HMS Princess Royal - The Forgotten Battlecruiser of Jutland
Вставка
- Опубліковано 3 січ 2024
- Apologies for the slight delay. Had a busy week and it slowed me down a bit.
HMS Princess Royal, the second of the Splendid Cats, tends to be overlooked. Her sister, Lion, was Beatty's flagship and subjected to repeated poundings. Her half-sister, Queen Mary, blew up in spectacular fashion. Even HMS Tiger gets more attention, for her beauty and stumbling about.
That leaves Princess Royal as the odd duckling, in a way. Generally successful, if not particularly special, but overlooked. Even though she took some pretty hefty blows at Jutland, and came out the other side in one piece.
Let's look at her, in this video.
Further Reading:
www.amazon.com/British-German...
www.amazon.com/British-Battle...
www.amazon.com/British-Battle...
www.amazon.com/Jutland-Unfini...
www.amazon.com/Jutland-Perspe...
You just know somethings wrong when a ship is barely remembered for surviving a battle, and not sinking.
Another improvement of the 2nd generation of BC was to put the forward mast "IN FRONT" of the funnel.
The relative speed of British and German ships of WW1 is contentious. Well know UA-camr Drachinifel points out that the ships of the High Seas Fleet ran their speed trials using Welsh coal. In wartime, they had to make do with poor quality local supplies. By the end of the daytime engagements, all the German ships were significantly slowed. By the next morning, all the German ships were significantly slowed.
The HSF was not helped by their main base, Wilhelmshaven - having to cross over sand had a deteriorating effect on the water supplied to the boilers and condensers.
Speed differances on German battlecruisers were a result of the quality of the coal they burned. Low impurity coal was generally reserved for the steel mills used in making armaments. Navy got good quality coal for trials and working up cruises, but lower grade fuels for general use...giving a wide variety of speeds, simply because of fouling of the engines...Spee's squadron off the Falklands needed major engine overhauls at the time they engaged the British battlecruisers.
v. Spee was fighting a losing battle. His ships were outgunned, had hardly any ammunition left after Coronell, and urgently needed an overhaul due to the hull growth and poor coal.
@@apis_aculei Worn out engines with bad coal fouling inside fire box didn't help any. Taking fuel by salvage is a logistics nightmare.
My Grandfather was on HMS PRINCESS ROYAL during the Battle of Jutland.😊
As was true of its namesake(5:36), the ship was very well endowed! 😊
Not many comments for this many views your content is the best imo the other naval tubers don’t cover the weird ships enough and some have annoying intros when I’m trying to sleep to naval history
Thanks for another great video. Until now, I was under the impression that HMS Princess Royal had dropped out of the fight after the three other battle cruisers blew up.
All these related designs had a defect ; the fore funnel is nearly in the bridge structure, so gases make the crew sick if the wind is wrong. *( or right).
A warship completes it's career either at the bottom of the sea, or the breakers.
Perhaps the nautical version of our burial and cremation.
Interesting........a very good analogy, Sir.
"Not as flashy"... love it!
Beautiful ships
Very good work here. Thank you for this.
She 'never again' saw action not as is suggested (?) because she was not needed, it was that the German fleet never really squared up after Jutland. Britain may have lost more ships, but it achieved its purpose. Pity, half the shells the British fired failed to explode.
Most did explode as far as I'm aware. It was land-based artillery that had the defect of not exploding, particularly during the Somme.
The problem was the fuses on the Green Boy shells didn't work properly and they exploded on impact, more like HE shells, which led to big explosions being seen that didn't actually do that much damage.
This was a known issue prior to the war, but was not addressed prior to Jutland as a result of staff changes in the Admiralty and the issue not getting the attention it deserved.
Likewise the armour held up pretty well on all but the Invincibles and Indefatigables (and NZ still managed to take a huge beating and survive), it was issues with the cordite which led to the losses.
I didn't realize that Chile had been offered Princess Royal as a replacement for Almirante Cochrane. I knew they'd (quite justifiably) rejected Inflexible and Indomitable, but Prince Royal really would've been a good substitute for Almirante Cochrane. Especially if those 13.5" guns could've been bored out to use the same 14" shells as Almirante Latorre.
I always wondered why the british didn't sell more ships to foreign nations after the naval treaties but I guess empowering upstart nations with up to date warships wasn't something the admiralty entertained
I believe there were clauses in the 1921 treaty that forbade selling excess ships to allies or potential allies. The idea being that would be a way to get around the limitations.
Yep, that’s exactly what it was. Specifically this article of the Washington Naval Treaty:
Article XVIII
Each of the Contracting Powers undertakes not to dispose by gift, sale or any mode of transfer of any vessel of war in such a manner that such vessel may become a vessel of war in the navy of any foreign Power.
Nice hull lines. The third small funnel doesn't fit right though. Just my opinion.
A total mystery to me is why the superstructure on some of these warships was split in the middle, as with these ones. Surely not to merely accommodate an absurdly mounted central turret? Was it an officers/enlisted scum thing? I, for one, enjoy your video work, especially those that are 20 minutes, or less! Anyone's videos over that are too tedious, especially from the massed-ads'-assaults that pervade with them! Thank you immensely, It's tRICKy!
AFAIK when the ship was designed they started with the basic design of the Orion-class battleships. For higher speed they needed significantly more boilers and engines so to make room for that they had to eliminate one of the main-battery magazines. Due to the required location of the engines that had to be the magazine of turret X (and the turret was removed with it). And for some reason they left it more or less at that instead of doing a more comprehensive redesign and just installed the boilers in the place of the magazine (the third funnel marks their position). They should have moved Q-turret further aft, installed the new boilers and their funnel behind the existing ones and made Q-turret an X-turret like in Derfflinger, Kongo or Tiger, but for some reason that wasn't done.
Weight distribution, a case of getting battleship firepower on a large cruiser. Also a small split superstructure kept the weight low and made for a smaller target. The messes were bellow the main deck and the early 1900’s ships didn’t have any of the toys that 1930’s had so no requirement for anything bigger
There are also soft benefits for a split superstructure; as the command areas are split runners and comms can have two different paths increasing survivability. As does it can increase the focus of different parts of command by isolating them from "cross talk" and potentially misunderstood orders. The new Brit carriers have dual towers for that reason.
@@gildor8866 Burt, the author mentioned in the video, said that the designers offered the RN the option of adding a section of hull with X turret and it's magazine giving the Lion Class the same 10 guns as the Orion class BB's. However this would have added some cost and the RN was skeptical that it could be done so they rejected the idea. I agree that it would have been better if they had simply rearranged the boilers and moved Q turret to the X turret position.
Early turbine engine designs, if I recall.
Hmm ~12,
Sometimes you don't need to shoot anything to accomplish your mission, mere existence or presence can alter the diplomatic balance.
But did they make the suicidal mistake of storing extra shells and cordite charges inside the turret?
imagine if german dd's carried mines instead of torps at Jutland,and just layed them as the british advanced...V1 type could carry 18 mines,,,,
I think we're watching that play out in Ukraine.
Umm..if NOT blowing up is a criteria for being forgoton, then can someone explain HMS Tiger for me ? ua-cam.com/video/wc2o5c61VbQ/v-deo.html
For once, being "the other guy" is a good thing.
So that is where the narcissistic moniker ‘Princess Royal’ came from, it just popped up as an apparently preposterous odd aggrandisement to Princess Anne (sister to King Charles).
He said it was princess Louise that the ship was named after.
@@HighlanderNorth1 Princess Anne was the relatively recent re-label.
The title ‘Princess Royal’ is historically an optional award from the monarch to their eldest daughter. Anne was given it by her mother relatively late in 1987. The late Queen Elizabeth 2nd was herself never made princess royal as her aunt Princess Mary had been given it by her grandfather in 1931 and she lived until 1965 after Elizabeth became Queen. If Anne dies before Charles then Princess Charlotte won’t be eligible for the title until her father becomes king and can give it to her. This ship was named after a princess louise who held the title 2 places before Anne when king Edward gave it to her in 1905.
So what is an unroyal princess?
@@gc7820
Apparently, Prince Charles was also never bestowed the title "Princess Royal". As w o k e as he is, I'm kinda surprised he hasn't officially identified as "Queen".
Great I love it