The Fake US Aircraft Carrier - Code Named USS Robin

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 5 лют 2025
  • The “least American” of U.S. aircraft carriers to serve in the United States Navy during World War II was a ship that technically never existed. The USS Robin, while commanded by the United States, was crewed with British sailors. In fact, the ship wasn’t a U.S. vessel at all and was actually the British HMS Victorious (plus an array of American naval gadgets) in disguise. Negotiated at the highest level, the British carrier’s loan was one of the most valuable and unusual components of the American-British partnership in the Pacific theater...
    ---
    Dark Docs brings you cinematic short military history documentaries featuring the greatest battles and most heroic stories of modern warfare, covering World War I, World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, and special forces operations in between.
    As images and footage of actual events are not always available, Dark Docs sometimes utilizes similar historical images and footage for dramatic effect and soundtracks for emotional impact. We do our best to keep it as visually accurate as possible.
    All content on Dark Docs is researched, produced, and presented in historical context for educational purposes. We are history enthusiasts and are not always experts in some areas, so please don't hesitate to reach out to us with corrections, additional information, or new ideas.

КОМЕНТАРІ •

  • @alucardvigilatedismas2868
    @alucardvigilatedismas2868 4 роки тому +264

    Victorious pulling into Norfolk
    Dock foreman: More guns?
    USN: You know it buddy

    • @Darthwaffler
      @Darthwaffler 4 роки тому +6

      For a second, I thought you were talking about the Heavy Cruiser Norfolk, like, "when did Victorious crash into Norfolk?"

    • @jimb9063
      @jimb9063 4 роки тому +9

      Heh, I wonder if "yep, we've got enough AA guns on deck" was ever a thing for The USN during this time?
      No bad strategy,which eventually rubbed off on Grandma.Look at what HMS Renown ended up with by the end of the conflict.
      Actually don't look. You'd only see room for another eighty 40 mm!

    • @brianbaird1503
      @brianbaird1503 4 роки тому +4

      Portsmouth, not Norfolk. Norfolk Navy Yard was in Portsmouth VA

  • @Drelam
    @Drelam 4 роки тому +52

    I always love hearing stories of two allied countries truly working together like in this case.

  • @juliovictormanuelschaeffer8370
    @juliovictormanuelschaeffer8370 4 роки тому +494

    Axis: you can't just camouflage an entire battleship in the middle of a war.
    Brits: ARE YOU SURE ABOUT THAT?!

    • @Justanotherconsumer
      @Justanotherconsumer 4 роки тому +30

      British intelligence, American steel, and Russian blood.
      Except in this case it was British steel...

    • @benphillips9229
      @benphillips9229 4 роки тому +10

      Brits and American's

    • @Cpt_Boony_Hat
      @Cpt_Boony_Hat 4 роки тому +9

      Just fly a bunch of bombers overhead stealth battleship for cheap

    • @trekkienzl2862
      @trekkienzl2862 4 роки тому +9

      Britain: Hold my tea

    • @The_Viscount
      @The_Viscount 4 роки тому +6

      Someone watches Drachinifel. :)

  • @Shadepariah
    @Shadepariah 4 роки тому +154

    Americans looking at a ship in drydock: "Oh, is that empty deck space? Hey, Bob, Let's go install another 20 Bofors. You can never have too many AA guns."

    • @broadside2130
      @broadside2130 4 роки тому +3

      Made me laugh

    • @cantthinkofaname3344
      @cantthinkofaname3344 4 роки тому +2

      Accurate

    • @MrX-un8cz
      @MrX-un8cz 4 роки тому

      @J well atleast they didn't strap quadruple bofors to the crew

    • @imapopo2924
      @imapopo2924 4 роки тому +1

      Of course. You can never have enough AA guns when the sky starts raining planes packed with explosives.

    • @zzirSnipzz1
      @zzirSnipzz1 4 роки тому

      Actually the lusty class had better AA than even american carriers at start of war americans upgraded later

  • @bobwilliams6228
    @bobwilliams6228 4 роки тому +583

    Holy camouflage Batman. I had NEVER heard this story before. Thank you for presenting it very well

    • @davidhughes1284
      @davidhughes1284 4 роки тому +10

      Here here

    • @skyden24195
      @skyden24195 4 роки тому +16

      My thoughts/experience as well. Despite as many history videos and more that I've watched/read, this is an absolute first of this story. Good call, Bob Williams, and again, thanks for the new story/information Dark Docs.

    • @billhart3728
      @billhart3728 4 роки тому +15

      No kidding where do they find these stories?. It’s great

    • @rogersmith1408
      @rogersmith1408 4 роки тому +10

      Me either!! Great story here!! I always knew USA and the brits were very tight. Just never heard about this!

    • @RangerRiccardo
      @RangerRiccardo 4 роки тому +3

      Very good story, indeed.

  • @borisglevrk
    @borisglevrk 4 роки тому +160

    Sidenote: She was NEVER renamed USS Robin. Robin is her radio callsign and she remained as Victorious during US service.

    • @steamingspud
      @steamingspud 4 роки тому +10

      Yea this was a bit of clickbait. I thought there was some sort of plot to fool the axis powers that we magically generated another aircraft carrier. Nah, it’s just a navy lend n loan.

    • @yesyesyesyes1600
      @yesyesyesyes1600 4 роки тому

      All ships are named after famous persons. Who was Robin?

    • @Artorien
      @Artorien 4 роки тому +14

      @@yesyesyesyes1600 Who was Enterprise, York, Hornet, and Wasp?

    • @yesyesyesyes1600
      @yesyesyesyes1600 4 роки тому +1

      @@Artorien Right, the names of persons came later. thx

    • @raypitts4880
      @raypitts4880 4 роки тому

      thats why HMS ROBIN is not on the ships register.

  • @trajanfidelis
    @trajanfidelis 4 роки тому +249

    And this is just the stuff we heard about, imagine all the stuff we DONT know

    • @616CC
      @616CC 4 роки тому +11

      I’m afraid to say, you really don’t want to know about the stuff we don’t know about. It would probably demoralise us

    • @616CC
      @616CC 4 роки тому +8

      There’s a reason why some secrets stay just that. The horrifying truth of the things we have done keep it that way

    • @Seventeen_Syllables
      @Seventeen_Syllables 4 роки тому +14

      The existence of the USS Batman will forever remain a secret.
      Oops.

    • @xephael3485
      @xephael3485 4 роки тому +8

      @Goodfella2.0 "I dont think I'd want to know everything" I find it more disheartening that history will be forgotten, and that people are blissfully okay with that.

    • @jasonschieber8030
      @jasonschieber8030 4 роки тому +5

      We all but allowed Pearl Harbor to happen. The United States wanted to stay neutral after ww1. We had overwhelming intelligence the attack was imminent, a destroyer attacked a Japanese midget submarine just hours before the attack and there were confirmed sightings of Japanese aircraft just before the attack. I think there’s a good reason why most of the equipment at Pearl Harbor that day was obsolete or close to it.

  • @Gunners_Mate_Guns
    @Gunners_Mate_Guns 4 роки тому +1102

    To think that a British ship had its entire air wing composed of Americans is the sort of cooperation between allies that should make any military man proud.

    • @TowGunner
      @TowGunner 4 роки тому +69

      And a US Marine air wing will be assigned to the HMS Queen Elizabeth.

    • @Gunners_Mate_Guns
      @Gunners_Mate_Guns 4 роки тому +11

      @@TowGunner Really?
      Cool!

    • @anodezinc9667
      @anodezinc9667 4 роки тому +27

      ACS Shap yes brother but it's also cause you want to test out your vertical takeoff f35,s aswell the f35 and the Q.E look like a match made in heaven ✌️oh and my source for this was U.S military defence channel

    • @artyzinn7725
      @artyzinn7725 4 роки тому +7

      I heard she flew the British flag during her stint with the USN, more fun facts
      armchairgeneral.com/uss-robin-the-victorious-u-s-carrier-that-didnt-exist.htm

    • @Von_Baron
      @Von_Baron 4 роки тому +18

      My Granddad served on HMS victorious. The British and US crews did not get on well at all on board.

  • @fusionnstuff3465
    @fusionnstuff3465 4 роки тому +337

    Incredible how a ship can go from holding bi-planes to Jets

    • @Realitygetreal
      @Realitygetreal 4 роки тому +20

      The information is great the VIDEO is shit in its reference material

    • @gageyoung1811
      @gageyoung1811 4 роки тому +2

      William J. Don’t forget about WW1! Planes were used as fighters AND bombers as well, both sides took advantage of air power. The most meaningful use was for scouting purposes tho.

    • @jwenting
      @jwenting 4 роки тому +9

      @@Realitygetreal yeah, as is often the case with this channel.
      Note for example that he shows Blenheims dropping bombs when talking about Swordfish early in the video

    • @connormueller6529
      @connormueller6529 4 роки тому +7

      100 years ago the first plane was built of paper and cloth 60 years later the Sr-71 hit Mark 3

    • @aaa-fc6by
      @aaa-fc6by 4 роки тому

      Gage Young it didn’t see WWI

  • @markchip1
    @markchip1 4 роки тому +16

    I don't know whether to feel annoyed or amused by the amazing time-travel capabilities of this wonderful vessel! One minute a straight flight-deck - then an angled deck! One minute Fairey Swordfish biplane torpedo-bombers - the next, nuclear-capable Buccaneer jets!!

  • @eddietat95
    @eddietat95 4 роки тому +750

    I wonder how the Dark Docs guy sounds like when he's ordering McDonalds.

    • @shaider1982
      @shaider1982 4 роки тому +10

      @Terncote I only knew of Wimpy's from a Business Blaze video.

    • @StephenButlerOne
      @StephenButlerOne 4 роки тому +16

      @@shaider1982 you born in 82? If your British you should remember them. I was in 81, and still recall my mum working in one. Only untill I was about 5. Sure it was there untill the early 90s.
      It was shit btw.more an American style diner, than a traditional maccies fast food joint.

    • @freddyboombatz
      @freddyboombatz 4 роки тому

      He should go to Anselmos in Dunoon.

    • @vinceely2906
      @vinceely2906 4 роки тому +6

      @@StephenButlerOne Still got one on my high street. You can't knock a bender in a bun or getting a knife & fork with your burger and chips!

    • @MarkTheMorose
      @MarkTheMorose 4 роки тому +6

      Unless he tells us, we will remain in the dark.

  • @cromptoniser
    @cromptoniser Рік тому +2

    My grandad served on HMS Victorious froim the Bismarck chase onward. A lifer from 1934 through to 1952

  • @thefurthestmanfromhome1148
    @thefurthestmanfromhome1148 4 роки тому +110

    Back when we HAD a shipbuilding industry here in the UK :'(

    • @malcolmhardwick4258
      @malcolmhardwick4258 4 роки тому +29

      Back when we had any industry.

    • @johnstevenson1709
      @johnstevenson1709 4 роки тому +23

      We've just built the 2 largest ever ships for the RN admittedly the sector is not as large as it was but we can still do it

    • @geoffcartertheoreticalstru6484
      @geoffcartertheoreticalstru6484 4 роки тому +8

      Don't you like retail parks?

    • @thefurthestmanfromhome1148
      @thefurthestmanfromhome1148 4 роки тому +6

      @@johnstevenson1709 One of which was at one point going to be sold or mothballed.
      And do either of them have actual Aircraft on?
      I have heard of Helicopter landing trials
      F-35 take off trials.
      Other than that talk we don't have enough picket ships to defend either, they won't be fitted with sufficient close-in support guns for defence and the Navy will lack a suitable anti-ship Missile for years to come.
      Meanwhile China and Russia push ahead with Carrier -Killer Hypersonic missiles.
      Appledore Shipyard built part of them and that was my local shipyard and I had to watch in horror as it dwindled away to nothing.
      Where i am based now, the only industry is tourism.
      For an island nation like ours not to have a strong navy appears farcical.
      What are our industries?
      Tourism?
      I.T?
      Banking?

    • @thefurthestmanfromhome1148
      @thefurthestmanfromhome1148 4 роки тому +2

      @@johnstevenson1709 Once we loose the skills,the experience and the facilities..

  • @Idahoguy10157
    @Idahoguy10157 4 роки тому +155

    In 1942/43 the U.S. Navy was begging the British to send an aircraft carrier to help in the Pacific war. The British response was slow but welcome. American histories of the war give little space to British contributions to the Pacific war. After WW2 the Americans adopted armored flight desks like the British had built into in their carriers

    • @willmorrell488
      @willmorrell488 4 роки тому +23

      Armoured flight decks meant most kamikaze strikes were simply scraped off the deck into the ocean and operations continued.

    • @starexcelsior
      @starexcelsior 4 роки тому +35

      While the US adopted the armored flight decks they left out the armored hangers that the British ships had. It was seen as taking up too much space in the hanger that aircraft could use.
      The reason both the Us and Britain each went their separate was with carriers at the start of the war was due to the naval treaties of the time and the combat conditions each expected to face. The later British carriers were designed with the idea that they needed to be as survivable as possible due to constant German and italian attacks. The American carriers were designed to fit as many planes as possible in them in order to provide areal superiority to overwhelm Japanese carriers.
      TLDR: The US didn’t just copy Britain and Britain didn’t just follow the US. The post war carriers (now no longer bound by the prewar treaties) Took the best that each offered .

    • @ABrit-bt6ce
      @ABrit-bt6ce 4 роки тому +19

      Kamikaze on an American carrier and it's in severe trouble.
      Kamikaze an a British carrier and laundry bills and fresh paint is the problem.

    • @jackbui2944
      @jackbui2944 4 роки тому +14

      That's incorrect, the British weren't willing to send a fleet into the pacific, rejected the American Navy on Multiple Occasions in 1942 and 1943. They had only began to create a pacific fleet under political scrutiny after Italy's surrender in the African Continent, with Plans to send two armored carriers and escorts, which was rejected the British Government. The government feared them would be unble to maintain a working fleet in the Pacific, far from home as the United States had been doing. It was politically straining on both sides, Admiral Nimitz himself believed that Britian would be of no help in the Pacific, but were able to enter the fight in the pacific under set conditions, "The Royal Navy would have to be self-sufficient when it came to provisions, ammunitions and equipment. When fuel-oil would be shared from bulk stores with the USN, the RN would have to put in as much as it took out." British Politians did not want to be in the Pacific, while their Admirals did, while American Politicans wanted the British in the Pacific, but American Admirals deemed it unnecessary.

    • @Kettenhund31
      @Kettenhund31 4 роки тому +25

      @@jackbui2944 You forget... Something like half of the Royal Navy was tied up in the Mediteranean where 135 warships were lost. Most of the rest were committed to the Atlantic and to Arctic convoy duty
      . The RN was so over streatched that it could not even support HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse with a DG and carrier protection. It was not a case of refusing to help our ill-prepared American allies but of the UK being too over stretched to do so. It was not until the surrender of Italy in 1943 freed up the Mediteranean Fleet for reeployment.

  • @markpaul8178
    @markpaul8178 4 роки тому +7

    That's one of the wildest stories of the Pacific campaign I have ever heard.Thanks DARK DOCS for another marvelous story indeed!

  • @vaporhtrail4350
    @vaporhtrail4350 4 роки тому +9

    I love this. It's amazing to see a story of allied teamwork being shown

  • @mysticx0
    @mysticx0 4 роки тому +22

    couple of reasons why i love this channel:
    1. great content/stories
    2. no intro/outro. i dont think enough creators understand how UNBEARABLE those are when watching a playlist. most especially when the videos are ten or so minutes long. this is one channel i can watch on a playlist.
    3. they dont spend the first 90 seconds telling us "today we will discuss...." and then finally get to the actual content. another annoying thing creators do.

  • @c.joelummus8880
    @c.joelummus8880 2 роки тому +1

    There is quite a story about the actions of the victorious with the kamikazes a lot more than what is in this video but thank you for this wonderful video

  • @hugoesson2803
    @hugoesson2803 4 роки тому +44

    3:48 "It was sent in bombing missions against Norway and Sweden" As a swede I can confirm we didn't get very bombed at all

    • @patricksanders858
      @patricksanders858 4 роки тому +1

      Perhaps this was the "very" part of your denial? Obviously you realise that someone bombed you once or twice back then. Perhaps it was these guys.

    • @mrandersson1082
      @mrandersson1082 4 роки тому +2

      We did get bombed, the Russians bombed Stockholm.

    • @lyantombing1157
      @lyantombing1157 4 роки тому

      @Hugo Esson no offence dude but i dont think u were even in ur mothers womb yet to confirm whether or not ur country was bombed over 70 years ago 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

    • @bigimskiweisenheimer8325
      @bigimskiweisenheimer8325 4 роки тому +2

      I researched that because of this doc. and I can attest to that. Not a whole lot on land, but some ships got damaged and sunk. Some by a Russian sub that came up a lot in the reports, until it was sunk.

    • @bigimskiweisenheimer8325
      @bigimskiweisenheimer8325 4 роки тому +1

      mr. Anderson, no records of British or US forces bombing Sweden. So that would mean neither this ship nor its planes were involved in any such mission.

  • @jjmcrosbie
    @jjmcrosbie 4 роки тому +3

    Sir, Thank you for an enjoyable video.
    High points have been picked out by your numerous other fans, but my favourites were:
    At 9:15 "General Motors TBM Avengers". Better than yer average Chevvy!
    A bit later there were Beaufighters and I think they were followed by Russian Petlyakov Pe-2's.
    However the history you relate was no doubt accurate and very interesting.
    Don't worry about all the knockers and carpers - we all watched it didn't we?
    Final note: I watched it at 75% normal speed - it made the commentary less hurried.
    Regards, Clive.

    • @PeterEmery
      @PeterEmery 5 місяців тому

      The TBM variant of the Grumman TBF Avenger designates that it was manufactured by GM.

  • @Kettenhund31
    @Kettenhund31 4 роки тому +208

    When HMS Victorious was attached to the US Navy did the British crew still receive their rum ration, I wonder?

    • @Trek001
      @Trek001 4 роки тому +44

      Yes they did

    • @fnln544
      @fnln544 4 роки тому +47

      Rum Ration and several US military decorations.
      So, you're in the British Navy, temporarily attached to the US Navy, honorably served and received American medals...and celebrated with some rum!
      Another example of joint British-American cooperation. Go Navy!
      I believe the American carriers normally had wooden flight decks and the British carriers had armored ones; obviously, armored decks are better protected against bomb and plane attacks.
      Thanks for the video. I miss the 'space type' tones from the older Dark Docs videos.
      And I'm in the Army.

    • @BHuang92
      @BHuang92 4 роки тому +15

      Rum rations was a old Royal Navy tradition that dated back to the Age of Sail. The Royal Navy phased out that tradition in the 1980s.

    • @olengagallardo8551
      @olengagallardo8551 4 роки тому +6

      I think it was also supplemented with wild turkey boubon:)

    • @jwenting
      @jwenting 4 роки тому +29

      @@fnln544 US wood decks were thicker than the steel decks of the British carriers. Being made of wood also made them easier to repair than a steel deck, which is one reason why the US stuck with wood until jet engines started to burn through the deck plating in the Korean war.

  • @joewynn2445
    @joewynn2445 4 роки тому +13

    I love dark docs, I dont see how this channel doesn't have at least a million subs. It has great videos great narration and this historical story is awesome!

    • @captainobvious9233
      @captainobvious9233 4 роки тому +5

      Because he can't slow down and just speak normally and the way he keeps stopping mid-sentance is aggravating. Been brought to his attention my countless people many times, but he ignored it.

    • @subwayak
      @subwayak 4 роки тому +1

      @@captainobvious9233 This! English is my second language, and it is damn near impossible for me to make out what he is saying, even when slowing the video down.

    • @malcolmhardwick4258
      @malcolmhardwick4258 4 роки тому

      @@subwayak Shame I understand it perfectly, but I am English !

  • @tomschmidt381
    @tomschmidt381 4 роки тому +25

    Interesting WWII story I was not aware of. It was a little disconcerting seeing pictures of angle deck carriers as WWII ships.

    • @paulqueripel3493
      @paulqueripel3493 4 роки тому +1

      Yes, post war refit.

    • @zapfanzapfan
      @zapfanzapfan 4 роки тому +2

      Yes, those pictures were places a bit too early in the story line.

    • @eddyvoidsoul6963
      @eddyvoidsoul6963 4 роки тому +1

      Because this story is complete bullshit

  • @mugofbrown6234
    @mugofbrown6234 4 роки тому +6

    Thanks. The British Pacific Fleet is an interest of mine. The awesome Chance Vought Corsair was first used by the Fleet Air Arm after they discovered the curved approach technique. Whilst the U.S. was the arsenal of democracy they used a surprising amount of British aircraft for example the Bristol Beaufighter and the DH Mosquito.

  • @gspaulsson
    @gspaulsson 4 роки тому +3

    It's amazing how well the Swordfish did against Axis shipping - disabling the Bismarck and wiping out the Italian fleet in Taranto. They came in so low and so close that AA guns could not be trained on them, their canvas bodies were so flimsy that any shells that did hit them passed right through without setting off contact fuses, and so slow that timed fuses, set for much faster aircraft, did not go off either. Of course, any aircraft is faster than a ship. I don't know what it goes to show, except maybe that sometimes obsolete kit is good enough, or that weakness can be strength if it is unexpected.

    • @tomt373
      @tomt373 3 роки тому

      All they needed was a group of Japanese Zero's to totally negate them as they did British biplanes in the Pacific.

    • @paigetomkinson1137
      @paigetomkinson1137 2 роки тому

      I can't imagine using any kind of transportation made of CANVAS! No, thanks.

  • @coleparker
    @coleparker 3 роки тому +1

    I have studied a lot about the WWII Naval campaigns in the Pacific, but I have never really heard anything about this episode. Thank you.

  • @thatchanguy
    @thatchanguy 4 роки тому +3

    Friends in need are friends indeed. This was fascinating. Thank you for sharing the story of this partnership forged in war.

  • @nole8923
    @nole8923 3 роки тому +1

    Well dang, it was better than our carriers. Let us not forget that it was the Brits that taught us how to land Corsairs on a carrier.

    • @dovetonsturdee7033
      @dovetonsturdee7033 3 роки тому +1

      Both parties gained. The British learned about handling large air groups from Saratoga, and the Americans learned about control of fighter operations from Victorious' Fighter Direction Room, which the Fleet Air Arm had copied from Fighter Command.

  • @bryantblake1877
    @bryantblake1877 3 роки тому +7

    Now that was a piece of WWII history I had never heard! And a shout out to all you Brits, on this Independence Day 2021! Thanks Mates! And have a good 4th of July holiday!😊🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸We make a great team! 🇬🇧

  • @davehaasphoto
    @davehaasphoto 4 роки тому +43

    The Japanese fleet was hardly going strong in late 42' and '43. They lost multiple carriers at the battles of the coral sea and midway (5 total) and the Ranger was deemed "unsuitable" for Pacific operations only because her top speed was not as fast as the newer Essex class fleet carriers and her plane capacity was also smaller than other US Carriers. Also - Churchill had requested that the Ranger stay in the Atlantic.

    • @neurofiedyamato8763
      @neurofiedyamato8763 4 роки тому +4

      Uhhh Japanese fleet was plenty strong in 42' and first half of 43'
      Japan didn't lose any carriers in Coral sea. One was heavily damaged while the other lost its air complement, but none were sunk. Midway had 4 Japanese carriers sunk. However the Japanese surface fleet was still extremely potent and evident in the fact the US suffered heavy losses in 43' and several associated defeats. It was in 43' during the Solomon islands campaign when US was actually most desperate for ships, particularly cruisers.
      After the battle of Santa Cruz, US only had USS Enterprise available as their sole aircraft carrier in the Pacific for 15 days until Saratoga was repaired. Japan still had the two Shokakus and several light carriers. After the Guadalcanal campaign, US only had 4 heavy cruisers and 9 light cruisers while Japan still had most of their cruiser force.
      The Japanese fleet was a potent threat well in to late 1943 and stood a real chance of winning the Solomon island campaign, at least on the naval side of things. The army was a different story. The Battle of Midway was decisive but the war was hardly set in stone and it definitely did not defang the Japanese. The US won out by industrial might. If the US didn't poop out the Essex, Clevelands, and Cleveland swarm as much as they did, the Japanese could have stood a real chance, even after Midway.

    • @davehaasphoto
      @davehaasphoto 4 роки тому +2

      @@neurofiedyamato8763 The Japanese lost the Light Carrier Shoho at the Coral Sea - they also lost both the Shōkaku (battle damages) and Zuikaku (air complement lost) which significantly impacted and limited their operations for Midway. In return the Americans lost the Lexington. But Japanese intel thought based on reports from pilots that they had in fact sank 3 US Carriers that day - in part thanks to the ability of the American damage control teams.
      After Midway - Japan was basically forced to stop any and all plans of expansion / invasion due to carrier losses and aircrew losses.
      Surface fleet wise - the IJN was very capable and strong - as shown by the battle of Salvo Island, but that was a defensive counter attack - not an offensive action.

    • @RemoteViewr1
      @RemoteViewr1 4 роки тому +3

      Midway brought the US into some kind of parity with Japan. It evened the playing field, dramatically. Counting ships is important. Counting seasoned veteran aircrew who took years to replace is quite another. The Japanese began with a finite number, however high quality they were, and lost over 500 of them killed between Coral Sea and Midway. It deeply blunted their future offensive capabilities. Coral Sea was an attritional key contributor to both the success at Midway and the overall war. Japan's comparatively small number of replacement pilots was on a downhill trajectory. Later in the war, they had carriers, counting ships is important, with planes, but no aircrew to man them. The naval parity made Guadacanal a genuine teeter totter struggle. It was the actual darkest moment and the pivot point of reversal of Japanese fortunes. I would genuinely appreciate a chart showing capable pilot counts and ship counts over time, as well as counts of pilots in training over time. Amazing the US ended up plus 130 carriers. Equally impressive is they had the aircrew to man them. Especially remembering this was the secondary theater of war to the European Theater, which was a thing at the very same time as well.

    • @paigetomkinson1137
      @paigetomkinson1137 2 роки тому

      @@RemoteViewr1 So you're saying Guadalcanal was the turning point for the IJN? I've always heard/read that it was Midway. What you've said about the battles makes sense, but I'm not sure you can only count ships and/pilots. I kind of think that, at least for the commanders, that Midway took a lot of wind out of their sails, which helped tip the balance in favor of the United States. It really was a devastating loss for them.

  • @nicholasarmstrong2676
    @nicholasarmstrong2676 4 роки тому +5

    An interesting story, well presented with new information I was unfamiliar with. A couple of minor corrections: 1. The Letters "HMS" should never be prefaced with the article "the." Works for USS, but incorrect for HMS. 2. Also, Royal Navy warships don't form squads. Groups of vessels are a "Force" (battleships, cruisers or carriers) or "Flotillas" (such as for destroyers or MTBs). 3. VICTORIOUS didn't fly her "jack" while in US service, she flew her "ensign," the White Ensign to be exact. Commonwealth Navies do the opposite of the USN. We have a specific naval ensign which is flown aft while at sea and hoist the jack - our national flag - at the bow when secured alongside. The USN use the US national flag as the ensign and fly it at sea aft, and has a specific Naval jack flown from the bow when secured alongside.
    I'm curious though - was "USS ROBIN" just a code name, or was the ship actually rechristened.

    • @alganhar1
      @alganhar1 4 роки тому +2

      It was her callsign, she was not renamed.

    • @leehotspur9679
      @leehotspur9679 4 роки тому

      Code Name ,A/b ex Victorious

  • @Engine33Truck
    @Engine33Truck 3 роки тому

    Interestingly, the crew’s favorite modifications that Victorious received while being prepped for US service was the addition of ice cream machines and soda fountains.

  • @fastone942
    @fastone942 4 роки тому +6

    USS Enterprise had not been overhaul or in dry dock in over 2 years and was falling apart from all the damage done to it her by Japan her nickname was the Grey Ghost that stop gap carrier really save them and made them rethink putting armor over the flight deck

    • @kieranwilliams5148
      @kieranwilliams5148 4 роки тому +2

      Had Enterprise had an armoured flight deck then it wouldn't need to return for repairs everytime it was damaged. British aircraft carriers could sweep the kamikazes off the decks and resume flight ops in hours if not within the same hour. America nearly lost a few fleet carriers and I'm pretty sure American escort carriers were sunk by kamikazes whereas British aircraft carriers at most needed a bit of concrete to fill in a small dent on the flight deck.

    • @rogersmith1408
      @rogersmith1408 4 роки тому

      @@kieranwilliams5148 Maybe, but once those armored decks did get damaged those ships were out of action a very long time. With how planes and weapons were developing however Steel deck made sense going forward

  • @pickeljarsforhillary102
    @pickeljarsforhillary102 4 роки тому +1

    Just think of the fights over the food.
    Blood sausage vs hamburgers.
    Round 1.....FIGHT!

  • @benp9158
    @benp9158 4 роки тому +22

    why does it feel like the dude finished the video and said "this is too long" and sped it up by like 20%

    • @AlexTiffinYT
      @AlexTiffinYT 4 роки тому

      He just read the Wikipedia out loud in a video

    • @Steve-ov5ri
      @Steve-ov5ri 4 роки тому +1

      Worst narration ever

  • @teddy.d174
    @teddy.d174 4 роки тому +1

    Dark guy, you come up with the most interesting war stories that otherwise most of us would never hear about. Awesome stuff, I look forward to every video your “Dark” channels puts out and I can’t tell you enough how much I appreciate watching and learning from them!

  • @DunnesBag
    @DunnesBag 4 роки тому +34

    Loved the video! Probably one of my favourite channels out there seeing as I love history stuff! Keep up the good work!

    • @cool.guy.
      @cool.guy. 4 роки тому

      Omg never thought I would see you here !

    • @TheBen9701
      @TheBen9701 4 роки тому

      No u

    • @courtland123jones7
      @courtland123jones7 4 роки тому

      Same

    • @stevenjoy3537
      @stevenjoy3537 4 роки тому

      Check out Mark Felton too

    • @captainobvious9233
      @captainobvious9233 4 роки тому

      Try this guys channel. ua-cam.com/users/Drachinifel
      Best part - He speaks slow and calmly, not like a nutcase on crack.

  • @bigblue6917
    @bigblue6917 4 роки тому +1

    Actually work between the two nations started earlier then you may think. The flying boat which found Bismark was piloted by a US pilot who was there to train the crew.
    When she returned to the Pacific HMS Victorious was carrying Seafires, the naval version of the Spitfire. Came as something of a shock to the Japanese as the Seafire pilots were more then happy to dogfight with them.

  • @johnpowell5433
    @johnpowell5433 4 роки тому +23

    The 'British Jack' that the carrier flew was the Royal Navy's White Ensign.

    • @NapoleonGelignite
      @NapoleonGelignite 4 роки тому

      John Powell - thank you!

    • @painfulorwhat8872
      @painfulorwhat8872 4 роки тому

      A “jack” is the flag flown at the bow of a ship. The white ensign is flown on the stern, in harbour, or a smaller one on a mast when under way as shown in the film. The “jack” would be the union flag (hence the term “Union Jack”) and is flown from the jack staff right on the bow in harbour and not at all when under way. The narrator meant “white ensign” not “jack”.

  • @matthewconnors8503
    @matthewconnors8503 2 роки тому +1

    No angled flight decks in WW2.. Now remember that and carry on.✌️

  • @daviddunsmore103
    @daviddunsmore103 4 роки тому +22

    6:09 "...the British Admiral-tree"?
    Is that the mythical tree on which Admirals grow?

    • @jjmcrosbie
      @jjmcrosbie 4 роки тому

      Royal Navy admirals do not grow on trees. They couldn't be any worse if they did. Suggested reading, includes Pacific service: "They gave me a Seafire" by Crossley. That puts them right in perspective.

  • @charlesstuart7290
    @charlesstuart7290 4 роки тому +1

    A big advantage of the British carriers were that their flight decks were steel reinforced and that gave them superior survivability in Kamikaze raids over the wooden flight decks of American carriers.

  • @ABrit-bt6ce
    @ABrit-bt6ce 4 роки тому +25

    8:03 Buccaneers, Sea Vixens, Gannet and Wessex on board. That would have made Tojos eyes water.
    Buccs were cleared for nukes. ;)

    • @jonathangriffiths2499
      @jonathangriffiths2499 4 роки тому +2

      It’s the only thing they understand

    • @markchip1
      @markchip1 4 роки тому

      Likewise the "extendable angled flight-deck"!! (No doubt, to accommodate swing-wing jets!)

  • @johnthomas7038
    @johnthomas7038 2 роки тому +1

    The fire that finished-off Victorious was nothing like as bad as the official story claimed. The fire, which occurred during refit, was so minor that the Captain stated that all damage could be made good and the ship could recommission on time a few weeks later. This was a time of harsh cutbacks however and the beancounter got their way and it was not long before Britain only had one fixed-wing carrier left.

    • @stephenchappell7512
      @stephenchappell7512 Рік тому

      That remains the case today with only 1 airgroup being shared between the 2 QE's

  • @Hriuke
    @Hriuke 4 роки тому +80

    3:55 bombing against Norway & Sweden? Now that sounds like a story!!!
    Off topic.
    Unusually your script did not mesh with the footage this time.

    • @andrewtaylor940
      @andrewtaylor940 4 роки тому +11

      Germany invaded Denmark and Norway in 1941. While Sweden was “technically neutral” on paper they were forced to allow massive German troop movements through Sweden against the Soviet Union. (By forced it should be understood that the ruling Swedish Social Democrat party at the time largely sided with the Germans, until Germany started to lose. At which point they waved the flag of neutrality as hard as they could to scream”we’re not with them!”)

    • @DanielBramme1
      @DanielBramme1 4 роки тому +4

      ua-cam.com/video/w941j12XUAs/v-deo.html Here you go, a guy made his homework and explained the situation quite well.

    • @the_eskimo93
      @the_eskimo93 4 роки тому +1

      Read the desperation you mong

    • @MrStickyPete
      @MrStickyPete 4 роки тому +2

      look for Mark Feldon productions for these kind of WW2 stories

    • @ottovonbismarck2443
      @ottovonbismarck2443 4 роки тому +4

      ​@@andrewtaylor940 Denmark and Norway were invaded in 1940. They were just a bit quicker than the British invading Norway. And Sweden was neutral as best as it could. Sweden also sold important ball bearings and special alloys to the British. What would you do, if you were surrounded by German troops ? Duck and cover ! As for the transport of German troops via Sweden: they were disarmed, otherwise it would have been an act of war from Sweden against the Soviet Union.

  • @PaulMcElligott
    @PaulMcElligott 4 роки тому +69

    “American declaration of war on Germany.” - Germany declared war on the United States, not the other way around.

    • @geoffcartertheoreticalstru6484
      @geoffcartertheoreticalstru6484 4 роки тому +3

      Good point

    • @binaway
      @binaway 4 роки тому +18

      The USA declared war on Germany a few days later in response to the German declaration. A formality which at the time made it easier for the President to send forces to Europe. The USA had not made a declaration of war since WW2.

    • @ottovonbismarck2443
      @ottovonbismarck2443 4 роки тому +10

      @@binaway Now that's nonsense, true or not. If someone declares war on you, YOU ARE AT WAR WITH HIM. No need to declare it back. I mean, you could try to refuse the declaration ...
      AH: "I declare war on you !"
      FDR: "I don't accept."
      AH: "What a pity. Well then, maybe another time ?"
      FDR: "Sure, why not ?"
      ...
      Does that sound as weird to you as it does to me ?

    • @panachevitz
      @panachevitz 4 роки тому

      @@ottovonbismarck2443 Actually, IIRC the US ignored declarations of war issued by Romania and other Balkan countries under German pressure. Those nations declared war on the US in early December 1941, the US did not reciprocate until June of 1942.

    • @ottovonbismarck2443
      @ottovonbismarck2443 4 роки тому +3

      @@panachevitz I guess Romania, Bulgaria and Hungary weren't the biggest threat to the US war effort in December 1941. The US government might have been distracted by some minor events ...

  • @AntonHoward-mx9sb
    @AntonHoward-mx9sb Рік тому

    My partner's grandfather Archie Walker was leading Airman on this ship all the way through the War.
    He was in charge of the maintainance, repair, fueling and arming of all of the aircraft on that ship.
    We have original photographs taken by his best friend who was the ships photographer, some of which were taken at the on the deck of the Missouri at the Japanese surrender.

  • @t5ruxlee210
    @t5ruxlee210 4 роки тому +6

    There is no requirement to ever have "the" precede "HMS".

    • @arthurfisher1857
      @arthurfisher1857 4 роки тому +1

      That is annoying. Unfortunately, Brits do it too.
      "The" Her Majesties Ship...
      Nope.

  • @HeritageStacking
    @HeritageStacking 4 роки тому

    Omg...... I thought I heard most major ww1 and 2 stories. This was the most amazing thing I have watched in 15 years. Thank you so very much. It has made me very emotional.

  • @lifevest1
    @lifevest1 4 роки тому +31

    Anyone else ever notice how this guy narrates like the his old Dark5 videos? Short sentences in concise parts

    • @xaenon
      @xaenon 4 роки тому +6

      and always with a sort of 'breathless' quality, too.

    • @biomecaman3514
      @biomecaman3514 4 роки тому

      editing.

    • @Wh0isTh3D0ct0r
      @Wh0isTh3D0ct0r 4 роки тому +3

      It's not a real person. It's a computer voice. They're getting more and more realistic these days, but there are still some noticeable flaws if you listen carefully. You just type a script and let the computer do the talking. It makes it much easier and faster and cheaper to crank out more video content to get more views on a UA-cam channel if you don't have to do tons of audio editing.

    • @Essah15
      @Essah15 4 роки тому

      @@Wh0isTh3D0ct0r No way this is a computer voice.

    • @lifevest1
      @lifevest1 4 роки тому

      @@Wh0isTh3D0ct0r Hell might as well use Daniel UK from dank memes to narrate! lol

  • @baddonkey6876
    @baddonkey6876 4 роки тому

    I can tell you overcame a speech impediment, you present these documentaries with razor precision and perfection, i love it

  • @berrysoftball
    @berrysoftball 4 роки тому +3

    Would love to know where the footage at 8:52 was sourced from. Obvious Forrestal class at Brooklyn Naval Ship Yards, but which one.

  • @gophersk
    @gophersk 3 роки тому

    Good story. One I hadn't heard before. Thanks. Merry Christmas all

  • @richardm3023
    @richardm3023 4 роки тому +10

    "Intensive modifications..." i.e. Guns, guns, guns.

  • @Mizorehatescompany
    @Mizorehatescompany 3 роки тому +2

    I'd argue that after midway, almost six months to the day after pearl harbor, the Japanese we're anything but "still going strong". After Midway, Shokaku and Zuikaku were the only fleet carriers left in the pacific, and while Taiho joined her sister ships in 1944, Japan never really recovered from the loss of experienced pilots they suffered at midway.

    • @paigetomkinson1137
      @paigetomkinson1137 2 роки тому +1

      I thought pretty much the same thing. Midway was the turning point for the IJN. That turn took a while, but it happened. Imo.

    • @EMHearst
      @EMHearst Рік тому

      The IJN still had parity with the USN up until after the Guadalcanal campaign with the Battles of the Eastern Solomons and Santa Cruz. It wasn’t until after that campaign that the IJN started to feel the pinch on pilot quality and carrier operations. After that campaign concluded is also when you stated to see the arrival of the Essex Class. Guadalcanal was the real turning point.

  • @ApothecaryTerry
    @ApothecaryTerry 4 роки тому +13

    1:21 Where is this "Newcastle in Tyne" you speak of?

    • @knightowl3577
      @knightowl3577 4 роки тому +3

      I have to pass through "Stockton in Tees" to get there.

    • @geoffcartertheoreticalstru6484
      @geoffcartertheoreticalstru6484 4 роки тому +1

      @@knightowl3577 Not to be confused with the naval ship yards at Barrow-upon-Furness.

    • @dovetonsturdee7033
      @dovetonsturdee7033 4 роки тому +2

      Not to be confused with Newcastle below Lyme, bonny lad?

    • @brianprice544
      @brianprice544 4 роки тому

      doveton sturdee (7

    • @peterson7082
      @peterson7082 4 роки тому +1

      South south east of Studley Constable!

  • @negativeindustrial
    @negativeindustrial 4 роки тому +2

    Thank you, Brits. We owe you more than this one! Cheers!

  • @Alex-ft9jy
    @Alex-ft9jy 4 роки тому +33

    2:20 that ship is the Hms Ark Royal

    • @billrhodes5603
      @billrhodes5603 4 роки тому +5

      Don't worry about it, at 3:48 is an Essex class CV. It's hard to find good footage of specific ships.

    • @GamePlayWithNolan
      @GamePlayWithNolan 4 роки тому +7

      I think the point was to show the swordfish. Also good luck finding 13 minutes of the HMS victorious as USS Robin....

    • @MrEsszed
      @MrEsszed 4 роки тому +6

      Okay, listen up people. It is not correct to say “ the HMS ......” because HMS is the acronym for Her Majesty’s Ship.
      You don’t say “The Her Majesty’s Ship ......” unlike USN ships as that would make grammatical sense.
      Please stop.

    • @GamePlayWithNolan
      @GamePlayWithNolan 4 роки тому

      @@MrEsszed Sorry I did not know her majesty's ship was "her majasty's ship" I thought it meant "how many ships" tbh

    • @MrEsszed
      @MrEsszed 4 роки тому +3

      GamePlayWithNolan no problem, I served 23 years and it kinda grates.

  • @carrickrichards2457
    @carrickrichards2457 3 роки тому

    Had not heard this story of cooperation. Thank you. 23000 Tons, over 30 knots, up to 57 aircraft and not typical of USN at that time, 3inch armour on the flight deck

  • @573gwills3
    @573gwills3 4 роки тому +32

    It was the Yorktown that was damaged, not enterprise

    • @theswordguy5269
      @theswordguy5269 4 роки тому +28

      Sorry, but that's not right. Dark Docs is correct. Yorktown was damaged at Coral Sea in May of 1942, and sunk at Midway in June of 1942. Lexington, Wasp and Hornet had also been lost in 1942. Enterprise was seriously mauled at both Eastern Solomons (8/42) and Santa Cruz (10/42). Her flight deck was only partially operational due to a damaged elevator that her crew dare not lower, lest it jam in the down position. Even the hard work of the repair crews at Noumea and aboard the USS Vestal couldn't make it right. She'd have to return stateside eventually to have it and other significant damage repaired.
      At the time that Dark Docs was referring to, only Saratoga and Enterprise remained. Then, Sara was hit by a Japanese submarine torpedo and knocked out for a number of months, leaving the damaged Enterprise alone as the only American fleet carrier in the Pacific, hence the need for Victorious. The first Essexes and Independence-class CVLs would arrive later starting in mid-1943, but until then the US Navy needed help. Saratoga did return from her torpedo damage in 1943 and she and Victorious operated together. Photos of the pair in formation make for an interesting sight, the smaller but far more modern armoured carrier steaming with the much older but larger converted battlecruiser.
      I would add that the British actually proactively and very generously offered a carrier to the US in 1942 but were turned down because we had Enterprise, Yorkron, Hornet, Wasp, and Saratoga all operational at the start of Operation Watchtower. We outnumbered the Japanese 5 to 2 in terms of heavy fleet carriers, and there simply didn't seem to be the need, especially with Operation Torch in progress, new construction joining the fleet on the horizon, and Operation Husky already in its very nascent planning stages. Toss in the differences in doctrine, aircraft and training and it appeared to be a lot of effort for just one ship. The US also didn't have enough squadrons to outfit an armoured carrier, as strange as that sounds, even has the desire been there. Late 1942 and early 1943 were times of great aircraft and pilot shortages for the forward deployed US naval air forces. The only reason Guadalcanal got navy fighter support at all, for example, was because Saratoga was knocked out by that pesky torpedo hit, so VF-5 was sent to Guadalcanal because they were momentarily available while Sara withdrew. It seemed to the Americans that an armoured carrier would be far more useful in the Atlantic or Mediterranean. The serious losses around the Solomons changed that calculus.

    • @573gwills3
      @573gwills3 4 роки тому +7

      The Swordguy excellent, thanks for taking the time to write that. I would normally delete a post of mine that was wrong but as your reply is so detailed I should it for others to see and read as it’s quite interesting

    • @slaughterferret759
      @slaughterferret759 4 роки тому +1

      @@573gwills3 Everyone liked that.

  • @mikuownstheworld
    @mikuownstheworld 4 роки тому +1

    HMS Victorious looks so gorgeous

  • @peterwatts4163
    @peterwatts4163 4 роки тому +8

    I hadn't realised that angled flight decks, Supermarine Scimitars and De Havilland Sea Vixens were in service during World War 2

    • @georgebordi8986
      @georgebordi8986 4 роки тому +1

      I think thats a later picture of her after she was fitted with an angel deck in the 50s. Same ship though.

    • @planpitz4190
      @planpitz4190 4 роки тому

      Never heard of the Philadelphia experiment and time travel? Easy thing!

    • @AbsalomMcVey
      @AbsalomMcVey 4 роки тому +1

      At 5:34 they identified a Forrestal class carrier with jets and an angled flight deck as the USS Ranger during WWII!!! I had thought this channel had some class, but they should go to a class.

  • @johngledhill2970
    @johngledhill2970 4 роки тому +2

    Incredible story about Anglo-American co-operation, long may it continue.

  • @sojolly
    @sojolly 4 роки тому +6

    I did work for the Fleet Deception Group a long time ago and i can say yaup we did stuff and things like that.

  • @Bolivar_Shag_Nasty
    @Bolivar_Shag_Nasty 4 роки тому

    I’ve been watching your videos for 8 months and just now realized I had never subscribed. I am now subscribed. Very good videos as I am a vet.

  • @olengagallardo8551
    @olengagallardo8551 4 роки тому +5

    7:18 its kind of silly bringing a full length sword inside the cramped cockpit of a zeke!

    • @markchip1
      @markchip1 4 роки тому +1

      The Samurai equivalent of Furry Dice!!

    • @neurofiedyamato8763
      @neurofiedyamato8763 4 роки тому

      Not really cramped. And you can put the sword between the gap on the side of the seat.

  • @jameshunter5485
    @jameshunter5485 4 роки тому +1

    The Victorious would have had an illustrious career even if it had not operated as the USS Robin. The fact that it did makes it my favorite British warship perhaps only surpassed by Nelson’s flagship Victory.

  • @johngoerger8996
    @johngoerger8996 4 роки тому +9

    Why did this program.keep showing Carriers with an angled deck & jets on them? A BIT STUPID

    • @madsteve9
      @madsteve9 4 роки тому

      Victorious had a major upgrade, to include and angled flight deck, and operate Jets. She was only retired in 1969.

    • @MatthewBaileyBeAfraid
      @MatthewBaileyBeAfraid 4 роки тому

      And especially the image of the second USS Enterprise, a CVN...

  • @CrimxSun
    @CrimxSun 4 роки тому +1

    12:26 Jesus christ calm down with the dramatic speed😂. This ain't no rap song.

  • @ltwjay1794
    @ltwjay1794 4 роки тому +14

    For the love of god when talking about the ships launch and early career use imagery from that period, as a large British capitol fleet unit, there is tonnes of imagery, even other ships from the illustrious class, DONT, and I repeat DONT, talk about the launch of the ship with showing late 1940s-50s aircraft on deck. Jets where not common on British carriers before 1945 and even then the word ‘common,’ fells like a stretch, if ur gunna make a whole video about the ship use the correct blasted imagery

  • @odsts6658
    @odsts6658 4 роки тому +2

    It's nice to finally understand what my friend was talking about when I had a very nasty I didn't with him over the USS Robin in my opinion that ship did not exist it was victorious and I may be a bit here but seeing those modifications to her pains me a little bit being a fan of the WWII illustrious class and of the Cold War illustrious class carrier it did pain me not looking as she was supposed to but the modifications helped and I can understand why she was used and sent to the Pacific she was changed or modified so the Japanese wouldn't realise the British are already in the Pacific before we officially started moving over there with our Fleet it's just I don't like people referring to her as robin she is Victorious the third of the illustrious class and was a damn good ship just like her sisters

  • @curry67
    @curry67 4 роки тому +3

    Hey could you do the Mers-el-Kebir conflict where the french got sank by the british in WW2.

  • @blurglide
    @blurglide 4 роки тому +2

    You've really outdone yourself today when it comes to showing video that has little to nothing to do with what you're talking about.

    • @johnnyyen4910
      @johnnyyen4910 4 роки тому

      Read the last paragraph of the video description

    • @ye3505
      @ye3505 4 роки тому

      You've really outdone yourself in not reading the description.

  • @american4697
    @american4697 4 роки тому +3

    You should do a video on the story of the HMS Hood.

  • @dinger40
    @dinger40 4 роки тому +2

    My Foster Father served on her on the second Pacific trip and repatriation of exprisoners of war from the far east.
    After the Kamikaze he said they just filled in the dents with quick drying cement and one of the convesions to return to RN service was to rip out the Ice cream machines.

  • @alexx86hater
    @alexx86hater 4 роки тому +3

    If US had carriers equipped like one at 5:35 I'm afraid the war would end much sooner. Nice easter egg though.

    • @zapfanzapfan
      @zapfanzapfan 4 роки тому +1

      Yeah, that was 10 years after WWII...

  • @Obiter3
    @Obiter3 4 роки тому +1

    These are brand new facts to me. Great video 👍

  • @omerashraf9357
    @omerashraf9357 4 роки тому +5

    I want to point out some mistakes in the episode The Soviet Red Star MiGs That Weren't Supposed to Exist in the Korean War. First of the North Korean Air Force used the IL 10 Strike aircraft which was developed from the famous WW2 IL 2 Sturmovik. Secondly i don't think the IL 28 was used during the war as I cannot find about its combat record in Korea. Rather the WW2 era Tupolev Tu-2 was used

    • @Rascal_the_Raccoon
      @Rascal_the_Raccoon 4 роки тому +3

      Go to that vid then

    • @jameson1239
      @jameson1239 4 роки тому +1

      Wrong vid

    • @omerashraf9357
      @omerashraf9357 4 роки тому

      I know but it would be buried under other one thousand comments but I thought this way they would recognize me

  • @IDATMAN
    @IDATMAN 4 роки тому +1

    My grandfather served on a sea plane tender in WWII in the Pacific Theater. The USS Robin is one of the reasons I'm here able to make this comment. Thanks.

  • @billbye2427
    @billbye2427 4 роки тому +27

    Bravo Sierra the aircraft carrier with a hurricane bow and angle deck was and is in the film as the Robin wrong it was the USS Forrestal CVA -59. nice try!

    • @IPeakedAt15
      @IPeakedAt15 4 роки тому

      But this is the right carrier

  • @Avalanche041
    @Avalanche041 4 роки тому +2

    She was never "officially" the USS Robin. Robin was her radio callsign. The USN gave every ship a radio callsign. She was always the Victorious. It also was not that uncommon for the US to host foreign allied ships for refits. HMS Rodney was given a refit on the US East Coast as well as the French Battleship Richelieu. All the modifications the US gave to Victorious were intended to make her more suited for operations in the Pacific including her new paint scheme. The video also makes it sound like it was just American pilots operating off of Victorious. The truth is even more interesting. When she arrived in the Pacific, it was decided that she was not well equipped for flying off of torpedo planes so Saratoga transferred her fighters to Victorious and Victorious bombers were sent to Saratoga. So while the American pilots were flying off of Victorious, British pilots were flying off of Saratoga.
    The United States was considered to be the junior partner in the war in Europe and thus allowed the British to take a leading role. However, that state of affairs flip flopped when it came to the Pacific. The US which was doing the Lions share of the fighting took the leading role. Which is why when the British Pacific Fleet was finally formed, they more or less had to match the US operating tempo and adopt many USN procedures. The British Pacific Fleet was known as Task Force 57 and was under the operational command of the United States Pacific Fleet. So I guess what I am trying to say here is that Victorious was never part of the United States Navy. She served alongside the USN and was even apart of a USN task force but the ship itself was entirely British. Saying victorious was part of the United States Navy would be like saying USS Texas was part of the Royal Navy during WWI. Battleship division 9 formed the 6th Battle squadron of the British Grand Fleet but were not royal navy vessels.

  • @user-mp3eq6ir5b
    @user-mp3eq6ir5b 4 роки тому +6

    @10:23 ☆ "Armchair General Magazine"
    This Episode is full of Dark Humor...
    How Appropriate for the Viewership.

  • @fb1179
    @fb1179 4 роки тому

    You're my favourite channel on youtube, no hyperbole. 10% spooky history is amazing.

  • @akeeldberg5218
    @akeeldberg5218 4 роки тому +5

    "In September it was sent on bombing missions against Norway and Sweden". Really? Sweden was not in the war.

    • @zew1414
      @zew1414 3 роки тому

      Since Germany was carting out mad raw materials out of Sweden, they may have bombed some transports heading for Norway? I’m not sure on this

  • @jamesstone7283
    @jamesstone7283 4 роки тому +1

    Brits are our family. Distant relatives.

  • @naikjoy
    @naikjoy 4 роки тому +16

    It would be nice if it was still around :(

    • @TM-bn8pv
      @TM-bn8pv 4 роки тому +1

      Sad. What happened to it? Didn't the British restore and preserve their ships?

    • @Davey-Boyd
      @Davey-Boyd 4 роки тому +6

      @@TM-bn8pv We hardly ever preserve our old ships (Victory and Belfast excepted). The government trashed all our old fighting vehicles and aircraft too with a few notable exceptions. It is truly a crime tbh.

    • @davestubbs4081
      @davestubbs4081 4 роки тому

      Her sister ships all went to the breakers yard too, however there's an exhibit that shows what the flight deck of Ark Royal in the sixties/seventies in the fleet air arm museum at Yeovilton in England, close enough right?

    • @TM-bn8pv
      @TM-bn8pv 4 роки тому

      @@Davey-Boyd damn, that sucks. So many cool fighting vehicles in WW2 on all countries. Wish they saved and restored more of these vehichles for my trip to Europe. Not sure what Germany did with their craft, but I've seen a good bit of their vehicles in the US museums. I know a Spitfire from "Great Escape" was also recovered from a remote Norwegian mountainside last year or 2, intact.

    • @cornmaized
      @cornmaized 4 роки тому

      Britain had to scrap tons of ships. The nation simply couldn’t afford to keep them around

  • @andrewtaylor940
    @andrewtaylor940 4 роки тому +2

    To be fair, when the American’s gave her back they didn’t strip off all of the US Navy gear. They let her keep the Ice Cream maker. Unlike British ships which allowed booze, US ships were dry. So no onboard pub. But the larger US Capital ships were equipped with Ice Cream makers. This became a unit of currency for the Carriers. Ships such as destroyers that rescued downed Allied fliers got a bounty of 5 gallons of Ice Cream from the Carrier. A rare treat.
    When operating with the US as the USS Robin she was paired at the hip with the USS Saratoga. The Victorious because of it’s lower tonnage and it’s armored flight deck, had a very cramped hanger. Especially when operating the huge Avengers. To allow for better operations her Fighter wing was shifted to Saratoga, and she carried some extra Avengers from Saratoga in their place. Saratoga was a huge ship built on a Battlecruiser hull. She had an enormous hanger. By disembarking an Avenger wing to “Robin” she was able to operate an extra 2 and a half wings of Hellcats. So Saratoga was providing the fighter cover for the fleet and Victorious the strike capabilities. It was an odd arrangement and one that was never fully tested in combat. At least if they had encountered any Japanese forces the Victorious was protected by the most advanced Torpedo defense system the Americans had. The fleet Torpedo sponge called USS Saratoga.
    And even a mention of the USS Ranger. Unloved, unwanted and sadly unsunk. (Never trust the Germans to do anything right).

  • @loganmartin59
    @loganmartin59 4 роки тому +5

    The way he says Tirpitz... I've never heard it be pronounced "Tear-pits"

  • @Jacksonransom
    @Jacksonransom 4 роки тому +1

    A playback speed of 0.75 and these videos are the best afternoon nap material

  • @GeneralKenobiSIYE
    @GeneralKenobiSIYE 4 роки тому +6

    Yeesh... the pronunciations in this video. "Ashorsh?" "Admiral-tree?" *winces in pain*

  • @dustydave2819
    @dustydave2819 3 роки тому

    excellent and surprising documentary, dramatically told by an American, all about USA UK cooperation, it seems so much can be achieved when these two nations work together. An excellent story well told.

  • @theohisherik2524
    @theohisherik2524 4 роки тому +7

    Awesome vid, but could you try about Eric Hartmann the best fighter pilot of all time

    • @ottovonbismarck2443
      @ottovonbismarck2443 4 роки тому

      Erich ...
      There was a biography around. Note: not Hartmann's memoires, but based on interviews. I had read it once some 30 years ago. While the man sure was an impressive pilot, the book was less impressive. You may find it on Amazon or E-bay. I don't guarantee for accuracy, though.

  • @mileshigh1321
    @mileshigh1321 4 роки тому +2

    History i have never heard of! Very interesting story! Thanks for this,nicely done as usual!

  • @williammcdermet6932
    @williammcdermet6932 4 роки тому +4

    Why use pics of a canted deck CV with jets?

    • @kieranwilliams5148
      @kieranwilliams5148 4 роки тому

      Some of the pics show HMS Victorious post ww2 with the angled flight deck with the British Fleet Air Arm aircraft.

  • @jerrysantos6484
    @jerrysantos6484 4 роки тому +1

    Wow! American history never mentioned this ship as British. Nice to know.

  • @tbg3889
    @tbg3889 4 роки тому +39

    This man talks too fast and too slow at the same time.

    • @blackbirdpie217
      @blackbirdpie217 4 роки тому +1

      play at .75 speed

    • @nitehawk86
      @nitehawk86 4 роки тому +2

      @@blackbirdpie217 Lol it sounds like he is on drugs at .75 speed.

    • @apparentlynot1stLeonchubbs
      @apparentlynot1stLeonchubbs 4 роки тому +3

      I was trying to wrap my head around a way to describe his voice to my buddy 😂🤷

    • @brianemery8945
      @brianemery8945 4 роки тому +2

      That's an unbelievably accurate description of his narration

    • @weeral1
      @weeral1 4 роки тому

      .9 speed.. That is the sweet spot I just discovered.. Ahh how relaxing this finally was to listen to. Someone brought it to my attention that in the speed setting there is a "custom" button... My life is better now I can watch this guys docs and not deal with some added stress and annoyance.

  • @chrisreardon7185
    @chrisreardon7185 4 роки тому

    some of the stuff you come up with is stuff i would never have heard of otherwise. One of the best youtube channels ever if i’m going to be honest, surprised your channel isn’t bigger.

  • @richardhoepfner1633
    @richardhoepfner1633 4 роки тому +15

    At least show carriers from ww2. terrible

    • @killerbee7347
      @killerbee7347 4 роки тому

      He did show some from ww2 carriers , but finding a a video of every carrier or ship he lists is hard has you have to get permission to use it an to cut the segment he wants out

  • @JJbm4233
    @JJbm4233 Місяць тому

    This is one of her videos that I’ve been most anxious to see. I have a forgotten unrecognized part of World War II. Along with the story of the British Pacific Fleet at the end of World War II.

  • @sandrasanders706
    @sandrasanders706 3 роки тому

    Just when I think I've heard all the unusual stories of WW2..WOW!!! What a story! Thanks for bringing this to light!