The CATASTROPHIC Destruction of HMS Indefatigable at Jutland
Вставка
- Опубліковано 12 лип 2024
- HMS Indefatigable, launched in 1909, was the lead ship of her class of British battlecruisers. These ships were the brainchild of Admiral Jackie Fisher, who envisioned fast and lightly armored warships capable of outpacing and outgunning any opponent. Commissioned in 1911, Indefatigable represented this vision with her impressive speed and firepower. Throughout her service, she played a significant role in the Royal Navy, seeing action in the Mediterranean and during the tumultuous years of World War I.
In the early stages of the war, Indefatigable was involved in the pursuit of the German ships SMS Goeben and Breslau, which were attempting to evade the British fleet in the Mediterranean. This chase highlighted the strategic importance of speed, a key attribute of battlecruisers. Indefatigable also participated in the bombardment of Ottoman positions in the Dardanelles, showcasing her firepower in a significant naval campaign.
By February 1915, Indefatigable, along with her sister ships Australia and New Zealand, was integrated into the 2nd Battlecruiser Squadron. This squadron was a critical component of the Royal Navy's battlecruiser force. The design of Indefatigable, while an advancement over the preceding Invincible class, still had notable flaws, particularly in armor protection. These weaknesses made her and her sister ships susceptible to damage in combat situations.
Despite these design limitations, the Royal Navy's doctrine at the time prioritized speed and firepower over armor. This emphasis led to dangerous practices, such as overloading magazines and removing safety measures to increase the rate of fire. These practices were a calculated risk to maximize combat effectiveness but came with significant dangers.
The Battle of Jutland, fought on May 31, 1916, was the largest naval battle of World War I and a defining moment for Indefatigable. During the battle, she was positioned at the rear of Vice Admiral Beatty’s line. As the British and German fleets closed in on each other, Indefatigable engaged with the German battlecruiser SMS Von der Tann. Fourteen minutes into the battle, she was struck by several heavy shells. The impacts caused a series of catastrophic explosions, leading to her rapid sinking. Tragically, nearly all of her crew perished in the disaster.
Introduction 0:00
Context to Jutland 1:18
Lead up to Jutland 6:11
The Battle Starts 7:04
The Private Duel 9:26
The Destruction of Indefatigable 12:28
Some Reasoning to the Loss 21:10
Conclusion 23:32
Sources/Other Reading:
IWM Voices of Jutland: www.iwm.org.uk/history/voices...
Wreck of Indefatigable: • Underwater video of th...
www.amazon.com/Castles-Steel-...
www.amazon.com/British-Battle...
www.amazon.com/Jutland-1916-C...
www.amazon.com/British-Battle...
www.amazon.com/Jutland-Unfini...
www.amazon.com/German-Battlec...
www.iwm.org.uk/history/what-w...
www.amazon.com/British-Battle...
www.jutland1916.com/
Video Information:
Copyright fair use notice. All media used in this video is used for the purpose of education under the terms of fair use. All footage and images used belong to their copyright holders, when applicable.
Thanks for watching everyone! I know I'm not perfect when it comes to audio, and I recognize my shortcomings with vocal fry (I'm working on it). However, I realized that my new microphone stand was upside down and so I was unable to get it to an appropriate distance to my mouth for the last couple of months. Anyway, I'd really appreciate it if you would let me know if you notice any difference in this audio, thanks!
I found it to be clear and well-modulated. Thank you for sharing your hard work.
Takes a secure man to admit his issues right out in front like this. It shows you aren't too sensitive to take feedback, are aware of the vocal fry issue, and will work to fix it. What else can one ask for?
GG GL
The description of our battle cruisers was "eggshells armed with sledge hammers". My grandfather served on HMS Dreadnought, the ship that gave its name to all battleships that followed. He was lucky as she was too slow by WW1 to keep up with the fleet so was send south to guard the Thames estuary. It was whilst on leave from her that he met my grandmother in London. His friend was posted to the Queen Mary so did not survive. I remember my grandmother saying that Beatty was considered to be very reckless as a commander.
Anyway, it was all a long time ago !
When it comes to commanding in a battle, the difference between an "aggressive" commander and a "reckless" commander often comes down to luck. Admiral Halsey also has a reputation for being reckless, and had he been in command during the Battle of Midway, when the outnumbered U.S. fleet needed to find that sweet spot between caution and aggression, the end result might have been very different. Despite Halsey's difficulties in appreciating when caution was warranted, it is generally accepted that his aggressive spirit was reflected in the high morale and aggressive spirit of his subordinates, and the pilots and sailors under their command, which were significant to their ultimate success.
Regarding Beatty, to me his failures suggest he was a good captain and a good administrator who should not have been promoted to fleet command. The design failures of the battlecruisers cannot be laid at his feet, but by failing to ensure his subordinates were properly trained and practiced in battle communications he made his own job more difficult, and by placing his ships in such a manner that they couldn't easily reinforce one another suggests he was out of his element when commanding multiple capital ships.
Beatty Who ?
As always, you information and presentation, top notch! Not only is Jutland one of my favorite reads in history, especially when I studied in college, but it is an amazing world event.
The audio sounds perfect to me.
Before WW1.To guard the Empire Britain had to maintain a fleet that would be able to take on the next 2 largest navy's combined. Germany, the USA and even France were seen as potential enemy's. Of course politicians wanted to cut costs, so along with some Navy yes men they built Battlecruiser's with lighter armour than the German ships like Von der Tann. Von der Tan was as fast as Indefatigable, but here main armour was twice as thick. So the fight was more like a battlecruiser { Indefatigable } taking on a Battleship. Good video.
The British battlecruisers were built for running down and destroying enemy armored cruisers engaged in trade warfare, just like the Battle of the Falklands. Their protection was designed around being faster than their opponents and choosing both range and angle of target to engage. The battlecruisers were NOT designed to act as capital ships in the line of battle or for engaging other battlecruisers for any length of time. The battlecruisers of both sides were designed to find the enemy's main fleet and then withdraw at speed to inform their own fleet commander. Beatty forgot his primary mission and ended up going toe to toe with the High Seas Fleet's battlecruisers. In any case, while the German battlecruisers were indeed more heavily protected, they were also slower and had less powerful batteries. But the German protection did not keep the German battle cruisers being pounded into scrap by the British battlecruisers and the "Queen Elizabeth" fast battleships.
Any review of German AP shells and fuzes, along with engagement angles and ranges show that penetration of the magazines of the British battlecruisers was reliant on very small chances. Also, both post-battle analysis and later inspections of the wrecks show that no German AP shell fully penetrated a turret or barbette, much less a magazine. On the other hand, the battlecruiser wrecks inspected so far (ie. Queen Mary) show uncased propellent charges all up and down the turret and barbette structure.
The german battlecruisers where intended to be part of the line of battle, the british werent.
@@max-imal8588 I agree. Even though the German ships had smaller guns they had much thicker armour and would have been able to engage British Battleships. The British Battlecruisers were put in to line of battle to save money on building Battlecruisers like the Germans, or more Battleships
Very interesting. And the audio was spot on 👍🏽
Interesting as always, thank you!
I don't remember discovering this channel, but glad I did. Well done, solid work. Cheers
Glad you enjoyed it!
Those audio records from IWM are fascinating. It's also interesting to hear accents that have all but disappeared.
I wonder how much cordite they had stacked in the turrets? Shouldn't they have used it by the time 40 shells had been expended?
Thanks for these excellent and informative videos. Not sure if you’re aware of this but a significant portion of mountains in our Kananaskis range, about an hours drive from Calgary, have been dedicated to the ships and men involved at Jutland. You can google the article about it titled:
‘The Battle of Jutland, First World War Commemoration and Alberta Place Names’
The problem here is that the 28cm SKL-45 AP shell did not have the velocity at the calculated range and comparing the horizontal and vertical deviation between Von der Tann and Indefatigable to penetrate into any of the magazines. The German fuze would have been initiated penetrating the shell plating and the distance to a magazine would see the shell explode before reaching there. The barbette plating went down to the armor deck, so that a penetration of the side plating, would have to penetrate the lower barbette plating or the main armor deck at a very shallow angle. At best, the shell could penetrate or blow a scab of the barbette plating and explode before reaching the magazine. The same situation existed for the other British battlecruisers that day at Jutland. If the armor/protective plating was too thin, it should also have resulted in the destruction of British battlecruisers at Dogger Bank. It didn't. The only difference was the unsafe ammunition practices adopted by the battlecruisers to increase rate of fire. Beatty was convinced that just a few more hits would have brought the German battlecruisers to close action at Dogger Bank. He and his staff initiated the procedures to increase the rate of fire. When the Official Secrets Act expired on the RN's Jutland records, it was discovered that an inquiry was held and that the chairman recommended written reprimands for both Beatty and Jellicoe. Then Jellicoe became First Lord and Beatty CIC Grand Fleet, and the rear admiral chairing the inquiry was sent out to command the China Squadron.
Ah, so typical Royal Navy deflection of accountability, and political maneuvering, of the tactically incompetent.
Not related to this subject but I am interested in you making a video about Austro-Hungarian WW1 submarines, with most of my interest is in the service career of Georg von Trapp
I love this lil slices of history
Lion’s flooded Q magazine’s doors had been significantly blown in when the big cordite flash occurred, if the magazine had not been flooded the magazine probably would have gone up.
That Beatty line seems to be inescapable whenever Jutland is brought up
You need to read Innes McCartneys work. He has reviewed the wreck and has published a paper which basically says that her X magazine suffered a deflagration that blew her stern off. It’s some distance from her stern and a fair distance from (what’s left) of her wreck.
That fits with the photograph that shows the ship already sinking and rolling over. Whether she was hit again or it was a continuation of the initial hit is a matter of conjecture. Either way, she had lost her stern and was in serious trouble (understatement).
Again Innes McCartney published an exceptional book on the wrecks and includes Indefatigable. She is a shambles. Whether that is due to salvage (which is recorded) or sheer force? Nobody will ever know. Likely both.
Palmer (the survivor) is seen in the BBC documentary “The Great War” and describes the account you describe. There is also documented evidence that the captain survived the initial destruction but succumbed to his horrific injuries.
The Big Picture :
Hardly to be considered a catastrophe .... The Grand Fleet had a half dozen of these ships they could afford to lose .... The Germans couldn't afford to lose the Lutzow which by the way was given the coup de grass by this same type of brittle cruiser .... The modern Lutzow to the Germans was worth more than all the obsolete BC's lost that day were to the British.... Not a question in the world about it .... Comments ?
Best book on subject :
Jutland : An Analysis of the Fighting ....
Where's the opening theme????? Best part!
The opening intro seems to be having an adverse affect on the viewer retention. I’m running a little experiment with the videos to see if taking the intro out might help it.
Damn... I really enjoyed it, was teasing about the best part, your research is truly brilliant as is your quality and sticking to facts.... you really need an attaboy and a raise!
@@psymons9133 Oh before I forget, I'll upload it as the channel trailer, so people can still enjoy it.
Before WW1 there was Battlecruiser's with lighter armour than the German ships like Von der Tann.
To be honest, Indefatigable was so badly armoured (as in “much worse than Invincible”) that even a cruiser might have been able to make her blow up.
New Zealand did not pay off cost of HMS till 1944
Never had a problem with your audio. But im not a picky guy.
Thought she exploded sitting at the dockside?
That was HMS Vanguard.
@stephenmcdonald7908 Made my point thanks!
jutland sounds magical they must have dragons and unicorns.....both are in the bible too lol
Interesting story, but hard to listen to children narrators.
I’m really curious, how old do you think I am?
MADE IN ENGLAND!