HMS Hood & USS Iowa - Battlecruisers or Fast Battleships?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 чер 2024
- Head to www.squarespace.com/drachinifel to save 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain using code DRACHINIFEL
Today we take a look at the argument over whether Hood was a battlecruiser or a fast battleship, and if that changes the definition of the Iowa class as well!
00:00:00 - Intro
00:02:18 - The Question!
00:03:52 - Battlecruisers by Mission Role - Generation 1
00:16:57 - Battlecruisers by Mission Role - Generation 2
00:21:30 - Later Battlecruiser Generations and Faulty Definitions
00:26:20 - Definitions by Design/Comparison that don't work
00:29:48 - Definition by Design that works!
00:35:51 - What ifs? Hood and Iowa as definite battlecruisers
00:40:59 - Definition by Specification - Definitive?
Free naval photos and more - www.drachinifel.co.uk
Want to support the channel? - / drachinifel
Want a shirt/mug/hoodie - shop.spreadshirt.com/drachini...
Want a poster? - www.etsy.com/uk/shop/Drachinifel
Want to talk about ships? / discord
Want to get some books? www.amazon.co.uk/shop/drachinifelDrydock
Episodes in podcast format - / user-21912004
Music - / ncmepicmusic
Pinned post for Q&A 😀
Why are the aircraft carriers of other nations unable to carry as many aircraft as the American ones despite them being the same size?
Why south asian countries don't have battleships and aircraft carrier
Battleships are obsolete in this age and aircraft carriers are expensive but I believe Thailand has an aircraft carrier
@@Poniculus3357 india has 2 aircraft carriers
How much damage do you think an anti-ship missile, like the Exocet, Harpoon or even the Neptune, do to a WW2 or WW1 destroyer, cruiser or battleship or even an aircraft carrier?
Drachinifel needs to make a video on the basics of what, at least officially and on paper, defines each class of vessel in the first half of the 20th Century in general. Things like “Landing Craft”, “Submarine” or “Aircraft Carrier” (at least, pre-helicopter) are easily defined even by a layman, but what makes a cutter a cutter, a cruiser a cruiser, a destroyer a destroyer, a battleship a battleship, and a super heavy battleship a hotel?
Years ago I thought that destroyers were bigger than light and heavy cruisers, boy was I wrong lol. I think alot of those classifications were based on weight displacement but I could be wrong.
*angry air-conditioned ramune machine noises*
Ive listened to hundreds of hours of Drach commentary. He has dealt with exactly that definition issue (several times) in Drydock, and I broadly now understand it, but Im afraid I cant say which of the 201 editions coveredit best. Good luck.
The Japanese seem to enjoy calling everything a destroyer
@@ianwilkinson5069 not necessarily. A flight 3 arleigh burke class destroyer displaces more (9700 tons) than a Ticonderoga class Cruiser (9500 tons)
Enemy Officer #2: Sir, There’s a line of battleships approaching at high speed off the port bow !
Enemy Officer #1 looking through his binoculars: No, those are battlecruisers.
Enemy Officer #2: Oh good, for a second there I thought we were in real trouble.
Iowa class: (laughs in 16in AP)
Mighty Jingles: enemy destroyer sighted.
Later in the court martial:
EnemyAdmiral "so, you saw the ships, but you didn't open fire. Explain"
EO#1 "well, EO#2 said they were battlecruisers, I said they were battleships, so we went to get the copy of Jane's fighting ships out, and EO#3 posted somethig on Drachinefel, and things got kind of heated..."
Enemy Admiral
@@camenbert5837 Carry on Sir !
@@camenbert5837 If Ludovic Kennedy’s “Pursuit” is to be believed, there was a similar conversation between Prinz Eugen’s gunnery officers at the Battle of the Denmark Strait - they used G D E Weyer’s “Handbook on Foreign Navies” to identify Hood.
British Royal Navy: "So what should I call you? Should I call you a battlecruiser... fast battleship...?"
Hood: "You can call me Susan if it makes you happy."
There must be an untranslatable German word meaning "large ship likely to explode."
selbstzerstörendesgroßeskriegsschiff? :D
@@stanleyrogouski Grab fur tausend Manner?
@@Drachinifel I had thought this comment was just fun gibberish... until UA-cam helpfully offered to translate.
German is a hell of a language
@@stanleyrogouski it's translate able
I agree with your conclusion in the final section. A fast battleship is essentially designers looking at their previous/contemporary generation of battleship and saying "we want all of that, but faster". A fast battleship is a battleship that gains a distinct speed advantage, but without compromising the firepower or armor that allows it to match up against other contemporary battleships (either "fast" or "slow"). Invariably this means a substantial increase in displacement compared to the slower battleships, which we see with both Hood and Iowa. To me, the clear dividing line between a fast battleship and a battlecruiser is that the former is still clearly intended to be able to fight another battleship 1v1, whereas the latter is not (just giving the ship some marginal capabilities to not be instantly obliterated by a battleship, a la the German WWI battlecruisers, doesn't count).
As I mentioned on the Alaska-class video, my personal definition of a battlecruiser is similar to yours, but a bit more expansive in that I don't consider having the exact same gun caliber as the battleships to be a requirement. I consider just having substantially larger guns than cruiser size to be sufficient, which is why I include the Alaskas in my definition of BCs. In my opinion, any ship that is designed for the mission of "kill cruisers, run from battleships" qualifies as a battlecruiser. So my criteria for judging whether a ship counts are based on the two parts of that mission. In my own personal definition, a battlecruiser must:
1. Be easily capable of killing contemporary "standard" cruisers. This means it needs *all* of the following:
a. Much greater firepower than a standard cruiser through larger guns.
b. Armor to protect against standard cruiser guns of the time.
c. Speed comparable to contemporary cruisers.
2. It also needs to be *incapable* of matching up against a contemporary battleship 1v1, by being deficient in *at least one* of the following:
a. Number of guns.
b. Caliber of guns.
c. Armor protection.
If a ship fails #1, it's not powerful enough to be a battlecruiser. If a ship meets #1 but doesn't have any of the deficiencies listed under #2, it's a fast battleship.
My view of the Alaskas is that they are upgraded heavy cruisers. In a world where there are 70k-80k ton monster battleships like Yamato or Montana around and even the Battlecruisers are 45k-55k suddenly a 10k ton cruiser armed with 8inch guns looks a bit tiny. In fact if you look at them in comparison to the battlecruisers and battleships of their time the Alaskas fit into pretty much the exact niche that the WW1 armoured cruisers fit into. And a similar place the treaty heavy cruisers are in comparison to the 35k ton treaty battleships. In a battle fleet consisting of Montanas and Iowas the Alaskas fit quite nicely into the heavy cruiser slot with their comparative firepower and protection.
Battlecruisers, well British battlecruisers were intended to fight armored Cruisers ... not battleships, they would run from engagements were proper battleships were there, this is why their performance in Jutland was completely different that in the Battle of the Falkland Islands.
German battlecruisers were battleships with smaller caliber guns because they were expected to join up on battleship line engagements, they traded caliber for speed and not armor.
But armored cruisers ended with coal fueled boilers, the reason is armored cruisers employed a simple trick ... they used their coal storage as armor and naturally they couldnt use oil tanks for that.
So battlecruisers after armored cruisers were gone were now in a situation of being too much for cruisers (that could outrun then) and too little for battleships (that could outshoot then), they existed to fill a niche role that ceased to exist.
Now the Alaska were to do what exactly? well they were intended to sink IJN super heavy cruisers (the non-existing type but rumored to exist) just like the Japanese B-65 project was to sink USN heavy cruisers (that, learning about the Alaska wanted to turn then into what was effectively a battleship but that never got pass proposal as it would be ... well, dumb), if anything the Alaska, B-65 and all other "large cruisers" were more the new armored cruisers since lets look at the Scharnhorst class armored cruisers ... 8 x 21 cm SK L/40, they were of larger caliber that the Hipper class Heavy cruisers, interresting enough the German approach to battlecruisers wasnt entirely wrong because they were armed with 28 cm guns (or 30.4 cm) that would be enough to deal with armored cruisers.
As I see it, the large cruisers were the continuation of the old armored cruisers, intended to sink enemy cruisers as battlecruisers ceased to exist because speed was no longer a factor, both large cruisers and battleships were entirely within the 30 knots speeds, they couldnt catch large cruisers and they couldnt run away from battleships and at that point we had reached the limits of how fast could we make ships go, they were a dead end because they only advantage they had and they were designed around, ceased to be possible.
All I know is the Alaska Class's 12" guns were (for lack of a better term) "boutique " guns in that they were basically custom designed/made JUST for those ships. Each gun cost over 1$million dollars per, making them rather spendy. Too bad the USN didn't have these and say the Des Moines Class earlier in the War.... Would've made things interesting for the IJN.
@@drakron German Battlecruisers didn't really have smaller guns than German Battleships considering that the early German dreadnoughts also have 11" guns. Battlecruisers did keep the 11" for longer than the battleships however that is true.
However, I wouldn't say that they were designed to fight battleships. They were designed to fight battlecruisers in fact. They would be in fleet engagements but rather than simply being a faster portion of the line their job was to do scouting. By being able to kill any screening cruiser (and also to act as the screen of the High Seas Fleet, because if Germany didn't have battlecruisers and Britain did the British would have killed the German screen and done the scouting for the Grand Fleet). With that in mind Germans built their battlecruisers with fighting enemy battlecruisers in mind, as did Britain and the Cats (the I's, being the first battlecruisers were pretty exclusively built to kill cruisers only, as they couldn't really be designed with fighting battlecruisers in mind when there were no battlecruisers.
I also class the Alaska Class as heavy cruisers for two reasons.
1; They are probably what heavy cruisers would have looked like if not for the various treaties limiting cruisers in the 1920s and '30s.
2; Their main guns were substantially smaller than contemporary Battleships.
My opinion, no need to try and change my mind, nor does anyone feel the need to change theirs!
Although I do recommend looking at how the USN viewed them, and why they were built.
I get the distinct impression that the term battlecruiser became obsolete around the time HMS Hood was built, as battle-ships/cruisers seemed to have functionally blended together into the Fast Battleship concept, the same way medium/heavy tanks blended together into the Main Battle Tank.
I agree. With the exception of the Lexington-class which was designed before Hood was complete, battlecruisers were basically extinct and the same can be said of dreadnoughts... I would go so far as to say the dichotomy is only really relevant for ships constructed between 1905 and 1920... Hood breaks the mold because Hood changed the game.
Allmost made a similar comment, then I scrolled down ^^
I think the term fast battleship is retroactive at best. A battlecruiser by definition is a fast battleship. There are post-WWI sources that declare the Queen Elizabeth class to be fast battleships although their were contemporaneously referred to as super dreadnoughts. Likewise the German battlecruiser philosophy closely resembles the "fast battleship" philosophy, being primarily ships of the line of battle though holding the speed necessary to act as fast response units to engage and destroy enemy cruiser squadrons. The development of the aircraft carrier made this speed advantage more important tenfold. Thus the refits of the Kongou class had them retroactively classified as fast battleships despite still being battlecruisers in all but name.
To put it in unequivocal terms: Had USS Iowa been designed _for purpose_ during the later 1910s, she'd have been called a battlecruiser and her mission historically reflected this. Although I don't think the classification of "fast battleship" is inappropriate for post-WWI designs, the truth is that we already had established the nomenclature which should have classified them as battlecruisers instead. Ideally, the term "fast battleship" would have been bypassed altogether and the term "post-Dreadnought" would have been used.
There is a distinct evolutionary difference between WWI and post-WWI designs. Internal subdivision is different. Protection is different. Machinery is different. Fire control is different... anti-air armament is different. But a battlecruiser is as a battlecruiser does (-explodes-) and the Iowa class certainly acted in the functional role of a battlecruiser throughout her WWII career, or at least one of the German philosophy. Were the Germans really building fast battleships this whole time???
There is clearly a scope gap between [biggest fighty gun thing] and [regular cruiser]. Whether it's big enough to build another ship for seems to transient. See also protected/armoured cruisers.
The one element that influences that gap that wasn't covered is powerplant. The bigger the ship, the more power needed to move it. If you are a ceiling of a technology, it's probably worth sacrificing some stuff to go faster for a given powerplant if that is the limiting factor. But if you can just build bigger powerplant for more power, the speed gains on your battlecruiser dissappear quickly
@@rpfors Dreadnoughts weren't extinct because Fast Battleships (or Treaty Battleships) were all Dreadnoughts.
Now you've truly poked the hornets' nest Drach
Working as intended then 😏
Nest ? A swarm at least 😂
🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝
bzz bzz
I respectfully disagree. Drach has made his position on this issue clear over the course of years and many, many different videos.
One may certainly disagree; but no one can claim ignorance of the points he relies-on for his conclusions.
Just My Humble Opinion...
Me: B5
Them: You sunk my battleship!!!
Me: Ahem....if you look closely at the little plastic ship you will notice its actually a Battlecruiser.
Them: This is why I never play games with you
And a heated argument then begins over the length/beam ratio of the plastic ship resulting in a call to a bemused manufacturer to clarify what the ship is modelled on where by he says HMS Hood.
This is an entertaining demonstration of what happens when you form various kinds of inadequate definitions. “A warship with battleship-grade guns which can exceed 25 knots” is laughably too broad, and “A warship with battleship grade guns which is not armored to resist its own guns” manages to be too broad and too narrow at the same time. “A warship with one fewer turret and less armor than the contemporary battleship but more speed” appears tempting because it may be that those things are true of battlecruisers and only of battlecruisers (so it’s not too narrow or too broad), but it still breaks the rule of fundamentality because it makes no attempt to explain what a battlecruiser actually *is* such that those things would *need* to be true of it. Only “A warship with battleship-grade guns designed to destroy enemy cruisers and, secondarily, support a battle line” actually explains *why* battlecruisers had the characteristics they did.
In this context, I think Montana and Iowa are *both* battleship designs, they just reflect two different directions a battleship design can take. Iowa looks at South Dakota and says, “More speed!” while Montana looks at South Dakota and says, “More firepower!” Both valid choices, but one of those choices gives you a ship that can keep pace with an Essex.
This is such an excellently written comment that every time I come back to resume watching this video, it's the first one I look for.
You sir are a guiness.
If North Carolina is a battleship then Iowa is a battleship: same armor, same guns. Just faster.
@@CorePathway But North Carolina was a Battlecruiser as well under some definitions.
@@hypothalapotamus5293 Same ship: 14”guns that can’t penetrate its own armor, battleship. Mount 16” guns and now it’s demoted. That’s a silly definition.
It’s a fine line. The Battleship New Jersey’s UA-cam page has an interesting video on this topic as well.
When did Ryan make the video... After this or are u talking about one he made a long time ago???
@@strydyrhellzrydyr1345 like a week or two ago?
Yeah. Ryan and Drach are two of my favorites . . . there's a Doctor Clarke in there somewhere and I am also a fan of Navyreviewer.
@yo yo ✋️😭
@yo yo ridiculous. By your arguement, none of the vessles intrinsic values mean anything, because other plans were or were not executed. That's like saying, someone is not a brother/sister even if they have older siblings, because their parents youngest child died in utero.
I am in love with the idea that (if Iowa or Hood are battlecruisers then) the Yamatos are also battlecruisers. At that scale, I think their corresponding battleship would have to be the entire island of Iwo Jima
Seeing how slow they are to other battleships/battlecruisers I would say no.
Battlecruisers are usually longer than contemporary battleships, think Hood vs Queen-Elizabeth class or Lexington vs South Dakota (1920)
oh and I almost forgot, the hilariously long Stalingrad class battlecruisers, coming out at 897 feet long xD
The Yamato, the most heavily protected battleship ever made, who's belt armor can only be penetrated within 15 kilometers, and who's thickest parts are immune to all naval guns ever made from all reasonable battle ranges….is a battlecruiser. what a plot twist
Sonthat makes the Iowa battlecruisers?
I’ve long said “had Hood been build by the US, she would’ve been called a battleship and carried a BB hull number. Had Iowa been built by the British, she would’ve been considered a battlecruiser”
No EVEN close!! So Bismarck must have been a battlecruiser too??? the Yamato class were the ONLY battleships I guess?? SIGH!!
@@1987phillybilly 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 you are so far in left field that you’ve lost the plot. I love knee jerk reactions. There was a lot of debate in the British Admiralty as to what to consider Hood. Ultimately, it was decided to call her a battlecruiser due to her speed and intended mission. The Iowa class had a nearly identical mission, as Drach explained. So the British would’ve considered the Iowa class battlecruisers. As Drach also explained, HMS Vanguard was considered a “fully armored battlecruiser” during her design phase (that is also true of the King George V class, as well). On the flip side of the coin, Hood’s armor was far greater than the intended Lexington class battlecruisers, and her intended role within the fleet was also markedly different than the Lexington class. As previously stated, her mission was in line with that of the Iowa class. So had she been built by the Americans, she would’ve been considered a battleship because of her major differences in design and role than the Lexington class.
Iowa had no armour weaknesses: not a battlecruiser.
@@1987phillybilly why you being a tool? You can use your brain and 2 ears to listen.
@Uthur Rytan yea I wrote that before the end of the video so by the same logic hood wasn't a Battlecruiser either 😂👍
Drachinigel: "I consider the Hood a fast battleship"
Some of us: *H E R E S Y*
Hood and Iowas make this point the best of all; because both wander-into this territory from different directions.
Yeah, comparing a 1930s ship to a 1910 ship is not the best way to designate classes.
@@disbeafakename167 1940’s
It's like how there were light, medium, and heavy tanks, but then they went to the MBT plan, one tank to do everything with enough armour, enough speed, and all the gun. Hood was transitional, Iowa was the equivalent of the M1 Abrams.
So in this comparison, Hood would be like the Centurion.
@@ericamborsky3230 The centurion was quite slow and not enough armour. Maybe the Chieftain?
Gotta disagree. The Hood would've been something transitional like the T-44 or M-48. Iowa would've been the first of its kind, setting a new standard, so more like the Centurion. The Abrams is neither the first nor penultimate MBT-that would be the KF51 Panther, unveiled only a last week by Rheinmetal.
@@miconayeligonzales1325 the performance of the tank matters less than its place in the history of tank development.
@@CharChar2121 No I would say the Iowas were like the Abrams as their were battleships very much like it that came before but the Iowas were more of the Final version.
Great video. The Iowa reminds me of post WWII Main Battle Tanks. No need sacrifice firepower, armor, or mission flexibility when new tech will let you have it all!
If you're willing to throw budgets and weight limits out the window there is no limit to what you can achieve!
@AdamSmith-kq6ys that's why most of our taxes goes to the trillions of dollars of defense budget instead of roads or inflation or whatnot....
Goddammit I love 'Merica
As far as I can tell the class of “battlecruiser” is entirely reliant upon there being an equivalent class of capital ship with a slower top speed. Getting any more specific than this really just leads to heartache.
I have personally used the frame per length as a demarcation, lightly built is battlecruiser, heavy is fast battlewagon. It may be a pedantic designation but is also more definitive than comparing to another by means of gut feeling. I forget the number right off as I have had no hot bean juice this morning but think iowas average 2.5 to 2 ft per frame and hood was in the 4ish range.
May be dead wrong on numbers, Ill check my book later but the thinky bits are still asleep.
Maybe but if say USS Alaska was the most heavily armed and armored capital ship in the world, she might still be classed as a Battlecruiser because she was built as a cruiser killer, not as a line battleship. Battleships are steeped in tradition going back to the ship of the line, if they weren't designed to stand in the line of battle then they might not belong in the Battleship designation. Battlecruisers were designed as hunter killers and reconnaissance in force.
That doesn't line up with the Kirovs though, which are referred to as battlecruisers despite no battleship equivalent.
@@polygondwanaland8390 Kirov's aren't Battlecruisers by any of the criteria proposed by Drach. Their best definition is exactly what the Russians called them - 'heavy nuclear powered guided missile cruiser'
They're not armored by any real standard, their intended role is more in line with the IJN torpedo soup cruisers (kill capital ships via distance weapon spam), they're not notably fast (at 32kt, they're slower than an Iowa or any CVN) and they don't have a larger, better armed and armored equivalent.
They're actually better described as the battleship of a battlecruiser/battleship combo, with the Slava's as the battlecruiser (as they are pretty much lighter armed and more fragile Kirov's, albeit not faster)
@@adam_mawz_maas And the Slava had its lead ship blown up after one hit due to sloppy damage control and (probably) ammunition management, which as we all know is the _real_ defining feature of a battlecruiser.
Seeing how the Hood was nearly the same size as the Bismarck, and had the same guns, while the Iowa class were the second largest battleships in the world, behind the Yamato class... ya, they were Battleships.
The Hood couldn't go toe to toe with battleships in 1941. In 1920 it could be considered a fast battleship. But by 1940 it was best used as a battlecruiser, staying away from things like the Bismark.
The Iowas were fast heavily armored anti-aircraft platforms.
Nice. You could say something similar like fast heavily armoured landscaping tools as well.
no that was the alaskas
@@cameronbradley8390 I think they transfered from fireworks to landscaping only in the Korean War.
Read about TF 50.9 at Truk Lagoon raid 1944. Iowa engaged IJN surface force, even though not capital ships. Stop talking trash about Iowas being AA platform, they done their time against surface force as well.
They only became that after Nimitz realized that aircraft were the decisive weapon, and carrier battle groups became the major US naval unit. Until 1942, the US Navy clung to the same delusion as the IJN- a single decisive surface engagement. Once the superiority of airpower became evident, every class of vessel carried as much antiaircraft weaponry as possible, and kept adding more.
Hood is Hood??
"Le Gasp"
Absolutely shocking 😳
Fantastic video as always Drach.
I think the HMS Hood, became a Battle Ship due to modifications in the design. The Iowas we're Battleships by design.
Which makes the Hood the first Fast Battleship.
Hood became a battleship due to the Washington Naval Treaty. For years, no battleship her size was built.
Drach and Ryan, great duo. There is no doubt that Iowa class are battleships. I will acquiesce to your judgement on Hood being a battleship even thou I have always considered her a battlecruiser, perhaps wrongly, by tradition. Given that Hood's belt armour and armament is battleship class and that only her deck armour was under scantling I can see your argument. Similarly, the Iowas' belt armour would/could be considered under scantling, yet the angle/slope gave it effectively proper armour while saving hundreds of tons of weight. All ships sacrifice somewhere in order to achieve the most effective result. Of course at the time, was there any class of battleship in the world that could stand toe to toe with the Iowas and win expect to win a gun battle? The answer is mostly no. Yes the Yamatos likely could have. However, given the US use of radar ranging vs optics it is likely(as you have previously pointed out) that the Iowas would have gotten in several early blows before the Yamatos could gauge the range. The minimum 5 knot speed advantage certainly helps the Iowas.
Simply, the Iowas would likely win any gun battle vs any surface ship in the world at the time, except for perhaps the Yamatos. IMHO, of course.
@yo yo Again, ✋️😭
Hood has the best horizontal protection of any British capital ship prior the Nelson class which was the first British capital ship with an armoured deck rather than protective plating
@yo yo again, your contention is absolutely and patently foolish.
@yo yo IIRC, the Yamato ran away from a few destroyers. It probably would have died of a nervous breakdown at the mere sight of an Iowa... 😂
@yo yo This of course assumes that a Battleship can only be a ship displacing greater than 60,000 tons.
The battle cruiser concept was rendered obsolete by the advances in technology. Fast battleships and large cruisers are their own thing. The desire to name them after a obsolescent concept is strange. No one insists that the heavy cruisers of World War II were protected cruisers or armored cruisers. Technological advancements had rendered those designations obsolete.
I think this is the best reply.
I fully agree, and I think this is the main source of the confusion; "Battlecruiser" is just as outdated as a term as Protected Cruiser and Armoured Cruiser, but people hung onto it. The other issue is the (somewhat silly) term of "Fast Battleship", which I feel only exists because nobody wanted to call their big capital ships "Light Battleship".
Pretty much.
I see it as more of a gradual move towards BC's becoming BB's until there is just (fast)BB's. Hear me out..
Early BC's
Invincible/Indomitable/Von Der Tann (Moltke?). British could throw a punch as much as the German's could take it.
Mid BC's,
Seydlitz/Splendid Cats/Kongo(Pre Refit)/Derfflinger. Splendid cats with Seydlitz? Yes, I cant imagine any of the cats surviving the beating Seydlitz did and making it back to port but they did have a much more fearsome primary battery.
Derfflinger, while still being a BC, was the first to bring the force into balance with protection and firepower equally slightly reduced from a BB in exchange for a 26+ knot speed. With WW1 tech she was as close as you could get to a fast BB and IMO the progenitor to a true fast BB.
Courageous and Glorious are excluded as outliers, similar to the Deutschland Class of WW2. They were naval experiments that were quickly dropped.
Late true BC
Renown/Repulse. Battlecruisers with massive guns and speed but minimal armor. The final BC's that had to be kept out of any battle line.
First fast BB
Hood. A BC in name only, if she were built later she would have been classed as a fast BB. By the time of her construction it was finally possible to have your cake and eat it in terms of the firepower triangle of Armour-Firepower-Speed. The first true fast battleship in terms of build and doctrine and BC really only on paper. Drach's video showed us that her sinking was the result of terrible luck and coincidences rather than a lack of deck armour.
Here is where BC development and BB development meet.
Fast BB- King George V/North Carolina/South Dakota/Iowa/Nagato/Yamato.
By now technology was here to propel a full BB to BC speeds. All true BB's with battlecruisers now an obsolete doctrine. Unless your idea of a true battleship in this period is a 16 inch gunned HMS Agincourt with an 20' belt travelling at 20kt.
I have left out proposed designs because without having a hull in the water you really can only speculate on what the finished product would have had.
Nah, no ship with her deck armor is a battleship in WW2. The Queen Elizabeth’s were fast battleships with the same armor and lower speed, but they were earlier, pre-plunging fire protection schemes.
Queen Elizabeth had her deck armor upgraded to 5” - if the Hood had the same refit, she’d be reclassified as a fast battleship.
Thank you, everyone (including Drach) seems to forget Nagato. 26+ knots is FAST. Her unbuilt successors were reQuired to make at least 26kn.
@@davidharner5865
What’s often forgotten is that Nagato got that speed by sacrificing armour.
In fact Japanese big-gun capital ships in general sacrificed some armour for more speed and firepower (even the Yamatos, despite being one of the two most heavily protected battleship classes ever alongside the KGVs, were not completely immune to this-they lacked an immunity zone against their own main guns, making them battlecruisers by that definition).
Given that people seriously question whether Yamato class battleships could survive encounters with the Iowas, I think it's safe to say that the Iowas were battleships.
That matchup is an 50/50 during the day and easily in Iowa’s favour at night.
@@bkjeong4302 But like the Royal Navy, the US Navy was never going to give the Yamato a fair fight (whether it was Mitscher or Burke that gave the orders for the massive carrier strike, only telling Spruance as the planes from the first wave were being launched, that was something that Cunningham and Fraser would have appreciated and approved of, while they also would have done what Spruance did and tell his battleships to go toward Yamato anyway, just in case).
@@tcpratt1660 Agreed. No reason to fight fair, especially if your opponent can actually put up a fight if you try to fight fair.
@@bkjeong4302 I would say that it's 100% in Yamato's favor in a day battle and about 60 Iowa/40 Yamato at night
@@metaknight115
I’d argue it’s pretty even during the day, and solidly in Iowa’s favour at night. Yamato was a much better design than usually given credit for, but Iowa was still a superb design herself.
Well Drach didn't just poke the hornets nest, he kicked it over and sprayed water on it just to be thorough.
there will be as many opinions and definitions as there are people willing to argue them.
Personally I do NOT regard the British I classes as BC's. They were conceived, designed and built as Dreadnought Armoured Cruisers but used in roles outside their concept.
The German "BC's" of WW1 apart from Von Der Tann should be more properly be referred to by the phrase Drach coined 'Light Battleships" as they were designed to supplement the main battle line as therefore were armoured for this role. But of course people will have their own opinions and that's perfectly acceptable.
I haven't watched the video yet but I wanted to get a word in edgeways before the comments are overflowing with loud "sceptics" banging on.
Hood ways laid down as a BC but ended up a Fast BB due to all the modification made to her due to lessons learned at Jutland. It must be remembered that Hood was built decades earlier than the Yank Fast BBs so what constitued the type had evolved. Hood gave around two decades of service to the Crown, too many people only think of her death.
Now I will go and watch the video and see how right or wrong I am compared to Drach.
I think the issue is that the HMS Hood was involved in nothing notable other then her sinking though, as it was her first and only battle. It's hard to remember a ship for anything but sinking if they did nothing but sail around and sink in its first engagement.
@@Adierit She did also engage the French at Mers-el-Kebir. Less of a battle and more of an execution, but she takes shared credit for the hits that blew apart Bretagne, as it is unclear whether it was Hood, Resolution or Valiant that landed those particular shells, and she was the one that crippled Dunkerque. Wasn't *completely* one-sided either, as she was straddled herself by Dunkerque and later had to dodge torpedoes in the chase for Strasbourg.
@@Tepid24 That bit wasn't regarded highly by anyone though, hence why it isn't spoken of. It caused hate through out all of Europe towards Britain for that move. Not really any better then her sinking really.
@@Adierit Yes, it wasn't a good PR move. Quite unfortunate really that data which would enrich a discussion is so often disregarded for lack of popularity.
It's just a massive shame that in a conversation about Hood sinking in her first and only battle, a statement that is empirically untrue and easily disprovable, data to the contrary is so easily forgotten, because the relevant event is controversial.
@@Tepid24 Tell me about it, a friend of mine lost his grandfather there. One of the most anglophobic person I ever encountered. I am not really fond of the move myself even if I may understand the reasons if I am in a good day. Regards from France
For tourists heading to the US, it's incredible to think we have 3 battleships on the east clast within a days drive (New Jersey, Wisconsin, North Carolina). Plus the other museums in the NE makes for a great trip.
Also Massachusetts.
And Alabama here in Alabama
Then head down to Mobile to see the USS Alabama and other ships/aircraft, spend a couple of days at the beach, go to the Naval Aviation Museum in Pensacola, and finally head on over to New Orleans for the National WWII Museum. Don’t forget your appetite because you’ll find world-class seafood at every stop. You can put on 5 lbs in a weekend in New Orleans!
@@bluemarlin8138 funny enough we were supposed to go to mobile and see the Alabama but the weather didn’t like the idea and the one very clear nice day we spent at the beach doing stuff. The Pensacola aviation museum I think is only allowing military personnel in. Next time we go to Florida I will see if we can go to the New Orleans museum.
@@bluemarlin8138 also gas prices right now are stupid high. One gallon is 4.58$
The waters get even muddier as soon as we undertake to examine the Kirov -class and where they fit into things, as they are typically called battlecruisers and Iowa Vs. Kirov was an expected match-up. I maintain that "Battlecruiser" is such a nebulous term that almost anything can be a battlecruiser if you want it to be one.
Me, I believe Hood is a Battlecruiser, and Iowa is a fast battleship. There are the differences that you can tell between them. Hood was built for speed and to kill cruisers (the purpose of BC’s), whilst Iowa was built to be able to hold the line in a gunfight like the North Carolina’s and South Dakota, but was still able to be extremely fast for a ship of her size.
Also Iowa was meant to keep up with the faster carriers providing additional support for the task force.
Not quite. Iowa was built for speed twofold. First, she was built as a fast carrier escort. Second, she was built as a fast response unit to engage and destroy enemy destroyer and cruiser squadrons. In terms of her mission set, that sounds an awful lot like a battlecruiser to me. And in terms of design, she very closely resembles the German philosophy as present in the Derfflinger- and Mackensen-class battlecruisers.
Plus, the Royal Navy retained the battlecruiser designations all the way up until the end of WW2, even though some of the battlecruisers had some upgrades that made them on par with battleships.
Hood was a battlecruiser that doubled as a fast battleship. The Iowas were fast battleships that doubled as battlecruisers. The rest is all quite pedantic.
Personally, as designed Hood is a Battlecruiser, as built is a fast battleship, but returns to being a battlecruiser once the 1937-1940 design ships come online. Had she gotten Renown style rebuild half way through WW2 I would again call her a battleship, but by the 1940s the only Battleships she was truly comparable with was the WW1 vessels. Overall though, Fast Battleship is a reasonable all-rounder term for her life if she has to be only refer by one classification
I stumbled upon your content recently, this is the second video I've watched, and it's so wonderful. It's like dusting off old books in the library, but with my ears. I look forward to your back catalog!
Yes.... but basically it comes down to how history played out. Hood was designed as a battlecruiser but the washington Naval treaties stopped battleship development (for a bit) so she effectively became a fast battleship. Similarly Iowa sacraficed armour for speed, was not armoured against her own guns however battleship development did not continue either - so she remained a fast battleship in both cases had the development of classes continued they may well have both ended up having been consdiered battlecruisers (esentitally). To be honest though the terms essentially became redundant in terms of capital ships. Hood is underrated simply because of her demise, yet if you'd asked someone in the 1920s-early30s she would likely have figured as one (if not the) most powerful capital ship in the world.
Yep. It's hard to argue with a ship armed with eight 380mm guns, armoured like a battleship, but capable of reaching 30+ knots, all twenty years before Bismarck and Richelieu came along.
Heard the intro music and thought "oh nice...its Interlude...with the sea lion doing his pirouette." Early Drach episodes, those were the days.
This (and the Alaska class video) has been the most detailed and coherent explanation I've yet read, seen or heard, about the differences between battleships and battle cruisers. They - Hood and the Iowas - are battleships. Just faster than their contemporaries.
There is something simply splendid at being able to define the Yamato as a battlecruiser.
I’ve made this joke myself. If you define a battlecruiser as a fast big-gun capital ship whose armour isn’t immune to her own guns, Yamato is a battlecruiser.
God Hood was a beautiful ship.
However…it hurts to know that even if Hood had not sunk during the war, there’s a pretty good chance that it would’ve been scrapped in the post-war breakup due to the sheer cost of trying to turn her into a museum ship. Same thing with Bismarck and Yamato…the later probably being used in the nuclear tests and the former probably being torn-down by the British post war as well.
It’s a painful fact that some of the most unique and impressive ships of the war would inevitably cease to exist not from combat (Alaska class as example)….but from the scrappers yard which in my opinion…it painful to think about.
Yeah, only solace is that their scrapping kept people fed.
There's an outside change that with her 30+ knot speed she could outlast the KGVs and Queen Elizabeths, assuming she was given the refit she needed. Would she have taken part in the Korean war? Maybe, and maybe by then there'd be enough funds available to save her.
@@davidknowles2491 as much as there may have been a SLIGHT chance…look at how Texas needs constant massive injections of money to keep it sound and afloat. It’s hard to believe that England would have been to able to properly maintain it as a museum ship, let alone a combat unit considering the fact that air-power is the dominate force in modern combat. The only reasons the Americans kept the Iowa’s as long as they did was because 1. We had the money to do it 2. Reagan liked to challenge the Soviets to meat-measuring contests 3. There was a semi-specific need that the Iowas technically could fill. As much as I wish I could go see Hood in all its glory…the end that it met was only preemptive…I really believe that it would have lingered on until eventually time and the scrap yards took it unceremoniously away.
At least there would be a good chance that we could dive the Yamato.
@@davidknowles2491 not even HMS Vanguard, a newer and more advanced battleship, could be spared; if Vanguard couldn’t make it, I doubt Hood would be the exception.
I had always considered Hood to be a battlecruiser, but looking at the evidence you have presented, I believe you are right in saying that Hood and Iowa are fast battleships.
Many thanks for such an interesting and thought provoking video. 😊😊😊🏴🏴🏴
Despite the name "fast battleship", there's a good argument to be made that they're more of an evolution of the battlecruiser concept than they are of the previous slow battleships. Rather than being battleships except faster, they're battlecruisers except without sacrificing any armor. The hull form is closer to a battlecruiser than to a slow battleship, after all.
Hood behaves like a BC should do.
@@RedXlV it’s more like the evolution from light, medium, and heavy tanks in ww2, to postwar MBTs imo. Fast battleships are like an MBT in that you get speed, armor, and firepower in one package. The hood would be something transitional like the M46 or M48, where it’s the logical conclusion of a medium tank, like the Hood is the logical conclusion of the battle cruiser, but slightly too early to be considered a fast battleship.
@@RedXlV However, in terms of doctrine, fast battleships are more of an evolution from battleships as they are the main components of battlelines. Battlecruisers usually made enough sacrifices that navies would prefer to keep them out of the battleline. When defining a type of ship, I think it's usually better to define them by role and doctrine, rather than by technical specifics and origins. Otherwise, you're just going to shoehorn ships into roles that likely don't fit their design niche, which is usually not a good idea.
@@michaelpielorz9283 Including blowing up quickly when trying to slug it out with a battleship.
The Hood and Iowa were both really attractive ships. The lines on both are beautiful and deadly looking. Really enjoy your content and presentation.
Finally, someone else who accepts the reality that Hood was ordered as a battlecruiser, but what came off the slipway was a fast battleship, cousin to the QE class.
I have no idea what makes one ship a sloop and another a corvette (for instance), so a video like this is great for me. I now have one man's well researched opinion to help in distinguishing between a BB and a BC.
More like this, please.
I have been waiting for this video and now its finally here, thanks!
Everyone tries to fit Battlecruisers into a one-size-fits-all box.
This, I think, is in error, since different navies arrived at their idea of a 'Battlecruiser' based on their own needs, capabilities, and design philosophies.
If you are to talk about Battlecruisers, you should first discuss which navy said Battlecruiser belongs to and then look into what they wanted it for and how they went about getting there.
True any of the top battleships would be a force to deal with. The Hood, Prince of Wales, The Bismark. Graf Spee. The Yamato or the Yamamoto were all effective. The difference could come down to the better gun crew or just plain luck.
I think after refit, Hood would definitely be more of a fast battleship. As discussed in previous videos and this one, Hood's armour was actually quite good by the time it squared off with Bismarck (but history still happened the way it did). Iowa was definitely built for more distant engagements in the Pacific, so for a ship her size the requirements were quite different to that of Hood. Both fast battleships IMO
Problem was, she was designed as a Battlecruiser and adding armor only made her overweight. So it was sort of like a Sherman tank with applique armor trying to pretend to be a heavy tank.
@@Edax_Royeaux Well hold on. The Japanese had the British built Battlecruiser Kongo of the Kongo Class and her sisters. Kongo herself by ww2 was labeled a fast battleship due to upgrades and refits. up to including now powerplants to increase her speed and the armor increase. Its very likely had HOOD gone through her upgrade to become a battleship she likely would have had a improvement to her powerplant to keep her as a fast battleship.
@@Edax_Royeaux You beat me to it. While the Iowas gained a reputation for pitching and taking water over the bow in heavy weather, Hood sometimes looked like it was about to submerge in relatively calm seas (hence the “largest submarine in the RN” moniker). The Admiralty was trying to incorporate the perceived lessons of Jutland into Hood without totally redesigning her (or totally rebuilding her for later additions), and she was just a bit too heavy for her hull. They obviously knew this, hence the redesign and eventual cancellation of the other Admiral class ships. The planned 1941 semi-rebuild might have fixed a lot of the issues by eliminating some extraneous armor and going with a unified scheme, as well as using lighter machinery, but it was impossible to completely address the issues without taking her down to the keel. And at that point you might as well just build a slightly faster HMS Vanguard.
@@Quetzalcoatl_Feathered_Serpent Kongo's armor was still paper thin, the USS San Francisco's 8" cruiser guns were powerful enough to penetrate Hiei's inner sanctums and disable her steering machinery, jamming her rudder thus directly leading to her loss. So if the Kongos could not even withstand cruiser guns after their refit, then they are Battleships in name only. Granted, they were fighting below expected ranges for armor schemes, but USS South Dakota's armor with able to withstand point blank 14" fire while Hiei could not withstand point blank 8" fire at Ironbottom Sound.
@@Edax_Royeaux but the Sherman Jumbo was a pretty competent "heavy tank", especially for a field modification.
Generally, I look at intended mission first, followed by physical characteristics. However, one has to recognize that naval architects are more focused on the ship's capabilities, rather than some arbitrary definition or categorization.
Superb analysis, Drach. I've been arguing for years the same as you for Hood being a fast battleship and not a battlecruiser, just not in quite the same level of detail you seem to have at your fingertips. Well done.
New Drac!!!
Friday lunchtime complete!
Battle cruiser: A) Firepower and armor enough to deal with anything that could outrun it, B) Speed enough to outrun anything that could out-gun it.
Excellent briefing! Thank you. The quintessential challenge: the difference between a "Fast Battleship" and a "Battlecruiser". Also like, and appreciated, the difference between the classes of ships. Always wondered how (theoretically) good the Scharnhorst-class would have been armed with 6x15in guns. And the commentary about the Montanas is critical.
@yo yo How many times are you going to spam this response? I count 3 already.
The Scharnhorsts would've been pretty good battleships relative to their below treaty limits size if built with 6x 38cm guns. And an enlarged Scharnhorst with triple 38cm would've been a much better (though probably less attractive) battleship than Bismarck.
Nice to see Drachinifel and Ryan Szymanski having such a good relationship when it comes these historic ships. Plus both their names are hard AF to spell
For me where the fine line comes in, was that were the post-Jutland modifications to Hood **designed to make her into a battleship** or simply a much-improved battlecruiser. I myself don't think I have a simple answer. I believe Hood's modifications just made her a tougher, overweight battlecruiser, but she was **perceived** and utilized as a battleship.
Re: "I believe Hood's modifications just made her a tougher, overweight battlecruiser, but she was *perceived* and utilized as a battleship."
That's an interesting observation. I have always considered it odd that the British regarded the HMS Hood as the "most powerful warship afloat" and the pride of the Royal Navy when she was classed as a battle-cruiser and sortied alongside vessels such as Prince of Wales which were classed as battleships. Since PoW was more modern, why didn't that class set the standard instead of Hood? It appears that the British themselves were not entirely consistent in how they thought about such things. Or perhaps just a different way of looking at them than others...
Oh, what a joy to see this pop up this early in the morning. I've argued about this so long and so frequently. My take after all this time is that I'm not quite sure what a battlecruiser is, so I'm not quite sure if Hood and Iowa are battlecruisers. However, I'm certain that whatever the one is the other is as well. I like to think that the world would be a simpler and happier place if they had just built the Montanas and we got to call Iowa the USN's first complete battlecruiser.
No you mean the Alaska class Large cruisers
@@theJediSaiyanh you are right technically the Alaska class was the first completed class of us battle cruisers. They had less armor than a battleship small main battery but were faster since they used the same propulsion plant that the Essex class carries used. The US navy just seemed to shy away from the term battle cruiser for some reason . You could compare the Iowa class to the planned but canceled Kronstadt class “battle cruisers” in the Soviet Union
even if the Montanas were built, that doesn't magically turn the Iowas into battlecruisers. They still don't fit any of the typical definitions of what a battlecruiser is. The Montanas were just a bigger, even nastier battleship, even if they were a little slower.
On the 4th generation ships, I think that's when battlecruisers divorce from their original design roles and go "alright, what do we _actually_ need from these ships to achieve the goals of our navy in fighting other navies who will also have these ships". Which if you think about it, Iowa fits neatly into that role, because the US navy _needed_ a ship that could keep up with escorting their carriers(and deter the kongos), but they also needed them to be able to withstand gunfire in a battleline engagement in case Japan had built its own contemporary to the US's emerging and planned battleline(and had, in the form of the Yamato's), so in that form they would be a 4th generation "battlecruiser"(it really loses its meaning when the US was never really on-board with battlecruisers as they were in europe) in the context of the US navy, whereas hood is an evolution of the 2nd generation where they needed a bigger ship contemporary to the enemy battlecruisers and battleships to beat up other battlecruisers which ended up... Well, not existing.
Edit: This was before the end of the video, and the judgement for hood is... Well, not accurate. But I do stand by the statement I made with the 4th generation ships. They are a class of battlecruisers where they go "what roles do we need fulfilled that a mainline battleship _can't_ do, but still need the characteristics of a battleship to challenge whatever they find while doing these tasks?" rather than earlier generations of battlecruisers where they go "We need a specific type of target killed, here's the design specs, have at it. And if it's killed everything already, I guess they can help break through the screen of the enemy battle line(whatever the screen happens to be)". For the americans, that was scouting because they didn't have the regular cruisers to do scouting, for the british, it was to insure that no battlecruiser of the era could harm them and preserve the numbers of the fleet against her growing list of contemporaries(hence treading the line of a fast battleship), and the japanese decided they needed something in between those and in some cases fulfilling both for scouting in force and acting as part of the battleline so they ended up being in the middle(and is probably a large reason why the Kiis tried to combine the battleship and battlecruisers into a single ship).
An excellent description of the issues of classification, and with a reasonable conclusion.
I love the throw back to New Jersey and Ryan. Great video, excellent comparison, Awesome research! Thank you!
How do you feel about Dr. Clarke’s argument that the Admirals were battlecruisers due to their internal subdivision, which was not like equivalent battleships, but was like the Renowns or cruisers?
I agree with it I also would point out that Hood had significantly higher cruising range and cruising speed than any contemporary ship meaning that hunting down cruisers and commerce raiding was definitely part of her design philosophy. Compared to the QE's Hood could go the entire maximum range of the QE at 20 knots compared to the QE's 12 and still have fuel in the tank. Hood was a persistence hunter she could out last any ship in the world at the time easily in a pursuit and no-one would be able to keep up with her even if they were technically faster.
You could also count elements of the hull form, torpedo protection, etc, as BC arguments. While Hood should have been able to combat battleships, their original BC design breaks through at times, whereas the Iowa’s were pretty clearly brawlers (with crazy speed) from the ground up. Admittedly, using a hull form something more akin to a a Standard BB is better for pure gunnery exchanges, the tear drop shapes of the later American BBs being sacrifices for speed.
The hornets nest has been poked. Sitting in my safety bunker ready to watch the next interesting video
Fun Fridays! Yes! Thanks Drach!
Very interesting indeed. But honestly this is the first time I have heard that some people refer to the Iowas as battlecruisers.
I was gonna say the same thing! I’ve never heard anyone refer to the Iowa Class as “battlecruiser’s” before! in fact, I would think they are the very pinnacle of battleship design. The best of all worlds.
The one thing I'm not hearing mentioned in the last rule of thumb for battlecruisers is the question of displacement. The Invincibles and their contemporary battleship classes displace around 20,000 tons, while the Renowns and Revenges displace a bit over 30,000 tons. With Hood and the Iowas, there is a large step change in displacement compared with the "contemporary" battleship classes, which is why they don't follow the rules of thumb: they have a lot more displacement so they don't have to trade off armor and weapons for speed compared to the "contemporary" battleship. If the Montanas had been built, they would have been the proper contemporary to the Iowa's, and would (edit: might) have provided a suitable basis for comparison that follows the rule (i.e., the Iowas would have been the battlecruiser version of the Montanas). Edit: except that the Montanas represent another big jump in displacement, from 60,000 tons full load to 70,000 tons, so less apt q comparison than I was thinking.
Another excellent video, Drach! Thank you.
A wonderful coverage about Differences between Battleships & Battlecruisers thanks ,,,two types are going on in upgrade processes through arming with Guided missiles , Laser weapons & Several Kinds of Functional electronic systems .
You know, to add my two pence, the fast Battleship seems to be the final point of battlecruiser and battleship development, so it's no wonder that they overlap...
I love Hood. My favourite ship of all time, such elegance. If only I could step on board.
You can,but it's a bit cold and wet right now.👍 Also,it's a bit hard to get to at the moment 😉.
She'll be sailing forever,RIP.
I would of loved to see her still around as a museum ship.
@@jasontwynn7356 'would have'
@@davidharner5865 The Beatles: "She´s gotta a ticket to ride and she don´t care." David Harner: "She DOESN´T care!"
David Harner´s girlfriend: "If you keep correcting other people´s grammar you will have less and less friends."
David Harner: "No, I will have FEWER and FEWER friends!"
Been waiting for this topic for a long time, thanks for the listen ^
I was GOING to make a crack about the USS Alaska (CB-1) being a battle cruiser, since in "Battleship at War",(the story off USS Washington) she is referred to as such when Washington's Gun Boss, Harvey Walsh was transferred to her. However in the words of Emily Lutilla (Saturday Night Live), "NEVER MIND"! You see, the US Navy itself called her a "Large Cruiser". It occurs to me in the end, that potato/potahto, Battleship/Battlecruiser they are/were what their owners decided to call them. Anyway Drach, magnificent job as always, making sense out of a most confusing subject. SPLICE THE MAIN BRACE!!
I would say neither counts as a battlecruiser. Battlecruisers are intended to evade battleships, while battleships are intended to fight them.
I just like the ring of the word "battlecruiser" so while I know that Hood was a fast battleship (maybe the one to promote the concept) I'll just think of her as a battlecruiser.
I'm somewhat confused by the labeling of the Iowa/class as a light battleship. Not that I know differently, but all the tables/comparisons/stats I've seen analyzed and commented on left me with the impression that the Iowas were only exceeded in primary arms by the Yamato/Musashi, and that they had no peers in armor or their AA systems, as well as a horde of 5" guns anywhere there was space. The video is great, and in light of the info here some of the distinctions made elsewhere seem trivial or don't tell us anything useful about these titans during their active service. I think I found myself a new iceberg here! Thanks for putting this together, I found it by watching your amazing trilogy of the battle of Jutland.
I'm going to nitpick on HMS Hood.
Yes, her primary armament and main belt were roughly equal to that of the Queen Elizabeth 'Fast Battleships'.
Her *secondary* armament on the other hand was noticably weaker (5.5" vs 6", and fewer as designed) with only splinter shields for protection compared to the Queen Elizabeth's that were in well armoured casemates. There are multiple other locations where HMS Hood had weaker armour - at least compared to the 'heavy' Royal Sovereigns - such as lower belt and Conning Tower.
With HMS Hood it looks like every ton of weight that could be shaved was, to put into the propulsion systems.
Regardless of classification, Battlecruiser or Fast Battleship this is a very informative video done by Drachinifel. Different eras and different missions so Battlecruiser are great for up to 1925 after that time Fast Battleship is essentially a redefinition of Battlecruiser. Nicely done Drach
When will Admiral Nelson get his long deserved 3rd episode
October
Note: He didn't say what year.
Nelson: From Ship of the Line to Victory
And when will we see the episode on whatever became of the USN submarine force in the years after 1942?
@@Drachinifel October is too long of a wait. We all might be dead of covid by then
I think this is my favorite video of yours to date
it was interesting to listen to your thought process listening to you compare generations of battleships and battle cruisers and your comparisons of HMS hood and USS Iowa to the aforementioned previous generations of battle cruisers
to end this post I can definitely see your points
Excellent work Drach, I really like the battlecruiser concept.
If I may, I have never really been interested in the distinction, much like with the beautiful and quite capable Alaska class, in my opinion. Two things , I’m sure you are aware of both and most of the viewers on your channel should’ve seen the photographs assigned to the ballistic reports showing that the AP shell had the same penetrative power as the Japanese 18.1 inch. What most viewers may not be aware of is that the postwar and even more subsequent analyses, show that the angled and layered armor of the Iowas was much superior to what many people, including yourself, give them credit for. Finally, there are fast battleships and there are fast battleships. All of the Iowa’s made 35 on speed trials, and on two occasions, having served on board or four, we reached almost 36, fully loaded.
Now that’s a first battle ship, and when you can bind that with the penetrative ability and the range of the 16 inch 50 and it’s armor protection. Well I don’t really care what class people assign them to, they were magnificent ships.
Agreed on pretty much all points.
Oh the joys of arguments relying on points of comparison.
It's reminding of the singular most useless legal definition I've ever seen. Different subject, but I know Drach dabbles in HEMA/re-enactment. So he might appreciate this.
'A bastard sword is longer than a single handed sword and shorter than a longsword.'
Word for word. I mean it. Word for word. I'll try to remember which book I found it in. Actual English legal definition in the Middle Ages.
My comprehensive guide to identifying things with big guns:
1) if it has battleship caliber guns in the same number as a typical battleship and it has battleship level armour and battleship speed then it is probably a battleship.
2) if it has battleship caliber guns but fewer in number and its smaller and slower than a battleship then its probably a monitor
3) if it has battleship caliber guns and is much larger and much much slower than a battleship then it's probably coastal artillery
4) if it has battleship caliber guns but fewer and/or less armour, is faster than a typical battleship and it has a large unobstructed flat deck then it is probably some kind of aircraft carrier
5) if it has battleship caliber guns but fewer of them and/or less armour and is faster than a battleship then it's likely a battlecruiser
6) of it has battleship calibre guns in the same number as a battleship with battleship grade armour but is significantly faster than a typical battleship then its probably a fast battleship
Interesting and nourishing as always, Drach.
For the Iowas it depends on what you consider a contemporary battleship. If you compare them to a South Dakota then Iowa is not a BC. If you compare them to a Montana they fit the definition perfectly having one less turret, slightly less armor and being five knots faster.
Hood however has no such equivalent. (Armstrong *did* come up with essentially a 10-gun version of Queen Elizabeth that they offered to Brazil in 1914, but that can't really be considered Hood's contemporary battleship since it wasn't a finalized design and was never even considered by Britain.)
Considering the concept of the battlecruiser was, in everything but deliberate intention, a predecessor to the fast battleship, Hood was essentially a fast battleship
You didn´t see the video, did you?
@@morriganmhor5078 ligma ballz lmao
HMS Hood was essentially a battlecruiser and as such she was completely unmatched being the strongest and largest dreadnought gunship in the world for more than 20 years.
Makes you wonder why people are so hellbend on downgrading HMS Hood to being a mere "fast battleship". Unlike the battlecruiser HMS Hood the classification "fast battleships" refers to warships that were pretty much already obsolete junk ready to be scrapped the day they were commissioned.
@@jesperlykkeberg7438
I’ve pointed out before that Hood was the real pinnacle of big-gun capital ship evolution, because all 29 WWII-generation fast battleships turned out to be strategic failures that were obsolete upon launch, while Hood wasn’t.
OMG! The more videos I watch of yours the smaller and smaller my perceived knowledge of naval ships and warfare becomes! Just when I think I’m starting to get a grip on things and understand them a bit more, you go and upload a video like this🤯‼️
Learning is great isn't it? Stick with it.
I love it ❤️this is the classical “gift that keeps giving”. Drach has just added enough fuel to keep the boilers building a nice head of steam and then flick passed the explosive mix it to Ryan!! Of course this hilarity does not detract from the fact that this was a brilliantly researched and presented argument from the man with impeccable credentials!! 🎖
If you're going to compare them to the different generations of battlecruisers along with nation specific definitions then you could also apply the same tests to the other ships which weren't called battlecruisers as finally built but definitely could qualify under some of the definitions used in this video (Alaska class, deutchland class, the courageous trio). For that matter, the Sverige-class coastal defence ships were faster (albeit only by a couple knots) than many Battleships built the same time, carried battleship level guns of the period, but not battleship armor on a smaller displacement hull, and were used as centerpieces for battle groups by the swedish navy in concert with other cruisers, destroyers, torpedo boats, etc.
If people compare Iowa to Montana, I say compare them to the Tillman. Now everything is a battlecruiser.
Battle Cruiser - make space for more boilers by deleting a turret (if that is not enough, reduce weight)
Fast Battleship - make space for more boilers by enlarging midships, mainly more length (also for Hood, use cutting edge hydrodynamics model testing)
QE miss - put small tube boilers in and get 5 x 27kt fast battleships
such good videos lately - Alaska and then the definitive battle cruiser debate - Drach spoils us
There seems to be one element missing from the classification question: point in time. Classifying HMS Hood and USS Iowa both as fast battleships ignores the stark differences that the march of time brought between the commissioning of the capital ships in 1920 and 1943, respectively.
The march of time was evident just in looking at Hood's demise, where the fact that 20 years separated Hood's from Bismarck's entry into service played a significant factor in the former's demise by the latter. This reality is somewhat obscured by the fact that another battleship commissioned in the 1920s functionally destroyed Bismarck, but just as a certain event in 1906 defined the naval era afterwards, every capital ship built after 1922 with one exception likewise fell in a new era.
HMS Rodney and USS Iowa were built to a limitation, specifically that put upon them by naval treaties and thus packed the maximum firepower possible under those treaty circumstances. Every capital ship built after 1922 with the exception of the Yamatos were built with these much more severe limitations in mind, and it showed.
This had profound effects, as even ships like Bismarck and Littorio that flouted the treaty limits nevertheless were not significantly more powerful than other treaty-era battleships (and were significantly less powerful than treaty warships that mounted 16 inch guns).
Hood, however, was not built to any treaty limitations. In this way, she functionally was more similar to the Yamatos, Montanas and their successors that would have defined the postwar era had shot Baker in Operation Crossroads demonstrated that more armor and larger guns were little defense against radiation, neutron activation and fallout.
But of course Hood could not have stood up to Yamato or Musashi, nor would she have had much chance against Montana had BB-67 been built. Hood belonged to another era, 20 years in the past. She was the culmination of the dreadnought era, which lasted only 16 years (1906-22).
Yet when Hood was under construction such threats were foreseen, as Hood's chances against a Tosa's or Kii's 10 16.1 inch guns, USS South Dakota's (BB-49) 12 16 inch guns, a Number 13's 8 18 inch guns or a N3's 9 18 inch guns were slim. The era of treaty limitation was defined just as much by the absence of these planned or laid down vessels.
One limitation always was the march of time, which inevitably left older capital ships obsolete. In this way naval history books that divide twentieth century capital ships into two eras, dreadnought and pre-dreadnought, obviously have a point; but perhaps there were actually four eras: pre-dreadnought, dreadnought, treaty, and pre-nuclear. Comparing the functions of ships that were termed battleships from different eras in this way is a bit pointless, as the march of time and technology inevitably made latter-era vessels superior to the capital ships they replaced, at least on a single ship vs single ship basis.
In this way, the term battlecruiser was really more of an artifact of the dreadnought era by the time the fast battleships were being built. Fast battleship is a treaty-era term, a term that would have been made archaic had capital ship construction continued past HMS Vanguard.
It all comes down to what your definition is.
In my view, "Fast Batleship" is a Battleship capable of over 30 knots, usually at some expense in armor or number of guns. Several ships meet that definition, the Italian Vittoro Veneto class, the French Richeleu class, and of course the Iowa's.
I base that on the fact that the Montana's were to have another gun turrets and be much more heavily armored.
By my standards, that makes the Hood a fast Battleship, as were the Iowa's. I realize that the South Dakota class and the North Carolina class were classed by the USN as , "Fast Battleships" but in reality, they only matched contemporary Battleships built by the rest of the world. In other words, they were Fast compared to the "Standard Battleships, but only matched that of other modern Battleships.
That is my definition, I don't expect everyone to jump and acknowledge my brilliance, and I realize that there are ships out there that don't precisely fit my personal definition, but there it is.
Before even starting to watch: oooohhh this'll be a spicy one :D
3:30 When I see that picture I can't help but think that the A turret of the lead-ship is turning away in embarressment due to being camera shy. ^^
I've always considered Hood to be a battleship in the same way that Bismark, Vittorio Veneto and Iowa are.
I don't really understand the argument if Bismarck was sunk or scuttled. I mean if I'm dying because someone shot me in the stomach 20 times, does it really matter if I die from that or if I kill myself in the last moment by slitting my wrist veins before I die from the other wounds anyway?
Sunk,not scuttled. There was to much fire and no one got the order to scuttle because of no power for mic's or radio or anyway to tell anyone to scuttle her.
I'm just saying.
It doesn't, unless you're a Wehraboo.
@drach love your content , may you post many vids.
OK, I got into the "armored against your own fire" discussion down-thread somewhere and now I'm wishing I'd gotten further into the video before responding to someone's comment. Anyhow... The video makes the point that Hood was, in fact, designed to be proof against her own fire, but the Royal Navy's own tests with 15" APC shells against a mock up of Hood's armor showed that outside the relatively narrow 12" waterline section of the main armor belt, she was NOT protected against her own fire. In addition, her horizontal protection had never been up to that level of protection, and the outbreak of the war put the kibosh on the refit that would have tried to remedy that particular weakness.
I always felt like the difference between a battlecruiser and a fast battleship is similar to the difference between a velicoraptor and a cassowary. One is just a more basal/primitive version of the other.
The concept of the battlecruiser simply evolved into the fast battleship when the technologies advanced enough.
It is completely off topic and out of context but I would like to say that velociraptor IRL is puny compared to cassowary…0.5m tall, 15kg in weight, barely larger than a turkey.
@@OrdinaryEXP Utah raptor, Dakota raptor, deinonychus, your dromeosaurid of choice. This is a warship channel, not a dinosaur channel, so i went with the most well known one to make my point rather than assume.
I feel like a lot of this battlecruiser/Battleship discussion is somewhat ruined by the weird stigma so many people have around a ship being called a “battlecruiser” it’s almost like an insult to some people!
True.
Hilariously, in some Sci-fi circles dreadnought or battleship (especially the latter) tend to get that treatment, with battlecruiser still being decently popular.
(Thought of course, Sci-fi also often falls to the problem of using the name battlecruiser for something like a large cruiser, a mid stage between battleships and heavy cruisers)
@@gokbay3057 Yeah in Sci-fy the Term Battleship or Dreadnaught is viewed as slow, pondering and archaic.
While BattleCruiser feels fast, sleek and powerfull.
Mind you in the various Sci-fy universes, armour plating is not really the primary protection, but rather shield projectors powered by electric generators is the norm, so less weight/mass is dedicated to actual physical armor plate.
This gives the captain of the Battlecruiser, the choice to feed power more flexibly to either Shields, weapons or engines, depending on how he want's to tackle his opponent.
So in the end its more a question of how much power the individual sci-fy space warship has that matters, than any actual nomenclature it might have.
🤔🤔🤔
Thank you, Drachinifel.
Was eagerly awaiting this video after Ryan from "Battleship New Jersey" mentioned you working on it in his vid. on same topic. CHEERS!
How about this as a definition for battlecruiser: A capital ship designed to supplement the battleships with similar or same armament, but emphasizing speed at the expense than armor and number of guns
I would say armour or number of guns not armour and number of guns
I have to agree with Drach that they are both Fast Battleships. Even considering the RN constantly referred to the Hood as a BC. If the Montanas had been built then the Iowas might have become BC by accident following the "Rule of Thumb"
Said Rule that Drach mentions does seem to be the best way of describing what a BC is IMO
Very well-reasoned discussion Drach, as always. I would tend to agree with your conclusions here. Further, I would argue that with the advent of the fast battleship with introduction of Hood (even if she wasn't called a fast battleship in service), the battlecruiser had become an obsolescent ship type as you could now have fleet units that could perform the roles of both equally well with the possible exception of the cost to build & operate.
I think Hood was a fast battleship. It had the same armor as the contemporary Queen Elizabeth-class battleship.
Really? Belt armour hood: Up to 300mm. Belt armour QE: Up to 330mm; And this is the same??
If Hood had the same upgrades as the other ships, I would've called her a fast battleship but she never got the latest upgrades prior to her sinking.
@@matthiaseckert4022 I think he meant COMPARABLE armor. But even then it's a bit of a stretch imo.
@@matthiaseckert4022 305mm, if memory serves, about the same as the Iowas.
@@matthiaseckert4022 Hood's armor was inclined at 12° while QE's was vertical, giving her about the same level of protection.
Besides, 305mm is already battleship grade thickness. Tirpitz' belt wasn't much thicker, at 315mm, and also vertical.