Wanna help us get to *2* *million* subscribers? You are *2* clicks away! kzread.info

@faydea6962

Жыл бұрын

Hell nah

@CCCalebCG7575

Жыл бұрын

I know who killed em It Was my friend jim

@thesillymf420

Жыл бұрын

@@faydea6962 why tho

@faydea6962

Жыл бұрын

@@thesillymf420 yes

@stormtastic7083

Жыл бұрын

i have been subbed for almost a year now

Human Torpedo; Italian Version: Actually Practical German Version: Overengineered Japanese Version: BANZAIIII!!!

@quoccuongtran724

Жыл бұрын

italia in WW2 was often overshadowed by its laughable army that people forget how competent the italian navy was

@JohnSmith-mb8hi

Ай бұрын

@@quoccuongtran724 not very much they where screw-ups too

To be more precise: Most battleships after the literal ironclad era were not actually covered in armor. The most important parts on the inside were armored, but the actual hull of the ship was usually just relatively thin plates. There basically was a bunker inside the ship, called the citadel, which protected the engines and ammunition storage, but the rest of the ship was unarmored, with some small exceptions.

@cc0767

Жыл бұрын

not all ships followed the same design

@nightshade4873

Жыл бұрын

iirc the US followed the "all or nothing" armor scheme, in which they only armored or heavily armored the areas which are crucial to the survival of either the ship or it's crews. i cannot say for other designs as i have yet to delve into their concepts during their development.

@orsaz924

Жыл бұрын

That's a dumb way to do things, in my opinion. If the hull gets pierced/is littered with holes, how can the ship survive?

@nightshade4873

Жыл бұрын

@@orsaz924 iirc, such armor scheme allowed large warship to be more agile and faster, the navies did play on the concept of using agility as a means of defense,, probably with the battlecruisers but i can't remember if they did, in the case of a hit, it will be devastating but it gives better assurance that the vital parts, both crew and equipment, can still fight back or survive to be in another ship. Although with the advent of missiles in naval warfare, such concept of an agile bb became obsolescent, they only became bigger targets that cannot easily fight back.

@hirnlos9462

Жыл бұрын

​@@orsaz924 internal segmentation into watertight compartments. The all-or-nothing armor scheme has been done successfily by the two largest navies in the largest war we have seen yet. (hopefully I never have to update that part).

I wish we could still have battleships. But with missiles, keelbreakers, planes, all of it... It's not feasible. And that's why the Zumwalts were built. And we see how those turned out :(

@nomad6-1

Жыл бұрын

Closest things to a battleship that are still in service are the two remaining Kirov - class battlecruisers of the Russian Northern Fleet. Almost 30 thousands ton, 250 meters , nuclear powered. They are actually bigger than German WW2 battleships Bismarck and Tirpitz (although they weigh a lot less having significantly less armor). IJN's legendary Yamato and Musashi battleships were more than double the weight of a Kirov, 70 thousand tons, but they were only 15 meters longer than it.

@henryhamilton4087

Жыл бұрын

I'm guessing a modern or future battleship would either be smth like the Kirov, just modernized. Maybe with the Zumwalt's gun system but uses cheap conventional unguided ammo since it'd carry a lot of missiles already. Or we can get an Iowa but with Railgun main batteries and nuclear power plant, maybe replace a turret with VLS cells, so only 2 turrets.

@dani.zambomagno

Жыл бұрын

It's a good thing that you only wish this. Times have changed, reformers must adapt or the united States will fall way back under china

@jfk9211

Жыл бұрын

Bro the Iwoa class battleships had missiles and cold war era anti aircraft systems aswell

@ernestweaver9720

Жыл бұрын

The Carrier made the BB obsolete in WWII. However some are still in service as artillery and missile platforms. But you already know this. It's to bad we had to sink the Yamamoto. That was a masterpiece.

“You were supposed to destroy torpedo boats” “Not become one of them”

@portalj

Жыл бұрын

“Can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em”

@Arc--sk9xr

Жыл бұрын

Is that a Revenge of the Sith reference?

@reniswastika7432

Жыл бұрын

@@Arc--sk9xr yes

@vasskolomiets41

Жыл бұрын

In Russian Navy terminology, the history o class name destroyers took another direction. Large torpedo boats (minonostsi) became not destroyers, but the fleet torpedo boats (eskadrenniye minononstsi- abbreviature of it became esmintsi)

What killed the battleships first and foremost is the upkeep cost. Most countries that had battleships post ww2 simply didn't have the money and will to keep battleships in their fleet. And by the time they did have enough money to keep battleships in service, missiles already outranged most naval guns and no1 apart from the US had costal bombardment in mind.

@spigotsandcogs

Жыл бұрын

An intelligent take in the YT comment section? Well this is a nice surprise.

@Anolaana

Жыл бұрын

Eh, I mean a carrier can't be cheap either. I think the range argument is more compelling. Missiles and aircraft bombs can reach out further, while not risking the hull of the ship who launched them.

@StarPiercerAwl

Жыл бұрын

@@Anolaana carriers were simply more important. Obviously battleships werent going to be your predominant force going into the future but they still could potentially have a role into the 50s, 60s and even 70s. They had to choose one and the carrier was the obvious choice. If they had the money however, i recon they would have kept the battleships too.

@dani.zambomagno

Жыл бұрын

@@Anolaana aircraft carriers killed the battleship way earlier than missiles. They were too much successful in WWII, having many carriers in those times were like having nuclear ICBMs and guided missiles now, they were the ultimate means to project power

@StarPiercerAwl

Жыл бұрын

@@dani.zambomagno not really, the carriers did not "kill" the concept of the battleship. They just replaced them as the predominant force. Battleships still had a major role in WW2 and potentially thereafter

Carriers also rendered battleships obsolete, while a destroyer could and was designed to deal with torpedo boats and submarine, there weren't many ways to stop a swarm of bombers and Torpedo bombers launched from a carrier that was far out of range of the battleships guns.

@leiregyp5814

Жыл бұрын

carriers rendered carriers obsolete moment

@azoverdosed

Жыл бұрын

@@leiregyp5814 truly the greatest argument

@agravemisunderstanding9668

Жыл бұрын

@@leiregyp5814 oh shit yea I didn't even notice that

@carll.2855

Жыл бұрын

Unless they were given VERY well improved AA with AA cruisers (like Atlantas, Fargos, Worcesters) but that's costly

@Carewolf

Жыл бұрын

@@leiregyp5814 They kind of did, hence the designation of glass cannons. They were their own worst/best counter.

Other commenters have said it as well, but torpedoes are not what killed battleships, and saying so blows a hole (hah) in what otherwise might have been a good video. People were building new battleships well into the torpedo era, and torpedo defense was a huge part of battleship design. Battleships died off because they were hugely expensive, and technological advances made them easy targets for increasingly capable carrier-based aircraft as they didn't have anything close to the range to fire back at the carriers in turn - torpedoes didn't have anything to do with it. Heck, the most effective anti-battleship aircraft in WWII weren't torpedo planes, but dive bombers, whose ordinance hits from the top!

@johnc2438

Жыл бұрын

Yes! Two cases in point: the IJN Yamato ("hit by at least 11 torpedoes and 6 bombs") and sister ship, the IJN Musashi ("sunk by an estimated 19 torpedo and 17 bomb hits"). These estimates are from Wikipedia articles on those ships. Both vessels, largest battleships ever built, were, in the end, complete failures in their intended function -- to fight U.S. Navy battleships in a colossal gun duel at some point in the war. The combination of bombs and torpedoes from aircraft launched from U.S. aircraft carriers took them out. Yamato and Musashi saw action only a couple of times in all the war (think of the oil needed on a cruise!) and were derided by some in the Japanese navy as large floating hotels.

@Tsarbloonba

Жыл бұрын

Yes.

@alessandromazzini7026

Жыл бұрын

@@johnc2438 "Wikipedia articles" -> laugh

@xXCursedWorgenXx

Жыл бұрын

and more recently: ballistic missile cruisers make battleships even more of a moot point when you can fire huge missiles at them outside their effective range.

@MartianLeo_T

Жыл бұрын

The Bismarck was almost completely unaffected from the torpedo bombers other than a hit to the rear which was what made the Bismarck able to turn an it was doing an evasive maneuver so it was going in circles.

The number of battleships sunk by small boats is tiny. Those PT boats had very high losses and were usually not able to sink a capital ship. It’s aircraft that doomed battleships, not small boats.

@JimmyEatDirt

Жыл бұрын

PTs are costal defense boats, not open water craft. It's not a surprise that they sank relatively few ships, because battleships very rarely get that close to shore, but that is exactly where they excell. If a battleship is within range of PT boats, they are within shooting range of airfields, which makes it dangerous for aircraft. Patrol, Torpedo boats are meant to act like angry bees; not aggressive, but highly defensive. If you see them coming, you better run, because they are going to dump all of their torpedoes in your direction and skedaddle.

@Andrew..J

Жыл бұрын

Depends on the area. Small craft arent prevalent in open water because they can't carry resources for blue water ops and are fodder against modern radar and communication. But in littoral regions with confined spaces and heavy surface traffic like the Strait of Hormuz theyre a considerable problem. Any one of the hundreds of fishers in the area could be carrying a manpad.

@ChloeKruegerSenpai

Жыл бұрын

Im thinking that you talking about way back in WW1 where Battleships (Dreadnoughts) are easily blow up by Destroyers (Torpedo Boats). I'm sure in WW2 they start putting Torpedo Bulge Armor, because it will be difficult for Battleships to survive, either Aircraft carriers

@ComradeArthur

5 ай бұрын

Yes. An excellent example was the Japanese Battleship bombardment of Henderson field in Oct 1942. USN had PT boats right there. They attacked but the Japanese (torpedo boat) destroyers kept them from doing *any* damage. And that was at night - ideal for PT boat attacks.

Interesting thesis, but torpedoes were not really what killed the battleship. Torpedoes were first used pre-dreadnaught and while developments over time saw them become more deadly over the years (as did deployment platforms), so did battleship defences and fleet defences (battleships would be escorted by destroyers/other vessels that could protect against subs and torpedo boats). Yes you could sink battleships in novel/niche ways, but this isn't what killed them as a type of ship. What really killed the battleship was longer ranged cheaper weapons in the forms of missiles and aircraft. The primary stand-out function of a battleship was to use it's long range large guns to sink other ships and survive any counter-fire. With ship/aircraft carried missiles (and torpedoes) being able to hit and sink ships at long beyond battleship gun ranges, they simple became obsolete as weapons platforms. Especially as these new long range weapons and deployment methods were cheaper. A modern destroyer/frigate can carry long range anti-shipping missiles and torpedoes that can accurately hit targets 100km away. Aircraft (carrier born or otherwise) can hit ships from 100s of kms away. The maximum weapons hit by a battleship was recorded at approx 26km by HMS Warspite.

@thesillyseal284

Жыл бұрын

Incorrect L

@henrybryant4380

Жыл бұрын

You can extend the range of guns with advance shells, GPS, and newer types of propellant that burn fast. I personally find guns more reliable with the fact that aircraft, missiles and torpedoes can be intersepted and these days pretty easily.

@Viscool8332

Жыл бұрын

As distance the distance decreases the inaccuracy increases. It’s much more economic to use mussels at that point

@strangelic4234

Жыл бұрын

@@Viscool8332 The British still remember with horror the Falkland war and the brutal night attack of the Argentinian commando mussels.

@MegaJuniorJones

Жыл бұрын

Why not add rail gun to battleship to regain range. Use a battleship exclusively for carrying the rail gun. Rail gun can not be intercepted and extremely difficult to even detect. Better for stealth ? Good for shore hits.

11:30 I've heard and read two different things about the wire length. One source was a book I have somewhere, and it says 10 miles of wire in the tube, 10 miles on the torpedo. Another source said 20,000 yards, which is a little over 11 miles. I'm guessing that the figure isn't released, but it's safe to say that it's at least 20 miles.

Battleships were killed because other means could do their job more effectively. That’s why tanks aren’t dead. Although tanks can be defeated with top attack missiles and other means, the need for an armored vehicle with great firepower is still present. But, in the case of Battleships, airplanes and destroyers and later missiles, could do it’s job more efficiently and with far lower cost

What killed the battleships was something being able to do what they can do while being cheaper. Surface to surface missiles can do what big guns can do, and they can be put on much smaller hulls. Aircraft carriers are great, but they don't do what big guns can do. SSMs can.

@cc0767

Жыл бұрын

tbf, they totally can by dropping precision bombs from the aircraft. BB shells are actually way cheaper than missiles

@redalertsteve_

Жыл бұрын

The shells of battle ships after 1930s are way cheaper than missile and bombs. And just as deadly.

@spigotsandcogs

Жыл бұрын

@@redalertsteve_ indeed. The individual munitions fired are indeed cheaper from a battleship. However, there’s two additional cost factors to consider: battleships are HUGE and it takes HUGE engines to move them. And those engines are very expensive to maintain. And second, without precision guided munitions, it takes far more shells than guided missiles to take out a target unless you get really lucky.

@redalertsteve_

Жыл бұрын

@@spigotsandcogs you know theres these carriers that also use these very same engines. And depending on the cruiser size as well. Now that I think about it. The size is a meaningless argument now. Have u seen how big are ships are now.

@spigotsandcogs

Жыл бұрын

@@redalertsteve_ I have, and the only warships today bigger than post-Dreadnought battleships are carriers (and the Kirovs, but they’re special). Now, nations ARE willing to shell out the cost of a carrier because there is nothing cheaper that can match the range and air control of a carrier. Battleships were replaced because their niche could be filled with something cheaper. Since there is nothing cheaper than carriers that can fill their role, the full cost must be paid.

Italy: there'll be two of you to help eachother Germany: there's only one operator and you'll be significantly more exposed Japan: Bye! Thanks for sacrificing yourself.

The Japanese manned torpedo being a one way ticket. My first thought was: "How typical." The worst thing is if your torpedo malfunctions and you do not explode. 😱

@nixcurpick4708

Жыл бұрын

Oh god, why did you make the idea even worse:((

@janpost8598

Жыл бұрын

@@nixcurpick4708 Sorry. 😅

I enjoyed the hard work of your content mister NWYT

I'm glad I found this channel, it's been informative and interesting. I also think your unique voice is a big part of your success. Please keep it going!

i like how your pics, and videos correspond with what you're talking about. not just random shots off nonrelated things like other channels do

Yes! You folks do very good work! Your research is excellent. Thank You

This is one of my favorite KZread channels and now the first channel I’ve ever subscribed to

More NWYT uploads. That is very exciting

“It’s not size that matters, it’s what you do with it.”

@eivsleiv368

Жыл бұрын

For battleships, size really matters

A brief story of sinking Austro-hungarian battleship: 1918, Italian Navy officier Luigi Rizzo with two small torpedo boats, had finished an Adriatic Sea patrolling and was returning back to Italian coast. 1918, the same night: a big Austro-hungarian naval task force is going to attack the Otranto naval barrage. Luigi Rizzo see a black smoke high over the horizon and orders not to follow in home direction, but to reverse course to eventally find and attack an enemy convoy. The two italian boats find the convoy and is not a cargo convoy, but: two big battleship escorted by destroyers! The two boats enter between destroyers and battleships, relasing their torpedoes. Two battleships was hit but only the weapon that hits the Szent Istvan detonates. The 2 small Italian boats escape, followed by destroyers; during the chase, the chased launch a deep charge that damages an Austrian pursuer. All two Italian boats arrive in Italy and Capt. Rizzo became a national hero. Some years later, Mussolini's Fascism wants to recruit Capt. Rizzo but he DON'T became fascist. During WW2 Capt. Rizzo is watched by germans as a probably dangerous anti-fascist and anti-nazi man. Luigi Rizzo, Italian from Sicily, died in 1951 in Rome. 🇮🇹

Their role was replaced by something more cost effective. And that's carriers.

@thalmoragent9344

Жыл бұрын

Funny cause even now the Aircraft Carrier is still hella expensive

@krisloveschicken3939

Жыл бұрын

Planes are the best, do you know that they are launching drones from the carriers? It's getting pretty wild for the navy

@thalmoragent9344

Жыл бұрын

@@krisloveschicken3939 Facts man, I came to join the Navy, not the "Airforce 2.0", but it's alright, should War pop off, the Navies of the world will show why they're still needed, no matter how many fancy Ariel weapons they've got

@thanhthuannguyen6794

Жыл бұрын

@@thalmoragent9344 then you can imagine how much expensive a battleship

@redalertsteve_

Жыл бұрын

Gonna be honest. Thats a flat out lie. The carriers were just as expensive and its even worse now

What killed the battleship? THE ICE AGE! No but seriously, the Italian military actually succeeding at something. Amazing

@mbryson2899

Жыл бұрын

In WWII their naval special forces pulled off a lot. Frogmen crippled Valiant and Queen Elizabeth, a "suicide" motorboat sank the York, frogmen sank two merchant ships in Algiers, and they sneaked a merchant ship into the harbor at Gibraltar that was mothership to frogmen who got away with sinking six merchant ships over eight months.

The video was great. But you have answered a life long question, how did such small ships get such cool names (DDs) now I know and you are a legend amongst men.

The Imperial Japanese Navy were absolutely fanatical about Torpedoes. They worked with them, trained with them and experimented with them. They developed the three best torpedoes in the world before WW2 broke out. The Model 93 Surface Launched Torpedo was a 24” monster with an 893 lbs explosive charge, 9850 yard range at 50 knots. These were the ones named “Long Lance Torpedoes by the allied navy’s. The Model 95 Submarine Launched Torpedo was 21” in diameter with an incredible 1,213 lbs explosive charge, a range of 6000 yards at 50 knots. The model 94 was a 17.7” aircraft launched torpedo with a 331 lbs explosive charge and a range of 3300 yards. These were the best torpedoes in the world. Whole ship classes were designed to carry and launch the Model 95 torpedoes. The Japanese were absolutely certain that these were war winning weapons, nothing could stand up to their torpedoes and nothing could defeat them as long as they had enough torpedoes. Then they fought the Battle of Midway Island and watched as a bunch of American Dive Bombers smashed their carriers into scrap…..

Just love your content. It's amazing 😍

Thanks. I look forward to all of your video's👍

Well done And color video of Wickes/Clemmson destroyers! Very cool

thank you. Great video

Really well done. Informative, engaging and educational.

Pretty amazing the footage this channel gets even if sometimes the info is not 100% correct. Thanks... very entertaining.

Excellent stuff bro

Being a weapons maintainer in the Navy myself, I got trained in a specific OTS torpedo system and learnt about a few different types of light weight torpedos. During training we got shown clips seen in this video of torpedo impacts on ships. All of us in the class were blown away and definitely a little frightened. I will say this though, if I was to ever be killed during combat at sea. A torpedo would be the way I'd wanna go. At least it would be quick.

God I love this channel so much!

I wasn't expecting the section about the maiali but as an italian it's always nice to see someone talking about them. Good luck with the milestone

Great vid man!

Cool. Thanks for sharing.

Go Italy! 🇮🇹 🇮🇹 We had the best human torpedo!

Welldone. Video was indeed helpful

Those first couple generations of 'frogmen' and manned torpedos are heros in their own right, you should definitely do a focused video on them.

You brilliantly explain how a torpedo hit is so much more destructive than that of a shell-even if the shell hits at the waterline. A major factor in the 1916 Battle of Jutland (auf Deutsch: Skagerrakschlacht) -the last true battleship battle-was the fear of underwater weapons (torpedoes and mines) by the opposing admirals for these weapons were known to be so destructive. In 1968 my ship participated in several operations with Big-J (USS New Jersey) which was a truly remarkable experience. She was a magnificent vessel, and when her 16 inch shells struck the WW2 bunkers where the VC/NVA were holed up the huge explosions rose high above those of the shells from the cruisers and destroyers firing on the same targets. Even then though, it was clear that she was an anachronism.

I served on a Newport class LST in the 80s. It is strange watching a ship of that class blown up in this movie. I was a signalman, working on the very top of the ship. That was my home.

@lancerevell5979

Жыл бұрын

And the video showed a Knox class frigate being used as a target. I served on a Knox class. My little ship was later transferred to Turkey and is now on display at their Maritime Museum. Many were expended as targets though.

Interesting , Thank You .

Everytime I see one of your Videos I am suspisios at fisrts and then glad it is not one of these Dark something channels pumping out an other clicbait! Great Video!

Great work Thank you

Mate, so happy for you and what you’ve done with this Chanel. Wishing you more success!

Can you do a video on how they repair ships with significant damage? Also keep up the amazing work its been a blast watching the channel grow!

I like that you included footage of uss Texas being towed to dry dock.

I'm liking the little teaser short clips.

@NotWhatYouThink

Жыл бұрын

Glad to hear 😊

oh wow, an actually factual video, not just another infographics style waste of time Well done!

Nice video keep it up!

Insane again thanks from Canada ❤️

Excellent video.

Undoubtedly great content as usual 👏🏻 need some content fir Sniper’s life please

Appreciate the use of film of the USS Texas being towed to dry dock a couple weeks ago

Congrats on (almost) 2,000,000!

@NotWhatYouThink

Жыл бұрын

Thanks!

I like how you put a small italian torpedo boat next to a giant battleship, very nice.

Hi there! thank you for your great KZread channel. Had a small question; what is the subtle accent that you have?

Cool of you to write the metric values! 👍 Thanks

All right I subscribed

I learned how fishing with dynamite works! Thanks. : )

Nice footage of USS Texas going into drydock the other day

To be honest, the Battleship even came back to aid the US after initially being essentially decommissioned. It's a solid solution: big guns to toss big payload. The Battleship could come back if outfitted with missiles and rockets, but would essentially be a BattleCruiser more than anything. Funnily enough, they make it seem like only Battleships were affected by Torpedoes. And yet, even an Aircraft Carrier could be taken down in the same way. A carrier is still a ship, even if it's flat on top.

@redalertsteve_

Жыл бұрын

Every ship can be ended by a torpedo. And a anti ship missile

@albertjordan3249

Жыл бұрын

While very true, carriers were typically more resilient than battleships against torpedo boats, destroyers, submarines, aircraft and other platforms that would use torpedoes against them. Not because they could take a hit from a torpedo any better. Having an air wing to identify and destroy targets over the horizon meant that it was far more difficult (but not impossible, especially for submarines) to get within range to attack a carrier with a torpedo compared to a battleship. You can't hit what you can't get close to.

@bc1969214

Жыл бұрын

@@albertjordan3249 good thing the carriers have submarine escorts as well in addition to the topside battle group. I believe the U.S. Navy had a Swedish Stirling engines sub test the Reagan's anti-submarine protection and it got through numerous times.

'But, let's be real - some fish will float to the top.' - best euphemism I've ever heard! 😂

awesome

JFK served in the navy in WW2. During World War II, he commanded a series of PT boats in the Pacific theater. Kennedy's survival of the sinking of PT-109 and rescue of his fellow sailors made him a war hero for which he earned the Navy and Marine Corps Medal, but left him with serious injuries.

@DesertRat332

5 ай бұрын

Those PT boats sure looked like fun!

The torpedo can also create a cavitation bubble that can break a ship when it implodes.

Never knew some torpedoes used wires ! Thanks!

Great vid

Subscribed :)

This is a pretty informative and well thought out video, but you've got a couple of your facts a bit fuzzy. For starters, no battleship was ever armored with plain iron. By the time navies were building ships that could reasonably be called battleships, steel was widely available and vastly superior to iron for warship construction so there were no battleships with iron armor. Secondly, it is rather inaccurate to say that battleships had no armor below the waterline. Not only did the main armor belt nearly always extend lower than the waterline, admittedly to a lesser degree than above, but ships were also outfitted with dedicated anti-torpedo armor even as early as the beginning of WWI. Ships that did not have such protection built in could even be modified to incorporate add-on torpedo defense systems that could substantially reduce the damage from direct torpedo hits. And finally, while it was known that a detonation below the keel could vastly improve the lethality of even moderately sized warheads, the earliest self propelled torpedoes also did not have that capability. That avenue of attack would only be exploited once more advanced, non-contact warhead fuses and more reliable homing systems were developed.

Powerful

Italian human torpedo: "ehi bro, I placed everything." "Good, let's sneak away." German human torpedo: "sheisse I missed!" "Enemy spotted!" Japanese human torpedo: "TENNO HEIKA BANZAI!!!"

I remember when this channel had less than 100,000 subscribers. Yall should be proud 😁

Wow 2M already growing so fast!

I liked the footage of the USS Texas being moved into Galveston. Was their to see that interesting piece of history being pulled in.

Happy Xa MAS ROYAL NAVY🤯

6:42 That SW Quote, nice :D

1:34 he says battle chips... im dying lol, imagine a doritos with a mounted cannon

Nice use of the USS Texas going to drydock

Once again, the cameraman made it out alive!

Where did you find the high quality footage of the uss missouri?

Do the torpedo cables reel back in, or do they just kinda drape across a few kilometres of whatever happens to be there, ready to wreak havoc..?

Not gonna lie. The voice really shines with this slower deeper narration. Imo.

When you said “a new type of attack vessel had been designed”, the Human Torpedo was the last thing I could’ve expected.

@NotWhatYouThink

Жыл бұрын

It’s Not What You Think 😜

Could you do video about the planes in back of the battleships.

*"What the Battleships........ The Ice Age!"* ~ Mr Freeze ( I think that what he said. )

The fact that the tiny torpedo boat is my highest kill count vehecel in BF1 now makes an awful lot of sence.

"You have become the very thing you were destined to destroy!" nice reference

I love that you have video of the Texas I'm in some of that video you have of her we were caring the boat from La Port all the way to Galveston on wendsday can't wait for her to get out of drydock and back as museum status

Congrats on 2.05M subscribers by Oct 5, 2022.

@NotWhatYouThink

Жыл бұрын

Thanks!!

This was in fact, Not what I thought

OMG THIS IS SO WFING BROING

Battleship as one navy admiral puts it “are a giant floating artillery platform”. They don’t really offer value other than than shore bombardment for naval invasion plus the guns of the ships are very inaccurate long range for naval combat (without radar assistance). They are also very expansive to crew, maintain, rearm, operate added that ships can be sinked by small boats/submarines/planes with torpedoes really stack the odds against huge Battleships. Soon after WW2 anti ship missiles were in development and deployed which would further stack the odds against battleships also why add big guns onto a ship when missiles have better accuracy and can be more devastating than a few big artillery shell that probably won’t hit you

@redalertsteve_

Жыл бұрын

Anti ship missiles counter every ship. People need to stop using this excuse as the end all be all to battleships. Most likely battleship range and heavy cruisers ended the battleships. Tho the fear factor of battleships is still there

@Frontline_view_kaiser

Жыл бұрын

@@redalertsteve_ He's right though. The Battleships cost and upkeep could be justified until the Development of guided Anti Surface Munitions.

@radioinitial1409

Жыл бұрын

HOI4 PLaYeR

@taskfroce80th95

Жыл бұрын

@@redalertsteve_ you can’t argue it’s not one of the major reason among many that only because it’s brought up frequently doesn’t contribute to the extinction of battleships

@redalertsteve_

Жыл бұрын

@@taskfroce80th95 you can and i did. The cost is one of them tho nowadays its probably a non issue. It’s really the range of the ship. The can always return because the shells themselves are cheaper. A waterbased mobile artillery bunker that can’t be shot down sounds pretty good. Its whether the navy realizes that it has a place still is the real problem

We need more movies like "battleships"

Important note on Guide wires on Torpedoes. Standard protocol when a Submarine or ASW surface ship detects an incoming incoming is to immediately launch a counter attack Torpedo down the opposite bearing. A guide wire allows you to launch your Torpedo away from the target, and slowly circle around before spinning up to atack speed when close enough to make detection inevitable. At this point the fish can go to active sonar and can aquire and track the target independently, even if the wire is severed.

These torpedoes have been getting more deadlier as the open seas, that why I think it would be cool to sponsor a naval for the channel which give people first perspective and strategy being in WWII or Modern War ships for fun!

I thought the ships in this video were cardboard targets because they were flexing and bending so much. But it was clearly not what I thought.