Know Your Own Navy (1940) RAF Instructional Film

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 29 січ 2025

КОМЕНТАРІ • 73

  • @Goatboysminion
    @Goatboysminion 6 років тому +39

    One of the triumphs of UA-cam is that Historical jewels like this can be seen again.

  • @robp1927
    @robp1927 5 років тому +2

    My late father served as Chief Petty Officer on HMS Arethusa and I have been searching for movie footage. This is the first I have found that is definitely that ship and it has made me very happy. Thank you Bogglesham

  • @lestermay5878
    @lestermay5878 Рік тому +1

    Great to see footage, early on, of my father's destroyer HMS Amazon (D39) with the Home Fleet - AB (ST) Walter May may well have been quartermaster (on the wheel) when the footage was taken - he served in HMS Amazon (1926) from 1939-1941 [served RN 1923-1947].

  • @chrisbell5920
    @chrisbell5920 8 років тому +6

    Loved every minute. Pure gold.

  • @rvd1269
    @rvd1269 5 років тому +4

    HMS Jellicoe and HMS Beatty would later be renamed HMS Anson and HMS Howe.

  • @javiergilvidal1558
    @javiergilvidal1558 6 років тому +3

    A year later, Swordfishes hunting Bismarck almost dispatched HMS Sheffield thinking she was the enemy. Those crews must have missed this film!

    • @Spookieham
      @Spookieham 5 років тому +1

      Just as well they all missed! All credit to the Stringbag crews; going into the attack on the Bismarck must have taken some serious balls.

  • @houseyUK
    @houseyUK 6 років тому +3

    Really enjoyed this. Thank you for uploading.

  • @kristov29
    @kristov29 7 років тому +16

    An educational 29 minutes. I can imagine a group of young naval cadets watching this film and taking notes at a furious rate because at the conclusion will come the inevitable:"Cadet Walker, sketch the superstructures of the Warspite and the Barham and then highlight their differences."

    • @Robodick4
      @Robodick4 6 років тому +1

      Why Naval Cadets? It's an RAF film!
      Hence it's title "Know Your Own Navy (1940) RAF Instructional Film"

    • @garethgriffiths4616
      @garethgriffiths4616 6 років тому

      To low in the water, like HMS Vanguard.

  • @michaelevans205
    @michaelevans205 4 роки тому +1

    Wonderful stuff! Even the hesitant, stilted narration was part of the joy of it. Great that the "Ark Royal" was mis - identified in a recognition film......she wasn't involved in the Taranto operation and that wasn't her! (Looked more like Illustrious.....who WAS involved!)

  • @madpom2
    @madpom2 6 років тому

    What a brilliant shot showing shock wave from warships main guns on the water

  • @peterdavy6110
    @peterdavy6110 5 років тому +1

    @ 13.13 HMSs Jellicoe and Beatty were re-named Anson and Howe before launching.

  • @JonnKammeron
    @JonnKammeron 8 років тому +5

    Outstanding Video.

  • @chrisbell5920
    @chrisbell5920 5 років тому +13

    Bloody marvellous! I could cry when I consider the political vandalism and false economy which our once great military has suffered over recent decades.

    • @rollosnook
      @rollosnook 5 років тому +3

      We have a defence crisis, but Boris has sacked Penny Mordaunt and replaced her with the third minister in 3 months, following Gavin Williamson's departure. I am not sure if Baldrick or General Melchard just entered 10 Downing Street. Penny was actually a Royal Naval Reserve officer. I wouldn't like to bet on a Type 23 frigate against a swarm attack, so the alternative is diplomacy, of which Boris has none.

  • @bigwerve
    @bigwerve 2 роки тому

    Notice that the Royal Oak was not mentioned due to the fact it had been sunk the year before

  • @winchuni22
    @winchuni22 7 років тому +3

    This is amazing!

  • @thothheartmaat2833
    @thothheartmaat2833 8 років тому

    depth charges are insane. i love watching sub movies. so intense. stuff like enemy below and u571.

    • @Spookieham
      @Spookieham 5 років тому +2

      U571 is a comedy film and quite offensive in its completely false portrayal of HMS Bulldogs achievements plus the shameful portrayal of Kriegsmarine sailors machine gunning survivors

  • @michaelb9529
    @michaelb9529 3 роки тому

    Did I miss something there was no mention of the Corvette. I know in 1940 they still hadn't brought back Frigates but they certainly had Corvettes

  • @howler6490
    @howler6490 2 роки тому

    The accent...sheez...naycha for nature and strainjah for stranger...
    I remember when BBC news readers sounded like this...

  • @EricIrl
    @EricIrl 6 років тому +5

    Sadly, so many of those ships were lost with many lives.

  • @paulcrowe5392
    @paulcrowe5392 5 років тому

    The Navy should have either have similar training films or paid attention to them as they were notorious for shooting at anything that had wings no matter what markings!!!

    • @Spookieham
      @Spookieham 5 років тому +2

      The Fleet Air Arm managed to attack Sheffield thinking it was Bismarck in the fading light. I'd imagine the crew were not happy bunnies over that.

  • @kc4cvh
    @kc4cvh 2 роки тому

    It seems to me that it would have been easier for the RAF pilots to memorise the profiles of the Kriegsmarine ships, as there were so few.

  • @darrellhartsig1085
    @darrellhartsig1085 8 років тому +2

    Interesting to hear the Anson and Howe misidentified as Jellicoe and Beatty

    • @darrellhartsig1085
      @darrellhartsig1085 8 років тому +1

      Also many show the neutrality patrol markings carried during the Spanish Civil War (stripes on B turret}/

    • @Peorhum
      @Peorhum 7 років тому +1

      Their names likely were not changed by that time. Other mistakes are made though. Illustrious being IDed as the Ark Royal. Furious being shown without an island when by this time she did have an island...

    • @winchuni22
      @winchuni22 7 років тому +2

      They were the original names chosen.

    • @stephencliffordscr1423
      @stephencliffordscr1423 6 років тому

      All the shots with overhang of flight deck fore and aft are of the Ark. Furious' island (very low above the flight deck) only added in 1939 so maybe they did not have any film showing it yet?

  • @jyralnadreth4442
    @jyralnadreth4442 6 років тому +2

    9:14 looking at the turrets and numbers of guns...Id say this specific ship during the loading of main guns will either be HMS Nelson or HMS Rodney

    • @rusmorpeh3314
      @rusmorpeh3314 3 роки тому

      They had an ordinary number of main battery guns (9 barrels). This impression is simply due to the fact that all these turrets are located close to each other, unlike any other battleships...

  • @joecooper97
    @joecooper97 6 років тому

    Because this is from 1940 this would probably be the first film that a lot of people saw

    • @Spookieham
      @Spookieham 5 років тому

      I don't think so - British people had been going to the Cinema for decades before this.

  • @tricksterdac4216
    @tricksterdac4216 5 років тому +1

    11:00 note for me

  • @oldjagman
    @oldjagman 6 років тому +1

    Was 1940 just before the Frigate and Corvette classes

    • @stephencliffordscr1423
      @stephencliffordscr1423 6 років тому

      Yes

    • @Robodick4
      @Robodick4 6 років тому

      In 1948 the Royal Navy reclassified its remaining sloops and corvettes as frigates (even though the term sloop had been officially defunct for nine years). They were officially 'Sloops' but in practice they were called Frigates and Corvettes from 1939

    • @muttley8818
      @muttley8818 5 років тому

      Just before the Flower Corvette that helped with convoy defence.

  • @dugclrk
    @dugclrk 6 років тому

    "and that is about all I need say about them." Had a good laugh at that line. Sounds as though he wasn't too impressed with the US destroyer.
    Far too many of these ships were lost during the war with many of their service man.

    • @lwilton
      @lwilton 6 років тому +2

      Remember that these were Lend-Lease destroyers, referred to in the US as "old out of date destroyers" traded to the British for access to various bases around the world. The US government didn't think much of them either.

    • @chopchop7938
      @chopchop7938 6 років тому

      Those US destroyers were from WW1. I had a good laugh at the part identifying ships like Hood, Repulse, Prince of Wales, Ark Royal, etc as they were soon on the bottom of the ocean. Far too many British ships blew up after taking only a couple of shells with the lose of all hands except 2 or 3 maybe. Much like at the British defeat at Jutland. I had a good laugh when the British pilots attacked Sheffield and nailed it with torpedoes. Fortunately the British torpedoes didn't exploded because they were duds.

    • @ggarlick46
      @ggarlick46 5 років тому

      @@chopchop7938 Lots of German Japanese and American capital ships were also lost in WW2 ...so whats your point? Also Jutland wasnt a British defeat as the German Navy had to flee back to port and were blockaded in by the Royal Navy for the rest of the war and then scuttled. I dont see how thats a victory for the German fleet..

    • @Tuning3434
      @Tuning3434 5 років тому

      ​@@ggarlick46 Basically all significant German and Japanese capital units where lost in WW2. Jutland was definitely not a win of the German's, but they've made a marvelous escape where they would (and should?) have been crushed in one final swoop. Beaty's mistakes do not reflect the Royal Navy at Jutland, and the Battlecruisers that did take proper anti-flash precautions, they held up pretty well against German fire. And come on, HMS Warspite proved the battleships could withstand a beating.

    • @ggarlick46
      @ggarlick46 5 років тому

      @@Tuning3434 Sure I agree on all that mate, my earlier post was to the moron called Chop Chop .

  • @paullewis2413
    @paullewis2413 5 років тому

    Battleships `Jellicoe` and `Beatty.` ? I wonder why and when they changed the names to `Anson`and `Howe`

    • @annoyedzebra6362
      @annoyedzebra6362 4 роки тому

      I've read that the controversy surrounding the Battle of Jutland prompted Churchill to order the change, in order to prevent old arguments from resurfacing

  • @jasons44
    @jasons44 5 років тому +1

    We should know thr ships

  • @tenthconcept
    @tenthconcept 6 років тому +2

    Did he say "Sea manors are deplorable?"

    • @dugclrk
      @dugclrk 6 років тому +1

      yes he did. No more deplorable than any other navy during the war.

    • @lwilton
      @lwilton 6 років тому +3

      No. He said "Sea manners are deplorable". A manor is a large house, and a manner is a way a person (or nation, or ship) acts.

    • @tenthconcept
      @tenthconcept 6 років тому +1

      @@lwilton Simple mistake. I know what he meant. Served in the USN for half of my life.

    • @hobmoor2042
      @hobmoor2042 5 років тому

      @@tenthconcept - now that our RN is a shadow of its former self thanks to political expediency, the world owes a great debt to the USA for maintaining the USN deterrent.

  • @brianduff5361
    @brianduff5361 6 років тому

    whats with the laurel and hardy Music?

  • @dodge-ut6ti
    @dodge-ut6ti 2 роки тому

    How is it that Great Britain could afford such a large navy. Did other parts of the empire help pay for it?

    • @howler6490
      @howler6490 2 роки тому

      Of course...where do you think the gold and precious stones went...

    • @rossmansell5877
      @rossmansell5877 9 місяців тому

      With the end of WW2 the Fleet Air Arm had 57 carriers of all types (from converted merchant ships to fleet carriers......42 Naval air Stations..2000 aircraft and 42 thousand personell.... 2024. .2 air stations 2 carriers..and about 40 aircraft and helis... Not an awful lot to smite the upstarts🤣🤣🤣🤣

  • @allenwilliams1306
    @allenwilliams1306 6 років тому +2

    Poor RAF crews! After that lot, I'd be totally confused. Would it not have been better to compile a film contrasting German ships with British ones? As for the remark that not much can be said about the ex-US destroyers other than they have four funnels: well, really?

    • @stephencliffordscr1423
      @stephencliffordscr1423 6 років тому +3

      But that was all they needed to say - no other 4 funnel ships in any navy they might encounter, identified them beyond any doubt.

  • @keithammleter3824
    @keithammleter3824 6 років тому +1

    Obviously a film made on the cheap because someone ordered it and then didn't follow up that what was delivered was fit for purpose. Seems to be a lot of stock footage, not always relevant. And a rotten exasperating narrator that keeps pausing at the wrong places. The other British WW2 training films on UA-cam are of high quality, well thought out, interesting and informative. Not this one.
    Since the objective is to blow up the enemy and not your own, surely it is obvious that there should have been be a comparison between British and German ships?

    • @josephtuckett9821
      @josephtuckett9821 6 років тому +2

      This would have been shown in a lesson/briefing scenario, therefore the long pauses would have been deliberate so the students could take notes.

    • @keithammleter3824
      @keithammleter3824 6 років тому +1

      @@josephtuckett9821 : Yes, I understand the (correct) use of pauses - I got to watch training films in my early training (not British), and later provided instruction myself. But the narrator pauses in an odd manner in the wrong places as I said, actually making it more difficult to make notes, not easier. Pauses in the right places aid absorption. Pauses in the wrong places are a distraction.
      It may be possible to write down words occurring immediately before each pause, but the result will be a near useless collection of words and not understanding, and very little recall of what the film actually showed.
      Other British training films of the same era do not have the narrator pause in this odd manner, and because I enjoyed them, I have quite good recall of what they explained.
      Good instruction entertains as well as informs the students. Repetition/reinforcement aids learning. That's why a common technique is for the instructor to talk through a topic with static aids or models, then show a film that covers the same points, because if the instructor just repeats himself, attention will wander. This means training films must be enjoyable, not a chore. Kind of like a working holiday.

    • @2adamast
      @2adamast 6 років тому +2

      There is something like the pre internet of things with scarce, disseminated and hard to get information and just as hard to produce content. As for the footage of German ships you need to spot them and then get someone back with a decent film. There is a British pilot on youtube describing the visual confirmation of a German ship (just by eye, no camera work) in retrospect the most stupid thing he ever did.
      The film is most likely a complement to the stack of silhouettes they already had.

  • @iphuqdyrmum
    @iphuqdyrmum Рік тому

    Know your own Navy. Why was so many in the R.N. homosexuals? Especially in the captain and officer positions ? ? Is that a requirement

    • @rossmansell5877
      @rossmansell5877 9 місяців тому

      You may be surprised to learn that there were quite a few in the Battle of Britain squadrons........

  • @tricksterdac4216
    @tricksterdac4216 5 років тому

    18:38 note for me