The Sinking of HMS Ark Royal 1941
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 жов 2024
- HMS Ark Royal was an aircraft carrier of the British Royal Navy that served during the Second World War.
Designed in 1934, Ark Royal was built in Birkenhead, England, launched in April of 1937 and completed in November of 1938. Her design differed from previous aircraft carriers in that she was the first ship on which the hangars and flight deck were an integral part of the hull, rather than an add-on or part of the superstructure and she was designed to carry a large number of aircraft in two hangar deck levels.
She served during a period that first saw the extensive use of naval air power and as a result, several carrier tactics were developed and refined aboard Ark Royal.
She was torpedoed off the coast of Gibraltar in November 1941
SUBSCRIBE to The Northern Historian
/ @thenorthernhistorian
INSTAGRAM
/ northern_historian
FACEBOOK
/ thenorthernhistorian
Source information Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.o...)
creativecommon...
#HMSArkRoyal
#WorldWar2
#RoyalNavy
![[UA] NAVI проти G2 Esports | Blast Premier Fall Final](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QWlIm4FGESQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Thanks for taking the time to watch this video, I hope you enjoy it. I'm really excited about how the channel is coming together and you could help grow this community further by Subscribing and help me to create future videos for your enjoyment. Thanks.
do you know how many planes were lost with the sinking, i mean,the air group still on board...tthat would be a good bit of info, for the rest of your carrier videos? none of any videos that ive seen, give that information
@@kingtigertank72 That' a good point you make Roberto, one I'll take on board for future videos. In the research that I did for this video I couldn't see an exact number but their were no aircraft airborne at the time of the attack, some were being readied but hadn't launched. So it's reasonable to assume the full aircraft compliment of 50 to 60 aircraft would have been lost.
Very good narrative, I wish you would’ve said a little more about its success, such as with the damaging of the Bismarck, such that it was chased down subsequently, then sunk!
I love your vids
To be honest I prefer the second carrier to be named HMS Ark Royal than HMS Prince of Wales!
Ark Royal is a mighty name, she would have survived due to negligence of not closing bulk head doors as she took on water!
I see HMS Ark Royal as the U.K. counterpart to the US flagship Carrier USS Enterprise which I believe is in its next incarnation in Newport News dock yard!
the fact that only 1 person died is really something
F
British Carriers were really tough and well armoured, and generally had very low Casualty rates during WW2, though if seriously damaged, spent longer in Dry Dock being repaired as a result, plus it meant they carried less aircraft than USA Carriers during the War, but were better at staying Operational. 👍
@@brownnoise357 wasn't the Ark Royal not the only british carrier without an armoured flight deck?
In WWI the British lost a battleship to a mine with _zero_ casualties.
More of testament to inadequate underwater protection than anything else.
Friedrich Guggenberger, sinker of the Ark Royal, was a really interesting character and a pretty cool guy. He earned the Knight's Cross and eventually was captured and finished the war as a POW where he became quite the escape artist. After the war he became an Admiral of both the new German navy and at NATO.
My Grandpop Bill ( W.French ) having been one of the few survivors (12 I believe) of the HMS Queen Mary at the Battle of Jutland as a young cook , was CPO ( Chef) on the Ark Royal when it was torpedoed in WW2 . He of course , survived but used to joke after his retirement as a career RN man on capital ships , that he "spent more time swimming than sailing "!
My dad was a CPO on HMS Coventry, but ended his tour and was transferred to a local shore base not long before the Falklands conflict broke out.
He was an engineer, he would have been in the engine room, where the 3rd bomb penetrated and caused uncontrollable flooding in the two largest contiguous compartments, although it did not explode.
Most of the deaths were in the Computer Room where a bomb exploded and the junior rates dining room, which I think was also the 3rd bomb.
The engineering deaths were all in the forward engine room, 3 or 4 in all in that room.
He was on HMS Invincible for the gulf war and the Yugoslav war but the opponents there were completely overmatched by the joint force sent to fight.
Unbelievable how after being hit that all bulkhead doors etc were not closed. The ship definitely could have been saved. She was a very prized target and her service record was exemplary. Thanks once again for another great documentary
Thanks
Seems like a lack of discipline or training not to close those doors. Were they afraid of locking people behind? Seems like they were not prepared to save the ship. Seems like there was indecisiveness.
@@steveperreira5850 Yeah, if I were there, I would be afraid of locking men in flooded compartments by closing the bulkheads and hatches.
It's always left a bad taste in my mouth. Such a shame
@@steveperreira5850 It may have been an issue related to high octane aircraft Fuel and ensuring adequate venting to clear petrol fumes which are highly explosive, and I think had resulted in the loss of some carriers, which happened to Carriers in the Pacific Later? Just a guess. As a side note, British Carriers were Much stronger in this regard than American Carriers of the time were, due to steel flight decks, but extreme care had to be taken with explosive fumes from Aviation Fuel still, especially in areas near Munition Stores. Getting Air blowing through the length of the ship removes it quite fast, but if there were Fuel leaks, you'd want to keep that Ventilation going until the source of the leak(s) was dealt with. The Situation assessed below the flight deck would have had to determine the correct response to it. But sometimes, you are Damned if you do, and are Damned if you don't. 🤔
Little known fact. One of the survivors, was actually the ships' cat. Known as unsinkable Sam, he had already survived the sinking of KMS Bismark, where he was rescued by HMS Cossack where he was called Oskar. When Cossack was sunk he was adopted by HMS Ark Royal. Not sure what happened to him after that. Hopefully he stayed ashore!
Too bad the cat couldn’t talk, he would say: Hey dumb asses don’t leave the bulkhead doors open during flooding, never mind tea time. I’ve seen this stupidity over and over.
I thought that the cat always goes down with the ship
@@tropicthndr straight from the armchair.
Sam returned to Germany and became a member of the government.
I thought maybe he was a secret weapon.
Just love how the Royal Navy decided to court martial the captain who saved virtually an entire crew of highly trained sailors, pilots and technicians. Although a bad loss, a carrier can be replaced, but it's much harder (and far more tragic) to lose an entire ship's, well-trained crew.
My thoughts exactly !! At this point Britain needed the men far more than she needed the ship!!
Courts Marshall a formal process to ascertain the facts and apportion blame or not. As It is a judicial process it has legal standing.
This Captain was Court Marshalled but basically acquitted of all fault and went on to serve in Combined Operations, playing an important role in the development of landing craft leaving the Navy in 1946 as a Rear Admiral.
@@1chish Well, I wish that would've have been mentioned (or maybe it was and I just wasn't paying attention). In most people's minds, the words "Courts Martial" invokes a picture of vengeful military prosecution and inevitable conviction and punishment - often undeserved (see the trial of Captain Charles V. McVay of the "Indianapolis" - It was an absolute travesty what the U.S. Navy did to that poor man).
@@moistmike4150 Well of course the Royal and US Navies operate under two very different codes and I can understand that the US does have a more vengeful position. One of 'something went wrong and so someone must pay'. And you give an very good example.
The UK system is purely factual.
Well the British culturally a have habit of prioritizing pride over practicality or reasoning. It's out of desire to escape their barbaric past and humiliating defeat at the hands of the vikings and Romans. The U.K is just that one edgy and hostile Karen who spent their childhood getting picked on by others. All messed up and mentally damaged beyond repair.
My uncle was on Ark Royal from 1938, and was one of the people staying onboard during the attempts to save her. Despite all the problems experienced it was a very close thing, eventually settled by design flaws that were later corrected on other ships.
My dad was also on the Ark Royal at the time they had to abandon her. He was then transferred to HMS Formidable
My grandfather was onboard during this and I still have a ships crest from that time
My Uncle George was on this on the guns shown. Wonderful chap. Funny , very warped sense of humour , bright and brilliant chap.. Great family............ Appreciated seeing the photographs and storyline. Many thanks indeed.
My Old Neighbour "Humph " was an Officer on board the Ark Royal, and was the last man on board the Ship, after Abandoning Ship. He was sent back aboard to empty the Safe with all the Orders and Codes in it, which the Captain had missed doing in his Efforts to Save the Crew. Humph had a really interesting War, and a Book just on his life in the Navy a fascinating Read. One example was him on the Dieppe Raid, trying to Evacuate the Troops, but a Sniper was pinning them down. So he went ashore and got behind the Sniper and killed the Sniper, only to Discover that he knew the Sniper. They had been in Naval College together before the War ! I had years if such Memories from Humph as I helped him with his Smallholding until his daughter got him to move down to the South of England, and I only saw him once after as he came back for a visit to our Local Pub. A Great Guy, and I hope he's still with us, despite the odds against it. Best Wishes. Bob. 👍🏴
Hi Bob, thanks for your comment and that fascinating tale about Humph.
Only just picked this video up. My uncle, Bernard Cakebread was on the Ark and volunteered to stay to try to save her. He explained he had no choice as he was standing next to the Captain when he asked for volunteers! (I never believed that bit). After Ark Royal he was commissioned and commanded a minesweeper in the North Sea.
@@stuartcakebread9321 That does ring true from what Humph said about events, as from memory, I'm sure Humph mentioned that he was with the Captain on the Flight Deck when he asked for Volunteers. Actually I think that was what caused Bumph to be the last man on board Ark Royal, as the Captain was so concerned with attempting to save the Ship, he forgot all about emptying the Safe with all of the Secret Documents on board, and remembered when everyone was in the Lifeboats, so sent Humph back onboard to retrieve them. Shame really, so close to Gibraltar, they almost saved the Ship. Best Wishes. Bob. 👍
PS. Humph was on the Narvik Raid, and said he made the biggest mistake of his life when, evading Germans in pursuit, he diced into a corrugated Shed which promptly started getting peppered with holes from SMG's shooting it up, but he made it to the door the other side and got away without a scratch. He was on the Dieppe Raid too, and a sniper was causing problems with the attempted evacuation, so Humph got sent ashore to deal with him. Resulting in what he described as the oddest experience he had in the War, as after Shooting the Sniper, he recognised him, as one of the guys he was in Dartmouth Navy College with when he first joined the Navy. I tried to encourage him to write a book about his WW2 experiences, as it would be an incredible read. Bob. 👍
Its worth noting how far ahead the Royal Navy were in carrier design, construction and operations than most other navies. Hydraulic catapults and arrester gear on a through deck carrier in 1937!
Don't forget the armoured decks! American carriers had wooden decks, vulnerable to kamikaze attacks, the RN carriers in the Pacific fared significantly better!
@@PercyPruneMHDOIFandBars Indeed so! As HMS Victorious proved in 1943 when she was loaned to the US Navy and became USS ROBIN . And of course as the 6 Fleet carriers and 4 Light Carriers of the British Eastern Fleet in 1944/5 particularly showed against the Kamikaze you mentioned. None were sunk.
@@PercyPruneMHDOIFandBars US carriers carried far more aircraft than British carriers and they were designed for the Pacific not the Atlantic theater, different carriers for the type of warfare they would most likely face.
@@tommatt2skidifference is us has the industrial to build more but RN has more experience and built multi purpose roles in every theatre.
Another very informative video, many thanks . The Capt saved his biggest asset, the entire crew bar the loss of one casualty, a tremendous achievement with no communications. However, with all that air power available, why no air reconissance was not constantly patrolling known danger zones and despite sub activity warnings are sadly prime contributing factors in her loss. Naval atchitects are the third, modern petrochemical risk based designs ask "What if" and mitigate the problem. Shame nobody thought of that during her design.
Exactly, ships are just steel welded together with technology bolted onto them.
They're easy to replace.
Trained sailors are not.
I'm not sure CAP (Combat Air Patrol) would have helped, they can only attack a known target, they can't scout for it when submerged.
That's what Jackie's Destroyers are for, locating, relaying and attacking subs.
Of course, once located you can cue a flight of torpedo bombers to attack it.
The real mistake was assuming the contact heard by the Destroyer was friendly. And that's why lessons like this tend to be written in blood.
You always _always_follow up a contact until you _know_ what you've found.
Sadly, this very same mistake was made at the start of the Falklands and HMS Sheffield and some of her crew paid the ultimate price.
It might have been the loss of a valuable asset. But the sailors lives were the most important and its a highlight that nearly every crew member was saved from death that day.
Not really. You can train new sailors but you can't afford to build an aircraft carrier overnight.
Agreed. That carrier was valuable and well worth risking the crew's lives for.
@@viniciusdomenighi6439 Yes but those Sailors also take 18 years to be fully replaced. You are relying on winning the war of attrition by prioritizing Carrier over crew.
@@HRHooChicken Unless your one of them.
@@rob5944 yeah too right lol. That’s why I’m not a sailor.
Always seems darkest before the dawn, but this must have been a crazy dark moment for Britain.
Without this ship the rudders of the Bismarck would still be intact
Imagine if the Bismarck sunk Ark Royal
Thankfully that didn't happen.
Sure hope Ark Royal was sunk by Bismarck
Leider ein halbes Jahr zuspät Versenkt.
@ H G wie meinst du das
The ships cat was rescued too!
Origionally rescued from the sinking Bismark , then from that destroyer or cruiser sinking in western med!
It then lived out its days in Gibraltars Commissioners(?) residence!
Watching this while doing an air fix of this beautiful ship
i walked round the [later] Ark Royal when it was near Edinburgh on an open day in the 1970s. it had its own weekly newspaper i picked up a copy it was full of dos and donts but done in a humourous way
And do you happen to remember still that cat from the Bismarck?? Black Oscar avenged his first ship excellently. The spirit of AR carries on, by the way, in the hulls of all subsequent British carriers, including the two latest.
"Sir Bismarck i've avenged you"
Very nicely put together. Also watched your Audacious, Barham, Glorious and Courageous documentaries and the standard is high. One note regarding catapults: Ark Royal’s cats were hydraulic as were most other AC catapults until the invention and development by the British of the steam catapult In the early 1950s.
A very good presentation, thank you.
Thank you!
That was a good and succinct but comprehensive narrative: Thanks.
Glad you enjoyed it, thanks for the comment.
Ship can be replaced, an experienced crew will take 30 years to replace. Captain made the right call.
Yeah but waiting 46 minutes to start damage control and allowing a carrier to sink from one torpedo hit is a grave error. It’s not like getting hit by a torpedo is a completely unexpected phenomenon. Ships SOP and drills should have covered this and minimized the flooding. The ship most likely could have been saved. You can evacuate flight personnel and non essential personnel while allowing the rest of the crew to fight to save the ship. But I think the board was right to temper it’s judgement. It’s war, the enemy gets a vote.
@@Whitpusmc You are correct, but one thing I picked up on the Video was that after the Torpedo hit, they lost all communications on the ship. The Captain had to send runners. So that means he may not have had a real good picture of what was happening, and the info he was getting was always old, even by a few minutes, which can change things very rapidly.
@@BatMan-xr8gg A very good point. I’m strongest on why they were not better prepared to deal with the damage. I’m less strong on the decision to abandon ship given that lack of information and the knowledge he had that other ships had sunk so quickly.
Had the ship sunk faster I’m sure he would have received less censure.
You don't grow them from babies like some sort of cloning...
Especially with the numbers the Royal Navy had at the time, they could replace a crew in less time than it would take to build a replacement ship.
@@sergarlantyrell7847 But the war only lasted a few years, carriers take 2-3 years to design and build and outfit IF you have the shipyard space, materials and the manpower to build it. The British were always a few months at most from losing the war due to logistics of incoming supplies due to to U Boat loses. Risking (not throwing away) a select part of your crew to possibly save one of a very limited number of Carriers would have been an understandable decision as well.
So what was the Captains punishment? Captain McVay of the USS Indianapolis was courts martialed and convicted of not zig zag going his punishment was loss of 50 places on the promotion roster but Admiral Nimitz deleted that. He was promoted to Rear Admiral on his last duty day before retirement. He committed suicide after receiving hundreds of hate letters from his list crewmen. The survivers respected him.
The upper class are not punished in England
@@JesterEric You don't know what you ar talking about.
Nothing. He wasn't punished because the inquiry rightly found out that he saved his crew and design flaws would have seriously slowed if not fatally compromised DC efforts given the informationhe had available at the time. It's only with hindsight, and perfect conditions, that ideas for saving the Ark would have worked. But thankfully the deaths were at a minimum, a trained crew was saved for a new ship and vital information about Carrier design was found out.
@@JesterEric Actually, he was court-martialled and found guilty on two counts of negligence. He received no further sea command, but was appointed Director of Combined Operations, Middle East, in May, 1942, and received a Mention in Despatches (his third) in December 1943 for his role in Operation Husky. In August 1943, he was appointed Director of Combined Operations, India, based in Bombay. He was promoted to Rear Admiral in March, 1946, when he retired. He had two sons and a daughter. One son died aged three, and the other died in January, 1943, whilst serving with 821 Squadron, Fleet Air Arm, in Malta. He received the Distinguished Service Cross. He was 28 years old.
I was surprised given the other background information that Ark Royal's contribution to sinking Bismark was not mentioned. It's an obvious fact for those who know the history but there's many that don't.
It certainly gives an idea for another video. If I'd included that topic it would have become a much longer video in order to do it justice. Thank you for the suggestion though.
might I suggest the story on the Uboat and its captain? What came of them, did they survive the War?
@@dave8599 Friedrich Guggenberger (6 March 1915 - 13 May 1988) was credited with sinking 17 ships for a total of 66,848 gross register tons (GRT) and damaging another for 6,003 GRT between 11/1940 and his capture in 07/1943. For these achievements he received the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves, among other commendations.
After the war he became an architect before rejoining the Bundesmarine in 1956. From 5 August 1958 to 25 June 1959, he studied at the Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island, and rose to the rank of Konteradmiral. He became the Deputy Chief of Staff in the NATO command AFNORTH, and served there for four years. He retired in October 1972. He left his home on 13 May 1988 for a stroll in the forest, but never returned. His body was found two years later.
@@whiteknightcat "He retired in October 1972. He left his home on 13 May 1988 for a stroll in the forest, but never returned. His body was found two years later."
Oh, wow...I wonder how he died.
@@fishofgold6553 The world may never know.
Such wonderful presentation, narration and production! So few views... may the algorithm bring in many many more
Thank you very much for your kind words. I am still learning about the mysteries of the algorithm but there are signs that growth is happening. I'm looking forward to 2021 and a lot of video ideas I have.
@@TheNorthernHistorian here's to that! The quality of the content really deserves it. Thanks for the kind response and good luck
Welcome to 'The Northern Historian' Channel. I hope you enjoy this video and you could help me to produce more videos by Subscribing. Thanks very much.
Really interesting and detailed vid, good job, keep up the good work.
Thanks very much, appreciated.
Stumbled across this channel thanks to the algorithm. Sometimes they get it. Great Informative videos that are to the point of the subject. Another subscriber here.
Thanks very much, greatly appreciated.
Another good story. Thanks for uploading.
Glad you enjoyed it
I remember a pair of diesel back up generators, the engines simular to that powering giant train locomotives, on an upper deck on the carrier Hornet CV12. Hornet post dated the Ark Royal. An upper deck location is protected from flooding verses a lower position in the hull. Good set up. It isn't only about having a generator, its where you put it too. (Fukashima nuclear disaster had that problem, back up generators in a flooded basement caused the reactors to over heat, cause generators don't work when flooded!) Just like the Ark Royal Boilers did not like being flooded. Unfortunately, do to their height, boiler rooms are low in the hull.
Just a few points here.
-Ark Royal was the RNs first fleet carrier, as designed. All previous fleet carriers were conversions. At the time, only tiny, obsolete Hermes was designed originally as a carrier.
-Large number of aircraft is again, by British standards. She was designed to carry 72 aircraft, but the RN abandoned that figure even before Ark Royal was completed. In reality it was a design maximum 60.
-The 'revolutionary' additions to the design were new for the RN, not the world. American CV 1 Langley had arrestor gear, as did every other American carrier design. American carriers from at least CV 2 Lexington had catapults (I don't know a ton about Japanese carrier design, but I imagine it was the same for the IJN). If I remember correctly, arrestor gear was invented by a Brit and offered to the RN, but the RN was uninterested until much later.
-In naval engineering parlance, the Ark Royal's flight deck was her 'strength deck'. For American carriers, the strength deck was the hanger deck. Both designs had advantages and disadvantages.
-A huge advantage of Ark Royal over previous RN CV designs was Ark Royal's operational range, which was double that of Courageous.
-Yes, command incompetence was part of the reason why Ark Royal was lost. That damage control didn't begin for 40+ minutes is astonishing.
-Some known issues with the design were vibration problems and a lack of maneuverability.
-The sinking did reveal some design flaws that were eventually corrected in future (post-WW2) designs. Here there was poor watertightness, poor subdivision, cramped boiler intakes (around the double-hanger), a vulnerable communication system, and a lack of an auxiliary power system.
History at your fingertips, Great channel for history buffs & armchair historians.
Look forward to more content. Subscribed.
Thank you very much, I have more content in the planning stage which I will be producing really soon. Thanks for the sub!
L
@@TheNorthernHistorian ⁹0ioìp
What a shame such a beautiful ship, and so valuable an asset, had to withstand the indignity of being sunk by a sub (i hate them!). She's my favourite brit flattop, built on the philosophy that inspired the Yorktown class and all USA carriers: wide hangars, a lot of planes! As a boy, a lot of years ago, i used to wonder why the first batch of the Illustrious class ships were equipped with so few of them (their main weapon and their very raison d'étre) on a displacement that fairly exceeded that of the Yorks :-)) Keep up the good work NH, subbers will join in....well, i just did!
Thank you very much Riccardo, I'm so pleased you enjoyed our video. I'm grateful for your kind words and your sub. Have a great day!
Why do you hate the U-boat crew? They did their job as the brits did their job. They didn't expect the swordfish planes to drop candies instead of bombs either..
@@gosuc7340I don't! I simply dislike the very idea of a stealth small ship which can sink a majestic, large, beautiful capital ship. More than a century ago, the sub was deemed ‘underhand, unfair and damned un-English’ by Admiral Sir Arthur Wilson, then Controller of the Navy. I share this point of view and that's all. I immensely respect their crews!
@@Riccardo_Silva
I understand your View and know the attitude to U-boats since WW1 , but a polititian of the same country (Churchill) agreed 1943 in Casablanca together with Roosevelt to start an air-warfare especially against civilians. So this could be considered unfair as well.
I could hate them because this really is a war crime, but being realistic I must admit that there is no honorable way to kill the enemy, regardless which Country is concerned. Everything seems to be allowed, but only the looser will be blamed after the war for atrocities.Don't get me wrong, I am neither anti-american nor anti-british, I just try to accept what war is like.
If shipwide communications were cut within moments of the torpedo hit, comprehensive damage control would have been of limited help if not completely useless.
So sad to watch . My Dad was a chief PO on board for several years ,when she was part of Force H ( Renown and Sheffield .) but thankfully not at the sinking .
At least the name lived on to fight another day!
A first class work. Many thanks.👍👍👍
Glad you enjoyed it
I read that there was a second tug but it rendered no assistance and did not stay. I did a painting (from a paperback cover) in the mid seventies for someone, shewing one tug towing and the other just in the background.
My Grandad Wiliam Miller was a stoker on HMS Ark Royal.
Amazing that only one crew member died. USS Yorktown CV-5 was sunk 7 months later with the loss of 141 men.
When you consider the number of sailors that lost their lives in similar incidents throughout the war, it is amazing as you say.
Intresting story.Hindsight of course is a wonderful thing,maybe history will judge the Captain less harshly than at the time.Chaos,panic and a damaged vessel and the threat of further attack...Would have been a tough call..
He was not judged harshly at the time as the facts were established. A court Marshall of itself is not a judgment but a process.. In fact he went on to develop landing craft tactics and left the Navy as a rear Admiral in 1946.
Just stumbled upon this channel, Subscribed
Thanks for subbing
Great video I never knew the Captain of Ark Royal faced a Court-martial.
Thanks very much, glad you enjoyed it.
Happens whenever a ship is lost I think
Pretty much ANY captain of ANY navy who loses their ship faces Court Martial throughout all of history... so, not exactly unexpected.
@@aldrichbalnazzar8214 I think that is their cultural go-to in regards to every admiral who screws the pooch
@@w8stral tru heheehee
Excellent video. Love the details.
Glad you enjoyed the video. Thanks very much.
The painting shown at the beginning of the video is by Roger H. Middlebrook and called 'Operation Catapult'
I think it's a fantastic artwork.
The captain was done the right thing, he saved his crew first, the knocking out of switch board made internal communication system gone, very dangerous to send damage control team down there and time was running out.
To improve the damage control in the future the Royal Navy should redesign the engine and electric al power systems with redundancy system.
I completely agree with you.
I think it's fair to say that modern carriers such as the current Queen Elizabeth class have learned many lessons from their predecessors.
As shown, time was there. And 22 miles from base, could have been towed.
@@t_sixtyfivex_wing8787 This was part and parcel the DIRECT problem imposed by the London/Washington naval treaties which limited Carrier tonnage. There was effectively no possible way before the outbreak of WWII to build an aircraft carrier that could be armored against air/sub, have a large flight deck/hanger, have large gasoline storage/fuel storage for long range, and have excellent defensive firepower/damage control~ split Engine/boiler rooms with at least 2 comm/damage control stations bilge pumping stations, power distribution stations on existing allocated tonnage. True, you could build maybe ~2 such carriers but no navy was willing to do so as everyone saw the need for at least 4 to 6 carriers due to maintenance, training, station keeping etc. Of course there is still the crew training aspect which failed Ark Royal spectacularly here which exacerbated the flooding.
Man, these submarine crews are real heroes
Depends on what side you supported but I will say they were exceptionally brave men who were doing their duty as best they could. They have my respect.
It’s good to see that Captain Maund went on to have a very successful career, despite the loss of his ship. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loben_Maund
look at what happen to Eagle and Courageus when they were torpedoed each lost most of their crew when they went down! and we wont even mention Glorious i wonder if their capts had survive would they have been court martialed? and here we have the Capt of Arc Royal getting his entire crew off except for one! and he gets court martialed and found guilty! doesn't seem right what were the damage control standers and training like? or did they write a new book afterwards? 20/20 hind sight is always so clear!
Sorry but get your facts right. Yes he was Court Marshalled (as that is the process) but he was not found guilty at all. In fact he carried on serving as a senior officer and left the navy in 1946 as a Rear Admiral.
My grandfather was aboard when she was torpedoed
In 1944 much smaller American built escort carrier based on a merchant hull design HMCS Nabob manned by the Canadians was torpedoed at the vunerable stern part of the hull was saved by outstanding efforts of her crew , survived one of the worst storms on Northern Sea and returned to her base .
AR the navy standards designed and constructed warship should stand at least two torpedo hits but sunk on flat sea within sight of Gibraltar .
Damage control starts in the drawing office.
I could not agree more.
Thanks mate 👍🇳🇿
No problem 👍
My great grandad was an armourer on the ark royal he was 19 he has cds with the imperial war museum his name was Roy Stevens
This Ark Royal did not have steam catapults.They were introduced on her successor in 1955.
Yes, I made that error during my research and acknowledged it in an earlier comment. I believe they launch system on this ship was compressed air and not steam. Apologies. Thanks for the comment.
@@TheNorthernHistorian that's ok mate, I enjoyed the video, keep them up.
@@davidbirt8486 Thanks very much....glad you enjoyed it.
I thought she broke into after she sank.
Good video.
Thank you.
Very informative video.
Glad you liked it
Bismarck would be proud.
My Grandfather Gabriel Charles Sekles was the second to last man to leave the ship he was the Chief Shipwright his job was to try to save the
Ship
A very brave man.
Interesting.
Well done sir.
Thank you very much, greatly appreciated.
I may have missed it in the commentary.... What happened to the aircraft above and below deck?
I'm afraid they all went down with the ship
What do you think?
It a hard learning process for damage control
Her captain is very good leader the Aircraft carrier is not very expensive.
amazing for a knew channal well done
Thank you very much for your lovely comment Katherine. Happy New Year to you!
Same week the hmas Sydney went down
Should of had 3 planes circling the ship at all times doing sub/ torpedo watch that sub never would have gotten close enough if they did that
And I wonder what would have happened if the other ships had started dropping depth charges the moment the noise of German U-Boat was detected.
Very well done, although the narrator does NOT sound like a Texan
Thanks, but why would I sound like a Texan?
If you pause at 4:33. Can anyone explain to me, what those dirty stain like marks all over the forward part of the hull were caused by? Was the torpedo explosion strong enough to scar the hull like that even though it hit amidship? Or are the stains from something else or because at that stage in the war, she was already very grubby from operations?
I would imagine that it was the latter. She would have become very grubby and the marks are probably rust stains from sailing through heavy seas. I remember watching a video recently of the British Task Force returning from the Falkands campaign in 1982 and remarking how rusty and grubby they looked. I suppose the South Atlantic would have that effect. I suspect that if the picture of Ark Royal was in colour, there may well be a tint of rusty red.
Simply deterioration in her paintwork after being active more or less constantly for many months. During Ark's short but hectic career, her motto was entirely appropriate :-
Desire n'a pas Repos: 'Desire has no rest'
Guess U-81 avenged Bismarck.
So unusual for a commanding officer to be like bugger the ship I’m going to get my men to safety.
What is the opening music's name used for this video?
It's called Skyfall by Edgar Hopp. I use the Epidemic Sound website for my music.
@@TheNorthernHistorian Thank You.
By the beggining of 1942,3 of the 4 british aircraft carriers were on the bottom of the ocean.
The commentary is taken word for word from Wikipedia.
Hi Anthony. This video was created and uploaded in 2020, right at the start of my channel when I was still learning how to make videos. Your point was mentioned back then and since then I have developed my script writing ability. For some reason the UA-cam algorithm is pushing out my really old videos.
"you can't say they're not trying to help us"
Ngl, The Capt. Did indeed get a bit panicky
OK, the photo at 3:38 , did someone _really_ stop to take photos or have you just canted a stock photo over to starboard?
It's a genuine photo, easily found online
@@TheNorthernHistorian
So somebody actually stopped to take photos.
"point fifty inch machine guns" lmao
Call me a dreamer but quite often I have wondered why some creative thinking might have got the Ark Royal to Gib. On the front flight deck were 5 Swordfish with 1000HP aircooled engines. That combined 5000HP surely could have been used to help drag this carrier along. Also, the tow line broke and was difficult to re-attach. Could the tug not have push the carrier? Finally what about the destroyer that tied up alongside to provide electrical power? Why did it not do a bit of pulling as well?
Wish our modern air craft carriers QE and PoW had more armament x2 CIWS not enough.
Nice one thank you (:
So 1941 Ark royal had sinked?
She was not equipped with steam catapults, as they were not invented and introduced until the 1950's.
Yes, that was pointed out to me not long after publishing the video. I was meaning to say compressed air. Thanks for the comment Mark
I think Dec must have missed Ant whilst making this video.
O compensatie buna pentru bismark.
the sonar was an asdic at that time
Those nasty uboats sneaking into
The med
A suitable submarine net
Spread from gib to african coast
Could have kept them out
Here we are 80 years later and you know better than Brit Navel officers of the time.
An anti-submarine net across the straight? FFS. That would have kept our own submarines out as well - and what strategic good, pray tell, would that have achieved?
@@feliscorax
Maybe a fairer form of warfare
Rather than sneaky attacks without being seen
Modern warfare has changed the
Ship to ship contact
Upto ww1 before submarines were
Used
Surface vessels engaged each other
Sometimes in close contact
Trafalgar. Nile Copenhagen
Spanish ramada
War of 1812 against usa
Roman Greek Persian
And so on the list is endless
But times change aircraft took over
So merely an academic exercise
This just goes to show that in war ultimately there are no winners. Bismarck sinks Hood, Ark Royal (and others) sink Bismarck, U81 sinks Ark Royal, USAAF sinks U81.
Wow that is crazy! Just 1 torpedo sunk the ship! And btw didn't the British carrier have a armored deck and extra armor on the sides incase of a torpedo attack? The American carriers took multiple torpedoes before sinking! I wonder what was the difference between the two and why did the British carrier sink from only the one torpedo? Just curious!
She was designed and built under the conditions of the Washington Naval Treaty which limited tonnage. There is no single reason why she sank after one hit but it's fair to say that there would have been a number of trade offs during her construction to get as big a ship as possible but keeping within the weight restrictions.
im not trying to be a smartass but i think only if the flooding are patch up before it got worse and before hms glorius came maybe it might be escorted back and be repaired to fight another day or months coz of the maintenance lol
@@charlesaguinaldo4251 yeah I'm blown away that they didn't try harder to save the ship! It's crazy that one torpedo sunk it! Other aircraft carriers have had multiple torpedoe strikes and still lived to fight another day! Why didn't the captain act sooner and why didn't they pump it out when it was happening! They said something about no generators but there had to be emergency generators! I don't know but it's just crazy!
@@williamoleschoolarendt7016 Y'all are forgetting that comm was lost. Without an effective comm system, damage control becomes problematic, if not futile.
YOU MAKE SINK THE SHIP BUT YOU WILL NEVER SINK SAM!
The sinking of HMS t' Ark Royal 1941 ;)
😀
Court Martial was a waste of time. They should have investigated why a single torpedo was able to sink a fleet carrier.
She lies not far from were I live and is still in fair condition.
Could an illustrious stand this?
Thankfully, Hms Illustrious never suffered the same sort of attack. The Illustrious class of carriers were not a huge amount different in basic design, but for an extra hanger deck and improved armour and defences. If the hull had been breached in a similar fashion then who knows how she would have faired. Like I say, we'll never know as it never happened to her.
I think that Ark herself could, if it weren't for the less than adequate orders the damage control parties were given. I hope NH will agree with me about this.
Whilst it is easy to consider the charges brought at court martial relating to damage control parties and effectiveness of orders as well as having the ship in more 'readied state' for the possibility of serious damage, it is perhaps fair to say that the charges were probably taken from those that would be applied to a 'regular' ship such as a cruiser or destroyer. The fact that this was a huge new type of vessel, untried in time of war let alone to suffer such huge damage meant that Capt Maunde may be forgiven for not going entirely by the standard rule book. The fact that the boiler room went across the full beam of the hull, exacerbating the listing as well as having no standby emergency generators to power the pumps, may have doomed her. If the Capt had issued more standard orders, he may have extended her life but may not have stopped the final result. I think where Capt Maunde should be praised is that there was only one fatality. It is a very interesting topic for debate, don't you agree?
@@TheNorthernHistorian absolutely it is... I'd submit it to Drach! Of course i agree about the practical absence of fatalities being a very important achievement of Capt. Maunde (being the only fatality a direct consequence of the torpedo hit he had no whatever responsability in it) but, and as a pacifist i'm playing the devil's advocate role here, as a military high ranking officer IMVHO he should have tried harder to save the ship.. This is no Cressy class armored cruiser whose loss the Admiralty would have deemed less important than that of the crew. Think of it: had she had a full complement of modern aircraft and modern tactical doctrines, which of course in 1940 were still to come, she can be considered the most powerful warship afloat in atlantic/european waters at this stage of the war.
@@TheNorthernHistorian Pretty much the reason for the poor below water line damage control, no split boiler/engine rooms, no 2nd communication backup system, no auxilarry power diesel generators etc was the London/Washington naval treaties which limited tonnage allocation to carriers. It should be noted that all of these systems were added when Illustrious class was refitted out in the UK/US in 1942/1943 at different points to as much as was possible to fix. Pretty much every single carrier of WWII era was crippled in some manner or other due to these treaties. To be fair, I think the UK made the correct decision at the time as the most likely form of damage was going to be bombs from air and the armored deck showed up brilliantly in the Med for the most part. As it turns out, torpedoes throughout WWII, in all theaters were the greater threat to the Ship itself whereas bombs creating fire was the greater threat to human life. Hrmm, pick your poison eh?
Isn’t ark royal in service now? 🤔
Nope last one was scrapped I think 2015 the two carriers in service or at least built inprince of Wales and queen Elizabeth but we will get another ark royal
The name of ships often continues but the Ark Royal of recent times wasn't the Ark Royal of WW II.
Hundido en Estepona
You are reading almost word for word from the Wikipedia page. I had 2 screens open and could see the article from Wikipedia and listen to your talking.
Sadly, the damage control was not well executed, actually done far too late. Especially after she was not the first RN carrier to be damaged or sunk. Someone dropped the ball, big time. It's a shame.