Can you amend the story. The battlecruiser lineage was I believe the Invincible class, followed by the Indefatigable class. Indomitable was a sister of the Invincible. Other than that it was a good presentation.
Thank you. You are correct. I'm not sure why I said Indomitable instead of Indefatigable. I didn't catch that error when reviewing either. Edit: the photo at the start of the video correctly shows Indefatigable.
Nice video These ships get unfairly treated mainly due to the explosion of Queen Mary at Jutland. What too few appreciate was this was mainly due to poor propellant and the the collection of cordite micro dust due to charges being taken out and put back into their protective cases as the BCF could not actually fire their guns due to their anchorage at Rosyth. Again, very often overlooked facts is Seydlitz very nearly suffered a magazine detonation at Dogger Bank due to poor shell handling practices in the German Navy (why does everyone 'conveniently' forget that?) which the British then foolishly adopted. It seems we are not allowed to point out flaws in German ships and practices. At Jutland Lion, Princess Royal and Tiger took nearly as many BB level hits as the overpraised 2nd class Battleship Seydlitz yet the next day they were still at sea, still battle worthy and looking to renew the fight while the HSF ran for home with it's tail well and truly kicked. Seydlitz actually hit the sea floor before it got back to harbor (which counts as SUNK! due to progressive flooding caused by battle damage in my book) and was later salvaged and put back into service much like the US Battleships after Pearl Harbor.
11 днів тому+2
the problem with LION was not a magazine " explosion " , but a fire in the powder handling spaces below the gun house. the investigations of the 3 battle cruiser sinkings found that these were due to the poor powder handling practices by the crews , in order to have faster times between shots. when a german 12" round hit the center turret of LION , it blew the roof off and ignited the non-secured powder bags which flashed down the barbette. you can read about this or see an entry on you tube.
At no point did I say Lion suffered a magazine explosion. I said it nearly did. The loss of the battlecruisers at Jutland is more complicated than just poor powder handling practices. It was not the sole issue the RN found during their inquiries and the redesign of Hood supports the fact that there were indeed design issues with the ships. I do intend to make a video covering the full story of the inquiry findings and not just part of it as is commonly given.
Given how well the Kongo class lasted, if not for the London Naval Treaty these should've been saved from scrapping. Good fast ships with reasonable survivability. Notably didn't blow up when hit a few times...most of the time.
I think the successors to the Invincibles (well, not really) were called *Indefatigable* class. Indomitable was the third ship of the Invincible class.
I always thought they should have suppressed the middle turret and modernized them to a standard similar to the HMS Renown. If the same was done to Tiger she would have then resembled her half sisters! They would resemble Renown a 15 inch ship giving confusion to the enemy. They could have acted as escorts to aircraft carriers.
Wasn't the Indefatigable class in practice an even worse ( lighter) armoured continuance of the Invicibles... Invincibles were great for their designated task (like in the Falklands), but really poor for what they were used for during Jutland... Btw, big fan of the Invincibles... Thank you for the video
sorry for skipping the ad. hopefully these squiggles will help the algo-deities of the tube'y'all sit up...(hmmmm do they have haunches?) perk up their collective... sensors, and take notice.
I don’t think skipping the ads does too much for the ad revenue. Although they are doing some very annoying stuff with AI translations during the video.
Lion was poorly designed. Q turret, and its magazine, was stuck in the middle of the machinery. This resulted in a restricted arc of fire and overheating of the powder in the magazine. I have been informed that the reason for this is because the design was a "rush job". I don't see that this as an acceptable excuse for such a bad design. Even if it was a "rush job" that does not excuse Queen Mary having the same turret layout even though it was started two years later than the Lion class.
@@richardcutts196 I'm not certain how the Q turrets placement make the design poor considering most capital ships followed that arrangement at the time. I'll provide some background to it in this case. As discussed in the video, Lion was created from Orion's design, the first 13.5in battleship with a centerline arrangement. Orion had 10 guns in 5 turrets, with 2 super firing pairs and a single turret amidship. In the case of Lion, having the same armament would have resulted in a slightly larger, but more expensive ship as discussed in the video. So, it was decided to mount only 8 guns in 4 turrets. It was decided that having the rear turrets separated was necessary for a few reasons. 1) Bulkhead arrangements 2) target dispersion. 3) blast effects To expand on point 2, having both the bow and stern turrets super firing was considered dangerous because a super firing arrangement provided the possibility that 2 turrets could be knocked out on one hit, which did happen, notably on Seydlitz at dogger bank. Separating the after turrets ensured that there was 'a larger target' for the enemy to focus without greatly diminishing the Lion's offensive capability. As for the heating of magazines, that could be a threat, but generally wasn't. Lion, like most ships of its time, had machinery for cooling the magazines. At no point would the magazines exceed 70°F, providing a safety margin. Tiger would improve upon the same concept by completely rearranging the ship's internals allowing for the after turrets to be spaced, but to place all boiler rooms ahead of Q turret. The sole reason for the rearrangement was because the expected position of the after torpedo room required a new bulkhead arrangement. A plus was a greater arc of fire for Q turret (240° on Queen Mary compared to 300° on Tiger). It was not a rushed job, but decisions made to fulfill multiple requirements and technological limitations of the time.
Can you amend the story. The battlecruiser lineage was I believe the Invincible class, followed by the Indefatigable class. Indomitable was a sister of the Invincible. Other than that it was a good presentation.
Thank you.
You are correct. I'm not sure why I said Indomitable instead of Indefatigable. I didn't catch that error when reviewing either.
Edit: the photo at the start of the video correctly shows Indefatigable.
God only knows where those seven missing designs wound up; fuel for speculation, definitely.
Thanks for posting!
Nice video
These ships get unfairly treated mainly due to the explosion of Queen Mary at Jutland.
What too few appreciate was this was mainly due to poor propellant and the the collection of cordite micro dust due to charges being taken out and put back into their protective cases as the BCF could not actually fire their guns due to their anchorage at Rosyth.
Again, very often overlooked facts is Seydlitz very nearly suffered a magazine detonation at Dogger Bank due to poor shell handling practices in the German Navy (why does everyone 'conveniently' forget that?) which the British then foolishly adopted. It seems we are not allowed to point out flaws in German ships and practices.
At Jutland Lion, Princess Royal and Tiger took nearly as many BB level hits as the overpraised 2nd class Battleship Seydlitz yet the next day they were still at sea, still battle worthy and looking to renew the fight while the HSF ran for home with it's tail well and truly kicked.
Seydlitz actually hit the sea floor before it got back to harbor (which counts as SUNK! due to progressive flooding caused by battle damage in my book) and was later salvaged and put back into service much like the US Battleships after Pearl Harbor.
the problem with LION was not a magazine " explosion " , but a fire in the powder handling spaces below the gun house. the investigations of the 3 battle cruiser sinkings found that these were due to the poor powder handling practices by the crews , in order to have faster times between shots. when a german 12" round hit the center turret of LION , it blew the roof off and ignited the non-secured powder bags which flashed down the barbette. you can read about this or see an entry on you tube.
At no point did I say Lion suffered a magazine explosion. I said it nearly did.
The loss of the battlecruisers at Jutland is more complicated than just poor powder handling practices. It was not the sole issue the RN found during their inquiries and the redesign of Hood supports the fact that there were indeed design issues with the ships. I do intend to make a video covering the full story of the inquiry findings and not just part of it as is commonly given.
Given how well the Kongo class lasted, if not for the London Naval Treaty these should've been saved from scrapping. Good fast ships with reasonable survivability. Notably didn't blow up when hit a few times...most of the time.
I think the successors to the Invincibles (well, not really) were called *Indefatigable* class. Indomitable was the third ship of the Invincible class.
I always thought they should have suppressed the middle turret and modernized them to a standard similar to the HMS Renown. If the same was done to Tiger she would have then resembled her half sisters! They would resemble Renown a 15 inch ship giving confusion to the enemy. They could have acted as escorts to aircraft carriers.
America 1st .... maga baby maga 👍
Wasn't the Indefatigable class in practice an even worse ( lighter) armoured continuance of the Invicibles...
Invincibles were great for their designated task (like in the Falklands), but really poor for what they were used for during Jutland...
Btw, big fan of the Invincibles...
Thank you for the video
sorry for skipping the ad.
hopefully these squiggles will help the algo-deities of the tube'y'all
sit up...(hmmmm do they have haunches?) perk up their collective...
sensors, and take notice.
I don’t think skipping the ads does too much for the ad revenue. Although they are doing some very annoying stuff with AI translations during the video.
Lion was poorly designed. Q turret, and its magazine, was stuck in the middle of the machinery. This resulted in a restricted arc of fire and overheating of the powder in the magazine. I have been informed that the reason for this is because the design was a "rush job". I don't see that this as an acceptable excuse for such a bad design. Even if it was a "rush job" that does not excuse Queen Mary having the same turret layout even though it was started two years later than the Lion class.
@@richardcutts196 I'm not certain how the Q turrets placement make the design poor considering most capital ships followed that arrangement at the time. I'll provide some background to it in this case.
As discussed in the video, Lion was created from Orion's design, the first 13.5in battleship with a centerline arrangement. Orion had 10 guns in 5 turrets, with 2 super firing pairs and a single turret amidship. In the case of Lion, having the same armament would have resulted in a slightly larger, but more expensive ship as discussed in the video. So, it was decided to mount only 8 guns in 4 turrets. It was decided that having the rear turrets separated was necessary for a few reasons.
1) Bulkhead arrangements
2) target dispersion.
3) blast effects
To expand on point 2, having both the bow and stern turrets super firing was considered dangerous because a super firing arrangement provided the possibility that 2 turrets could be knocked out on one hit, which did happen, notably on Seydlitz at dogger bank. Separating the after turrets ensured that there was 'a larger target' for the enemy to focus without greatly diminishing the Lion's offensive capability.
As for the heating of magazines, that could be a threat, but generally wasn't. Lion, like most ships of its time, had machinery for cooling the magazines. At no point would the magazines exceed 70°F, providing a safety margin.
Tiger would improve upon the same concept by completely rearranging the ship's internals allowing for the after turrets to be spaced, but to place all boiler rooms ahead of Q turret. The sole reason for the rearrangement was because the expected position of the after torpedo room required a new bulkhead arrangement. A plus was a greater arc of fire for Q turret (240° on Queen Mary compared to 300° on Tiger).
It was not a rushed job, but decisions made to fulfill multiple requirements and technological limitations of the time.
I always thought they were ugly ships. Never could understand the mid-turret layout. The positioning of the foretop behind the funnel...🙄
SWELL