What percentage of a ship's length is covered by the keel? Many ships during combat, ramming or storm have lost portions of bow or stern. The American heavy cruisers who survived the Battle of Tassafaronga lost their bows all of the way back past main gun turrets. I assume this means portions of the keel were lost too. How do you replace that much of a bow, replace that portion of the keel, and have it stay strong?
How would you go about modernizing a ironclad? The conversion of the ottoman ironclad mesudiye is a good starting point but how would you modernize it even further?
To be fair, if a man dead for over thirty years had been able to engage in a stern walk in the late 1880s, I I think we would be talking about that more than the ships his Grandson was commissioning.
The cutaway of the ship’s layout, and really the whole ship in general, looks like it belongs in a Studio Ghibli film This is my favorite era of ship design because of how unique the ships could be, it’s not optimal efficiency but it’s still cool to see the creativity
Yay a wreck I actually dove on! You can swim through the Navigator's Cabin and the captain's quarters (we didn't go into that one.) An amazing dive for mid-to high experience wreck divers. Very well preserved and the external areas aren't particularly deep or challenging. If you are comfortable with deco stops and cold water dives, you are good to go. You could do a quick no deco dive if you want to just tick off the list, but it's worth going through the extra hassle to explore a bit.
Upon her sinking, Russian Rear Admiral Birilev, one of her former captains, called her "a vile ship, it's good that she sank, and it is pointless to raise her."
The biggest enemy to the Russian navy has always been, and still is, corruption. During the tsarist times, nobleman were in charge of the military, and you can pocket quite a lot of money when ordering a warship. Another great problem was, and still is, their doctrine. They still don't have one.
Just wait until the Ukrainians deploy Naval Tractors. I'm thinking something like giving Ukrainian fishermen ship-towing rigs to put on their fishing boats. No Russian ship will be safe.
I find the period between the late 1880s through the first generation of Dreadnoughts the most interesting period in ship design. After the first all big gun ships ship design is just an increase in scale along the lines of speed, protection and firepower.
I mean, I'm pretty sure the captain knew that part. But the rock being uncharted did spare him a "Don't you know how to read a map, you absolute idiot?!"
Always a reminder of the power of our planet's oceans that we can put millions into a ship and then the water can be like "Woops, here's a big rock, better abandon ship, lol."
Drac, maybe you should do a video on the general design of pre dreadnoughts and why they were designed with those features. Like why didn’t navies put more guns on then before dreadnought?
He definitely has addressed that in part and some detail in several different videos, but a singular one that synthesizes the details would be nice for reference. Mind, the first hour would be him just stipulating what he thinks a predreadnaught is because that is more debatable than one might think, then another hour cursing us for making him remember the French were involved in the process so he can't forget that miserable history. Still, I second your motion for a History of the Development of the Predreadnaught Battleship.
The period 1880 to 1905 is a fascinating one for ship design. Thanks for this interesting video. Fred T. Jane wrote about the sinking of Gangut in 1899: "In 1897 she had been out for target practice, when she suddenly began to sink. Much mystery surrounds her loss, and surmises as to the reason have run the gamut from a Nihilist outrage to faulty construction. Either is possible. The more generally accepted tale is that she was badly put together, and that the strain of firing opened her seams. The official version is that she struck a rock. This version is quite discredited outside of Russia, but it is at least as probable as either of the others. The only details that I have so far been able to procure of the occurrence are that the ship was leaking for some hours before she went down, that the water gradually gained, and she had to be abandoned. This was accomplished without loss of life or undue haste; and one of the officers took a snap shot photo of her as she made the last plunge. She listed slightly to starboard, with her bow depressed, and went down slowly and gently in that position. From time to time since, hopes of raising the vessel have been entertained; and at the moment of writing, a Swedish firm have a contract to attempt it. The ship must, however, be pretty soaked by now; and judging by the British experience in raising the Sultan, the operation will not be worth the cost......And the Gangoot, at the best of times, was a very inferior fighting unit."
These vessels are never remain as dry as the humour. But can we have a video about torpedo boats and their torpedoes - all the larger ship designs take them so seriously so they must have been of some use.
i think she should be raised and restored as a museum ship. russia only has two 19th century warships , the cruiser Aurora and the monitor Strelets ( 1865 ). Gangut would a good addition to the surviving pre-dreadnought battleship list , only lonely IJN Mikasa remains.
Would cost an awful lot and be very logistically difficult. There is also the factor that the high salt amount of the Baltic sea would have corroded it substantially. Hopefully however that still happens!
@@thespiritphoenix3798 The Baltic in general and the Gulf of Finland where she rests in particular are not very salty at all, so she is likely still in a rather good condition, given the circumstances. It would still be extremely costly to raise her though.
How a bad build quality can doom an otherwise OK design. Otherwise she'd be obsolete in no time like HMS Conqueror, but only because of how fast things were changing. Then someone decided it's a good idea to slap Imperator Aleksandr II gun on a ship to small for this and then her hull literally started going apart from the impact from the rock.
Hello Drachinifel First off, thank you for the wonderful channel and many, many hours of quality educational content. I would like to ask a question about drum signals on board age of sail ships, specifically in the Royal Navy, but more generally as well, for other periods and other navies. Many of us know about "beating to quarters" where a drummer onboard a RN vessel would summon the crew to action stations (insert clip from Master and Commander here!), but I doubt they kept a drummer onboard just for this single signal. Were there other signals given by drum, if so, do you know what they were and could you discuss them, any other uses other than signalling for drummers aboard ships, when did this practice begin and end, and did any other navies of the period use drum signals aboard ships? Many thanks! 😄
Drachinifel can you tell the story of the baltic fleet during barbarossa. I know that germany was searching for the fleet in Riga. Gangut, the red oktober and other ships where attacked there . At the Narva region there was also in 1944 a amphibious landing. Maybe you can tell more about it
There were two Russian Gangut-class Dreadnought battleships in the Baltic at the beginning of Barbarossa: Oktyabrskaya Revolutsiya ("October Revolution", former Gangut (1911)) and Marat (former Petropavlovsk). Gangut was in Tallinn and withdrew to Kronstadt (an island fortress outside Leningrad) when the Germans advanced into Estonia; Marat was already in Kronstadt. Both were damaged in Kronstadt by German Stukas, with Marat actually sunk though later refloated. There was no actual amphibious landing at Narva in 1944. The Red Army attacked German forces over the Narva River and finally took the city of Narva, but there was no attack by sea.
The uncertainties and fast technical developments of the time, led to navies building fleets of samples, in the Royal Navy as well as the Imperial Russian Navy.
I am going to assume, yes I said assume, that HIRMS stands for"His Imperial Royal Majesty's Ship". Would that be a correct assumtion? Love the channel, keep up the great work!!!
To be technical, the Russian Empire did not use Ship Prefixes for its warships, but it has been a convention among Anglophone scholars and others to use the term His Imperial Russian Majesty's Ship to distinguish Russian Imperial vessels from the Royal Navy and others. Most ship prefixes are indeed constructs of British origins to help cut down the confusion as it is not always obvious what ship belongs to what nation based on the names alone. For example, there was an HMS Diana, an HIRMS Diana, and a USS Diana, in addition to numerous civilian vessels so named.
@@stevepuls8532 It is inaccurate to apply the HIRMS prefix, since as stated it was never used by Russia. It is usually the tell-tale sign of an amateur British wannabe historian.
@@genericpersonx333 Scholars generally do not use fake prefixes. Most prefixes are indeed the imposing of British vanity, and are unnecessary. "Russia's Diana" is only three characters longer than the ridiculous and inaccurate "HIRMS Diana"
Thanks a lot it is great building the RUSALKA and being fascinated by listening to your information - as you do ASK for wishes: What about a series covering the Monitors being build all around the world between the 60-90th? Brazil, Sweden, Russia (four classes of min 2ships plus the single SMERCH), Germany MOSEL, SIEGFRIED class, Frech HOCHE, Dutch' SKORPIEN (still afloat!), RN, Spain, USA turret design, CSA cassematt design, Chile, China with covering their design abilities, good features and weaknesses - as RUSALKA sunk due to her low freeboard? Hth, Chris
Russian sailors: Sir, our ship have hit an uncharted underwater rock and got sunk by the flooding. Russian admiralty: Oh thank god... eh, I mean, thats terrible!!
Imagine if someone had put to the media that the japanese had randomly distributed coal torpedos throughout the russians coal stocks... Could have saved alot of time, they wouldnt have put a shovel load in 😂 victory by the enemy failing to show up at all 🤣
A good example of a ship being built by a country that lacked the infrastructure necessary to build better ships. America also built the inadequate Maine and Texas for the same reasons but were soon able to expand their industrial infrastructure and were helped by the fact that they had all the resources needed such as high quality coal, iron, and nickle within their borders.
Good to see you here Rex. Love you channel. And to anyone else who reads this. Check out this guy's YT Channel he is the Drac of weird interwar aircraft mostly British. But I won't hold that against him he's a aussie.....a kiwi.....hmmmmmm. it's doesn't matter y'all drive on the wrong side of the road and pronounce aluminum wrong.
@@warhawk4494 Thanks! British aircraft are some are my favorites. Especially interwar designs. Bristol Bulldog, Blackburn Ripon, Handley Page Hyderabad, etc…
There they go over loading these things with Guns again. Wow a single 12 " gun * whistles* Yikes ! 🙄 I can't help thinking she would be just annihilated in a battle with the most modern ships of that era.
@@Aelxi If you mean why they designed them the way they did, in brief and hugely simplified, to meet weight restrictions having all guns forward reduced the citadel length of the ship so in theory youd get the same capabilities of putting 3x triple 16" all forward with less weight than have the traditional layout of 2 forward one aft
@@Aelxi possibly because the entire script for the episode would be: you can build a lighter and cheaper ship with the same firepower and protection level.
@@beishui4480 Which certainly tracks, since Russian warship design of the period was heavily influenced by French design, particularly in the use of Tumblehome designs
All of those boats - was Gangut planned to be used for amphibious landings? The old fashioned kind that involved regular ship's boats landing near a harbor. Is this why she carried four 63mm "landing guns"?
Yes; it was custom and indeed still done that sailors on warships contributed military manpower to various operations in the late 19th-century, but generally in limited ways. You didn't really expect sailors to capture enemy ports and harbors, but you could have units of sailors adding their weight to such an operation. More likely, sailors would find themselves being seconded to the garrison of a Russian-held port or to protect Russian interests in foreign lands where the Russian Navy was the closet military asset available. Such was the case for most great power navies of the era. Indeed, many of the Europeans and Japanese who served in the Boxer Rebellion operation were sailors given rifles, machineguns, and small artillery such as 63mm landing guns because they were closer than complete army formations.
Ah, I didn't mean to imply it would be an expedition of sailors. For such an operation Marines would be embarked and the sailors would man the boats - most of which had only sail and oars for power. Any engine wouldn't be used anyway. So, plenty of sailors to row and to augment the Marines. Yes, sailors were a mobile resource - if a ship was sent to a hotspot it brought not just its installed armament but a large number of men. And back then any sizable ship carried a small contingent of Marines who would form the core of a land force. Well, some navies did.
@@donjones4719 I see. To better answer your question, Russian warships would indeed be expected to carry troops for amphibious operations. Indeed, Russia has a rather long and colorful history of it. They would also contribute sailors and the landing guns if it was deemed useful. The mission was incidental to the ship design though, so the existence of the guns and the many boats were not specifically put there just for the purpose. The numerous boats were more because as a Baltic-service vessel with a large number of conscript sailors who probably didn't know how to swim (for what little good being able to swim in icy waters would be), the Czar's navy was making an honest effort to give said sailors the best chance of survival when things went wrong as they often did thanks to the storms, rocks, and the usually competent opponents encountered in the Baltic.
So this is basicly the Russian Vasa. I wonder why they named a Dreadnought after this collosal blunder? You'd think the name would be tainted like HMS Captain?
@@richieincident3613 A location also known as Hangöudd, Hankoniemi, or the Hanko Peninsula depending on language. In Finnish/Swedish historiography the more specific location Rilax/Riilahti is used for the name of the battle.
Very interesting design. 01:47: what ship is this? I assume nit the Gangut, because this vessel is flying the Union Jack. I wait in anticipation for resolution of this learning opportunity.
Ah, I see where you might be confused. The Imperial Russian naval jack did look vaguely like the Union flag. upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/21/Naval_Jack_of_Russia.svg/2560px-Naval_Jack_of_Russia.svg.png
That wasn't the Union Jack but between black and white photos and similarities in the flags patterns it is an easy mistake. Drack explained the mistake previously. I think it was in a Dry Dock.
Be advised that the Imperial Russian Navy Jack bears a close resemblance to the UK Union Jack (especially in black & white photos), but the colors are different (red field, blue St. Andrew's cross). The ship is flying the Russian Naval Ensign (Blue St. Andrew's cross on a white field) at the stern.
as the pacific theater's ship wrecks (mind those are mostly graves and protected sites) are being pilfered for the iron that was sunk b4 the atomic blasts...this is a candidate specially since is not a grave. that crime is going on as we speak.
Umm, no. Battleships are no longer with us, but according to some folks you can identify as anything you like. Please consider drydock or maybe minesweeper. We need more of those.
Pinned post for Q&A :)
USS Savannah CL42; sumins on the Fritz.
What percentage of a ship's length is covered by the keel? Many ships during combat, ramming or storm have lost portions of bow or stern. The American heavy cruisers who survived the Battle of Tassafaronga lost their bows all of the way back past main gun turrets. I assume this means portions of the keel were lost too. How do you replace that much of a bow, replace that portion of the keel, and have it stay strong?
How KMS Bismarck fooled the Royal navy?
How much of a help or hinderence was Queen Elizabeth during the Spannish Armarda?
How would you go about modernizing a ironclad? The conversion of the ottoman ironclad mesudiye is a good starting point but how would you modernize it even further?
Russian sailors actually had a joke about Gangut: One mast, one chimney, one gun - one big mistake
"Одна мачта, один дымоход, одно ружье -- одна большая ошибка ."
@@seanmalloy7249Н-да, вообще фраза звучит: "Одна, мачта, одна труба, одна пушка, одно недоразумение", я перевел как смог
3:18 “…the stern-walk of the Imperator Nikolai I. that’s the ship, not the czar.”
Thanks for the clarification, Drach.
But, it must be admitted, he did have a noice . . . I've said too much.
Whaaat, Nicky Romanov didn't have a gold-plated and painted asshole???
The Czar’s stern walk was gilded
A stern walk, perforce, differs very substantially from a frivolous walk.
To be fair, if a man dead for over thirty years had been able to engage in a stern walk in the late 1880s, I I think we would be talking about that more than the ships his Grandson was commissioning.
The cutaway of the ship’s layout, and really the whole ship in general, looks like it belongs in a Studio Ghibli film
This is my favorite era of ship design because of how unique the ships could be, it’s not optimal efficiency but it’s still cool to see the creativity
The Imperial Japanese Navy had a top secret rock laying ship operating outside of Russian ports
Nonsense! clearly these are torpedo boats firing the new rock torpedo.
@@razorburn645 Double nonsense, it was obviously an early version of the Granit anti-shipping missile.
@@voiceofraisin3778 Triple nonsense, it was definitely a Basalt class proximity mine.
Kamchacta says "torpedoboats ahoy!"
@@josephdedrick9337 loving this Referenz.
Yay a wreck I actually dove on! You can swim through the Navigator's Cabin and the captain's quarters (we didn't go into that one.) An amazing dive for mid-to high experience wreck divers. Very well preserved and the external areas aren't particularly deep or challenging. If you are comfortable with deco stops and cold water dives, you are good to go. You could do a quick no deco dive if you want to just tick off the list, but it's worth going through the extra hassle to explore a bit.
Upon her sinking, Russian Rear Admiral Birilev, one of her former captains, called her "a vile ship, it's good that she sank, and it is pointless to raise her."
Dang. He didn't mince words, did he?
Wow that's harsh lol
I'm sure that Stephan Makarov was even more colourful in his opinion even though his isn't recorded..
A list of enemies of the Imperial Russian Navy:
-some fishing boats
-imaginary torpedo boats
-the Imperial Japanese Navy
-the Kamchatka
-rock
We need tactical binoculars!!
A russian Baltic ship so bad, it actually MISSED Tsushima.
The biggest enemy to the Russian navy has always been, and still is, corruption. During the tsarist times, nobleman were in charge of the military, and you can pocket quite a lot of money when ordering a warship. Another great problem was, and still is, their doctrine. They still don't have one.
And don’t forget the Russian army, constantly stealing the guns of the Black Sea fleet to bolster its own fortifications
Just wait until the Ukrainians deploy Naval Tractors. I'm thinking something like giving Ukrainian fishermen ship-towing rigs to put on their fishing boats. No Russian ship will be safe.
I find the period between the late 1880s through the first generation of Dreadnoughts the most interesting period in ship design. After the first all big gun ships ship design is just an increase in scale along the lines of speed, protection and firepower.
The lengths some Russian ships will go to avoid the Russo-Japanese War!
Or, the depths anyway ;p
6:38
"Sir, we've hit a rock!"
"That's bad."
"It's an uncharted rock, sir."
"That's good."
"The ship's flooding, sir."
...
"That's bad, sir."
The fro-gurt is also cursed.
I mean, I'm pretty sure the captain knew that part. But the rock being uncharted did spare him a "Don't you know how to read a map, you absolute idiot?!"
This ship is as strange as those of Drachinifel’s fantasy fleet, at least to one who knew nothing of vessels from this period.
What fantasy fleet?
@@simonbengtsson9241 I'm guessing the Dystopian Wars miniatures game which Drach shows off on "Fun Fridays", which is steampunk in nature.
This ship is literally my pet obsession Thanks for making this Video Drach!!
Thank you, Drachinifel.
Always a reminder of the power of our planet's oceans that we can put millions into a ship and then the water can be like "Woops, here's a big rock, better abandon ship, lol."
Operation Cerberus: the alliance between water and the Chloe Blowy McFloaty mines...
...God, I need to listen to those beautiful maidens once more...!
Drac, maybe you should do a video on the general design of pre dreadnoughts and why they were designed with those features. Like why didn’t navies put more guns on then before dreadnought?
He definitely has addressed that in part and some detail in several different videos, but a singular one that synthesizes the details would be nice for reference. Mind, the first hour would be him just stipulating what he thinks a predreadnaught is because that is more debatable than one might think, then another hour cursing us for making him remember the French were involved in the process so he can't forget that miserable history. Still, I second your motion for a History of the Development of the Predreadnaught Battleship.
@@genericpersonx333 an hour of cursing the french? Sounds like a tuesday
@@genericpersonx333 The French battleship history is impressive and important, anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot.
The period 1880 to 1905 is a fascinating one for ship design. Thanks for this interesting video. Fred T. Jane wrote about the sinking of Gangut in 1899:
"In 1897 she had been out for target practice, when she suddenly began to sink. Much mystery surrounds her loss, and surmises as to the reason have run the gamut from a Nihilist outrage to faulty construction. Either is possible. The more generally accepted tale is that she was badly put together, and that the strain of firing opened her seams. The official version is that she struck a rock. This version is quite discredited outside of Russia, but it is at least as probable as either of the others.
The only details that I have so far been able to procure of the occurrence are that the ship was leaking for some hours before she went down, that the water gradually gained, and she had to be abandoned. This was accomplished without loss of life or undue haste; and one of the officers took a snap shot photo of her as she made the last plunge. She listed slightly to starboard, with her bow depressed, and went down slowly and gently in that position.
From time to time since, hopes of raising the vessel have been entertained; and at the moment of writing, a Swedish firm have a contract to attempt it. The ship must, however, be pretty soaked by now; and judging by the British experience in raising the Sultan, the operation will not be worth the cost......And the Gangoot, at the best of times, was a very inferior fighting unit."
These vessels are never remain as dry as the humour. But can we have a video about torpedo boats and their torpedoes - all the larger ship designs take them so seriously so they must have been of some use.
Thank you.
Morning coffee and battleship
Awesome work Sir thank you
Good afternoon everybody
Good morning.
Good afternoon to you too.
The first photo looked like the ship had a VW Beetle on deck. Oh, that's the barbette.
I think that fishing boat hit us with a torpedo
We better fire 300 warning shots.
It seems sad that I have canned goods in my pantry that lasted longer than that ship.
I almost read it as hms gargaunts...I'm like that doesn't look orky enough...I need coffee
To truly be Orky it's needs way more Dakka and be painted red and the guns yellow.
Yeah same I was so tired
A slightly embarrassing ship meets a slightly more embarrassing demise.
How many binoculars launchers did the ship have?
awesome cheers Drac
It looks so cute! 🤗
Funny looking ship; I like the look of this type of ships (HMS Victoria, Nikolai II) and would love a 1/350 model of this.
better 1:250.
"That's the ship not the Tsar" love it
Another cool video.
i think she should be raised and restored as a museum ship. russia only has two 19th century warships , the cruiser Aurora and the monitor Strelets ( 1865 ). Gangut would a good addition to the surviving pre-dreadnought battleship list , only lonely IJN Mikasa remains.
Would cost an awful lot and be very logistically difficult.
There is also the factor that the high salt amount of the Baltic sea would have corroded it substantially.
Hopefully however that still happens!
@@thespiritphoenix3798 The Baltic in general and the Gulf of Finland where she rests in particular are not very salty at all, so she is likely still in a rather good condition, given the circumstances. It would still be extremely costly to raise her though.
Not sure Strelets or what's left of her should count... if she's even still around.
@@ToomasKiisk she was rediscovered in a ship storage yard in 2015, so she still might exist in 2022.
Where she sits, she is still in existence, unlike most of her sister ships, and is at a depth to dive. Leave her there for future explorers.
How a bad build quality can doom an otherwise OK design. Otherwise she'd be obsolete in no time like HMS Conqueror, but only because of how fast things were changing.
Then someone decided it's a good idea to slap Imperator Aleksandr II gun on a ship to small for this and then her hull literally started going apart from the impact from the rock.
Hello Drachinifel
First off, thank you for the wonderful channel and many, many hours of quality educational content.
I would like to ask a question about drum signals on board age of sail ships, specifically in the Royal Navy, but more generally as well, for other periods and other navies.
Many of us know about "beating to quarters" where a drummer onboard a RN vessel would summon the crew to action stations (insert clip from Master and Commander here!), but I doubt they kept a drummer onboard just for this single signal.
Were there other signals given by drum, if so, do you know what they were and could you discuss them, any other uses other than signalling for drummers aboard ships, when did this practice begin and end, and did any other navies of the period use drum signals aboard ships?
Many thanks! 😄
Drachinifel can you tell the story of the baltic fleet during barbarossa. I know that germany was searching for the fleet in Riga. Gangut, the red oktober and other ships where attacked there . At the Narva region there was also in 1944 a amphibious landing. Maybe you can tell more about it
There were two Russian Gangut-class Dreadnought battleships in the Baltic at the beginning of Barbarossa: Oktyabrskaya Revolutsiya ("October Revolution", former Gangut (1911)) and Marat (former Petropavlovsk). Gangut was in Tallinn and withdrew to Kronstadt (an island fortress outside Leningrad) when the Germans advanced into Estonia; Marat was already in Kronstadt. Both were damaged in Kronstadt by German Stukas, with Marat actually sunk though later refloated. There was no actual amphibious landing at Narva in 1944. The Red Army attacked German forces over the Narva River and finally took the city of Narva, but there was no attack by sea.
Great video
Will you talk about SMS Prinz Adalbert?
About the only thing that can be said in her defense is that, at least, she didn't take a single sailor down with her when she sank.
Gangut, Russia's answer to Titanic, except less dramatic.
The uncertainties and fast technical developments of the time, led to navies building fleets of samples, in the Royal Navy as well as the Imperial Russian Navy.
The Russian Navy: "Sinking our OWN ships since 1897!"
Aww it's so cute... a bit like hotspur
I am going to assume, yes I said assume, that HIRMS stands for"His Imperial Royal Majesty's Ship". Would that be a correct assumtion?
Love the channel, keep up the great work!!!
I believe it stands for His Imperial Russian Majesty's Ship.
To be technical, the Russian Empire did not use Ship Prefixes for its warships, but it has been a convention among Anglophone scholars and others to use the term His Imperial Russian Majesty's Ship to distinguish Russian Imperial vessels from the Royal Navy and others. Most ship prefixes are indeed constructs of British origins to help cut down the confusion as it is not always obvious what ship belongs to what nation based on the names alone. For example, there was an HMS Diana, an HIRMS Diana, and a USS Diana, in addition to numerous civilian vessels so named.
Thank you everyone for the info, I like to keep things accurate.
@@stevepuls8532 It is inaccurate to apply the HIRMS prefix, since as stated it was never used by Russia. It is usually the tell-tale sign of an amateur British wannabe historian.
@@genericpersonx333 Scholars generally do not use fake prefixes. Most prefixes are indeed the imposing of British vanity, and are unnecessary. "Russia's Diana" is only three characters longer than the ridiculous and inaccurate "HIRMS Diana"
Thanks a lot it is great building the RUSALKA and being fascinated by listening to your information - as you do ASK for wishes:
What about a series covering the Monitors being build all around the world between the 60-90th? Brazil, Sweden, Russia (four classes of min 2ships plus the single SMERCH), Germany MOSEL, SIEGFRIED class, Frech HOCHE, Dutch' SKORPIEN (still afloat!), RN, Spain, USA turret design, CSA cassematt design, Chile, China with covering their design abilities, good features and weaknesses - as RUSALKA sunk due to her low freeboard? Hth, Chris
2:58.
Nice.
That is all.
Did it stay afloat longer than the Orsk ?
Wasn't the Orsk launched in 1967 or so? In that case: no.
The ship is almost 10% overweight!
The Critical Drinker says: “Nah, it’ll be fine!”
What a lovely wreck... not a grave so would be nice for future generations ... Unfortunately not this one.
Russian sailors: Sir, our ship have hit an uncharted underwater rock and got sunk by the flooding.
Russian admiralty: Oh thank god... eh, I mean, thats terrible!!
Do you see torpedoboats?
Torpedo boats???!!?? Torpedo boats where??
"No. No one saw torpedo boats. Please be quiet."
Imagine if someone had put to the media that the japanese had randomly distributed coal torpedos throughout the russians coal stocks... Could have saved alot of time, they wouldnt have put a shovel load in 😂 victory by the enemy failing to show up at all 🤣
@@Colt45hatchback That's an evil idea. I like it!
A good example of a ship being built by a country that lacked the infrastructure necessary to build better ships. America also built the inadequate Maine and Texas for the same reasons but were soon able to expand their industrial infrastructure and were helped by the fact that they had all the resources needed such as high quality coal, iron, and nickle within their borders.
The place where the Gangut is flooded is known. It's not deep there. It would be quite realistic to raise the ship. So many historical artifacts!
This happens a lot when people fail to listen to the engineers.
Or the engineers are Russian.
@@roybaker6902 the usual Western hatred of Russians in your comment.
Russian naval construction capabilities haven`t evolved in 100 years, which is a blessing for everyone involved.
Everyone? Russian sailors, especially Submariners would like to have a word with you. ;)
@@thomaskositzki9424 they sunk
Are the Japanese placing torpedo firing rocks using fishing boats now?
Apparently they are. Prepare to abandon ship.
Good news, we found an uncharted rock so it's charted now.
Bad news, we just lost our brand new ship.
Also, it must be said, here's a classic case of a ship that was obsolete even at inception, and it only got worse during it's short carreer.
A case study of industrial advances overtaking shipbuilding
A hilarious example of design-creep, and why its not a good idea to have obese ships
Good to see you here Rex. Love you channel.
And to anyone else who reads this. Check out this guy's YT Channel he is the Drac of weird interwar aircraft mostly British. But I won't hold that against him he's a aussie.....a kiwi.....hmmmmmm. it's doesn't matter y'all drive on the wrong side of the road and pronounce aluminum wrong.
I sink slow...
@@warhawk4494 maybe I missed something or I drank too much last night, but what is the channel called with the British airplanes
@@tholmes2169 Rex's Hanger is the channel name and interesting aircraft is his game.
@@warhawk4494 Thanks! British aircraft are some are my favorites. Especially interwar designs. Bristol Bulldog, Blackburn Ripon, Handley Page Hyderabad, etc…
There they go over loading these things with Guns again. Wow a single 12 " gun * whistles* Yikes ! 🙄
I can't help thinking she would be just annihilated in a battle with the most modern ships of that era.
Will ships named Gangut ever catch a break?
Interesting
Guys, did Drac already covered about **why** "All guns forward" ships, like Dunkerque, Nelson etc.?
afaik, dunkerque, nelson, richlieu, and gascogne already covered.
@@bagustesa sorry I wasn't added the "why". Also it's Richelieu.
@@Aelxi If you mean why they designed them the way they did, in brief and hugely simplified, to meet weight restrictions having all guns forward reduced the citadel length of the ship so in theory youd get the same capabilities of putting 3x triple 16" all forward with less weight than have the traditional layout of 2 forward one aft
@@R1J3H true but I was asking if there is already a Drydock episode of that in length.
@@Aelxi possibly because the entire script for the episode would be: you can build a lighter and cheaper ship with the same firepower and protection level.
I'm thinking back to the times when I've been sunk in WoWs by Users "A_Rock" and "A_Somalian_Pirate_Dingy" :)
If you get sunk by "A_Binoculars", take that a sign to retire.
then years later another boat hit a uncharted wreck and proceeded to sink slowly crating another uncharted wreck and so on and so on
Why does gangut look so much like the qing coastal defense ship pingyuan
Presumably they were built around the same time and drew very similar design inspiration
@@weldonwin but the pingyuan was french based i believe.
@@beishui4480 Which certainly tracks, since Russian warship design of the period was heavily influenced by French design, particularly in the use of Tumblehome designs
@@weldonwin They both liked "fierce face" designs.
👍
building things to shit standards seems to be a key feature to Russian planning
This ship was not renamed Octjobryshnajia Revolushnia (or however that's misspelled).
You mean Oktyabrskaya Revolyutsiya? That's the 4th generation ship of Gangut
@@stefanussandi2879 exactly that one! Thanks for the clarification.
600 tons of over weight? Pull the torpedoes! Might lean something early on.
That wouldn't get you anywhere close to 600 tons.
Put the captain's wife ashore.
Don't forget the rocks. Not to change the subject but "Uncharted Rocks" would make a great name for a Death Metal band. IMO.
Why do failed designs of this period always look so cute?
built battleship sank same - maybe they can refloat it and send it to the Crimea as a stationary battery.
All of those boats - was Gangut planned to be used for amphibious landings? The old fashioned kind that involved regular ship's boats landing near a harbor. Is this why she carried four 63mm "landing guns"?
Yes; it was custom and indeed still done that sailors on warships contributed military manpower to various operations in the late 19th-century, but generally in limited ways. You didn't really expect sailors to capture enemy ports and harbors, but you could have units of sailors adding their weight to such an operation. More likely, sailors would find themselves being seconded to the garrison of a Russian-held port or to protect Russian interests in foreign lands where the Russian Navy was the closet military asset available. Such was the case for most great power navies of the era. Indeed, many of the Europeans and Japanese who served in the Boxer Rebellion operation were sailors given rifles, machineguns, and small artillery such as 63mm landing guns because they were closer than complete army formations.
Ah, I didn't mean to imply it would be an expedition of sailors. For such an operation Marines would be embarked and the sailors would man the boats - most of which had only sail and oars for power. Any engine wouldn't be used anyway. So, plenty of sailors to row and to augment the Marines.
Yes, sailors were a mobile resource - if a ship was sent to a hotspot it brought not just its installed armament but a large number of men. And back then any sizable ship carried a small contingent of Marines who would form the core of a land force. Well, some navies did.
@@donjones4719 I see. To better answer your question, Russian warships would indeed be expected to carry troops for amphibious operations. Indeed, Russia has a rather long and colorful history of it. They would also contribute sailors and the landing guns if it was deemed useful. The mission was incidental to the ship design though, so the existence of the guns and the many boats were not specifically put there just for the purpose.
The numerous boats were more because as a Baltic-service vessel with a large number of conscript sailors who probably didn't know how to swim (for what little good being able to swim in icy waters would be), the Czar's navy was making an honest effort to give said sailors the best chance of survival when things went wrong as they often did thanks to the storms, rocks, and the usually competent opponents encountered in the Baltic.
I watched all 7 minutes in 60 seconds and commented
Impossible perhaps the archives are incomplete
@Royal naval study did you read the comment or just rage reply?
@@Aelxi general kenobi
Should have gone with the 9 inch bow gun, hindsight is wonderful isn't it.
Why does the name remind of the ironguts from warhammer 3
Are we really sure it wasn't a Japanese torpedo boat? One of the underwater kind like Captain Nemo's?
So, the good news is HIRMS Gangut was spared the Voyage from Hell in the Russo-Japanese War.
"600 tonnes does not sound like a lot" how to tell someone is a fan of ships.
Were there any battleships in the Russian imperial navy that weren't overweight?
So basically they build a warship, only to find out, it is obsolete, so they scuttled it. Interesting indeed.
So this is basicly the Russian Vasa. I wonder why they named a Dreadnought after this collosal blunder? You'd think the name would be tainted like HMS Captain?
The ship was named after the victory at Cape Gangute in 1714.
@@richieincident3613 A location also known as Hangöudd, Hankoniemi, or the Hanko Peninsula depending on language. In Finnish/Swedish historiography the more specific location Rilax/Riilahti is used for the name of the battle.
@@gargravarr2 Both of you have way too much time on your hands.
Very interesting design. 01:47: what ship is this? I assume nit the Gangut, because this vessel is flying the Union Jack. I wait in anticipation for resolution of this learning opportunity.
Looks like the Russian naval ensign, which is the blue St. Andrew's cross on a white background.
Ah, I see where you might be confused. The Imperial Russian naval jack did look vaguely like the Union flag. upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/21/Naval_Jack_of_Russia.svg/2560px-Naval_Jack_of_Russia.svg.png
That wasn't the Union Jack but between black and white photos and similarities in the flags patterns it is an easy mistake. Drack explained the mistake previously. I think it was in a Dry Dock.
Be advised that the Imperial Russian Navy Jack bears a close resemblance to the UK Union Jack (especially in black & white photos), but the colors are different (red field, blue St. Andrew's cross). The ship is flying the Russian Naval Ensign (Blue St. Andrew's cross on a white field) at the stern.
@@WalterReimer Ahhhh, thanks for that prompt reply. I figgered someone had a knowledgeable take on that.
Gangut - otherwise known as Glugglug
as the pacific theater's ship wrecks (mind those are mostly graves and protected sites) are being pilfered for the iron that was sunk b4 the atomic blasts...this is a candidate specially since is not a grave. that crime is going on as we speak.
The bronze propellers are usually the first to be pilfered.
Open Question: This ship had a double bottom. I also have a double bottom, so, does that mean I am a Battleship?
Umm, no. Battleships are no longer with us, but according to some folks you can identify as anything you like. Please consider drydock or maybe minesweeper. We need more of those.
Depends on how many inch gun you have...
In some ways the ship looks 'French like" with that high freeboard which looks sorta like a hotel
Kept the Japanese from sinking her at least
Some ships are just better off not being built in the first place.
Poor Quality Control ... one of the side benefits of a nation wide habit of vodka.
Glad to see you've not been caught up in Russia sanctions fever.
Another excellent history lesson.
Thanks.
3:23 Just so you know he’s not talking about the Tsar’s ass.
Rock 1, Gangut 0
Squat looking ship, isn't it. sm
hi
Damn not first
My most sincere condolences
@@comentedonakeyboard salutations, sir!
:)
The Russians had the worst luck with ships and navies. Maybe time for a little healthy superstition? Good luck charms and blessings to you Drach.
108th