This video helps illustrates why government officials in all the WWI "winner" countries were motivated to negotiate and sign the 1923 Washington naval agreement. Building ships like the G3 would have been very expensive when none of the governments involved wanted to increase their defense spending.

@clashman7564

4 жыл бұрын

Still the washington was really lame. Money ruins everything.

The Royal Navy's design bureau started creating more useful designs once they catched the guy who kept sneaking all the drugs and alcohol inside te building.

@ajobdunwell2585

5 жыл бұрын

Did they promote him?

@MacTrom1

4 жыл бұрын

87

@diamonddog257

4 жыл бұрын

wrong ... they were restricted to drinking glue.

@paulbrozyna3006

3 жыл бұрын

Yeah, cos nothing good was ever created on drugs and booze...

Listening to the specifications, it took until 8:30 for me to remember this was a battlecruiser

@lafeelabriel

2 жыл бұрын

Honestly could make a very strong case for them being battlecruisers in name only.

It’s an absolute crime how callously and unsentimentally Britain has disposed of its military history. From having scrapped every single battleship they ever made, to dumping L96 rifles into the ocean, Britain has sought to destroy as much of their military heritage as the establishment can get its hands on.

@johnlavery3433

3 жыл бұрын

Blame the Tories, they hate the British military. The only ones they protect are the civilian killers

@silverhost9782

3 жыл бұрын

British culture nowadays does rather revolve around being shamed by others for the empire. So not surprising that most of its memory is being disposed of year by year

@mikemcghin5394

2 жыл бұрын

L96 rifles? What are those And why didn't scrap them two

@raymartcarreon6069

2 жыл бұрын

@@mikemcghin5394 The L96 rifle is the British designation for the Famous AWP/AWM sniper rifle, commonly found on FPS games such as the Counter-Strike Series. And yes, I wonder too why they wouldn't just try to scrap them or put them to a warehouse, not like the fishes can use those things,can they?

@mikemcghin5394

2 жыл бұрын

@@raymartcarreon6069 OK thanks you I thought it was a navy long gun

Now I can tell my friends that my gamer name is based on a proposed British cruiser.

@KillianoC

4 жыл бұрын

But crucially will they appreciate it/know if you’re telling the truth/care? Lol

Just think, WoWs could have had these ships be the tier 9/10 Battleships of the British Battleship line with Nelson at tier 8 or 7...

@Ensign_Cthulhu

6 жыл бұрын

One of the designs not covered here is in the game as Conqueror at Tier 10. Her secondary and anti-aircraft armaments have been modified to be in line with the 1940s instead of the 1920s, but they are said to be derived from the L2 design. In effect, the Conqueror is an L2-class ship as she might have been reconstructed in the late 1930s.

@Akm72

6 жыл бұрын

Yes and no. The armour layout on the Conqueror makes it closer to the real-world Vanguard class than the L2, but scaled up from 15 inch to 18 inch guns. The L2 would have had an internal sloped armour belt like the Nelson class whereas the in-game Conqueror has an external unsloped belt like the King George V class and Vanguard and as the Lion class would have had if built.

@themadhammer3305

5 жыл бұрын

If Wargamming ever decide to split the lines into battleships and battlecruisers then these ships may well make an appearance. Probably like you have stated as the Tier 10 of that line

@yayeet7274

5 жыл бұрын

And Verse the Yamato, Midway and the Iowa..... makes sense to me

@themadhammer3305

5 жыл бұрын

@@yayeet7274 they'd probably be competitive, especially if Wargamming gave them a B hull with improved AA

Thank you for the video! Started watching you from “Hotels go to war” guide. Only thing I shall admit is that human voice is so much better than robot one :)

Without doubt, this is the most interesting and informative video I’ve ever watched about a class of ships that were never built!

Another suggestion I've seen is that the "Saints" would've been the names assigned to the N3 battleships, and that the G3 battlecruisers would've been named Invincible, Inflexible, Indomitable, and Indefatigable. At any rate, if the Washington Naval Treaty had never happened, I strongly suspect that the G3 and N3 designs would've been been revised before construction to place the third turret forward of the bridge, as was actually done with the Nelson-class. That all-forward layout was universal to the different designs considered for the Nelsons, both the O3 design that was actually adopted and the F2 and F3 treaty-compliant battlecruisers (with 3x2 or 3x3 15" guns) that were considered. Incidentally, I consider the F3 to be something of a masterpiece of capital ship design. On a displacement of only 35000 tons it would've had armor close to that of the much later 45000 ton Iowa-class battleships, and a design speed of 29 knots. And given the broad similarities to the Nelsons, I'm fairly confident it would've exceeded that design speed. Even with engines in need of an overhaul, Rodney was able to make 25 knots (design speed was only 23) in the rush to intercept Bismarck.

@Akm72

6 жыл бұрын

Good post, but are you sure about the Rodney making 25 knots? I vaguely remember reading about some banter between Rodney and KGV to the effect that the KGV's 23 knots was faster than the Rodney's 23 knots.

@Larry_Harper_Lindsey

5 жыл бұрын

@@Akm72 That was "22 knots" that Captain Darymple-Hamilton of HMS Rodney famously told Admiral Tovey his ship was capable of during the chase, and that HMS King George V's 22 knots was faster than Rodney's 22 knots.

@Akm72

5 жыл бұрын

Ok, thanks for the correction!

@sergarlantyrell7847

5 жыл бұрын

Only I think it was meant to only have 15" 50 caliber guns, rather than the 16" ones of either Nelson or Iowa.

@DavidMartin-ym2te

5 жыл бұрын

Highly unlikely the G3 design would have been amended; there was surely no reason to do this in late 1922. The plans had been signed off, the yards given the orders (3 on the Clyde and one on the Tyne) and the new footings for the keels had been added to the respective slipways. Only the names had not been allocated. I also suspect (give that the other 3 Admirals were Rodney, Anson and Howe, and Rodney was used for the subsequent O3,) the same names (or certainly some of them) would have been given to the G3s. Speculation - fun ain't it?

This type of ship was featured in the Alternative History series "Kirov" that was what peaked by interest. Fascinating presentation thanks for the hard work and research. Remember, countries can build anything it only cost money.

Wow!!! A British battlecruiser that I actually like!? Man - the N3 and G3 look like they would have been FANTASTIC 'dreadnoughts'. It's too bad they never got built. Thank you very much for this video.

@jamesfisher5233

3 жыл бұрын

You don’t like Hood, Renown or Repulse? 😢

@McRocket

3 жыл бұрын

@@jamesfisher5233 I think all three were under-armoured for the roles they were given.

@grandadmiralraeder9608

Жыл бұрын

@@McRocket renown and repulse sure. But not Hood... (yes I know Hood blew up spectacularly, but she was still very heavily armoured)

@McRocket

Жыл бұрын

@@grandadmiralraeder9608 Not her deck armor. That's why her captain was so desperate to close the distance with Bismarck. To stop plunging fire on her decks. ✌

@grandadmiralraeder9608

Жыл бұрын

@@McRocket i know

I've always (for like 1 year) wondered about these ships and have found you because of it. You earn a sub, great work.

These things would have been about as dangerous in surface engagement as Yamato or Iowa if they were actually built. Making them a decade ahead of their time.

@davidharner5865

Жыл бұрын

Yamato or Iowa? As if they were of an equal power. The Montanas, however...

@jackwardley3626

7 ай бұрын

@@davidharner5865 Iowa's should never be compared to a Yamato class ship to ship as Iowa's are fast battleships with long range and the yamato's being the main line of battle battleship the montana's yes would have been their equal.

Imagining G3 chased after the Bismarck instead of the Hood

These videos are really interesting, thanks for making them.

Nice video, looking forward to your Nelson Class guide!

I would be interested in you having a video on number of guns in turrets. What were reasons to go with dual versus triple, etc.

Amazing videos man, you made my dream channel.

Love the dig at the rubber ducky navy.

That was a great video Drach

Thanks for this info. Never knew about the G-3 class before watching this.

These ships would have been absolute madness and a possible game over moment in a naval arms race which was to never be joined

The G3 class were really only battlecruisers in the context of the 18 inch gunned N3 class. The 40mm pompom was ballistically never the best weapon in its class, but at the time it was introduced, eight of them in the one mount must have seemed like a pretty fierce proposition. The British should probably have just put their foot down, announced they were going to build all four and scrap the R class in return, and promised to play nice after that.

@llllib

5 жыл бұрын

Why R class? They still had Iron Dukes at that time... But anyway, it would not have gotten through with Washington naval treaty... which would quite possibly be a good thing for the empire - but perhaps not, who knows, maybe instead of WW2 against nazis there would be one against colonialism and US/UK would be adversaries.

@jonathanevans4610

5 жыл бұрын

@@llllib I think a lot of people see the R classes lack of usefulness in a ww2 context and assume they were a poor design, where as they could stand toe to toe with anything other the the Colorado and Nagato classes they just lacked the desk space and spare displacement to be upgraded. The QE's extra space and speed meant they got what little cash the RN had to modernise the battlefleet.

@llllib

5 жыл бұрын

@@jonathanevans4610 That's fine, but at the time R class would be considered, there were still older warships - pre-QE class Iron Duke. Those would be first candidates for replacement, before R class.

@llllib

5 жыл бұрын

Sorry instead of R class in the beginning, read G3/N3 class. Simply put why waste R class before wasting Iron Dukes. But anyway it's all alternative history.

@jackbharucha1475

5 жыл бұрын

They might not have been able to put up the funds.

Shame these beautiful and powerful ships weren't build...

@Diego-zz1df

6 жыл бұрын

The Washington Naval Treaty. This is why we can't have nice things. Thank Lucifer that Japan, Italy and Germany decided to ignore it, otherwise we wouldn't even have the Yamatos, Littorios and Bismarcks.

@juri8723

6 жыл бұрын

Diego Salvati do not worship the devil, even in name.

@brianspendelow840

6 жыл бұрын

I agree budgets are a bitch. How about doing the real battlecruiser HMS New Zealand of the Indefatigable class. Not to be confused with the pre dreadnought that was re-named Zealandia when New Zealand decided to pay for a ship. She fought in all three major battles.

@Tuning3434

6 жыл бұрын

+Brian Spendelow In my honest opinion, somebody needs to show he took the expenses to visit every museum battleship in the world (HMS Victory, IJN Mikasa, USS Iowa, etc, etc) and a dive trip to the IJN Nagato before he would earn the distinction of complaining about battleship budgets in a time where people in the US where still dying from Pellegra in the '20s, '30s. I like cool as much as anybody else, but there are priorities.

@melangellatc1718

5 жыл бұрын

What the fuck is wrong with you people??!???!? Every one of these ships built is money taken from education, healthcare, etc.... Before you whine, I took a tank company downrange with 1AD during Desert Storm....... FUCK YOU!

The G3 class, made to counter the Belgian FAL class

I’m seriously wondering how these ships were going to achieve their design speed. Consider that they are roughly the same size as an Iowa though slightly shorter (which is a negative) and slightly narrower. Both ships are close in terms of standard and deep load displacement as designed. And yet they have managed (in theory) to be only 1 knot slower on 160k SHP vs the 212k of the Iowa’s. It’s worth noting that on trial in 1943 New Jersey need 163k SHP to achieve 29 knots. I just can’t see the G3 making its designed speed. Thoughts?

@ashharris7293

4 жыл бұрын

Exactly. 160K was not going to get it there. Those were 27 knot ships.

@Ensign_Cthulhu

4 жыл бұрын

The senior constructors actually had a bet going on that, so there were dissenting opinions even among the designers. It's worth noting, though, that the British were very, VERY experienced in the field of hull form development and hydrodynamic testing, more so and extending further back than any other navy.

@jetdriver

4 жыл бұрын

So I’ve since done some research based on actual speed trials of the Iowa’s when they were brought back into service. When you look at the speeds they ran then at the displacements they ran you can then calculate how a change in displacement would have changed their speed. Apply this to the G3’s at their planned displacements and the math works. The Iowa’s of course it turned out could make their designed speed at well above their designed displacement. So had the G3’s entered service it’s very likely that they would have suffered the same weight growth as the Iowa’s and the result would have been a ship that was in reality several knots slower.

@Kieselmeister

3 жыл бұрын

The Iowa's don't have an optimally hydrodynamic hull shape due to the fact that the design had to be squished a bit to fit through the Panama Canal (the sections at the widest point that are straight instead of curved). This also compromised the effectiveness of the torpedo protection. The ideal shape would have been about 6ft (2m) wider at the beam.

@Kieselmeister

3 жыл бұрын

@William MyersThe equations which represent how increasing horsepower increases speed are cubic curve, and doubling the speed requires more than double the horsepower. Also Vanguard isn't necessarily the greatest comparison to the Iowa class. She was significantly lighter than the Iowas, being over 3,400 tons smaller standard displacement, and 6,000 tons smaller at full load. (Treaty standard load was without fuel and boiler water to avoid penalizing navies with long range requirements.) Then there is the fact that British sea trials were conducted at half fuel load and also running at overload power, compared to USN trials being conducted at design load and power. In effect Vanguard's trial speed of around 31.5 knots was obtained while she was ~3500 tons underweight, and also at 136,000 HP instead of 130,000. (At design load instead she would be about a knot slower) Meanwhile the closest I can find for the Iowas was some data from one of the 1985 reactivations. With the engines running at 186,400 hp giving 31 knots at 56,900 tons, (with probably some minor fouling due to being 71 days since the bottom was last cleaned.) This gives a HP per ton at ~31 knots of 3.3 for the Iowas, compared to 2.8 for the Vanguard trial, which would seem to confirm a more efficient hull form. However, the Iowas did also have a bulbous bow designed for 32.5 knots, which was less efficient at any other speed, while the Vanguard's was instead designed for 30 knots and was already running faster than that on a shallow draft during the trial which muddles things. With the way ship's power curves work, ships have a design speed beyond which the power required to further increase the speed starts to grow exponentially. Increasing the Vanguard's horsepower to 181,500, to be proportional by displacement to the Iowa's 212,000, might not actually allow her to reach the Iowa's design speed of 32.5 knots because she's already past her optimum. For example, the calculated speed estimate for a trial displacement Iowa at their 120% design overload power only adds one knot of extra speed (33.5) for 42,400 extra horsepower.

I knew it's gonna be a Nelson because the island looked kind of like the Nelson island

double post but those 16-inch guns were the weapons that did the really nasty things to the Bismarck they cracked open the conning tower liquefying Lindemann and luitjens and most certainly silenced the two forward turrets

This is really high grade stuff. Keep it up.

Now that's quite the legacy by sinking a battleship I.e. Bismarck from beyond the proverbial grave.

Fun to speculate what would have happened if these had still been around by the time of WW2 (although other navies may have responded by then) look like great designs. It always seems like the RN manages to come up with great designs that never get built (in time) and ends up stuck with short term stop gap designs (that generally do well) that are then in service for long periods.... still happening today.

Wish I had scale models of every ship mentioned on this channel. 😯🇬🇧🇯🇵🇺🇸

@penkagenova7073

3 жыл бұрын

You would have like 200 ships

Question for the drydock: as the battleships and battlecruisers had armoured decks, why did the decks have wooden layer on top of them? This looks clashing a bit to have an oasis of timber in the desert of steel.

@dovetonsturdee7033

4 жыл бұрын

The teak provided greater insulation from heat, which steel didn't, and was much more slip resistant when wet, or splashed with oil or grease. Slip resistant material (Corticene in smaller RN ships of the period, a form of linoleum) could have been used, but wore out quickly and was harder to replace than teak planking. There was also an element of tradition, in that teak decks were easier to keep clean & smart, which kept the First Lieutenant happy.

Brilliant!!!

The question becomes, given that these ships were so powerful - was there any real point to the N3? Would the RN not have been better off simply buying more G3s?

@themadhammer3305

4 жыл бұрын

It's likely more G3s would have been the better option. While the N3 was more heavily armed and armoured they were also significantly slower 23 knots vs 32 knots as designed. Had the G3 been completed it's likely they would have found a niche similar to the Iowa class as fast carrier escorts and may have survived into the cold war provided they weren't broken or sunk during WW2

@cadengrace5466

4 жыл бұрын

This is no reason to believe that the design numbers would be achieved. The Nelson class was something a busted design and she tells all we need to know about how great this and N3 would have been. Many argue they were cut down versions and thus not as good, but the design is the design. The execution is not under debate. British ships always came out slower and heavier than designed and lost speed badly over their life time. These would have been no better than the Nelson's turned out to be.

@stephenpickering8063

4 жыл бұрын

@@cadengrace5466 On the contrary if you read up on the Nelson's history their problems with the guns was largely because of steps taken to reduce weight to meet the 35kton limits imposed after the WNT. Furthermore, apart from the size enabling more refits and upgrades the big difference would have been the speed. This was mostly what was lacking with the RN capital ships in WWII and why it was often difficult to force enemy ships to combat. A single G3 at Denmark Straits, especially with a small refit to include modified FC, especially radar and the Bismarck is very likely toast there and then, The only case I know of British ships coming out significantly slower was the Queen Elizabeth class, which made them a conspicuous exception,

@cadengrace5466

4 жыл бұрын

@@stephenpickering8063 You need to dig deeper on the British shipbuilding issues. All of the British super-dreadnoughts hit the water heavier and slower than design, even Hood. As for the guns, it was not the reduced weight that made them such poor weapons, which is what everyone tries to assert, it was the basic philosophy of a light shell and high muzzle velocity. The next thing that made them bad mounts was the triple guns. The British had so little experience in organizing a triple layout, because a twin always met their need. When they had to produce one, they were figuring it all out when many other nations had already cut their teeth on the basic problems. By the time the quads on KGV came along, the British had yet to to get it all in order. You may notice that the French got around this problem by building Siamese twins into their quad turrets. That is why their guns are spaced the way they are, they are really two twin mounts sharing one turret. The speed issue was even worse for the British then when a ship launched when you consider that the British, like the Italians used "speed screws" when running acceptance trials by the builders before commissioning. This produced higher and hopefully design speed but even with this set up the ships came in slower. Once they were commissioned into the fleet, they would have regular screws back on and the speed dropped even more. The Rs a re a good example, designed for 23 knots, trailed at 22 and in service were lucky to hit 19.

@stephenpickering8063

4 жыл бұрын

@@cadengrace5466 Well its a choice of accepting you or just about every naval reference I've come across so I think I will go with the latter. The use of alternative materials and lighter construction as the source of problems with the Nelson guns is similarly mentioned just about everywhere. The use of a lighter shell and higher velocity does seem to have been a mistake, due to a misreading of experience at Jutland, but that makes them a less efficient shell. It doesn't affect the reliability of the actual turrets themselves. Building a new design with the Nelson was a big task because unlike the G3's they were treaty restricted, which was a reason why the treaty was such a disaster for the UK. As it is in attempt to make sure they weren't breaching the treaty they actually came out over 1,000 tons under weight. With the Hood are you thinking of its initial design as a fast BC rather than how it was actually built? Given it had about 5,000 tons added after construction was started it's not at all surprising it didn't make the initial design. As well as causing other problems like making it a very wet ship forward.

Can't wait to see a vid on the absurd H-class battleship proposals

@bkjeong4302

4 жыл бұрын

ReinStein He already made that video.

welp world of warships just added the battlecruiser variant for early access, The tier 10 Battlecruiser is called St. Vincent and is the G3 armed with the 18 inch, and the Tier 9 is the G3 armed with 16.5 inch guns named Duncan.

@jeffery7281

2 жыл бұрын

St. Vincent is I3 Class, an early version design of G3, try to see what could they get if didn't considered how large the shipyard was. The I3 is significantly larger than G3, a monster with 18 inch guns, 14 inch armor and 32 knots of speed, weighted almost 50,000 tonnes. She's, literally, a Nelson with 29 knots.

@32bevula

6 ай бұрын

That model of the G3 is amazing. . Should be mass produced for a real centerpiece of your living room.

A shame the British followed the rules and did not ignore them like others, they should have built these ships to be better prepared for what was to come. thank you for doing these video's

I wondered how they wound up looking like that, thanks.

A fascinating video! I will watch it at least 1 more time! Are there more models of these un-built ships? Where are they? Would you do a short video showing all of them? Have you thought about a video on the powder room /loading systems of the British battle cruisers?? Or how the British ships were as fast as the Iowa class with 50,000 less h.p.?

@Drachinifel

6 жыл бұрын

Sam Stewart it depends on which ship, some never-built ships have a lot of models for them, others few or none. With regards to speed, I suspect it was a combination of two things, firstly the aim for 32 instead of 33 knots, at high speed even 1 knot means a lot more power. Secondly because the Iowa was to a certain degree a stretched South Dakota the hull form was probably not perfect for high speeds, whereas G3 was designed for such speed from the start. It's notable that slight revisions to the later but never-built Iowa hulls were supposed to make them significantly more efficient at high speed.

@jonsouth1545

6 жыл бұрын

the UK did allot of research into Hydrodynamics in the early 1920s it's why when launched the Nelson was one of the fasted Battleship classes in the world and was only 1/2 a knot slower than the QE despite having just over half the engine power of the QE and being significantly heavier than the earlier desgin

@samstewart4807

6 жыл бұрын

another review said that ship had poor steering and was unbalanced?

@fyorbane

5 жыл бұрын

@@Drachinifel And that transom stern adds to the high speed efficiency.

Excellent video, as always, even better in your natural voice. Could you please do a video on the U.S.S. Indianapolis, CA 35?

@Drachinifel

6 жыл бұрын

Matthew Robinson sure

@sarjim4381

6 жыл бұрын

Yes, please use your own voice rather than irritating text to voice software. You have a very pleasant English accent and can actually correctly speak naval terms.

@Drachinifel

6 жыл бұрын

No worries, you're stuck with my real voice now :)

The "Yamato" is pronouonced "yuh MAH to", not "YUH muh to ". Unusual designs that led to a more reasonable Nelson/Rodney class with a more Centralized main battery on the ships.

WoWs Tier 9. That'd be good. And the N3 is Tier 10. Moreover they're impressive ships. Their speed would have made them very useful in WW2. And nice retouched pics too.

Remember the Colorado's speed wasn't an issue. It's mission was to sail to the Philippines and deal with any invaders at hand. It waited for the war to come to it, not to chase down opponents.

@Cailus3542

3 жыл бұрын

British experience in WW1 showed the problems with that, as British battleships consistently struggled to force a decisive engagement. It’s why the American Standards were virtually obsolete by WW2, and why the attack on Pearl Harbour had such little strategic impact.

@LV_CRAZY

3 жыл бұрын

@@Cailus3542 destroying the American surface fleet at Pearl Harbor was of extreme strategic importance. The question is were all battleships obsolescent by 1942, as supreme capital ships? Anyway the American strategy was that the fight was coming to them. The Germans in WW1 where holed up in their waters, and the American battleships would be in the Philippines. The decisive difference was the Germans weren't building the world's largest Navy as the months went by, American industry was. The difference was a million Filipinos wouldn't have been killed by the Japanese.

The stats sound rather fanciful. What's the likelihood they would have been able to actually meet those specs?

@the_undead

3 жыл бұрын

Everything apart from the speed would have been perfectly reachable by the British ship building industry in that time, I'm not too convinced on the speed though.

I bet HMS St.Patric would have had the best port calls out of the four possibly constructed ships.

Have you thought of doing the other designs mentioned here and the N3 video?

@Drachinifel

5 жыл бұрын

Yeah, they're just much further down the list :)

Can you do videos about the French Battleship Gascogne and an another one about the French Battlship Alsace ? Both those ships were never build but they look very interesting

@Diego-zz1df

6 жыл бұрын

I'd like that too, but FYI, the Gascogne was partially covered in his video about the Richelieu.

@musanix1212

6 жыл бұрын

yeah but few seconds there is way more things to say about gascogne than just say that she's an improved Richelieu

@RedXlV

6 жыл бұрын

And Alsace has plenty to discuss, because there were three distinct versions that France considered. Two 35,000 ton designs with either 3x3 380mm or 3x3 406mm guns, and the better-known 45,000 ton design we've seen in World of Warships with 3x4 380mm.

@Drachinifel

6 жыл бұрын

We can look at them in more detail in a future video

I've always understood, courtesy of Oscar Parkes in 'British Battleships', that the G3 battlecruisers would have the names of the first four British Battlecruisers: Invincible, Inflexible, Indomitable and Indefatigable...

In the illustration at 0:10 the devices on top of the tops are trained the same direction as the guns - are those supposed to be directional radar, or range-finders, or something else?

Am I correct in saying the 18inch guns were actually built?

do you have one on HMS Kent D12 or the other County-class destroyer

Have to love the Colorados. Everything could and should run away.

Boulbous bows would have made a remarkable improvement on efficiency.

6：55 can anyone explain where did this photo come from???(plus the front cover of this video) , since i remember N3 class is just a blueprint but these 2 photos look real tbh. i am rlly interested by these 2 photos.

World of Warships. Put in this ship already Update: aaand they ruined it by making her T9, having it be 16.5” guns (despite clearly using the mast and superstructure layout and stern of the final design), and replacing the forward super firing pair of 6” turrets removed and placing an extra pair of 4.5” BD turrets on top of the removed 6” turrets' barbettes

this makes me wonder how expensive is it (relatively) is it to design ships? countries seem to just not design ships to save money but then they don't have anything to turn to when they need something like in the case of ww1 England. I mean even one person that knows what they are doing doodling in the basement with vague instructions from the navy would save months or years of time and effort.

any plans to do hms incomparable?

I find it interesting that the secondary gun turrets would have had sloped armor while the main turrets had flat faced armor which is not as effective as sloped armor in preventing penetrations.

@Drachinifel

6 жыл бұрын

Kwolfx sloped armour on main turrets enlarges the turret footprint considerably, so the choice between thinner sloped armour of just making a turret face thicker depends on if you value saving space or displacement more. I'm a G3 the vertical approach with more thickness would save space and weight as it meant less citadel armour was needed.

@Kwolfx

6 жыл бұрын

The KGV battleships also had the same type of turret so weight weight and space savings (cost savings when you get down to the important details) must have been important in those ships as well. However, almost every other major Navy in the world chose to slope their turret armor to a greater degree after WW1. Only the French Richelieu class with it's quad turrets comes close to the G3 design though I think they had a higher degree of slope than the G3.

@Drachinifel

6 жыл бұрын

Definitely, KGV was trying to squeeze everything into a 35k ton weight limit. The Germans and Italians didn't care about the Treaty weight limits and the North Carolina's scraped in just after the activation of the escalator clause. Sloped turret armour is a bit of an interesting one, since it makes your turret much harder to hurt at short-medium range but technically makes it more vulnerable to long range plunging fire.

@michaelsnyder3871

5 жыл бұрын

The sloped turret armor was a reflection of early engagement ranges were the ballistic impact of shells would be closer to the horizontal. The extension of effective range during WW1 to nearly the horizon (22-24,000 yards) and farther with aerial spotting in the '30s (over 30,000 yards) made this a design flaw, putting the turret face closer to the 90 degree angle which is best for shell penetration. The vertical turret face was a better choice, even though the RN designed its capital ships for a 16,000 yard engagement range (which explains the emphasis on protection over firepower), where the US and japan were looking at engagement ranges over 30,000 yards. It also gave more volume in the turret for mechanical systems, especially since the RN stuck to steam powered hydraulics.

The ULTIMATED battlecruiser.

when is the ST, Vincent coming out is she going to be a premium ship if so what's the coast I want it

1:30 that is clearly a world class navy

Could you do a Plan Z special PLEASE

@Drachinifel

5 жыл бұрын

Your wish is my command: kzread.info/dash/bejne/eqqFzJSofZmfebw.html

Bathurst class corvette please

Can anyone tell me what the ship is, at 6:55? Tnx. (It looks like what a G3 was going to be, but no G3s were made, so...........???)

Why not put the aftmost turret at the stern and engines in the middle?

yeah I could never figure the use by the USN of triple-expansion steam engines over turbines

@jefferyindorf699

5 жыл бұрын

Two words, FUEL ECONOMY. The first turbines were direct drive, that is the turbines were directly connected to the propellers. You can only turn propellers so fast. That meant that the turbines had to run at a slow RPM, which was not as fuel efficient as the old triple expansion engines. This was eventually solved by use of geared turbines which were connected to the propeller shaft by a very large gear box which allowed higher RPM's which made them far more economical. The American navy at that time was considered a "defensive" force intended to defend the continental US, so the slower top speed was accepted. The US eventually developed the turbine- electric drive this was used in the later standard battleships.

Can we please hear about the USS Tennessee ?

Don't forget that the South Dakota and Lexington classes were being built on the Slipways

@GG-ir1hw

4 жыл бұрын

They wouldn't have stood up to the G3s in reality by any measure. The lexingtons had armour comparable to the Invincible class of a 6 or 7 inch belt and about 2" at deck armour at the most. Compare this to the G3 which had twice the belt armour at 14" and four times the deck armour at 8"... They also had 1 less 16" gun at 8 V's 9 on the G3 class. There only advantage was speed of 33knots compared to 32knots of the G3. Given how lightweight they were and the fact the Nelson class exceeded their design speed I even doubt this would be totally in their favour in anything but calm seas. Interms of the South Dokotas, they were I believe expected to reach only 21knots... Which isn't great by early 1920s standards. They had about similar levels of protection to the G3s with slightly less deck armour. There only advantage was a broadside of 12 X 16" guns V's the G3's 9 X 16" gun. Should I even mention the N3?

@knight-ot3ji

4 жыл бұрын

@@GG-ir1hw N3 vs Tillman

@GG-ir1hw

4 жыл бұрын

knight 9247 The Tillman’s apart from being unable to squeeze through 95% of the worlds canals or docks would’ve also been huge slow moving targets for the HMS Incomparable’s greater ranged 20” guns... while HMS incomparable would be keep her self out of range and a hard target to hit at 35knots. All while being significantly smaller ships that could actually dock at and pass through many more locations... However for the most part the Tillman and Incomparable designs were nothing more than naval officers wet dreams and didn’t really ever have a shot of being built. Unlike these designs however the South Dakota’s and N3s (by extension the Lexington’s and G3s) however we’re contemporaries that had a chance of actually seeing the light of day. Thus when we compare these paper ships it’s clear the N3s and G3s take the cake over their American counterparts...

@jamessummitt5768

3 жыл бұрын

Where do you get these pictures from if they were never built?

The Saints names would never have been used for various reasons. G3's would more likely be named Invincible, Inflexible etc. N3's would probably never have been built due to cost. By the way the finances for the G3 class was actually set aside.

No wonder England pushed for the Washington naval treaty. This ship made the QE 2& R classes plus all earlier ships (13 12" gunned & 14 13.5" gun BS/BC) obsolete just as the Dreadnaught had done only decade & a half earlier. I understand England was financially spent after the Great War. Could England have afforded matching the USN's 10 Lex & So Dak class ships under construction plus match the IJN Kaga, KII, Amagi & No 13 classed??

How about the N3s?

@Drachinifel

6 жыл бұрын

Upan will do :)

Where is the Gangut aka Oktyabrskaya Revolutsiya?

I don't see the G3 in the list, so will this be covered next video as it ties in with this video?

@Drachinifel

6 жыл бұрын

combatmikearms I imagine you mean the N3?

@combatmikearms

6 жыл бұрын

Drachinifel sorry, yes the N3

@Diego-zz1df

6 жыл бұрын

Within the Royal Navy's HQ... Lead designer: "Here's our K3 design" Admiral: "This is insane, rejected" Lead designer: "OK, what about the K4 design?" Admiral: " Why does this have 4 20 inch guns?! What the hell were you thinking?" Lead designer: " I understand. Maybe the K5 will look better" [A couple of minutes later] Admiral: "Sigh... K8 is rejected as well..." Lead designer: [visible smirk] "Well, we have one more design..." Admiral: "...Did you just deliberately made me waste all this time, just to make a lame pun?"

Back when the Royal Navy used to be feared 😢😢 how times have changed 🤦🏻‍♂️🇬🇧

@Diego-zz1df

6 жыл бұрын

They're not the most feared, but they're feared. The Queen Elisabeth class aircraft carriers are no joke. Add to that their submarines, and they still remain quite powerfull.

@RedXlV

6 жыл бұрын

On the other hand, the Royal Navy's surface fleet is now smaller than South Korea's.

@fyorbane

5 жыл бұрын

@@Diego-zz1df Not forgetting those deadly new type 45 destroyers.

@republique4248

5 жыл бұрын

the emojis

@tomriley5790

5 жыл бұрын

@@Diego-zz1df QEs aren't worked up yet. Darings regularly break down, T26s are going to be built so slowly there's a good chance they'll be partly cancelled or out of date before the building program is completed. SSNs are good but at one point within the last few years they were all non-operational due to problems....

Where did the thumbnail come from?!?

Although the G3's were never built, at 7:28 there's a photo of one at sea; is this a model or photoshop? Thanks for these videos.

@dovetonsturdee7033

3 жыл бұрын

It is an 'adjustment' of a well-known picture of one of the Nelsons.

Just a thought: If you have fast battleships, do you really need battlecruisers?

@kyle857

5 жыл бұрын

Battlecruisers were the result of treaty restrictions. Not design doctorine. So. No.

@themadhammer3305

5 жыл бұрын

@@kyle857 battlecruisers were the result of British and German design doctrine prior to WW1 at the time there were no design treaties restricting what a nation could build or how many of them

@Fifthmiracle

4 жыл бұрын

Depends of the time frame really. It the 1910-1930's era the Battle-cruiser was just the Dreadnought version of the Armored Cruiser. Intended to killed enemy armored cruisers that might be deployed as commerce raiders. The secondary used was to destroy the enemies scouting cruisers, to prevent them from locating you battle-line and stripping you of your own destroyer screen. By the time you get to 1940's submarines and long range aircraft have existentially replaced cruisers as commerce raiders. A fast battleship wouldn't normally be risked as a commerce raider, or wasted on destroying scouting cruisers. It's essentially still a battle line unit; its just that the battle line is faster with all the flexibility that entails.

"six guns was considered too few" - anyone want to enlighten as to why? I understand it could make ranging shots tedious but it worked for Invincible

@Jpdt19

3 жыл бұрын

Primarily also I expect because a) the ships they planned to fight against had more than 6 and b) perhaps a degree of redundancy so if you lose a turret you still have 6 guns not 4.

"slightly over 5 min"

6:56 I know that image is fake, but that thing looks sexy

Ok well they had wanted the G3 to go fast but given the armor and everything that doesn’t mean it’ll actually go that fast, the Japanese had proposed that stupid 500,000 ton displacement battleship with I think 52 16 inch guns to go like 45 knots but That would probably be impossible

Some of the designs bore a great resemblance to HMS By Jove.

18” guns on a ‘battlecruiser’? Is that needed on what is intended to be a cruiser killer?

@boomboomf2268

3 жыл бұрын

Because by this point BCs had become proper battleline units rather than cruiser killers.

💪👏👍✌️

These pop-up ads are the volgers receiving funds or any monetary payments from KZread? I have seen them on videos that are definitely not considered to be paid by KZread. If not receiving any form of gratuity or funds I need to sue KZread!

@Drachinifel

5 жыл бұрын

You should not be seeing any ads on my videos.

If we had this vs the bismark the battle would of been a lot shorter.

Why not give it less belt armor and more deck armor? It is quite fast, so I think it can always choose to fight at long range. Belt armor is not important at long range.

@bkjeong4302

5 жыл бұрын

张笑寒 You need both good belt armour AND good deck armour, because most naval doctrines called for closing the range to increase accuracy.

@user-gr5wd1ml7y

5 жыл бұрын

Bk Jeong Well, that do make sense, as fire control is not very good at the time when this ship was designed. However I read from somewhere that there was an insane Japanese fast battleship design with 20 inch gun, super thick deck armor, 30+ knot speed and almost no belt armor.

@bkjeong4302

5 жыл бұрын

张笑寒 Actually, even after the Americans figured out fire control, long-range (30,000 yards or more) naval gunfire remained hilariously inaccurate.

@user-gr5wd1ml7y

5 жыл бұрын

Bk Jeong Shells do spread in a wide area. But why can’t just keep shooting for a longer time? How long can ammo or gun barrels sustain firing?

@bkjeong4302

5 жыл бұрын

张笑寒 They have a limited window of opportunity because battleship turrets only have a certain amount of shells stored in them. You need to land enough hits to sink the enemy ship before you run out of shells, and even with late-WWII American fire control, this is just not possible at ranges over 30,000 yards. The Iowas, with the best targeting equipment on any battleship ever, had only a 2.7% hit rate at that range (www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.php#Accuracy_During_World_War_II), and that was in tests and not under combat conditions. And this is with the very best gun and fire control available. Under these restrictions you would need to fire something like hundreds of shells to actually cause major damage. No battleship historically had that much ammunition, IIRC. So you absolutely have to close the range (to 20,000 yards or less) to have an acceptable chance at sinking the enemy.

All of this is amazing if it actually commissioned with the designed abilities. Extremely unlikely and these ships would probably have been very slow, more like 24 or 25 knots instead of 32.

@Jpdt19

3 жыл бұрын

I have to disagree. The RN may have pushed the boundaries of what was possible but they had the experience and knowledge to hit these goals. Notwithstanding ofc that there would have doubtless been teething problems to fix. Remember Hood wasn't much smaller or faster and she could achieve the same speeds.

...Why do you get into a naval arms race with a friendly country?

@THINKincessantly

Жыл бұрын

Its the Jewish thing to do

1:30 🤣😂

1.46 - that's the wrong US flag - the post 1959 one with 50 stars - the one with 48 stars would be correct 8.53 - St Patrick isn't a patron saint of Great Britain - he's the patron saint of Ireland, all of which was part of the United Kingdom until 1921, but was never a part of Great Britain which consists of England, Scotland and Wales

@TheGreenjacketbilly

4 жыл бұрын

Hes still patron saint of Northern Ireland which is still part of the UK.

Stupidly thicc (battlecruisers)

Do the Colorado

It is A pity the Washington treaty got in the way. INMO the treaty did not do the Royal Navy any favours and left it at a disadvantage when war started.

1:50 That is no Kongo class Battle Cruiser. But a Ishizuchi. Kongo class as 2 funnels, That ship has 3.

@Drachinifel

4 жыл бұрын

That's Kongo as originally built.

@jordansayas3957

4 жыл бұрын

@@Drachinifel I've heard of reconstructive surgery but she changed her entire appearance.....

@razy4ka

4 жыл бұрын

Ishizuchi was never built. Stop playing WoWS, please, or begin studying naval history, if you like it :/

These would have been England's most powerful battleships, ARE their most powerful battleships, ever designed.

Did anyone ever attach heavy caliber anti-aircraft guns to ships? I often wondered what would happen if German ships had flak 88s attached

@fg3893

5 жыл бұрын

EndTaysachs Heavy caliber dual purpose guns were used quite extensively by every major navy in ww2. The 127mm twin DP gun on many USN cruisers and battleships and the 113mm twin dp gun of the Royal Navy to name a few.

@RoyalAnarchist

5 жыл бұрын

@@fg3893 Thanks, I've looked up those guns

Is the design of guns , why is the watch above and open. It's not making sense opening a watch to be a target. The guns might get steady. But wait of the ship if smaller in length. Aha

Question. Why didn't the British empire not sign the Washington naval treaty? If they didn't sign it wouldn't they have the opportunity to build the G3s?

@dovetonsturdee7033

3 жыл бұрын

Because after WW1, Britain had barely two halfpennies to rub together.

@marseldagistani1989

3 жыл бұрын

@@dovetonsturdee7033 ok. But you got things like the Nelson and KGV running around and it would seem that the Empire still had some pretty pennies in it pockets

@Jpdt19

3 жыл бұрын

Nelson was built in the 20s and was part of only two ships. The KGVs were built in the mid to late thirties after a window of no serious shipbuilding and also were built with the mindset that they very much were needed and the cost had to be Bourne