Nice to hear the veterans speaking real English, crystal clear and polite.

@k24_4twenty

11 ай бұрын

toffs

@MichaelKingsfordGray

7 ай бұрын

The Catalina pilot was an Aussie.@@k24_4twenty

I've been dying for a new Armored Carriers video! Today is a good day!

@lifeontheX

Жыл бұрын

Yes sir, it is a good day!

Love these videos. The commentary from the veterans is amazing and the production is excellent. Big thanks from me.

Drachinifel did a excellent video on sinking of Hood. Looks like Bismarck got an extremely lucky hit on the Hood one in million chance unfortunately. War is extremely unpredictable at best.

In 1941, Swordfish (heavy lift STOL) was the only aircraft capable of operating from carriers heaving over Atlantic storm swells. Swordfish was an amazing aircraft used throughout WW2. It was contemporary with Hawker Hurricane and of similar construction.

Powerful expression by Ronald Hay on a Fulmar pilot's view of "the gun club" and British naval technology at Jutland, in the sinking of the Hood ("why go head-on toward the Bismarck, where only the forward turrets could fire?"), and the order that Renown not engage Bismarck. "They were gunnery people and I was air", he says. So absorbing that I backed up the video to see who was speaking. Another splendid video, Armoured Carrier!

@alganhar1

Жыл бұрын

Why did Hood approach as she did? Was nothing to do with the Gunnery School of thought. Hoods Belt armour was actually comparable to Bismarck's, if an older scheme. She was far from lightly armoured. Her captain knew her main belt armour had a good chance of defeating Bismarck's 15 inch main guns at the range he wanted to engage. Hs also knew that Hoods DECK armour would NOT withstand 15 inch PLUNGING fire. The way Hood closed to engage was not a mistake, it was her Captain making a decision to get the Hood through the zone of plunging fire into the zone where main gun fore from Bismarck would strike the belt armour AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. That you see is the problem, Ronald Hay was a Fulmar PILOT, he was NOT a Capital Ship CAPTAIN. He did not even know that Hoods construction had been paused after Jutland in order to design into her the lessons learned from Jutland, which included MASSIVELY up armouring her. While Laid down as a Battlecruiser, you could in fact argue with a good deal of justification that Hood was not in fact a Battlecruiser but was the first true Fast Battleship, completed twenty years before the rest of the Fast Battleships were laid down.... As for Renown not engaging Bismarck? He criticises people for sending Hood as a 'battlecruiser to engage Bismarck then criticises those same people for NOT allowing Renown, an ACTUAL Battlecruiser to engage Bismarck? Talk about... inconsistent, don't you think?

Just amazing; I take my hat off. My father was on the Ark Royal below decks servicing the Swordfish. Thankfully he left the Ark Royal just before she was sunk! (Or no me!)

@ArmouredCarriers

7 ай бұрын

If you haven't seen them, I've done two videos on the sinking of Ark Royal.

From a historic perspective these stories are very interesting and give an insight from those that served and give the accuracy what really happened not a Hollywood script.

Very well done , Armoured Carriers! Thanks a million.

Can't wait for the next installment...many thanks the upload

The conditions those Swordfish pilots operated in looked impossibly difficult and it still amazes me that they were all able to return and safely land on what must have looked like a bobbing cork. Even though they attacked the wrong ship that mission should be remembered for the bravery and skill of the aircrew.

@davidelliott5843

Жыл бұрын

Looking at that carrier heaving up and down is testament to its own sea-keeping. Actually flying anything off looks impossible. Goodness knows how they landed.

Fantastic quality production as always. There were a number of comments made about the encounter that I had not heard before which were very interesting indeed. On a different tact, I did not receive notification that this video had been released, even though I am a subscriber. This channel is one of a small handful that I bother to check from time to time in case I have missed something and I am glad I did check. Keep up the great work!

@ArmouredCarriers

Жыл бұрын

Something odd was going on. I had to republish the video in an effort to get it to appear in people's subscription feeds. It appears it wasn't a universal success.

Renown was not the Sister Ship of HMS Hood, Repulse was Renown's Sister Ship. Hood had no Sister Ships, she was the only Admiral Class Battlecruiser (sort of) to be constructed. Others were laid down but were cancelled and scrapped in the slips. Hood was not poorly armoured either. In fact her armour thickness was comparable to Bismarck's when it came to main belt thickness. While she had been *designed* as a relatively lightly armoured Battlecruiser (and she kept the Battlecruiser designation) her construction had been paused following Jutland to incorporate lessons learned from the Battle into her design. Part of that redesign included a MASSIVE up armouring of the ship. Indeed, you could argue, with a great deal of Justification that Hood was in fact the first Fast Battleship. She was a Battlecruiser in name only. Where Hoods armour was weak was in her deck armour. Bismarck and Prince of Wales had thick deck armour to withstand battleships plunging fire and large armour piercing bombs. Hood did not. This was not a mistake however. When Hood was built those large armour piercing anti shipping bombs DID NOT EXIST. In addition the kinds of ranges where Battleship plunging fire became an issue were impossible when Hood was constructed. The Fire Control systems simply were not advanced enough to HIT anything at that kind of range. It is interesting to note that Hoods planned refit included an extensive up armouring of her deck armour. She never got that planned refit in part because the war started, and in part because she was sunk. With the KGV's coming online it is likely she would have gone into that refit in later in the year. The Captain of Hood was also not a moron, he was in fact doing EXACTLY the right thing. The engagement started deep into that plunging fire zone. You know that kind of battleship fire the Captain KNEW the Hood could not withstand if she was hit directly. There were two reasons he decided to close as he did. Reason 1) To reduce the amount of time the Hood spent in the zone of plunging fire. The RN was reasonably confidant the Hoods belt armour could withstand much of the 15 inch fire from Bismarck, but as noted her deck armour was completely incapable of withstanding 15 inch plunging fire. Closing at the angle he did meant he spent as little time in that zone as possible. Yes, it reduced firepower to the forward turrets only, but there is evidence to suggest that she was starting a hard turn in order to bring her rear guns to bear when the fatal hit struck her. Reason 2) That angle also made Hood a MUCH smaller and more difficult target while closing, further reducing the chances of being hit by a plunging 15 inch shell. Without Radar it is VERY difficult to judge the speed of a ship closing on you like that, and that makes calculating an accurate firing solution much more difficult. Ronald Hay's rant is EXACTLY why people need to be careful with the recollections of Veterans, especially when they are discussing events they were not even present for. Are veteran accounts important? Absolutely, but that does not make them gospel.

@TheDkeeler

Жыл бұрын

Very informative comment. Apparently , the Hood went in first because the profile of the Bismarck and Prinz Eugen are so similar that they were misidentified . Is this true?

@JohnnySmithWhite-wd4ey

9 ай бұрын

Exactly what I was thinking. Even though Hood's building was paused she was still too close to completion . It wasn't possible to make all the changes that were needed.

So important to hear from the vets themselves. I learned so much about how ad hoc the battle rally was. Miraculous, really.

@ArmouredCarriers

8 ай бұрын

Yes, that's why I love making these videos. The human element is often lost in this world of min-max gamer mentalities where the only thing that matters are the baseline statistics, and every outcome must rely on those technicalities!

Thank you for these first person interviews

Can't blame the air crew!! ffsakes. "What does the target look like?" "I don't know, I suppose a ship" Peace be unto you.

Drachinifel has a compelling theory of how HMS Hood was sunk. HMS Prince of Wales was hit by a Bismarck shell which entered backwards beneath the armour belt and failed to explode. Hood was hit much further aft where the wake dips exposing the lower hull. This would allow a shell to penetrate clean and go deep before exploding.

I always enjoy these videos. Hearing from the people directly involved in these operations makes me listen more intently than if it was just someone reading from a diary or essay. I noticed you used some overhead shots of Bismarck taken from the game World of Warships, but I don't begrudge you for doing that :) Thank you for making these!

@ArmouredCarriers

Жыл бұрын

Yes, when you see those computer graphics clips - you know I've run out of original material!

@Squeesher

Жыл бұрын

@@ArmouredCarriers Haha, it's fine. They're well disguised! And I appreciate the detail of when a person starts talking about another ship or aircraft that maybe isn't the subject of the video or really involved, that you still put footage of that particular craft in the background. These are really so well done.

@TheGrimReaper1

Жыл бұрын

You have made a very good job of this, very good indeed. I will look at any other films you have made in due course. Thank you.

absolutely fascinating! thank you! these videos are so valuable to have available. it is somewhat startling that even after 40 or 50 years there are some of the pilots who still stick to the fog of battle line, which I totally understand *at the time of the events*, and those who, with the benefit of hindsight, could admit that there was almost a monumental cockup, that could have resulted in the sinking of Sheffield.

@offshoretomorrow3346

Жыл бұрын

The pilots were following orders that no RN ship was in the area. The ballsup was the Admiralty's not theirs, surely?

@kidmohair8151

Жыл бұрын

@@offshoretomorrow3346 yeah. I suppose that argument can be made. Sheffield had a pretty distinctive outline. There wasn't anything I can think of offhand, of her size and shape in the Kreigsmarine. The Bismarck also had a v.e.r.y. distinctive outline and was substantially bigger.

That was impressive wisdom from the scene!

Wow that pilot went all in on the admiality and the sinking of the Hood.

@richardschaffer5588

Жыл бұрын

I wonder how many other Royal Navy sailors and officers felt that way?

@MsZeeZed

Жыл бұрын

Hood was already being built when Jutland happened. The other ships in her class were never built due to the issues at Jutland, where Adm Hood was killed when HMS Invincible exploded. However, the reasons those lessons “weren’t learned” was partly that the disasters were due to WWI ammunition, that was changed by the 1920’s and partly the naval treaties of 1923 & 1930 stopped the RN building more ships of this size interwar. So The Mighty Hood led one of the groups hunting Bismarck (the other was led by Warspite, also a pre-Jutland). HMS Hood should have been heading to dry dock in 1940 for a complete overhaul that would have corrected her sea-keeping, re-built her amour and been ready before the expected start of WWII in 1942. There’s little doubt the planned refit would have protected Hood from the angle of shot that destroyed her, however, it wouldn’t have stopped Hood’s gunners from mistakenly engaging Prinz Eugen and giving Bismarck some free hits. As described in the press at the time it seemed Hood had been destroyed just like Invincible, plunging fire into the mid-turret, but recent analysis of the Denmark Straight engagement shows this can’t be true. The destruction of HMS Barham we see in this film wasn’t preventable. Barham (a Jutland veteran) was hit from 400yrds by 3 torpedoes that formed a single huge hole capsizing her almost instantly. With the crew evacuating the resultant magazine fire destroyed the ship before she could sink. While the interviewee doesn’t appreciate the decades it takes to design, build, commission and work up a battleship, its interesting to hear the opinion at the time that one shot killed Hood (correct) and one torpedo blew up Barham, while we know from the U-331 that it was three arriving together. Combined with the defeats in Narvik, Dunkirk and Greece it illustrates the mindset around the Bismarck hunt and the desperation from everyone involved to stop her.

@hughculliton3174

Жыл бұрын

@@richardschaffer5588 this is an excellent example of corporate groupthink.

@alganhar1

Жыл бұрын

He was also wrong. While Hood was laid down as a Battlecruiser her design was altered in the yard following the Battle of Jutland SPECIFICALLY to incorporate the lessons learned. Those lessons INCLUDED a massive up armouring of HMS Hood. Hoods armour scheme was old fashioned in 1940, but it was by no means thin, indeed it was comparable to Battleships of the period. This myth of Hood being poorly armoured really, really bugs me because there are plenty of actual drawings and plans that show the true thickness of her main armour belt in the Archives. Hell, even wikipedia gets her main belt thickness correct. While she was laid down as a Battlecruiser you could argue that when she was completed she was the first Fast Battleship, twenty years before the Fast Battleships were laid down..... That is not opinion, that is incontrovertible fact backed up by multiple PRIMARY sources. You also cannot base a ships design on the fact it was hit by fluke shot. And that is what happened to both Hood and Barham, he literally STATES that Barham was hit by a lucky torpedo. The rant by that pilot shows very clearly WHY the memories of Veterans, while important, must always be corroborated if you are going to use them in the historical record. Human memory is not a reliable thing. The fact is he knew very little about the actual lessons learned at Jutland, and the fact he called it an ignominious defeat reveals he was not as historically aware as he thought he was. . Defeat and Victory in a Naval battle is NOT determined by who loses the most, or fewer ships, it is determined by who controls the sea after the battle. After Jutland the High Seas Fleet returned to port and never left as a fleet again. They had failed in their attempt to break the Royal Navy's control of the sea. As such it was a strategic victory. As for lessons learned, why the hell does he think the Royal Navy spent the inter war years so extensively training in Night Actions? Only two Navys in the world were comprehensively trained to engage their enemy at night, the Imperial Japanese Navy, and the Royal Navy. Indeed the Royal Navy went even further by training their strike aircraft crews to operate at night. The Royal Navy in 1939 was the ONLY Navy in the world that could launch and recover a Carrier Strike AT NIGHT. All Fleet Air Arm Strike Crew were trained to operate at night, all of them, compare that to the US who by 1945 had only ONE Essex Class Carrier with air crews capable of taking off, striking their target, then landing back on their carrier at night. One. Now don't get me Wrong, the Admiralty certainly made mistakes, but many of them were not as egregious as folk assume, and some that were ascribed to them (like not learning from Jutland) are blatantly false. EDIT: Oh, he was also criticising the Captain of Hood for the way he approached Bismarck. Where did he gain the experience in commanding Capital ships to be able to do that? He was a PILOT, not a Warfare Officer. Fact is Hoods approach was absolutely the RIGHT move, she needed to close to a point where when she turned to bring her entire firepower to bear she was NOT being hit by plunging fire. That was her true armour weakness, not her main belt armour, but her deck armour. Her main belt armour had a decent chance of withstanding the Bismarck's 15 inch guns, her deck armour could NOT withstand 15 inch plunging fire. Hood closed as she did in order to expose the ship to as little plunging fire as possible before she made her turn to clear her rear turrets for action. EVERY Naval board of Inquiry has agreed that the Captain of the Hood did exactly the right thing there. It was NOT a mistake. It was NOT stupidity, it was a captain ensuring his ship took as little damage as possible before he brought his full firepower to bear, minimising the risk of exactly the kind of lucky shot that took her down.

@offshoretomorrow3346

Жыл бұрын

Great info, thanks. I've read that Hood had been due to have her deck armour boosted but it was dropped due to defence cuts.

Excellent video from a different perspective than most. It was also the first time that I heard about the Battlecruiser that was with HMS Ark Royal being directed to not engage with the Bismarck no matter what. My memory is failing me but I think they said it was HMS Renown.

@JevansUK

Жыл бұрын

Tovey had ordered Repulse to not engage until Bismarck was trading fire with KGV and to stay further out that was when it was possible that KGV and Repulse would intercept on the 25th May so PoW would also still be in contact, Renown actually detached to engage Bismarck once KGV signalled she was leaving for fuel issues but she had already sunk before she could get there

It's always fascinating to hear the accepted history of the time vs what actually happened

@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684

Жыл бұрын

Please expand?

@ArmouredCarriers

Жыл бұрын

There are examples between the narratives in the video. People are good at remembering their roles in these events. But often end up with an interesting mix of ideas when it comes to the bigger picture. But these are important in themselves as they reveal what the rank and file may have thought at the time, which is important. They didn’t have the advantage of secrecy act expiry dates releasing orders, reports, ships logs etc as we do now.

Great stuff as always..many thanks

I grew up through the 60s and 70s knowing well about the Bismarck (my father had been a crewman aboard HMS Dorsetshire, and had taken part in the rescue of the survivors) so I've read and watched the majority of material on the subject over the decades, BUT I've NEVER seen the footage at 0:37 in all my years of watching. Is it genuine footage or incredibly well executed CGI?...If it is footage (as it certainly appears to be) then its a fascinating study of the ship, fully decked out with her rangefinders and radar, and clearly highlighting her removed local rangefinders on turret Anton, possibly taken during her passage after leaving Grimstadfjord through to the Norwegian sea, as her bow swastika has been overpainted. As for the recordings themselves they are a true gemstone in the treasure chest of British naval history.... hopefully they will be able to be passed on into safe hands to prevent their loss at the hands of lefty revisionists that infest the establishment nowadays. Excellent work "Carriers", a joy to listen to, and thank you for your efforts.

@ArmouredCarriers

Жыл бұрын

It is cgi. And yes it is amazing. I found it as a standalone clip. But I will have to find out where it came from

@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684

Жыл бұрын

@@ArmouredCarriers I suspected it was too good to be true. It certainly fooled my now subpar eyes. Thanks for the confirmation "Carriers". PS Just rewatched it, and its frighteningly good CGI.... ah well another nail in the coffin of recorded history as "newly discovered footage" of the scuttling actions onboard Bismarck on the 27th is released.

Thank you for posting this fascinating and priceless history (as ever!). Very insightful listening to the different memories and thoughts of the pilots. Includes an interesting and perhaps sadly realistic perspective on the sometimes less than auspicious history of 20th RN Capital ship command. Brave serviceman all.

Such great work!

Splendid series. Kudos.

@SKILLED521

Жыл бұрын

There's no such thing as too much Swordfish footage, is there?

@ArmouredCarriers

Жыл бұрын

It's a matter of finding enough footage that complements the narrative ...

@SKILLED521

Жыл бұрын

@@ArmouredCarriers : Your editing in above par. Crisp. The work you put into the videos shows.

@ArmouredCarriers

Жыл бұрын

@@SKILLED521 Thanks. I try. I'm learning. But I'm mostly doing this for myself - it's a good excuse to delve into what I enjoy and share it with others of a like mind.

Listening to videos like this with people even involved in the operations, always shows to me how little they actually knew. I had a big fat book once of eye witness stories of various USN naval battles of WW2, and the mistakes in it as far as knowledge went amazed me. It shows that people involved in wars, really only know their small view of it. Anyone who listens to war veteran know they are often more wrong then right in their stories... that said, I still enjoy hearing them. I just take them with a grain of salt.

@ArmouredCarriers

Жыл бұрын

Yes. It helps explain the myths - but also the motivations - of those who were there. But, at the same time, they get their personal experiences right. And that adds another layer to the "accurate" histoyr.

@alganhar1

Жыл бұрын

@@ArmouredCarriers Absolutely, the accounts of veterans are indeed valuable, but they are valuable as *part* of the historical record, not as all of it. All too often I have heard people say well those who were there know all about it, fact is that is utter trash. The pilot criticising the Captain of the Hood for his approach for example is a classic example of how wrong veterans can be, especially when commenting on something they were not there to see. Fact is Hood HAD to close, she needed to get out of the zone of plunging fire as quickly as possible, that is why she closed as she did. Her armour, which was actually comparable to the Bismarck's (if an older layout) had a good chance of withstanding the 15 inch fire from Bismarck, her deck armour however had zero chance of withstanding 15 inch plunging fire. It's things like that which highlight why, while important, veterans accounts should not be taken as absolute gospel.

@ArmouredCarriers

Жыл бұрын

@@alganhar1 Also absolutely. It's also why I include some of these incorrect opinions. They existed. They guided the thoughts of the time. They help explain how so many misconceptions enter the "mythology" often expanded and transmitted by well-meaning historians. I guess the danger is I try to avoid editoralising (beyond content selection, of course). I try to include contradicting opinions and views. In this case, his Hood argument won't get a counterpont until I do that episide.

@theonlymadmac4771

Жыл бұрын

@@alganhar1 the captain of the Hood is not to blame, as he had an admiral on board, so he just went, where he was told to go

Those seas were absolutely tremendous. Even Bismarck weighing in at - what - almost 50,000 tons, was bouncing about like a Airfix model. God knows how those pilots managed to take off and land on those reciprocating ski-run carrier decks. And imagine being up in that vile weather in open cockpits for hours on end, gradually freezing numb whilst still having to perform a host of technical tasks and think quick and clearly. Men were certainly Men in those days! None of THEM went around fretting about their pronouns...

Just noticed that you enjoy Drach. Wonderful channel.

The clips of model ships are from Sink The Bismark film from 1968

Airmen were famous for complaining that sailors were terrible at airplane recognition and were always firing on friendly aircraft, however, it would seem pilot's and observers weren't much better. Mistaking Sheffield for Bismark and making a full on attack. Only dumb luck and good seamanship saved Sheffield from a repeat of Hood.

Flight crews were extremely brave, as a pilot i respect them fully in these conditions. However someone did not train them in ship recognition properly. Half a mile out, the ship in side view at very slow speed it was obvious what ship it was, type, funnels, flags and not firing at them. Plus giving them torpedoes unsuitable for the weather.

"The initial sighting report is a very simple. You do just say: From So-And-So, one BS, one battleship and its bearing, followed by confirmation report on battleship and its bearing and distance from you, and your own position. it is fairly simple." :-))

Amazing! TFP

Imagine they sunk Sheffield and Bismarck got away

Very brave men and very lucky too

Hood was too far close to completion by the time Jutland was fought. The British navy just completed her and hoped no one would notice.

@alganhar1

Жыл бұрын

Wrong. her construction was paused while the battle was analysed and her design adjusted with those lessons in mind. As a result of those redesigns Hoods Armour was massively increased. While originally designed as a Battlecruiser, and laid down as such, you could argue, with a good deal of justification that by the time she was completed she was in fact the worlds first Fast Battleships, twenty years before the Fast Battleships were laid down. Her melt armour was actually comparable to contemporary battleships, certainly far better than the Kongo's which were actually completed as battlecruisers. Hood, was a Battlecruiser in name only. Hoods real armour weakness was not her main belt armour, but her deck armour. Hood was built in a period where large Armour piercing bombs did not exist (so decks did not need to be armoured against such weapons), and where battleship sized plunging fore was impossible due to the Fire Control systems of the period being utterly incapable of actually hitting anything at those ranges. A significant up armouring of her deck armour was planned in her refit, however she never got that refit as she was sunk. Had she survived, with the KGV's coming on line it is absolutely certain that she would have been going in for that refit later in the year of her sinking. Probably within months.

I don't think this attack made the film, did it? I'm happy no one died from friendly fire (I hope).

I believe these veterans should have been given the right to "Share" their stories of there fight to live ! At the time they were able and facilities available.

The Bismarck , as with the Scharnhorst , should of surrendered when there was no hope for escape. Both captains should of put their crew before pleasing diabolical Adolf Hitler. That would show real character and not cowardice.

Mr. Armoured Carrier, You made a typo in your article about the HMS Indomitable.(about Operation Pedestal.) *And one more question, Would I use your site's article?

@ArmouredCarriers

Жыл бұрын

I'm sure I made far more than one! And yes, you are welcome to do so (but please link back to the website in return)

@painfield6022

Жыл бұрын

@@ArmouredCarriers thank you!

The Catalina that found the Bismark had a American on board. This was in 1940 and the United States was supposed to be a neutral.