Do you know why some monitors (the 15-inchers?) had such absurdly high barbettes, making them look quite top-heavy? It‘s not only the weight but also the recoil, combined with a very shallow draft that makes me shiver. Were there entire battleship turrets including the barbettes installed?
The barbettes and turrets were not the same as the battleship turrets, even if they did use them.... Most of the armour would have been stripped off, a Monitor is not designed to be facing other ships, so does not need turret or barbette armour capable of deflecting or stopping battleship main armament rounds. At most you need armour to defeat heavy shore based artillery. So removing much of the armour would significantly lighten them. But balance would have been an issue. There are ways to mitigate balance issues, like a very broad beam in comparison to length, Underwater bulges, and the like. But I would still not like to be in an Atlantic storm in one of those things!
It’s a very interesting point, and from what I’ve read it mostly comes down to the fact the tall barbette was necessary owing to the minimum length of the turret ammunition trunk, and in the books I’ve read the 15 inch monitors didn’t have any stability issues.
Very interesting. Really like your work, because of the unusual content. As my grandfather was a stoker at Jutland, I find snippets like this helps me to visualize his naval life. Peace and goodwill
The general category you might simply call 'bombardment vessels' is pretty interesting. So much of it involves modifying some existing ship to carry whatever it is they want to launch at the enemy. Lots of coastal vessels, tons of riverine stuff. Centuries of people doing this. Fun stuff.
Ingenuity indeed. Is this thinking out of the box or just a case of bigger will be better? Not sure but it was a clever way to reuse guns from other ships. And hopefully to learn a few things. How bow thrusters could have made a massive difference for example. I certainly understand your fascination with this strange class 👍 As always, thank you for another great doco 👍🙏
@@ImportantNavalHistory Well, I can't send you anything for Christmas, but instead here's a link to an English-built ship, still floating (amazingly) that I only just found out about. Enjoy! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hu%C3%A1scar_(ironclad)
Bow thrusters are a very nice idea, with one teeny, tiny little problem. Practical Bow thrusters were not invented until the 1950's, so how is one supposed to mount them on ships built around 1915? You cannot fit ships with systems that literally did not exist when they were built. Reusing guns was not new, the Monitors were not the first or last time the Royal Navy used guns from decommissioned ships on new construction. As a general rule if there is nothing wrong with the guns themselves then they will be reused. Even if they were not put on new warships they would be held in storage to arm merchant shipping in time of war. At least in the case of the smaller calibre guns like 3 inch and 4 inch guns for example. The Royal Navy did, and to an extent still does this, and it is not alone. If a weapons system on a ship being decommissioned is not obsolete, it makes sense reusing it as weapons are some of the longest lead time items on a warship. Also dedicated shore bombardment vessels were not new. For most of the age of sail a ship type known as Bomb Vessels or Bomb Ships existed. While they were pierced for a few broadside guns for self defence the main armament of these ships were on or more ruddy huge siege mortars. These were not conversions, the recoil characteristics of those big mortars were such that the ships had to be specially designed and constructed for the task. So by 1915 dedicated shore bombardment ships had been around for a couple of centuries. So the concept of designing a ship around a weapons system purely for shore bombardment (which was the role of the Monitors) was hardly a major leap. As the weapons are different, and the technologies are different, the ships would obviously look different. But their jobs are exactly the same, anchoring close inshore and ruining the day of anyone who happens to be standing around wherever those big rounds start landing!
Prince Eugene was a weird case of a ship being named for the same person on each side of the war with the austro-hungarian battleship SMS Prinz Eugen and the monitor.
I appreciate the effort making this video and especially appreciate using a real voice in the commentary, AI voice narration is always a turn off for me.
Thank you for watching everyone! I am starting to feel better, and hopefully I sound it in this video.
Love how the RN just had spare heavy naval rifles just laying around like spare change.
Do you know why some monitors (the 15-inchers?) had such absurdly high barbettes, making them look quite top-heavy? It‘s not only the weight but also the recoil, combined with a very shallow draft that makes me shiver. Were there entire battleship turrets including the barbettes installed?
The barbettes and turrets were not the same as the battleship turrets, even if they did use them....
Most of the armour would have been stripped off, a Monitor is not designed to be facing other ships, so does not need turret or barbette armour capable of deflecting or stopping battleship main armament rounds. At most you need armour to defeat heavy shore based artillery. So removing much of the armour would significantly lighten them.
But balance would have been an issue. There are ways to mitigate balance issues, like a very broad beam in comparison to length, Underwater bulges, and the like. But I would still not like to be in an Atlantic storm in one of those things!
I thought, though I might be wrong, that the tall mounting was to allow for high angle, very long range fire on such a (relatively) small ship.
It’s a very interesting point, and from what I’ve read it mostly comes down to the fact the tall barbette was necessary owing to the minimum length of the turret ammunition trunk, and in the books I’ve read the 15 inch monitors didn’t have any stability issues.
@@ImportantNavalHistory oh that makes a lot of sense.
@@ImportantNavalHistory But other monitors do have relatively low barbettes. Still somehow mysterious to me. 🤷♂️
You definitely have a talent for the more obscure areas of naval history which I find fascinating. Thanks, as always.......
Thanks for covering an extremely interesting ship type. Great content!
Very interesting. Really like your work, because of the unusual content. As my grandfather was a stoker at Jutland, I find snippets like this helps me to visualize his naval life. Peace and goodwill
The general category you might simply call 'bombardment vessels' is pretty interesting. So much of it involves modifying some existing ship to carry whatever it is they want to launch at the enemy. Lots of coastal vessels, tons of riverine stuff. Centuries of people doing this. Fun stuff.
I have a book by Douglas Reeman about a monitor. It's called "H.M.S. Saracen" from 1965. When you read that book it's like you've been on board.
The HMS Thunderer is the best name for a warship ever!!
what about HMS Cockchafer
USS Dunderberg "thunder mountain"
Ingenuity indeed. Is this thinking out of the box or just a case of bigger will be better? Not sure but it was a clever way to reuse guns from other ships. And hopefully to learn a few things. How bow thrusters could have made a massive difference for example. I certainly understand your fascination with this strange class 👍
As always, thank you for another great doco 👍🙏
The Royal Navy monitors are my favorite subject that I stumbled across. Love everything about these silly ships.
@@ImportantNavalHistory Well, I can't send you anything for Christmas, but instead here's a link to an English-built ship, still floating (amazingly) that I only just found out about. Enjoy!
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hu%C3%A1scar_(ironclad)
Bow thrusters are a very nice idea, with one teeny, tiny little problem.
Practical Bow thrusters were not invented until the 1950's, so how is one supposed to mount them on ships built around 1915? You cannot fit ships with systems that literally did not exist when they were built.
Reusing guns was not new, the Monitors were not the first or last time the Royal Navy used guns from decommissioned ships on new construction. As a general rule if there is nothing wrong with the guns themselves then they will be reused. Even if they were not put on new warships they would be held in storage to arm merchant shipping in time of war. At least in the case of the smaller calibre guns like 3 inch and 4 inch guns for example. The Royal Navy did, and to an extent still does this, and it is not alone.
If a weapons system on a ship being decommissioned is not obsolete, it makes sense reusing it as weapons are some of the longest lead time items on a warship.
Also dedicated shore bombardment vessels were not new. For most of the age of sail a ship type known as Bomb Vessels or Bomb Ships existed. While they were pierced for a few broadside guns for self defence the main armament of these ships were on or more ruddy huge siege mortars.
These were not conversions, the recoil characteristics of those big mortars were such that the ships had to be specially designed and constructed for the task.
So by 1915 dedicated shore bombardment ships had been around for a couple of centuries. So the concept of designing a ship around a weapons system purely for shore bombardment (which was the role of the Monitors) was hardly a major leap. As the weapons are different, and the technologies are different, the ships would obviously look different. But their jobs are exactly the same, anchoring close inshore and ruining the day of anyone who happens to be standing around wherever those big rounds start landing!
Such bizarre contraptions. I love them.
Great vid 👍 Thanks, appreciate it 👍
Greets from the Netherlands 🇳🇱, TW.
Greetings and salutations, at 5:55 "that's not a bulge, this, is a bulge!"😅
That's not a knife, this is a knife!
@ImportantNavalHistory very apt for this proud Aussie! 🦘😎
I saw the in a Lord Roberts in Plymouth 1964,it was fantastic as it was in the mothballs flees tied up next to the old rfa tyne!😇😇
Prince Eugene was a weird case of a ship being named for the same person on each side of the war with the austro-hungarian battleship SMS Prinz Eugen and the monitor.
When you want a waffentrager but all you have are boats
The rivet destroyer. 😂
These were more like sea-borne field artillery, the British equivalent of the German railway guns.
Zeebrugge is the Royal Marine equivalent of the US call Broken Arrow due to the losses of 3 Commado Brigade on 23rd April 1917
I would like to see a video on the M1 class monitor submarines.
Could have just used some old BBs. The USA had a few lying around.
I appreciate the effort making this video and especially appreciate using a real voice in the commentary, AI voice narration is always a turn off for me.
👍
Imagine being bombarded by 18-inch shells.
Definitely hear the shell coming over 😳
Are you trying to say (mortar) because wtf is a monitor? 🖥?
The type of vessel I’m describing in the video.
Thanks!
I personally think you could of said the word "monitor" a few hundred more times in this video. Very disappointed
Next monitor video, I’ll be sure to say it some more :)