes merchant ships as kills for almost all ships in the list, so then Graf Spee should make the list too, as would the auxiliary cruiser Pinguin!
@@dominicbuckley8309 They also included civilian passenger ship kills and they are not Naval.
General note: HMS Glorious was not taking aircraft to Norway but was evacuating aircraft from Norway.
My father served on the Massachusetts when she went to the Pacific. He is alive today living with my sister in Florida at age 98. He recalls on night in which the mighty Mamie was involved in 23 kamakazee raids at night.
Nothing about the carriers enterprise, Yorktown,shokaku and zuikaku
No carriers sank enemy warships during WWII. All credit goes to their air squadrons.
KM Graf Spee sank nine vessels before it was cornered by the Royal Navy scuttled on 17 December 1939. That would put her ahead of HMS Warspite.
The Warspite's number is even more impressive if you remember that not a single ship she sank was a merchant ship, like the German and Japanese ships did. All of her kills were on enemy warships.
French docked ships😂
@@felipescheuermann1736 German destroyers at the third Battle of Narvik, Italian cruisers at the Battle of Cape Matapan...... She also got some pretty devastating hits on the German Battlecruisers at Jutland. She also wasn't present at Mers El Kebir, so I don't know what you're on about.
@@nickklavdianos5136 about the german destroyers at Narvik, Warspite task force been extremelly lucky that not even german destroier force was low on supplies (transports been intercepted by a submarine if i recall it right) but also by the defective torpedos the germans were carrying... if they had the older torps, von Roeder would probably entered the history as one of the most sucessfull destroiers ever. But sure, i must have mistook Warspite.
Warspite is also the only battleship who sunk a ship (U-64) with her plane, the first submarine to be sunk in WW2 with a ship-launched plane and the first submarine sunk by the Fleet Air Arm.
there is no big difference of hitting a destroyer to a merchant ship, both armors are irrelevant against a 381mm shell, it would be more impressive if this were heavy armored ships, the SMS Derfflinger is the only ship in history which had the achievement of multiple heavy ship kills with the number of two ;)
So where was HMCS Haida, 14 confirmed sinkings. 'The fightinest ship of the Canadian Navy". Sank 14 and never had a single casualty or damaged by the enemy? She was and is a Tribal class still afloat in Hamilton, Ontario.
Yeah I'm pissed off they didn't include her
I love the way the US Flag on the picture of the USS Massachusetts is drawn as being attached to the mast backwards.
First and thank you so much for another amazing video I'm here to support you no matter what ❤❤
Why? given the number of inaccuracies in each video? I've only seen 3 and they all have errors, some are big errors.
@Thurgosh_OG then why are you even here simply unsubcribe lol its that simple and I'm already thankful she posted these video despite the errors
You fellows who think that transports don't count as enemy ships have never been hungry.
However, do you think that they should have included civilian passenger ships as valid kills?
You would then claim that shooting an unarmed man in a old West draw down would count as a "victory" just like in a draw between 2 armed gunmen...c'mon man!
Your narrator's English has become excellent. Her handling of German, Italian, and French words was excellent.
It's AI
No. Nearly all german words were wrongly spoken
proves that the large cruiser and the fast battleship had a major role in surface battles as well as being able to do the other warship duties; escort, shore bombardment, ect
Mogami sank a passenger ship? I'm sure the gods were proud!
Massachusetts giving the French hell.
The fact that American troops fought the French in WWII isn't widely known, and this would be a neat bit of trivia to ask people.
COOL
1:17 Thank you for clarifying that the Dardanus was the ship sunk by the Mogami. Most people mistakenly think that the Soranus was the one sent to the bottom.
Warspite was at Jutland ... had it's steering gear broken and sailed round twice in a turn in front of the whole high seas fleet. Not sure about counting warships sinking passenger ships in this list.
Surprised to see the USS Massachusetts in the list. Although I have been on her twice, once as an adult, they don't document the ships it sank much. I only remembered the Jean Bart. They really are proudest of the fact that no sailors were killed. Just one leg lost.
I guess this video should have said "Surface action" warships, because U.S.S. Enterprise aircraft sank or helped sink at least 20 enemy warships, and that's just warships, not even counting the transports and cargo/support vessels she sank.
In this video there are errors and inaccuracies approximately every 20 seconds of commentary....good job!!!
HMS Canberra was scuttled, being deemed too heavily damaged to be returned to port and repaired, she survived a considerable cannonade, which eventually proved the good design of her armour, though at the time, it was thought that she was facing only light cruisers.
Ayyy, Canberra is proudly Aussie like me, so don't go saying HMS before our ships, it's HMAS.
Don't worry I'm not angry.
Edit it!
@@renown16 at the time she was simply HMS because it made identification simple (like the RN officers on other ships). Like HMS Ajax, should really have been HMNZS! The vid should have mentioned that the Houston and Perth did not deliberately attack during the battle of Sunda straight, but we're there because the port Admiral at Batavia was a complete Dick, refusing to let both ships fill their bunkers and magazines. This, instead of going east around Java, they were forced to go west, where they ran into a Japanese convoy. Yes they were sunk, sadly, but they inflicted significant damage before the end.
@@jameswaterfield thanks for the info. guest on was also credited for Mogami's torpedo salvo that sunk 5 ships. so the cruiser with no torpedoes got 5 unofficial kills with torpedoes, that was said by the crew on mogami to attempt to keep their relations with the Japanese army.
@@jameswaterfield Australian ships have always been HMAS as the Australian navy was the first of the dominion navy's HMS Ajax was a royal navy ship her sister HMS Achilles was crewed by New Zealanders but was still known as HMS as the New Zealand navy had not yet come into being as an independent navy in the first world war the 2 Indefatigable class battle cruisers where HMAS Australia and HMS New Zealand
@@splurjioaarmani3205glad to know that I can still learn something new each day.
Can't believe they scrapped Warspite, Hero in ww1 and ww2! So the British save Belfast and scrapped Warspite.
5:19 The Captain of the Rawalpindi, Cloverley Kennedy, knowing he was doomed told his ship 'We shall stand and fight them both, and we shall be sunk, and that will be that. Goodbye.'.
In the Narvik battle, Warspite's aircraft also sank a U-Boat!
I think a more reasonable and objective review would be an account of enemy warship tonnage. The "sisters" and Graf Spee served well in their role and had excellent records against lightly defended merchant ships, but the real challenge was facing a competent and armed opponent. When Scharnhorst tangled with Duke of York, the limitations of her 11" main battery were quickly revealed. I'm thinking Warspite, Bismarck, and Washington should be at the top of any such list. Chokai and the four Kako class heavy cruisers kicked butt at Savo. Others?
I rather see a list of ships that sank the most WARSHIPS. That list will be noteworthy. Merchant Ships were easier targets and usually did not pose much of a threat.
Odd that you did not find time to mention that Warspite's direct hit on Giulio Cesare was, at a range of 26,000 yards, the longest-range gunnery hit on a moving target ever recorded.
If you count merchants then the winner is going to be the German raider, Atlantis that sank or captured 22 merchants before she got run down and sunk.
Hilfskreuzer Penguin - 16 ships sunk and 16 captured. 😐
the Scharnhorst was a surprisingly effective class of warship
You missed HMCS Haida. She sank 10 enemy vessels.
Surprising that no mention is made of the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau accounting for 22 ships during Operation Berlin.
Warspite In June 1941, Warspite departed Alexandria for the Bremerton Naval Shipyard in the United States, arriving there on 11 August,[29] having travelled through the Suez Canal, across the Indian Ocean to Ceylon, stopping at Manila, then Pearl Harbor and finally Esquimalt along the way.[78] Repairs and modifications began in August, including the replacement of her deteriorated 15-inch guns, the addition of more anti-aircraft weapons, improvements to the bridge, and new surface and anti-aircraft radar.[79] Warspite was still at the shipyard when the Japanese Navy attacked Pearl Harbor and went on alert as she would have been one of the few ships in the harbour which could have provided anti-aircraft defence should the Japanese have struck east.[80] She was recommissioned on 28 December and undertook sea trials near Vancouver before sailing down the west coast of the U.S. and Mexico, crossing the equator and arriving in Sydney on 20 February 1942.[81] She joined the Eastern Fleet at Trincomalee in March 1942
When they called Mogami a battleship I stopped watching.
You include merchantmen in list of kills for most of the Axis vessels in your list. That being the case, why don't you include the Graf Spee that sank nine merchant ships in the South Atlantic and Indian Ocean between September and December 1939? That would put the Graf Spee at least equal to the Scharnhorst, and I would argue that both Scharnhorst and Gneisenau should get only 'half-kills' for the RMS Rawalpindi and HMS Glorious sinkings.
if you do these "half-kill-thing" then you got 15.5 kills for Gneisenau and 9.5 for Scharnhorst, the creator missed one ship cause they killed 25 during the war and as you mentioned few of them together
During the battle with the Houston and the Perth, Mogami also sank at least one Japanese transport with an errant torpedo.
You omitted the 5 Japanese ships IJN Mogami sank. Yup, Japanese ships. They were Imperial Japanese Army ships so they were enemies of the IJN.
Heh... ;-)
Don't forget Mikuma, she didn't sink her directly, but she sure set up for it.
USS Massachusetts was one of only two U.S. battleships (other being USS Washington) to actually fight in a proper surface engagement in both WWI and WWII. Surigao Strait in 1944 does not count because the southern Japanese fleet was already destroyed by torpedoes from destroyers and PT boats long before it was attacked by the battleship line. In fact there was only one heavily damaged battleship and one almost sunken destroyer left for the U.S. battleship line to attack (I actually think the southern Japanese fleet was a decoy just like the 4 decoy aircraft carriers that tricked Admiral Halsey because Yamato ended up facing zero battleships, even old battleships from Surigao Strait, in the Center Force (epic Samar battle). Massachusetts sank a lot of Vichy French warships at the Naval Battle of Casablanca and Washington sank a Japanese battleship at the November 14th Naval Battle of Guadalcanal. South Dakota kind of fought but she didn't really because her electricity went kaput and she became cannon fodder (which was great for Washington) without doing anything to the Japanese.
HMS Glorious was returning to the UK and not going to Norway. RAF hurricanes landed on the carrier with bags of sand to keep their backend down as they did not have a hook to stop their landing
Scharnhorst and Gneisanau, perhaps one of the only ship's of Kriegsmarine that served its intent purpose very well, a usefull capital ships in other words.
USS England should be included in this list. She was tiny compared to the ships listed, but she sank 6 Japanese submarines in a period of 2 weeks
This is the video from people who don't know about WW2, and yet did't do appropriate research.
...makes you wonder why they bother!?
@@steve55sogood16 they should. Or they will lost more viewers than they could imagine, since viewers could easily click "don't recommend this channel."
The title of the video is "sank the most naval vessels", that does not include merchentmen, ferrys or ocean liners in my book ! And USS "Massssaccchuutteeessss" Did NOT sink these ships by hereself, the US task force during this battle consisted of (apart from Massa) 5 cruisers, 14 destroyers and the aircrafts from Ranger and 2 CVEs !
When you think that Warspite was literally 30 years old by the end of WW2 and had constant rudder issues.
Whenever someone says battleships were obsolete in WW2, I point to ships like Warspite that proved decisive in multiple theatres
Yeah the reality was their roles simply changed. The air threat is often overstated, with roughly only 4 battleships being sunk by aircraft during the war.
@@glenchapman3899 Amen. Everything is obsolete until it isn't.
I've even heard stories of Italian Cavalry pulling off successes on the eastern front against the Soviets
@@fot6771 And it is largely forgotten that the Russians also had mounted cavalry in the early stages of the war. And the Germans used millions of horses during the invasion as well.
side fact: Gotenhafen where Gneisenau was sunk was a german village until it was given to Poland, that didn't have access to the baltic sea, in the treaty of Versailles.
mogami also did the most successful torpedo salvo, sinking 5 ships in the battle of sounder strait, but they were all allied ships.
Mogami was the McStain of Imperial Navy.
@@psier11 who the hell is that?
still counts
Warspite's float plane also sank a U-Boat at Narvik.
BTW, aircraft carriers are also "surface warships" and they had way more kills than any artillery ship
I think you should look at the aircraft carriers.
No mention of the German merchant cruiser commerce raiders that sank more ships that any of these, like Atlantis that sank 22 ships. In World War II nine German Merchant raiders, Atlantis, Komet, Kormoran, Michel, Orion, Pinguin, Stier, Thor, and Widder, sank or captured 129 ships, totaling 800,661 tons. While this pales in comparison to the sinkings by U-boats, they were far more effective than the regular navy surface raiders, including the vaunted pocket battleships, heavy cruisers, and battleships Scharnhorst and Gneisenau, that managed to sink or captured only 59, totaling 232,633 tons. The merchant raider Kormoran even managed to torpedo and sink the light cruiser HMAS Sydney, before the Kormoran herself was also sunk.
Mogami should be upgraded to 3rd place obviously.
Mogami also sunk several of her own side during said battle of Feb. 28 1942
SANK!