The thumbnail on this video was a bit naughty, showing the titanic looking smaller than the smallest vessel,when it was actually a few feet longer than the largest warship on the picture tut tut.

RIP THE MIGHTY HOOD

@tigerland4328

5 ай бұрын

1,415 🇬🇧✝️ 😢

@farmerned6

4 ай бұрын

RIP -The flag Lieutenant that stood aside to let Ted Briggs escape,

@islamisthetruewaytogod6812

2 ай бұрын

Hello ! May Allah protect and guide you to his light and happiness in this life and the hereafter, God bless, Ameen. Excuse me for giving a little presentation of Islam, because it is very misunderstood nowadays, especially on those « Antichrist's » times, where media and politics are mixed to distort history and truth. Thank you very much for your time. First of all, if you have any questions regarding Islam and yourself, just open the Quran randomly, and you will find the answer in front of you, like a miracle and a sign from God. Islam is an arabic word that means the Surrender to the One and Only God, our Creator, Protector, Provider, who gives us life and all that we have, we are safe and sound by his will and grace, we are His and to Him we return, and we have to thank him in this trial life by submitting to him by our free will, or later in the Day of judgment when it's too late to save our own skin. Islam was the original Religion descended to earth from heaven with Adam and Eve (peace and blessing be upon them) in the beginning of humanity. and was passed to people with the succession of the 124 000 prophets and 315 messengers of God to all nations and civilizations since, passing by Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Ismaël, Joseph, Moses, Aaron, Joshua, David, Solomon and Jesus (Peace and blessing be upon them) during the history of mankind, the last replaces and completes the previous, until the succession of the last messenger of God fourteen centuries ago, Muhammad (Peace and blessing be upon him) to complete the noble morals of all mankind, to bring humans and jinns out of darkness into light, and to purify people's religion and belief from corruption and polytheism, and return it to purity and true monotheism, like it was in the times of the prophets (Peace and blessing be upon them). Many Religions that we know nowadays, at their beginning were true and under Islam, initiated by one of the prophets of God, but their original teachings, history and scriptures have been corrupted over time with falsification and polytheism, or lost and replaced with false ones. That's why Islam is the only Religion accepted by God nowadays, which consists in bearing witness that there is no god besides Allah (God in Aramaic, the original language of Jesus and the Gospel), and that Muhammad is His servant and messenger, just like Jesus and Moses and others are His servants and messengers. Never a messenger of God said he was God or literally son of God, it was the people after him who changed the words of God and corrupted the Religion. God is unique and absolute, He does not need to have a family and sons or to associate anyone else with His kingdom, He can simply create whatever He wants, everything belongs to Him, and to Him everything will return. Allah said in Surah Al-Mu’minun : “God has never begotten a son, nor is there any god besides Him. Otherwise, each god would have taken away what it has created, and some of them would have gained supremacy over others. Glory be to God, far beyond what they describe. The Knower of the hidden and the manifest. He is exalted, far above what they associate. (91-92 / Translated by ITANI). Allah means the one and only God, the God of all prophets and creatures, the creator of the universe and mankind, and the Master of the Day of judgment, where our destiny, Hell or Paradise, is decided based on our faith and deeds in this trial life, and above all, Allah's mercy. Allah said in Surah Al-Ikhlas : In the name of God, the Gracious, the Merciful. Say, “He is God, the One. God, the Absolute. He begets not, nor was He begotten. And there is none comparable to Him.” (1-4 / Translated by ITANI). Allah said in Surah An-Nisa : O FOLLOWERS of the Gospel! Do not overstep the bounds [of truth] in your religious beliefs, and do not say of God anything but the truth. The Christ Jesus, son of Mary, was but God's Apostle - [the fulfilment of] His promise which He had conveyed unto Mary - and a soul created by Him. Believe, then, in God and His apostles, and do not say, "[God is] a trinity". Desist [from this assertion] for your own good. God is but One God; utterly remote is He, in His glory, from having a son: unto Him belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is on earth; and none is as worthy of trust as God. Never did the Christ feel too proud to be God's servant, nor do the angels who are near unto Him. And those who feel too proud to serve Him and glory in their arrogance [should know that on Judgment Day] He will gather them all unto Himself: (171-172 / Translated by Muhammad Asad). Allah the Most Merciful said in Surah Ali-Imran : Behold, the only [true] religion in the sight of God is [man's] self-surrender unto Him; and those who were vouchsafed revelation aforetime took, out of mutual jealousy, to divergent views [on this point] only after knowledge [thereof] had come unto them. But as for him who denies the truth of God's messages - behold, God is swift in reckoning! Thus, [O Prophet,] if they argue with thee, say, "I have surrendered my whole being unto God, and [so have] all who follow me!" - and ask those who have been vouchsafed revelation aforetime, as well as all unlettered people, "Have you [too] surrendered yourselves unto Him?" And if they surrender themselves unto Him, they are on the right path; but if they turn away - behold, thy duty is no more than to deliver the message: for God sees all that is in [the hearts of] His creatures. Verily, as for those who deny the truth of God's messages, and slay the prophets against all right, and slay people who enjoin equity - announce unto them a grievous chastisement. It is they whose works shall come to nought both in this world and in the life to come; and they shall have none to succour them. (19-22 / Translated by Muhammad Asad).. God said : Say, “We believe in Allah, and in what was revealed to us, and in what was revealed to Abraham, and Ishmael, and Isaac, and Jacob, and the Patriarchs, and in what was given to Moses and Jesus, and in what was given to the prophets from their Lord. We do not differentiate between any of them. And to Him, we surrender.” (2:136 / Translated by Community) Salam (Peace) ---------------------------

My late grandfather worked for Vickers in their naval armaments division and worked on the heavy guns used in most of these ships (including the Kongo), he always used to say that it was 'his guns' that won the battle of Jutland. When he retired he was presented with an inkwell in the form of a 13.5" gun turret made with steel taken from HMS Tiger which is now sat on the bookcase behind me.

@Harldin

4 ай бұрын

The UK did not really "win" the Battle of Jutland, tactically the Germans won by sinking a greater tonnage, strategically the RN won by denying the Germans passage into the Atlantic.

@fasthracing

4 ай бұрын

nice

@islamisthetruewaytogod6812

2 ай бұрын

Hello ! May Allah protect and guide you to his light and happiness in this life and the hereafter, God bless, Ameen. Excuse me for giving a little presentation of Islam, because it is very misunderstood nowadays, especially on those « Antichrist's » times, where media and politics are mixed to distort history and truth. Thank you very much for your time. First of all, if you have any questions regarding Islam and yourself, just open the Quran randomly, and you will find the answer in front of you, like a miracle and a sign from God. Islam is an arabic word that means the Surrender to the One and Only God, our Creator, Protector, Provider, who gives us life and all that we have, we are safe and sound by his will and grace, we are His and to Him we return, and we have to thank him in this trial life by submitting to him by our free will, or later in the Day of judgment when it's too late to save our own skin. Islam was the original Religion descended to earth from heaven with Adam and Eve (peace and blessing be upon them) in the beginning of humanity. and was passed to people with the succession of the 124 000 prophets and 315 messengers of God to all nations and civilizations since, passing by Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Ismaël, Joseph, Moses, Aaron, Joshua, David, Solomon and Jesus (Peace and blessing be upon them) during the history of mankind, the last replaces and completes the previous, until the succession of the last messenger of God fourteen centuries ago, Muhammad (Peace and blessing be upon him) to complete the noble morals of all mankind, to bring humans and jinns out of darkness into light, and to purify people's religion and belief from corruption and polytheism, and return it to purity and true monotheism, like it was in the times of the prophets (Peace and blessing be upon them). Many Religions that we know nowadays, at their beginning were true and under Islam, initiated by one of the prophets of God, but their original teachings, history and scriptures have been corrupted over time with falsification and polytheism, or lost and replaced with false ones. That's why Islam is the only Religion accepted by God nowadays, which consists in bearing witness that there is no god besides Allah (God in Aramaic, the original language of Jesus and the Gospel), and that Muhammad is His servant and messenger, just like Jesus and Moses and others are His servants and messengers. Never a messenger of God said he was God or literally son of God, it was the people after him who changed the words of God and corrupted the Religion. God is unique and absolute, He does not need to have a family and sons or to associate anyone else with His kingdom, He can simply create whatever He wants, everything belongs to Him, and to Him everything will return. Allah said in Surah Al-Mu’minun : “God has never begotten a son, nor is there any god besides Him. Otherwise, each god would have taken away what it has created, and some of them would have gained supremacy over others. Glory be to God, far beyond what they describe. The Knower of the hidden and the manifest. He is exalted, far above what they associate. (91-92 / Translated by ITANI). Allah means the one and only God, the God of all prophets and creatures, the creator of the universe and mankind, and the Master of the Day of judgment, where our destiny, Hell or Paradise, is decided based on our faith and deeds in this trial life, and above all, Allah's mercy. Allah said in Surah Al-Ikhlas : In the name of God, the Gracious, the Merciful. Say, “He is God, the One. God, the Absolute. He begets not, nor was He begotten. And there is none comparable to Him.” (1-4 / Translated by ITANI). Allah said in Surah An-Nisa : O FOLLOWERS of the Gospel! Do not overstep the bounds [of truth] in your religious beliefs, and do not say of God anything but the truth. The Christ Jesus, son of Mary, was but God's Apostle - [the fulfilment of] His promise which He had conveyed unto Mary - and a soul created by Him. Believe, then, in God and His apostles, and do not say, "[God is] a trinity". Desist [from this assertion] for your own good. God is but One God; utterly remote is He, in His glory, from having a son: unto Him belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is on earth; and none is as worthy of trust as God. Never did the Christ feel too proud to be God's servant, nor do the angels who are near unto Him. And those who feel too proud to serve Him and glory in their arrogance [should know that on Judgment Day] He will gather them all unto Himself: (171-172 / Translated by Muhammad Asad). Allah the Most Merciful said in Surah Ali-Imran : Behold, the only [true] religion in the sight of God is [man's] self-surrender unto Him; and those who were vouchsafed revelation aforetime took, out of mutual jealousy, to divergent views [on this point] only after knowledge [thereof] had come unto them. But as for him who denies the truth of God's messages - behold, God is swift in reckoning! Thus, [O Prophet,] if they argue with thee, say, "I have surrendered my whole being unto God, and [so have] all who follow me!" - and ask those who have been vouchsafed revelation aforetime, as well as all unlettered people, "Have you [too] surrendered yourselves unto Him?" And if they surrender themselves unto Him, they are on the right path; but if they turn away - behold, thy duty is no more than to deliver the message: for God sees all that is in [the hearts of] His creatures. Verily, as for those who deny the truth of God's messages, and slay the prophets against all right, and slay people who enjoin equity - announce unto them a grievous chastisement. It is they whose works shall come to nought both in this world and in the life to come; and they shall have none to succour them. (19-22 / Translated by Muhammad Asad).. God said : Say, “We believe in Allah, and in what was revealed to us, and in what was revealed to Abraham, and Ishmael, and Isaac, and Jacob, and the Patriarchs, and in what was given to Moses and Jesus, and in what was given to the prophets from their Lord. We do not differentiate between any of them. And to Him, we surrender.” (2:136 / Translated by Community) Salam (Peace) ---------------------------

Let it sink in for a sec the sheer size of Hood’s Length was nearly as long as Yamato herself.

@JeffreyWilliams-dr7qe

Ай бұрын

1 shell v 389 aircraft and a variety of weapons.

@Edi_J

20 күн бұрын

Lexington-class battlecruisers were longer. Would be longer if completed as artillery ships and were longer as aircraft carriers. Later Essex-class also exceeded 270 meters, and before the war ended USS Midway exceeded 300 meters.

A major omission: Seydlitz was left out.

@raffica26

4 ай бұрын

On the other hand, they have separately listed HMS Queen Mary, which was basically part of the Lion class.

@raffica26

4 ай бұрын

I am not sure what is the point in reading up all the measurement data for most of the video, which is by the way also visible on the pictures…

@Edi_J

20 күн бұрын

@@raffica26 Pictures are scaled terribly, btw.

Why don't you list speeds? You know, since that was pretty much the whole advantage of the things.

@islamisthetruewaytogod6812

2 ай бұрын

Hello ! May Allah protect and guide you to his light and happiness in this life and the hereafter, God bless, Ameen. Excuse me for giving a little presentation of Islam, because it is very misunderstood nowadays, especially on those « Antichrist's » times, where media and politics are mixed to distort history and truth. Thank you very much for your time. First of all, if you have any questions regarding Islam and yourself, just open the Quran randomly, and you will find the answer in front of you, like a miracle and a sign from God. Islam is an arabic word that means the Surrender to the One and Only God, our Creator, Protector, Provider, who gives us life and all that we have, we are safe and sound by his will and grace, we are His and to Him we return, and we have to thank him in this trial life by submitting to him by our free will, or later in the Day of judgment when it's too late to save our own skin. Islam was the original Religion descended to earth from heaven with Adam and Eve (peace and blessing be upon them) in the beginning of humanity. and was passed to people with the succession of the 124 000 prophets and 315 messengers of God to all nations and civilizations since, passing by Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Ismaël, Joseph, Moses, Aaron, Joshua, David, Solomon and Jesus (Peace and blessing be upon them) during the history of mankind, the last replaces and completes the previous, until the succession of the last messenger of God fourteen centuries ago, Muhammad (Peace and blessing be upon him) to complete the noble morals of all mankind, to bring humans and jinns out of darkness into light, and to purify people's religion and belief from corruption and polytheism, and return it to purity and true monotheism, like it was in the times of the prophets (Peace and blessing be upon them). Many Religions that we know nowadays, at their beginning were true and under Islam, initiated by one of the prophets of God, but their original teachings, history and scriptures have been corrupted over time with falsification and polytheism, or lost and replaced with false ones. That's why Islam is the only Religion accepted by God nowadays, which consists in bearing witness that there is no god besides Allah (God in Aramaic, the original language of Jesus and the Gospel), and that Muhammad is His servant and messenger, just like Jesus and Moses and others are His servants and messengers. Never a messenger of God said he was God or literally son of God, it was the people after him who changed the words of God and corrupted the Religion. God is unique and absolute, He does not need to have a family and sons or to associate anyone else with His kingdom, He can simply create whatever He wants, everything belongs to Him, and to Him everything will return. Allah said in Surah Al-Mu’minun : “God has never begotten a son, nor is there any god besides Him. Otherwise, each god would have taken away what it has created, and some of them would have gained supremacy over others. Glory be to God, far beyond what they describe. The Knower of the hidden and the manifest. He is exalted, far above what they associate. (91-92 / Translated by ITANI). Allah means the one and only God, the God of all prophets and creatures, the creator of the universe and mankind, and the Master of the Day of judgment, where our destiny, Hell or Paradise, is decided based on our faith and deeds in this trial life, and above all, Allah's mercy. Allah said in Surah Al-Ikhlas : In the name of God, the Gracious, the Merciful. Say, “He is God, the One. God, the Absolute. He begets not, nor was He begotten. And there is none comparable to Him.” (1-4 / Translated by ITANI). Allah said in Surah An-Nisa : O FOLLOWERS of the Gospel! Do not overstep the bounds [of truth] in your religious beliefs, and do not say of God anything but the truth. The Christ Jesus, son of Mary, was but God's Apostle - [the fulfilment of] His promise which He had conveyed unto Mary - and a soul created by Him. Believe, then, in God and His apostles, and do not say, "[God is] a trinity". Desist [from this assertion] for your own good. God is but One God; utterly remote is He, in His glory, from having a son: unto Him belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is on earth; and none is as worthy of trust as God. Never did the Christ feel too proud to be God's servant, nor do the angels who are near unto Him. And those who feel too proud to serve Him and glory in their arrogance [should know that on Judgment Day] He will gather them all unto Himself: (171-172 / Translated by Muhammad Asad). Allah the Most Merciful said in Surah Ali-Imran : Behold, the only [true] religion in the sight of God is [man's] self-surrender unto Him; and those who were vouchsafed revelation aforetime took, out of mutual jealousy, to divergent views [on this point] only after knowledge [thereof] had come unto them. But as for him who denies the truth of God's messages - behold, God is swift in reckoning! Thus, [O Prophet,] if they argue with thee, say, "I have surrendered my whole being unto God, and [so have] all who follow me!" - and ask those who have been vouchsafed revelation aforetime, as well as all unlettered people, "Have you [too] surrendered yourselves unto Him?" And if they surrender themselves unto Him, they are on the right path; but if they turn away - behold, thy duty is no more than to deliver the message: for God sees all that is in [the hearts of] His creatures. Verily, as for those who deny the truth of God's messages, and slay the prophets against all right, and slay people who enjoin equity - announce unto them a grievous chastisement. It is they whose works shall come to nought both in this world and in the life to come; and they shall have none to succour them. (19-22 / Translated by Muhammad Asad).. God said : Say, “We believe in Allah, and in what was revealed to us, and in what was revealed to Abraham, and Ishmael, and Isaac, and Jacob, and the Patriarchs, and in what was given to Moses and Jesus, and in what was given to the prophets from their Lord. We do not differentiate between any of them. And to Him, we surrender.” (2:136 / Translated by Community) Salam (Peace) ---------------------------

The thumbnail is just clickbait. Titanic had a large displacement than any other battle cruiser coming in at over 52,000 tons. The thumbnail makes her look smaller than she actually was.

Cool 👍👍👍

Nice

good morning excellent video the buzz you are the best

Reading the comments , you needed to define what was considered a battlecruiser and why. Battlecruisers were defined (by the British) as armored cruisers with battleship guns (just not as many of them) Armored cruisers were five to six knots faster than battleships. British envisioned the mission of the battlecruisers as interceptors of enemy commerce raiders. The other nation that built battlecruisers were the Germans. German battlecruisers were more battleships with guns one step lower than battleships and one turret less. They had more shaft HP and were designed to be scout group for the main battle fleet. Because of this use, it forced the British to use their BC's like the Germans with detrimental results at Jutland. Kongo's were designed by the British and replicated the Tiger class with small changes. Battlecruiser designation and mission disappeared in the early 30's. Hood and the Kongo's were designated fast battleships there after. The Scharnhorst was a battleship. It was made to withstand 15 inch hits and was expected to be up gunned by the Germans to twin 15 in turrets but had to be built with triple 11 in because of treaty limitations. They never got around to upgrading them because of a war. The Alaska's had 12 inch guns, standard battleship guns at the time was 15/16/18 inch, ergo large cruiser. Overall battlecruisers were pretty ships, but their cost and effectiveness made them a poor concept. But Jackie Fisher....

@jakubkarczynski269

5 ай бұрын

Alaska were battlecruisers. That had les armor and smaller guns. Same as British WW1 battlecruisers. And as them they were designed to hunt other cruisers.

@frednone

5 ай бұрын

I would argue what defines a ship is how it is used, not what it's paper stats are.

@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684

5 ай бұрын

@@jakubkarczynski269 Alaska was designed and used primarily as an escort for US fleet carriers.

@jakubkarczynski269

5 ай бұрын

@@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684 IJN Kongos were used in same way. And they planed B-65 battlecruisers to do it also.

@alganhar1

4 ай бұрын

How were they a poor concept? You are ignoring something, they were a perfectly viable concept AT THE TIME THEY WERE DESIGNED. The fact is battlecruisers did not actually lose their mission or role until the early 40's when you started seeing proper Fast Battleships such as the KGV Class, the US North Cals and so on. The Hood was NEVER designated a Fast Battleship by the Royal Navy, ever. She has been designated as such by Historians and Commentators later, especially these days, but the Royal Navy ALWAYS referred to her as a Battlecruiser, not a Fast Battleship. The Royal Navy was not 'forced' to use their Battlecruisers in that manner at Jutland, the Germans were forced to design and use their Battlecruisers as line of battle assets because the royal Navy comprehensively and utterly outbuilt the Kaiserlichtmarine in the naval Arms Race prior to the war. The problem at Jutland was not the ships, but how Beatty used them, and poor ammunition safety protocols. The battlecruisers literally had 5th Battle Squadron supporting them, 5th was made up of the Queen Elizabeth Class which were both the fastest, and most powerful battleships available to the Royal Navy at the time, a fact I note you failed to mention. The idea was that on contact the Battlecruisers would fall back and through the Queen Elizabeths and THEY would engage the German Battlecruisers with the British Battlecruisers in support. Beatty DID NOT FOLLOW that doctrine. The fault is not the ships, but the admiral in command of the battlecruisers.... On the flip side the battle of the Falklands, which I note you did not mention showed WHY the British designed those ships, as the Battlecruisers utterly crushed the cruisers they were facing. It was what they were designed to do. The British Battlecruisers were designed to kill Commerce Raiders first, fleet scouts second, but primarily they were designed to kill Commerce Raiders.... Renown and Repulse (before the sinking of Repulse) did exactly that early in WWII, countering the Gneisenau and Scharnhorst on multiple occasions, and the on paper more powerful German ships DID NOT ENGAGE....

Britannia rules the waves 🇬🇧

Scharnhorst Class? I know some call them battleships, but they were very clearly designed as battlecruisers.

@robertkelley3437

5 ай бұрын

They were classified as battleship by Germany. Their armor was designed to be affective against 15 inch guns and be armed with 15 guns. However, the 15-inch guns were not going to be ready in time. So, they were armed with 11-inch guns with plan too convert them to 15-inch gone in the future.

@palious13

5 ай бұрын

@@robertkelley3437 But they were classified as battlecruisers by the British.

@robertkelley3437

5 ай бұрын

@@palious13 What the British wanted to call them does not matter. The German admiral on the Bismarck called the Hood a Battleship. The British called Hood a Battlecruiser. So is Alaska and Gaum a Battlecruiser or a Large Cruiser? The country of origin classifies the ship. At least until the naval treaties are written.

@palious13

5 ай бұрын

@@robertkelley3437 I disagree. The British were the naval experts. The Germans called them battleships because that made them sound more intimidating.

@robertkelley3437

5 ай бұрын

@@palious13 OK go ahead and believe that if you want to.

if you put thumbnails of the ships, at least be they in scale!!

Putting the displacement without mentioning the year is deceptive. For example the Renown and Repulse spent so much time in dock getting extra armor tacked on, that they were nicknamed Repair and Refit. By WW2 Renown had bee more heavily modified and survived the war. Repulse was sunk by Japanese aircraft off the coast of Malaya in 1941.

Iz vely nice.

The US was building 2 Battle Cruisers but cause of the Washington Navy Treaty they were converted to the Carriers the Lexington and Saratoga.

@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935

4 ай бұрын

Memory not cover all the way back to the start?

@BigAmp

21 күн бұрын

They were building six. Under the terms of that wretched treaty they were allowed to complete two of them as aircraft carriers.

I did not know that the HMS Queen Mary was the fourth largest battle cruiser built,no wonder that the Queen Mary was a real big loss in Jutland and larger than HMS Tiger?dang.

The Alaska Class in the US was probable the epitome of the Battle-class design. Even if the US called them Large Cruisers.

@boreasreal5911

5 ай бұрын

the US called them Large Cruisers bc they were large cruisers. They share none of the design features found on actual battlecruisers

@matthewhuszarik4173

5 ай бұрын

@@boreasreal5911 Do you even know what Battle Cruisers were designed for and what the Alaska class were designed for? They were both designed for the same exact missions. To be fast enough to track down heavy cruisers with enough fire power and armor to defeat them. But not having the firepower or armor to go toe to tie with Battleships which they supposedly could easily outrun. Hence the name Battle Cruisers. The Alaskas were specifically built to be able to track down and defeat the infamous Mogami and Tone class Japanese heavy cruisers and the Deutschland class of German Heavy cruisers.

@robertkelley3437

5 ай бұрын

​​@@matthewhuszarik4173 I always thought Battle cruisers were built to run away from what they could not beat up. or beat up anything they could not outrun. The Alaska class was designed in response to plans by Germany and Japan building super cruisers. When those ships did not materialize the plans where drops. Based on what Britian had built, the design of the Japanese Kongo class, the US Constellation Class and the French Dunkerque class The Alaska class would be hard press to be called Battle Cruisers. However, at the time they entered service they could perform the task of battle cruisers. All the others had been sunk. The U.S. classified them as large cruiser but they would have be used just like a battle cruiser.

@matthewhuszarik4173

5 ай бұрын

@@robertkelley3437 The Germans did build their super cruisers the Deutschland class with 11” main guns that outgunned any Western heavy cruiser. The Japanese also had the Kongo Class of Battle Cruisers that were reclassified later as Battleships.

@robertkelley3437

5 ай бұрын

​@@matthewhuszarik4173 Germany had plans for the P class cruiser, same armament as the Deutschland class. But more armor and faster. Japan had plans to build the B-65 class with 31-cm gun (12.1 inch) with armor similar to the Alaska class. There plans never made it past the planning stage. The remainder of the Alaska class was canceled when the U.S. realized they were not going to happen.

I think you forgot USS Alaska and Guam. At 808ft, they would be joint second.

You omit first reason for battle-cruiser class, range. The British and French especially, having truly global empires, needed battleship firepower able to patrol all the way to and from, literally around the world. The lesser armour allowed for more fuel. Some WW1 ‘battlecrusirrs’ seemed slow in ww2 because of engine advancements, not design purpose.

@JeffreyWilliams-dr7qe

Ай бұрын

Dependant on Coaling Stations. Replenishment not fully realized .

When considering the size of a battleship, it is not solely the physical dimensions that hold significance, but rather the caliber of its construction, the effectiveness of its leadership, and the proficiency of its crew's seamanship that truly matter.

@jasonhartley1305

4 ай бұрын

You must be talking HMS Warspite ..the queen of the oceans , rivers and anywhere you can keep water under the keel. Awesome ship ..top amongst the best of the best ..and in the Royal navy that was saying something.

@iansneddon2956

4 ай бұрын

@@jasonhartley1305 HMS Warspite, the best evidence for the true existence of plot armor. No shelling, bombing, attack by torpedoes, even a Fritz-X hit, could interfere with Warspite's destined rendezvous with Prussia Cove.

The Courageous class were not battlecruisers - they were large light cruisers. You should have included Seydlitz instead - a magnificent ship. Good to see that you did not include Alaska as she was was not classified as a battlecruiser by her makers.

The whole "battlecruiser" concept was extremely short-living. They were thought as anti-cruisers, the view especially popular after the Falkland battle where old armored cruisers were ambushed. But the progress in technology for both cruisers and battleships was so quick that most of the "battlecruisers" became obsolete either before even commissioned or at most a decade after. Famous Jutland fireworks proved that battlecruisers couldn't fight battleships, and they were too expensive (price comparable to a battleship), too large ... and too slow to be used against modern cruisers. So the battlecruiser subclass converged into "fast battleships", as the armor was increased at the cost of speed. Before mid-1930's practically all the battlecruisers were either completely rebuilt as fast battleships, or intended to be rebuilt or decommissioned. The exception was Alaska class, which were from the start intended as "aircraft carrier guardians", not cruiser hunters.

@Harldin

4 ай бұрын

The Alaska's were designated as large Cruisers (CL), and TBH, they had very little real use and were retired after just 30 months of service.

@jesperlykkeberg7438

21 күн бұрын

"The whole "battlecruiser" concept was extremely short-living." Wrong. The battlecruiser HMS Hood was the largest warship in the world for 20 years. And please don´t say the Alaska class were battlecruisers. That´s ridiculous.

@Edi_J

21 күн бұрын

@@jesperlykkeberg7438 Hood was the only ship of her class and survived only exactly because was "the largest", for the prestige. Still, was re-made heavier and slower and was supposed to get even more heavy and slow. Actually, when met Bismarck, was already slower than the German BATTLESHIP, so there was not much of the "battlecruising" left... The whole concept was obsolete before Hood was launched. And yes, we can somewhat count "Alaska" class as "battlecruisers", as they had 1) battleship-size guns, 2) cruiser-grade armor 3) were faster than most battleships to avoid fighting them 4) were designed to kill cruisers. Certainly more fitting description than "a cruiser", even considering that the real largest cruisers: Des Moines-class exceeded 21000 tons fully loaded.

The narrator mentions HMS Hood!

What are the angled struts along the hull of the older ships

@johntrewick7346

5 ай бұрын

Anti torpedo netting, swung outboard when in harbour.

don't forget Littorio Class

Cool Kongo

I agree with you that the Hood was the largest battlecruiser built

Russian shipyards: We will build one of the buggest battlecruiser classes, "Izmail", 32 500 ton, 4 x 3 x 14"/52 guns, 237 mm belt, 27.5 knots, the "Izmail" is 75% built... Commie: nope

@Edi_J

20 күн бұрын

Those 27.5 knots is a fantasy, more realistic value is 26, and even that is doubtful, considering very low ratio of engine power to displacement. This was typical battleship, relatively slow and well armored, without limiting of the number of main guns. And commies? Did what commies do: shot or forced to flee all the engineers and everybody who had some brain. The largest ship they were able to design and build before the... 1950 were failed Leningrad-class... destroyers.

Kirov class battle cruiser should be in there, over 800 ft long and displace at least 28,000 tons

@Colonel_Blimp

4 ай бұрын

Kirov is NOT a battle cruiser by any definition.

@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935

4 ай бұрын

Might as well include Star Trek stuff then.

It's interesting no American ships were mentioned . I guess with the advent of the Iowa class battleship it made battle cruisers and heavy cruisers a "support ship"

@jesperlykkeberg7438

4 ай бұрын

Battlecruiser - one word, since they are capital ships and not a type of cruiser.

Of all the post WWII battlecruisers, only 2 survived World War 2. HMS Renown and HMS Furious.

why no data on armament?

The Alaska class should be in that list

@jesperlykkeberg7438

4 ай бұрын

Battlecruisers are capital ships, not cruisers. The Alaska-class are cruisers, not capital ships. No American ships qualify to be on the list, which also means Americans have no say in this matter.

@MCLegend13

Ай бұрын

The Alaska Class is a Super Cruiser not Battle Cruiser the USN never operated any Battle Cruisers unless you count the Carrier conversions of the Lexingtons

The Battle of Jutland showed why Battlecruisers should never be put up against Battleships even if they did carry the same calibre guns.

@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935

4 ай бұрын

Yes, the Jutland opponents were really fast battleships, the Germans never built any lightly armoured big gun ships. They were not going to be clearing the oceans of enemy cruisers.

@wildwillie5408

4 ай бұрын

They couldn't stand up to big guns from battleships or battlecruisers. The German battlecruisers played a large parti n turning Beatty's ships into fireworks displays. While British ship design was at fault so was Beatty's misuse trying to use his BCs as BBs

@klade5031

4 ай бұрын

@@wildwillie5408 The German battlecruiser concept also fully expected them to take hits and were more or less light battleships as per their doctrine since the Germans knew they needed every single capital ship they had to function in a battle line just for a chance to match the Royal Navy. Another thing of note is that the British armor piercing shells in Jutland were also infamously defective. British were landing their shots but would very often simply shatter instead of penetrating. They might have inflicted more losses to the High Seas fleet even accounting for all the mishaps on the Royal Navy's side.

@mrjockt

4 ай бұрын

@@wildwillie5408 I believe one of the major design flaws with the British ships were the flameproof doors between the turret and the ammo storage, the British design only had single doors so it was possible to have ALL the doors open at the same time, this is believed to have been responsible for the loss of at least two of the BC’s at Jutland, whereas the Germans used double doors which required one door to be closed before the second could be opened.

A big mistake na HMS hood was matched versus Bismarck.

@Edi_J

5 ай бұрын

It was a huge risk, but also for the Bismarck. A raider can't allow ANY damage, as there is no option for repair - so any damage means the mission is over and the ship just fights for survival. And finally - yes, unlucky hit blew up the Hood, but also unlucky hit destroyed Bismarck's rudder and created oil leaks which prevented the escape.

Surely Hood was a Battle Cruiser and the largest built?

@klade5031

5 ай бұрын

The definition of "battlecruiser" itself is problematic as nations had often had different standards on what makes a battlecruiser a battlecruiser. Hood, for example, has essentially the same armor thickness as the Queen Elizabeth-class battleships and can be argued to be a true fast battleship. In contrast, the Japanese optimistically classed the rebuilt Kongos as fast battleships yet they are only about as well armored as the Renowns, which no one argues to be anything but battlecruisers.

@cattinkerbell4946

5 ай бұрын

Did you watch the clip??? Hood belonged to the Admiral Class. She even was mentioned there.

@RayyMusik

5 ай бұрын

Hood was designed a battlecruiser but completed as a fast battleship. So it is not completely wrong to include her in this list. What is totally incorrect here is the Courageous class! Those were large light cruisers with half - or even less than half - the number of barrels and no capital ship armour at all.

@b.a6525

5 ай бұрын

You are uninformed, as Hood is literally the first of the Admiral Class Battlecruisers, know your facts pleb.

@Haftrooth

5 ай бұрын

HMS hood was a BC. Not sure who Surley Hood is

I would argue that even though the Germans considered her a battleship, the Scharnhorst, largely because of her 11" guns should have been considered for a spot on this list, and where is the Alaska? Though again officially a 'large cruiser' even her hull number CB-1 is a nod to what she was.

@boreasreal5911

5 ай бұрын

No, just no. A battlecruiser is a cruiser with battleship level firepower. Neither the Scharnhorsts, nor the Alaskas do tick that box and thus can not be considered battlecruisers. Additionally the Scharnhorsts were among the most heavily armored ships in WW2, which again disqualifies them from being part of a ship type that is known for their relatively light armor. The terms used to describe both ship classes, eg battleship for the Scharnhorsts and large cruiser for the Alaskas, are accurate terms. Also CB doesn't stand for battlecruiser, as illustrated by the Lexingtons initial designation of CC rather than CB.

@CRAIGKMSBISMARCKTIRPITZ533

5 ай бұрын

Germans Referred Their Ship's Males Not Females

@palious13

5 ай бұрын

@@boreasreal5911 The German navy had a long tradition of heavily armoring their battlecruisers. In actuality, the battlecruiser, indeed all ships, needed to decide on where to skimp. Thedre are three areas, armor, armament, and speed. The British philosophy was to skimp on armor. The Germans had smaller guns.

@boreasreal5911

5 ай бұрын

@@palious13 only that they didn't. If you compare armament size to the contemporary battleship of the same nation, as you should, you will find that the german battlecruisers usually had an equivalent main battery caliber, just like the british and the japanese battlecruisers. Additionally the german battlecruisers armor was not competetive with any kind of battleship protection, not in thickness nor in area covered. The Scharnhorsts meanwhile had a main battery caliber that was closer to cruisers rather than battleships, regardless of nation, while having armor that was not only competetive with contemporary battleships in both thickness and area of coverage, but straight up beating many of them, even their supposed successors. Another matter is their speed, which while fast, is not fast enough to achieve a decisive advantage over contemporary battleships.

@boreasreal5911

5 ай бұрын

@@CRAIGKMSBISMARCKTIRPITZ533 that's a common missconception. Only Bismarck was reffered to as male

Kongo Class was technically British, built for the Japanese.

cool thing is the British Courageous class would all become aircraft carriers. but sadly 2 of three were sunk in beginning parts of WW2. also, two of India CVS their name in English means Courageous

@tigerland4328

5 ай бұрын

HMS Glorious and HMS courageous sadly both sank with very heavy loss of life. Glorious 1,207 Courageous 519

@Edi_J

5 ай бұрын

It is a bit ironic that Glorious (I think the fastest British large warship at the time) was sunk because ... was too slow to escape from two German battlecruisers.

@jasonhartley1305

4 ай бұрын

@@Edi_J not too slow , just didn't have enough steam pressure as she was cruising on an anti-submarine patrol. Her big sister Renown gave the two a damn good kicking and had them running after repeatedly hitting them at 20,000+ yards ..Rule Britannia..

@jasonhartley1305

4 ай бұрын

Technically the courageous and glorious were not battlecrusier but large light cruisers ..furious had 18" guns ..not bad for a light cruiser ..

@Edi_J

4 ай бұрын

​@@jasonhartley1305 Oh boy, "just didn't have enough pressure"... There was well enough time (30-45 minutes) between sighting of German ships and opening fire at the carrier, not too mention that the weather was nice and it was (polar...) day so a carrier should have air patrols up all the time. The carrier should not be sent alone in the first place, and was sent to satisfy idiotic aristocratic "court requirements", and we know today that cryptologists warned aristocrate idiots but were ignored - so don't tell me about "Britannia rule", as they didn't make anyone proud that day, finishing with tragedy of "the rescue operation". Except for the poor valiant little destroyers which had to suicide because pompous incompetent guy on the Glorious bridge had no brain to predict, think and react.

it must have taken a lot of courage to sail those beastie`s with others shooting at you.

Admiral class is Hood, he was an admiral

The forgot the Alaska Class Battlecruisers.

@jesperlykkeberg7438

4 ай бұрын

You mean the Iowa-class? The Alaska Class were to weak to deserve the term "battlecruiser"

Only one of the Renown class survived the second world war.

kind of the main point of cruisers is/ was their speed which you don't mention??

Women to the Navy....❤

"Expansive overall length" WTF does that mean?

The Alaska class cruiser(which was a battle cruiser) would have blown the Hood, any German battle cruiser and Japanese battle cruiser out of the water. Her 12 inch guns and easy 30 plus knot speed would have been overwhelming.

@waynepitkethly4150

5 ай бұрын

Hood had 15" guns and 32 knot speed

@jasonhartley1305

4 ай бұрын

Yeah in your dreams mate .

@jasonhartley1305

4 ай бұрын

​@@waynepitkethly4150exactly..heavier shell , longer range and excellent guns. And actually thicker armour too.

@Colonel_Blimp

4 ай бұрын

Lol

@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935

4 ай бұрын

Hood was only good at murdering allied sailors in their moored ships.

Very misleading thumbnail

Scharnhorst and the Alaska classes wasn't mentioned

@klade5031

5 ай бұрын

Add in the Dunkerques too. I can see why they missed out on them though as both ships are on opposite ends of the battlecruiser spectrum with the Alaskas being too cruiser-like despite fulfilling the battlecruiser's original role and the Scharnorsts' too much like battleships (or rather, they don't fit in the popular view of what a battlecruiser is supposed to be despite checking all the boxes on traditional German BC design) Pretty much any battlecruiser list is going to be a bit controversial as there is no universal definition on what exactly counts as a battlecruiser though there are some common factors like they're fast, have battleship guns and can hunt cruisers / surface raiders. It's kinda like trying to define what exactly counts as "treason". Everybody has a rough idea on what it is but the specifics are where everything becomes muddled.

@jesperlykkeberg7438

4 ай бұрын

@@klade5031 A battlecruiser is a ship that was designated as a "battlecruiser" by the nation it belonged to. There´s nothing controversial about it. It´s simple. The US decided not to come aboard. That´s it. Literally.

@klade5031

4 ай бұрын

@@jesperlykkeberg7438 "There´s nothing controversial about it." The mere fact the people are arguing over it in the comments easily disproves your statement. If it were as **simple** as you propose it to be then the Kongos would be battleships then. In a more modern analogy, the Russians and Japanese also definitely don't have aircraft carriers.

@jesperlykkeberg7438

4 ай бұрын

@@klade5031 "The mere fact the people are arguing over it in the comments easily disproves your statement." Nope. It simply proves people are idiots, since these folks have no say in the matter. Clowns arguing on the internet doesn´t make facts controversial.

@klade5031

4 ай бұрын

@@jesperlykkeberg7438 All I'm hearing is "Everyone else is wrong because I said so and my word is final authority on the matter" If you can't see the sheer unadulterated arrogance in the statements you're making, then you are no better than the "clowns" you are criticizing.

The 10 classes of Battlecruisers on this list, as well as the Invinclble, Australia and the other German WW1 classes, represent 27 different ships of which 10 were sunk by enemy action, that is by far the worst record of any ship type in history.

HMS HOOD was a battlecruiser 42000 tons.

French Dunkerque/Strasbourg and their German counter part Scharnhost/Gneisenau are BC too the BC concept "speed is armor" by admiral Fisher was a big failure, the destruction of the HMS Invicible, Indefaticable and the Queen mary during the battle of Jutland and the destruction of the HMS Hood versus the Bismarck are the edvidence of the lack of protection, with the evolution the BS have the speed of the BC but they have more firepower and much better armor after the WW1 UK works on a new concept the fast battle ship like the G3

@jesperlykkeberg7438

4 ай бұрын

The definition of a battlecruiser is a capital ship that was designated as a "battlecruiser" by the nation it belonged to. Americans have no say in this matter.

Scharnhorst class is also missing

@jesperlykkeberg7438

4 ай бұрын

Rightly so.

@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935

4 ай бұрын

Not about battleships.

I'm sorry, but why would you put HMS Tiger over HMS Renown in the number 2 spot? That doesn't make sense, given the fact that Renown was more advanced, had bigger guns, and was simply bigger overall. EDIT: Never mind. I just answered my own question. But despite the slight margin in terms of tonnage, I believe Renown should have gotten the number 2 spot.

@jakubkarczynski269

5 ай бұрын

They had less armor than Tiger.

Battlecruisers - the dream that died at Jutland

@jasonhartley1305

4 ай бұрын

Tell that to HMS Renown.

@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935

4 ай бұрын

What to use them for once the enemy’s blue water cruisers are no more? At least the Alaskas had the speed and deck space for carrier anti-aircraft cover, what Renown and the Iowas were used for in the Pacific.

Hms hood was the largest battlecrusier to enter service and actually have a service history.

@ronin7547

4 ай бұрын

Nope, although the Royal Navy named her a battle cruiser, the statistics of the Hood were aligned with a fast battleship. In fact she outclassed her predecessor Queen Elizabeth class battle ships.

@jasonhartley1305

4 ай бұрын

@@ronin7547 yep that's because she was a battlecrusier , that's why the Royal navy called her a battlecrusier..she was launched with 6" side armour..what 20th century dreadnought battleship had 6" side armour ? None . Because she was and still is a battlecrusier her armour was increased after launch because of the lessons of Jutland why do you think the invincible class and all the prewar battlecrusies were put into reserve in 1919 ? . . You can call her a battleship if you want , but you'd be wrong . She was the largest battlecrusier ever launched and used in service..sorry you don't like it but you are wrong .

@jasonhartley1305

4 ай бұрын

@@ronin7547 the only thing she out classed the queen Elizabeth and royal sovereign classes was speed . 10 knots for the Royal sovereign and 6 for queen Elizabeth class ..the main armament was exactly the same. Armour was 1" thinner even after she was re-armoured . I think the oldest Navy in the world knows what they are talking about don't you .

@ronin7547

4 ай бұрын

@@jasonhartley1305 I am not the one arguing this. First off all, Hood had a main inclined belt of 12 inches not 6, which is similar to 13 inches straight belt. This by itself is already considered far above what defines a battlecruiser. Many modern naval historians, including British ones, agree that HMS Hood was not a battlecruiser in the traditional sense. The original Admiral battlecruiser class Hood was based on, was changed and redesigned after the battle of Jutland. The traditional battlecruiser had a much lower inch main belt armor. HMS Courageous only had 3 inches. A battlecruiser was suppose to be the counter to a heavy cruiser, to catch and destroy those. It was not meant to go toe to toe with a battleship. HMS Hood final version was battleship match. Yes, Hood was planned as a battlecruiser but her redesign and upgrades made her a fast battleship.

@jasonhartley1305

4 ай бұрын

@@ronin7547 my grandfather was a senior engineer on board for a while ... when built she had 6" armour . He'd laugh at you , armchair admiral. She was a battlecrusier whether you like it or not . She was classified as a battlecrusier by the Royal navy ..a fast battleship was a term that came about 15 years after she was built ..you'll be telling me a Sopwith camel was a swept wing het interceptor next ..you can bleat all you want..if the royal navy says it's a battlecrusier then that is what she was ..the renowns also had an armour up grade to 9" I suppose they were not battlecrusier either ..🤣

Faltaram diversos encouraçados a exemplo do Missouri, Bismark, Yamato, etc.

@denmalski

4 ай бұрын

Those are battleships, not battle cruisers, battle cruisers carry battleship guns but sacrifice battleship armor for mobility and speed

@CarlosHenriqueXavierEndo

4 ай бұрын

@@denmalski Yamato and Bismark were not a battlecruisers, but a battleships. My countryman is right on these.

@denmalski

4 ай бұрын

@@CarlosHenriqueXavierEndo that's what I said, all the those ships, Yamato Missouri, Bismarck are all BB's

Alaska class ? Scharnhorst and Gneisenau ?......... not worth mention ?

@jesperlykkeberg7438

4 ай бұрын

You mean the Iowa-class? and Bismarch-class? The Alaska Class were to weak to deserve the term "battlecruiser"

why you using titanic in thumbmail? titanic was 269meters long

@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935

4 ай бұрын

Far, far longer than any battlecruiser unless the Iowas count.

HMS Hood or HMS Confetti. No wonder so few survived, the ship pretty much disintegrated after being hit by German warships.

@owenshebbeare2999

4 ай бұрын

Ended as a loss for the Kreigsmarine...the Shiny new Bismarck sunk Vs the unimproved Hood.

@stevecam724

4 ай бұрын

@@owenshebbeare2999 😂😂😂 Hood sunk ............ none. The German ship had to be sunk by it's own crew. British fleet nil, German crew one 😂😂😂

@raywest3834

4 ай бұрын

HMS Hood was the pride of the Royal Navy for 20 years. Bismarck was sunk on her first patrol. Battlecruisers, when used as intended, were highly effective: Hood could run from anything heavy enough to hurt her, and easily sink anything fast enough to catch her.

@stevecam724

4 ай бұрын

@@raywest3834 "run from anything heavy enough to hurt her" well there's a fail right there. My understanding was HMS Confetti turned to bring the aft guns to bare because that would be the only chance to do so.

@raywest3834

4 ай бұрын

@@stevecam724 I don't understand your argument. Hood had no business attacking a battleship. Battlecruisers, like all things, must be used for the purpose they were intended. Cruisers, Light, Heavy or Armored, stood zero chance against a battlecruiser, and as these are the only ships that could run her down, the claim holds. If you use a chisel as a pry bar, don't blame the tool when it breaks. The Admiralty knew Hood was vulnerable to plunging fire at long range, as did her commander, which is why he attacked head on, in an attempt to close the dangerous range as quickly as possible.

Of course she was. And had the same weakness of all Battle Cruisers, and her appalling improper deployment led to her very easy, quick, destruction

@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684

5 ай бұрын

Please give us more details !!!!

@jesperlykkeberg7438

4 ай бұрын

Bismarck had the same weakness of all battleships, and her appalling improper deployment led to her very easy, quick, destruction. Also "battlecruiser" is one word.

Where's the SMS Seydlitz?

@jesperlykkeberg7438

4 ай бұрын

Scrapped at Rosyth

Totally partial and inaccurate. A few clicks allow to see that the Empire, despite the quality of his Navy, does not fill all the boxes in this ranking.

What about Alaska

@jesperlykkeberg7438

4 ай бұрын

Battlecruisers were capital ships, not cruisers. The Alaska-class were cruisers, not capital ships.

If you ask me, it's a flawed concept, from the get go. The German "Pocket Battleships" were a better idea.

Alaska?

@jesperlykkeberg7438

4 ай бұрын

Battlecruisers were capital ships, not cruisers. The Alaska-class were cruisers, not capital ships.

VersitAlity?

The Iowa's should have been listed going by definition of a Battlecruiser. Iowa's were lighter armored and faster than a battleship and couldn't take a hit from its own caliber main battery same as the Hood. That's why the U.S were getting ready to build the Montana's as a battleship, slower, heavier armor with more firepower.

@Edi_J

5 ай бұрын

Whe Iowas were built, the battlecruiser term already was obsolete. Battlecruisers converged into fast battleship class, and shortly after that all battleships were anyway reduced to coast bombardment platforms. Alaska class were the last things "resembling" battlecruisers, but even those were from the start assigned as aircraft carrier escort, not cruiser hunter.

@sammyfree

5 ай бұрын

@@Edi_J So in effect the battlecruiser term became obsolete in the 1940's and became Fast Battleship except for Russia who have one Kirov class battlecruiser still in active service today.

@Edi_J

5 ай бұрын

@@sammyfree Those nuclear missile cruisers have zero to do with the "battlecruiser" class from 1910-1930s... There are even no more "real" cruisers to be hunted

What is with the Admiral Graf Spee of WW2

@jasonhartley1305

4 ай бұрын

Graf spee was an old concept of the Armoured cruiser . Supposed to be 10,000 tons but was actually 17,000 the same as 1905 HMS Dreadnaught.

@Colonel_Blimp

4 ай бұрын

@@jasonhartley1305exactly the kind of ship the battle cruisers were designed to destroy.

@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935

4 ай бұрын

You grasp the speed concept? They were diesel plodders.

@jasonhartley1305

4 ай бұрын

@@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935 28 knots though ..high speed diesels..BMW so maybe you have a point 🤣 no one could catch her because the indicators didn't work and no one knew where she was going 🤣

@jasonhartley1305

4 ай бұрын

@@Colonel_Blimp exactly.. armoured cruiser destroyers really .. a good tool for the right job at the time .

Totally inaccurate listing. New Jersey (US), Yamamoto (Japan), Richelieu (France) and other similar types were both in displacement and length much larger !

@gusmlie

4 ай бұрын

But we're battleships not battlecruisers.

a little bias only naming uk japan and germany. the united states had the biggest battleship clas in those days with the Iowa class in 1943 with 48 500 tons

@jesperlykkeberg7438

4 ай бұрын

A battlecruiser is a ship that was designated as a "battlecruiser" by the nation it belonged to. There´s literally no bias.

A seriously flawed concept that the world was warned about being missed used as battleship in the battle line. This was clearly demonstrated at the battle of Jutland where the battle cruisers on both sides took a disproportioned pounding. This makes the loss of the HMS Hood such a travesty. If looking for responsibility for the loss, you need to look only as far as whoever failed to learn the obvious lesson of Jutland when they order an under armored HOOD to charge down, not only a real battleship but, at the time, the biggest best protected battleship in the world, Bismark.

The Iowa class should be in here as the largest and most powerful. These being the battlecruiser contemporaries of the Montana class battleships. Note that the armour schemes and belt thicknesses of the Admirals and Iowas were similar.

@jesperlykkeberg7438

4 ай бұрын

Nope. The Iowa class was not classified as battlecruisers by the nation they belonged to, which is the only meaningful definition of battlecruisers.

Prince of whale the biggers battle ship

No offense - but, the Narrator makes a lot of mistakes in pronouncing English words .... if there's friction in your diction .... do not be a narrator. GBjj

Диву даешься разуму, строившему всё бОльшие и бОльшие мишени, из лени противопоставить корабельной артиллерии другие средства поражения .....

I swear if Alaska is not on this class

@jesperlykkeberg7438

4 ай бұрын

Battlecruisers were capital ships, not cruisers. The Alaska-class were cruisers, not capital ships.

Why can't the narrator pronounce words properly? Perhaps cos they are not real, AI stands out like a sore thumb. It would be nice to have a human actor read out a script for once.

So where is the Scharnhorst Class? Prinz Eugen? You left out a lot of the top stuff Germany had that were clearly Battlecruisers (They got called Pocket battleships).

@tigerland4328

5 ай бұрын

Prinz Eugen was a heavy cruiser not a battle cruisers. Also the Deutschland class pocket battleships were not battle cruisers.

@0Zolrender0

5 ай бұрын

@@tigerland4328 Battle Cruiser - Heavy Cruiser - Pocket battleship. All names for the same thing.

@tigerland4328

5 ай бұрын

@@0Zolrender0 no as a "battlecruiser" is a ship with the armament of a battleship and the armour and speed of a cruiser. A Battleship's main armament of the time was between 14 & 16 inch guns. Prinz Eugen had 8 inch guns so it wasn't a battle cruiser it was a heavy cruiser. Scharnhorst had better armour than a battle cruiser but a smaller 11 inch main battery so it was also not a battle cruiser(Light battleship would be a better description). The Deutschland class pocket battleships were basically commerce raiding very heavy cruisers as they had 11inch guns.

@0Zolrender0

5 ай бұрын

@@tigerland4328 You are correct here. I stand corrected. This would also be why the USA Alaska class cruisers were not Battlecruisers.

@jakubkarczynski269

5 ай бұрын

@@0Zolrender0 No, heavy cruisers was totaly diferent from Battlecruisers. And pocket battleships is closer to first one than to second one. And Alaska was battlecruisers.

Boring

@akis71611

4 ай бұрын

yep it wuld ptobably more intresting with Bismark

I suggest u missed the "Ball" here . Yes yur getting the Displacement. But u can not feature a BC and not even mention the speed. That is like "Sex" with out a partner. Sure u can do it. But is it really all that good? Seriously Heart an soul to a BC is it's speed and range and guns.

TERRIBLE..don't bother.