Hooray!! Iron Duke My grandfather served on the gunnery of the Iron Duke at Jutland (aged 16). Glad to hear praise about the gunnery accuracy...well done granddad!
I love how the intro sounded like a gentle reprimand from a college tutor who was ever so slightly disappointed with the maturity levels displayed during a lecture
@@kostakatsoulis2922 Yes, in the immortal words of Drach in Drydock 044, Yamato “basically ended up giving up and running away right at the point of victory. That’s pretty inept!”
Drachinifel, sir, I have never known someone with more knowledge of naval history and ship design than you. You could easily teach at the U.S. Naval Academy at Annapolis. My heart bleeds Army, but I love naval history and am a firm believer in combined arms theory. I also enjoy your sense of humor. In one video you were discussing French (interwar years or floating hotels maybe?) battleships and you said they added four torpedo tubes because, well they could. Lol! If I might be permitted, I would like to request a video. Could you please do a video about the victories versus the greatest odds, the most epic last stands, and the valiant sacrificing of a ship for the mission or fellow sailors and ships. Perhaps a top ten type video? I would be very obliged, sir. Thank you, sir!
I would be very much interested in how the Austrian WW1 Battleships would have faired against Italian ones on 1 vs 1... I once read/heard that their navy was actually not so bad for what it was intended to do
Zara Class vs Algerie class heavy cruisers Atago vs New Orleans class heavy cruisers Le Fantasque Class vs Capitani Romani Class destroyer/flotilla leaders Shimakaze vs Gearing vs Daring class late war destroyers Roma vs KGV class Battleships
Washington's gunnery at Guadalcanal was phenomenal. Ripped Kirishima to shreds, at night,. The admiral commanding was a radar gunnery expert, which would be a major advantage.
It is veeery difficult nearly impossible to sink a british designed ( and build) Battlecruiser. remember no british Battlecruiser ever was sunk by 16" guns!!
Can you give us an answer to the long standing question, "What do you do with a drunken sailor?" Early in the morning would be a good start, but any time of day would be fine.
5:37 "Therefore the battle in these two ships in open ocean is very likely to go the North Carolina's way simply because it can hold the range and just pummel away the Nagato-" Nagato: *laughs in Big Seven - Sakura*
French ALGERIE SAP shells will work perfectly against HIPPER due to no face-hardened (Krupp post-1936 KC n/A) on the German ship. ALGERIE has some Schneider et Cie., Creusot, face-hardened armor, but the German APC will be able to penetrate that due to its hard AP cap. Thus, your statement that the French shells give more "bang for the buck" is quite correct since a hard AP cap is not needed and the thinner German homogeneous, ductile (Krupp Wh) armor can be penetrated quite well by large-filler SAP ammo. Face-hardened armor has two advantages when hit at close-to-right-angles impact: It can shatter the nose of uncapped shells and thus significantly increase their needed striking velocity to punch through and, in many cases, even if the cap works and prevents this, at impacts with some oblique angle where the shell is slowed considerably by the armor, the hard face can severely damage the projectile as it tries to pass through the plate, making the shell act more like broken solid shot with much lower damage-causing capability. To do similar projectile damage with homogeneous, ductile armor takes a much thicker plate, on the average, at any given oblique impact angle.
Minor point of fact: the NC's main batteries were in three-gun turrets, not triple turrets, as each gun could be elevated and fired independently, whereas in a triple, elevation and firing were simultaneous.
...... HMS New Zealand (the ship that never got hit) vrx HMAS Australia (the badly tempered Australian sister) Taking into account the actual performance of their contempory crews. Maori warclothes and lucky Necklace ignored (because Australia cannot hit a ship with that much luck)
Hipper suffers from being basically a "first try" at a treaty era heavy cruiser Vs it's contemporaries who benefitted from a continuous design cycle. If you compared them to other 'first tries' like the Pensacola class or the Aoba/Myoko's the comparison is a lot more favourable
The Germans never tried for a "treaty" cruiser with Hipper, they knew they were going over the tonnage limit and went all the way. They did a better job following the 10,000 ton standard rule with the Deutschlands. Problem with the Hipper's is that you have to compare them to cruisers decades their senior, which is pretty sad design wise. Also doesn't help German AP shells and boilers were notoriously unreliable, doesn't make for a great ship.
@@michiganfarmer69 If the Hood did have a rebuilt and thickened armour deck as formerly proposed, the chances would certainly have been more equal. Right that the Bismarck was not docked and then defenceless as were the french ships in Mers-el-Kébir ...
Dio Brando Iowa would have the range advantage. 16” vs 15” guns. She’d also have 9 guns to Vanguards 8. However vanguard was more heavily armoured and had state of the art fire direction and radars. At a medium range engagement I’d say vanguard would win. As her guns were big enough to penetrate the majority of Iowa’s armour, yet being able to withstand considerable damage herself thanks to her armour and the excellent British damage control system. Though Iowa could in theory run away as she was a couple knots faster I believe.
I'm fairly convinced that if battleship construction had continued into the 1950s, Richie/Nelson/Dunkirk style "all forward armament" would have become the norm.
If Washington had the level of gunnery competence insisted on by Admiral Willis "Ching" Lee, she would have taken Tirpitz or Bismarck apart in short order, a la Kirishima at Guadalcanal in November 1942. "This is Admiral Lee. Get out of the way, I'm coming through!"
You brought out the accurate gunnery of the Iron Duke, so in fairness you could have mentioned that in actual combat, the Washington fired very fast and very accurate. In something like a 12 minute battle with Kirishima, the Washington had 10 16" hits and 40 5" hits, pretty much tearing the Kirishima apart. While there Tirpitz was a lot tougher, the lighter shells of the Rodney and KG V rendered the Bismarck a mission kill in short order. Unless Tirpitz got real lucky, real fast, I would expect the Washington would knock most of the fire control systems out very quickly. At Savo Island, the Washington did exactly that to the Kirishama, with the 10 x 5" guns concentrating on the superstructure.
Bismarck sank Hood in under 5 minutes and less than 10 salvoes, then proceeded to hit Prince of Wales three or four times AND at a far greater range that the Washington, so I suspect Washington would have her hands full with Tirpitz, , though I don't think Washington had the speed to either catch the Tirpitz or to engage him ( yes, HIM !) in a running gun fight. One on one, Tirpitz either would just go flank speed and evade or use the highly efficient optical fire control for their main batteries to drive off the Washington, or disable / sink it if forced to fight.
@@tommatt2ski Birsmarck and Tirpitz were only about 2 kts faster at best. And if the range opens, Washington gains more advantage with radar guidance. The same system allowed West Virginia to hit Yamashiro with at leas one round per salvo at over 20,000 yards, at night. And less be real, no WWI ship had armor schemes as good as WWII ships.
@@timclaus8313 A ship that takes 400 plus hits from battleship guns, their secondaries, heavy cruisers guns and secondaries, destroyers shells, PLUS a minimum of 8 torpedoes, likely more and taking more time than Titanic to sink... what MORE do want the armor to do, PS - two knots is two knots faster than Washington. Bismarck and / or Tirpitz can engage or disengage at WILL! No modern US battleship in WWII after Pearl Harbor took punishment even near what Bismarck and Tirpitz (not one, not two BUT THREE Tall Boy Bombs what would have happened to either Washington or Iowa suffered the same punishment as Bismarck and Tirpitz respectively ??? Just because an armor scheme is an older design does NOT mean it is inferior or obsolete!
@@tommatt2ski Bismarck's problem was that critical control circuits were above the armor protection. Plus the central fire control system was knocked out. Bismarck had at least two, if not more, barbettes fully penetrated by large caliber shells. This does not mean Bismarck was bad, it just means it was not the mythical ship often portrayed. With the exceptions of a couple of battlecruisers at Jutland, and a true Golden BB shot below the main side armor on Hood by Bismarck, few battleships went down without plenty of torpedo and bomb hits. And a relatively deep running torpedo has a better chance to breach the critical hull structure if it can hit below the main armor belt. I am not sure any battleship from any navy could survive the battering that Bismarck, Yamato or Musashi took while underway. I am also fairly confident that any of the new battleships in the respective fleets, such as the Littorios, Richelieu's KGVs, North Carolinas, South Dakotas or Iowas would have held up just as well as Bismarck did. No battleship, including Yamato, would have handled 4 or 5 long lance hits in the center body of the hull. One of those blew the entire bow off several heavy cruisers.
@@tommatt2ski Bismarck wa a well built ship. Keep in mind that the UK, US and German torpedos were nothing special, nothing like the long lance of Japan. I would say Yamato, Musashi, Yamashiro and Fuso all took a tremendous amount of punishment before sinking. Same with Kirisihima and Hiei. 2 knots is about 2.4 miles in 60 minutes. Still well within accurate gun range for any fast battleship, though it does increase the dispersement a bit. And no ship in a battle is going in a straight line, so that negates some of the flat out speed difference. Plus 4 blade ships are going to out accelerate 3 blade ships while zig zagging.
If you thought the Admiral Hipper 8in ap shell's bursting charge of 2.3 kg was pathetic check out the the 8 in ap shells of the Northampton class, it's a measly 1.7 kg bursting charge😅
The primary key is being able to have fire control that is both accurate and sufficiently rapid. My thinking is that a ship that is less capable on paper but with a well trained / disciplined crew has a better than even chance against a less capable crew. Hits from even lighter guns can make a big difference.
South Carolina has the better armament layout and the better observation (Dreadnought has the crows nest behind the funnel!), but the Dreadnought has the superior fire control system, far superior propulsion system allowing her to pick her fights, and if you take crew into account, the Dreadnought wins every time as they trained for actual combat whilst the US crews only trained for perfect conditions.
(Non-serious suggestion, feel free to ignore) "Iowa versus Yams! Iowa versus Yams! Everybody-wants-to-see-this-hap-pen! Iowa versus Yams! Iowa versus Yams!"
Geez Drach just when I thought you couldn't top yourself, you did! another great video and discussions. intermediate dreadnought matchups:Lord Nelson vs Schlesien .... New Hampshire vs Slava....Radetzky vs Regina Elena ... Tsukuba vs Verite. Thanks again Drach!
@@johnduchesneau8685 Emerged, the 203 mm guns of the Surcouf would have quickly destroyed the Nautilus. And under the water, both would have been unable to detect the other one, and even more to fight her .
Kinda fun, comparing the verdicts here to the "World in Flames" Collectors Edition counter sheets. Like, say - Washington vs. Tirpitz are almost rated the same.
Loved this line up! Definitely some interesting duels. I would say however, that Vanguard and Scharnhorst may not be as quick and easy. You have to bear in mind that though Duke Of York landed substantial hits, the Scharnhorst was "blind in one eye" due to Sheffield's hit to her main radar. Plus, in the end, Scharnhorst's death came from + - 13 Torpedo hits and scuttling. Though the Scharnhorst is certainly not well equipped to face heavy units, in a 1v1 scenario I think it would be far more potent provided it enters the fight in proper order.
the USS Colorado is guarding a merchant convoy. And its attacked by the Bismark. Bismark has to sail around the Colorado to get at the convoy. Colorado 8x16 inch guns to Bismarks 8x15 guns. BUT Bismark is five or six knots faster, and is a bigger and more modern ship. Given that respective pair of missions. Who wins?
What would a Jutland-style clash of the fleets look like in mid-1942, with the following conditions?: UK, USA, USSR, plus French battleships Richelieu and Jean Bart vs. Germany, Italy, and Japan Bismarck still exists Discounting other events, a hypothetical battle with the full capital ship strength of each side No carriers involved
Love your videos! My father was a WW2 Navy man who taught the Seebees how to fight! The movie the fighting Seebees with John Wayne my father was in those battles and a few others! It was extremely hard to get him to talk about the war but when he did it was usually to correct history in a WW2 movie when there was a part that was wrong in his eyes! So I remember the things we did talk about and when I listen to your videos it brings back memories of my time discussing WW2 with my father! We went to see the USS Alabama and the USS Drum and I remember his face lighting up when he talked about the ships! I have photos that he took in his time in the Navy and it's crazy the things soldiers went through in WW2! Anyway keep up the good work bro really love the videos!!!
Alaska vs. Scharnhorst? Baltimore vs. Deutschland? If the latter wins, how about Des Moines vs. Deutschland? Admiral Hipper vs. Tone? New Mexico vs. Bayern? And for something a bit crazy, I'd like to hear your thoughts on what would have happened if Vice Admiral Mitscher had not taken the initiative to attack the Yamato with planes, and instead let Rear Admiral Deyo proceed with his force of three dreadnought (Arkansas, New York, and Texas) and seven super-dreadnought (Maryland, Colorado, Tennessee, Nevada, Idaho, West Virginia, and New Mexico) battleships to attempt to intercept the Yamato.
I thought I remembered Texas having the first fire control computer on a battleship and in fact did very, very well in gunnery when it joined Home Fleet.
How effective was American radar gun direction during WW2? The radar on Tirpitz, like Bismarck, was damaged by firing the guns, in addition to fragility it was not nearly as precise or long ranged.
The USS Lexington, if it had been completed as a battle cruiser instead of as an aircraft carrier. Pitted against any actual battle ship or battle cruiser of WWII of your choice!
Well, at least the 1920 designs at least usually had enough firepower to really hurt enemy ships. 406+ mm guns designed during the twenties, especially with modern shells still hurt greatly. Most problems of older battleships, the american ships in particular, was the lack of speed. Especially since unlike firecontrol, deck armor and anti air armament, that was something, that could not particulary well be altered. To go with an 37mm gun however against a KV tank was laughable. Or even some of the heavier armored tanks of the same time. The Char B1 bis and S 35s were pretty much immun against their own armament (and common anti tank weapons of other nations). It kind of fell apart however due to the fact, that they were ridiculously fuel inefficient, combined with incompetent leadership, and the notorious 1-Man turret.
Martin Baumgartner well, that’s literally Japan’s fault. Had they not attacked Pearl Harbor, the U.S. fleet would of never been salvaged, retrofitted and upgraded... meaning it would be more likely the IJN would of squared off against weaker U.S. ships in deep water where they couldn’t be salvaged and saved... as well as lessons learned about the need of aaa.
xjm212x25 yes they were, but slowly and painfully. Pearl Harbor opened the taps to the War Dept to now build whatever they wanted and too hell with costs. Where the Navy had to plead and beg for modernization funds, now congress said get that done yesterday, it’s a national priority.
OK, for your consideration 1) The USN planned to use aerial spotting extensively- even to the point of firing from over the horizon. How would that affect South Dakota's ability to hit Nagato at, say, 30000 yards. 2) The ability of the RN's armor piercing shells to penetrate armor was a disaster at Jutland. "The British in particular had badly misjudged how their shells would be used in action. They had based much of their doctrine around long-range engagements with common shells, intended to destroy the enemy’s unarmored upperworks, start fires and demoralize the crew, with AP shells to be held for finishing off enemy ships at closer range. This was used as a justification for not carrying out oblique impact tests on their AP projectiles, which turned out to be a serious mistake at Jutland, where few projectiles penetrated heavy German armor." So much so that an entire new generation of shells had to be designed and issued - the "Greenboys". So, you have to take into account when the Texas vs Irion Duke engagement occurred. 3) After the US entered the war, FDR ordered the US Atlantic Fleet's battle force (BB's, CV's, CA's, CL's and newest DD's) to be concentrated into Task Force 99 operating out of Iceland under Home Fleet operational control 4) Algerie vs Hipper. By repute, the British and Germans had the best fire control and armor quality, with the US right behind. The French were down with the Japanese, with the poor Italians at the bottom. Would this make a difference in this battle 5) When the battle occurred can be vital. US radar fire control led the world by a considerable measure in 1944-45 which would tip the odds in the US favor as opposed to, say, 1942. Is Texas vs Iron Duke fought in 1915 or 1918 with or without Greenboys....
American FC systems employed by far the most advanced stable vertical elements in the world. In practical terms, this meant that American vessels could keep a solution on a target even when performing radical maneuvers. In 1945 test, an American battleship (the North Carolina) was able to maintain a constant solution even when performing back to back high-speed 450-degree turns, followed by back-to-back 100-degree turns.7 This was a much better performance than other contemporary systems, and gave U.S. battleships a major tactical advantage, in that they could both shoot and maneuver, whereas their opponents could only do one or the other.
Ron52G pride? I don’t see the British Admiralty accepting any U.S. advancements on their ships, as that would mean British ships were lacking. I wonder how many more troops would of survived ww2 if pride wasn’t an issue... e.g. 8th Army daylight bombing campaign.
@@TheAngelobarker despite it's shortcomings, it still was fairly accurate. The Littorio's shells were horribly manufactured with no consistency. British ships reported 15' shells flying far over or far short of their ships
@@lordbrain8867 not to mention when it did engage anything the shells were no more accurate than the littorios due to the gun mountings shaking when they fired. The us fleet had no promblem with the french battleships quad turrets they barely ever hit anything. At least the littorios gutted a few cruisers.
Iowa and New Jersey straddled Nowaki at 35,000-39,000 yards several times with straddles close enough to cause splinter damage and casualties onboard. And that was a destroyer.
5:57 To hold the distance, that either assumes the Nagato crew is unaware of the armor situation -- which is not the premise of the discussion -- or North Carolina would be rear-facing Nagato's front. That would be a significantly different match-up compared to broadside on at 20k yards.
Nope. (And frankly Drach’s analysis is terrible, because…) Doesn’t take into account fire control. US Mark 38 fire directors provided continuous solution updates, meaning NC can maneuver and fire simultaneously. It can turn and fire all turrets, turn back thru 90 degrees and fire again, then back to the other side ad nauseum. NC has an angular turn rate of about 90 degrees per minute. It would probably want to zig every three-four minutes. Bottom line though is US battleship fire control is so much better it’s not close anyway.
Good stuff Steven, I recently noticed a video called "imperial star destroyer vs USS Enterprise",I didn't actually watch it , I just said to myself"unless the star destroyer is named Warspite, it's doomed".
Just remember - Luck. Hood was hit and sunk by a one-in-a-million hit. Bismark lost both front turrets (effectively) and the bridge with all personnel from one 16" hit. No matter how one-sided a battle, a battleship sized shell can do critical damage to the fighting ability of any ship regardless of armour - a shell hitting a turret doesn't need to penetrate to put it out of action, jams, shock killing the crew etc - ditto radar and directors. I often imagine Warspite getting a couple of decent hits at long range (which she was very good at!) against the Yamato and then proceeding to calmly pick it apart leaving a floating hulk...
I think in ship vs ship situation, above specifications there is crew skill and captain skill. Also any of these two can just score very lucky hit killing captain and most important crew, rendering even better ship useless.
Actually the better matchup is the Iowa class versus the Soviet Kirov class. That is what they were brought back in service and upgraded to be a match for.
@@Volunteer-per-order_OSullivan First, it does not have 5 times the range. The Iowa had anti ship UGM-109b Tomahawks or the optional nuclear. The Kirov's only have 20 anti ship missles. And the Iowa's are armored to fight other BB's. Even if the missle defenses fail, it can take the hits and still hit back. Also, extended range ammo then in development would have boost the gun range to 100 miles. It is fair fight match then and now.
Just to further what WALTERBROADDUS mentions, because no one had built armored ships for more than 30 years, no ASM in use by the soviets or any one else to be honest had armor piercing capabilities and because of that the russians believed that their kirovs or any of their surface ships had no chance and the iowas had to be destroyed by aerial attack or torpedoes- Sergei Gorshkov memories have a interesting story about it.
@@Solrac-Siul Wouldn't Soviet ASMs be nuclear if launched against a US warship? Armor won't help you much with that unless it detonates very far away.
One for the alternate history, what if the london naval treatys failed and therefore the british build the lion class without weight restrictions in mind? Would it still have a similar layout to the KGV class secondary wise and armor etc or would we see the class split the secondary to defined anti surface and AA like this Bismarck and Roma? Or maybe they would stick with the multipurpose guns but have 6 abreast rather than 4? Could we see the torpedo protection introduce the two stage system planned for the G3 class?
I heard just a snippet, once, from a noted historian who felt that if the LNT had failed, the British and Americans would have gone to war against each other.
@@lamwen03 I would have to disagree. If the Washington naval treaty had failed then there would have been war however in the 1930s, when the London Naval Treaty was signed, there was this little thing called the great depredation. The big sad would have prevented any politician from considering war and would have made the construction of new battleships an interesting prospect, as in it would create lots of jobs that would get you lots of votes. The ships themselves would likely be a whole lot bigger, but they wouldn't be as big as the immediate post WW1 designs as that would have been too expensive.
The analysis between North Carolina and Nagato fails to take into account the weight of shells; North Carolina's armor piercing shells weighed 2700 lbs (1227 kg) versus the 2249 lbs (1022 kg), which gave the North Carolina a measurable advantage in armor penetration. And the North Carolina's fire control system was at the time the best in world. The higher rate of fire of the Nagato's 16.1/45 versus the North Carolina's 16/45 gun (2.5 RPM vs 2.0 RPM officially) is really negated by better fire control and the Japanese Navy's method of finding the range via multiple salvos, as opposed to the US method of radar range finding which in many cases was close enough to ensure a hit by 2nd or 3rd salvos.
Drachinifel! This is very perfect! I have always thought of the Richelieu vs. the Bismarck. My assumption is that this battle would be down to the sea were it would happen. In open sea with plenty of room to maneuver the advantage may fall to the French, while in a more constricted sea lane, the Germans may have the edge. Your thoughts?
It would be very interesting to see this in a wargame. I think it will largely come down to battle instructions, since both Germans and British had orders to close as fast as possible to around 15km. Don't know about the French, and this might be the single most critical factor, since they can keep the range open if they wish to do so. Still, I do believe Bismarck holds the general advantage due to her proven accuracy, whereas Richelieu had horrible dispersion problems that were only corrected postwar. Bismarck will reliably hit her target at any range, so my money is on her.
Oh, I like the abundance of speculative fights like these. Well then, a Tegetthoff class ship (not Szent Istvan though) vs a Conte di Cavour class. Also, Ersatz Monarch vs Francesco Caracciolo, just to go full hypothetical. And to cap this series of requests off, could you model a large battle between the Italian battle line and the Austro-Hungarian battle line in 1916 (after Leonardo Da Vinci blew up)? It really wouldn't be neccessary if you think it would take up too much time. I'm not sure there's enough interest in that very particular section of the Med being rehashed from episode to episode, to warrant you doing all these.
How about the 2 big gun battle wagons “Alabama vs Tirpitz” a battle that could’ve happened, since the Alabama while operating in North Atlantic was actually looking for a fight with the German battle wagon
Vanguard was a fine ship. The Iowa's were fine (and completely new) ships with heavier and more armament , the finest fire control (visual and radar) systems and damage control in the world and a higher battle speed. The 2700 lb Yank shell could penetrate any of vanguard's (and Yamato's) armor. The 15" gun was never terribly accurate compared to the British 14" which could penetrate anything the 15" could up to its maximum range. Two good ships. But Iowa wins.
I'm not sure if it was true of the Nagato class or not, but the Fuso class had a major flaw where the turrets' barbettes didn't extend very deep into the ship, potentially exposing the stored shells and magazines to penetration. There's a reason US warships had the base of their barbettes near the bottom of the ship.
Hi there Drachnifel I just finished up your three part series on the Battle of Jutland . I found it VERY interesting . Your telling of the Battle of Jutland was rivoting . I think that Admiral Jellicoe and Admiral Scheer were both brilliant strategists. They made some boldest moves and sometimes not actually some of the best . But I was not happy that when you mentioned that Admiral Beaty just broke off contact with Jellicoe and did his own thing . Do you think that doing so put those sailors blood on his hands ? When they got back to England they should have had some kind of inquiry . In my opinion . Because someone should have had to answer to all the loss of lives and the loss of all that shipping . But all in all it kept me spellbound . Sir I commend you on that series . The eyewitness accounts and how it was laid out you sir are a brilliant historian . Thank you . Too bad Hipper ,Scheer , Jellicoe and Beaty couldn’t have went for a beer after the outcome of Jutland and discussed their strategies . Thank you again fo tor telling the greatest sea battle of all time . It sir was definitely the Clash of the Titans .
Drach, while we’re discussing hypotheticals, why not put Admiral Lee aboard Washington in charge of convoy PQ-17, so that Washington at least has the best possible chance?
Two additional factors to consider in a North Carolina vs Nagato battle are radar and the exact time in the war when you want to place this battle. Now that I think about it, third and fourth factors would be time of day and weather conditions. At any time in the war the North Carolina would have had an advantage. The Nagato did survive until the end of the war so it eventually was given radar, but nowhere as good as what the North Carolina had at the same time. The following is from Combinedfleet.com which is a website about the Imperial Japanese Navy. It's from a comparison of some of the major battleships of all countries during WW2. "The final adjusted rating also reflects the fact that American FC (radar) systems employed by far the most advanced stable vertical elements in the world. In practical terms, this meant that American vessels could keep a solution on a target even when performing radical maneuvers. In 1945 test, an American battleship (the North Carolina) was able to maintain a constant solution even when performing back to back high-speed 450-degree turns, followed by back-to-back 100-degree turns. This was a much better performance than other contemporary systems, and gave U.S. battleships a major tactical advantage, in that they could both shoot and maneuver, whereas their opponents could only do one or the other." Before May 31, 1943 the Nagato wouldn't have had radar. The officers and crew of the Kirishima were given a painful lesson in what it meant to not have radar in a gunfight night battle against an opponent who did have radar. In that battle the U.S.S. Washington fired 76 main battery shells and scored 20 direct hits, according to the Kirishima's damage control officer. That was at very close range for battleships, only 7800 - 8400 yards, but the Washington's observers could only see the Kirishima's silhouette and thought they only scored 8 or 9 direct hits. So in the dark or in weather conditions that would reduce visibility, the North Carolina's advantage gets larger.
Also would be interesting to see a comparison between the West Virginia and the Nagato, covering both the original configuration and after their respective rebuilds and upgrading. Nagato in the 30s and the West Virginia post Pearl Harbor. Excluding the new battleships, these two were the most powerful veteran battleships in the Pacific. Adding the legendary Warspite for a British flavor would be cool too, as after refits in the 30s, the three upgraded QEs were the best WW I era RN battleships. To my way of thinking, no other navy had a WW I era ship equal before the war to these three, and certainly not after in-war upgrades that were accomplished.
In the US vs German battleship questions, it really comes down to which vessels are able to keep their radars intact. By late 1941, radar for sea search and fire control was so vital that having it knocked out in poor visibility conditions or night action was almost the hand of death. All the WWII ship to ship questions are also dependent on which side had the most effective air cover.
American FC systems employed by far the most advanced stable vertical elements in the world. In practical terms, this meant that American vessels could keep a solution on a target even when performing radical maneuvers. In 1945 test, an American battleship (the North Carolina) was able to maintain a constant solution even when performing back to back high-speed 450-degree turns, followed by back-to-back 100-degree turns.7 This was a much better performance than other contemporary systems, and gave U.S. battleships a major tactical advantage, in that they could both shoot and maneuver, whereas their opponents could only do one or the other.
Indeed, but we're talking about 1941, and 1945 was like night and day by comparison. I'm not sure the North Carolina could have had such success then at night or in poor visibility with the radar shot away.
Even with equally competent crews I think the US 14"/45 never got close in accuracy to the RN 13,5" and 15" (and the 14"/50 was much worse). If the Texas vs. iron Duke duel takes place after 1918 and the introduction of the RN Green Boy shell the Iron Duke ought to have a serious advantage. If taking place before both ship's shells will tend to crack on heavy armour.
1. North Carolina vs. Nagato: At 20,000 yards, advantage to NC. 2. N3 vs. Tillman IV-2: Advantage IV-2, N3 if things go FUBAR on Tillman. 3. Texas vs. Bretagne vs. HMS Iron Duke: Bretagne out at 15K yards; at 10K yards, 65-35 to Iron Duke. 4. HMS Vanguard vs. Scharnhorst: Vanguard wins. 5. HMS Agincourt vs. Fuso: Fuso pummels Agincourt at 20K yards. 6A. Alabama + Renown vs. Prinz Eugen + Tirpitz: Alabama combo wins. 6B. Alabama + South Dakota vs. Bismarck + Tirpitz: " " " 7. Washington vs. Tirpitz: Draw; escort torpedoes tip the balance. 8. Force Z with G3 battleship + tracer ammo: Damaged by air attack, but able to retreat to Singapore for repairs. 9. Algerie vs. Admiral Hipper heavy cruisers: Vive la France!
Never going to get done since it's been three years and there was never a part two but thought of this. What about a South Dakota-class and Alaska-class in the same position as Prince of Wales and Repulse? The South Dakotas were built around the same time as the King George V class and the Alaskas are the closest comparison in the US Navy to the Repulse-class I know of. Really big cruisers with big guns (I know the 15 inch guns of Repulse were proper battleship guns while the 12 inch guns of the Alaska would only have been battleship guns in WW2 but it's the best I could think of).
HMS Rodney sailed at ships with 9 guns firing, she was a beast of the seas but not many people know 95% of the hits on the Bismarck came from Rodney and at the end was only a few hundred yards away from her at the end
Good luck getting a South Dakota class battleship to the ocean xD (Why did the US think it was a good idea to use the names of landlocked states for anything naval??? It’s just entertaining)
South Dakota wasn't proof against her primary armament either. Even Iowa wasn't proof against the superheavy shells that all of these ships carried. Washington/North Carolina had much better main battery protection than Bismarck and Tirpitz, too. Bismarck's primary battery was silenced pretty quickly. North Carolina and Washington have an enormous firepower and, equally or more important, firecontrol advantage.
Hooray!! Iron Duke
My grandfather served on the gunnery of the Iron Duke at Jutland (aged 16). Glad to hear praise about the gunnery accuracy...well done granddad!
The British navy practiced far more in rough seas while the USN did in calm seas so it took a while for the USN in WW1 to adapt
@@ErokCherokee Yeah the USN did practice in the nice warm calm tropics.
sorry to say but with it`s hit rate of 1.5% a german gunnery officer wouldhave to re paint his ship all alone
I love how the intro sounded like a gentle reprimand from a college tutor who was ever so slightly disappointed with the maturity levels displayed during a lecture
When are we gonna get another ship vs ship vid drach?
I like to ship Drach with Othais from C&Rsenal
@@joearnold6881 so
Please !!!!
I must concur, when are we going to get a second one??
More ship VS ship!
How about a Fletcher class DD vs. the Yamato. Oh wait, we already know how that went.
Yes, Yamato lost.
How about a CVE vs an IJN battleship?
@@FS2K4Pilot i mean technically she won, Yamato sunk Johnston... she just retreated afterwards.
@@kostakatsoulis2922 Yes, in the immortal words of Drach in Drydock 044, Yamato “basically ended up giving up and running away right at the point of victory. That’s pretty inept!”
Love this!
But really you dont want an equal fight....
*Cough Johnston and S.B.Roberts*
If you're in a fair fight, you're doing something wrong.
Drachinifel, sir, I have never known someone with more knowledge of naval history and ship design than you. You could easily teach at the U.S. Naval Academy at Annapolis. My heart bleeds Army, but I love naval history and am a firm believer in combined arms theory.
I also enjoy your sense of humor. In one video you were discussing French (interwar years or floating hotels maybe?) battleships and you said they added four torpedo tubes because, well they could. Lol!
If I might be permitted, I would like to request a video. Could you please do a video about the victories versus the greatest odds, the most epic last stands, and the valiant sacrificing of a ship for the mission or fellow sailors and ships. Perhaps a top ten type video? I would be very obliged, sir. Thank you, sir!
#1 USS Johnston 😎
18:11 - 18:23 I never thought I'd see a Crimean War (1853 - 1856) joke! :)
I would be very much interested in how the Austrian WW1 Battleships would have faired against Italian ones on 1 vs 1... I once read/heard that their navy was actually not so bad for what it was intended to do
UA-cam's autogenerated subtitles:
"Sean Horse"
youtube's autogenerated subtitles always crack me up. what a waste of microchips!
Oh come on you can tell what heals talking about still
Wow! 6 Five minute guides in one episode! Incredible value!
Zara Class vs Algerie class heavy cruisers
Atago vs New Orleans class heavy cruisers
Le Fantasque Class vs Capitani Romani Class destroyer/flotilla leaders
Shimakaze vs Gearing vs Daring class late war destroyers
Roma vs KGV class Battleships
But atago was not built was it. Exept for the new Atago class ships built by japan
@@sturlajonsson9515 you might want to check again chief
The important part is that the Triglav will defeat all of them hands down, isn't that right Vice Admiral Dusty?
Sturla Jónsson Atago was built and she was part of the Takao class
Reality and World of Warships are quite different things.
Washington's gunnery at Guadalcanal was phenomenal. Ripped Kirishima to shreds, at night,. The admiral commanding was a radar gunnery expert, which would be a major advantage.
It is veeery difficult nearly impossible to sink a british designed ( and build) Battlecruiser. remember no british Battlecruiser ever was sunk by 16" guns!!
Yeah, the "too close to call" assessment doesn't take into account the human aimbot known as Admiral Lee.
Can you give us an answer to the long standing question, "What do you do with a drunken sailor?" Early in the morning would be a good start, but any time of day would be fine.
I slways heard the refrain “throw him in a bunk with the captains daughter< early in the morning”. YMMV
5:37 "Therefore the battle in these two ships in open ocean is very likely to go the North Carolina's way simply because it can hold the range and just pummel away the Nagato-"
Nagato: *laughs in Big Seven - Sakura*
Discovered in Jan 2022, after watching the channel for last 2 years... I want another
French ALGERIE SAP shells will work perfectly against HIPPER due to no face-hardened (Krupp post-1936 KC n/A) on the German ship. ALGERIE has some Schneider et Cie., Creusot, face-hardened armor, but the German APC will be able to penetrate that due to its hard AP cap. Thus, your statement that the French shells give more "bang for the buck" is quite correct since a hard AP cap is not needed and the thinner German homogeneous, ductile (Krupp Wh) armor can be penetrated quite well by large-filler SAP ammo. Face-hardened armor has two advantages when hit at close-to-right-angles impact: It can shatter the nose of uncapped shells and thus significantly increase their needed striking velocity to punch through and, in many cases, even if the cap works and prevents this, at impacts with some oblique angle where the shell is slowed considerably by the armor, the hard face can severely damage the projectile as it tries to pass through the plate, making the shell act more like broken solid shot with much lower damage-causing capability. To do similar projectile damage with homogeneous, ductile armor takes a much thicker plate, on the average, at any given oblique impact angle.
Minor point of fact: the NC's main batteries were in three-gun turrets, not triple turrets, as each gun could be elevated and fired independently, whereas in a triple, elevation and firing were simultaneous.
...... HMS New Zealand (the ship that never got hit) vrx HMAS Australia (the badly tempered Australian sister)
Taking into account the actual performance of their contempory crews.
Maori warclothes and lucky Necklace ignored (because Australia cannot hit a ship with that much luck)
Glen McGillivray but the battle takes place while both are being bombarded by kamikaze, so Aus wins? ;P
Hipper is always outclassed :(
The Admiral Hipster never was mainstream.
Hipper suffers from being basically a "first try" at a treaty era heavy cruiser Vs it's contemporaries who benefitted from a continuous design cycle.
If you compared them to other 'first tries' like the Pensacola class or the Aoba/Myoko's the comparison is a lot more favourable
The Germans never tried for a "treaty" cruiser with Hipper, they knew they were going over the tonnage limit and went all the way.
They did a better job following the 10,000 ton standard rule with the Deutschlands. Problem with the Hipper's is that you have to compare them to cruisers decades their senior, which is pretty sad design wise.
Also doesn't help German AP shells and boilers were notoriously unreliable, doesn't make for a great ship.
@@RelativeGalaxy7 the Germans initially claimed at least on paper that the Hippers adhered to the 10k ton displacement limit :p
the Germans also claimed Bismarck was treaty compliant by listing a completely fake draft ;)
How about a a fight of a Bayern-class against a Queen Elizabeth-class in ww1 configuration?
Enjoying these videos. How about the Hood after proposed rebuild vs Bismarck?
Plunging fire
@@michiganfarmer69 If the Hood did have a rebuilt and thickened armour deck as formerly proposed, the chances would certainly have been more equal. Right that the Bismarck was not docked and then defenceless as were the french ships in Mers-el-Kébir ...
The Bismarck is still going to win. It's too heavy I guess.
Hood exploding slightly later ... lets say after 5 hits?
Same outcome
You realize your now going to face a sea of Coke vs Pepsi and Blonde vs. Brunette ship questions? 🙄 Good luck.
You called it.
I'll pass the sugar water and do the blonde&brunette together.
...so we're just gonna ignore Dr Pepper and Redheads?
Fanta and black hair anyone 🤔
egocyclic no that’s just scary....very scary 🤯👩🏻🦰
HMS Vanguard vs USS Iowa?
As they would appear in 1946.
Dio Brando Iowa would have the range advantage. 16” vs 15” guns. She’d also have 9 guns to Vanguards 8. However vanguard was more heavily armoured and had state of the art fire direction and radars. At a medium range engagement I’d say vanguard would win. As her guns were big enough to penetrate the majority of Iowa’s armour, yet being able to withstand considerable damage herself thanks to her armour and the excellent British damage control system. Though Iowa could in theory run away as she was a couple knots faster I believe.
@@thatontariofarmer American FCR and FCS is inarguably Superior in 1946. Also Vanguard would struggle to resist later Mark8 AP shells.
Iowa, The Iowa's armor scheme was a generation ahead of vanguard's and her guns were two generations ahead. Vanguard's guns for World War 1 leftovers
+James Ricker irrelevant they where modified with new shells.
@@Ushio01 Not so much new shells as new charges.
How about a Washington Naval treaty (Ish) matchup? King George V vs Richeleui vs Vittorio Veneto vs South Dakota.....
Fair to say the SoDak wins by a margin. North Carolina would be a more appropriate comparison.
How about Queen Elizabeth vs Colorado vs Nagato?
State of the art in 1922 when the Treaty was signed.
+CountArtha QE was before WW1 it's an older class than the 3 classes of 12 14inch gun US ships so Hood or Nelson would be more fair.
+ Mephistopheles : Richelieu wins . I would like Richelieu vs Bismarck and Strasbourg vs Scharhorst .
I'm fairly convinced that if battleship construction had continued into the 1950s, Richie/Nelson/Dunkirk style "all forward armament" would have become the norm.
If Washington had the level of gunnery competence insisted on by Admiral Willis "Ching" Lee, she would have taken Tirpitz or Bismarck apart in short order, a la Kirishima at Guadalcanal in November 1942. "This is Admiral Lee. Get out of the way, I'm coming through!"
You brought out the accurate gunnery of the Iron Duke, so in fairness you could have mentioned that in actual combat, the Washington fired very fast and very accurate. In something like a 12 minute battle with Kirishima, the Washington had 10 16" hits and 40 5" hits, pretty much tearing the Kirishima apart. While there Tirpitz was a lot tougher, the lighter shells of the Rodney and KG V rendered the Bismarck a mission kill in short order. Unless Tirpitz got real lucky, real fast, I would expect the Washington would knock most of the fire control systems out very quickly. At Savo Island, the Washington did exactly that to the Kirishama, with the 10 x 5" guns concentrating on the superstructure.
Bismarck sank Hood in under 5 minutes and less than 10 salvoes, then proceeded to hit Prince of Wales three or four times AND at a far greater range that the Washington, so I suspect Washington would have her hands full with Tirpitz, , though I don't think Washington had the speed to either catch the Tirpitz or to engage him ( yes, HIM !) in a running gun fight. One on one, Tirpitz either would just go flank speed and evade or use the highly efficient optical fire control for their main batteries to drive off the Washington, or disable / sink it if forced to fight.
@@tommatt2ski Birsmarck and Tirpitz were only about 2 kts faster at best. And if the range opens, Washington gains more advantage with radar guidance. The same system allowed West Virginia to hit Yamashiro with at leas one round per salvo at over 20,000 yards, at night. And less be real, no WWI ship had armor schemes as good as WWII ships.
@@timclaus8313 A ship that takes 400 plus hits from battleship guns, their secondaries, heavy cruisers guns and secondaries, destroyers shells, PLUS a minimum of 8 torpedoes, likely more and taking more time than Titanic to sink... what MORE do want the armor to do, PS - two knots is two knots faster than Washington. Bismarck and / or Tirpitz can engage or disengage at WILL! No modern US battleship in WWII after
Pearl Harbor took punishment even near what Bismarck and Tirpitz (not one, not two BUT THREE Tall Boy Bombs what would have happened to either Washington or Iowa suffered the same punishment as Bismarck and Tirpitz
respectively ??? Just because an armor scheme is an older design does NOT mean it is inferior or obsolete!
@@tommatt2ski Bismarck's problem was that critical control circuits were above the armor protection. Plus the central fire control system was knocked out. Bismarck had at least two, if not more, barbettes fully penetrated by large caliber shells. This does not mean Bismarck was bad, it just means it was not the mythical ship often portrayed. With the exceptions of a couple of battlecruisers at Jutland, and a true Golden BB shot below the main side armor on Hood by Bismarck, few battleships went down without plenty of torpedo and bomb hits. And a relatively deep running torpedo has a better chance to breach the critical hull structure if it can hit below the main armor belt.
I am not sure any battleship from any navy could survive the battering that Bismarck, Yamato or Musashi took while underway. I am also fairly confident that any of the new battleships in the respective fleets, such as the Littorios, Richelieu's KGVs, North Carolinas, South Dakotas or Iowas would have held up just as well as Bismarck did. No battleship, including Yamato, would have handled 4 or 5 long lance hits in the center body of the hull. One of those blew the entire bow off several heavy cruisers.
@@tommatt2ski Bismarck wa a well built ship. Keep in mind that the UK, US and German torpedos were nothing special, nothing like the long lance of Japan. I would say Yamato, Musashi, Yamashiro and Fuso all took a tremendous amount of punishment before sinking. Same with Kirisihima and Hiei.
2 knots is about 2.4 miles in 60 minutes. Still well within accurate gun range for any fast battleship, though it does increase the dispersement a bit. And no ship in a battle is going in a straight line, so that negates some of the flat out speed difference. Plus 4 blade ships are going to out accelerate 3 blade ships while zig zagging.
Hi Drachinifel, this was yet another great video. Thank you so much for your research and presentations. Regards, Greybearddad
If you thought the Admiral Hipper 8in ap shell's bursting charge of 2.3 kg was pathetic check out the the 8 in ap shells of the Northampton class, it's a measly 1.7 kg bursting charge😅
hey, they had to compare until a american or british ship wins!!
The primary key is being able to have fire control that is both accurate and sufficiently rapid.
My thinking is that a ship that is less capable on paper but with a well trained / disciplined crew has a better than even chance against a less capable crew.
Hits from even lighter guns can make a big difference.
Like to see the HMS Dreadnought vs USS South Carolina
Me too.
South Carolina has the better armament layout and the better observation (Dreadnought has the crows nest behind the funnel!), but the Dreadnought has the superior fire control system, far superior propulsion system allowing her to pick her fights, and if you take crew into account, the Dreadnought wins every time as they trained for actual combat whilst the US crews only trained for perfect conditions.
+James McKenzie Armament layout just means the SC has the same broadside as Dreadnought.
Dreadnought easily
(Non-serious suggestion, feel free to ignore)
"Iowa versus Yams! Iowa versus Yams! Everybody-wants-to-see-this-hap-pen! Iowa versus Yams! Iowa versus Yams!"
It would be the best fight since Ali - Frasier!
is this a Jerma985 reference
Geez Drach just when I thought you couldn't top yourself, you did! another great video and discussions. intermediate dreadnought matchups:Lord Nelson vs Schlesien .... New Hampshire vs Slava....Radetzky vs Regina Elena ... Tsukuba vs Verite. Thanks again Drach!
Golden BB. I love this phrase. Every time I listen to you I learn something :D
I like the idea to split this kind of topic up in a different "stream". I like also the discussion of the topic you did.
Great video, I have an idea for an engagement. It’s kind of a lol and unusual one.
USS Drum vs. U-505
How about a surface engagement with the WWII Nautilus against the French mega submarine Surcouf?
@@johnduchesneau8685 Emerged, the 203 mm guns of the Surcouf would have quickly destroyed the Nautilus. And under the water, both would have been unable to detect the other one, and even more to fight her .
Kinda fun, comparing the verdicts here to the "World in Flames" Collectors Edition counter sheets.
Like, say - Washington vs. Tirpitz are almost rated the same.
Loved this line up! Definitely some interesting duels. I would say however, that Vanguard and Scharnhorst may not be as quick and easy. You have to bear in mind that though Duke Of York landed substantial hits, the Scharnhorst was "blind in one eye" due to Sheffield's hit to her main radar. Plus, in the end, Scharnhorst's death came from + - 13 Torpedo hits and scuttling. Though the Scharnhorst is certainly not well equipped to face heavy units, in a 1v1 scenario I think it would be far more potent provided it enters the fight in proper order.
the USS Colorado is guarding a merchant convoy. And its attacked by the Bismark. Bismark has to sail around the Colorado to get at the convoy. Colorado 8x16 inch guns to Bismarks 8x15 guns. BUT Bismark is five or six knots faster, and is a bigger and more modern ship. Given that respective pair of missions. Who wins?
Mr Rogers vs Everyone
A-150 japanese battleship vs H-44 German battleship.
A-150 is somewhat of an improved yamato but H-44 is just straight up a fictional impractical ship lol
Definitely the H-44
How about a fight between Drachinifel and the Mighty Jingles?
What would a Jutland-style clash of the fleets look like in mid-1942, with the following conditions?:
UK, USA, USSR, plus French battleships Richelieu and Jean Bart vs. Germany, Italy, and Japan
Bismarck still exists
Discounting other events, a hypothetical battle with the full capital ship strength of each side
No carriers involved
Love your videos! My father was a WW2 Navy man who taught the Seebees how to fight! The movie the fighting Seebees with John Wayne my father was in those battles and a few others! It was extremely hard to get him to talk about the war but when he did it was usually to correct history in a WW2 movie when there was a part that was wrong in his eyes! So I remember the things we did talk about and when I listen to your videos it brings back memories of my time discussing WW2 with my father! We went to see the USS Alabama and the USS Drum and I remember his face lighting up when he talked about the ships! I have photos that he took in his time in the Navy and it's crazy the things soldiers went through in WW2! Anyway keep up the good work bro really love the videos!!!
In the Battle against Washington, where did Tirpitz find German destroyers as late in the war as it could have fought?
Alaska vs. Scharnhorst?
Baltimore vs. Deutschland? If the latter wins, how about Des Moines vs. Deutschland?
Admiral Hipper vs. Tone?
New Mexico vs. Bayern?
And for something a bit crazy, I'd like to hear your thoughts on what would have happened if Vice Admiral Mitscher had not taken the initiative to attack the Yamato with planes, and instead let Rear Admiral Deyo proceed with his force of three dreadnought (Arkansas, New York, and Texas) and seven super-dreadnought (Maryland, Colorado, Tennessee, Nevada, Idaho, West Virginia, and New Mexico) battleships to attempt to intercept the Yamato.
I thought I remembered Texas having the first fire control computer on a battleship and in fact did very, very well in gunnery when it joined Home Fleet.
Love this channel! What you can never account for in these discussions/comparisons is lady luck. Fantastic research and knowledge though!
Ooooh, can we have Kamchatka versus admiral jellybean in a steel bathtub with a slingshot?
Washingtons eXcellent gunnery may level the early salvo portion of the battle.
Canoe vs a kayak?
Modernised G3 vs Lion class.
We needed Incomparable vs H43/44 vs Yamato.
HMS Trafalgar predreadnought vs Ugg's Floaty Log vs the USA 2016 Olympic Women's Water Polo Team on a dark and stormy night in the Bay of Biscay.
Alaska Class vs Scarnhorst Class?
Two ships with allegedly similar arrangements - Scharnhorst versus Alaska?
18-inch gunned H-39 with a 2 inch reduction in armor belt vs the Montana class!
How effective was American radar gun direction during WW2? The radar on Tirpitz, like Bismarck, was damaged by firing the guns, in addition to fragility it was not nearly as precise or long ranged.
If you are thinking of the Iowa class, by mid 1944 they could hit targets at 30,000 yards all day.
The USS Lexington, if it had been completed as a battle cruiser instead of as an aircraft carrier. Pitted against any actual battle ship or battle cruiser of WWII of your choice!
Any battleANYTHING would punch through Lady Lex' armour like cheap, wet TP.
North Carolina vs Nagato is not even fair...
It's literally the same problem as with Japanese tanks. Comparing 1920/30 Designs with one's from 1940.
Well, at least the 1920 designs at least usually had enough firepower to really hurt enemy ships. 406+ mm guns designed during the twenties, especially with modern shells still hurt greatly. Most problems of older battleships, the american ships in particular, was the lack of speed. Especially since unlike firecontrol, deck armor and anti air armament, that was something, that could not particulary well be altered.
To go with an 37mm gun however against a KV tank was laughable. Or even some of the heavier armored tanks of the same time. The Char B1 bis and S 35s were pretty much immun against their own armament (and common anti tank weapons of other nations). It kind of fell apart however due to the fact, that they were ridiculously fuel inefficient, combined with incompetent leadership, and the notorious 1-Man turret.
Martin Baumgartner well, that’s literally Japan’s fault. Had they not attacked Pearl Harbor, the U.S. fleet would of never been salvaged, retrofitted and upgraded... meaning it would be more likely the IJN would of squared off against weaker U.S. ships in deep water where they couldn’t be salvaged and saved... as well as lessons learned about the need of aaa.
Wray Day well the Iowa Class battleships were already in various states of building, so the US was already modernizing it’s navy at that point in yime
xjm212x25 yes they were, but slowly and painfully. Pearl Harbor opened the taps to the War Dept to now build whatever they wanted and too hell with costs. Where the Navy had to plead and beg for modernization funds, now congress said get that done yesterday, it’s a national priority.
OK, for your consideration 1) The USN planned to use aerial spotting extensively- even to the point of firing from over the horizon. How would that affect South Dakota's ability to hit Nagato at, say, 30000 yards. 2) The ability of the RN's armor piercing shells to penetrate armor was a disaster at Jutland. "The British in particular had badly misjudged how their shells would be used in action. They had based much of their doctrine around long-range engagements with common shells, intended to destroy the enemy’s unarmored upperworks, start fires and demoralize the crew, with AP shells to be held for finishing off enemy ships at closer range. This was used as a justification for not carrying out oblique impact tests on their AP projectiles, which turned out to be a serious mistake at Jutland, where few projectiles penetrated heavy German armor." So much so that an entire new generation of shells had to be designed and issued - the "Greenboys". So, you have to take into account when the Texas vs Irion Duke engagement occurred. 3) After the US entered the war, FDR ordered the US Atlantic Fleet's battle force (BB's, CV's, CA's, CL's and newest DD's) to be concentrated into Task Force 99 operating out of Iceland under Home Fleet operational control 4) Algerie vs Hipper. By repute, the British and Germans had the best fire control and armor quality, with the US right behind. The French were down with the Japanese, with the poor Italians at the bottom. Would this make a difference in this battle 5) When the battle occurred can be vital. US radar fire control led the world by a considerable measure in 1944-45 which would tip the odds in the US favor as opposed to, say, 1942. Is Texas vs Iron Duke fought in 1915 or 1918 with or without Greenboys....
King George V + Renown. vs.
Tirpitz + Gneisenau
Please do more of these videos!
The question I would like to know some ship crews were a step above the rest which ship were the best handled and best shots and why.
American FC systems employed by far the most advanced stable vertical elements in the world. In practical terms, this meant that American vessels could keep a solution on a target even when performing radical maneuvers. In 1945 test, an American battleship (the North Carolina) was able to maintain a constant solution even when performing back to back high-speed 450-degree turns, followed by back-to-back 100-degree turns.7 This was a much better performance than other contemporary systems, and gave U.S. battleships a major tactical advantage, in that they could both shoot and maneuver, whereas their opponents could only do one or the other.
British systems...
@@54356776
Then why didn't the British use the US system?
www.combinedfleet.com/b_fire.htm
Ron52G pride? I don’t see the British Admiralty accepting any U.S. advancements on their ships, as that would mean British ships were lacking. I wonder how many more troops would of survived ww2 if pride wasn’t an issue... e.g. 8th Army daylight bombing campaign.
@@wrayday7149
How many men of the British Common Wealth got killed charging German machine guns in just one day during WW1
@@wrayday7149
The Brits had 60,000 casualties of those 20,000 dead in just one day of battle in WW1. I guess the US 8th Army Air Force did ok
Richelieu vs Littorio?
Definitely Richelieu by virtue of its shells being consistent alone. Forgetting that they are pretty evenly matched
@@lordbrain8867 the Richelieu had it's own issues with turrets etc you dan either take all flaws into account or niether.
@@TheAngelobarker despite it's shortcomings, it still was fairly accurate. The Littorio's shells were horribly manufactured with no consistency. British ships reported 15' shells flying far over or far short of their ships
@@lordbrain8867 the first time it tried to engage anything a shell blew up in the gun turret....
@@lordbrain8867 not to mention when it did engage anything the shells were no more accurate than the littorios due to the gun mountings shaking when they fired. The us fleet had no promblem with the french battleships quad turrets they barely ever hit anything. At least the littorios gutted a few cruisers.
Bayern vs Revenge vs Pennsylvania vs Fuso. (All in their 1916 configuration).
Iowa and New Jersey straddled Nowaki at 35,000-39,000 yards several times with straddles close enough to cause splinter damage and casualties onboard. And that was a destroyer.
Bismark Vs Vanguard.
5:57 To hold the distance, that either assumes the Nagato crew is unaware of the armor situation -- which is not the premise of the discussion -- or North Carolina would be rear-facing Nagato's front. That would be a significantly different match-up compared to broadside on at 20k yards.
Nope. (And frankly Drach’s analysis is terrible, because…) Doesn’t take into account fire control. US Mark 38 fire directors provided continuous solution updates, meaning NC can maneuver and fire simultaneously. It can turn and fire all turrets, turn back thru 90 degrees and fire again, then back to the other side ad nauseum. NC has an angular turn rate of about 90 degrees per minute. It would probably want to zig every three-four minutes.
Bottom line though is US battleship fire control is so much better it’s not close anyway.
I went to The Show Girl today. Awesome, beautiful ship. Go Heels.
I've always wondered how effective the N3 might've been with a deck layout similar to Nelson.
Keep up the excellent content!
Warspite vs Anybody - Warspite wins😀
Warspite = Chuck Norris
Good stuff Steven, I recently noticed a video called "imperial star destroyer vs USS Enterprise",I didn't actually watch it , I just said to myself"unless the star destroyer is named Warspite, it's doomed".
Just remember - Luck. Hood was hit and sunk by a one-in-a-million hit. Bismark lost both front turrets (effectively) and the bridge with all personnel from one 16" hit. No matter how one-sided a battle, a battleship sized shell can do critical damage to the fighting ability of any ship regardless of armour - a shell hitting a turret doesn't need to penetrate to put it out of action, jams, shock killing the crew etc - ditto radar and directors. I often imagine Warspite getting a couple of decent hits at long range (which she was very good at!) against the Yamato and then proceeding to calmly pick it apart leaving a floating hulk...
Ibritish ships very often recceived those one-in-a-million hits! coincidence?
SMS Derfflinger vs SMS Seydlitz
The duel that will decide if Derfflinger gets to be with Queen Mary.
I think in ship vs ship situation, above specifications there is crew skill and captain skill. Also any of these two can just score very lucky hit killing captain and most important crew, rendering even better ship useless.
Cold war modernised Iowa vs a plausible (if unlikely) cold War modernised KGV vs a plausible cold war modernised Stalingrad class.
Actually the better matchup is the Iowa class versus the Soviet Kirov class. That is what they were brought back in service and upgraded to be a match for.
WALTERBROADDUS. Yeah, but that would be a fucking wash there is no way the Iowa is gonna beet the Kirov that out ranges it by 5 times.
@@Volunteer-per-order_OSullivan First, it does not have 5 times the range. The Iowa had anti ship UGM-109b Tomahawks or the optional nuclear. The Kirov's only have 20 anti ship missles. And the Iowa's are armored to fight other BB's. Even if the missle defenses fail, it can take the hits and still hit back. Also, extended range ammo then in development would have boost the gun range to 100 miles. It is fair fight match then and now.
Just to further what WALTERBROADDUS mentions, because no one had built armored ships for more than 30 years, no ASM in use by the soviets or any one else to be honest had armor piercing capabilities and because of that the russians believed that their kirovs or any of their surface ships had no chance and the iowas had to be destroyed by aerial attack or torpedoes- Sergei Gorshkov memories have a interesting story about it.
@@Solrac-Siul Wouldn't Soviet ASMs be nuclear if launched against a US warship? Armor won't help you much with that unless it detonates very far away.
One for the alternate history, what if the london naval treatys failed and therefore the british build the lion class without weight restrictions in mind? Would it still have a similar layout to the KGV class secondary wise and armor etc or would we see the class split the secondary to defined anti surface and AA like this Bismarck and Roma? Or maybe they would stick with the multipurpose guns but have 6 abreast rather than 4? Could we see the torpedo protection introduce the two stage system planned for the G3 class?
I heard just a snippet, once, from a noted historian who felt that if the LNT had failed, the British and Americans would have gone to war against each other.
@@lamwen03 I would have to disagree. If the Washington naval treaty had failed then there would have been war however in the 1930s, when the London Naval Treaty
was signed, there was this little thing called the great depredation. The big sad would have prevented any politician from considering war and would have made the construction of new battleships an interesting prospect, as in it would create lots of jobs that would get you lots of votes.
The ships themselves would likely be a whole lot bigger, but they wouldn't be as big as the immediate post WW1 designs as that would have been too expensive.
Apparently 20" guns were on the agenda and silly stuff like that
@@lamwen03 Noted historians say stupid things all the time. I
County class vs hipper?
Would you be able to do a IJN B65 vs. USN Alaska?
The analysis between North Carolina and Nagato fails to take into account the weight of shells; North Carolina's armor piercing shells weighed 2700 lbs (1227 kg) versus the 2249 lbs (1022 kg), which gave the North Carolina a measurable advantage in armor penetration. And the North Carolina's fire control system was at the time the best in world. The higher rate of fire of the Nagato's 16.1/45 versus the North Carolina's 16/45 gun (2.5 RPM vs 2.0 RPM officially) is really negated by better fire control and the Japanese Navy's method of finding the range via multiple salvos, as opposed to the US method of radar range finding which in many cases was close enough to ensure a hit by 2nd or 3rd salvos.
The USS Chuck Norris with a full stock of Norris Roundhouse missiles and rapid firing Norris Guns vs. Chuck Norris.
Drachinifel! This is very perfect! I have always thought of the Richelieu vs. the Bismarck. My assumption is that this battle would be down to the sea were it would happen. In open sea with plenty of room to maneuver the advantage may fall to the French, while in a more constricted sea lane, the Germans may have the edge. Your thoughts?
It would be very interesting to see this in a wargame. I think it will largely come down to battle instructions, since both Germans and British had orders to close as fast as possible to around 15km. Don't know about the French, and this might be the single most critical factor, since they can keep the range open if they wish to do so. Still, I do believe Bismarck holds the general advantage due to her proven accuracy, whereas Richelieu had horrible dispersion problems that were only corrected postwar. Bismarck will reliably hit her target at any range, so my money is on her.
I think this vs type episode was well worth doing again with other ships...good fun
Oh, I like the abundance of speculative fights like these.
Well then, a Tegetthoff class ship (not Szent Istvan though) vs a Conte di Cavour class.
Also, Ersatz Monarch vs Francesco Caracciolo, just to go full hypothetical.
And to cap this series of requests off, could you model a large battle between the Italian battle line and the Austro-Hungarian battle line in 1916 (after Leonardo Da Vinci blew up)? It really wouldn't be neccessary if you think it would take up too much time. I'm not sure there's enough interest in that very particular section of the Med being rehashed from episode to episode, to warrant you doing all these.
How about the 2 big gun battle wagons “Alabama vs Tirpitz” a battle that could’ve happened, since the Alabama while operating in North Atlantic was actually looking for a fight with the German battle wagon
Roll Tide!
Vanguard was a fine ship. The Iowa's were fine (and completely new) ships with heavier and more armament , the finest fire control (visual and radar) systems and damage control in the world and a higher battle speed. The 2700 lb Yank shell could penetrate any of vanguard's (and Yamato's) armor. The 15" gun was never terribly accurate compared to the British 14" which could penetrate anything the 15" could up to its maximum range. Two good ships. But Iowa wins.
I'm not sure if it was true of the Nagato class or not, but the Fuso class had a major flaw where the turrets' barbettes didn't extend very deep into the ship, potentially exposing the stored shells and magazines to penetration. There's a reason US warships had the base of their barbettes near the bottom of the ship.
Hi there Drachnifel I just finished up your three part series on the Battle of Jutland . I found it VERY interesting . Your telling of the Battle of Jutland was rivoting . I think that Admiral Jellicoe and Admiral Scheer were both brilliant strategists. They made some boldest moves and sometimes not actually some of the best . But I was not happy that when you mentioned that Admiral Beaty just broke off contact with Jellicoe and did his own thing . Do you think that doing so put those sailors blood on his hands ? When they got back to England they should have had some kind of inquiry . In my opinion . Because someone should have had to answer to all the loss of lives and the loss of all that shipping . But all in all it kept me spellbound . Sir I commend you on that series . The eyewitness accounts and how it was laid out you sir are a brilliant historian . Thank you . Too bad Hipper ,Scheer , Jellicoe and Beaty couldn’t have went for a beer after the outcome of Jutland and discussed their strategies . Thank you again fo tor telling the greatest sea battle of all time . It sir was definitely the Clash of the Titans .
Drach, while we’re discussing hypotheticals, why not put Admiral Lee aboard Washington in charge of convoy PQ-17, so that Washington at least has the best possible chance?
Two additional factors to consider in a North Carolina vs Nagato battle are radar and the exact time in the war when you want to place this battle. Now that I think about it, third and fourth factors would be time of day and weather conditions. At any time in the war the North Carolina would have had an advantage. The Nagato did survive until the end of the war so it eventually was given radar, but nowhere as good as what the North Carolina had at the same time.
The following is from Combinedfleet.com which is a website about the Imperial Japanese Navy. It's from a comparison of some of the major battleships of all countries during WW2. "The final adjusted rating also reflects the fact that American FC (radar) systems employed by far the most advanced stable vertical elements in the world. In practical terms, this meant that American vessels could keep a solution on a target even when performing radical maneuvers. In 1945 test, an American battleship (the North Carolina) was able to maintain a constant solution even when performing back to back high-speed 450-degree turns, followed by back-to-back 100-degree turns. This was a much better performance than other contemporary systems, and gave U.S. battleships a major tactical advantage, in that they could both shoot and maneuver, whereas their opponents could only do one or the other."
Before May 31, 1943 the Nagato wouldn't have had radar. The officers and crew of the Kirishima were given a painful lesson in what it meant to not have radar in a gunfight night battle against an opponent who did have radar. In that battle the U.S.S. Washington fired 76 main battery shells and scored 20 direct hits, according to the Kirishima's damage control officer. That was at very close range for battleships, only 7800 - 8400 yards, but the Washington's observers could only see the Kirishima's silhouette and thought they only scored 8 or 9 direct hits. So in the dark or in weather conditions that would reduce visibility, the North Carolina's advantage gets larger.
Also would be interesting to see a comparison between the West Virginia and the Nagato, covering both the original configuration and after their respective rebuilds and upgrading. Nagato in the 30s and the West Virginia post Pearl Harbor. Excluding the new battleships, these two were the most powerful veteran battleships in the Pacific. Adding the legendary Warspite for a British flavor would be cool too, as after refits in the 30s, the three upgraded QEs were the best WW I era RN battleships. To my way of thinking, no other navy had a WW I era ship equal before the war to these three, and certainly not after in-war upgrades that were accomplished.
In the US vs German battleship questions, it really comes down to which vessels are able to keep their radars intact. By late 1941, radar for sea search and fire control was so vital that having it knocked out in poor visibility conditions or night action was almost the hand of death. All the WWII ship to ship questions are also dependent on which side had the most effective air cover.
American FC systems employed by far the most advanced stable vertical elements in the world. In practical terms, this meant that American vessels could keep a solution on a target even when performing radical maneuvers. In 1945 test, an American battleship (the North Carolina) was able to maintain a constant solution even when performing back to back high-speed 450-degree turns, followed by back-to-back 100-degree turns.7 This was a much better performance than other contemporary systems, and gave U.S. battleships a major tactical advantage, in that they could both shoot and maneuver, whereas their opponents could only do one or the other.
Indeed, but we're talking about 1941, and 1945 was like night and day by comparison. I'm not sure the North Carolina could have had such success then at night or in poor visibility with the radar shot away.
Bismark took out it's own radar during the Battle of Denmark Strait LOL
HMS Agincourt vs USS Wyoming. WW1 Refits
Even with equally competent crews I think the US 14"/45 never got close in accuracy to the RN 13,5" and 15" (and the 14"/50 was much worse). If the Texas vs. iron Duke duel takes place after 1918 and the introduction of the RN Green Boy shell the Iron Duke ought to have a serious advantage. If taking place before both ship's shells will tend to crack on heavy armour.
1. North Carolina vs. Nagato: At 20,000 yards, advantage to NC.
2. N3 vs. Tillman IV-2: Advantage IV-2, N3 if things go FUBAR on Tillman.
3. Texas vs. Bretagne vs. HMS Iron Duke: Bretagne out at 15K yards; at 10K yards, 65-35 to Iron Duke.
4. HMS Vanguard vs. Scharnhorst: Vanguard wins.
5. HMS Agincourt vs. Fuso: Fuso pummels Agincourt at 20K yards.
6A. Alabama + Renown vs. Prinz Eugen + Tirpitz: Alabama combo wins.
6B. Alabama + South Dakota vs. Bismarck + Tirpitz: " " "
7. Washington vs. Tirpitz: Draw; escort torpedoes tip the balance.
8. Force Z with G3 battleship + tracer ammo: Damaged by air attack, but able to retreat to Singapore for repairs.
9. Algerie vs. Admiral Hipper heavy cruisers: Vive la France!
Never going to get done since it's been three years and there was never a part two but thought of this.
What about a South Dakota-class and Alaska-class in the same position as Prince of Wales and Repulse? The South Dakotas were built around the same time as the King George V class and the Alaskas are the closest comparison in the US Navy to the Repulse-class I know of. Really big cruisers with big guns (I know the 15 inch guns of Repulse were proper battleship guns while the 12 inch guns of the Alaska would only have been battleship guns in WW2 but it's the best I could think of).
HMS Rodney sailed at ships with 9 guns firing, she was a beast of the seas but not many people know 95% of the hits on the Bismarck came from Rodney and at the end was only a few hundred yards away from her at the end
Good luck getting a South Dakota class battleship to the ocean xD (Why did the US think it was a good idea to use the names of landlocked states for anything naval??? It’s just entertaining)
South Dakota wasn't proof against her primary armament either. Even Iowa wasn't proof against the superheavy shells that all of these ships carried. Washington/North Carolina had much better main battery protection than Bismarck and Tirpitz, too. Bismarck's primary battery was silenced pretty quickly.
North Carolina and Washington have an enormous firepower and, equally or more important, firecontrol advantage.