Love my British brothers-in-arms. Darlington, SC, USA

So sad how few of Britain's many warships were never saved for posterity.

@Wolvieonepunch

Ай бұрын

That is so true

@dougaldouglas8842

Ай бұрын

So true, and with so much that our government just destroys, mindless evil, as though intentionally wishing to bury history, whilst making pretence to honour the same

@agolftwittler1223

Ай бұрын

Indeed.

@robertx8020

Ай бұрын

It's very expensive to 'save' ships and in the post-war time other things were more important At least 'we' have Belfast, Cavalier and Wellington

@dougaldouglas8842

Ай бұрын

@@robertx8020 Except in the U S

Your stories of Naval ships, crew, aircraft, etc tugs at my heart being a retired Navy Sailor. Thanks for your videos.

@DavidJones-me7yr

Ай бұрын

Thank you for your service! 👍

@jarretthuffin

Ай бұрын

I gotta give it to you sailor. This was the GOLDEN AGE of naval warfare and basic seamanship. The levels of toughness, dedication, and overall monumental effort put into everything was astounding to see, read, and hear about. Thank YOU, good sir, for braving the sea and her waves and making our world safe.

@alaricgoldkuhl155

6 күн бұрын

I salute you good sir. My grandfather served on the HMAS Melbourne, Australia's disaster aircraft carrier. He was chosen as one of the personal bodyguards of Queen Elizabeth ii when she came to Australia.

I have no idea how you find all this vintage footage, but I'm here for it!

@bulldawg6259

Ай бұрын

Not all the footage is Accurate

@QuakeDragon

Ай бұрын

@@bulldawg6259 Thanks. I'm a long time dark skies/seas/docs watcher, so I am well aware of that fact and do see the same footage in some of the other videos, but I like the content and story details. The vintage video footage brings it to life for me, regardless of the incident:footage accuracy disparities. I suppose you could say I'm a fanboy of the content creators format.

@bionicgeekgrrl

Ай бұрын

@@QuakeDragon A lot of it is archive footage from various sources or war film footage and documentary recreations.

During WW2 a P-class destroyer, HMS Porcupine, was split in two amidships and the two halves were towed to Devonport. They were converted into accommodation hulks, the fore section was informally known as HMS Pork and the aft HMS Pine.

The British Royal Navy comes up with some wonderful names for their ships; HMS Implacable being a good example. Thank you for this well researched, illustrated and narrated video.

@Mark0003260

Ай бұрын

Probably names carried throughout history from the days of wooden ships similar to what the US has done in some cases. There have been more than one USS Enterprise and some carriers sunk at the beginning of WWII passed their names onto Essex class carriers.

@jasonhesson1030

Ай бұрын

More to do with going through the alphabet tbh. If the first ship in the class is named with a word beginning with the letter 'I', all the other ships will follow suit. Not always a 'gold standard' though! The Invincible class Ark Royal was supposed to be named 'Indomitable' but was named Ark Royal instead. And the Audacious class ship HMS Eagle was originally supposed to be named HMS Audacious alongside the Ark Royal.

@davewolfy2906

Ай бұрын

​@Mark0003260 the RN had HMS Enterprize, at the same time the USN an Enterprise.

@jasonhesson1030

Ай бұрын

@@davewolfy2906 Correct But the USN spelt theirs wrong!😂😂😂

@peterblake4837

Ай бұрын

There's only one Royal Navy, doesn't need "British" tacked on

The Brits knew how to design, refit, and fight! I'm so proud of them! The HMS Implacable seemed to be a battleship disguised as an aircraft carrier! But...what do I know. I never got to serve. Regardless, that generation impresses me greatly!

@DavidJones-me7yr

Ай бұрын

That generation was very impressive indeed! But no one should have to worry about today's generation,, we have so many new and improved types!? We have male and female soldiers,, and including new and improved hybrids, such as trans, cisgender, plus many many more, armed with new and improved pronouns!?! So do not worry about our future! Can't you just feel the rainbow?? So there's no confusion, this is sarcasm!😮😂😂😂😂😂😂😊. P. S. If you're not already, it might be a good idea to arm yourself?!😢

@blairg378

Ай бұрын

If the Brit’s knew so much why did they have rely on the US/Canada to come to their rescue or Hitlers Germany would have kicked their ass!

@DrivermanO

Ай бұрын

HMS Implacable, not The HMS ...... This seems to be a common error. The Her Majesty's Ship is nonsensical.

@allenhammond7853

Ай бұрын

@@DrivermanOHey, how's it going? Thanks for the correction.

@michaelgarrett1959

Ай бұрын

And they would have fallen if America didn't help them with the radar

Thanks for not forgetting the Royal Navy and Britain. In this modern age you'd think Britain was not a part of WW2.........

@secretagent86

Ай бұрын

And Canada. We have one of the largest shipping # of ships in the world then

@francislutz8027

Ай бұрын

US schools are at fault. They didn't teach history, they told Our story. I am 42 and was taught the Pacific theater was US 99% with a few Canadian and Australian troops. And that the British were in Europe the entire time. But that the US had an equal force in the Pacific as in Europe. The truth is much different but that's how they taught it

@mathewfullerton8577

Ай бұрын

​@@francislutz8027Making blanket statements is not prudent. I was taught about all of the Allies and their contributions in both theaters including the British involvement. And I attended school in the U.S.

@falkeholz1459

Ай бұрын

@@mathewfullerton8577depends on the school rlly and state ig

@jarretthuffin

Ай бұрын

Idk bout that. They fought tooth and nail not to get overwhelmed by Germany. Then made every inch of lost ground cost a high price in blood all over the Empire. The way modern era views France during the war is downright wrong, though. Made them look like they just gave up at the first sight of a German flag.

What is so awesome is that this was on standard fuels. No nukes. A real guzzler.

gotta love the names of british ships.

@BuddyMcNugget

Ай бұрын

Absolutely.

@TheGermanNamedJames

Ай бұрын

Ikr

@sirblank2384

Ай бұрын

The u.s. names some of their ships as taunts like iwo jima class, the midway class, ect

Always cracked me up that the ship builders were strictly adhering to the displacement size as by treaty. Like if one is in war who the hell would give a s*** about treaties?

@jasonservary477

Ай бұрын

The treaty covered the interwar period between WW1 -WW2

@davidgifford8112

Ай бұрын

Almost a century later, it seems ridiculous that the RN and ship designers adhered strictly to navel treaty rules but I think it was a matter of pride to come up with credible naval ship designs within those rules.

@moodogco

Ай бұрын

The ships were designed b4 the war & was well along when ww2 broke so if they'd started after the war started we'd not given a shit & done woteva but at the time the project started on design of the ships one the things we didn't do was predicting the future so did was we'd signed up to with the treaty

@Mark0003260

Ай бұрын

They were in an expensive arms race before the treaties. There was even a lot of friction between the US and Britain as the US with its large advantage in manufacturing capacity was likely to pass the British navy. The treaty stayed in place until the Japanese decided they didn't like the fact they had to be in third place forever. Then it was a free-for-all again.

@johngjesdahl-xx2gb

Ай бұрын

In the Pacific , one imperial power fighting another.

For some reason, I have always found the scrapping of ships from WW1 or WW2 sad. Yeah, you can't keep every destroyer or torpedo boat, but for larger countries, they actually have the space to make most battleships and carriers into things like tourist ships. The number of cool ships I've seen that were intentionally destroyed instead of keeping them for the sake of history is MASSIVE, a lot of which come from the nuclear testing done to see how ships would fare against nuclear weaponry. (while writing this I realized I've NEVER ACTUALLY SEEN the definition of "sake" and I'm slightly concerned lmao)

Sounds like a great ship. I always admired their steel decks.

The Kriegsmarine were never a threat to the Royal Navy for one very good reason. The Kriegsmarine was too small and the RN was still the biggest navy in the world. What was worrying though was the U-boats, especially when France fell and Germany gained access to Atlantic ports.

@user-gl5dq2dg1j

Ай бұрын

Not once the various sub hunters started to show up in numbers. If Hitler had started his war 2 years later, he would have lost his subs even faster.

@WilfredIvanhoe

15 күн бұрын

@@user-gl5dq2dg1j The idea was to not to start the war until 1945 or 1947. By then, according to the plan, Germany would have had a much more powerful navy.

@user-gl5dq2dg1j

14 күн бұрын

@@WilfredIvanhoe And Britain wouldn't have expanded even faster? They had more slipways and drydocks and already had plans on expanding their carriers and had started corvette and escort program before the war started. Germany would never have the navy to challenge the Royal Navy without stealing the French Navy and the Italian Navy was too dysfunctional as a whole.

@WilfredIvanhoe

8 күн бұрын

@@user-gl5dq2dg1j Having more slipways and drydocks won't help if you lack the rest of the resources: money, materials and industrial capacity. Britain already had trouble with producing enough guns for its new King George V class battleships fast enough. Plus it's likely that advocates of appeasement policies would have either opposed, delayed or nullified attempts to build up the military fast enough. While Britain might have still possessed superior numbers in naval power, most of its capital ships would have been badly outdated by 1947.

@user-gl5dq2dg1j

6 күн бұрын

@@WilfredIvanhoe I think that with the complete take over of Czechoslovakia Chamberlain's government was in trouble and the war hawks were starting to get the ascendancy. The build up of the navy and airforce might have bankrupted the country but they would have been build up and there was no way Germany with it's economy being raided to pay for the public deception works was going to compete with Britain in any longterm cold war build up of arms.

Thank you, the video was entertaining, although the title is a bit overdramatic. I was also wondering about the video clips you selected: while excellent, many don’t match the Implacable. For instance, you show a lot of clips of the the Vought Corsair, but that fighter did not fly from the Implacable, as the 14 foot hangers were to short to accommodate even the clipped-wing version used by the Royal Navy. I also noticed that while talking about her anti-aircraft armament, several clips were of the American 5”/38 twin mounts, not the 4.5”/45 actually mounted. Again, I enjoyed the video, I just think that using clips of the correct hardware, even if they were taken aboard different ships, would give the vast majority of viewers a more accurate picture of the Implacable.

@akashiseijuro5216

Ай бұрын

The answer is simple. Looking for known actual recordings would be hard as is as during this time the clips were to be represented with would be nigh impossible seeing as it was the era of war. Hence, other nearly related clips would be used, acting as the template.

The British Pacific fleet also included the Aircraft carriers Formidable, Illustrious, Victorious, Indomitable and Indefatigable several light and escort carries and Battleships as well as ships from Canada, Australia and New Zealand

@robertx8020

Ай бұрын

Yes, and your point is? ....

@DMS-pq8

Ай бұрын

@@robertx8020 The point is don't be a dick Robbie

@bravo2zero796

Ай бұрын

​@robertx8020 I believe his point was that after Great Britain and her commonwealth allies finished up in the European theatre, they were able to divert a very powerful force to the far east to give the japs a hard time.

@MrSummerblade

Ай бұрын

@@robertx8020Suppose the obvious implication is that it was a (HMS) Formidable fleet 😊

@robertx8020

Ай бұрын

@@MrSummerblade 🤣nice pun But I wonder if it was needed? (that fleet being there I mean )

Have you considered covering some amphibs? I am partial to the Iwo Jima class (LPH) carriers, but would love to see any amphibs.

I just watched a video from Warographics, one of Simon Whistler’s channels, about the dire state of the Uk’s armed forces and how it’s dangerously unprepared for any kind of serious military conflict without the assistance of the rest of NATO, especially the United States. As an American, who is also from a military family, I’m used to the notion of a powerful and capable military with a large number of personnel, one and a half million actually, so hearing that the UK only has just over one hundred thousand military personnel… I was shocked! I know they’re a much smaller country, if you don’t count the many territories under the British commonwealth, but that seems like a small number of active duty troops. They also are very lacking in equipment and vehicles. From tanks, aircraft, armored personnel carriers, ships, and even the military housing is astoundingly below standard. They don’t even do their own recruiting anymore. It’s contracted out to a civilian company that doesn’t even have a face to face meeting with potential recruits, only on the phone. The glory days of the British empire and military might are long gone now.

She only lasted 10 years. How sad.

Always interesting and well written and narrated 👍

I'd imagine the crew were grateful for the decision to up her armour level, especially when she went to the Pacific

The Brits got the Corsairs before our troops. Our folks thought they had too many glitches. So, Britain ironed out the problems and then US picked them up again

@g8ymw

Ай бұрын

Same with the Chrysler multibank engine fitted to some Sherman tanks. Not to mention dropping Merlin engines into Mustangs

@mikeholland1031

Ай бұрын

Are you peddling that incorrect myth that the UK showed the yanks how to land them on a carrier?

@g8ymw

Ай бұрын

@@mikeholland1031 How do you come to that conclusion?

@sheilatruax6172

Ай бұрын

@mikeholland1031 Thought it had to do with performance problems and general mechanical weirdness. Never heard about any landing problems.

@mikeholland1031

Ай бұрын

@@g8ymw facts

All those Corsairs!

I would have said "the Essex Class Carrier", but you make a good case here.

@sirblank2384

Ай бұрын

The enterprise is a good threat to that. older but still better and more stars lol

HMS Implacable, featured in many Hollywood war movies

Gotta give them there 🌹

The USS Johnston doesn't exist, apparently. 🤔🤷🏼‍♂️

I'm not good at science so it always amazes me that these carrier's float. Sure I can see the maths working in benign circumstances but in rough weather? Guess I'm just a bit thick. Such a shame they scrap these iconic ships.

Absolutely nothing suggest the Axis were afraid of this exact ship.

Great video ..but I feel the title is a bit oiver the top.. as I don't think (or see no evidence ) that Japan was more 'afraid ' of Implacable than any of the other 100 carriers of the US navy! Sinking Implacable would have changed nothing ..nor would 'not sinking' her .

the allies didnt fear aircraft carriers at all. they feared those big ass axis battleships

@theloneranger8725

6 күн бұрын

That's a rather ridiculous comment when you consider what the Japanese did at Pearl Harbor on 12/7/41 with nothing but carriers, unless by "axis" you are referring only to Germany. With just a little more luck, Japan could have won that war early with their carriers, but they made too many mistakes and miscalculations. Germany had only one carrier, and it was never completed. Hitler was a fool for not understanding the important role they would play in WWII. When he was building all those battleships before the war began, he should have been building carriers instead.

HMS Battle Axe had a Helicpter named Hatchet!

The greater strength longer range to hit the enemy. At the loss of defiance at close range

She should have been saved as a museum ship😢

You need to use feet and inches as well as meters and kilometers and millimeters in your descriptions. Thank you

@DavidJones-me7yr

Ай бұрын

You're right Giving haul thickness and deck thickness in millimeters makes it sound like it's made out of tin foil and newspaper!😢😂😊

@keithshackleton3173

Ай бұрын

The whole world works in metric but not the USA and two small countries. ​ The rest of us undetstand @@DavidJones-me7yr

@jamesathendune9026

Ай бұрын

These days everything should be measured in both Imperial and Metric and announced as such. One measurement should not be favoured over the other. Lefties love Metric!

@keithshackleton3173

Ай бұрын

@@jamesathendune9026 the whole world is metric but the USA and two small countries. Cope with it or change to metric. Who stuffed up the Mars space craft because they used imperial not metric? Metric is the world standard, imperial is history.

@mikeholland1031

Ай бұрын

​@@keithshackleton3173that was a cover story. It wasn't a conversion issue.

Implacable didn’t see the pacific war until July of ‘45 and Japan by that time had little to no fighting ability left and would capitulate 2 months later. Royal Navy presence by that time in the pacific was basically of little real value and they were there for ally credibility. Early in the pacific war, brit ships were of no value against the IJN as they were either outright sunk or heavily damaged and chased away. Brit troops in the pacific were horribly mismanaged by their commanders and hadn’t received the weapons/supplies needed to do much of anything of value.

@davewolfy2906

Ай бұрын

Where were British troops in the Pacific? Apart from being overrun in Hong Kong.

@robertx8020

Ай бұрын

@@davewolfy2906 The closest British troops would be in India

@davewolfy2906

Ай бұрын

@@robertx8020 Burma I think, next door.

@robertx8020

Ай бұрын

@@davewolfy2906 You're right ..but close enough I think

@bravo2zero796

Ай бұрын

​@@davewolfy2906are you serious?

Need a giant slide in magazine system that can be custom loaded by a re supply ship

The British had the best carrier designs during the war, up until USS Midway was launched, although both might've been surpassed by IJN Shinano had she survived her transit to the fitting-out yard. Once the Empire was gone though, Britain was pretty much done as a great naval power. Now it's the US and China, then everybody else.

@brwiser

Ай бұрын

Respectfully I'm not sure how you can say that. The Yorktown class were amazing. Had so much not been asked of them I imagine they would still all be around. When things looked darkest for the US in the Pacific the Enterprise once again played more than their part and made us proud. What a great debt we owe to the brave men and women that came before us.

Understood that this is a British vessel but for purposes of comparison and context in future vids please also throw in a few US customary units?

@danielweisgerber8569

Ай бұрын

do some math bruh ain't that hard

@mikeholland1031

Ай бұрын

Why don't you guys join the rest of the world?

@davewolfy2906

Ай бұрын

I agree only because these ships were not Metric. HMS Sheffield, that was lost in 1982 was the RNs first metric ship.

A few questions ... 1) Can someone tell me which carrier is shown at 5:37? It's not HMS Implacable, seems more like a Essex class (note the side elevator! ) and guntowers in front of the bridgestructure) 2) Why would Germany 'fear' a ship that was only in action when Germany didn't care about it's fleet anymore? If they feared anything it had to be the Russians

@VIDEOVISTAVIEW2020

Ай бұрын

And why would Japan fear about this ship when Japans navy and war fighting capability is already taken by the US navy

@robertx8020

Ай бұрын

@@VIDEOVISTAVIEW2020 Right? It would me like you beating me up to near death and them me 'being afraid' of the person that spit on me 🤣

@bravo2zero796

Ай бұрын

​@@VIDEOVISTAVIEW2020The British pacific fleet were there too you know included six fleet carriers, four light carriers, two aircraft maintenance carriers and nine escort carriers (with a total of more than 750 aircraft), four battleships, 11 cruisers, 35 destroyers, 14 frigates, 44 smaller warships, 31 submarines, and 54 large vessels.. the royal navy had shit going on literally everywhere in the world

@VIDEOVISTAVIEW2020

Ай бұрын

@@bravo2zero796 of course, the Royal navy has been there in the pacific even before ww2. All I am saying is that the US navy destroyed the cream of the Japanese navy's fighting force in the battle of Midway, the Battle of the Philippines, the Battle of Leyte. After all of these battles, the Japanese is finished as a major threat, all that is left is mapping up operations of whatever remains of their fleet and that is where the Royal navy did helped.

@robertx8020

24 күн бұрын

@@VIDEOVISTAVIEW2020 True

If only the Hawker Sea Fury was readily deployable when the British Pacific Fleet was activated….

USS ENTERPRISE Was the greatest most killing most feared ship of the War.💪

@Axonteer

Ай бұрын

ok

@MSimmonsAZ

Ай бұрын

Yes about the Big E, but this is titled all Axis Powers. Enterprise was Pacific only.

@Axonteer

Ай бұрын

@@MSimmonsAZ How about the Enterprise D?

@mattmiller4613

Ай бұрын

@@MSimmonsAZ agreed😌

@mattmiller4613

Ай бұрын

@@Axonteer oh hell yes

I’m sorry… a carrier does not “burst” into launching aircraft “without warning”,… less hyperbole in the narration please

If Japan realized that the US wud have 100 Aircraft carriers by fhs end of the war ? They might have reconsidered their future? Maybe we shud try to get along? The US aas trying to stay Neutral until Japan Attacked Pearl Harbor? Oh, it ON NOW! You started this, WE will Finish it!

@sirblank2384

Ай бұрын

They were lucky if the japanese didn't surrender our largest ship at the time was going to be heading their way

USS FORRESTAL CV-59 82-84

Hey, I know your not from the UK but you wouldnt actually say 2pdr you would say 2 pounder thats what it means pdr = pounder, it would be like saying the letters I N for inches, you wouldnt say 2 I N you would just say 2 inches.

I remember watching a documentary about the war in the pacific, and an American sailor was saying that the bomb’s bounced off the decks of the British aircraft carrier’s, while they went through the decks of the American carriers!

@carlharris2808

Ай бұрын

America had wooden flight decks.

@chrismason7066

Ай бұрын

Yep. Britain had armored flight decks. We. the us. Did not. Armored flight decks are awesome at the cost of less planes. It's a give and take.

@garyharris629

Ай бұрын

@@carlharris2808 Yes, I remember he said that, your comment reminded me. The American carriers had more planes though, and more carriers in the Pacific while British carriers were mostly in the Atlantic, Mediterranean, and the North Sea.

@g8ymw

Ай бұрын

@@garyharris629 I think that was the reason for the armoured flight decks. We were too close to multitudes of land based aircraft

@garyharris629

Ай бұрын

@g8ymw I never thought of that, good point!

A fine point, but Operation Inmate took place 4 months after 4 US carrier battle groups had pounded Truk to scrap.

Ahhh the Brits. Our closest and favorite allies. There isn't much the US and UK combined can't do

@mikeholland1031

Ай бұрын

Canada is far closer genius

@danielroelkey2155

Ай бұрын

@@mikeholland1031 I cant tell if you are being serious or not. Obviously they are closest in terms of distance. The OP was talking about closeness in terms of the relationship.

@mikeholland1031

Ай бұрын

@@danielroelkey2155 distance.

@daviddehass6877

Ай бұрын

Just trolling?

@josephjuno9555

Ай бұрын

GB is USA mother and Canada is our Sister nation!

Another ridiculous title.

@robertx8020

Ай бұрын

I haver to agree

@kelleren4840

24 күн бұрын

Yeh, I have to go into these videos expecting them to not be 100% watertight on their details/facts, but entertaining and generally in the right ballpark nonetheless. Plus their library of archival footage is quite nice. If nothing else, the stories give me good inspiration for DnD scenarios/plotlines 😂

@robertx8020

24 күн бұрын

@@kelleren4840 Some creators seem to think that extreme titlels lure more ppl in and while that might be true at first, after being 'fooled' long enough, ppl might never return..so it's a risk IMO

@kelleren4840

23 күн бұрын

@@robertx8020 yeah I agree on that 100%

Helicopters were available early 1945.Why didn't they reach the carriers?

And during the *entire* Pacific War, US Pacific Fleet was Where?

Why doesn't Dracinifel, Operations Room, Animachy and the like ever cover Britain's Pacific role? They never mention, or rarely mention Australia accept in a support role. I guess, USA Number 1 Joe?

@JohnKoenig-db8lk

Ай бұрын

Your rant belies your screen name.

@tltc191

Ай бұрын

Maybe because the first battle group the UK sent got folded up like lawn chairs.

@quietdignityandgrace

Ай бұрын

@@JohnKoenig-db8lk Have you seen the scene that it comes from? Ranting is the point. Get it out of your system, move forward.

@quietdignityandgrace

Ай бұрын

@@tltc191 If they did a piece on it, maybe I'd know that. We'd know that. Sorry, I got a bit selfish there.

@JohnKoenig-db8lk

Ай бұрын

@@quietdignityandgrace Sorry, Britain had a role other than "Bloody Shambles?"

Those those planes arecorsairs right

What year did the British receive the F4U Corsair? I mean it'd also be more than a match for anything Germany had.

@josephjuno9555

Ай бұрын

I have never heard the Brits got Corsairs? Was this in the Pacific?

@sirblank2384

Ай бұрын

1944 right after the u.s. made it easier to land them on carriers

@alecblunden8615

29 күн бұрын

​@@sirblank2384the turning approach for Corsairs was an innovation of the Royal Navy, NOT the USN

@sirblank2384

28 күн бұрын

@alecblunden8615 the royal navy had nothing to do with corsairs until after the us fixed them to land on carriers so the royal navy did nothing

@alecblunden8615

28 күн бұрын

@@sirblank2384 the USN did NOT use corsairs on carriers until after the RN developed the turning approach method.The USN gave them to marines for ground use until then.. Look it up.

USS Nimitz

🇺🇸

At the end of world war II the Japanese told everybody what ship they were most afraid of and it was the Lexington because they thought they sent it three times they called it the Ghost ship.

@sirblank2384

Ай бұрын

Yorktown they said they sunk the Yorktown 3 times once in the coral sea, and twice at midway the Lexington was sunk in the coral sea

@georgeyarbrough88

Ай бұрын

@@sirblank2384 yes that is true, but it was Lexington that received the name of the Ghost ship from the Japanese. Who constantly reported her sinking. Yorktown did not receive this name from the Japanese.

@sirblank2384

Ай бұрын

@@georgeyarbrough88 enterprise was grey ghost from the japanese

@georgeyarbrough88

Ай бұрын

@@sirblank2384 you don't know Japanese history do you. The most feared airplane was the Corsair, the ghost ship was the Lexington. And the Americans called the Enterprise the gray ghost not the Japanese. I know my history extremely well. Now you can sit here and try to argue with me but you definitely need to do the research to back up what you say. And when you do you'll discover that I'm right. But you can believe what you want that's the right you have. But I'll stick with my historical degree and knowledge.

@sirblank2384

Ай бұрын

@@georgeyarbrough88 the americans called the iowa the grey ghost lol

The war in Europe was over by July, 1945.

How come I see Corsair’s land on a British carrier

@johnsheldon4880

Ай бұрын

The Brits were flying them off the carriers first. Our navy nixed tehm so they were sent to GB as partof the lend lease prgm. They solved the landing problems that the US navy couldn't. They figured to come in at an angle to land where the US Pilots flew straight to the landing, Hence the gift to GB. Once the Brits solved the problem, The US Marines yelled , gimme gimme we'll use them and they got them and the Japs regretted it. The Brits also used them in North Africa as fight/bombers and in Sicily also.

@mikeholland1031

Ай бұрын

Because you have eyes.

@sparky4878

Ай бұрын

Because the Royal Navy had them. In fact I believe they were using them on carriers before the US marines and USN, who originally used them from shore bases.

@sirblank2384

Ай бұрын

​@sparky4878 the brits used the corsairs in early to mid 1944 the americans used them on carriers right before them in early 1944 but also used them earlier than that on the land bases since 1942

Ummm... Britain taking revenge for Japan colonizing British colonies??

I guess the Brits don't have a sense of keeping up older ships. Who knows maybe that's why they like to visit the older ships when they visit the states. Who knows.

@Pedallingfuriously

Ай бұрын

HMS Victory. Launched 7th May 1765. Still in service . Flagship of the First Sea Lord.

Tuff ass CVs for sure

I love seeing Americans get all upset. A country that was late to both world wars.

@sirblank2384

Ай бұрын

And saved the day in both world wars saving the british twice with 2/3 of all vehicles for the allies in ww2 were american

@JamesWestVideo

Ай бұрын

@@sirblank2384 any country that sits back for a few years and spins up their industry is gunna do well. Oh and make a lot of money too. Strange that.

@sirblank2384

Ай бұрын

@@JamesWestVideo we wanted to follow the founding fathers plans stay out of foreign affairs but no the brits having to beg us and the japanese had to touch our boats

@JamesWestVideo

Ай бұрын

@@sirblank2384 an American talking about staying out of foreign affairs is beyond laughable.

@sirblank2384

Ай бұрын

@@JamesWestVideo after ww2 idk y but the us was made a police force of the planet

At the war's end, the US had 103 aircraft carriers (23 fleet carriers) and a 1,000-plus-fleet navy. The HMS Implacable was irrelevant in the Pacific War.

32 knots is 37 MPH, not 59 MPH. 59 would be insane.

@dgflater

Ай бұрын

Kilometres per hour not mph.

Please remember a great deal of your followers don’t know the metric system. So please include standard measurements in your description. Thank you

please. Big E is the real ship everyone was afraid of jeez

@mikeholland1031

Ай бұрын

Only in the pacific

@davewolfy2906

Ай бұрын

The Germans were not afraid of it. You do know that the Germans were in the war?

@robertx8020

Ай бұрын

TBH I don't think there was a single ship everyone was afraid of ..even not Enterprise ..is she had been sunk after 43 it would have made no difference1

@deejaysyn420

Ай бұрын

@@robertx8020 very true

Princess Elizebeth! Future Queen!

Romania was doubtless terrified. Your titles are a joke.

You’re getting extremely lazy. Talking about the great British aircraft carrier but you show stock footage of American Corsairs- 1944? , and American carriers firing 5” guns.

@andynct

Ай бұрын

Corsairs did serve on British Pacific Fleet carriers. Just not on Implacable. The US guns - no excuse.

@pashby3

Ай бұрын

you're candor seems incongruous in regards to this good content creator ..maybe you're factual indulgence could be better worded to convey discord..

@johnbrobston1334

Ай бұрын

Not nearly as bad as the one that showed a nuclear powered cruiser.

@zascreamer100

Ай бұрын

@@pashby3 I don’t doubt his talent and watch all his videos. He’s an informative historian. However, lately the stock footage is a huge distraction that demeans the hard work and effort I’m sure he puts into it.

@sparky4878

Ай бұрын

Royal Navy did fly Corsairs, they had them carrier certified before the US marines and USN, who originally flew them from land bases.

If you are going to discuss American and British ships, drop that metric crap...

@mikeholland1031

Ай бұрын

Join the rest of the world

@RobertCunningham-cw4bv

Ай бұрын

The rest of the world is outta step 🫡🖕 lol Jk, but for American audiences, he should do that. ​@@mikeholland1031

@TheHeckert85

Ай бұрын

NEVER!!!!!

Gee thanks England for all the help after 5 years of being a no show

@tgamron

Ай бұрын

No kidding.

@andynct

Ай бұрын

Lent US an aircraft carrier, USS Robin, and was very busy in the Indian Ocean theatre against the Japanese where the US was largely absent.

@davewolfy2906

Ай бұрын

Time for your milk I think.

@truthhurts9241

Ай бұрын

Clearly not a student of History.

@blrenx

Ай бұрын

@@truthhurts9241 Is that right? Do me a favor, Tell me one.. Just one time, The Limeys won a battle in WW2? The battle of Britain was defensive, North Africa you couldn't win without Canada doing the fighting for you. And some limited help from the USA. Oh and then you have the battle of Caen that held up the D Day advancement for a month. All the other armies were begging Monty to by pass because of the casualties. and don't forget your little stroll through holland to take some bridges of zero strategic value..

The british had ruled the seas for 300 years, yet they still needed our help to prevent their total destruction.

@davehodgson9260

Ай бұрын

But you needed your arse kicked by tiny Japan before woke up to the threat

@jamesknight3070

Ай бұрын

No, by the time America decided to get off it's metaphorical ass the tide had already turned against the Third Reich. In the end, America and the Soviets became best of pals, making secret backroom deals sealing the fates of countries such as Poland...GG-WP!

@douglascampbell4993

Ай бұрын

Sure… that’s why they lent the US a carrier during the war is it? Because they needed help and were running out of ships? 🤣

@JamesWestVideo

Ай бұрын

Shame it took you guys so long to get the courage to help.

@entropy5431

Ай бұрын

When you have ruled the seas for 300 years you can laugh. Only up to about 75 years so far.

The Ship All Axis Powers Were so Afraid Of = The USS Enterprise

@mikeholland1031

Ай бұрын

In the pacific only

I HAVE A BIG QUESTION? HOW MANY U.S. AIRCRAFT CARRIER'S WHERE INVOLVED IN THE INVASION OF FRANCE ON D-DAY IN OR AROUND THE ENGLISH CHANNEL OR MEDITERRANEAN SEA AREA ? I'VE NEVER HERD OF ANY ATTACKED BY GERMAN FORCES ? ANYONE KNOW ?