Would be good to have Drach “talk up” BB62 and poor olde Olympia - was going to go up for his visit that got Covid’ed to meet. Press would be good for both and hopefully would bring in more donations for both and more visits!
That would be great. Because they have obviously different opinions about several things, so conversation would be interesting. For example, Drachinifel think, that RN Battleships were best armored battleships.
@@OslikusPrime I’m not sure Drach thinks that British BBs are straight up “the best” - but he IS fantastic at putting perspective in his thoughts, and a lot of accurate detail....
As anyone who does any reading on the subject would know, it's very interesting to see just how many designs are considered before arriving at the one chosen for construction. As you also said, changes could and did occur to designs even when there may be one or more hulls laid down, although obviously there are limits as to how extensive they could be. It's always an interesting subject looking at the various built and designed ships. As with the aircraft carriers, the USA and UK had different strategic conditions to consider and those directly affected the designs. I suspect the external versus internal inclined belt armour is an example of that. If you're worried about dockyard constraints, plus the fact those dockyards may come under direct enemy attack, you probably place a premium on being able to get capital ships repaired ASAP. That's not something the USA ever really had to deal with. As an aside, I've always thought the SoDaks a great design, and that they get rather short changed in public perception as the North Cal were the first after Pearl and the Iowas are so famous for their speed etc. Ultimately, of course, the USA's overwhelming industrial and natural resources superiority meant the USN would become the dominant naval power, It simply took WW2, and Pearl Harbour somewhat specifically, to get the USA Congress to open the purse strings to build the ships to become that power. Have you considered doing a video on armour types? I've heard it said the UK armour in some respects was superior to its USA equivalent, so that 'flat' 14" belt, for example, could well be superior to the inclined belt of the Iowa. An equally interesting one would be radar given the UK undoubtedly had the best radar tech in the world in 1939. Indeed radar is something I think many don't recognise as being one of THE greatest differences between the Allied and Axis powers, especially at sea where it proved decisive in many ways even to the point of affecting the results of specific battles (the sinking of Scharnhorst in the Battle of the North Cape being an obvious example, but possibly more vital if less glamorous being in subs v anti-sub warfare vessels). Well I could ramble on for far too long, if I've not already LOL. Interesting video. Enjoying the content. Hope you and your colleagues are doing ok in these difficult times. Cheers
The Lion class were actually somewhere between the S.D class and the Iowa's. Armour protection on the Lion's was actually improved over the KGV's [ not just the same]. The belt was a uniform 15" where as the KGV class was thinner [14"] covering the machinery spaces. There was also the addition of 2" between the lower deck and inner bottom below the citadel bulkheads. Barbettes were thicker at 15" max as was the Turret faces. Turret sides were also thicker at 10" as opposed to 9" max in the KGV. Of course the Lion design changed over the war period so they got larger with better torpedo protection and more extensive splinter protection.
IIRC, postwar experience with HMS Vanguard, of a similar hull design as the Lions, showed that, despite a lower design speed than the Iowas, effective speed in rough Atlantic weather was actually higher. As such, the Lions would have been ideal battleships for service with the Home Fleet, while the Iowas were of course best for operations in the Pacific.
Yup, Vanguard is claimed to be able to sustain a speed of 26knot comfortably with most turrets operational, while Wisconsin suffered listing with her forward turret inoperable
The differences in anticipated areas of operations pretty much explains the difference in design philosophy between the RN and USN for several generations of warships. Especially with regards to carrier design, the RN had to have more protection from air attack, the USN had to have range and strike capability.
🤔 Maybe...... But theres a reason the Lion class was cancelled, and it had nothing to do with the need for "other types of ships". You see, when the 2 capital ships of Force Z were sunk, the Brits realized they'd simply run out of letters in the alphabet to name new battleship forces after! There simply were NO MORE letters after 'Z'...... 😁
@@timclaus8313 And then the Americans found out that an armored deck wasn't a bad idea in the face of kamikaze attacks, and equipped their carriers from Midway onward with it.
@@stefanpajung113 The USN's first true armored deck carriers were the Midways, which did not going the fleet until '46-'47. The Essex and Ticonderogas had steel under the wood, but were not armored decks.
British battleship APC ("Armor-Piercing, Capped" = US Navy AP ("C" is always assumed)) shells, except for those on the 16" guns of the RODNEY and NELSON, were after about 1911-12 or so a kind of "extra-heavy" design midway between, for whatever the gun size used was, the US WWII 16" Mark 5 for the old COLORADOs and the new super-heavy 16" Mark 8 starting on NORTH CAROLINA. For example, the US 14" Mark 16 using in WWII was 1500 pounds, while the British 14" Mark IB N.T. "K" APC Projectile was 1595 pounds. NOTE concerning British projectile nomenclature: 14" = barrel nominal inner diameter; "Mark I" -- First gun of that caliber for British, rather than built-for-a-foreign-country, battleships; "B" meaning the long pointed windscreen similar to US WWII AP shells, as opposed to the blunter "A" pointed nose, as used by HOOD for example, based on a standardization of various British ammunition nose shapes just prior to WWI which were not designed for long range and thus less-than-maximum streamlining (to my knowledge, the first "B" shell was a variation of the long windscreen shape, more conical than curved, for the 16" Mark IB APC shells of NELSON and RODNEY); N.T. = Night Tracer, a glowing point of light caused by a colored flammable material set into the bottom of the base fuze to allow the ship to see the flight of its shells, usually for shooting at night (if the target could be seen to aim at in the first place in those non-radar times, of course); and, finally "K" = A mid-WWII add-on based on the French RICHELIEU APC shells with a 5-pound colored dye bag in the windscreen and an HE shell impact nose fuze and booster set into the windscreen tip -- the windscreen was reinforced somewhat -- so that any impact, on water, land, or enemy ship, night or day, would, if not completely fogged in, show where every single shell hit for the shells of a given ship assigned that color before it left its mooring (not all ships got this upgrade, even if they could have handled the long "B" shell noses for these improved projectile), and it became obsolescent when good radars were introduced that could see the shells in the air. The British 15" APC shells weighted 1944 pounds for the B nose shape in those ships overhauled to take this new shell in its magazine-to-gun handling systems and 1937 pounds for the "A" nose shape for those not so modified (windscreen was heavier in "B") -- add 5 pounds of dye if the "K" mod was used. The proposed 16" APC shell for LION would have been about 2359 pounds without the "K" modification, being a scaled-up 15" Mark XVIIB N.T. APC Projectile. As opposed to this, for some reason the British decided in the early 1920s to experiment with a high-velocity 16" gun firing a very-low-weight, 2049-pound 16" shell in the NELSON and RODNEY. It had a conical nose with a small rounded tip and a curved shoulder just above where the nose merged with the cylindrical body, which was rather short. It also did not use the post-WWI standard APC shell explosive filler Shellite (also used through the end of WWII), but TNT, just like the smaller SAPC (larger-explosive-charged "Semi" APC shell not designed for impact with as thick armor as a full APC shell -- note that it did have an AP cap for those enemy cruisers using face-hardened armor, which were few and far between it turned out in WWII) for the British post-WWI heavy cruisers and CPBC (Common Pointed, Ballistically Capped, or, later, just SAP with no AP cap for use against smaller enemy ships that would very rarely, if ever, have face-hardened armor (the fight with ADM. GRAF SPEE demonstrated that this was probably not the best shell design here). TNT is more difficult to set off, requiring a very powerful booster between the fuze and the main explosive charge and when the new 16" APC shells were developed in the mid-1920s the British, as did the Americans, finally adopted a super-powerful explosive called "tetryl" as its booster that solved the problem, though only very tiny amounts of this explosive could be used due to its sensitivity to shock. The amount of TNT was proportionately the same as the Shellite in the other APC shells, 2.5% (51 pounds for the lightweight 16" shell), but TNT was slightly more powerful than Shellite, so the difference was less obvious in tests. These high-velocity guns wore out their linings much faster than the lower-velocity guns firing the heavier APC on other ships and the maintenance cost ended up being so high that the entire design attempt was considered a failure and the next generation of big guns went back to the older shell weights and lower muzzle velocities thereafter. In addition the heavier shells had more explosive charge, though of the slightly weaker Shellite, and considerably more steel in their bodies to form fragments for a wider area of damage or more concentrated damage for a given area per hit; more "bang for the buck".
@@parrot849 You are welcome. My knowledge was gained in increments over about 50 years and I still have holes in what I know about armor and gun projectiles -- considering that such is merely banging two chunks of metal together, you get some idea how complicated the universe really is. Amazing that we know anything!
I was about to comment “Must have been one Hell of a party the previous night.” Then realized this was an earlier video, and I am used to his more recent style. But he gets the job done here, even with a bit of hesitation and crappy white balance.
@@Epicredeemer They were designed for speed in calm seas, like the Pacific. They proved much worse in Atlantic/North Sea to Vanguard which was able to maintain its speed where the Iowas had to slow much more.
@@alecblunden8615 Well, the British battleships were slow and short legged, so each was designed to operate in their home waters. The US doesn't have a North Atlantic to worry about very much, just as after '41, the RN didn't have much to worry about in the Pacific any longer.
If you look at the NCs designed AA outfit it was 1.1" & 50 cals so no 40mm either. If the Lions had been built no doubt they qould have received more 40mm & 20mm as the KGVs did
Looking at war time refits, just about every ship that survived looked like an angry porcupine, they had so many AA guns on them. At last the USN and RN ships had AA guns that worked.....
Like the US, the UK built more carriers that could have defeated the German surface fleet was the better choice. By 1943, Hitler had the Kriegsmarine stand down surface fleet and deployed UBoats only.
The one in the bow had little effect short term, just put a hole through the bow. The one in the stern is the one that effectively killed the ship, taking out two shafts and half the machinery spaces due to shaft flooding. Every ship has an Achilles heel, that hit found the PoW's.
@@timclaus8313 That area is the Achilles heel on every battleship or warship. Torpedo hits there also severely crippled the Bismarck and USS Pennsylvania.
I'd never actually heard that two more, for a total of six, were ever considered. The four mentioned-Lion, Temeraire, Conqueror, & Thunderer were the only hulls I've read about. The enthusiast in me wishes they had built Lion instead of Vanguard, but I understand the RN's reasoning. In terms of the unnamed hulls, I would have gone with TIGER, without hesitation for one, and either Vanguard or Defiance for the other. Both Vanguard and Defiance were famous and successful ships of the line in the age of Nelson, with Vanguard being his flagship in one of his famous victories. Defiance was at Trafalgar and defeated two enemy ships, if I recall correctly, and was known as the fastest 74 in the fleet. Also, the name "Defiance" certainly captured the spirit of Great Britain as they remained as the only major European power to stand against the Germans. On a similar note, I wish the Royal Navy would have used names like these when naming their new Type 26 frigates. Unfortunately, they went with city names, which is certainly appropriate, albeit less inspiring.
They seem to be using the Battleship names, which in their day were considered capital ships for the current fleet of Aircraft Carriers and Submarines, which makes sense as they are the modern-day capital ships.
Vanguard was already being built in addition to the Lions so you cannot use that name. But Tiger for sure is a great name and the other would be something like Magnificent or Superb.
When it comes to Royal Navy battleship names, I always have to mention the pre-WW1 Orion class super-dreadnoughts. Orion, Monarch, Conqueror and Thunderer has to be one of the greatest collections of names out there. Since the names Conqueror and Thunderer may have been used for Lions #3 and #4, Orion and Monarch for #5 and #6 would fit rather well. Though of course that runs into the issue that "Orion" was already taken at the time.
Really Really enjoyed your video!! A great deal of knowledge about this class battleship and very interesting comparison to similar Fast battleships thank you!
You need to understand that Britain building modern 16” gun battleships was deemed impractical in the time available before the Admiralty calculated they would be in a shooting war with the Axis powers. Britain calculated they could build a new effective 14” gun battleships in the time available for a European war. Had Britain calculated they would not be in a shooting war before 1942, it is likely that there would have been time to develop a modern 16” gun and a platform to carry it.
The amount of damage a shell does is reliant on the size of it's bursting charge, once it has penetrated whatever it has to penetrate in the way of armour. The US 16" heavy ap shell had a slightly smaller bursting charge than the British 14" ap shell (as used on the KGV class). The contrasting fates of the Hood and Bismarck showed that an old battleship could be immediately destroyed by a catastrophic penetration of the vital core (also shown by the fate of the old French BB, Bretagne), but that a modern battleship needed to be wrecked by more superficial damage to the point that it no longer functioned. The sinking of the Bismarck was of no consequence, because long before it sank it was just a wreck unable to do anything that a warship should be able to do. It could be argued that 10x14" guns with shells containing large bursting charges would be more efficient in dealing with modern enemy battleships than 9x16" guns firing heavier shells with smaller bursting charges. The Royal Navy was the only navy to destroy modern battleships by surface action in WWII; the actions against Bismarck and Scharnhorst are, therefore, the only proving grounds for the effect of modern battleship gunnery on other modern battleships.
The size of the charge is irrelevant if the shell doesn't penetrate. The Iowa 16s also had high capacity shells with moderate penetration sufficient for most smaller ships and older main battle ships and very high charge; the AP shells were mainly reserved for rare encounters with the most heavily armored opponents. (especially as the heavier AP shells used more powder and were harder on the guns) The 16s also had more range, which isn't too useful against ships because of targeting small moving objects, but range can be useful for targets inland. (And much more economical per pound of ordinance delivered than bomber aircraft.) There is also tactical advantage not in destroying the enemy with the fewest shots but in reliably slowing them down. The Bismark being a good example, initial damage to its rudder allowing the allied forces the opportunity and time to develop a stronger follow-up attack. And giving up some yield for more guaranteed penetration can be that reliability.
@@mytech6779 If a modern battleship could be reduced to a waterlogged wreck without it's citadel being penetrated catastrophically, as happened with the Bismarck, the additional penetrating power of a large and heavy shell is, arguably, redundant.
@@urseliusurgel4365 And again they also carried a high capacity round with much more explosive. The HC round was also reasonably armor piercing. (I recall it was rated at 12 inches of steel. Or could be fused for air burst.) The commander could choose whichever was better for the situation, as well as a light or heavy propellant charge. But as stated before it is better to over do the penetration somewhat with a smaller charge then to have a larger charge that doesn't penetrate on a large portion of hits. The 16" ap round was also intended for use against shore targets, like bunkers and submarine pens where it was rated to penetrate 20 feet of reinforced concrete. Aside from that the Bismark did not have the heaviest armor in the war, and was basically sunk with as much luck as firepower, they don't design guns for luck not all hits will land on soft spots.
The KG5th ships get some flack but they where put to sea with hardly any training. HMS Warspite was one of the most formidable ships in the RN despite not being the most advanced.
They were not as pretty, but the U. S. could have built four more South Dakotas instead of the Iowas and won the war just as easily. The KGVs were all the British needed. According to participants, the KGV's 14 inchers didn't have much trouble punching holes in the Bismarck even the conning tower.
Fair, but I would argue this could only really be known for sure with hindsight. Germany, Britain, France and Italy all had 30+ knot battleships and no one knew what the Japanese were doing. I would say the USA wanting a powerful 30+ knot battleship wasn't unreasonable.
Depending on the literature you read, the British class A equivalent was 15-20% better than the German armour and about 8-13% better than US. That would mean that the 14in belt would be a 16in German or 15-16in US armour.
In other estimations, German cemented armour was about as effective as that of the British and both were 25% better than that of the US. Also the USA had quite limited abilities to produce cemented armour in quantity.
www.combinedfleet.com/f_armor.htm I suggest checking this out, also I have read US gov documents that stated many European countries armor was weaker than the US. They were comparing armor and shooting ranges especially after they got ahold of that Yamato armor piece they shot up.
@@jkutnink87 Depends on the armour. US homogenous armour was very good, excellent at keeping out cruiser-size shells. However, every source I have come across has said that US cemented (face hardened) armour, suitable for keeping out battleship shells, was inferior to both the British and German equivalents. Results of tests on the effectiveness of Japanese cemented armour were rather inconsistent, suggesting that Japanese armour may have been of variable quality.
Warspite and the other Queen Elizabeths don't even remotely stack up to an Iowa, unfortunately. It'd be a narrow fight even for a late war-spec King George V with Type 284 and AFCT Mk.IX, and even the rebuilt QEs' FC equipment is 15 years older than that.
"Dominant or even tied with the *victor*" - come on Ryan, we were on the same team, you know! The Russians played a part too. Less that is said about the French, though, the better! LOL
Still learning here............ The U..S. Navy developed the Iowa's for speed , keeping up with aircraft carriers and transit thru the Panama Canal as I understand it. What would have been the British Naval thinking at the time, for the design of the Lion class battleships? Did British Naval thinking take into account transit thru the Panama Canal ? Thank you for posting Ryan.....I love the Battleship New Jersey UA-cam channel.
The Iowas weren’t built to keep up with the carriers they were more about being quick to respond to Japanese movements. Second the British were much closer to the Suez Canal than the US were. If I were to plot the route from London to Australia I think going by Panama or Suez would be about the same distance and there were a lot British bases on the Suez route so it would be preferred
Britain didn’t need to access the pacific coast of the US so weren’t that bothered by Panama restrictions. The RN accesses the eastern pacific via Suez or the cape not via the Americas.
@@davidwright7193 they were restricted by dock size, hood could only be docked in a handful of docks in the colony and even had one large enough for her built in Australia. Another consideration was the depth of Suez.
A small turret design difference between the new US and post-1930 British battleship designs: The British turret faces were vertical, not tilted back as US designs and prior British designs had been. The tilt was initially to allow the guns to elevate more without having to make a bigger slot in the thick turret face armor and also at close ranges cause the enemy shell to hit the armor such that it had more chance to glance off. The British in its newer battleships decided that battles were going to be at longer ranges so the tilted turret face-plate was going to HELP the enemy shell penetrate if it hit the turret face, so they shifted the angle to zero and made somewhat larger vertical slots for their guns so that the overall armor thickness at the expected longer battle ranges would go up, not down as the angle of fall increased. As it turned out in WWII, hits on turret faces and waterline belts of battleships (not counting cruisers here which did take such hits) were "as rare as hen's teeth" and, in the ships where hits by any kind of shell were known to occur, none that had even a ghost of a chance of penetrating the plate hit were ever made. In fact, the the post-WWII British Navy had personnel who joked, they could have stripped off most of the armor in their battleships and used it for something constructive with no loss of actual protection. Even HOOD most probably was not killed by a 14.96" Krupp APC shell going through the 12" Cemented Armor-on-2" cement-on-2" HT construction steel inclined waterline belt plates amidships.
The prince of wales torpedo hit was unique in that it damaged the propellor mount whilst the shaft was running at high speed and the damage to all the seals etc meant it flooded through the shaft glands ….it was extremely unfortunate in the circumstances, and the impact damaged the power and services meaning the pumps went off line and the damage control was hindered significantly…it wasn’t really the torpedo protection that was defeated as the Iowa’s to my understanding would have suffered in a similar way if it had received the same hit.
What would i of liked the remaining two Lion class battleship to be named? Monarch!!! Yes i play World of Warships lol the other one... Bellerophon perhaps? I enjoy your videos, please keep up the great work
The RN shell had a far bigger bursting charge so would have done significantly more damage than the US super heavy shell once it penetrated. The RN also had a far better protected fuse so would have been more likely to detonate whether they penetrated or not.
Ryan, you asked about suggestions to name the final two 'Lion' class ships, mine would be two of the ships Lord Nelson commanded ... 'Agamemnon' (64 guns) which he commanded during the French Revolution, and 'Captain' (74 guns) at Cape St Vincent. Yeah, I'm something of a 'Nelson-phile.' I might argue that the British 16"/45cal rifle, despite not having a 'super-heavy' shell was marginally more powerful than the USN 16"/45cal also firing a standard shell. The British weapon would likely be a 'product improved' variation of the weapon mounted in Nelson and Rodney. That gun was reliable and was able to knock big holes in Bismarck, more so than KGV's 14" was. I share your thoughts about the 5.25". The USN 5"/38 that your lady carries was credited in some reliable sources as being capable of up to an amazing 20 rounds per minute with a well trained and rested (or adrenaline driven) gun crew. If she had been built, the Lion would probably have been able to turn in good, solid service even if she wasn't outstanding in any one particular area, much like the North Carolina and South Dakota classes.
For the two unnamed Lion class, I would chose names in the same vein as Temeraire and Thunderer; names of ships that fought at Trafalgar (Because what self-respecting Brit *doesn't* enjoy reminding ourselves of that battle...), so HMS Bellerophon and either HMS Agamemnon or HMS Leviathan. That said, the Royal Navy doesn't lack for cool and bad-ass sounding names that would've been very appropriate for a big, mean fast battleship.
I like the drawing of the Lion at the back. It looks like a Shipbucket drawing, but I don't think I've ever seen that specific drawing, so it'd be appreciated if you can link out to it. :)
If you read Chirchills history of the war in the Notes at end pf volumes he had his ownopinions on design of KGVs especially and ctoticised the 'break' in Citadel for to gove them a Catapault for a Seaplane, he would have had a high opknion of the SoDaks as you called them . Any ontention on doing for Carriers what you have done for Battleships?
FYI, unlike the US, the British economy was not in depression immediately before WW2; ir stopped declining soon after GB abandoned the gold standard in September 1931, although genuine recovery did not begin until the end of 1932. Nathan Okun in his "Table of Metallurgical Properties of Naval Armor and Construction Materials" described the British armour as “the best of all known face-hardened armors in heavy, battleship-grade thicknesses”. US Class ‘A’ armour was of excellent quality (in terms of its purity, specification, heat treatment et cetera) but an engineering decision - requiring an excessively thick hardened face - meant it provided less effective protection, with 12″ of US Class A being equivalent to about 10″ of British armour. The KG V class had 15" of main belt armour. To give the same level of protection, The Iowas would have needed 18 inches of main belt armour - but only carried 12.1 inches. The sea keeping qualities of the Iowas was poor - being unable to keep up with Vanguard on NATO exercises in North Atlantic gales.
There's a reason American historians have the poor global reputation they do on subjects outside of US domestic history. A few lovely exceptions, but generally a vast sea of abject mediocrity.
@@iatsd Citation needed on American historians having a poor global reputation. There is a vast gulf between Hollywood and experts on many subjects in the US.
@@treyhelms5282 American historians aren't noted globally for having a particularly good grasp on history on any subject outside US domestic history. This is just another example of, at best, sloppiness, and at worst, outright ignorance. Somewhere in the middle and unthinking nationalistic venal pride is most likely. Watching several of his vids, it's clear he can't stand to not declare the US to be number 1 in everything. His attitude and mannerisms in this vid are very clear.
@@iatsd Again, citation needed, rather than you just repeating your claim. It just sounds like sloppiness and ignorance on your part. Are you sure you aren't confusing entertainment movies with actual historical work?
Bellerophon and Superb would be good names for the last ships of the Lion class. Both classic names for 1st rate ships of the line from the Napoleonic wars.
USS Iowa certainly could enter Portsmouth, I visited her there in 1986. Looking at her from the dopckside were three elderly gentlemen, one with tears rrunning down his face. Being a decent kind of chap I asked if I could help. All three had served on RN battleships and had not thought to tread the deck of any such again. Prince of Wales torpedo system wasn't really defeated, like Bismarck a "lucky hit" took out enough stern gear that trying to maintain speed she essetially ripped a hole in her stern and this proved fatal. Google Job 74 for a facinating and in depth surbey of the wreck and writeup of the sinking events, with input from one of the engineering officers present at the time of the sinking. The trials mockup of the defence system, known at The Chatham Float is described as havbing been used as an air raid shetler during the war!
I agree that they chose wisely to not go forward with the loins. By 1943 the writing was on the wall. There would never be another Jutland and without air cover any battleship ran the risk of being a sea floor decoration (ask the Yamato) Their money was better spent elsewhere.
5he 5.25 were bias to surface against higher angle, but with the advent of the proximity fuse they were much better than the US 5in due to the greater shell weight. As always, designs are a compromise and against service requirements.
@@jamesricker3997 It did have something like 1/3 more range, and with actually functioning power loading gear (as in Vanguard, its rate of fire wasn't too bad at 1 shot every 6.7s) so it would get to fire at the aircraft for 1/3 more time. Also considering it's a secondary gun, not a dedicated AA gun, that extra range could really help keep destroyers out of effective torpedo range etc.
@@timclaus8313 in the Pacific the Japanese had many issues with thier planes being sniped out of the air when they fought they were safe as they would group up a few miles away from the target before attacking and they learnt that the "safe zone" was far from safe when they went against the BPF
Good presentation though you concentrate rather heavily on the 1938 design that in fact was upgraded repeatedly. At least until, as it became ever less likely the ships would actually be built, the designers 'lost it' altogether and started to produce various weird and wonderful 'Richelieu'/ carrier hybrid iterations. On which one admiral eventually opined "these abortions are the results of a psychological maladjustment". YET, had they ever been realised AS pure battleships, it would have been iaw with the upgrade of the then current 'baseline' 1942 iteration that emerged very early in 1944 to incorporate 'wartime lessons'. Accordingly a Lion Class Battleship as completed would have been an approximately 800' long (length between perpendiculars) ship with an additional 9' of freeboard fwd in view of experience with the KG5s, main belt armour up to 15" over the magazines but otherwise 13.7" max (equivalent to c15-16" US armour as British [and German] 'KCA' was significantly better than any other country's), 6" main deck, 'full load' displacement of c56,000t, speed (with transom stern design) of c28kts, and a significantly enhanced anti-torp system featuring increased depth and greater compartmentation. They'd have mounted 9 x 16"/45 cal Mk iv guns able to project a 2,375lb APC shell out to 43,800yds at 40deg elevation with MV of 2.450fps. Secondary armament, intended originally to be 16 x 5,25"/50cal guns as per the KG5s, would have been 24 x QF4.5"/45cal Mk v. Accordingly, despite the APC still being c10% lighter than the US 'superheavy', one of these ships would've wrecked an 'Iowa' (had she ever been able to catch one, of course, which is improbable). Although a more honest comparison would be with the also cancelled 'Montanas', against which they'd have been at a significant disadvantage.
The two final ships of the Lion-class should be named Tiger and Leopard, since the lead ship of the class is Lion. Also in naming the ship “Tiger” it pays homage to the battlecruiser HMS Tiger of 1913.
@@BattleshipNewJersey ha! super. the rate you put them out at is ridiculous. I visited last year, my first Iowa class, was blown away by the tour and spent far too long on the 40mm pretending to shoot stuff. keep up the great work.
The thinner and sloped belt of the Iowa is only effectively thicker at ranges beyond 26km (at least against the trajectory of a German or Italian 15" gun), however, that's assuming the armour is the same quality... But most references say that the British armour was anywhere from 7-25% better than US class A, so even using the most common figure of around 12%, this extends the range at which Iowa's armour becomes more effective out to 33km. Considering the longest hit by a battleship against another moving ship was only about 24km (by both Warspite and Scharnhorst), even assuming everything else is equal, within practical battle ranges, the vertical armour scheme is more effective. Then there is the issue of the torpedo protection scheme on Iowa, I've heard it's not exactly the same thickness all the way along... Especially thanks to the extremely narrow bow, in many places (including the forward turret) it's substantially thinner than the maximum thickness.
Just a note on the comparison of armour thickness. British Armour was of a higher quality than American armour, and was matched in quality only by German armour during WW2, so the equivalent thickness is more than you see on paper. Indeed it has been said that the armour on the KGV class was only exceeded by the Yamatos. Depending on what tests you read, British Armour was between 8% and 25% more effective than US and Japanese armour plate which gives the KGV an equivalent armour thickness of 17 inches on the belt.
the RN 5.25 in the latter versions was a better long range AA gun than the US 5/38 gun , there is examples of the British guns taking down japanese planes that where out of the 5inch gun range.
We've done Bismarck and Richelieu, you'll find them both in our comparisons playlist: Battleship Comparisons: ua-cam.com/play/PLALOZV63REes36tNIqZNOKT3R73VMPcKu.html
The armoured conning tower was found to be a waste of valuable weight and resources because the crew would never use them. Those in command of the ship valued an unrestricted view of what was going on around them; sensible because if you cannot see well how can you fight well? The 5.25" secondary initially had a modest rate of fire however as the system developed the rate became much improved, it is credited with being more than doubled, it also had a superior range to the 5"/38 as Japanese pilots found out with fatal consequences.
Lion Class is/was like the Churchill tank: the perfect weapon for the last war. A bit outdated for the one she would've fought. Personally? I'd serve on an Iowa if I could. Having been on a tincan during a severe winter storm I'd definitely want to be on a ship that could present a lot of aux steam hoses, pickaxes, and axes . . . maybe a flamethrower or ten . . . to clear away the rime. Imagine what the Murmansk convoy route must've been like for deck crews. Frozen Boats' everywhere!
While it's true that the final two Lions never had their names confirmed, the existing Royal Navy vessel naming conventions of the time would have seen them christened AGINCOURT and RESISTANCE, respectively.
As some comments have noted, or alluded to, the British and German battleships were designed more for Atlantic operations, whereas the US battleships seem more optimized for the Pacific, where a longer range engagement is more likely to happen. So for the Atlantic, thicker belts rather than the equivalent “apparent thickness” in the way of inclined armor makes sense for the likely area of operation (the North Atlantic).
I read there poor fuel consumption was do to no having dubbed reduction gear like the US had , the Vangard had the because they imported the machine so to make them from the US. Naval Institute Press.
Not impressed. Several factors are incorrect. The Iowa class was not a stretched NC class design. Propulsion, Armor and Guns were all different. The crew and interior spaces were also different. Bridge was different. Anchor arrangements were different because the bow size and shape was different. The number of guns and propellers were the same. Fire control was very similar. In the end, you could say that the Lion Class was equal to a North Carolina class more than an Iowa class. The NC class had adequate armor and guns to deal with the Lions equal fire control, equal guns a little better speed but slower than the Iowa and the latest French Battleship class. The Iowa’s were unique in that they had barely adequate armor less than the West Virginia had. They were designed to hunt down lesser Battle Cruisers and cruisers using their powerful 16” guns and faster than most cruisers especially in heavy weather. The Iowa’s superior speed, gun and fire control made it the king of the seas with adequate air CAP protection
Me: "Build the 1942 Lion design, it's good enough and modifications can be made down the line." British ship designer: "But we can improve it so much more-" Me: "Don't care! Just build the dang things!"
So there's: Lion Temeraire Thunderer Conqueror I guess you'd need to go with: Royal George Royal Oak Put Admiral's space in George and Oak (as opposed to for but not with in the others). Honestly though, I'd rename Lion. That's a cruiser or second class BB / 64 gun name. Call it HMS Bellerophon instead. I spent way too much time thinking about this.
Thanks Ryan & crew for these videos which satisfy my curiosity about the engineering of warships and life onboard a battleship. I have two suggestions for topics to cover in videos: 1) I'd like to know more about optical rangefinders. How do they work? What are the advantages and disadvantages or coincidence vs. stereoscopic rangefinders? 2) How was armor produced? What types of armor were used? How do you apply armor to a ship? How to add additional armor/replace sections? Evolution of armor schemes?
I have to interdict here about the comparison of the Lion class British BB vs. the Iowa Battleship. I could not find the guns that , were planned on the Lion class BBs, perhaps because they were never built. But the next British BBS was the Vanguard. Brian made the comment that the power of the ammo shot out of their 15" guns was comparable to the Iowa's, and that the range would be farther. Neither of these are even close. The Iowa shoots two different size shells, a HE one at 1,900 lbs, and the AP shell at 2,700 lbs. The Vanguard had only the 1,936 lb. shell, and had a MV of only 2,450 fps, generating 180M ft. lbs. of ME as compared to the Iowa 1,900 HE shell at a MV of 2,690 fps that generates 213M ft' lb.of ME. The lower powered Iowa shell is 23% more powerful. Then bring in the heavy Iowa shell, and it delivers 262M ft. lbs. of ME, which almost 50% more powerful. And on the distance, the Vanguard shell has a range of only 33,000 yards as compared to the Iowa shell range of approximately 42,000 yards. If on the other hand the guns that were to be used on the Lion class were the 16" guns used on the Neslson/Rodney class, then the difference is not as great, but is still very significant. Here, again, there is only one shell used on the Nelson, and this one is 2,048 lbs and generated 212M ft. lbs. of ME, which is essentially the same as the Iowa HE round. But, the Iowa heavy shell would outclass the British 16" shell by about 24%. Also, the range of the Nelson shell is only 37,500 yards, as compared to the Iowa 42,000 yards. I have tried to get a hold of Brian, so I can give jimmy ballistics file which has all this data in it. But there has been no response after several weeks!
Poet Thomas Hardy: "My argument is that war makes rattling good history, but peace makes poor reading." Evidently Hardy never experienced what he was enthralled with...
Inflexible and indefatigable would be my chosen names for the last 2 Can you make a video talking about the super heavy shells? The japanese went for the type 91 ap shell to maintain underwater penetration and the americans wen't for icreased deck penetration, would be nice to know what lead to the development of these shells and compared to other countries like the UK and Germany
As far as I know the japanese approach did not work out well despite some incidents were critical underwater hits sunk american cruisers. As BBs are a distance weapon the american approach appears to be better. If you want hits below waterline use aircraft carriers with torpedo planes ;) The german strategy was to avoid any battle with enemy capital ships and go for hunting trade shipping. Therefore they had no specific battle strategy except heavy overall armor. UK capital ships were still influenced by the already obsolete post WWI strategy of beeing fast and hit strong. Therfore they had significantly week armor but comparable guns focussing on broad side weight loads delivered (e.g. KGV-Class had 10 guns with a bit smaller caliber but overall fair load weight but those were built later when admiralty already had discarded the earlier approach and sacrificed speed for armor instead).
Talking about he names for the two last ships, they`ve looked to name last two of "KGV" as "Jellicoe" and "Beatty", in honour of WWI RN admirals. However, Admiralty decided not to name these ships like this - John Jellicoe and David Beatty passed away only couple of years before ordering battleships, it were considerded as "not enough old names" (and ships were named "Anson" and "Howe"), but this honour could be well fitted for two last "Lions".
Beatty did not deserve to have a capital ship named after him. Somehow he developed a reputation as a good leader when most if not all of his battles were full of tactical and signalling errors that allowed German ships to escape and opened his own to more punishment.
14:08 Not going to mention anything about the *quality* of the armour, huh? Yeah, don't blame you - you're skimming a lot to make sure you defend the US ships, so talking about armour quality would be another subject to miss when it comes to US warships.
The Iowa’s were not to be repeated designs. They were to be repeated my the Montana class with much heavier armor all around and 12 not 9 16” guns with a substantially wider hull and the NC power plant for a 27 knot speed rating rather than the 32 knot Iowa’s.
I have seen a number of times discussions that British and German primary armour was anywhere from 6 to 12% better than US armour. Is that taken into account in your discussion.
Names for me would've been Centurion and Warrior, though the name Warrior in the circumstance where war held off for a while. Otherwise, I'd be all for naming the sixth one Hood as a middle finger to the Germans.
Like your comparisons very much but not convinced, my research would suggest the comparison would be much closer. My suggested names for the two proposed Lion class would be HMS Bellerophon and HMS Agamemnon. As you know you history I'm sure you'll understand why.
I never understood why they bother with torpedo defense systems and bulges. Won't it be simpler to simply have a trimaran like design where there are two outrigger sponsons that are knife thin about 20~30 m from the main hull with water flowing in between. These are as deep as the hull and the torpedoes will impact at a wide distance. You can even make then retractable to pass through canal since they are not part of the ship's reserve buoyancy.
Honestly? I'd have loved it if the HMS Lion were to go up against the Bismarck-Class. Sure, the KGV-Class gave the Bismarck a run for its money and had the better Armour layout, but a Lion Vs a Bismarck would have been a hell of a thing to witness/document.
The RN does not engage in one on one combat, not unless it has to. It will fight against the odds if it needed and has a reputation for overcoming the odds but you are engaged in war and are fighting to win and they use every trick in the book in order to win.
Lion's guns would have been equivalent to the 16inch 45 on US treaty battleships, her armor included vastly better belt protection and marginally better deck protection, while the turrets were slightly less protected. Lion is 2,500 tons lighter at standard displacement in her 1942 design and loses (some of) this as speed, 5 knots slower. Otherwise I think she is actually somewhat comparable to the Iowa class and marginally superior the NC, SD given equivalent speed, superior armor, equivalent guns and slightly increased displacement. And the Utility of the 5.25/50 definitely increased in the post war environment, they were probably more valuable than a 5/38 as radar, rangefinding could better utilise their longer range and power-ramming, better turret mountings. Basically a 5/54 but lacking the rate of fire
Being that males tend to me visual than auditory in their learning, it would be helpful when listing stats to use charts. 30 years teaching adults and a masters in adult learning
Yes, but the British in 1941 developed Torpex explosives that produced 50 percent more explosive power than conventional gun powder. As a result, the Japanese super battleships Musahi and Yamamoto which were developed contrary to the London Naval treaty were easily sunk by American torpedo and dive bombers equipped with torpedos and bomb outfitted with this new explosive. The age of the battleship was gone. Battleships had to be protected by destroyers and Aircraft carriers.
As someone from the UK I have no real conception of what a foot is. It would be handy if you were doing vids about European ships if you included the dreaded metric. Thank youuuuuu
Extra depth of torpedo defence would not have saved Prince of Wales. The ship was sunk because the flailing propellor shaft which opened her up. The same hit would have defeated any WW2 torpedo defence including the Iowa’s unless the shaft was stopped straight away.
You should do a collaboration with Drachinifel. Would be really great to get you two together.
That sounds great 👍
Would be good to have Drach “talk up” BB62 and poor olde Olympia - was going to go up for his visit that got Covid’ed to meet. Press would be good for both and hopefully would bring in more donations for both and more visits!
That would be great. Because they have obviously different opinions about several things, so conversation would be interesting.
For example, Drachinifel think, that RN Battleships were best armored battleships.
That would be great! I also like Dr. Alexander Clarke.
@@OslikusPrime I’m not sure Drach thinks that British BBs are straight up “the best” - but he IS fantastic at putting perspective in his thoughts, and a lot of accurate detail....
As anyone who does any reading on the subject would know, it's very interesting to see just how many designs are considered before arriving at the one chosen for construction. As you also said, changes could and did occur to designs even when there may be one or more hulls laid down, although obviously there are limits as to how extensive they could be.
It's always an interesting subject looking at the various built and designed ships. As with the aircraft carriers, the USA and UK had different strategic conditions to consider and those directly affected the designs. I suspect the external versus internal inclined belt armour is an example of that. If you're worried about dockyard constraints, plus the fact those dockyards may come under direct enemy attack, you probably place a premium on being able to get capital ships repaired ASAP. That's not something the USA ever really had to deal with.
As an aside, I've always thought the SoDaks a great design, and that they get rather short changed in public perception as the North Cal were the first after Pearl and the Iowas are so famous for their speed etc.
Ultimately, of course, the USA's overwhelming industrial and natural resources superiority meant the USN would become the dominant naval power, It simply took WW2, and Pearl Harbour somewhat specifically, to get the USA Congress to open the purse strings to build the ships to become that power.
Have you considered doing a video on armour types? I've heard it said the UK armour in some respects was superior to its USA equivalent, so that 'flat' 14" belt, for example, could well be superior to the inclined belt of the Iowa.
An equally interesting one would be radar given the UK undoubtedly had the best radar tech in the world in 1939. Indeed radar is something I think many don't recognise as being one of THE greatest differences between the Allied and Axis powers, especially at sea where it proved decisive in many ways even to the point of affecting the results of specific battles (the sinking of Scharnhorst in the Battle of the North Cape being an obvious example, but possibly more vital if less glamorous being in subs v anti-sub warfare vessels).
Well I could ramble on for far too long, if I've not already LOL.
Interesting video. Enjoying the content. Hope you and your colleagues are doing ok in these difficult times.
Cheers
The Lion class were actually somewhere between the S.D class and the Iowa's. Armour protection on the Lion's was actually improved over the KGV's [ not just the same]. The belt was a uniform 15" where as the KGV class was thinner [14"] covering the machinery spaces. There was also the addition of 2" between the lower deck and inner bottom below the citadel bulkheads. Barbettes were thicker at 15" max as was the Turret faces. Turret sides were also thicker at 10" as opposed to 9" max in the KGV. Of course the Lion design changed over the war period so they got larger with better torpedo protection and more extensive splinter protection.
IIRC, postwar experience with HMS Vanguard, of a similar hull design as the Lions, showed that, despite a lower design speed than the Iowas, effective speed in rough Atlantic weather was actually higher. As such, the Lions would have been ideal battleships for service with the Home Fleet, while the Iowas were of course best for operations in the Pacific.
Yup, Vanguard is claimed to be able to sustain a speed of 26knot comfortably with most turrets operational, while Wisconsin suffered listing with her forward turret inoperable
The differences in anticipated areas of operations pretty much explains the difference in design philosophy between the RN and USN for several generations of warships. Especially with regards to carrier design, the RN had to have more protection from air attack, the USN had to have range and strike capability.
🤔 Maybe...... But theres a reason the Lion class was cancelled, and it had nothing to do with the need for "other types of ships". You see, when the 2 capital ships of Force Z were sunk, the Brits realized they'd simply run out of letters in the alphabet to name new battleship forces after! There simply were NO MORE letters after 'Z'...... 😁
@@timclaus8313 And then the Americans found out that an armored deck wasn't a bad idea in the face of kamikaze attacks, and equipped their carriers from Midway onward with it.
@@stefanpajung113 The USN's first true armored deck carriers were the Midways, which did not going the fleet until '46-'47. The Essex and Ticonderogas had steel under the wood, but were not armored decks.
British battleship APC ("Armor-Piercing, Capped" = US Navy AP ("C" is always assumed)) shells, except for those on the 16" guns of the RODNEY and NELSON, were after about 1911-12 or so a kind of "extra-heavy" design midway between, for whatever the gun size used was, the US WWII 16" Mark 5 for the old COLORADOs and the new super-heavy 16" Mark 8 starting on NORTH CAROLINA. For example, the US 14" Mark 16 using in WWII was 1500 pounds, while the British 14" Mark IB N.T. "K" APC Projectile was 1595 pounds. NOTE concerning British projectile nomenclature: 14" = barrel nominal inner diameter; "Mark I" -- First gun of that caliber for British, rather than built-for-a-foreign-country, battleships; "B" meaning the long pointed windscreen similar to US WWII AP shells, as opposed to the blunter "A" pointed nose, as used by HOOD for example, based on a standardization of various British ammunition nose shapes just prior to WWI which were not designed for long range and thus less-than-maximum streamlining (to my knowledge, the first "B" shell was a variation of the long windscreen shape, more conical than curved, for the 16" Mark IB APC shells of NELSON and RODNEY); N.T. = Night Tracer, a glowing point of light caused by a colored flammable material set into the bottom of the base fuze to allow the ship to see the flight of its shells, usually for shooting at night (if the target could be seen to aim at in the first place in those non-radar times, of course); and, finally "K" = A mid-WWII add-on based on the French RICHELIEU APC shells with a 5-pound colored dye bag in the windscreen and an HE shell impact nose fuze and booster set into the windscreen tip -- the windscreen was reinforced somewhat -- so that any impact, on water, land, or enemy ship, night or day, would, if not completely fogged in, show where every single shell hit for the shells of a given ship assigned that color before it left its mooring (not all ships got this upgrade, even if they could have handled the long "B" shell noses for these improved projectile), and it became obsolescent when good radars were introduced that could see the shells in the air.
The British 15" APC shells weighted 1944 pounds for the B nose shape in those ships overhauled to take this new shell in its magazine-to-gun handling systems and 1937 pounds for the "A" nose shape for those not so modified (windscreen was heavier in "B") -- add 5 pounds of dye if the "K" mod was used. The proposed 16" APC shell for LION would have been about 2359 pounds without the "K" modification, being a scaled-up 15" Mark XVIIB N.T. APC Projectile.
As opposed to this, for some reason the British decided in the early 1920s to experiment with a high-velocity 16" gun firing a very-low-weight, 2049-pound 16" shell in the NELSON and RODNEY. It had a conical nose with a small rounded tip and a curved shoulder just above where the nose merged with the cylindrical body, which was rather short. It also did not use the post-WWI standard APC shell explosive filler Shellite (also used through the end of WWII), but TNT, just like the smaller SAPC (larger-explosive-charged "Semi" APC shell not designed for impact with as thick armor as a full APC shell -- note that it did have an AP cap for those enemy cruisers using face-hardened armor, which were few and far between it turned out in WWII) for the British post-WWI heavy cruisers and CPBC (Common Pointed, Ballistically Capped, or, later, just SAP with no AP cap for use against smaller enemy ships that would very rarely, if ever, have face-hardened armor (the fight with ADM. GRAF SPEE demonstrated that this was probably not the best shell design here). TNT is more difficult to set off, requiring a very powerful booster between the fuze and the main explosive charge and when the new 16" APC shells were developed in the mid-1920s the British, as did the Americans, finally adopted a super-powerful explosive called "tetryl" as its booster that solved the problem, though only very tiny amounts of this explosive could be used due to its sensitivity to shock. The amount of TNT was proportionately the same as the Shellite in the other APC shells, 2.5% (51 pounds for the lightweight 16" shell), but TNT was slightly more powerful than Shellite, so the difference was less obvious in tests. These high-velocity guns wore out their linings much faster than the lower-velocity guns firing the heavier APC on other ships and the maintenance cost ended up being so high that the entire design attempt was considered a failure and the next generation of big guns went back to the older shell weights and lower muzzle velocities thereafter. In addition the heavier shells had more explosive charge, though of the slightly weaker Shellite, and considerably more steel in their bodies to form fragments for a wider area of damage or more concentrated damage for a given area per hit; more "bang for the buck".
Most impressive
Thanks for the briefing Re: Battleship main gun projectile types. Lots of great info.
@@parrot849 You are welcome. My knowledge was gained in increments over about 50 years and I still have holes in what I know about armor and gun projectiles -- considering that such is merely banging two chunks of metal together, you get some idea how complicated the universe really is. Amazing that we know anything!
@@nathanokun8801 - - ...Such a true statement. As the old axiom states: The more we know, the more we realize - we don’t know....
What a gem this channel is, definite new subscriber here! Love the content, many thanks from Devon :D
you getting better in your presentation every vid. congratulations Ryan
I was about to comment “Must have been one Hell of a party the previous night.” Then realized this was an earlier video, and I am used to his more recent style. But he gets the job done here, even with a bit of hesitation and crappy white balance.
@@old_guard2431 🤣🤣🤣👍👍👍👍
in the 1950s Iowa performed very badly in the North Atlantic NATO Naval operations in heavy seas when compared to Vanguard.
Vanguard had a bow designed for heavy seas...
Iowa had a narrow, long proboscis, sure recipe for...
DIVE, DIVE, DIVE!!!
@@johngregory4801 I mean, she was built for speed. not easy for something that big to reach 33 knots
@@Epicredeemer They were designed for speed in calm seas, like the Pacific. They proved much worse in Atlantic/North Sea to Vanguard which was able to maintain its speed where the Iowas had to slow much more.
@@alecblunden8615 Well, the British battleships were slow and short legged, so each was designed to operate in their home waters. The US doesn't have a North Atlantic to worry about very much, just as after '41, the RN didn't have much to worry about in the Pacific any longer.
Yep but vanguard guns were obsolete in WW1. She could sail but not fight
If you look at the NCs designed AA outfit it was 1.1" & 50 cals so no 40mm either. If the Lions had been built no doubt they qould have received more 40mm & 20mm as the KGVs did
Looking at war time refits, just about every ship that survived looked like an angry porcupine, they had so many AA guns on them. At last the USN and RN ships had AA guns that worked.....
Like the US, the UK built more carriers that could have defeated the German surface fleet was the better choice. By 1943, Hitler had the Kriegsmarine stand down surface fleet and deployed UBoats only.
The British production sitiution is complicated
IIRC the torpedoes that actually hit PoW's TDS were pretty much ineffective, it was the hits to the stern and bow that hurt
The one in the bow had little effect short term, just put a hole through the bow. The one in the stern is the one that effectively killed the ship, taking out two shafts and half the machinery spaces due to shaft flooding. Every ship has an Achilles heel, that hit found the PoW's.
@@timclaus8313 That area is the Achilles heel on every battleship or warship. Torpedo hits there also severely crippled the Bismarck and USS Pennsylvania.
@@JohnSmith-wy2or True, and the New York came home for the last time with a lot of damage in the side.
Would have been nice to have a "Thunder Child"
Thunder child was never a name for a real ship though. Only on War of the Worlds.
I'd never actually heard that two more, for a total of six, were ever considered. The four mentioned-Lion, Temeraire, Conqueror, & Thunderer were the only hulls I've read about. The enthusiast in me wishes they had built Lion instead of Vanguard, but I understand the RN's reasoning. In terms of the unnamed hulls, I would have gone with TIGER, without hesitation for one, and either Vanguard or Defiance for the other. Both Vanguard and Defiance were famous and successful ships of the line in the age of Nelson, with Vanguard being his flagship in one of his famous victories. Defiance was at Trafalgar and defeated two enemy ships, if I recall correctly, and was known as the fastest 74 in the fleet. Also, the name "Defiance" certainly captured the spirit of Great Britain as they remained as the only major European power to stand against the Germans. On a similar note, I wish the Royal Navy would have used names like these when naming their new Type 26 frigates. Unfortunately, they went with city names, which is certainly appropriate, albeit less inspiring.
They seem to be using the Battleship names, which in their day were considered capital ships for the current fleet of Aircraft Carriers and Submarines, which makes sense as they are the modern-day capital ships.
Lion sounds a natural fit for 🐅 Tiger.
Vanguard was already being built in addition to the Lions so you cannot use that name. But Tiger for sure is a great name and the other would be something like Magnificent or Superb.
I really appreciate your commentary very informative and interesting. Thanks so much.
When it comes to Royal Navy battleship names, I always have to mention the pre-WW1 Orion class super-dreadnoughts. Orion, Monarch, Conqueror and Thunderer has to be one of the greatest collections of names out there. Since the names Conqueror and Thunderer may have been used for Lions #3 and #4, Orion and Monarch for #5 and #6 would fit rather well.
Though of course that runs into the issue that "Orion" was already taken at the time.
Indefatigable for the win
Really Really enjoyed your video!! A great deal of knowledge about this class battleship and very interesting comparison to similar Fast battleships thank you!
Great thanks! You and Drachinifel would very. interesting
You need to understand that Britain building modern 16” gun battleships was deemed impractical in the time available before the Admiralty calculated they would be in a shooting war with the Axis powers. Britain calculated they could build a new effective 14” gun battleships in the time available for a European war. Had Britain calculated they would not be in a shooting war before 1942, it is likely that there would have been time to develop a modern 16” gun and a platform to carry it.
By 1933 they should have at the very least considered that possibility.
Lions were never meant to be 35,000 tons even the very first Lion design was 42,000 tons
Great video. interesting to see the comparison.
For the last 2 names I would go with HMS Tiger and Vengeance.
I would have said Monarch & Vanguard (on the assumption that the Vanguard that was built would not have been), but I like Tiger.
The amount of damage a shell does is reliant on the size of it's bursting charge, once it has penetrated whatever it has to penetrate in the way of armour. The US 16" heavy ap shell had a slightly smaller bursting charge than the British 14" ap shell (as used on the KGV class). The contrasting fates of the Hood and Bismarck showed that an old battleship could be immediately destroyed by a catastrophic penetration of the vital core (also shown by the fate of the old French BB, Bretagne), but that a modern battleship needed to be wrecked by more superficial damage to the point that it no longer functioned. The sinking of the Bismarck was of no consequence, because long before it sank it was just a wreck unable to do anything that a warship should be able to do. It could be argued that 10x14" guns with shells containing large bursting charges would be more efficient in dealing with modern enemy battleships than 9x16" guns firing heavier shells with smaller bursting charges. The Royal Navy was the only navy to destroy modern battleships by surface action in WWII; the actions against Bismarck and Scharnhorst are, therefore, the only proving grounds for the effect of modern battleship gunnery on other modern battleships.
The size of the charge is irrelevant if the shell doesn't penetrate. The Iowa 16s also had high capacity shells with moderate penetration sufficient for most smaller ships and older main battle ships and very high charge; the AP shells were mainly reserved for rare encounters with the most heavily armored opponents. (especially as the heavier AP shells used more powder and were harder on the guns) The 16s also had more range, which isn't too useful against ships because of targeting small moving objects, but range can be useful for targets inland. (And much more economical per pound of ordinance delivered than bomber aircraft.)
There is also tactical advantage not in destroying the enemy with the fewest shots but in reliably slowing them down. The Bismark being a good example, initial damage to its rudder allowing the allied forces the opportunity and time to develop a stronger follow-up attack. And giving up some yield for more guaranteed penetration can be that reliability.
@@mytech6779 If a modern battleship could be reduced to a waterlogged wreck without it's citadel being penetrated catastrophically, as happened with the Bismarck, the additional penetrating power of a large and heavy shell is, arguably, redundant.
@@urseliusurgel4365 And again they also carried a high capacity round with much more explosive. The HC round was also reasonably armor piercing. (I recall it was rated at 12 inches of steel. Or could be fused for air burst.) The commander could choose whichever was better for the situation, as well as a light or heavy propellant charge. But as stated before it is better to over do the penetration somewhat with a smaller charge then to have a larger charge that doesn't penetrate on a large portion of hits.
The 16" ap round was also intended for use against shore targets, like bunkers and submarine pens where it was rated to penetrate 20 feet of reinforced concrete. Aside from that the Bismark did not have the heaviest armor in the war, and was basically sunk with as much luck as firepower, they don't design guns for luck not all hits will land on soft spots.
The KG5th ships get some flack but they where put to sea with hardly any training. HMS Warspite was one of the most formidable ships in the RN despite not being the most advanced.
HMS Devastator and HMS Audacious have a nice ring to them.
I see what you did there
Last two I'd name HMS Bellerophon and HMS Agamemnon
They were not as pretty, but the U. S. could have built four more South Dakotas instead of the Iowas and won the war just as easily. The KGVs were all the British needed. According to participants, the KGV's 14 inchers didn't have much trouble punching holes in the Bismarck even the conning tower.
Fair, but I would argue this could only really be known for sure with hindsight. Germany, Britain, France and Italy all had 30+ knot battleships and no one knew what the Japanese were doing. I would say the USA wanting a powerful 30+ knot battleship wasn't unreasonable.
Wasn't the British heavy armour of much higher quality than the US?
Depending on the literature you read, the British class A equivalent was 15-20% better than the German armour and about 8-13% better than US. That would mean that the 14in belt would be a 16in German or 15-16in US armour.
In other estimations, German cemented armour was about as effective as that of the British and both were 25% better than that of the US. Also the USA had quite limited abilities to produce cemented armour in quantity.
www.combinedfleet.com/f_armor.htm
I suggest checking this out, also I have read US gov documents that stated many European countries armor was weaker than the US. They were comparing armor and shooting ranges especially after they got ahold of that Yamato armor piece they shot up.
@@jkutnink87 Depends on the armour. US homogenous armour was very good, excellent at keeping out cruiser-size shells. However, every source I have come across has said that US cemented (face hardened) armour, suitable for keeping out battleship shells, was inferior to both the British and German equivalents. Results of tests on the effectiveness of Japanese cemented armour were rather inconsistent, suggesting that Japanese armour may have been of variable quality.
@@jkutnink87 that is bunk. Look up Nathan Okun's write up on the Shinano (Yamato) armor plate tests. It will change your mind.
Loved the video, if you ever wanna talk about the HMS Warspite feel free!
Warspite and the other Queen Elizabeths don't even remotely stack up to an Iowa, unfortunately. It'd be a narrow fight even for a late war-spec King George V with Type 284 and AFCT Mk.IX, and even the rebuilt QEs' FC equipment is 15 years older than that.
"Dominant or even tied with the *victor*" - come on Ryan, we were on the same team, you know! The Russians played a part too. Less that is said about the French, though, the better! LOL
"Which we have a video on here" 😂😂 love your videos keep em up!
Still learning here............
The U..S. Navy developed the Iowa's for speed , keeping up with aircraft carriers and transit thru the Panama Canal as I understand it.
What would have been the British Naval thinking at the time, for the design of the Lion class battleships?
Did British Naval thinking take into account transit thru the Panama Canal ?
Thank you for posting Ryan.....I love the Battleship New Jersey UA-cam channel.
The Iowas weren’t built to keep up with the carriers they were more about being quick to respond to Japanese movements. Second the British were much closer to the Suez Canal than the US were. If I were to plot the route from London to Australia I think going by Panama or Suez would be about the same distance and there were a lot British bases on the Suez route so it would be preferred
The Iowa 32.5 knot speed was in direct response to the rebuilt Kongo class.
No, Britain never thought of the Panama as it had no interest. For Britain, it was the med and East of the suez canal
Britain didn’t need to access the pacific coast of the US so weren’t that bothered by Panama restrictions. The RN accesses the eastern pacific via Suez or the cape not via the Americas.
@@davidwright7193 they were restricted by dock size, hood could only be docked in a handful of docks in the colony and even had one large enough for her built in Australia. Another consideration was the depth of Suez.
A small turret design difference between the new US and post-1930 British battleship designs: The British turret faces were vertical, not tilted back as US designs and prior British designs had been. The tilt was initially to allow the guns to elevate more without having to make a bigger slot in the thick turret face armor and also at close ranges cause the enemy shell to hit the armor such that it had more chance to glance off. The British in its newer battleships decided that battles were going to be at longer ranges so the tilted turret face-plate was going to HELP the enemy shell penetrate if it hit the turret face, so they shifted the angle to zero and made somewhat larger vertical slots for their guns so that the overall armor thickness at the expected longer battle ranges would go up, not down as the angle of fall increased.
As it turned out in WWII, hits on turret faces and waterline belts of battleships (not counting cruisers here which did take such hits) were "as rare as hen's teeth" and, in the ships where hits by any kind of shell were known to occur, none that had even a ghost of a chance of penetrating the plate hit were ever made. In fact, the the post-WWII British Navy had personnel who joked, they could have stripped off most of the armor in their battleships and used it for something constructive with no loss of actual protection. Even HOOD most probably was not killed by a 14.96" Krupp APC shell going through the 12" Cemented Armor-on-2" cement-on-2" HT construction steel inclined waterline belt plates amidships.
Great job.. you certainly seem to know your battleships!!!
The prince of wales torpedo hit was unique in that it damaged the propellor mount whilst the shaft was running at high speed and the damage to all the seals etc meant it flooded through the shaft glands ….it was extremely unfortunate in the circumstances, and the impact damaged the power and services meaning the pumps went off line and the damage control was hindered significantly…it wasn’t really the torpedo protection that was defeated as the Iowa’s to my understanding would have suffered in a similar way if it had received the same hit.
What would i of liked the remaining two Lion class battleship to be named? Monarch!!! Yes i play World of Warships lol the other one... Bellerophon perhaps? I enjoy your videos, please keep up the great work
The RN shell had a far bigger bursting charge so would have done significantly more damage than the US super heavy shell once it penetrated.
The RN also had a far better protected fuse so would have been more likely to detonate whether they penetrated or not.
Yes it would be nice if he also mentioned it once
@@slycat6586 to be honest I thought his analysis was terrible and full of errors
If you are looking for yield, the US 16" also came in an atomic version.
@@mytech6779 the UK atomic bomb WE.177 also came in 16 inches
I didn't know David Tennant had an American cousin. :-D Great video.
Hey man, I just wanted to say that I enjooy your vids!
Thanks
I really like that you do not seem to have any bias? ;)
Ryan, you asked about suggestions to name the final two 'Lion' class ships, mine would be two of the ships Lord Nelson commanded ... 'Agamemnon' (64 guns) which he commanded during the French Revolution, and 'Captain' (74 guns) at Cape St Vincent. Yeah, I'm something of a 'Nelson-phile.'
I might argue that the British 16"/45cal rifle, despite not having a 'super-heavy' shell was marginally more powerful than the USN 16"/45cal also firing a standard shell. The British weapon would likely be a 'product improved' variation of the weapon mounted in Nelson and Rodney. That gun was reliable and was able to knock big holes in Bismarck, more so than KGV's 14" was. I share your thoughts about the 5.25". The USN 5"/38 that your lady carries was credited in some reliable sources as being capable of up to an amazing 20 rounds per minute with a well trained and rested (or adrenaline driven) gun crew.
If she had been built, the Lion would probably have been able to turn in good, solid service even if she wasn't outstanding in any one particular area, much like the North Carolina and South Dakota classes.
For the two unnamed Lion class, I would chose names in the same vein as Temeraire and Thunderer; names of ships that fought at Trafalgar (Because what self-respecting Brit *doesn't* enjoy reminding ourselves of that battle...), so HMS Bellerophon and either HMS Agamemnon or HMS Leviathan.
That said, the Royal Navy doesn't lack for cool and bad-ass sounding names that would've been very appropriate for a big, mean fast battleship.
I like the drawing of the Lion at the back. It looks like a Shipbucket drawing, but I don't think I've ever seen that specific drawing, so it'd be appreciated if you can link out to it. :)
Correct! www.shipbucket.com/drawings/3013
@@erikt8305 Thank you Erik!!! :)
If you read Chirchills history of the war in the Notes at end pf volumes he had his ownopinions on design of KGVs especially and ctoticised the 'break' in Citadel for to gove them a Catapault for a Seaplane, he would have had a high opknion of the SoDaks as you called them . Any ontention on doing for Carriers what you have done for Battleships?
FYI, unlike the US, the British economy was not in depression immediately before WW2; ir stopped declining soon after GB abandoned the gold standard in September 1931, although genuine recovery did not begin until the end of 1932.
Nathan Okun in his "Table of Metallurgical Properties of Naval Armor and Construction Materials" described the British armour as “the best of all known face-hardened armors in heavy, battleship-grade thicknesses”. US Class ‘A’ armour was of excellent quality (in terms of its purity, specification, heat treatment et cetera) but an engineering decision - requiring an excessively thick hardened face - meant it provided less effective protection, with 12″ of US Class A being equivalent to about 10″ of British armour. The KG V class had 15" of main belt armour. To give the same level of protection, The Iowas would have needed 18 inches of main belt armour - but only carried 12.1 inches.
The sea keeping qualities of the Iowas was poor - being unable to keep up with Vanguard on NATO exercises in North Atlantic gales.
"On par with the victor..." Wait, what?
So the second world war was fought between the US and *everyone else?*
According to Hollywood..... yes.
There's a reason American historians have the poor global reputation they do on subjects outside of US domestic history. A few lovely exceptions, but generally a vast sea of abject mediocrity.
@@iatsd Citation needed on American historians having a poor global reputation. There is a vast gulf between Hollywood and experts on many subjects in the US.
@@treyhelms5282 American historians aren't noted globally for having a particularly good grasp on history on any subject outside US domestic history. This is just another example of, at best, sloppiness, and at worst, outright ignorance. Somewhere in the middle and unthinking nationalistic venal pride is most likely. Watching several of his vids, it's clear he can't stand to not declare the US to be number 1 in everything. His attitude and mannerisms in this vid are very clear.
@@iatsd Again, citation needed, rather than you just repeating your claim. It just sounds like sloppiness and ignorance on your part. Are you sure you aren't confusing entertainment movies with actual historical work?
Bellerophon and Superb would be good names for the last ships of the Lion class. Both classic names for 1st rate ships of the line from the Napoleonic wars.
USS Iowa certainly could enter Portsmouth, I visited her there in 1986. Looking at her from the dopckside were three elderly gentlemen, one with tears rrunning down his face. Being a decent kind of chap I asked if I could help. All three had served on RN battleships and had not thought to tread the deck of any such again. Prince of Wales torpedo system wasn't really defeated, like Bismarck a "lucky hit" took out enough stern gear that trying to maintain speed she essetially ripped a hole in her stern and this proved fatal. Google Job 74 for a facinating and in depth surbey of the wreck and writeup of the sinking events, with input from one of the engineering officers present at the time of the sinking. The trials mockup of the defence system, known at The Chatham Float is described as havbing been used as an air raid shetler during the war!
I agree that they chose wisely to not go forward with the loins. By 1943 the writing was on the wall. There would never be another Jutland and without air cover any battleship ran the risk of being a sea floor decoration (ask the Yamato) Their money was better spent elsewhere.
Strong disagree about the 5.25”s. They were great AA guns and far out ranged our 5”s
Unfortunately the rate of fire wasn't too good and they were in a horrible mount that degraded their performance
5he 5.25 were bias to surface against higher angle, but with the advent of the proximity fuse they were much better than the US 5in due to the greater shell weight. As always, designs are a compromise and against service requirements.
@@jamesricker3997 It did have something like 1/3 more range, and with actually functioning power loading gear (as in Vanguard, its rate of fire wasn't too bad at 1 shot every 6.7s) so it would get to fire at the aircraft for 1/3 more time.
Also considering it's a secondary gun, not a dedicated AA gun, that extra range could really help keep destroyers out of effective torpedo range etc.
@@robhartley3930 Well, for AA work, pretty much nothing beats rate of sustained fire for barrage work.
@@timclaus8313 in the Pacific the Japanese had many issues with thier planes being sniped out of the air when they fought they were safe as they would group up a few miles away from the target before attacking and they learnt that the "safe zone" was far from safe when they went against the BPF
If you were to recommend one book on the Iowa class, for design and function, what would it be? Thanks in advance
Good presentation though you concentrate rather heavily on the 1938 design that in fact was upgraded repeatedly. At least until, as it became ever less likely the ships would actually be built, the designers 'lost it' altogether and started to produce various weird and wonderful 'Richelieu'/ carrier hybrid iterations. On which one admiral eventually opined "these abortions are the results of a psychological maladjustment".
YET, had they ever been realised AS pure battleships, it would have been iaw with the upgrade of the then current 'baseline' 1942 iteration that emerged very early in 1944 to incorporate 'wartime lessons'. Accordingly a Lion Class Battleship as completed would have been an approximately 800' long (length between perpendiculars) ship with an additional 9' of freeboard fwd in view of experience with the KG5s, main belt armour up to 15" over the magazines but otherwise 13.7" max (equivalent to c15-16" US armour as British [and German] 'KCA' was significantly better than any other country's), 6" main deck, 'full load' displacement of c56,000t, speed (with transom stern design) of c28kts, and a significantly enhanced anti-torp system featuring increased depth and greater compartmentation. They'd have mounted 9 x 16"/45 cal Mk iv guns able to project a 2,375lb APC shell out to 43,800yds at 40deg elevation with MV of 2.450fps. Secondary armament, intended originally to be 16 x 5,25"/50cal guns as per the KG5s, would have been 24 x QF4.5"/45cal Mk v.
Accordingly, despite the APC still being c10% lighter than the US 'superheavy', one of these ships would've wrecked an 'Iowa' (had she ever been able to catch one, of course, which is improbable). Although a more honest comparison would be with the also cancelled 'Montanas', against which they'd have been at a significant disadvantage.
Ryan : In charge of a BB.
Also Ryan : No idea what a comb is or how it works. lol
Thunderchild, and Excalibur.
The british battleships have some great potential names
The two final ships of the Lion-class should be named Tiger and Leopard, since the lead ship of the class is Lion. Also in naming the ship “Tiger” it pays homage to the battlecruiser HMS Tiger of 1913.
Interesting, Thank You
during WW2, it became apparent that the best defence against a BB wasn't another BB, it was a plane or submarine. lessons were already being learned.
Is that 1000lbs charge for the TDS adjusted to standard tnt?
I cant find your video on the KGV, which i would very much like to see.
We were convinced we'd done it but we hadn't apparently, it's Mondays video now.
@@BattleshipNewJersey ha! super.
the rate you put them out at is ridiculous. I visited last year, my first Iowa class, was blown away by the tour and spent far too long on the 40mm pretending to shoot stuff. keep up the great work.
The thinner and sloped belt of the Iowa is only effectively thicker at ranges beyond 26km (at least against the trajectory of a German or Italian 15" gun), however, that's assuming the armour is the same quality...
But most references say that the British armour was anywhere from 7-25% better than US class A, so even using the most common figure of around 12%, this extends the range at which Iowa's armour becomes more effective out to 33km.
Considering the longest hit by a battleship against another moving ship was only about 24km (by both Warspite and Scharnhorst), even assuming everything else is equal, within practical battle ranges, the vertical armour scheme is more effective.
Then there is the issue of the torpedo protection scheme on Iowa, I've heard it's not exactly the same thickness all the way along... Especially thanks to the extremely narrow bow, in many places (including the forward turret) it's substantially thinner than the maximum thickness.
Just a note on the comparison of armour thickness. British Armour was of a higher quality than American armour, and was matched in quality only by German armour during WW2, so the equivalent thickness is more than you see on paper. Indeed it has been said that the armour on the KGV class was only exceeded by the Yamatos. Depending on what tests you read, British Armour was between 8% and 25% more effective than US and Japanese armour plate which gives the KGV an equivalent armour thickness of 17 inches on the belt.
Since HMS warspite was going to be retired one of the last two should have been named warspite
A massive name to live up too! But a good idea
the RN 5.25 in the latter versions was a better long range AA gun than the US 5/38 gun , there is examples of the British guns taking down japanese planes that where out of the 5inch gun range.
Have you ever done a comparison to either the Bismarck class, Richelieu class or especially the Tillman battleships?
We've done Bismarck and Richelieu, you'll find them both in our comparisons playlist: Battleship Comparisons: ua-cam.com/play/PLALOZV63REes36tNIqZNOKT3R73VMPcKu.html
The armoured conning tower was found to be a waste of valuable weight and resources because the crew would never use them. Those in command of the ship valued an unrestricted view of what was going on around them; sensible because if you cannot see well how can you fight well? The 5.25" secondary initially had a modest rate of fire however as the system developed the rate became much improved, it is credited with being more than doubled, it also had a superior range to the 5"/38 as Japanese pilots found out with fatal consequences.
Lion Class is/was like the Churchill tank: the perfect weapon for the last war. A bit outdated for the one she would've fought.
Personally? I'd serve on an Iowa if I could.
Having been on a tincan during a severe winter storm I'd definitely want to be on a ship that could present a lot of aux steam hoses, pickaxes, and axes . . . maybe a flamethrower or ten . . . to clear away the rime. Imagine what the Murmansk convoy route must've been like for deck crews. Frozen Boats' everywhere!
I would be interested in seeing the North Carolina classes with 14 inch guns in a game like World of Warships.
Well have I got news for you. There is one in the game now.
Really? I haven't played a few months
While it's true that the final two Lions never had their names confirmed, the existing Royal Navy vessel naming conventions of the time would have seen them christened AGINCOURT and RESISTANCE, respectively.
As some comments have noted, or alluded to, the British and German battleships were designed more for Atlantic operations, whereas the US battleships seem more optimized for the Pacific, where a longer range engagement is more likely to happen.
So for the Atlantic, thicker belts rather than the equivalent “apparent thickness” in the way of inclined armor makes sense for the likely area of operation (the North Atlantic).
Speaking about incompleted battleships i think it would be useful to compare the iowas to h39
I read there poor fuel consumption was do to no having dubbed reduction gear like the US had , the Vangard had the because they imported the machine so to make them from the US.
Naval Institute Press.
Not impressed. Several factors are incorrect. The Iowa class was not a stretched NC class design. Propulsion, Armor and Guns were all different. The crew and interior spaces were also different. Bridge was different. Anchor arrangements were different because the bow size and shape was different. The number of guns and propellers were the same. Fire control was very similar.
In the end, you could say that the Lion Class was equal to a North Carolina class more than an Iowa class.
The NC class had adequate armor and guns to deal with the Lions equal fire control, equal guns a little better speed but slower than the Iowa and the latest French Battleship class.
The Iowa’s were unique in that they had barely adequate armor less than the West Virginia had. They were designed to hunt down lesser Battle Cruisers and cruisers using their powerful 16” guns and faster than most cruisers especially in heavy weather. The Iowa’s superior speed, gun and fire control made it the king of the seas with adequate air CAP protection
Me: "Build the 1942 Lion design, it's good enough and modifications can be made down the line."
British ship designer: "But we can improve it so much more-"
Me: "Don't care! Just build the dang things!"
So there's:
Lion
Temeraire
Thunderer
Conqueror
I guess you'd need to go with:
Royal George
Royal Oak
Put Admiral's space in George and Oak (as opposed to for but not with in the others).
Honestly though, I'd rename Lion. That's a cruiser or second class BB / 64 gun name. Call it HMS Bellerophon instead.
I spent way too much time thinking about this.
Now that I say it aloud, I'm sure Chatfield was the one making the choice on the name of Lion.
Ryan can you compare HMS Rodney with HMS Vanguard.....the reason I ask is 16 inch v 15 inch guns
Who would of won
Thanks Ryan & crew for these videos which satisfy my curiosity about the engineering of warships and life onboard a battleship. I have two suggestions for topics to cover in videos:
1) I'd like to know more about optical rangefinders. How do they work? What are the advantages and disadvantages or coincidence vs. stereoscopic rangefinders?
2) How was armor produced? What types of armor were used? How do you apply armor to a ship? How to add additional armor/replace sections? Evolution of armor schemes?
Good stuff thanks
I have to interdict here about the comparison of the Lion class British BB vs. the Iowa Battleship. I could not find the guns that , were planned on the Lion class BBs, perhaps because they were never built. But the next British BBS was the Vanguard. Brian made the comment that the power of the ammo shot out of their 15" guns was comparable to the Iowa's, and that the range would be farther. Neither of these are even close. The Iowa shoots two different size shells, a HE one at 1,900 lbs, and the AP shell at 2,700 lbs. The Vanguard had only the 1,936 lb. shell, and had a MV of only 2,450 fps, generating 180M ft. lbs. of ME as compared to the Iowa 1,900 HE shell at a MV of 2,690 fps that generates 213M ft' lb.of ME. The lower powered Iowa shell is 23% more powerful. Then bring in the heavy Iowa shell, and it delivers 262M ft. lbs. of ME, which almost 50% more powerful. And on the distance, the Vanguard shell has a range of only 33,000 yards as compared to the Iowa shell range of approximately 42,000 yards.
If on the other hand the guns that were to be used on the Lion class were the 16" guns used on the Neslson/Rodney class, then the difference is not as great, but is still very significant. Here, again, there is only one shell used on the Nelson, and this one is 2,048 lbs and generated 212M ft. lbs. of ME, which is essentially the same as the Iowa HE round. But, the Iowa heavy shell would outclass the British 16" shell by about 24%. Also, the range of the Nelson shell is only 37,500 yards, as compared to the Iowa 42,000 yards.
I have tried to get a hold of Brian, so I can give jimmy ballistics file which has all this data in it. But there has been no response after several weeks!
Sorry, I meant Ryan!!!!
These guns would’ve been new just like the 14 inch guns on the KGV which outranged the Us 16 inch guns and were more accurate.
Poet Thomas Hardy:
"My argument is that war makes rattling good history, but peace makes poor reading."
Evidently Hardy never experienced what he was enthralled with...
Inflexible and indefatigable would be my chosen names for the last 2
Can you make a video talking about the super heavy shells? The japanese went for the type 91 ap shell to maintain underwater penetration and the americans wen't for icreased deck penetration, would be nice to know what lead to the development of these shells and compared to other countries like the UK and Germany
As far as I know the japanese approach did not work out well despite some incidents were critical underwater hits sunk american cruisers. As BBs are a distance weapon the american approach appears to be better. If you want hits below waterline use aircraft carriers with torpedo planes ;)
The german strategy was to avoid any battle with enemy capital ships and go for hunting trade shipping. Therefore they had no specific battle strategy except heavy overall armor. UK capital ships were still influenced by the already obsolete post WWI strategy of beeing fast and hit strong. Therfore they had significantly week armor but comparable guns focussing on broad side weight loads delivered (e.g. KGV-Class had 10 guns with a bit smaller caliber but overall fair load weight but those were built later when admiralty already had discarded the earlier approach and sacrificed speed for armor instead).
Do you rival with the USS Iowa museum
Only a friendly one. Now Wisconsin on the other hand...just kidding. We love our sisters and we do talk to them basically daily.
Talking about he names for the two last ships, they`ve looked to name last two of "KGV" as "Jellicoe" and "Beatty", in honour of WWI RN admirals. However, Admiralty decided not to name these ships like this - John Jellicoe and David Beatty passed away only couple of years before ordering battleships, it were considerded as "not enough old names" (and ships were named "Anson" and "Howe"), but this honour could be well fitted for two last "Lions".
Beatty did not deserve to have a capital ship named after him. Somehow he developed a reputation as a good leader when most if not all of his battles were full of tactical and signalling errors that allowed German ships to escape and opened his own to more punishment.
14:08 Not going to mention anything about the *quality* of the armour, huh? Yeah, don't blame you - you're skimming a lot to make sure you defend the US ships, so talking about armour quality would be another subject to miss when it comes to US warships.
o i forgot great work keep it up.
The Iowa’s were not to be repeated designs. They were to be repeated my the Montana class with much heavier armor all around and 12 not 9 16” guns with a substantially wider hull and the NC power plant for a 27 knot speed rating rather than the 32 knot Iowa’s.
I have seen a number of times discussions that British and German primary armour was anywhere from 6 to 12% better than US armour. Is that taken into account in your discussion.
Names for me would've been Centurion and Warrior, though the name Warrior in the circumstance where war held off for a while. Otherwise, I'd be all for naming the sixth one Hood as a middle finger to the Germans.
And the German reply, meet fast frigates Bismarck and Tirpitz ! Hood the 6th EXPLODES in anger !
Fun fact, the Montana class reverted to the North Carolina style torpedo defense system structure, instead of keeping the SoDak/Iowa scheme.
And why is that?
Like your comparisons very much but not convinced, my research would suggest the comparison would be much closer. My suggested names for the two proposed Lion class would be HMS Bellerophon and HMS Agamemnon. As you know you history I'm sure you'll understand why.
I would call the last 2 Defence and Warrior
I would call them TITAN and HERCULES.
I never understood why they bother with torpedo defense systems and bulges. Won't it be simpler to simply have a trimaran like design where there are two outrigger sponsons that are knife thin about 20~30 m from the main hull with water flowing in between. These are as deep as the hull and the torpedoes will impact at a wide distance. You can even make then retractable to pass through canal since they are not part of the ship's reserve buoyancy.
Lion's 5 & 6 - Dreadnought and Warspite or Vanguard
Honestly? I'd have loved it if the HMS Lion were to go up against the Bismarck-Class.
Sure, the KGV-Class gave the Bismarck a run for its money and had the better Armour layout, but a Lion Vs a Bismarck would have been a hell of a thing to witness/document.
The RN does not engage in one on one combat, not unless it has to. It will fight against the odds if it needed and has a reputation for overcoming the odds but you are engaged in war and are fighting to win and they use every trick in the book in order to win.
HMS Victory and HMS Dreadnought seem good names for the last two BBs
Victory was still technically in service. The names we may have seen? Probably Dreadnought/Hood/Iron Duke.
HMS Buttkicker.....😷
Like your videos but have to ask if you checked your hair doo before making this?
Lion's guns would have been equivalent to the 16inch 45 on US treaty battleships, her armor included vastly better belt protection and marginally better deck protection, while the turrets were slightly less protected. Lion is 2,500 tons lighter at standard displacement in her 1942 design and loses (some of) this as speed, 5 knots slower. Otherwise I think she is actually somewhat comparable to the Iowa class and marginally superior the NC, SD given equivalent speed, superior armor, equivalent guns and slightly increased displacement. And the Utility of the 5.25/50 definitely increased in the post war environment, they were probably more valuable than a 5/38 as radar, rangefinding could better utilise their longer range and power-ramming, better turret mountings. Basically a 5/54 but lacking the rate of fire
And the 100,000 tone 1000 foot design could’ve taken on all the Iowas at once.
HMS Indescribable and HMS Inexplicable. The last two unobtainable Lion class ships.
Is it possible you and Drachinifel could combine your "powers" and do a few joint videos? I would watch these all day long!
We were supposed to do one this past spring. We hope to do so eventually.
Being that males tend to me visual than auditory in their learning, it would be helpful when listing stats to use charts. 30 years teaching adults and a masters in adult learning
Yes, but the British in 1941 developed Torpex explosives that produced 50 percent more explosive power than conventional gun powder.
As a result, the Japanese super battleships Musahi and Yamamoto which were developed contrary to the London Naval treaty were easily sunk by American torpedo and dive bombers equipped with torpedos and bomb outfitted with this new explosive.
The age of the battleship was gone. Battleships had to be protected by destroyers and Aircraft carriers.
As someone from the UK I have no real conception of what a foot is. It would be handy if you were doing vids about European ships if you included the dreaded metric. Thank youuuuuu
Extra depth of torpedo defence would not have saved Prince of Wales. The ship was sunk because the flailing propellor shaft which opened her up. The same hit would have defeated any WW2 torpedo defence including the Iowa’s unless the shaft was stopped straight away.