That admonition from the Captain was very moving, most soldiers rightly fear their enemy but to respect his courage n professionalism shows Martial class, imo

She was quite the looker, I think. Such a beautiful ship, it always sad to see when ships like these couldn’t survive the war and become museums

@bkjeong4302

5 жыл бұрын

L E M O N Battleships in WWII were in this weird position where they were too impractical to be useful, but too powerful to be left alone by the enemy.

@jaybee9269

5 жыл бұрын

KMS Prinz Eugen was sunk as a nuclear target ship. Would’ve made a GREAT museum!

@gabrielm.942

4 жыл бұрын

Jay Bee probably one of the worst crimes you could commit against history. I wish she would have been allowed to serve at the very least.

@jaybee9269

4 жыл бұрын

Gabriel M. >> Very true! It’s tragic HMS Vanguard too wasn’t mothballed until they could have afforded to open her as a museum. False economies...at least we have a dreadnaught (USS Texas) and SEVEN fast battleships preserved here in the U.S. I want to see Battleship Cove in Massachusetts pretty badly. Would’ve liked to see one the ‘Alaska’ class “large cruisers” tho! Ships like that could’ve rendered stellar service in Vietnam.

@mebsrea

4 жыл бұрын

Jay Bee No real need for the Alaskas in Vietnam. The only purpose of cruisers and above by that point was shore bombardment, and the 16” guns of the Iowas, South Dakotas, etc. fired a significantly more useful shell.

Scharnhorst. After the fitting of her Atlantic bow , and the the placing of her main mast further aft, arguably the most beautiful warship ever built!! Even the British sailors who helped destroy her, said she was an awesome sight as she turned away from her pursuers, silhouetted against the horizon by enemy star shells.

@dylanwight5764

4 жыл бұрын

Much like the Derrflinger class during WWI, I'd call Scharnhorst and Gneisenau the best balanced and most attractive capital ships of her era.

@polygondwanaland8390

4 жыл бұрын

@@dylanwight5764 Best balanced aesthetically, but operationally those 11" guns really didn't cut it.

@dylanwight5764

4 жыл бұрын

@@polygondwanaland8390 You give them too little credit. Keep in mind that at 15km, they still had enough penetration to deal with over 12" of armour and were rated up to 18" under 10km. Of course we're not exactly talking 406mm L/50 guns here, but those 283mm guns were still pretty damn punchy for their calibre. More than enough to deal with French battlecruisers, and probably more effective against lightly armoured ships than the larger, older guns still in service with the Royal Navy. Then again, if the Km planned on up-gunning to 380mm, there was probably a good reason for that. As reinforced in the engagement with Renown which saw one of Gneisenau's shells bounce off the former's deck.

@polygondwanaland8390

4 жыл бұрын

@@dylanwight5764 Sure, and more importantly they *couldn't* build bigger guns at the time, but I'd take a 15" armed Scharnhorst over Repulse. Not something I can say for the 11" guns.

@dylanwight5764

4 жыл бұрын

@@polygondwanaland8390 The plan was to fit carbon copies of the Tirpitz's guns to both sisters once German industry had room to produce them. By the time they were able to make them, the two Bismarcks were already under construction. Then Hitler went and ruined everything for himself by starting a war before he was ready. I guess we should be glad Scharnhorst and Gneisenau never received their intended armament.

The 280mm guns from the Gneisenau still exist. The turret was removed and transported to the coast of Sweden. They were installed in the Austratt Fort in Orland on a hill to be used as a shore battery. Its open for tours and they have 11 inch projectiles and brass propellant cases within the turret.

@oddy1637

2 жыл бұрын

*380

@josephthomas8318

2 жыл бұрын

@@oddy1637 no, the original 11inch gun turret is what he's talking about

@martinsportfoto2423

2 жыл бұрын

Well, minor detail: Austrått fort is located in Norway (not far from Trondheim), most definately not in Sweden :-)

@ierf1098

2 жыл бұрын

Sweet!

@yknott9873

2 жыл бұрын

@@martinsportfoto2423 Very true - Germany did not invade Sweden, so I imagine the Swedes would not let the Germans install heavy guns there ;)

This is probably the first time in my life I have heard of 11in naval artillery referred to as a "pop gun".

@dovetonsturdee7033

4 жыл бұрын

The problem was the weight of broadside. Scharnhorst's was 6552 lbs. By comparison, Renown's was 11628 lbs, Duke of York's 15900 lbs, Nelson's 18432 lbs, and North Carolina's 24300 lbs.

@andrewzheng4038

2 жыл бұрын

Seeing how most of the competition was packing guns with as much as 50% more diameter it certainly was rather puny by WW2 battleship standards

@yknott9873

2 жыл бұрын

A further illustration of weight of broadside occurred in Bismarck's final battle vs King George V and Rodney. Surveys of the Bismarck wreck have seen gouges in its side armour, suggesting that King George V's 14" guns (which were firing at very short range) were unable to penetrate Bismarck's armour belt. Whereas one of Rodney's 16" salvoes pretty well ended the fight there 'n then, destroying Bismarck's B-turret, disabling the A-turret and wrecking the bridge, killing nearly all the German officers. One of King George V's AP shells weighed 1,590 lb; one of Rodney's AP shells weighed 2,048 lb (numbers from Wikipedia) and correspondingly, hit much harder.

@sherlock9397

Жыл бұрын

So they didn’t have the 15 inch guns yet, what other lager size gun could they have had, bearing in mind what was already available, also I don’t know a lot but could Germany after signing the Anglo-German naval treaty have acquired designs for larger guns from either Allies or bought them from another power maybe American.

@sherlock9397

Жыл бұрын

Could she have been armed with large guns in triple turret lol 13 or 14 or even a 12 why did they stick with 11 inch guns

"Come and have a go if you think you are hard enough" - HMS Rawalipindi

@emeraldsentinel92alpha30

5 жыл бұрын

"What are you gonna do? Shoot me? LOL" - Man who was shot 46 times.

@michaelnaisbitt1639

5 жыл бұрын

A thin blue line fan???

@Retrobeemer

3 жыл бұрын

My grandfather went down on the Rawalpindi. They could have surrendered but went down fighting.

@vikkimcdonough6153

Жыл бұрын

"Challenge accepted." - _Scharnhorst_ and _Gneisenau_

We have a certain Fasination for ship's in Battles against Impossible Odds, even in Defeat, they win a certain kind of Victory as they pass into Legend.

@WorshipinIdols

4 жыл бұрын

spooky shadow hawk the Iowa’s are beautiful. Also the Yamato/Musashi as it originally was before the side triple-6s were removed for anti-aircraft guns.

@joshfritz5345

3 жыл бұрын

The destroyer USS Johnston and the rest of taffy 3 taking on half of the Japanese navy and winning...

@schiefer1103

3 жыл бұрын

@@joshfritz5345 Commander Evans be like: Surface is out, submersion is in!

@stevevicory9623

3 жыл бұрын

I believe you are correct!

Seems like operation cerberus was more like sailing right across the British front porch!

@hp2084

5 жыл бұрын

@Weedus I think the whole convoy was to a stand still for 2 hrs and still the British failed to do anything but eventually Scharnhorst's power was restored and the convoy moved on.

Drach mentions about the intended replacement of Gneisenau's turrets with 15" - ironically, this led to us being able to visit a larger piece of her than of any British battleship of that era - Turret Caesar can be seen as a museum at Austrått Fort in Trondheim!

Scharnhorst & HMS Warspite both lay claim to the longest range hit by gun in naval action in history, app. 26,000 yards.

The Scharnhorst has always been my favourite ship, and as others have said was a beauitful looking ship, three days ago was the 75th Anniversary of her sinking. I find it strange when you think of movies that have been made about the Bismark, Tirpitz and Graf Spee they never did one on the Scharnhorst.

@5commandomerc

11 ай бұрын

Naw mate, USS Texas is tits man!

Gerhard von Scharnhorst and August Neidhardt von Gneisenau had ben prussian generals and military reformers in the times of the wars against Napoleon in the early 19th century

The last 3 of the scheduled 6 "pocket battleships" were cancelled as the Kriegsmarine realized their shortcomings and also due to the new French capital ships. Therefore, six 11 inch turrets were available and were used for the two larger Scharnhorst type battleships. In my opinion these vessels are among the best looking capital ships.

@kemarisite

4 жыл бұрын

Epie Kake, no different guns. There was a plan to move the 11" SK C/34 guns from the Scharnhorsts to the next generation of panzerschiffs when 15" guns were available for the former.

Such beautiful ships. Again one of those: "what ifs" (15 inch guns etc) Aswell as that it is criminal that those ships had to sink (same goes to scrapping Warspite)

@bb-6359

5 жыл бұрын

so what, they're gonna board the enemy ships and keep them as museums?

@WackyIraqi777

5 жыл бұрын

@@bb-6359 Exactly, send in the Marines and just start a collection at Scapa Flow.

@Kris-qy7hh

5 жыл бұрын

Nothing could be worse than scrapping the Warspite 😤😢

@gaydolfhitler2466

5 жыл бұрын

@@Kris-qy7hh The scrapping of the USS Enterprise CV-6

@dailydoseofneurodiversity6205

5 жыл бұрын

And sinking Nevada she didn’t get scrapped or turned into a museum she was sunk in peacetime by the nation she had so diligently served

Awesome respect from the British in her last battle. I love that!

While the 15" guns would have helped them engage heavy units I don't think they would risk it. The Germans didn't have enough heavy units to throw away on fighting other BB's, even if they sink it they would likely take heavy damage in return and probably not get a chance at the convoy to boot.

@Drachinifel

5 жыл бұрын

1-v-1 perhaps not, but 2-v-1 they would've had a better than even chance against an older battleship.

@traviscosby1016

5 жыл бұрын

@@Drachinifel Thanks for the reply! I agree, the newer ships with the 15's probably had an advantage even in a 1v1. Just a matter of how much they were willing to risk. Who knows maybe in the 2v1 the Germans would have seen the Risk as worth it to remove a capital ship.

@hp2084

5 жыл бұрын

@@Drachinifel And then again there always a factor of better German gunnery.

@WilliamJones-Halibut-vq1fs

4 жыл бұрын

German standing orders were not to engage British heavy units unless unavoidable. They were to be used for hit and run raiding and to keep the British guessing and deploying resources to escort their convoys. There weren't enough German battleships and they had to be preserved. That is why the Bismarck let the PoW go during the battle of Denmark straights despite the British ship being disabled and helpless. A rather missed opportunity and the order should have been modified to allow this.

@slammerf16

2 жыл бұрын

@@hp2084 It wasn't as good as the gunnery from HMS Duke of York.

A veritable tidal wave of content today. Huzzah!

One of my fave battleships of all time.

The most beautiful battleship ever built.

@matthewdouglas8368

3 жыл бұрын

Dont be ridiculous, french ships look the best

@christopherwhitfield3037

3 жыл бұрын

@@matthewdouglas8368 well, I think the general discussion Is about ships that saw service. You could argue about the Italian battleships though, because they did see action. French crap was only for recycling

@baronburch6702

2 жыл бұрын

Clearly you have never seen HMS Hood

@CorePathway

2 ай бұрын

In a Greek/Roman statue kind of way. You know, muscular yet, ahem, modest.

Great stuff - thank you. I always liked this pair. Especially with their Atlantic bows, I thought they were gorgeous ships. And Scharnhorst's final battle does her great credit. She apparently got hit 13 times by 14 inch shells...but still could pull away. Only destroyers torpedoing her slowed her down with 4 torpedo hits. Of course, the fact that only 36 of her 1,968 officers and crew survived? The fact that it was a gallant battle probably meant little to them while they were freezing to death after the sinking. Had she had her originally intended 15 inch guns - well, it's probably fortunate for Allied convoys her and sister never got these guns. Cheers.

Always find your work fascinating, thank you!

thanks for the insane upload schedule. This is awesome.

Have you done or if not, you should do a special on the WWI Battle of the Falklands. It showed what the British Battlecruisers were designed to do and could do to defend remote parts of the Empire from marauding enemy cruisers. Two Battlecruisers defeated a force of 6 enemy heavy and light cruisers without any major damage because they could pick the range of the battle by refusing to let the German heavies close to within the shortet range of their guns. (Although it did also show what poor shots the Brits were at long range that early in the war).

@jamesharding3459

5 жыл бұрын

Typical British bad sportsmanship.

@aristosachaion_

2 жыл бұрын

No such thing as a fair fight in war.

Beautiful ship, interesting story, and very well delivered. Thank you Drach

Not the first time watching this one but forgot about the bit at the very end. So awesome to hear the captain say that, I just love NAVY shit. So much gallantry and valiance.

I'd like to point out that one of the destroyers that hit the Scharnhorst was commissioned and crewed in the Royal Norwegian Navy; HNoMS Stord. I believe she got an MiD after the battle.

I’d like to see a video of the USS Mississippi, BB 41, New Mexico class. My father served on her as an anti aircraft gunners mate during the Second World War. I believe there were 3 battleships in this class.

@BAYSINRACING

3 жыл бұрын

Correct. The 3 ships were New Mexico, Mississippi, and Idaho. Sorry I know I'm two years late lol

Armor - check Guns - check Battleship Armor - nope Guns - check Battlecruiser Germany: hold my beer Armor - check Guns - nope Cruiserbattle (?)

@dunamoose3446

3 жыл бұрын

Large Cruiser

@schiefer1103

3 жыл бұрын

@@dunamoose3446 „Supercruiser“ as the muricans (and wargaming) call it.

@itsflyguy5353

Жыл бұрын

Light battleship?

Thank you for the great videos.

I first read of this beauty in my late dad's books. Super ship, in my opinion better than the Bismarck in many respects for its intended role. Instead of building the Bizzies they should've built two more of these. The 11.1-inch gun was readily available in quantity and a proven weapon, and the design itself was a success. Go with what you get, if you've got it.

Although largely forgotten as a major sea power, this video serves as a reminder that Germany possesses a marvelous naval tradition that owing to horrible civilian leadership is forgotten. I doubt many would debate that its reliance on submarine warfare proved ultimately counterproductive for Germany in The Great War. After 1919, Allied powers made sure Germany could never again challenge UK's surface dominance. Nevertheless, most of the ships Germany built in the interwar years--excluding Bismark--were excellent for their class. Except for it's highly advanced fire control capabilities, Bismark was probably overrated as a ship but its officers and crew were at least as well trained as their UK and US counterparts, and the statement at the end of this video speaks to the ability of the Scharnhorst's officers and crew. The ultimate defeat of the German navy during the last world war was likely a forgone conclusion owing to its focus on commerce raiding.

@hp2084

5 жыл бұрын

That horrible civilian leadership is a myth. If you try to put all the pieces of the puzzle together, you would know that there was not different between any of the belligerents involved in WWI or WWII. Germany being part of mainland Europe always had better land forces and UK being an island always had better navy. French being having long coastline had a good navy but eventually it would have nothing that can be called better.

@wolfsoldner9029

5 жыл бұрын

Bismarck is not overrated. All or nothing armor is.

@mebsrea

4 жыл бұрын

I would disagree. Had Germany abandoned the dreadnought race with Britain and redeployed the tens of thousands of sailors and hundreds of thousands of tons of steel devoted to the High Seas Fleet to strengthening the U-boat arm instead, Britain might indeed have been strangled. Britain had no submarine countermeasures at the start of the war, and the two dozen or so U-boats available at the time, crewed by perhaps a thousand men, did enormous damage. Imagine the result had Germany been able to deploy two hundred U-boats, rather than two dozen!

@kemarisite

4 жыл бұрын

@@mebsrea it's a thought, but the submersible torpedo boat was still unproven in the decade before WW1. The Germans have far less excuse for building large surface combatants before WW2.

@peterkapunkt6783

4 жыл бұрын

@@kemarisite Even worse, building of the fleet is what lead to Britain as being the enemy in WW1 because it's a large cause of Britain being allied to Russia before the war. And all just because the German Emperor was such a douche.

Would like to see a King George V Class Remake, since they were the 2nd most successful class of Battleships the Royal Navy had (First going to the Queen Elizabeths imho). I'd also recommend the book V.E Tarrant has of it, I'll need to buy it for myself for Christmas. Cheers.

Yes, great to a hear a human voice, and they are very beautiful ships

My dad was raised on a small farm in eastern German near the coast of the Baltic sea, and was the only son. He had no interest in becoming a farmer, and instead intended on becoming a naval engineer. In 1943 he had to join the military and became a member of the Kriegsmarine. He attended the naval academy in Flensburg and as part of his training was sent to Norway and was assigned to a destroyer. Unfortunately, my dad died when I was very young, so I know little about his service. According to my grandfather (who I only met twice when I was young) my dad was supposed to be on the Scharnhorst, but because he was sick didn't go. I've come to believe that my grandfather was mistaken, that my dad probably was on or supposed to be on the destroyer that he was assigned to, which was supposed to escort the Scharnhorst. Whatever the case, he survived and eventually finished his tour and returned to Germany, and subsequently was attached to an infantry unit and again managed to survive the desperate fighting in NE Europe during the last weeks of the war.

The smaller main caliber made sense because it was enough to fight cruisers and destoyers and sink convoys. And ofc to be fast enough to outrun battleships with bigger guns.

I had a model of the Scharnhorst as a kid (Airfix), great looking ship; well balanced aesthetically. The German tactics were always a bit "Off the wall", as were their designs and concepts. I notice that you haven't said much about the German underhanded raiders like the "Atlantis" . Any chance of coverage of these lesser known ships. They did quite a bit of damage to merchant shipping.

Great Vid DRACHINIFEL 👍👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏🙂🙂👍👍

HMS Rawalpindi. Never bring a butter knife to a gun fight. R. I. P.

@EdMcF1

5 жыл бұрын

There was a purpose to it, to delay the attackers to allow a larger RN force the chance to catch them.

@WALTERBROADDUS

5 жыл бұрын

@@EdMcF1 The Captain could have surrendered. But honor and tradition says fight.....

@sarjim4381

5 жыл бұрын

@@WALTERBROADDUS There was certainly no doubt that Captain Kennedy knew it would be a fight to the death. Kennedy had been involuntarily retired since 1921 but had voluntarily returned to service in 1939 at the outbreak of the war. I think he knew the Rawalpindi would be his last command and, in those dark days of November, 1939, he was determined to fight his ship until he couldn't fight any longer. I've alway been a little miffed that Kenedy, who made of the more heroic last stands of any RN officer, never got more than a "mentioned in despatches". As I understand it, he managed to crank off a lot of Labor ministers during his retirement political work as a Conservative party agent. That may be why he was never considered for any higher honor.

@1993Crag

5 жыл бұрын

@@WALTERBROADDUS Same thing as Scharnhorst or Bismarck; could have surrendered...

@Mattiniord

5 жыл бұрын

The british auxilliary crusiers deserve a special episoder

In the game World of Warships, both of the Scharnhorst klasse are represented, Scharnhorst with 11" main battery, and Gneisenau with 15" main battery

The 2 best battle-cruises ever built. When considering their mission, -commerce raiding, -fast, -long range, -not expensive, -absolutely deadly.

@IPeakedAt15

3 жыл бұрын

Battleships*

@WorshipinIdols

3 жыл бұрын

USS MISSOURI 1. first of all, you meant to say the Iowa-class. 2. Second, the 4 Iowa-class sisters were the Greatest Of All Time, The GOAT! These are very Unique battleships for a very unique mission. • Personally, I think they could could have been brought under 30,000 tons by laying out the main battery armament like the Richelieu. 4 x 2 to the front, And 4 x 2, 20.3 cm SK/ C34 to the rear, and nothing but long, medium and short range air defense along both sides of the ship. • The shell should been stretched to /L6 length, with a cylindrical body 2.5 bore widths long, a sharp conical nose 3 calibers (or 33”, or 1/2 the length of the bore) and a 1/2 caliber long taper at an reflective incline to that of the front in the rear. • Increase weight of shell to approximately 500kg. • stretch the barrels to /L60 length • increase size of breech to fit 15” powder bags so that all the powder AND the shell could be rammed in one quick stroke PLUS WHATEVER EXTRA powder there is room for. • let the Hunt begin!! Also NOTICE EVERYONE!! This strategy multiplies effectiveness by orders of magnitude when ships hunt in pairs not. Solo!

@IPeakedAt15

3 жыл бұрын

WorshipinIdols the fuck you mean I’m saying the Scharnhorst class is a battleship

@WorshipinIdols

3 жыл бұрын

USS MISSOURI the best thing Germany could have done was build the P-Class as early and as many as possible (even under the wiener Republic) in 2 variants. 1. An improved Deutschland-class* (2x3 15cm, SK /C25 Super-firing secondaries/AA GUNS over the main Armament). And the sides of the ships are all AA. 2. And the second with 2 super firing forward (I would prefer 4 x 2 the French way) and 3 x 3 15.0cm SK/C25 also the French way with the port and startboard devoted entirely to 4 x 2.0cm SK/ C38 and 2 x 3.7 cm M41. And they would operate in pair.

@IPeakedAt15

3 жыл бұрын

WorshipinIdols all I was aging is the German Scharnhorst is a battleship quit going on about random stuff that has no fucking thing to do with what I said

Scharnhorst and Gneisenau are two of my favorite battleships of all time!!!!

I am specifically watching this video, and gave it a thumbs up solely based on the fact its a human voice narrating,

Fuckn awesome youtube channel. Wanna see and hear about some badass heavy metal? This is your channel!

The 2 ships are the definition of prepare for trouble and make it double.

Rawalpindi and Jervis bay deserve a special episode

You’re getting better and better at these, curious if you’re considering repeating some of your earlier coverage of particularly notable ships.

@Cannontime

2 жыл бұрын

But make them 1 hour guides

I have a nice 1/250 card model of Von Spee's Scharnhorst on a shelf right behind me. One thing about card models, there's a lot of ships in paper that are not available in plastic. A lot more fun to build, too. If you get into them, you can buy Exacto knife blades in boxes of 100. You'll need them.

These are very interesting ships even just as far as trying to classify them. With superior armor even to some contemporary battleships the potential was great. But considering even the earlier dreadnoughts had greater firepower both in individual gun size and barrel count was a rather interesting situation. Plus even two to one they couldn’t even overwhelm a WWI battleship. I think the battleship part can be defended by the fact that they were intended to be upgraded to 15” guns. It’s a fortunate thing for many Allied sailors that this never happen; some of those convoy encounters in Operation Berlin might have gone quite different under those circumstances.

Would love to see a review of HMS Anthony. A class destroyer my Grandfather served on up to 1942

Classy looking warship

Uss Montpelier CL-57 or just the Cleveland class light cruisers. CL-57 is the subject of the excellent Pacific War Diary by Fahey, with a foreword by Adm. Nimitz.

Beautiful ships, at least I think so; but to be fair; although these had namesakes earlier in the German navy, they were all named after Gerhard von Scharnhorst, 1755-1813, a Hanoverian-born general in the Prussian service who distinguished himself not only during the Napoleonic war but his military theories and his reform of the Prussian army.

this is my favorite battleship/heavy battle cruiser but i dont know why?

i was surprised to see in another video some details left out here, her own gun blew up at one point? Collision with another vessel Bremmen?

Ironic that the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau saw more success than their older relatives of the Bismarck class! Extremely good looking ships too, with a more sensible gun layout than the Bismarcks!

i have this ship in World of warships and i love it

How about HMS Verity we had the ships badge at home when I was younger

It's got to be said that the naval forces in ww2 shared the greatest respect between each other.

I have seen Belfast / victory/mikasa/Yamato museum/some old sub in Portsmouth & quite a few sunken u boats (underwater) I think my next mission is the gneisenhour turret that still exists....yes I spelt it wrong it's a stupid name....

@naverilllang

4 жыл бұрын

Stupid name? Tell that to August Neidhardt von Gneisenau

Those big guns sound just like the 12 gauge shotgun i had in high school!!!!!

The 15” guns mentioned on the Renown and similar ships were very old and short range. Shorter than modern 8” cruisers and certainly the German 11”s. The Scharnhorst and Gneisenau withdrew from Renown encounter as their orders were to avoid encounters with British capital ships.

@Drachinifel

5 жыл бұрын

That's not quite correct, the Scharnhorsts 11" could outrage the Renown because in part the turrets could elevate to 40 degrees, which the British turret could not. However, both guns could shoot well over 30k yards, which was far beyond any realistic ability to hit anything.

@vanceshaw3675

5 жыл бұрын

TY. Is it true that the effective range of Mark 1 15” was more like 20k yards (WW1 and non upgraded WW2 R battleships) and was 24k yards WW2 (QE BBs, Hood etc)? Were the upgrades mostly elevation improvement or other thing?

@Drachinifel

5 жыл бұрын

@@vanceshaw3675 between the wars the 15" got new shells which could fly further, along with newer ships and refits getting greater elevation to the guns, which also allowed longer range. Ships that hadn't got increased elevation by WW2 tended to get 'super charges' to increase their range. On HmS Vanguard they combined all the above to boost the range still further. As such, the effective range of the 15" varied but was generally less limited by the physical range of the gun and more by the distance at which the rangefinder and fire control systems could get an accurate firing solution.

@vanceshaw3675

5 жыл бұрын

Drachinifel TY. Really superb videos!

@WilliamJones-Halibut-vq1fs

4 жыл бұрын

@@Drachinifel According to Navweaps the German 28 cm (11") SK C/34 range at 29.2 degrees 38,280 yards (35,000m) & at 16.2 degrees 27,340 yards (25,000m). British 15-inch (38.1 cm)Mk I range at 30.1 degrees 29,000 yards (26,520m) & at 15.6 degrees 20,000 yards (18,290 m). So the German guns outranges by about 25% at 30 degrees and 30% at 15 degrees. The larger Radar on the Scharnhorst was the FuMO 26 the same as Tirpitz, an improved version of the FuMO 23 used on Bismarck. FuMO 26 was capable of blind fire using lobe switching and of spotting shell splash to correct the aim. It was outranged at the Battle of Northcape by the British Type 285M radar because the Duke of York had been upgraded from 25kW output power to the 120kW power plus the FuMo 26 had been damaged by Burnets cruisers leaving the smaller antenna FuMO 27 in use. The German upgrade to similar power levels, 125kW) was available at that time only on land based Seetakt radar and was awaiting 'marinisation'. (See Harry von Krogge's book on the history of GEMA). However the Tirpitz was probably fitted with a one of version of this radar at the end of 1944 (known as FuMO 34) and it allowed detection of ships to the limit of the radar horizon (50km). Bismark spotted the incoming lancaster raid at 150km using its own radar. At those power levels, if it could track a ship at 40000m it would also have spotted shell splash at 35000m. If you can spot shell splash you can fire accurately. The larger 'splash' of the larger British shell may have been advantageous in long range gunnery. So for the Americans in 1943/44 and the Germans in late 44/45 hitting a target at 35000 yards would have been possible.

Are we going to see the Kii class or No. 13 or then built designs before Yamato?

2:34 does anyone know why ships are commonly seen with 1 or more barrels of the turret facing up when all the others are in resting position?

@kemarisite

5 жыл бұрын

I'm sure there are a variety of reasons why it might happen at any particular time, but it's physically possible because the guns are in separate cradles. In other cases, ships may have multiple guns (more common with triples) in a single cradle, so they will all have to elevate together (Pensacola-class cruisers, for example).

Fun Fact: HMS Rawalpindi was commanded by journalist and tv presenter Ludovic Kennedy's father.

If you're interested in correct pronunciation of people's last names, the Germans pronounce Gniesenau (named after the Prussian Field Marshall August von Gneisenau, who rebuilt their army after it was decimated by Napoleon in 1806) phonetically as "Nigh ze now." Scharnhorst (named after Gerhard Johann David Waitz von Scharnhorst, was a Hanoverian-born Prussian general in service from 1801-1813. As the first Chief of the Prussian General Staff, he was noted for his military theories, his reforms of the Prussian army, and his leadership during the Napoleonic Wars) is pronounced as "Shawn host or Shawn haust," "R's" are silent.

@NashmanNash

3 жыл бұрын

Pronunciation is really a think of the area in germany :D...hessians or saxons and their bloody accents :D

So they didn’t have the 15 inch guns yet, what other lager size gun could they have had, bearing in mind what was already available, also I don’t know a lot but could Germany after signing the Anglo-German naval treaty have acquired designs for larger guns from either Allies or bought them from another power maybe American.

Ah, the glorious Scharnhorst. My personal favorite warship, period. A wonderful light battleship design, and the most beautiful warship ever. I would have loved to see her preserved as a museum.

@davidelliott5843

4 жыл бұрын

The wreck and war grave is somewhere in the Barent's Sea off Norway.

Drach, this is off topic, only because of my incompetence in filing it correctly. Think there is potential for a little story in the evolution of the ship's mast. Say, starting with the 'ironclads' moving to mid 20th Cent? (sails, spotting, signals, electronics & the rest?) Calum

My grandfather was on HMS Sheffield. He found it distasteful that Scharnhorst was still being pounded when it was obvious she was sinking.

I always thought that we, the British classed them as Pocket Battleships, because Battle Cruisers were the same as Battleships eccept for overall weight of armour, being built lighter for extra speed, were as the Scharnhorst had smaller guns to save weight.

@KatyushaLauncher

3 жыл бұрын

"Pocket Battleships" were the nicknames that the British gave to the Deutschland-class, not the Scharnhorst-class

Could you do a show about the USS West Virginia, BB-48? She was sunk at Pearl Harbor, Re-floated, refurbished and modernized and fought against the Japanese later in the war, ending up in Tokyo Bay for the surrender.

Would you consider the USS Saipan LHA-2 ? It was brand new when it carried my unit,1st Batt/ 2nd Mar to Norway in late 1979 and latter schuttled during the Obama administration,

Please do an episode on the USS New Mexico.

Any chance of doing the German light Cruisers of WW2 and the WW1 Destroyers / Cruisers of the UK / Germans ?

@Drachinifel

5 жыл бұрын

There are a few on the list.

Is no one going to point out the line, “...although she managed to score some shits...”?! 😂😂😂😂

Drachinifel tells us elsewhere, the loss of HMS Glorious was really down to her captain's incompetence.

@gerardmdelaney

3 жыл бұрын

He was too interested in returning to port to court-martial his CAG for not flying a mission he wasn't trained or equipped for. So he left Norway early, with only a couple of DD for escort. Didn't have a CAP up. Didn't have a ready strike package sitting armed and ready on deck.

Haa haa haa I love how the skateboard hit that dog in the face! Wait.....what?........oops wrong video. This was about a boat?

In WoWs these are know as Shinyhorse and Gunisanuisance

@jamesharding3459

5 жыл бұрын

Only a nuisance?! What?! I have an 84K damage average in Gneisenau!

Probably my favorites in the looks department. She and Gneisenau win the best looking ships in WWII, IMO. If only they had the 15” guns…

I'm wondering if you know whether HMCS Haida was involved with the final showdown with the Sharnhorst. I have been trying to find out if there is any truth to what little I have been told. Thank you so much!

@tcpratt1660

2 жыл бұрын

Per Wikipedia, the Haida was one of the escorts of JW55B, and did not engage the Scharnhorst, but shepherded the convoy (with her companion destroyer/escorts) away from the Scharnhorst.

Can you do Belfast?

@Drachinifel

5 жыл бұрын

Eventually :)

Even if they had the 15 inch guns, they would not have engaged the Battleships as the Bismarck and Prinz Eugen were ordered not to engage heavy units while hunting convoys.

The Battle Cruiser Scharnhorst

I wonder had Schar refitted with 15 inch guns(x8) as planned, would it have better chance to make out of the North Cape. BUT, German escorting ships tend to go MIA when their capital ships needed them the most...LOL

I still say they were battlecruisers. Their heavy armor and lighter guns follow the German battlecruiser design philosophy of the era just before and during WWI.

@hp2084

5 жыл бұрын

They were battle cruisers and Scharnhorst remained battle cruiser but Gneisenau was on it way to became a battleship. Battlecrisers came into existence due to lack of powerful engines which can drive battleships faster. In1930s that technology was getting available and as battleships started getting faster the battlecruiser class was getting obsolete. For these two ships it was said that, they were powerful then ships that were faster and faster then most ships powerful, that is when they were made.

@wolfsoldner9029

5 жыл бұрын

They were Battleships !!! I am so sick and tired that you Brits always insist on calling them Battlecruisers. The philosophy of WW1 did not apply anymore during WW2.

@GeneralKenobiSIYE

5 жыл бұрын

@@wolfsoldner9029 They were designed for commerce raiding too. In fact that is almost all they did, So they were battlecruisers. They were expected to also raid enemy ports and supply lines without support. Battlecruisers.

@wolfsoldner9029

5 жыл бұрын

@@GeneralKenobiSIYE The Bismarck and the heavy H units were also supposed to be commerce raiding. They were mostly intended to take on the escort and leave the merchant ships to smaller units.

@535phobos

5 жыл бұрын

@@GeneralKenobiSIYE By this logic Bismarck and Tirpitz and even the H-Class would have been Battlecruisers, and the WW1 Battlecruisers werent, because they werent made for commerce raiding. WW1 doctrine doesnt apply to WW2. All newer Battleships were faster than 25kn and so would have been Battlecruisers. Scharnhorsts were for political reasons undergunned Battleships.

BTW, question here. What was the exact thickness of Scharnhorst's belt? Some say it was 350mm, others say it was 320mm.

@dovetonsturdee7033

4 жыл бұрын

350 mm. Bismarck's was 320 mm. By comparison, Rodney's was 356mm, as was the KGVs. The Iowas were 307 mm, and the South Dakotas 310 mm.

In the opening sequence, when the broadside is fired there is a cloud of white bits. What is it please?

@kemarisite

5 жыл бұрын

He's mentioned in a Q&A video, that was something that was improperly stowed that got blown to bits by the blast.

@fredfarnackle5455

4 жыл бұрын

Whatever it was it makes me wonder what sort of 'back blast' there was in those turrets, sticking your fingers in your ears probably wouldn't help much.

@kemarisite

4 жыл бұрын

@@fredfarnackle5455 since it's possible for whatever-it-was to be stowed properly and not get blasted to flinders, it's unlikely blast (from the guns in your own turret) is a huge issue. Those turrets are pretty well built to keep shells out. However, there was historically an issue with the blast from superfiring guns entering the sight hood on the turret they were firing over, which apparently goes a long way toward explaining those weird pre-WW1 echelon and wing turrets. The sound, however, is loud enough to cause hearing damage decades down the line if you survive the battle. Speaking for family and friends. Bring earplugs to gunnery practice.

I wonder. Could her 11 inch guns do any serious damage to opposing battleships? Did she hit HMS Duke of York? If so, did her shells do any damage?

@kidpagronprimsank05

11 ай бұрын

Against Dunkerque, this would penetrated her, although Strasbourg might harder as she had armour reinforcement. The Scharnhorst were more or less direct response to aforementioned new French capital ship. And for the second, not directly hit, but a lot of straddles, with splinters damaged her radar system, which was repaired by heroic efforts of a crew member

its a mix of a battlecrusier and a battleship

Drach mentions at about 1:55 that the ability to manufacture 15 inch guns had been lost. I’ve never heard anyone else mention that and can’t seem to find info about it on my own. Anyone have any sources or info on that statement why the Germans needed to reinvent 15 inch guns?

@Drachinifel

2 ай бұрын

Due to the Versailles Treaty German gun manufacturing for big guns, much like most of their heavy naval industry, had been made to atrophy and so the last full scale battleship gun designs they had were the WW1 era 15" and 16.5", these were not seen as suitable for the 1930s but at the time of Scharnhorsts design no new 15" design had been drawn up and thus no such guns could be built in time. The design work on the modern 15" German gun was started around the same time the Scharnhorst design was being finalised.

@GamerPro174

2 ай бұрын

@@Drachinifelomg an answer from the man himself on a 5 year old video. Thank you Drach! You may have mentioned it in a drydock but I’m relatively new to the channel so first time I heard that. Appreciate the info!

Is that your keyboard I hear in the back ground?

Very High Praise from an enemy.

The father of Christopher and Peter Hitchens took part in the Scharnhorst's last battle.

- in the encounter against renown the fact was that 18 german 11' guns had in fact the advantage since Renown was lightly armored and had only 6 15' guns. But the bold charge along with some luck on the secondary guns hit forced the germans to withdraw -The encounter with 15' revenge class battleship escorting a convoy didn't forced the german battleship to withdraw. The 11' despite having a softer punch were much newer guns and had far better range and FCS than the old almost-non-modernized WWI era british ship. The idea was that one german ship would start a long range engagement with the BB while the other would flank the battle and engaged the convoy, but German naval (far) inferior naval force forced german high commands to adopt the general RoE to avoid confrontation with any capital ship. Too bad this restricted an engagement on tactical advantage which they had

The British Destroyers covering Glorious were possibly finest example of a naval Banzi charge equal of the destroyer action of Samar ... unfortunately the Kriegsmarine did have Radar which the Japanese Didn’t..

The high point of armored cruiser development. This is what they should look like if there was no Washington Pact.

Their backyard More likely their front door, knock the door, slap u and drove off is more like it

It is a battleship but without Battleship guns and its not cruiser due to its un cruiser like guns or a Battlecruiser because it has armor not to mention its destroyer like speed

She could have been the base design for the Bismarck’s, just make her bigger and longer and with 16 inch guns if possible

Had the 2 ships received their 15" guns right at the start of their careers, would that have made a big difference in their fighting abilities?

@willghezzi

3 жыл бұрын

Absolutely yes. They were faster than any battleship of the royal navy, they're main armor belt was 350mm thick which is very good, and they're range finders and guns accuracy were some of the best in the world... The only 2 drawback of the ships were the inferior radar and low gun caliber. With the 15 inch guns they would have wrecked the ww1 British battleships that were used to escort convoys and they would have been able to fight properly against the KGV class battleship

@cold_raptor

4 ай бұрын

​@@willghezzito be fair the 11 Inch armament Made more Sense for Commerce raiding.

@willghezzi

4 ай бұрын

@@cold_raptor oh yeah absolutely, the problem is that they (just like bismarck and tirpitz) where not commerce raiders... they where used as commerce raiders, but they where not designed as such

@cold_raptor

4 ай бұрын

@@willghezzi High Speed, good survivability and efficient guns for what was supposed to be achieved without Shouting "we want destroy convoys" at britain.