I cracked up at your description of the Kongou class as battlecruisers doing their best battleship cosplay. Educational and entertaining at the same time!
Yes, the North Carolinas were basically Washington Treaty Battleships. The Montanas would have been the classic Battleship, heavily armed and protected, not restricted by treaty. The Iowas would have been battlecruisers compared to them. The problem is that the Iowa's are armed and generally protected along the lines of the Treaty battleships. And since the Montana's were never built, what do you call them? Fast Battleships!
Remember-coal fired ships could not maintain high speed for any length of time due to stoker burnout. Shoveling coal in high heat with little ventilation quickly exhausts the striker.
is the strangest thing...never in the navy, only see thr ocean once.....but I love this content, between you, Drach and Dr. Clark for really getting in the weed....lol keep it up....its nuts men got out on the open sea and shot each other with 18 inch naval guns...
I collect and study WWII ships, for my money the line between the fast battleship and the battlecruiser was blurred when HMS Hood was built, she had the speed of a cruiser with the firepower and armour of a battleship. Due to her quick death in battle many assume she was lightly protected and therefore a true battlecruiser. Drach has an extensive video on the death of HMS Hood, I highly recommend it for it shows that Hood was in need of a refit and that the unfortunate placement of a 4" magazine directly adjacent to a 15" magazine led to her demise.
Quite! Much drivel is spoken on this point, so it's refreshing to see your reasoned comment based on actual hard fact. Even so, I'd maintain that in truth, Hood nevertheless only finally emerged as a "fast battleship" by perceived necessity. Not by original intention. So is perhaps best regarded as the final, just-barely-acceptable embodiment of a suddenly compromised British battlecruiser concept. Something that was itself later reduced to a nonsense by merely defining ANY capital ship capable of attaining a speed of 26kts+ as a battlecruiser. Which led at last to the complete absurdity of describing the KGVs as "fully armoured battlecruisers".
Makes you wonder what would’ve happened if Hood focused on Prinz Eugen while Prince of Wales focused on Bismarck, or if Duke of York or KGV went in place of Hood allowing her to get her much needed refit would’ve changed the outcome at all
@@doodledangernoodle2517 Perhaps swapping Hood for KGV would have changed the outcome, the KGV was fully worked up while the Prince of Wales was brand new and not ready for battle. Most likely KGV would have been leading and she would have taken the hits the Hood did and survived to fight on, the outcome would likely have favored the RN due to the Norfolk and Suffolk joining to take on Prinz Eugen while the battered KGV and POW battle the Bismarck.
Hood was 100% a fast battleship. Even by the definition said in this video. No sacrifices on protection nor fire power versus the QE‘s or R class and much faster.
No, Hood was a battlecruiser. She was classified as such by the navy which constructed her, and she was never redesignated otherwise. It's as simple as that. Personal interpretation- yours, mine, or anyone else's- hasn't the slightest thing to do with it. No offense meant.
@@manilajohn0182 the British also classified the vanguard as a “fully armored battle cruiser“. what people call something is not what it is. So if they called hood a battleship you would call it a Battleship? Regardless if it was any different at all? I strongly disagree. Drac and Ryan S. also agree that hood was a fast battleship and if hood was a battlecruiser so were the Iowas.
@@manilajohn0182 also the Japanese called the refitted Kongos battleships, but pretty much every historian calls them battle cruisers because they were still battle cruisers. What a country calls something doesn’t change what it actually is. If I call a bear a dog, it’s still a bear.
@@willardpatterson706 The accepted standard by the world's navies (and incidentally, by the reference work "Jane's Fighting Ships") is that the party which constructed the ship designates it via that navy's hull classification system (or the equivalent). By this standard, Scharnhorst was a battleship, Kongo in her final form was a fast battleship, Hood was a battlecruiser, and Iowa was a battleship. The alternative is that every interested individual refers to each ship as they please- and you have already stated that "What people call something is not what it is". The original stated objectives of battlecruisers were to: 1) support light units comprising the vanguard of one's fleet; 2) destroy or drive off light enemy units; 3) engage enemy battlecruisers if necessary, and; 4) chase down and destroy marauding enemy cruisers. By the late 1930s, the advent of naval aviation in the world's major navies had already replaced battlecruisers in the first three roles, and only the Royal Navy and the French Navy possessed battlecruisers which could reasonably be expected to have to fulfill the last role. This alone suffices to explain the reason for the redesignation by the Japanese of the Kongos as fast battleships. And the Iowa class? Their original purpose was to escort carriers and to chase and destroy the Japanese Kongo class fast battleships. Cheers...
to be fair the Hood was designed and mainly served as a battlecruiser. the fact that she was one of the most powerful warships is mainly down to her design changes after Jutland. she was never regarded as a battleship by the RN and was never given "battleship duties", the Hood spent most of her time gallavanting around the world (as RN battlecruisers were expected to do) when the battleships of the RN spent most of their time up at Scapa Flow or Gibraltar.
I think you definition of Fast Battleship is a little off. I would classify a battleship as a Fast Battleship if it can reasonably keep up with Heavy Cruisers, and then Aircraft Carriers. They are fast, not in an absolute sense, or in comparison to other Battleships, but to what extent are they the limiting factor in Fleet operations.
The issue with defining what’s a “fast battleship” is that even if we look only at the WWII-gen fast battleships, they still fall into two main groups of speed-the fast 27-28kt ships (American fast battleships except the Iowas, the Yamatos, and the KGVs) and the even faster 29-30+kt ships (everything else from that generation). Thus has led to cases like people thinking the North Carolina’s were much faster than they actually were because they were named “fast battleships” and people assumed they were akin to the Iowas.
indeed the NC only really made 25-6 knots in active service. Washington managed 27 on engine overload, yet still that was slower than other ships. The KGV was borderline 29 knots, and the Yamato exceeded design speed to make 28 knots.
Yes, there are very much two classes of "fast battleships" Personally, I consider the 27-28kt ships as "standard" battleships, ( for their time) and the Iowa's and other 30+ kt ships as "fast battleships". Just my personal designation, but I find it useful.
Wasn’t the main reason for having a “fast battleship” was when naval doctrine shifted from battle lines to fast carrier task forces? The battleships became the brute-squad guardians of the carriers, but had to have the speed to keep-up. The Standards couldn’t, so faster designs were laid-down. Sure, more speed was always desired, but needing to perform carrier escort as main duty hastened that need.
There is discussion that the Scharnhorsts were fitted wit 28cm guns for two reasons: 1: Krupp was still working in the 38cm gins used on the Bismarks. 2. Political reasons. There was a lot of discussion over limiting battleships under future treaties to 12-inch guns, with smaller displacement than 35,000 tons. It is suggested that the Germans used 28cm guns for this reason. Well, OK. The 28cm guns used on the Scharnhorsts were a big improvement over those used on the armored ship, with greater age and accuracy, and they could be fired faster than heavier guns.
there are a number of factors here. roughly, power is the cube of speed (up to hull speed) turbines helped in generating power, note steam systems went from 300 psi (in the WWI era?) to 600 psi (in WWII?) and to 2000 psi after WW2? also look into when superheated steam started being used, and the vacuum level achieved. The WWI BB's at about 30K tons needed about 30K shp to achieve 21-22kt, with hull length about 600 ft The BC's were about the same displacement needing 70-112K shp for 28-32kt at hull legnth 700-790 ft. By accepting the 21-22kt speed, the engine rooms were sufficiently small to allow for heavy armor. the BC's require 2-3X more shp in extra 100ft+ hull length, making it impractical have heavy armor on both main guns and all engine rooms (not sure if anyone fully armored main guns + one/not all engine rooms) The QE's had 75K shp for 24 kt in 643 ft hull. At some point between the wars, there was a big improvement in steam tech, which enabled heavy armor for a 27kt ship. North Carolina were 27 kt at 120k shp and 728 ft hull, 35k tons South Dakota were 27kt at 130k shp in 680 ft hull Iowa were 33kt at 212k shp in 887 ft hull, 48K tons. In the hunt for the Bismark, one BB rated for 21kt made 23kt. My calculations is that it required operating the steam plant at much higher than the rated pressure (it was going in for refit anyways) and the cooling water was much colder than assumed for the rated power)
The QE's would have been true fast battleships if as originally intended they had Small tube boilers. Someone talked Jackie Fisher out of that. I bet he got booted out of the admiralty after that foopah. As far as battle cruisers being rebuilt and called battleships, if their armor is not upgraded to the level of battleships that were built when they were built, they're still battle cruisers. I don't feel there's a valid argument out there to describe them as fast battleships when they don't have the true armor of a battleship that is contemporary with them when they were launched.
In the 30s when the QEs were rebuilt, Valiant and QE gained a few more boilers to 'compensate' for more weight. This ended up boosting them to 25+ knots, and indeed QE made 26.5 knots as well. Seeing as the Modernised QEs were the same speed as the NC class, I would give them WW2 'fast battleship' designations.
during this time it must be said that the Royal Navy faced a unique situation compared to the other contemporary powers - because the British Empire literally spanned the globe, the RN's main doctrine was survivability. Battleships would be grouped into battle squadrons and would primarily be stationed in home waters or Gibraltar. the rest of the empire would be covered by battlecruisers - ships that were well armoured and fast but not heavily armed (the idea being that battlecruisers would be available in high numbers). During the Hood's building, the Battle of Jutland highlighted some weaknesses in naval dontrine regarding firepower and so the Hood was modified with heavier guns. i think this is where confusion arises re the Hood being a BB or BC - the Hood was designed to be a battlecruiser and primarily served as one, moving from station to station around the empire. it was only with the outbreak of WW2 that she was ordered to home waters to serve with the RN's battleships.
Ok my opinion is 30 plus knots is required to be a fast battleship as that is the speed most cruisers could go. It’s what allowed them to take over from battlecruisers. If so then only the following ships count. Hood Lottorio Richelieu Bismark Iowa Vanguard Only these ships had the armour of a battleship and the firepower to take on any cruiser/ battle cruiser and hold their own against a battleship.
Nice Video. I know you use the classifications of their navies. If one doesn’t, HMS Hood must be called the first Fast Battleship. Faster as most Battleships. The same firepower as a lot of the latest BBs. And as well protected as the BBs of the time, she was built. Classified as Battlecruiser, because she was planned with less armour, which had changed after the battle of Jutland. I’m not sure, why not reclassified. Maybe RN doesn’t do this in any case or just to have built the largest BC ever.
Interestingly the North Carolina, though designed as a fast battleship, failed to meet design speed- and was limited to around 25.5 knots. So historically, I don't consider her to be a true fast battleship. Also slight note: the R class were actually able to make 23 knots as built, though this speed fell to 21 knots by WW2. On top of this, QE as modernised made 26.5 knots on her post rebuild trials.
I really like the way you do your videos! I think I enjoy them more than Dark seas which are good to but yours have more of personal humor to them! Keep up the good work i work nights very interesting 🤔
just because a ship has 16 inch guns doesn't make it better than a 15 inch gun ship there's so many factors remember crew training also plays a massive role and the amount of training. The BL mark 1 15 inch 42 gun had excellent resilience reliability and accuracy its responsible for hitting a moving ship at just shy of 15 miles away the U.S. navy were surprised at accurate the gun was . The 15 inch 42 cal could get through around 110 rounds more per barrel than a 16 inch 50 cal on the Iowa's. The Italian 15 inch 50 cal had longer range than all the 16 inch guns ever made. But with a higher calibre gun the less resilience you get from a barrel you wouldn't be able to stay in a fight as long or do shore bombardment as long before needing the barrels relined. Also higher calibre guns weigh a lot more another big compromise. 45 cal was probably the best balanced for range penetration barrel life and weight saved for more speed armour and torpedo belt etc
Scharnhorsts were not battleships, by dint of sacrificing 4" or 5" of caliber by current standards. They were heavily-armored battle-cruisers. Not a bad design decision, but not one that might dish it out as well as take it in a line of battle. Duke of York rather showed that.
I have to say I like your work! Would it have been possible for the USA to build the Iowa's a year or so earlier in order to use them decisively in the earlier parts of the war in the Atlantic? And if so, what information did the u.s. acquire during that passing year that would have made these earlier I was different from the Iowa's we know today? I do want to remind your viewers that everyone who ever operated an Iowa seemed to Come Away with the impression that that was one marvelous ship ahead-of-its-time
@@stargatecommand714 I would agree IF they hit their design speed of 25 knots. Please note I said Hood was the "1st TRUE". If the mighty QE class hit their design speed they would be borderline fast battleships, but they never broke 24 knots, most of them getting 23 knots, so I would say they are slightly faster battleships. What you said was fair however, but one thing I just can't except is that Hood was not a fast battleship. Same fire power and very similar protection as the QE, just 9 knots faster, so clearly Fast Battleship.
You have the "speedy Iowa's" in your treaty section...this is not that simple, UK needed to be ready for WW2 starting in 1939, so KGV and sisters were more or less following treaty tonnage and gun size. Violaters did not comply and with escalator clauses invoked the Iowa's did not need to be ready as early as 1939 or when UK needed KGV. This it could be made bigger and faster...although the era of the battleship dominance was gone by then.
I cracked up at your description of the Kongou class as battlecruisers doing their best battleship cosplay. Educational and entertaining at the same time!
21:30 The Montana‘s design speed was 28 knots like the North Carolinas and Alabamas, i.e. 5 knots slower than the Iowas.
Yes, the North Carolinas were basically Washington Treaty Battleships. The Montanas would have been the classic Battleship, heavily armed and protected, not restricted by treaty. The Iowas would have been battlecruisers compared to them.
The problem is that the Iowa's are armed and generally protected along the lines of the Treaty battleships. And since the Montana's were never built, what do you call them?
Fast Battleships!
Remember-coal fired ships could not maintain high speed for any length of time due to stoker burnout. Shoveling coal in high heat with little ventilation quickly exhausts the striker.
There were (and still are in coal fired electic power plants), mechanical stoking systems.
is the strangest thing...never in the navy, only see thr ocean once.....but I love this content, between you, Drach and Dr. Clark for really getting in the weed....lol keep it up....its nuts men got out on the open sea and shot each other with 18 inch naval guns...
I think you mean getting into the weeds, not in the weed which has a slightly different meaning. Though both could be correct. lol
I collect and study WWII ships, for my money the line between the fast battleship and the battlecruiser was blurred when HMS Hood was built, she had the speed of a cruiser with the firepower and armour of a battleship.
Due to her quick death in battle many assume she was lightly protected and therefore a true battlecruiser. Drach has an extensive video on the death of HMS Hood, I highly recommend it for it shows that Hood was in need of a refit and that the unfortunate placement of a 4" magazine directly adjacent to a 15" magazine led to her demise.
Quite! Much drivel is spoken on this point, so it's refreshing to see your reasoned comment based on actual hard fact. Even so, I'd maintain that in truth, Hood nevertheless only finally emerged as a "fast battleship" by perceived necessity. Not by original intention. So is perhaps best regarded as the final, just-barely-acceptable embodiment of a suddenly compromised British battlecruiser concept. Something that was itself later reduced to a nonsense by merely defining ANY capital ship capable of attaining a speed of 26kts+ as a battlecruiser. Which led at last to the complete absurdity of describing the KGVs as "fully armoured battlecruisers".
Well said sir.@@squirepraggerstope3591
@@squirepraggerstope3591 Drach level snark. 😉
Makes you wonder what would’ve happened if Hood focused on Prinz Eugen while Prince of Wales focused on Bismarck, or if Duke of York or KGV went in place of Hood allowing her to get her much needed refit would’ve changed the outcome at all
@@doodledangernoodle2517 Perhaps swapping Hood for KGV would have changed the outcome, the KGV was fully worked up while the Prince of Wales was brand new and not ready for battle. Most likely KGV would have been leading and she would have taken the hits the Hood did and survived to fight on, the outcome would likely have favored the RN due to the Norfolk and Suffolk joining to take on Prinz Eugen while the battered KGV and POW battle the Bismarck.
Hood was 100% a fast battleship. Even by the definition said in this video. No sacrifices on protection nor fire power versus the QE‘s or R class and much faster.
No, Hood was a battlecruiser. She was classified as such by the navy which constructed her, and she was never redesignated otherwise. It's as simple as that. Personal interpretation- yours, mine, or anyone else's- hasn't the slightest thing to do with it. No offense meant.
@@manilajohn0182 the British also classified the vanguard as a “fully armored battle cruiser“. what people call something is not what it is. So if they called hood a battleship you would call it a Battleship? Regardless if it was any different at all? I strongly disagree. Drac and Ryan S. also agree that hood was a fast battleship and if hood was a battlecruiser so were the Iowas.
@@manilajohn0182 also the Japanese called the refitted Kongos battleships, but pretty much every historian calls them battle cruisers because they were still battle cruisers. What a country calls something doesn’t change what it actually is. If I call a bear a dog, it’s still a bear.
@@willardpatterson706 The accepted standard by the world's navies (and incidentally, by the reference work "Jane's Fighting Ships") is that the party which constructed the ship designates it via that navy's hull classification system (or the equivalent). By this standard, Scharnhorst was a battleship, Kongo in her final form was a fast battleship, Hood was a battlecruiser, and Iowa was a battleship. The alternative is that every interested individual refers to each ship as they please- and you have already stated that "What people call something is not what it is".
The original stated objectives of battlecruisers were to: 1) support light units comprising the vanguard of one's fleet; 2) destroy or drive off light enemy units; 3) engage enemy battlecruisers if necessary, and; 4) chase down and destroy marauding enemy cruisers. By the late 1930s, the advent of naval aviation in the world's major navies had already replaced battlecruisers in the first three roles, and only the Royal Navy and the French Navy possessed battlecruisers which could reasonably be expected to have to fulfill the last role. This alone suffices to explain the reason for the redesignation by the Japanese of the Kongos as fast battleships. And the Iowa class? Their original purpose was to escort carriers and to chase and destroy the Japanese Kongo class fast battleships.
Cheers...
to be fair the Hood was designed and mainly served as a battlecruiser. the fact that she was one of the most powerful warships is mainly down to her design changes after Jutland. she was never regarded as a battleship by the RN and was never given "battleship duties", the Hood spent most of her time gallavanting around the world (as RN battlecruisers were expected to do) when the battleships of the RN spent most of their time up at Scapa Flow or Gibraltar.
Unfortunately for the High Seas Fleet the lack of quality coal during WW 1 ment that they could never really get up to their designed speeds.
I think you definition of Fast Battleship is a little off. I would classify a battleship as a Fast Battleship if it can reasonably keep up with Heavy Cruisers, and then Aircraft Carriers. They are fast, not in an absolute sense, or in comparison to other Battleships, but to what extent are they the limiting factor in Fleet operations.
The issue with defining what’s a “fast battleship” is that even if we look only at the WWII-gen fast battleships, they still fall into two main groups of speed-the fast 27-28kt ships (American fast battleships except the Iowas, the Yamatos, and the KGVs) and the even faster 29-30+kt ships (everything else from that generation). Thus has led to cases like people thinking the North Carolina’s were much faster than they actually were because they were named “fast battleships” and people assumed they were akin to the Iowas.
indeed the NC only really made 25-6 knots in active service. Washington managed 27 on engine overload, yet still that was slower than other ships.
The KGV was borderline 29 knots, and the Yamato exceeded design speed to make 28 knots.
Yes, there are very much two classes of "fast battleships"
Personally, I consider the 27-28kt ships as "standard" battleships, ( for their time) and the Iowa's and other 30+ kt ships as "fast battleships".
Just my personal designation, but I find it useful.
Wasn’t the main reason for having a “fast battleship” was when naval doctrine shifted from battle lines to fast carrier task forces? The battleships became the brute-squad guardians of the carriers, but had to have the speed to keep-up. The Standards couldn’t, so faster designs were laid-down. Sure, more speed was always desired, but needing to perform carrier escort as main duty hastened that need.
There is discussion that the Scharnhorsts were fitted wit 28cm guns for two reasons: 1: Krupp was still working in the 38cm gins used on the Bismarks. 2. Political reasons. There was a lot of discussion over limiting battleships under future treaties to 12-inch guns, with smaller displacement than 35,000 tons. It is suggested that the Germans used 28cm guns for this reason. Well, OK. The 28cm guns used on the Scharnhorsts were a big improvement over those used on the armored ship, with greater age and accuracy, and they could be fired faster than heavier guns.
why you discredited Hood as a fast battleship? Even if Royal navy called her a battlecruiser, but isnt she technically fast battleship?
This videos is interesting.
I like battleship, babttlecruiser, large cruiser and heavy cruiser.
there are a number of factors here. roughly, power is the cube of speed (up to hull speed)
turbines helped in generating power, note steam systems went from 300 psi (in the WWI era?) to 600 psi (in WWII?) and to 2000 psi after WW2? also look into when superheated steam started being used, and the vacuum level achieved.
The WWI BB's at about 30K tons needed about 30K shp to achieve 21-22kt, with hull length about 600 ft
The BC's were about the same displacement needing 70-112K shp for 28-32kt at hull legnth 700-790 ft.
By accepting the 21-22kt speed, the engine rooms were sufficiently small to allow for heavy armor.
the BC's require 2-3X more shp in extra 100ft+ hull length, making it impractical have heavy armor on both main guns and all engine rooms
(not sure if anyone fully armored main guns + one/not all engine rooms)
The QE's had 75K shp for 24 kt in 643 ft hull.
At some point between the wars, there was a big improvement in steam tech, which enabled heavy armor for a 27kt ship.
North Carolina were 27 kt at 120k shp and 728 ft hull, 35k tons
South Dakota were 27kt at 130k shp in 680 ft hull
Iowa were 33kt at 212k shp in 887 ft hull, 48K tons.
In the hunt for the Bismark, one BB rated for 21kt made 23kt. My calculations is that it required operating the steam plant at much higher than the rated pressure (it was going in for refit anyways) and the cooling water was much colder than assumed for the rated power)
The QE's would have been true fast battleships if as originally intended they had Small tube boilers. Someone talked Jackie Fisher out of that. I bet he got booted out of the admiralty after that foopah. As far as battle cruisers being rebuilt and called battleships, if their armor is not upgraded to the level of battleships that were built when they were built, they're still battle cruisers. I don't feel there's a valid argument out there to describe them as fast battleships when they don't have the true armor of a battleship that is contemporary with them when they were launched.
In the 30s when the QEs were rebuilt, Valiant and QE gained a few more boilers to 'compensate' for more weight. This ended up boosting them to 25+ knots, and indeed QE made 26.5 knots as well.
Seeing as the Modernised QEs were the same speed as the NC class, I would give them WW2 'fast battleship' designations.
A fast battleship is what you call it when you're embarrassed to admit you just built a Battle Cruiser.
during this time it must be said that the Royal Navy faced a unique situation compared to the other contemporary powers - because the British Empire literally spanned the globe, the RN's main doctrine was survivability. Battleships would be grouped into battle squadrons and would primarily be stationed in home waters or Gibraltar. the rest of the empire would be covered by battlecruisers - ships that were well armoured and fast but not heavily armed (the idea being that battlecruisers would be available in high numbers). During the Hood's building, the Battle of Jutland highlighted some weaknesses in naval dontrine regarding firepower and so the Hood was modified with heavier guns. i think this is where confusion arises re the Hood being a BB or BC - the Hood was designed to be a battlecruiser and primarily served as one, moving from station to station around the empire. it was only with the outbreak of WW2 that she was ordered to home waters to serve with the RN's battleships.
Ok my opinion is 30 plus knots is required to be a fast battleship as that is the speed most cruisers could go. It’s what allowed them to take over from battlecruisers.
If so then only the following ships count.
Hood
Lottorio
Richelieu
Bismark
Iowa
Vanguard
Only these ships had the armour of a battleship and the firepower to take on any cruiser/ battle cruiser and hold their own against a battleship.
Nice Video. I know you use the classifications of their navies. If one doesn’t, HMS Hood must be called the first Fast Battleship. Faster as most Battleships. The same firepower as a lot of the latest BBs. And as well protected as the BBs of the time, she was built. Classified as Battlecruiser, because she was planned with less armour, which had changed after the battle of Jutland. I’m not sure, why not reclassified. Maybe RN doesn’t do this in any case or just to have built the largest BC ever.
The S. Dakota class, 1930's version, are the sexiest warships ever built.
Extreme badassary in an efficient, compact form 👍
Interestingly the North Carolina, though designed as a fast battleship, failed to meet design speed- and was limited to around 25.5 knots.
So historically, I don't consider her to be a true fast battleship.
Also slight note: the R class were actually able to make 23 knots as built, though this speed fell to 21 knots by WW2.
On top of this, QE as modernised made 26.5 knots on her post rebuild trials.
I really like the way you do your videos! I think I enjoy them more than Dark seas which are good to but yours have more of personal humor to them! Keep up the good work i work nights very interesting 🤔
just because a ship has 16 inch guns doesn't make it better than a 15 inch gun ship there's so many factors remember crew training also plays a massive role and the amount of training. The BL mark 1 15 inch 42 gun had excellent resilience reliability and accuracy its responsible for hitting a moving ship at just shy of 15 miles away the U.S. navy were surprised at accurate the gun was . The 15 inch 42 cal could get through around 110 rounds more per barrel than a 16 inch 50 cal on the Iowa's. The Italian 15 inch 50 cal had longer range than all the 16 inch guns ever made. But with a higher calibre gun the less resilience you get from a barrel you wouldn't be able to stay in a fight as long or do shore bombardment as long before needing the barrels relined. Also higher calibre guns weigh a lot more another big compromise. 45 cal was probably the best balanced for range penetration barrel life and weight saved for more speed armour and torpedo belt etc
My brother served on USS Missouri during the first Gulf War
Scharnhorsts were not battleships, by dint of sacrificing 4" or 5" of caliber by current standards. They were heavily-armored battle-cruisers. Not a bad design decision, but not one that might dish it out as well as take it in a line of battle. Duke of York rather showed that.
Engine power is the whole reason for the battle ship evolution.
I have to say I like your work! Would it have been possible for the USA to build the Iowa's a year or so earlier in order to use them decisively in the earlier parts of the war in the Atlantic? And if so, what information did the u.s. acquire during that passing year that would have made these earlier I was different from the Iowa's we know today? I do want to remind your viewers that everyone who ever operated an Iowa seemed to Come Away with the impression that that was one marvelous ship ahead-of-its-time
Sink you very much
Hood was the 1st true fast battleship
Hms HOOD was a battlecruiser.
@@joewatson9730 She generally Fits quite well into the role and definition of a fast battleship If officially designated as a battlecruiser.
I was thinking the Queen Elizabeth class tbh
@@stargatecommand714 I would agree IF they hit their design speed of 25 knots. Please note I said Hood was the "1st TRUE". If the mighty QE class hit their design speed they would be borderline fast battleships, but they never broke 24 knots, most of them getting 23 knots, so I would say they are slightly faster battleships.
What you said was fair however, but one thing I just can't except is that Hood was not a fast battleship. Same fire power and very similar protection as the QE, just 9 knots faster, so clearly Fast Battleship.
You have the "speedy Iowa's" in your treaty section...this is not that simple, UK needed to be ready for WW2 starting in 1939, so KGV and sisters were more or less following treaty tonnage and gun size. Violaters did not comply and with escalator clauses invoked the Iowa's did not need to be ready as early as 1939 or when UK needed KGV. This it could be made bigger and faster...although the era of the battleship dominance was gone by then.
Fantastic series that's a helluva lot more impartial than "Royal-Navy-can-do-no-wrong-even-if-the-vid-content-doesn't-feature-them" Drachinifel.
Ah yes. Iowa Class Battlecruiser
Q e were fast battleships
Oh, and Iowa is a battlecruiser.
Not even close 🙄🤣