HMS Glorious: WWI Battlecruiser to Aircraft Carrier Conversion | Tragedy and Controversy Unveiled
Вставка
- Опубліковано 20 тра 2021
- HMS Glorious: WWI Battlecruiser to Aircraft Carrier Conversion | Tragedy and Controversy Unveiled
Dive into the riveting story of HMS Glorious, a WWI Battlecruiser transformed into a pioneering UK Aircraft Carrier. Uncover the journey from Battlecruiser to Carrier and the dramatic events during the Norwegian Campaign in 1940.
Warship Transformation | Courageous Class Cruiser to Aircraft Carrier
Explore the evolutionary shift of HMS Glorious, originally a 'large light cruiser' of the Courageous Class, playing a crucial role in the Second Battle of Heligoland Bight. Witness her conversion into an aircraft carrier post-WWI to comply with the 1922 Washington Naval Treaty.
Norwegian Campaign Drama | Scharnhorst, Gneisanau, and the Tragic Homecoming
Follow the wartime saga as HMS Glorious engages in the Norwegian Campaign, ferrying troops and aircraft amidst German invasion. The fateful journey home, escorted by a destroyer, ends in tragedy, with over a thousand lives lost to the German battleships Scharnhorst and Gneisanau.
Sinking Controversy | Legacy of HMS Glorious
Delve into the aftermath as we unravel the controversial sinking, the urgent Court Martial of the captain, and the lingering questions that persist. Join us on a poignant historical exploration of a warship that witnessed the ebb and flow of history.
Like, Share, and Subscribe for more Captivating Naval History!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments are always welcome and I try to respond to as many as possible.
Please keep the comments polite and respectful.
I reserve the right to remove any comments that breach these guidelines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Music Credits
Epidemic Sound.com
Get a 30 Day FREE Trial of awesome music using this link.
www.epidemicsound.com/referra...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Northern Historian on Social Media
Facebook
/ thenorthernhistorian
Instagram
/ northern_historian
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Credits & Attributions
creativecommons.org/licenses/... - Розваги
Kenneth Cross and Patrick Jameson were the only 2 men who survived, that brought planes from Norway to the HMS Glorious. All the rest of them were lost. Cyril Carter was the only survivor of the HMS Acasta. Roger Hooke was the only survivor of the HMS Ardent, one man died after rescue. Another HMS Ardent was sunk during the Falklands war.
PLEASE READ: I'm not sure how it happened but I seem to have mistakenly inserted an image of HMS Duke of York into this video during the WW1 period. I do apologise.
The findings of the British Admiralty Board of Enquiry was sealed until 2041, a staggering full century after the ships were sunk. No doubt it was done to ensure no surviving spouses and children of those who died serving their country lived to know the true causes of the tragedy. These people deserved much better.
Completely agree
disgusting that this is done to cover the "honor" of men who probably don't deserve it
@@mikepette4422 Hey ? well suppose Cunningham didn't care about orders, or even had orders to radio in if it not at immediate risk.. Suppose he didnt know who was onboard.. or that he only had his own crew on board. he was one ship and could not out run the germans ... If he radioed in, they would know to find him and chase him. He had to maintain radio silence to save his ship ? It was always the case that a large navy ship was worth more than all the people... look at HMS Hood.. sinking the Bismarck was worth more than saving HMS Hood AND its crew... thats how they valued ships.And then , consider he also had 1000 people to save... should he put them at risk for the chance of rescuing the 1000 from the HMS Glorious ? If they announce they are going to the rescue (germans would easily assume the radio traffic was due to the incident... ) , then the rescue will be interrupted by Germans ! On shore, they might have never mentioned the 1000 in the water after abandoning ship. The crew of USS Juneau were also forgotten.. they just forgot to send in the catalinas, more worried about sending the catalinas after submarines.
That’s obviously what they were doing and it’s disgusting. A democratic gov shouldn’t operate that way - end of.
All govt. Is Slavery...
My. Such a great visual portrayal and, moreover, possibly the best narration I've ever heard. You've conveyed the intricacies of her Service superbly. Very well done indeed.
Thank you very much Neil, much appreciated.
Yes, I totally agree...and non-judgmental. A brave man totally in the wrong place at the wrong time, unprepared and thrust into this new type of war, rather like those who commanded him.
Fairer Swordfish would not have arrived in 1933, because volume production did not begin until 1936.
First flight: 17 April 1934
Retired: 21 May 1945
Produced: 1936-1944
By the way, despite its looks the the STOL Swordfish was the closest thing to a helicopter that existed at the time. Able to operate in rough weather that stopped faster aircraft from flying.
No lookout
no combat air patrol
Sailing without major escorts
The captain was so incompetent
Other scenario. It took only one hit from one torpedo of a lousy 'Stringbag' and it crippled the almighty Bismarck... These three of five ready for action on Glorious should have kept ready all the time for the crossing and sent to the air when the alarm bells rang for the firts time. It might have helped.
12:42 a painful lesson in losing an aircraft carrier so easily. For the Kriegsmarine it was such a massive victory.
Even worse, they lost a carrier to the very types of ships the carrier rendered obsolete, entirely because of gross negligence (not bothering to check where the enemy was).
Great narration. Fascinating historical footage. Glad I subscribed!!!!!
Awesome, thank you!
Excellent video. Thank you
Glad you liked it!
Just luv a well detailed put together Doc , well done .
Thanks
great , many thanks , really enjoyed that
Glad you enjoyed it
Thank you Northern Historian.
Excellent Video : )
Brilliant video as always. Thank you (:
Glad you enjoyed it!
She last longer than her sister courageous which was sunk not long after hostilities started and furious had quite a long career and survived the war
Great work. Love it.
Thank you! Cheers!
Love this guy! The videos are so well put together. Concise and accurate.....from a soft Southerner!
Glad you like them! Very kind.....for a southerner😉
Excellent history and narration.
⭐⭐⭐⭐Excellent..tons of information about hms glorious early days to her final demise👍..really sad thought so much soul have been taken away 😞
Thank you for your comment.
Bismarck famously said that if a British army landed on the Baltic coast, "They would be arrested by the police."
Really a great job. i'd never heard any of the details of this fight. thanks for the ships history and avoidable end.
Glad you enjoyed it
Really good video, thank you.
Glad you liked it!
I had always thought that the Glorious was Built in the 30s but there is always something new to learn.
No the First World War ended in 1918.
A fascinating tale.
It has to be said, the German gunnery was exceptionally accurate and quickly too. On another day, I think Glorious gets to launch some aircraft and manages to evade? Regarding Devonshire.... well, what could she have done but stay out of it.
Glorious should have had recon up
@@zzirSnipzz1 And attack the germans to sink both Glorious and Devonshire ??? the mission was transit the ocean inconspicuously. Its very bad luck to have been sighted by the german raiders. they were on a suicide mission , remember. They ought to have remained inconspicuous too. These ships returning to UK were not worth that much... it was convoys going east that were the more valuable target. They should have been finding convoys going east not bothering with isolated ships going west... it was thought. In hindsite ,we know that they were identified and chased... before hand, you would think it wasnt the expected thing. The germans see one vessel going west... one ? "wheres the convoy ? lets go find a convoy going east...maybe its the RN going east to save Norway ? "
@@isilder nah british battleships hood et al were near greenland bizarre considering the conflict in norway
@@isilder mate if you had recon up it let's you spot ships and avoid them, hence saving a perfectly good carrier
To me the real controversy should be sending out a carrier with a pitiful escort just so you can get a court martial done faster.
Indeed. Britain has a long history of favouring incompetent, upper class officers over it's actual well trained servicemen
this is a great video/lesson for those who thing 'the end of the battle/surface ship' was because of air power. It is all a matter of- 1 who sees who first and 2 who is ready to strike first. a tough lesson learned and over 1,200 men paid for it.
Excellent. The captain of Glorious appears to have been incompetent.
His decisions can certainly be questioned. No quick reaction alert, no airborne patrols, no lookouts while sailing in waters where the enemy is operating.
Incompetent is an understatement.first mistake was putting a Sub skipper on the bridge of a carrier.It snowballed from there.
Duh. Ya think?
So your defending this guy?
The tradition of incompetent RN officers continues
Basic CAP or even simple aerial recon around Glorious could have prevented this tragedy. Hell, the Capt. didn't even have basic, Mark-1 eyeballs on the Spotting/Recon Bridge. Utter incompetence got over 1200 brave men killed for nothing.
Nope. Its not likely that recon would find the enemy ships, in the expanse of the ocean. Look at hard it is to find a ship when you know its there to be found. AND, the airplanes give away the presence of the carrier, which would be a major target ... It was meant to be keeping a low profile... trying to look inconspicuous. Not stopping to give the enemy a better chance to target it (eg submarine was a very big fear.) The main fiasco is the ENTIRE Norway thing. But its all academic. Who can know how much trouble Russia would have with Germany.. why would Britian be thinking about defending Norway before hand ? Sweden, Finland, Netherlands should have protected Denmark and Norway. Swedish Neutrality was essentially supporting Germany. You can't be neutral.. Sweden being neutral meant that Norway couldnt be protected....
@@isilder Instead of talking about Swedish neutrality and all the other hypotheticals, let's stick to the decisions made by the men in charge of the ships. Not sure where you heard that an airplane would have been useless in discovering the German battleships. Aircraft are far, FAR better at spotting ships "in the expanse of the ocean" than a pair of eyeballs from a crows nest. Your argument is completely fallacious. Aircraft can see well beyond the horizon relative to ships on the surface. As soon as navies figured out how to launch planes from their ships, they were equipping most larger ships with a catapult and reconnaissance aircraft.
@Moist Mike: You are right. The fellow below (LeonG) doesn't understand carrier tactics. Scouting is a primary mission for a carrier. Spotting enemy ships from the air is a part of that mission and is not difficult. LeonG's idea that scout aircraft might give away the carrier's presence is foolish. Glorious was sailing alone and having its scouting planes stowed away was incompetent. The Captain hisself was a submariner who somehow got the job captaining a carrier. He didn't know what he was doing.
@@deepcosmiclove Thanks dclove. In his defense, I'm thinking Leon may be the reincarnated spirit of a turn-of-the-century ship captain (20th century, that is).
the first offcier should had releived him for that alone
Just found yourexcellent channel Thanks.
Awesome, thank you!
Interesting. I had never heard of this incident before now.
It is new to me as well. Bad press suppressed perhaps?
Me three. And i suspect we are all veterans of WW 2 history. Very odd for an incident with such horrible loss of life.
Perhaps its embarrassing for the Brits as Glorious was not ready for combat and no signal was sent and all. They would rather not talk about it.
It's my understanding that the flight deck was crowded with aircraft with the intension of bringing back as many planes as possible, especially the Hurricanes. The hanger deck was full of aircraft especially the Hurricanes. The crowded flight deck did not allow any aircraft to take off because of insufficient deck length. The only plane capable of attacking the battleships was the venerable Swordfish if it had the deck space. Had it enough space for a long enough take off run with a torpedo it would still not be possible as the captain had ordered the torpedo heads removed and stowed in the magazine. This was to quicken the time it took to transition the ship to harbour status and thus to allow the captain to be relieved of his obligation to have the ship comply with shore based protocols. This would relieve him of his duty to ensure the vessel was in a safe condition to be in port. Thus it would allow him to hasten to his Court Marshal and complete his vendetta.
Thanks for a great video. I have subscribed and look forward to more interesting subjects.
No. Glorious had been chosen to receive the Hurricanes because she had wider lifts than Ark Royal and was able to strike them below, which is what happened.
The fact was that Glorious was being used as a ferry carrier, rather than an operational one, and most of her air group had been left behind. She only carried a handful of Swordfish (five or six, I believe) and Sea Gladiators. Moreover, most of the Swordfish were fitted with bomb rather than torpedo racks, and there was no time to re-arm them.
This does not, of course, justify the failure to have reconnaissance aircraft aloft, to be on the safe side, even if this only involved a couple of Stringbags.
First comment!! Great vid, loving these indepth looks at specific events and ships.
Congrats on being first comment!!!! And thanks for the comment!
ah these boys know how to pick the right music for their videos. One of my favourite war songs.
Nicely done video, informative and easy to follow. Am appreciative of you providing both 'feet; and 'meter' measurements too
Thanks. In my early videos I received a number of comments from my international audience to include both.
I really enjoy this videos and ww2 history.
A potential secondary effect of this Captain’s incompetence is that later in the war the Admiralty sent the _HMS Prince of Wales_ and the _HMS Repulse_ on a plainly stupid mission to deter Japanese aggression in the Pacific. Both were blown to bits by Japanese bombers and torpedo bombers while trying to stop the invasion of Singapore. They were helpless against them. If the _HMS Glorious_ had been available and sent in place or as backup to those ships the outcome would’ve been different. Hell, they might’ve even succeeded ruining the Japanese invasion of Singapore.
HMS Indomitable was supposed to do that but ran aground. It was a political decision to send a deterrent force, the admiralty was against it. But something had to be done to convince Australia that the Empire would defend it when most of the australian troops where fighting in north africa.
@@gildor8866 It was a sad decision. I mean really, what was Australia going to do if the ships weren't sent? Secede? 1942 Britain was barely holding on and sending 2 measly battleships wasn't going to do anything. The only excuse for Britain on it was it was plausible at the time that _maybe_ the Japanese were bluffing. Well anyways, it's all conjecture.
@@EricDaMAJ Australia was a dominion and as such could have recalled its troops from north Africa to defend Australia. They actually did recall one of their divisions (IIRC it was the 5th) which was enroute to Africa. Only the promise of US-troops stopped them from recalling all other troops.
@@gildor8866 And that itself was kind of silly. You ain't gonna defend Australia with one measly division or even two. Especially if you have no navy to back them up. But again, it's all conjecture. I make no claims to omniscience.
@@EricDaMAJ it's mainly stupid in retrospect. at the time, churchill thought these capital ships could be a "fleet in being" and tie down major portions of the japanese fleet the way bismarck and tirpitz did to the Home Fleet. pearl harbor had not happened yet. after that, nobody thought it was a good idea to expose capital ships to air attack -- especially, land-based aircraft, which are what sunk Prince of Wales and Repulse -- not even the japanese, who initially ruled the night battles in the solomons but made sure to high-tail it out before daylight, and when they couldn't, the cost was catastrophic.
If Adm. Cunningham had ordered Devonshire to confront the German battleships, he - along with the Norwegian Royal Family - would have been sunk as well.
Not to confront - but to rescue survivors in the water. Instead for the sake of some blue bloods some 1300 worthy seamen perished.
@@baronburch6702 I think he really was not in a position to risk being sighted by two German battleships with the norwegian Royal Family on board. In 2021 we can say: The Germans left and the survivors were alone in the water. But Cunningham could not be shure about that.
He didn't had to confront them, he could have just shadowed them or at least relay the information to other british units which would have maybe saved some british lifes.
@@baronburch6702 There has never been any convincing evidence to suggest that Devonshire ever even received a distress signal, apart from a partial, garbled one, which was sent on the aircraft carrier rather than the fleet wave. Even Gneisenau's own B-Dienst team, monitoring British transmissions, detected no acknowledgment from any British ship or shore station.
I think we can all agree that this was a monumental fuck up.
Excellent presentation as always! Never dissapointed and i learned something today. I didn't know that infamous Belfast shipyard made HMS Glorious.
Both Gneisnau and Scharnhorst were brought to action a day or so later by Renown and her 15inch guns,which damaged both ships before they scarpered over the horizon, Renown being too slow to keep up with them. Gneisnau never saw action again and was destroyed in an RAF bombing raid and Scharnhorst was sunk by the Duke of York and Belfast in 1944.Glorious, Acasta and Ardent were suitably avenged.
I remember watching a documentary years ago on this.It was very fascinating.Sadly,the captain of the Glorious refused to use the aircraft properly,and was at odds with the commander of the aircraft who kept trying to tell him how it should be done.A very sad,tragic episode.Who knows if the captain had listened and perhaps it could hsve turned out differently.Rest in Peace to all those that lost their lives that day.
Actually, d'Oyly-Hughes had been ordered by Rear-Admiral, Aircraft Carriers, to attempt to carry out an air strike in support of ground troops. He asked his Commander (Air) to draw up a plan, but was refused on the grounds that it was not 'a suitable use of naval aircraft.'
Many of Glorious' own air crews at the time believed that this was not an appropriate response, that, in the words of one, 'something could have been attempted' and that it was not the place of the Commander (Air) to refuse a direct order. In other words, whilst he was entitled to raise objections, he was not entitled to behave as he did. One pointed out that, had the order been given to Ark Royal, then the operation would have taken place, as the relationship between the two officers in the same positions aboard her was far more harmonious.
@@dovetonsturdee7033 Part of the problem was that d'Oyly-Hughes was a submariner put in charge of an aircraft carrier. What were they going to use in a ground attack role, machine guns? Perhaps the Swordfish were armed with bombs, however a confrontation between Swordfish & ME 109's would have ended in annihilation.
@@timbutton4990 d'Oyly-Hughes was one of the few senior officers in the Royal Navy who had actually learned to fly, and had shown interest in the Fleet Air Arm. He had even been seconded to the Air Ministry for three years between 1931 and 1934.
He had been ordered by his Admiral to fly a mission in support of hard pressed ground forces, and many of his air crews supported that wish. It was not the duty of his Commander (Air) to refuse to produce a plan, to seek to overrule him, or to dictate what was or was not the appropriate use of naval aircraft. Put simply, the Commander (Air) allowed personal animosity to overrule his response to a direct order.
Actually, Swordfish were equipped with bomb racks, and had carried out a number of successful ground attack missions during the Norwegian campaign. German fighter aircraft could not be everywhere.
Fascinating differences in opinion. I thought it was standard practise back then to seal documents for 100yrs and I agree basic precautions with a packed ship should of dictated that some if not all of the recon planes were in the air, that would give space below deck for the hurricanes. Surely scrambling planes would of been a sure way to keep the enemy ships far enough away to reduce or prevent guns from being so successful. How does a sailor know if the ship has sent a message was he part of the process of sending it. Then he should know who acknowledge receipt. Like I said fascinating and we only have 21yrs to wait.
There were only about 40 survivors out of more than 1200 crew. The chances of one of the survivors knowing all the details of the radio messages were slim.
@@aldisozols2522 Turns out there were two??? on pilot testing his radio heard the message and three radio operators off ship logged the message Clear and detailed. Log books were replaced and disappeared once message was declared garbled by the ships captain.
In a different documentary on the loss of ‘Glorious’: ua-cam.com/video/1yAahSUiXt4/v-deo.html...
Several men who were either survivors of ‘Glorious’ or on the cruiser carrying the Norwegian Royal family said ‘Glorious’ got off a contact report which was received and ignored. The Navy’s official version of why the carrier was proceeding independently was she was low on fuel, not due to the carrier’s captain being determined to get to Scapa Flow, to court martial his air wing commander who had refused to fly a mission because in his opinion the target was ill-defined and beyond the capability of his aircraft.
The historian of the Navy at the time of the documentary was also interviewed. He was, in my opinion, an odious, bureaucratic toad, a perfect example of ‘That’s the Navy’s story, and I’m sticking to it.’ So, roughly 1200 men died, many of whom might have been saved.
Now, I realize it was a big war and those casualties were, in the greater scheme, less than the width of a line item. But they were men who likely didn’t have to die, and the official denial that persists is shameful.
I have also read the mission the air boss refused to,fly was one which would take his aircraft across Norway to attack neutral Sweden; a mission possibly ordered by the Prime Minister.
Thank you for the information !
The mission which was intended to mine Swedish waters had nothing to do with Glorious. Had it happened, it would have been launched from Ark Royal, which was already in position and carried far more aircraft. The mission to which the Commander (Air) objected was in support of ground troops. Many of Glorious' pilots actually believed that it should have been attempted, and that the Commander (Air) had no authority to veto orders given to him by his commanding officer, who had in turn received them for the Flag Officer, Aircraft Carriers.
At the time of the sinking, Glorious was being used as a ferry carrier, and had almost no aircraft of her own aboard. I believe less than ten Gladiators & Swordfish in total. That said, D'Oyly-Hughes was at fault for assuming that his ship had left the area of potential threat. The 'low on fuel' claim doesn't hold water. If a ship is low on fuel, it would proceed at the most economical speed or, in this case, in company with the rest of the evacuation fleet.
The question of the distress signal will probably never be resolved. One fact which is beyond dispute is that, whilst Devonshire had received an earlier, garbled, signal from Glorious, which was actually on the Carrier Band and addressed to the Flag Officer, Aircraft Carriers, no-one seems to have received the second distress signal. At least, the German B-Dienst team aboard Gneisenau, who were monitoring British transmissions, detected Glorious' signal, but recorded that it was never acknowledged by any British ship or shore station.
Thanks for this in put, Doveton. Very interesting.
The MAIN question, for me, is why was there not a Combat Air Patrol? Such a patrol would have seen the Germans well before the Germans saw the Brits.
Completely agree with you.
If I remember correctly, I recently read a report that stated that flight operations were not possible because the land based aircraft blocked the flight deck.
Feck the Brit pirates that are responsible for all major wars due to their lackey attitude towards the Zionist bankers that treat them like attack dogs...Hasnt anyone noticed or are you scared to call out the Zionist perps and associates who cause all wars...That maim and kill but make them rich
@@colinlook5237 Not true, the flight deck was cleared and orders were issued to range the swordfish on deck for battle but Scharnhorst fixed that with a shell to the flight deck. I have the book HMS Glorious. :)
@@getredytagetredy Racist much?
Great stuff. Again. Glorious absolutely boils my pish when I hear the story. What was the ‘Captain’ thinking? Lions led by donkeys alright. Plus, they could have had the chance to launch a serious air attack on 2 enemy capital ships. FFS?
Man i had the very same thoughts.. no recon at all?? what the hell did he think all those a/c were for??
@@stevewixom9311 plus I just watched a new Histigraphy vid on the loss of Force Z. The RN had some totally moronic C/Os in it. Tragic really. So many big ships pished away through incompetence. Avoidable. Repulse, PoW, Glorious - to name three.
With less than ten of her own air group aboard at the time of her sinking? Hardly.
@@dovetonsturdee7033 not sure what you mean exactly?
@@geordiedog1749 Glorious was being used as a ferry carrier, not an operational carrier, and had very few of her aircraft aboard. She was used by the RAF Gladiators & Hurricanes because she had wider lifts than Ark Royal, which meant that the Hurricanes could be taken down into the hangars.
Another great video from this very watchable channel. One thing that has always puzzled me about aircraft carriers is, why they do not list to the side the island is built on?
Glad you enjoyed it. In answer to your question, a ship will always list towards where the centre of gravity is. This is usually where the water is entering and filling voids. The amount of water filling the ship will eventually weigh more than the island. Plus ships contents that aren't fixed down will always slide towards the list, increasing the weight and therefore angle of list.
There is a German Die Deutsche Wochenschau newsreel that covered the sinkings from onboard the Scharnhorst.
Its chilling viewing knowing how many men were on board the Glorious.
Like Greece, Norway turned out to be a disaster for the British.
Norway was also an utter disaster for the German navy, and Crete was a disaster for the German Para’s
Crete turned out to be a picnic, compared to what the fallschirmjager faced on the Eastern front.
Also the losses for the Royal navy were devastating considering they were trying to operate on 3 fronts
@@duncancameron5468 Royal Navy losses were bad but not devastating, but if a single operation results in 50% losses of your entire surface fleet of destroyers and cruisers then your losses can be described as ‘devastating’
And operations in Crete resulted in the German high command refusing the Fallschirmjäger from ever being parachuted en-mass again and only ever operated as elite ground troops apart from the occasional small scale operations
@@duncancameron5468 At the time, the British were operating on one front. The British lost a carrier, two cruisers, and seven destroyers. The British started the war with seven carriers, sixty-four cruisers, and 193 destroyers. German losses ( one heavy & two light cruisers, plus ten destroyers) were devastating, especially since their only two battleships had been put out of action until November, 1940.
@@dovetonsturdee7033 Actually there were 3 fronts The Mediterranean The Atlantic convoys/North sea and the biggest headache The Pacific.
There was bad blood between the captain and his officers aboard Glorious on her last commission, and from what I have read Captain D'Oyly-Hughes was both cantankerous and highly unstable by the time of the Norwegian campaign. He had quarrelled with all his officers and was openly contemptuous of the RAF personnel who had successfully landed on his deck.
It seems clear the Admiralty realised there was a problem, that he was no longer fit to command, and wanted to get him back to Britain ASAP. It also appears that he was just dawdling to spin out the last days he would have in command of a warship and delaying the inevitable humiliation a courts marshal would reveal, oblivious to the consequences.
The wrong guy was to be in court, the captain was incompetent!
yeh i thought about that as well... having the wrong aircraft and no clear definition of the objective does sound like a good idea not to waste your crews lives. the guy should have been promoted instead of getting a court martial.
The german commander ,unfortunately for the brits were also excellent,he defied orders of simple shore bombardment on Narvik and instead,started to hunt for evacuation convoys,they already sunk a tanker,and a corvette,and yet Glorious was not on alert
The Courageous-class: Curious, Spurious & Outrageous
I read that Glorious was nicknamed Laborious.
Calum S outrageous must have been the nick name for Furious with her 18 inch guns
The Admiralty was warned about the battleships by Bletchley Park, as I understand it.
But presumably Glorious was not told?😢
@@peterharrington8709 "The end of May and beginning of June 1940 also brought warnings of increased radio traffic from the German naval base of Kiel, home to the battlecruisers; Scharnhorst and Gneisenau. The daily warnings to the Admiralty came from a fledgling Bletchley Park. The warnings went unheeded."
www.hmsglorious.com/
I think this is the only aircraft carrier to have ever been sunk by battleship battlecruiser gunfire..
USS Gambier Bay CVE-73 was sunk by Japanese battleship and cruiser gunfire at the battle off Samar Island.
@@joeconrad3828 Ok I was not sure. Thanks.
@@joeconrad3828 A escort carrier, no armor.
I have also read that not all of her boilers were lit, so she is no condition for either fight or flight in waters known to patrolled by enemy units.
Incredible (HMS). Could the unused boilers not have been lit and just kept 'simmering', temperature and pressure up, outlet valves almost closed with a very reduced fuel burn?
Will you be doing videos about the sinking's of the HMS Hood, and the Bismarck? You could even include the Prince of Wales, though it was sunk later in the Pacific, at the hands of Japanese bombers.
Of the four ships that took part in that battle in the Denmark Straight between Hood/ Prince of Wales, and Prince Eugen/ Bismarck, only the Prince Eugen survived till the end of the war. The Prince Eugen eventually met it's ending fate being sunk as a target ship at Bikini Atoll during the A Bomb testing exercises.
The "Outrageous" class :)
Happens every time. Politicians and high ranking military leaders always cover their own ass.
May i ask, will you do a history of HMS Furious? As she was the last of the class (or sub-class) to survive WW2, great video again by the way 👍
I may indeed do that, complete the Courageous Class. Cheers Dan!
@@TheNorthernHistorian thank you 👍
Great video. Shame a lot of the comments apply 2021 peacetime values to 1940 wartime situations. Not saying errors didn't happen but war is fully of mistakes on all sides.
It's noteworthy they were still building capital ships with submerged torpedo tubes in 1916/17.
HMS Nelson and HMS Rodney both had torpedo tubes and they weren't laid down until 1922, or launched until 1925
God bless all the brave seamen
The Brits come up with the best warship names. Hands down. No contest.
Been doing it for a very long time!
The last HMS Ark Royal decommissioned in 2011 was the 5th of that name.
Oh, I don't know about that! Flower class corvettes, anyone? (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flower-class_corvette) 😉
Indefatigable, how long did it last? Invincible, how did it do? Repulse, did it? Vanguard, where did it blow up? Perhaps more modest names would have been better.
@@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935
So which do you prefer:
Obscure persons: HMS William Wilberforce;
Non-superlatives: HMS Alright;
B-list sports celebs: HMS Nobby Stiles.
Very interesting theory that this ship was involved in Operation Paul. It certainly explains why the planes were not airborne, why the carrier was only protected by 2 destroyers and why the documents were sealed for 100 years...
HMS Devonshire is a good looking heavy cruiser in 1941
I haven't read through all the comments, so forgive me if this has already been mentioned. Courageous's captain was formerly a submariner [ a decorated & brave man] now days he wouldn't get any where near to a surface ship, never mind a carrier.
Interesting how a picture of HMS Duke of York got in the middle of the WW1 part.
Sorry about that. Not sure how that happened. I try to be diligent but that one slipped through.
It is unconscionable to me that an aircraft carrier would be allowed to put to sea in wartime conditions with an escort of only two destroyers and no aerial reconnaissance being undertaken. They were just asking to be destroyed. The Devonshire would have likely suffered the same fate as the Glorious had she altered course and responded to the scene to engage the two German battlecruisers.
10:50 look at the wing incidence of the two Blackburn aircraft! They must have had their cruise speed compromised a bit as with the A.W. Whitley and Grumman Hellcat.
Devonshire would have been sunk unless the Germans panicked and fled thinking she was scouting for heavier forces, especially if radio signals were sent in the clear supporting that. The most glaring mistake, some might even say negligent act, was not to have a standing patrol of torpedo bombers up. This would of been more likely to deter the attackers, particularly if combined by the appearance of a cruiser.
If they had been using Combat air patrols this could nave been avoided, Eve n in the plane was only flying 5,000 feet above the sea and in a circle with a 20 mile radius around the shipit would have seen the battleships long before they go in range to do anything.
The problem was that she had almost none of her regular Swordfish & Sea Gladiators aboard, because she had been operating as a ferry carrier. Less than ten in all, if I remember correctly.
@@dovetonsturdee7033 That might be but that was a failure of top leadership, when I say that I mean the guys that had almost as many stripes on their sleeve as they could get.
They should have known a aircraft carrier was a big target. It only takes a few planes to fly that type of air patrol. If you spot the battleship before you are in range, you can do things to stay out of range.
A sturdy account. All news to me. A minor suggestion - I think the repeated translation of every measurement from imperial to metric makes the narrative drag a bit. My preference is to go for the imperial, but that's just my choice.
My grand uncle perished aboard the Queen Mary at Jutland. Any chance of covering this ship's story?
Hi David. Thanks for the comment. I'm trying to strike the right balance regarding measurements as when I first started these videos I was using just imperial and was quickly picked up by our continental friends who complained I didn't give a metric conversion. I think in future vids I may narrate one standard and annotate with text a conversion. I try to please. Incidentally, I recently made a Queen Mary video. Take a look on my channel. Hope it serves your Grand Uncles memory well, may he rest in peace.
@@TheNorthernHistorian Thanks, I'm new to the channel but I'll definitely look it up! David
A great account of the life of a (battle)cruiser that became an aircraft carrier accompanied by good visuals, especially the reconstruction stages - though it was disconcerting to see HMS Duke of York appear during the WW1 part of the narrative. According to the accent, the Northern historian is Scottish, I think.
He sounds Geordie to me, not Scottish.
Spot on Jerry
@@TheNorthernHistorian OK so maybe I was connecting the wrong dots - I'm West Yorkshire born but now living 30 plus years in South Africa.
The profile of Glorious is inaccurate w/ a fully-flush forward deck
In my humble opinion, don't think there is much Cunnningham could have done. Entrusted with a very valuable set of passengers indeed, he could not have stopped, turned back and faced two Kriegsmarine battleships with King Haakon and the entire Norwegian royal family on board. Unfortunately it is a truism, perhaps even a cliche, but conflict forces terrible decisions on people. In this context, I am also thinking of the decision of Churchill to order the RN to open fire on the French fleet at Mers el Kebir.....terrible choices are made in wartime.
I completely agree. Imagine being in his shoes at the moment of decision. I did read that he approached the King and told him his dilemma to which the King replied that he was happy with whatever decision he made. As you say, war presents impossible situations.
@@TheNorthernHistorian I am sorry, i forgot the most important comment, nevermind my personal ' armchair strategist' comment: thank you for yet aonther excellently researched, scripted and executed video! You really got the right balance of narrative and detail.
you forgot to mention the casualties on the Scharnhorst, about 30 - 35 people died because of the Torpedo hit
I lost two of my uncle's on her ,both aero engineers .
It's easy to pick faults with war time commanding officers of vessels. This is one of the most murky and tragic of the losses known from the Royal Navy during the second world war and we will never know the full facts about what happened, especially as the war was going through sudden and conflicting events.
Also to those who say "don't put a submarine commander in charge of another vessel", have you ever heard of the "perisher course"? The sub commanders in the Royal Navy are some of the best commanding officers in any navy.
Either way a tragic and potentially avoidable loss of life.
I still can't figure out why the Brit's never extended the flight-decks all the way to the bow???.
The lower deck was originally a flying off deck.
Rough Atlantic sea conditions could often cause damage to the exposed gap between hull and flight deck at the bow. The US Navy learned this lesson the hard way in several Pacific typhoons.
Both navies developed the fully enclosed bow/flight deck design which eliminated much of the issues.
a 23,000 ton light battlecruiser hull might not have coped with more weight? It also needed a 30 knot speed for launching planes.
A great tragedy indeed.
On another note I found it too distracting to have the metric conversion read out loud - printed on screen would have sufficed.
Why didn’t the main (upper) flight deck, extend all the way to the front?
Because of what was initially a flying off deck on the bow. That quickly became obsolete due to aircraft design advancement.
5:00 man... to send a 15' gun cruisers, shadowed by battlecruisers and escorted by Battleships to sink a couple of minesweepers seems as overkill as it can get
I thought the same, like taking a shotgun to a fly :D
They were just off the Jade Estuary!
Can you please do a video about Hms Royal Oak
Noted. Thanks for the suggestion.
The warning signs about Doyle Hughes mental state were apparent before this happened.
He was a fairly recent appointment replacing a very popular Captain
DH was not popular, he was intent on 'tightening the ship up' and cracking the whip.
DH was the epitome of the gallant dashing naval officer, he was described as being s bit of a charmer and very much cultivated that image.
There was also a bit of the arrogant tyrant about him, he did not delegate well, or trust his officers
He suspected, and there probably was, a whisper campagn behind his back from his disgruntled officers, this fuelled his paranoia.
This is why he was so intent on getting back and court marshalling his air officer for pointing out his professional view that the operation he was ordered to do was in his opinion a folly.
DH was a bit of a figure in the Admiralty and there's no doubt that back in an Admiralty Court the Air officer and any other malcontents would have been broken or drummed out and officers more to DH's liking appointed.
To sail with a pitiful escort without having a single aircraft up in daylight hours was criminal incompetence.
Just the possibility that they had been spotted by a patroling aircraft would have sent those German Capital ships returning to safety.
The irony is that, in command of a cruiser, D'Oyly-Hughes would almost certainly have been a competent & successful officer.
@@dovetonsturdee7033 Yes, he could have been good in training, or commanding a destroyer flotilla or cruiser.
As a second officer in a sub in WWI he was full of dashing schemes to land men and blow up train lines etc, and had to be reigned in a bit by his commander.
That's the ironic bit, he considered a carrier as just another hull, and never even tried to understand his aircrews concerns and specialist knowledge.
So what happened to the pilot who was being court martialed? Was he on board?
No. He wasn't a pilot, by the way, but the Commander (Air). He was at Scapa Flow, awaiting Court Martial, but the deaths of the witnesses meant that this never happened. He survived the war, and gave his account of events to the author of 'The War at Sea,' Stephen Roskill.
@@dovetonsturdee7033 That's fascinating and kinda creepy as well...
@@dwharbin If you ever come across it, the details of the post-war furore about what happened are in a book called 'Carrier Glorious' by John Winton, in the last chapter. Captain Roskill was critical of D'Oyly-Hughes, culminating in an article in the 'Sunday Times' on 15 June, 1980, with the title 'The Cantankerous Captain of HMS Glorious' which provoked a lively response from D-Oyly-Hughes' next of kin.
What england do with survivor for Bismarck?
There's a fascinating (if dated linguistically) book by one of Glorious's Royal Marine survivors, Ronald Healiss, called "Adventure Glorious" - his description of his gun's crew's tasks & his survival in the freezing sea is worth a look, if one can cope with the casual racism of the early '40's.
In clear skys and a ship that can go all day between 31 to 33 knots .there's no German ship that can get within 15 miles of this carrier....that German ship would not waste fuel chasing
22,900 tons is far heavier than even a heavy cruiser.
Unthinkable tragedy due to incompetent command. 😥
If you think about it, a lot of money was spent on this ship-built, rebuild and accident.
Only the Royal Navy could allow a surface combatant to sink an aircraft carrier
USS Gambier Bay?
THE ACTION AT LEYTE GULF IS DIFFERENT IN THAT INSTEAD OF OPEN OCEAN SUCH AS THE NORTH SEA YOU HAVE AN ARCHIPELAGO WITH NUMEROUS BAYS PASSAGES STRAITS ETC THEREFOR I SAY AGAIN BY THE SECOND WORLD WAR THE ROYAL NAVY AS ALL EUROPEAN NAVIES WAS OBSOLETE BASED ON BATTLESHIPS WHOSE TIME HAD COME AN GONE ECLIPSED BY THE LONG RANGE STRIKING POWER OF THE AIRCRAFT CARRIER I FEAR WE ARE EXPERIENCING A REPEAT OF HISTORY REGARDING THE AMERICAN NAVY’S SLAVISH DEVOTION TO AIRCRAFT CARRIERS NOW MADE OBSOLETE BY HYPER SONIC MISSILES
@@duanerice-mason2115 Looks like you have a problem with your CAPS LOCK.
I simply responded to your earlier comment, demonstrating it to be inaccurate. Which it was.
@@dovetonsturdee7033 THE COMMENT WAS NOT IN ACCURATE ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCE AND BATTLE GEOGRAPHY ARE TOTALLY DIFFERENT FOR EXAMPLE THE TOKYO EXPRESS RUNS DURING THE STRUGGLE FOR GUADALCANAL HOW COULD A FORCE OF JAPANESE DESTROYERS GET SO CLOSE TO AN AMERICAN HELD ISLAND THE SLOT
@@duanerice-mason2115 But you weren't discussing circumstances. You merely said that 'Only the Royal Navy could allow a surface combatant to sink an aircraft carrier,' which was simply, categorically, indisputably, untrue.
Well at least you mentioned the political aspect (unlike some others). I don't suppose the full truth will be available until the Board of Enquiry findings are published.
Mason's look after each other. The country looks after itself.😎
So 3 ships, numerous front line fighter planes & 1500 men were lost so a foreign royal family could spend the war in safe exile. Scandalous.
No. What leads you to that conclusion?
Anyone got the name of the soundtrack around the 5:30 mark?
The shocking loss of life wouldn't be acceptable today. War costs lives, you would have thought that mankind was developed enough in the 21st Century to not resort to war. That, I fear, is a forlorn hope!
Excellent video on a very sombre subject. There are many videos on this subject(some from a long time ago). The files might be sealed but it seems nobody ordered the people in and around with this complete shitshow to keep quiet. Not many good things are to be said about the captain of the HMS Glorious by the looks of it and it seems like over 1500 souls were lost for a few royals. Lest We Forget.
The Glorious was faster - a bit - than the German BBs. Did the single hit on her foredeck damage her engines too, so she lost speed...?
It was a later salvo that hit her one of her engine rooms that killed her speed.
I recall that heavy seas made the CV slower, but the BC's could maintain speed
Not all of her boilers were fired up at them time.
she also got hit in the bridge by gneisenau
According to wikipedia Glorious could make 30 knots as a CV, the Scharnhorsts 31 knots. Also the last few knots of speed take a bit of time to achieve and Glorious had to change her heading to run away. So the german ships had sufficent speed advantage to get into range.
13:21 Have you notice that the only ones who refer as "Battleship" to Scharnhorst and Gneisenau are the British?
The Germans also referred to them as battleships. They had thicker belts than the Bismarcks, the South Dakotas, the Iowas, and the North Carolinas, none of which were ever referred to as battlecruisers.
No
Why didnt Cunninghham launch a recconaisence plane, send it near glorious , or 100 miles in another direction to pass on report by radio , thus protecting location, even existence of Devonshire?
It isn't clear that Devonshire received anything more than a garbled message. Moreover, the German B-Dienst team didn't detect any acknowledgement of Glorious' distress signal from any British ship or station.
@@dovetonsturdee7033 They definitely would not have acknowledged right away ! Would have given away Devonshires position , n mission!
But , as was done with Prince. of Wales n Repulse off Malaya a year later, Launch a Walrus , have it fly south an hour , Then transmit radio info
@@lanse77lithgow The only recipient of Glorious' first signal, of 1615 was a survivor, ironically, a telegraphist air gunner aboard Glorious, Robert MacBride, who was actually sitting in his Swordfish, and reported that the strength of the signal nearly blasted his head off. Despite this, Gneisenau's B-Dienst team did not receive it, and neither did any British ship or station.
The second signal, which Devonshire did receive, actually said 'My 1615 2 P.B. Time of origin 1640.' This was on the aircraft carrier band, of 3700 k/cs, and addressed to the Rear-Admiral, Aircraft Carriers, in Ark Royal.
What was there for Devonshire to acknowledge? Furthermore, without a stated position, where should any Walrus be sent, or indeed, why should one be sent at all? Furthermore, if the 1640 garbled signal was intended to be a distress call, why send it on the Aircraft Carrier band, rather than the RN's Home Stations band, which RN shore bases and warships were using?
@@dovetonsturdee7033 as stated above n by others, and as Done by force Z off malaya , reluctance to transmit from ship thus giving away its position..
Same way as a night sentry holds a torch at arms length , if the light is shot at , better prospects for the sentry ,
Ditto the Falklands war harriers running low , below radar a while before popping
up to more economical cruising altitude for rest of flight n reversing on return to not give away carriers position .
If Devonshire had shot off a walrus which then flew an hour in which ever direction was deemed best, some info could have been transmitted / relayed then , without giving away Devonshires position or duty.
@@lanse77lithgow Who else, apart from you, has suggested this? You seem now to be suggesting that Cornwall (I assume you mean Devonshire) should have sent out a Walrus in any particular direction the pilot fancied, and then send off some sort of signal. What do you suggest the signal should have said?
Is that really what you are saying? You ought to read 'Carrier Glorious' by John Winton, as it might restore your sense of reality.
What happened to the Air Commander awaiting court martial?
He was never court-martialled, as the witnesses were all dead. He was briefly given command of HMS Vindictive, a fleet repair ship, then posted to the RAF base at Singapore between Feb. 1941 & Feb. 1942. He then became Assistant Director of Air Materiel at the Admiralty until December, 1942. From May 1943 to July 1945, he was CO of the RAF base at Inskip, Lancashire, and from August 1945 until retirement in April 1946 was CO at the RAF base at Yeovilton. He died in August 1987.
@@dovetonsturdee7033 Two lucky escapes: Glorious and Singapore!
@@dovetonsturdee7033 Yeovilton was RN last time I was there.
The commanding officer screwed the pooch.