"The most lethal naval squadron of the Atlantic during the 2nd World War". Correct?
The Tirpitz never sank anything, The Bismark, sank the Hood but in doing so received damage & was then sunk. Nearly every other German ship - Graff Spee, Scharnhorst, Gneisenau were more successful, U boat squadrons?
Yamato & these 2 look so elegant & menacing. Oddly the Yamato was also completely unsuccessful.
During trials, the Bismark couldn't be steered without the rudder. Ironic.
It's probably an Arado float-plane, but a lot of large German ships carried an auto-gyro which was towed behind the ship at speed, generating lift. This was used to see farther over the horizon for scouting purposes. In case of action the cable had to be let go, dooming the observer aboard to a slow descent into the sea...
hi you all battleships in ww2 were obsolete Bismark Tirpitz Yamoto prince of Wales hms Repulse all these ships sunk by planes the way to go was carriers and they are becoming obsolete in todays navys
@LordKorloros ships now days are all made of fibre glass to avoid missiles meaning they are weak to artillery so the return of large battleships may not be too far away
@motorguzzi100 Although you're right about those ships being sunk by aircraft, those ships also played huge roles in the outcome of the war. Tirpitz for example was a threat even holed up in a fjord for most of her career.
Now days you're right they are obsolete BUT look at the USS New Jersey, she was struck in 1991. We had long range missiles and fast planes then but they still used her in Lebanon and the Gulf.
YOU FUCKING BRITISHERS, GERMANY WILL GET ANOTHER GREAT LEADER LIKE HITLER & WILL BUILT MORE POWERFUL SHIP LIKE TRIPTIZ THEN WE WILL GET YOU AGAIN YOU ASS HOLES, YOU CONTROL MEDIA OF ALL WORLD & TELL NEGATIVE NEWS..& SPREAD HATE, NUDITY & VIOLENCE....YOU HAIRS OF QUEENS PUSSY...FUCK YOU LL ENGLISH MEN & WOMEN,,,,I HATE YOU MOTHERS FUCKER..HEL HITLER & GERMANY, WE DON'T START WORLD WAR YOU UK * USA START IT, FDR REPORT SAYS THAT US ATTACK ITS OWN SOIL PERAL HARBOUR, U DISHONEST COUNTRY PEOPLE,,
@smallfire66 dont worry discover is like the media they keep doing stuff about moon leaveing orbit and iv checked dates.... THE SUN WILL ENGULF THE BLUDY THING BEFORE IT LEAVES ORBIT. its just the media wanting views
Actually no, the ship was cut up into metal plates in the 50s and used for replacing surfaces during road works... whenever you see one of the big steel plates of the Public Roads Admin in Oslo, you know you're driving on a piece of the Tirpitz... in which one of my German ancestors, with identical name to mine, served and died in 1944.
Actually no, the ship was cut up into metal plates in the 50s and used for replacing surfaces during road works... whenever you see one of the big steel plates of the Public Roads Admin in Oslo, you know you're driving on a piece of the Tirpitz... in which one of my German ancestors, with identical name to mine, served and died in 1944.
USA and Russia became technological superpowers.German engineers fled to the US, those captured by the Russians were forced to work for them.The German concept of quality over quantity,(isn't a bad thing) coupled with thier habit of employing tactical military necessity over the greater strategic goal cost them what became a 4 front war,East,West,South and air.The biggest blunder,the timing of operation Barbarossa.German satelite nations were unprepared for the ferocity of WWII.
If Germany may have waited only a few years after '39 she may have won WWII. The Z plan for naval expansion was to be completed by '46 called for sister ships Tirpitz and Bismark plus 4 more, a number of outstanding cruisers, and battlecruisers and notably 4 carriers...but since the impatient Hitler,with a natural forboding of the sea,and the bombastic Goring as minister of armaments as well as Luftwaffe chief..the Kriegsmarine was given scraps of what it needed to realize this ambitious plan.
@rascalferret agreed wtf was Hitler thinking! its his fault they lost the war. if he would have waited till 46 he would have a complete and powerful navy, jet technology and more powerful tanks from the start of the war not at the end and perhaps even nukes. Hitlers impatient ways destroyed Germany, now Germans are ashamed of their history.
@BetoG34 First of all, Hitler couldn't have waited, the Stalin had plans to invade germany in 1943 with some of the most technological advanced tanks in the world, remeber the Tiger, and Panther were only created due to the threat of the t-34 and KVs. The Panzer IV was only upguned because of the T-34, it was origanly developed as an infantry support weapon. Second Hitler really only became interested in jet tech during 1942 and demanded that it be used as a fighter bomber not as a fighter
@canadaloveswhiskey third, and finally Germans have a right to be ashamed of their history as they started a war that in the end killed between 60 to 70 million people, caused some of the most terrible crimes in the world, and attempted to exterminate anyone who they considered sub-human. You should know the list, Jews, Poles, Russians, Roma's, Serbs.
I had a German roommate and his thoughts on it were identical to Americans thoughts on slavery. It's a terrible piece of their nation's history but the only thing they can do is learn from it so it doesn't happen again. I'm ashamed of slavery but I'm not ashamed to be an American. Germans are proud people and honorable people.
Sure they've had a lot of bad apples, but as an American I have to say we've had some as well, but we've had many heroes to.
@canadaloveswhiskey Hahahaha! Russians and Japanese did far worse than the Germans. Russia, during their assault, raped more than 4.5 million Russian women. One man recalls how 12 men raped one, young 14yr old. The reason was, according to him, mainly because "they hadn't had a women in so long!" Japan also had the comfort women camps, which housed somewhere between 200,000 women, to a million women. Also, Russia even raped their own people, as they moved into Germany. ;)
@Tyco200 The germans killed 8.5 million Russians, while cleansing the region, a further 5 million is estimated to have died from famine introduced by the germans stealing food from the ukrain. the estimated rapes in soviet russia by the way is 10 million, not 4.5. the estimated case in Germany went as high as 1 million, but are now conisdered to be less the 500,000. And lets not even start on poleland.
@canadaloveswhiskey True, and yes. But also remember that the T-34 was inferior to the American M4 Sherman in many aspects. The two manned turret, 76.5mm gun and the fact that its armor was nothing truly protective with just 45mms frontal all led to a disastrous design. Their only advantage was outnumbering their enemies. Also, the KV-1 was the only "good design" of the two. Even the T-34-85's gun could not compare to even the American 76 of 1942.
@Tyco200 First off the 76mm gun was not installed on the sherman until 1944. Second off the 85 mm, and the 76mm were actually fairly equal, it wasn't until the devlopment of new amunition that the gun proved far more effective. You are also forgeting that like the sherman the t-34/85 was upgraded and a three man turret was installed, before operation badgeration
@canadaloveswhiskey We should also remember the fact that Hitler delayed his men on the Eastern front for both Ukraine's oil, and for the political sake of taking Stalingrad, which was an absolute waste. If he had charged onward to Moscow, Russia would be doomed. Also remember the fact that it was the U.S who supplied the Russians with M3s, M4s, clothing, fighters, etc. etc.
@Tyco200 You mean like napoleon when he took moscow? Most of the heavy industry had been moved and their were still millions of men on the japanese border, and the werhmacht's supply lines would have been streched even more. It should also be noted that the Russians hated american tanks, and refered to them as pressure cookers because of their tendency to light on fire.
@canadaloveswhiskey Also, they would've been forced to launch newer tank guns on their newer American counterparts either way. The 75mm was more than enough to rip the Panzer III and early Panzer IVs to pieces. Shermans also were impregnable to German 50mm guns. The Sherman's weakest flaw was exposed ammunition in British variants. The 76mm gun, in early 1942, was by far on par or even better with anything in the world. They even proved superior in Korea to the T-34-85.
@Tyco200 Yes true but the german designs would have been slower, most likely you wouldn't have seen the likes of the tiger one until 1944. The britsh were a head of the americans in amuntion, by the way. The British had a depleted sabot round in 1943, while the americans had theirs by early 1945.
Now I have always maintained that the Sherman was a good tank, it was reliable had a good gun and was great at its job which was to counter the panzer 3 and 4.
@rascalferret let's not forget the italian army and navy,in 1939 and 1940 we were completely unprepared for a war in the mediterranean against the british,we had sub par tanks,no carriers and old battleships.In mid 1942 we had started to produce modern tanks,a new class of battleships,the Littorio which had similar capabilities to the bismark and the class of aircraft carriers Aquila(eagle).2 of those were nearly completed.
@TheWoodstock2009 The astonishing early victories of the Wehrmacht had much to do with Mussilini's decision to enter the war..so that Italy could still sit respectably at Hitler's table perhaps ? On paper Regia Marina was capable but proved ineffective and rarely sortied due to low fuel stocks and a reluctancy to risk heavy losses against the Royal Navy.On land the Italians were poorly led, equipped and seemingly less than enthusiastic in battle. there is so much to study of military history.
@rascalferret We could have won the war in africa in 1940.We had around 20000 soldiers vs the british's 40000.Our commanders were reluctant to mount an offensive because of a british ruse.They made fake tanks and artillery pieces to make it look like their forces were superior.The same trick worked again at the 2nd battle of el alamein but it was used to confuse the axis intel on the location of the main british offensive.What really screwed us over in the seas was the raid on taranto
@TheWoodstock2009 Taranto was unprecedented.On the subject of the Med,a lingering question,why was Malta not nuetralized by invasion? Subs and aircraft operating from there was a thorn in the side for axis supply to Africa. b/c of the sting of costly Op. Mercury, or the failure to mount or the difficulties with Sea Lion? No doubt, regardless of political ambitions or speculative aftermath..the Axis really could have won WW2...which goes back to my origional thoughts on a few years more of R&D
@rascalferret actually I know why malta wasn't invaded.At the time the invasion was scehduled rommel was about to reach alexandria and end the british presence in the mediterranean so all available forces were sent to aid his progress,taking men away from the landing preparations in malta.See there was this plan to move from egypt to the caucasus and attack the russians from behind.Hitler loved it and yeah..Malta should probably have been a priority
@TheWoodstock2009 hard to believe ur a highschooler,and we're talking about the Med on a Tirpitz vid,but so what. If Hitler would've given Rommel a fraction of what he got after Torch'42,Rommel would surely have jumped the Suez. As it was he was agressively attacking before his forces were fully landed and still almost pulled it off. Italy should've stayed out until they were ready, then Yugoslavia,Greece,Crete and Africa would've been unnecesary.
@rascalferret actually I am a high scooler I just like history,its a good thing to learn IMO,much more useful then the maths they teach us xD.But yeah I agree we should have stayed out of it.Greece was actualy one of the main reasons why barbarossa failed,because it delayed the german forces from attacking russia in the spring.The attack was planned in april but was only executed in june.
@TheWoodstock2009 haha..ya I like history too,but learn Math and Science in order to CREATE history...Go down deep enough into anything and you will find mathematics. Good luck kid !
@raypanzer521 I agree. Don't forget, Scharnhorst & Gneisenau, which were origionally planned to join up !!!!
That combo would have been difficult to find, much less over power. England would have needed a miracle and probably would have lost the war. (U-boats still were very deadly).
(our Iowa was still in the dream stage). As it was, Bismarck nearly did the job, alone.
"Any ship is put out of action, if you destroy it's source of power. The 'scew' should have been number-one. Who cares how thick it's casing is, if it cant move."
Something many posters here are fogetting. The London and Washington Treaties both ran out in 1936, thus ending what was referred to as the Battleship Building Holiday. The HMS KGV and USS North Carolina classes were designed within the Treaty Limitations, and the NC's were even delayed due to the hope that Japan would not build battleships w/ guns larger than 14" (355 mm), but WW2 showed arguably, if not conclusively, the folly of designing ships with treaty limitations.
Well the British had some idea about the Yamamoto class. They originally thought they would have 16in guns. The problem for the British actually lays in the prewar era. Not only by signing the Washington Naval treaty was the Royal Navy strength lost forever, but the supporting structure. The shipyards, the weapons manufactures, and the steel makers were let to wither away and die. So had they waited they would have to either accept the Lion class' 16in gun or design a new 15in gun from scratch.
@thatkidinthegreenhat it is yamamoto was a man not a ship, your'e thinking of yamato?The reason the british didn't extend their battleship fleet between the wars was there was no reason to do that, they already had the biggest most powerfull fleet in the world.What put a spanner in the works was the washington treaty, because of this they had to scrap ships and also not build any true battleships.Unfortunatly the italians,germans and japanese chose to ignore the treaty which put them back foot.
No reason to extend their fleet? Did we forget about Japan's 8:8 program. The USA's fleet second to none? The British didn't need to build a bigger fleet during the interwar years after the signing of the treaty. They needed to replace the older ships. Accepting parity with the USA was also stupid. The UK fought so hard to maintain a larger fleet than anyone else. Then in the 1920s they just signed away the Royal Navy's strength.
@thatkidinthegreenhat CHECK OUT YOUR HISTORY BOOKS, the british would have upgraded their fleet if not of the washington treaty,YOUR country signed that treaty and were in the same situation.When the brits and the americans signed the treaty they had to scrap many ships and were only able to upgrade allowable numbers of battleships and only build certain others with allowable tonnages. Both sides didn't think was the japs and krauts were going to defy the treaty, which bit both sides in the ass.
What ? The treaties had no effect on the modernizing of the existing ships. The UK should have only accepted the original figure of 600,000 tons for the UK and 525,000 for the US. Germany was not regulated under any of these treaties. First she was under the treaty of Versailles. Then the German Anglo naval agreement. Italy also did not sign the Second London naval treaty. Japan did not sign it either.
@thatkidinthegreenhat which the british were doing, they had already mondernised the queens elizabeth classes, renown and repulse, hood was due to be mondernised but never happened thanks to ww2. What britain should have done was built carriers which wasn't part of the treaty.
@pramboy09 what the british should have done, is they should have taken seriously the U-Boats, but by the beginning of the war until about ´42 they did nothing.....
@JHKmOBSCENE What do you mean they did nothing? They had the whole royal navy out there trying to sink battleships, battlecruisers, cruisers and submarines, but the atlantic is a pretty damn big piece of water. It was a long drawn out processes getting more effective ways of sinking subs like using sunderlands, catalinas and liberators and dropping sonar buoys and depth chargers, once the germans were being bombed they couldn't replace at the rate they were being sunk.
@thatkidinthegreenhat got my phrases wrong, the carriers were limited by tonnages but if they had built up to the limit allowed they would have had a very good start during the war, especially during the battle of the atlantic, considering the carrier took over as the main thrust weapon in naval warfare.
@thatkidinthegreenhat For starters i NEVER said the U.S fleet was second to none!secondly,after ww1 the main agressor had been defeated,at the time the british navy was the biggest.There was plans by the british to start replacing ships in the late 1920's but at the time there was no hurry It was the governments of britain and the U.S that got stung by the washington treaty. Not their navies.
lol. The phrase "a navy second to none" was quoted by naval officers in the USN. It was there disire to build a fleet that was larger than any other including the Royal Navy. Congress rejected the plan. There navies didn't get "stung" ? Had just the G3 class battlecruisers been built they would have been worth more than twice then the old ships retained. Even modernized ships.
@thatkidinthegreenhat just a question, do you own any books on what you think you know or just cut and paste stuff from wikipedia? Just that all of the stuff from the washington treaty you quoted was just copied from wikipedia. I must admit this drives me nuts, for starters it's not always accurate and some so called facts are just planely wrong. I have been collecting books on aircraft and naval batttles and ships since i was 5 years old and just believing anything you find on the net is lazy
It is funny because I was just on wikipedia. It mentioned nothing about the original terms of the Washington Naval treaty. As far as 604,450 tons for the UK, 500,650tons for the USA, and 299,700 tons for Japan exactly.
Also about the modernization of the Royal Navy's capital ships. Which you claimed were regulated under the treat. I believe you typed this "CHECK OUT YOUR HISTORY BOOKS, the british would have upgraded their fleet if not of the washington treaty" Must have gotten that on wiki too.
@thatkidinthegreenhat i never said the treaty regulated that existing british capital ships couldn't be modernised. Ok tell me what books you have and i'll compare them to mine.
@thatkidinthegreenhat YES you need to check out your history books,you were able to monderise your existing ships BUT WITH A TONNAGE LIMIT. Lets look at an example shall we?Lets look a ship like HMS New Zealand she was a Indefatigable-class battlecruiser, she surivied the war but was scrapped so the british could stay within her quota of tonnage limit, that was what i was trying to tell you about the washington treaty forcing the british ships to scrap ships to stay within her quota.
The scrapping of that ship was to keep within the limits. What does that have to do with modernizing ships. No that is not what you were trying to tell me. If you were you would have said that. "CHECK OUT YOUR HISTORY BOOKS, the british would have upgraded their fleet if not of the washington treaty" were your exact words.
I am still wondering. Speaking of the Washington naval treaty I think you will agree the Royal Navy had the most to lose. So seeing as you read a lot. I have a question. How many capital ships did the Royal Navy have in 1918?
@thatkidinthegreenhat 46 capital ships (post dreadnought), many were outdated and were scraped not long after the washington treaty. I think you will find the the royal navy didn't want to get in to a "cold war" with the USA which offered a 10 year holiday in construction of dreadnought with restrictions. I think you don't realise just how damaged britain was after ww1, they were almost crippled money wise and just didn't have the resources to start yet another arms race with the U.S
@thatkidinthegreenhat I believe you ask for 1918? Dreadnought was scrapped in 1922. I did not include any pre-drednought battleships in my number of 46 for obvious reasons. do you want me to list them for you?
Your answer was wrong is my point. I did ask how many capital ships did the Royal Navy have in 1918. The answer was 71. You gave the answer of 46. After the obsolete ships saw the breakers yard there were 41 modern capital ships left not 46. By 1939 15 remained.
@thatkidinthegreenhat Oh you're back are you? YOU asked for 1918 didn't you? i pointed out to you that drednought didn't see the breakers yard till 1922 i gave you the numbers of POST drednought capital ships that were still active in 1918, do you want me to list them for you??
More importantly it was taking as long as 4 years for the British to build capital ships. So if a ship was laid down in 1940 it would take till at least 1944 for it to be complete. So they could not wait with war looming on the horizon.
My cousin in Norway told me she can still see the wrecked hulk of the Tirpitz in a fjord. No one swims near it, she says, because they're afraid of unexploded bombs.
the HMS barham was sunk by a u-boat as was the HMS Royal Oak. Like the HMS Hood royal oak had 8-15 inch guns and had three sister ships and the Hood also had three sister but they where never built
After checking facts, the Bismarck was hit with 2 300 shells, yes, twothousandthreehundred..and she didn't sink, but crippled and instead the crew sank her. In my opinion that speaks for the power of the ship, and ppl commenting about her being umodern I ask you to do some reading as the two sisterships were considered state of the art for the time.
Hit by 2300 shells ? Over 2000 shells were fired. Only about 500 hit Bismarck. State of the art? 3 screw propulsion vs 4. Mixed secondary battery. Dual armored decks and main belts. Triple gun turrets were more effective than dual gun turrets. Single torpedo bulkhead vs 4 for the Iowa class.
@thatkidinthegreenhat. U can't just stare at numbers. Some WWII warplanes had bigger guns than modern fighters of today, but that don't guarantee it a better fighter does it?! I don't really know what ur purpose of this debate is?! No ship were willing to engage the Bismarck alone, wich is kind of understandable. U can't compare armor straight off, there are diffrent classes there aswell, and B had an elastic torp armor wich weren't very common.
Yet the old Revenge class battleship Ramillies was order to break from her convoy and engage Bismarck. That was assuming she was still attempting to to destroy convoys. Instead she headed to France. The battleship HMS Rodney was 14 years old in 1941. Still she went in and engaged the "superior" enemy. On paper Rodney's armor and armament were superior to Bismarck's. Rodney had 16in guns vs 15in. 14in thick armored belt vs 13 for Bismarck. 6in thick single armored deck.
@thatkidinthegreenhat No love..I never said she was unsinkable..as proved by history. I said the two ships were very modern and extremely powerful when they set sail. Two diffrent things..now give it a rest please.
"I said the two ships were very modern and extremely powerful when they set sail." Three screw propulsion. When every British battleship from Dreadnought to Vanguard minus the Nelson class had 4. Dual armored decks and main belt. Mixed secondary battery. Single torpedo bulkhead vs 4 for latter allied ships. Dual gun main turrets less effective than the triple gun turrets. Weak stern section. As my comment below pointed out 14 year old battleships had better armor and a heavier broadside.
@thatkidinthegreenhat Oh Christ..U still here debating? Doesn't really matter what U write mate..those numbers can all be found by a few google-clicks..but no matter your numbertricks those ships became legendary. I tried to explain before that U can't just compare numbers straight off , just like U can't compare a bomberplane to an attack/ fighter. U try to make 'em seem mediocre..and if so..why all the efforts tring to destoy them..haha would be enough to send a canoe for 'em.
Good one. First of all there is no debate. Those "numbers" mean everything. It showed in combat. When Bismarck's main battery was silenced/destroyed. When Rodney's 16in guns penetrated above the waterline. Just like Bismarck was hit by "2300" shells. At least the stuff I get is accurate.
Why was it so hard to sink them. Simple in the case of Tirpitz it show the impotence of the multiple engined heavy bomber. For Bismarck had the range been longer she would have been doomed quicker. Those "insignificant" numbers showed the armored citadel was vulnerable to long range plunging fire.
Im so sick of these endless fights that even are not about facts but emotions. Blah blah..US navy..blah blah..german warmachine..blah blah..U'd speak german if it wasn't for us..blah blah, and my granddad did this and that! None of U ppl writing here had any part of the war so why U dishonor the ppl that did and suffered by acting like children fighting over who's got the strongest dad. ALL NATIONS get fucked in war, there are no heroes, only men being lead to death by politicians.
I had a Brit friend who´s old uncle was about to go into the Hood as part of the crew, but he was sick, and couldn´t go. He consider it was a very bad luck no to be part of the proud crew... but after the sunk the bad luck was a tremendous good luck (only 3 survivers as far as I know). Is not easy to figure out the grade of disgrace suffered by those souls at such massive enourmous ships... impressive engineering and such the drama.
@Notyiffhunter my opa was on the tirpitz and was on the shore drinking piss when they drop the mines,i remember him telling me what a party they had but anyway he passed away in 96 and i inherited his model which sat on his tv for 30 yrs in brisbane australia before he died, now it sits on mine,,,,Kick ass!!
Put Tirpitz And Bismark Together And Take yamato And musashi And IJN Shinano Put them together And The US Iowa Classes and the Never build Montana Classes
The bismarck sank the "Hood" with 5 salvos in under 8 minutes. it took the hole british fleet to take out the bismarck and still it was just luck, becuse of a british torpedo plane hit the roter of the bismarck making it unable to moveg(turn), it took over 400 hits before sinking....
The Bismark hit on the Hood was pure luck as shown in a new program a few seconds later and hoods thickest armour would of took the hit. watch Battle of the Hood and Bismark.
talpore.....luck? luck? No disrespect intended, but that's nonsense and you know it. The gunners aboard Bismarck were very efficient and Hood's deck was extremely thin....dangerously thin. So good aim on the Germans part plus a thin deck on Hood equals disaster.
Dont forget that Bismarck even severely damaged HMS Prince Of Whales...Luck?
yes the Hood was manouering to present her best armour to the bismarck which was her downfall .the Bismark gunners were exellent but even they could not hope to get the shot they got.watch program Bismarck vs Hoods i think its on youtube.they found the Hood and worked out what happened.
If Bismarck made it to 1943 would Bismarck win against the Iowa class. Fitted with a wurzburg radar. That was the debate. And so far Bismarck is winning.
Bismarck winning? How do you figure that one? Assuming you are right and Bismarck had radar equivalent or superior doesn't correct the many other flaws of the ship. Her main battery consisted of 8, 15in guns in dual gun turrets. The triple gun turret arrangement proved to be superior. Bismarck had a mixed secondary battery. A dedicated anti-ship battery of 5.1in guns. Heavy AA battery of 4.1in guns. Where as the Iowas had the more effective 5in dual purpose guns. The Iowas were 3 knots faster..
The 4.1/65 guns were more accurate than the 5/38. And iowas secondary guns cannot be compared to Bismarcks. The 5.9/55 can shoot at 25,153 yards. The shells weighed nearly 100 lbs!
The 16/50 guns are most likly to kill Bismarck if it sinks it that is. Bismarck had 15/52 (thats including chamber) which had a bit more accuracy.
Yet the Iowa's AA and main armament had radar fire control systems and analog computers. Bismarck's main armament was relying on optical sights. I don't care how good the human gunner is, the radar is always better. Bismarck couldn't shoot down swordfish biplanes. Iowa class' AA guns had proximity fuses as well. Bismarck's success is based on the fact that she sunk Hood. A battlecruiser with inadequate deck armor. When the hit from Bismarck was a lucky hit at best. Hood simply turned into it.
at 33 knots vs 30 for the Bismarck. The Iowa's armor was superior to the Bismarck's. Bismarck's deck armor was inferior. Possessing two armored decks. When the single armored deck was superior. The Iowa class also had more heavily armored main gun turrets than the Bismarck class. Bismarck's citadel armor was also useless. Bismarck had only a single torpedo bulkhead vs multiple torpedo bulkheads on the Iowas.
Check the vid debate it will save me talking about it all over again.
But there are flaws with the Iowa design. Basically why did one torpedoe flood north carolina with 1000 tons of water. Its because Iowa has the same design as North Carolina class just more armour and longer. Aka the main belt is buried making it possible for iowa to lose its outer hull. And the belt does not go all the way to the bottom. There is a vulnerable gap between the belt and the belly of the ship.
Yea, but the Iowa's still have a an actual torpedo defense system. Bismarck does not. Bismarck was flooded by multiple torpedo hits. The only thing that saved her was the fact that she had true watertight compartments.
Yea what about the hit that jammed the rudder? That also caused additional flooding increasing her list to port. Bismarck also failed to shoot down any of the attacking aircraft.
Oh not again. Look at the info on the vid debate, okay. I am fed up of having to repeat everything. but you did say somthing new. The flooding was minimal and the list was increased. But it did not take 1000 tons of water.
South Dakota both fired at the Sendai with their 16 in (410 mm) guns at a range of 11,000 yards (6.3 mi; 10 km). Almost simultaneously, Washington fired three of her starboard 5-inch guns at Shikinami. All of the 16 in (410 mm) shots missed,42 from Washington, and Rear Admiral Shintarō Hashimoto ordered Sendai and Shikinami to retreat and lay down a smoke screen. However, Washington fired until they were well out of visual view.
You forgot the Battle of the North Cape when the battlecruiser Scharnhorst was sunk. Her radar knocked out made her useless. It was the radar guided guns of HMS Duke of York that sank her. In poor weather and heavy seas. You also forgot the Battle of Surigao Strait. Where USS West Virgina achieved a hit. In complete darkness and 22,000 yards with her first salvo. In the Battle off Samar an American force of destroyers were able to beat off 4 battleships and 8 cruisers. The superior fire..
FUCK OFF THE USS SHIPS...........!!!!!! Bismarck still got its name in history you asshole...... The world needs a 2nd HITLER now.........So that he can teach u assholes USA a very good lessons.....
Yea Bismarck has its place in history. The ship sank. Over 1000 young men died long before their time was up. With that said the Bismarck class was obsolete even before they entered battle. Three screw propulsion. Dual armored decks. Mixed secondary battery. Citadel armor. Ineffective torpedo defense. Inferior fire control systems. An armored belt that wasn't sloped or well shaped.
@thatkidinthegreenhat Did you read any facts whatsoever? No ship in history took that much beating and kept sailing..no ship ever had that much firepower..it wasn't the ship that failed, it was descisions made, cuz no ship can take on an entire fleet on its own..although Bismarck did, and almost made it.
Wait. HMS Warspite was struck 3 times by guided missiles and did not sink. The Japanese battleship Musahi took seventeen bombs and nineteen torpedo hits. No other ship had that firepower? The Iowa, South Dakota, and North Carolinas had 9 16in guns to Bismarck's 8 15in. The Yamato class had 9 18in guns. Bismarck vs an entire fleet? The most ships she faced at once was 5 ships. When the destroyers Cossack, Piorun, Maori, Sikh, and Zulu attacked. At her end she faced 4 ships.
@thatkidinthegreenhat Uhrm..the entire atlantic fleet was in the chase..the mediterranian fleet was engaged aswell. The airforce was in for the hunt..yea I'd say she had hell of more than four ships after her. But I don't understand why this discussion. She was a hell of a battleship that went to history an one of the mightiest vessels of all times. Don't understand why pl always have to get personally engaged and fight over things like this..all things reffering to ww2 is the same! Drop it!
Repulse and the cruiser Sheffield of Force H never made contact with Bismarck. The old battleship Ramillies present in the Atlantic also never made contact. The whole air force? Flying boats. Repulse also took part, but never encountered the enemy.
@thatkidinthegreenhat. There were about 10 000 shells fired. And even if U have sources that state otherwise I'd say only 500 hits speaks for itself. But the discussion isn't really about facts but about pride and emotions. Many US residents are very sensitive when it comes to their military force. You watch Hollywood movies and believe what U see ("Hey I watched Band Of Brothers..I know what the war was like!!"). Why can't you just admire great engineering?
Why? The German navy could have built a much better ships than it did. Even if they chose the 15in gun. They could have still manufactured triple gun turrets. The Scharnhorst/Gneisenau battlecruisers/battleships proved this. This would have given the Bismarck class even greater firepower. Had they incorporated 4 screw propulsion the ships would have had greater maneuverability. They also would have been wider. This would have made them even more stable gun firing platforms.
Had they chosen dual purpose secondary armament they would have had more effective heavy AA battery. A single thick armored deck would have provided better protection than 2 armored decks. A ship that would have been wider and longer could have allowed for heavier bulkier machinery. Which in turn would have meant a greater maximum top speed. All of these improvements would have saved weight. This in turn would allow more of their displacement to be in their armor protection.
That's right MrAcenan.....And that that clearly shows Bismarcks supiority over any British battle ship back then. Let's continue to be fair and present facts....well said.
@MrAcenan ; That's because Germany had been preparing for war, and Great Britain didn't. Still, unlike the rest of Europe, we fought , we had to deal with Japan, Italy, Vichy France, we were alone with no shortage of enemies. The Torpedo plane's hit, was the hand of God, luck does not exist. We bloodied the Luftwaffe and sent them packing, with every fighter we had, in the air. Causing Hitler to abandon "Operation Sealion", his biggest mistake, as later he would be fighting a 2 front War.
@locheelad2 Great britain was the Allid naval front in Europe they dident send much of there navy over to the US helping with japan. so mainly Great britains fleet was in Europe.
"was the hand of God, luck does not exist" oh dear.....
"his biggest mistake" his biggest mistake was going into Russia, if it wasent for that we all would probably be germans now....
@MrAcenan If he had defeated Gt. Britain, and he came close, the Americans could never have come, Hitler could have fought and beaten Russia. No worry about 2nd front. Now get real pal, Gt. Britain had an Empire, biggest ever. Do you not think British ships were in the Med., Crete, Malta, Greece, Egypt, etc.. They sank the French Navy when they would not join us, sank the Italian Navy with Torpedo Planes from ships, best Navy in the World, still is, not biggest but best.
As I understand it three midget subs made it past the torpedo nets and into the fjord. Something happened to the third as it and its crew were lost. The sub was located years later not far from its intended target. The two crews that survived were awarded the Vic. Cross for bravery where as the lost crew were given nothing. I believe those men were as brave as the survivors and should have been posthumously awarded the Vic. Cross as well. As a Yank I can do nothing but Brits should see to it.
@logancody07 mate as a grandson of a survivor of tirpitz they bloody should have got a vc,no different, they were brave men even opa said so, and he said either way war had nothing to do with the men just that they would have smashed beer together not fight!!!
Sink the Nazi pile of crap!
topperheartramada 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"The most lethal naval squadron of the Atlantic during the 2nd World War". Correct?
The Tirpitz never sank anything, The Bismark, sank the Hood but in doing so received damage & was then sunk. Nearly every other German ship - Graff Spee, Scharnhorst, Gneisenau were more successful, U boat squadrons?
Yamato & these 2 look so elegant & menacing. Oddly the Yamato was also completely unsuccessful.
During trials, the Bismark couldn't be steered without the rudder. Ironic.
smilo996 3 weeks ago
is it just me, or is tirpitz one of the most beautiful battleships ever build ?
folkrace4life 3 weeks ago
at 1:50, does that look like a helicopter to any one else?
20bladerunner94 4 months ago
@20bladerunner94 HELICOPTER MADE GERMANY
TheVmach 3 months ago
@20bladerunner94
It's probably an Arado float-plane, but a lot of large German ships carried an auto-gyro which was towed behind the ship at speed, generating lift. This was used to see farther over the horizon for scouting purposes. In case of action the cable had to be let go, dooming the observer aboard to a slow descent into the sea...
Thunderyend 2 months ago
@Thunderyend Thanks, that was starting to drive me crazy
20bladerunner94 2 months ago
hi you all battleships in ww2 were obsolete Bismark Tirpitz Yamoto prince of Wales hms Repulse all these ships sunk by planes the way to go was carriers and they are becoming obsolete in todays navys
motorguzzi100 4 months ago
@motorguzzi100 Unless some odd technology allows fighters to be shot down with striking ease. We could very well see the return of the battleships.
LordKorloros 4 months ago
@LordKorloros ships now days are all made of fibre glass to avoid missiles meaning they are weak to artillery so the return of large battleships may not be too far away
fdsdh1 4 months ago
@motorguzzi100 Although you're right about those ships being sunk by aircraft, those ships also played huge roles in the outcome of the war. Tirpitz for example was a threat even holed up in a fjord for most of her career.
Now days you're right they are obsolete BUT look at the USS New Jersey, she was struck in 1991. We had long range missiles and fast planes then but they still used her in Lebanon and the Gulf.
gandhicakes 4 months ago
the might of gearmany
dazypvp 7 months ago
YOU FUCKING BRITISHERS, GERMANY WILL GET ANOTHER GREAT LEADER LIKE HITLER & WILL BUILT MORE POWERFUL SHIP LIKE TRIPTIZ THEN WE WILL GET YOU AGAIN YOU ASS HOLES, YOU CONTROL MEDIA OF ALL WORLD & TELL NEGATIVE NEWS..& SPREAD HATE, NUDITY & VIOLENCE....YOU HAIRS OF QUEENS PUSSY...FUCK YOU LL ENGLISH MEN & WOMEN,,,,I HATE YOU MOTHERS FUCKER..HEL HITLER & GERMANY, WE DON'T START WORLD WAR YOU UK * USA START IT, FDR REPORT SAYS THAT US ATTACK ITS OWN SOIL PERAL HARBOUR, U DISHONEST COUNTRY PEOPLE,,
10mism 7 months ago
@10mism long live germany
hitlerytu 7 months ago
HMS HOOD WAS A BATTLE-CRUISER NOT A BATTLESHIP!!!!!
you kno what sometimes, i think these documentaries give the wrong info.
smallfire66 7 months ago
@smallfire66 dont worry discover is like the media they keep doing stuff about moon leaveing orbit and iv checked dates.... THE SUN WILL ENGULF THE BLUDY THING BEFORE IT LEAVES ORBIT. its just the media wanting views
skycaprob 7 months ago
@skycaprob haha lol
smallfire66 6 months ago
big waste of good steel....
Lightblinder 8 months ago
@Lightblinder
Actually no, the ship was cut up into metal plates in the 50s and used for replacing surfaces during road works... whenever you see one of the big steel plates of the Public Roads Admin in Oslo, you know you're driving on a piece of the Tirpitz... in which one of my German ancestors, with identical name to mine, served and died in 1944.
CFLHB 8 months ago
@CFLHB Wow, those big plates on the road are actually perts of the Tirpitz??!!
smallfire66 7 months ago
@Lightblinder
Actually no, the ship was cut up into metal plates in the 50s and used for replacing surfaces during road works... whenever you see one of the big steel plates of the Public Roads Admin in Oslo, you know you're driving on a piece of the Tirpitz... in which one of my German ancestors, with identical name to mine, served and died in 1944.
CFLHB 8 months ago
if tirpiz and bismark did join fleets, the world wouldn't be the same today
Amongru 8 months ago
why do all the good ships sink =,-(]
MrScubaboy97 8 months ago
@MrScubaboy97 Cause unfortunately they make BIG targets... But yes it does suck.
ssmishal 8 months ago
USA and Russia became technological superpowers.German engineers fled to the US, those captured by the Russians were forced to work for them.The German concept of quality over quantity,(isn't a bad thing) coupled with thier habit of employing tactical military necessity over the greater strategic goal cost them what became a 4 front war,East,West,South and air.The biggest blunder,the timing of operation Barbarossa.German satelite nations were unprepared for the ferocity of WWII.
rascalferret 10 months ago
Comment removed
seeluchs88a 10 months ago
If Germany may have waited only a few years after '39 she may have won WWII. The Z plan for naval expansion was to be completed by '46 called for sister ships Tirpitz and Bismark plus 4 more, a number of outstanding cruisers, and battlecruisers and notably 4 carriers...but since the impatient Hitler,with a natural forboding of the sea,and the bombastic Goring as minister of armaments as well as Luftwaffe chief..the Kriegsmarine was given scraps of what it needed to realize this ambitious plan.
rascalferret 11 months ago
@rascalferret agreed wtf was Hitler thinking! its his fault they lost the war. if he would have waited till 46 he would have a complete and powerful navy, jet technology and more powerful tanks from the start of the war not at the end and perhaps even nukes. Hitlers impatient ways destroyed Germany, now Germans are ashamed of their history.
BetoG34 10 months ago
@BetoG34 First of all, Hitler couldn't have waited, the Stalin had plans to invade germany in 1943 with some of the most technological advanced tanks in the world, remeber the Tiger, and Panther were only created due to the threat of the t-34 and KVs. The Panzer IV was only upguned because of the T-34, it was origanly developed as an infantry support weapon. Second Hitler really only became interested in jet tech during 1942 and demanded that it be used as a fighter bomber not as a fighter
canadaloveswhiskey 6 months ago
@canadaloveswhiskey third, and finally Germans have a right to be ashamed of their history as they started a war that in the end killed between 60 to 70 million people, caused some of the most terrible crimes in the world, and attempted to exterminate anyone who they considered sub-human. You should know the list, Jews, Poles, Russians, Roma's, Serbs.
canadaloveswhiskey 6 months ago
@canadaloveswhiskey
I had a German roommate and his thoughts on it were identical to Americans thoughts on slavery. It's a terrible piece of their nation's history but the only thing they can do is learn from it so it doesn't happen again. I'm ashamed of slavery but I'm not ashamed to be an American. Germans are proud people and honorable people.
Sure they've had a lot of bad apples, but as an American I have to say we've had some as well, but we've had many heroes to.
razzopardi1 6 months ago
@canadaloveswhiskey Hahahaha! Russians and Japanese did far worse than the Germans. Russia, during their assault, raped more than 4.5 million Russian women. One man recalls how 12 men raped one, young 14yr old. The reason was, according to him, mainly because "they hadn't had a women in so long!" Japan also had the comfort women camps, which housed somewhere between 200,000 women, to a million women. Also, Russia even raped their own people, as they moved into Germany. ;)
Tyco200 4 months ago
@Tyco200 The germans killed 8.5 million Russians, while cleansing the region, a further 5 million is estimated to have died from famine introduced by the germans stealing food from the ukrain. the estimated rapes in soviet russia by the way is 10 million, not 4.5. the estimated case in Germany went as high as 1 million, but are now conisdered to be less the 500,000. And lets not even start on poleland.
canadaloveswhiskey 4 months ago
@canadaloveswhiskey True, and yes. But also remember that the T-34 was inferior to the American M4 Sherman in many aspects. The two manned turret, 76.5mm gun and the fact that its armor was nothing truly protective with just 45mms frontal all led to a disastrous design. Their only advantage was outnumbering their enemies. Also, the KV-1 was the only "good design" of the two. Even the T-34-85's gun could not compare to even the American 76 of 1942.
Tyco200 4 months ago
@Tyco200 First off the 76mm gun was not installed on the sherman until 1944. Second off the 85 mm, and the 76mm were actually fairly equal, it wasn't until the devlopment of new amunition that the gun proved far more effective. You are also forgeting that like the sherman the t-34/85 was upgraded and a three man turret was installed, before operation badgeration
canadaloveswhiskey 4 months ago
@canadaloveswhiskey We should also remember the fact that Hitler delayed his men on the Eastern front for both Ukraine's oil, and for the political sake of taking Stalingrad, which was an absolute waste. If he had charged onward to Moscow, Russia would be doomed. Also remember the fact that it was the U.S who supplied the Russians with M3s, M4s, clothing, fighters, etc. etc.
Tyco200 4 months ago
@Tyco200 You mean like napoleon when he took moscow? Most of the heavy industry had been moved and their were still millions of men on the japanese border, and the werhmacht's supply lines would have been streched even more. It should also be noted that the Russians hated american tanks, and refered to them as pressure cookers because of their tendency to light on fire.
canadaloveswhiskey 4 months ago
@canadaloveswhiskey Also, they would've been forced to launch newer tank guns on their newer American counterparts either way. The 75mm was more than enough to rip the Panzer III and early Panzer IVs to pieces. Shermans also were impregnable to German 50mm guns. The Sherman's weakest flaw was exposed ammunition in British variants. The 76mm gun, in early 1942, was by far on par or even better with anything in the world. They even proved superior in Korea to the T-34-85.
Tyco200 4 months ago
@Tyco200 Yes true but the german designs would have been slower, most likely you wouldn't have seen the likes of the tiger one until 1944. The britsh were a head of the americans in amuntion, by the way. The British had a depleted sabot round in 1943, while the americans had theirs by early 1945.
Now I have always maintained that the Sherman was a good tank, it was reliable had a good gun and was great at its job which was to counter the panzer 3 and 4.
canadaloveswhiskey 4 months ago
@rascalferret let's not forget the italian army and navy,in 1939 and 1940 we were completely unprepared for a war in the mediterranean against the british,we had sub par tanks,no carriers and old battleships.In mid 1942 we had started to produce modern tanks,a new class of battleships,the Littorio which had similar capabilities to the bismark and the class of aircraft carriers Aquila(eagle).2 of those were nearly completed.
TheWoodstock2009 9 months ago
@TheWoodstock2009 The astonishing early victories of the Wehrmacht had much to do with Mussilini's decision to enter the war..so that Italy could still sit respectably at Hitler's table perhaps ? On paper Regia Marina was capable but proved ineffective and rarely sortied due to low fuel stocks and a reluctancy to risk heavy losses against the Royal Navy.On land the Italians were poorly led, equipped and seemingly less than enthusiastic in battle. there is so much to study of military history.
rascalferret 9 months ago
@rascalferret We could have won the war in africa in 1940.We had around 20000 soldiers vs the british's 40000.Our commanders were reluctant to mount an offensive because of a british ruse.They made fake tanks and artillery pieces to make it look like their forces were superior.The same trick worked again at the 2nd battle of el alamein but it was used to confuse the axis intel on the location of the main british offensive.What really screwed us over in the seas was the raid on taranto
TheWoodstock2009 9 months ago
@TheWoodstock2009 Taranto was unprecedented.On the subject of the Med,a lingering question,why was Malta not nuetralized by invasion? Subs and aircraft operating from there was a thorn in the side for axis supply to Africa. b/c of the sting of costly Op. Mercury, or the failure to mount or the difficulties with Sea Lion? No doubt, regardless of political ambitions or speculative aftermath..the Axis really could have won WW2...which goes back to my origional thoughts on a few years more of R&D
rascalferret 9 months ago
@rascalferret actually I know why malta wasn't invaded.At the time the invasion was scehduled rommel was about to reach alexandria and end the british presence in the mediterranean so all available forces were sent to aid his progress,taking men away from the landing preparations in malta.See there was this plan to move from egypt to the caucasus and attack the russians from behind.Hitler loved it and yeah..Malta should probably have been a priority
TheWoodstock2009 9 months ago
@TheWoodstock2009 hard to believe ur a highschooler,and we're talking about the Med on a Tirpitz vid,but so what. If Hitler would've given Rommel a fraction of what he got after Torch'42,Rommel would surely have jumped the Suez. As it was he was agressively attacking before his forces were fully landed and still almost pulled it off. Italy should've stayed out until they were ready, then Yugoslavia,Greece,Crete and Africa would've been unnecesary.
rascalferret 9 months ago
@rascalferret actually I am a high scooler I just like history,its a good thing to learn IMO,much more useful then the maths they teach us xD.But yeah I agree we should have stayed out of it.Greece was actualy one of the main reasons why barbarossa failed,because it delayed the german forces from attacking russia in the spring.The attack was planned in april but was only executed in june.
TheWoodstock2009 9 months ago
@TheWoodstock2009 haha..ya I like history too,but learn Math and Science in order to CREATE history...Go down deep enough into anything and you will find mathematics. Good luck kid !
rascalferret 9 months ago
Iph the hitler wasn't a idiot and impatient and waited phor the bismarck to set sail....the tirpinz and bismarck would have destroyed everything
sheemsheem 1 year ago
Comment removed
blobby1972 1 year ago
Hardly mighty I mean she never sunk anything exept her anchor and her self
blobby1972 1 year ago
@blobby1972 That's not what 'mighty' means though.
WeaselKing1000 1 year ago
I have a model tirpiz since 1976.
Bismarck, the tirpiz, two heavy cruisers and armored carriers. the most lethal naval squadron of the Atlantic during the 2nd World War
raypanzer521 1 year ago 12
@raypanzer521 I agree. Don't forget, Scharnhorst & Gneisenau, which were origionally planned to join up !!!!
That combo would have been difficult to find, much less over power. England would have needed a miracle and probably would have lost the war. (U-boats still were very deadly).
(our Iowa was still in the dream stage). As it was, Bismarck nearly did the job, alone.
lingcodnine 9 months ago
@raypanzer521 What armored carriers? What Squadron? Tirpitz never left the port and the heavy cruisers acted in separate fleets.
alxcsb 9 months ago
@raypanzer521 both of them sunk relatively fast!
cajohnson1234 6 months ago
@cajohnson1234 relative to what please ?
elrjames777 6 months ago
@elrjames777 sorry man, my info was wrong!
cajohnson1234 6 months ago
@raypanzer521 bully 4u - we all had these 'airfix' models as kids :-)
elrjames777 6 months ago
Respond to this video... "everything from food oil to fuel oil" - how trite
elrjames777 6 months ago
the moronic narrator ruined this
vulpecula999 1 year ago 14
@vulpecula999 yeah no kidding! hell I could have done a better job!LOL!
Guitfiddlejase 1 year ago
i have a model of the bismarck,moving guns and everything :D i just need another ship to battle with
bearhaulin120 1 year ago
i like the bismark an tirpitz but i still love the HMS PrinceofWhales
mrclaytonio 1 year ago
"Any ship is put out of action, if you destroy it's source of power. The 'scew' should have been number-one. Who cares how thick it's casing is, if it cant move."
Grifiki 1 year ago
Bismark+Tirpiz+Graf Spee+10,000 Stuka Dive Bombers=DEATH TO THE ALLIES!
Cbrosfilm10 1 year ago
@Cbrosfilm10 so when you say "death to the allies" you were happy for the Philippines to be controlled by japan?
pramboy09 1 year ago
we gotta admit Germany had some nice ships :)
Devil9h 1 year ago
Something many posters here are fogetting. The London and Washington Treaties both ran out in 1936, thus ending what was referred to as the Battleship Building Holiday. The HMS KGV and USS North Carolina classes were designed within the Treaty Limitations, and the NC's were even delayed due to the hope that Japan would not build battleships w/ guns larger than 14" (355 mm), but WW2 showed arguably, if not conclusively, the folly of designing ships with treaty limitations.
cabbievonbump 1 year ago
Well the British had some idea about the Yamamoto class. They originally thought they would have 16in guns. The problem for the British actually lays in the prewar era. Not only by signing the Washington Naval treaty was the Royal Navy strength lost forever, but the supporting structure. The shipyards, the weapons manufactures, and the steel makers were let to wither away and die. So had they waited they would have to either accept the Lion class' 16in gun or design a new 15in gun from scratch.
thatkidinthegreenhat 1 year ago
@thatkidinthegreenhat it is yamamoto was a man not a ship, your'e thinking of yamato?The reason the british didn't extend their battleship fleet between the wars was there was no reason to do that, they already had the biggest most powerfull fleet in the world.What put a spanner in the works was the washington treaty, because of this they had to scrap ships and also not build any true battleships.Unfortunatly the italians,germans and japanese chose to ignore the treaty which put them back foot.
pramboy09 1 year ago
No reason to extend their fleet? Did we forget about Japan's 8:8 program. The USA's fleet second to none? The British didn't need to build a bigger fleet during the interwar years after the signing of the treaty. They needed to replace the older ships. Accepting parity with the USA was also stupid. The UK fought so hard to maintain a larger fleet than anyone else. Then in the 1920s they just signed away the Royal Navy's strength.
thatkidinthegreenhat 1 year ago
@thatkidinthegreenhat CHECK OUT YOUR HISTORY BOOKS, the british would have upgraded their fleet if not of the washington treaty,YOUR country signed that treaty and were in the same situation.When the brits and the americans signed the treaty they had to scrap many ships and were only able to upgrade allowable numbers of battleships and only build certain others with allowable tonnages. Both sides didn't think was the japs and krauts were going to defy the treaty, which bit both sides in the ass.
pramboy09 1 year ago
What ? The treaties had no effect on the modernizing of the existing ships. The UK should have only accepted the original figure of 600,000 tons for the UK and 525,000 for the US. Germany was not regulated under any of these treaties. First she was under the treaty of Versailles. Then the German Anglo naval agreement. Italy also did not sign the Second London naval treaty. Japan did not sign it either.
thatkidinthegreenhat 1 year ago
@thatkidinthegreenhat which the british were doing, they had already mondernised the queens elizabeth classes, renown and repulse, hood was due to be mondernised but never happened thanks to ww2. What britain should have done was built carriers which wasn't part of the treaty.
pramboy09 1 year ago
@pramboy09 what the british should have done, is they should have taken seriously the U-Boats, but by the beginning of the war until about ´42 they did nothing.....
JHKmOBSCENE 1 year ago
@JHKmOBSCENE What do you mean they did nothing? They had the whole royal navy out there trying to sink battleships, battlecruisers, cruisers and submarines, but the atlantic is a pretty damn big piece of water. It was a long drawn out processes getting more effective ways of sinking subs like using sunderlands, catalinas and liberators and dropping sonar buoys and depth chargers, once the germans were being bombed they couldn't replace at the rate they were being sunk.
pramboy09 1 year ago
@thatkidinthegreenhat got my phrases wrong, the carriers were limited by tonnages but if they had built up to the limit allowed they would have had a very good start during the war, especially during the battle of the atlantic, considering the carrier took over as the main thrust weapon in naval warfare.
pramboy09 1 year ago
@thatkidinthegreenhat For starters i NEVER said the U.S fleet was second to none!secondly,after ww1 the main agressor had been defeated,at the time the british navy was the biggest.There was plans by the british to start replacing ships in the late 1920's but at the time there was no hurry It was the governments of britain and the U.S that got stung by the washington treaty. Not their navies.
pramboy09 1 year ago
lol. The phrase "a navy second to none" was quoted by naval officers in the USN. It was there disire to build a fleet that was larger than any other including the Royal Navy. Congress rejected the plan. There navies didn't get "stung" ? Had just the G3 class battlecruisers been built they would have been worth more than twice then the old ships retained. Even modernized ships.
thatkidinthegreenhat 1 year ago
@thatkidinthegreenhat just a question, do you own any books on what you think you know or just cut and paste stuff from wikipedia? Just that all of the stuff from the washington treaty you quoted was just copied from wikipedia. I must admit this drives me nuts, for starters it's not always accurate and some so called facts are just planely wrong. I have been collecting books on aircraft and naval batttles and ships since i was 5 years old and just believing anything you find on the net is lazy
pramboy09 1 year ago
It is funny because I was just on wikipedia. It mentioned nothing about the original terms of the Washington Naval treaty. As far as 604,450 tons for the UK, 500,650tons for the USA, and 299,700 tons for Japan exactly.
thatkidinthegreenhat 1 year ago
Also about the modernization of the Royal Navy's capital ships. Which you claimed were regulated under the treat. I believe you typed this "CHECK OUT YOUR HISTORY BOOKS, the british would have upgraded their fleet if not of the washington treaty" Must have gotten that on wiki too.
thatkidinthegreenhat 1 year ago
@thatkidinthegreenhat i never said the treaty regulated that existing british capital ships couldn't be modernised. Ok tell me what books you have and i'll compare them to mine.
pramboy09 1 year ago
Yes you did say that. You just like to pretend you didn't.
thatkidinthegreenhat 1 year ago
@thatkidinthegreenhat YES you need to check out your history books,you were able to monderise your existing ships BUT WITH A TONNAGE LIMIT. Lets look at an example shall we?Lets look a ship like HMS New Zealand she was a Indefatigable-class battlecruiser, she surivied the war but was scrapped so the british could stay within her quota of tonnage limit, that was what i was trying to tell you about the washington treaty forcing the british ships to scrap ships to stay within her quota.
pramboy09 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The scrapping of that ship was to keep within the limits. What does that have to do with modernizing ships. No that is not what you were trying to tell me. If you were you would have said that. "CHECK OUT YOUR HISTORY BOOKS, the british would have upgraded their fleet if not of the washington treaty" were your exact words.
thatkidinthegreenhat 1 year ago
I am still wondering. Speaking of the Washington naval treaty I think you will agree the Royal Navy had the most to lose. So seeing as you read a lot. I have a question. How many capital ships did the Royal Navy have in 1918?
thatkidinthegreenhat 1 year ago
@thatkidinthegreenhat 46 capital ships (post dreadnought), many were outdated and were scraped not long after the washington treaty. I think you will find the the royal navy didn't want to get in to a "cold war" with the USA which offered a 10 year holiday in construction of dreadnought with restrictions. I think you don't realise just how damaged britain was after ww1, they were almost crippled money wise and just didn't have the resources to start yet another arms race with the U.S
pramboy09 1 year ago
The answer you are searching for is 71. Only after the obsolete ships including Dreadnought saw the breakers yard there were 41 were left.
thatkidinthegreenhat 1 year ago
@thatkidinthegreenhat I believe you ask for 1918? Dreadnought was scrapped in 1922. I did not include any pre-drednought battleships in my number of 46 for obvious reasons. do you want me to list them for you?
pramboy09 1 year ago
"46 capital ships (post dreadnought), many were outdated and were scraped not long after the washington treaty."
thatkidinthegreenhat 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@thatkidinthegreenhat so what are you saying?
pramboy09 1 year ago
@thatkidinthegreenhat so what is your point? you asked for capital ships, which they were.
pramboy09 1 year ago
Your answer was wrong is my point. I did ask how many capital ships did the Royal Navy have in 1918. The answer was 71. You gave the answer of 46. After the obsolete ships saw the breakers yard there were 41 modern capital ships left not 46. By 1939 15 remained.
thatkidinthegreenhat 1 year ago
@thatkidinthegreenhat Oh you're back are you? YOU asked for 1918 didn't you? i pointed out to you that drednought didn't see the breakers yard till 1922 i gave you the numbers of POST drednought capital ships that were still active in 1918, do you want me to list them for you??
pramboy09 1 year ago
More importantly it was taking as long as 4 years for the British to build capital ships. So if a ship was laid down in 1940 it would take till at least 1944 for it to be complete. So they could not wait with war looming on the horizon.
thatkidinthegreenhat 1 year ago
My cousin in Norway told me she can still see the wrecked hulk of the Tirpitz in a fjord. No one swims near it, she says, because they're afraid of unexploded bombs.
ThatsMrMoronToYou 1 year ago
Sister ship of the great Bismarck
superpim100 1 year ago
O'Hoy!
kokohero 1 year ago
bismarck was called a sea tank
spawn21226 1 year ago
the HMS barham was sunk by a u-boat as was the HMS Royal Oak. Like the HMS Hood royal oak had 8-15 inch guns and had three sister ships and the Hood also had three sister but they where never built
araka08 1 year ago
After checking facts, the Bismarck was hit with 2 300 shells, yes, twothousandthreehundred..and she didn't sink, but crippled and instead the crew sank her. In my opinion that speaks for the power of the ship, and ppl commenting about her being umodern I ask you to do some reading as the two sisterships were considered state of the art for the time.
kokohero 1 year ago
Hit by 2300 shells ? Over 2000 shells were fired. Only about 500 hit Bismarck. State of the art? 3 screw propulsion vs 4. Mixed secondary battery. Dual armored decks and main belts. Triple gun turrets were more effective than dual gun turrets. Single torpedo bulkhead vs 4 for the Iowa class.
thatkidinthegreenhat 1 year ago
@thatkidinthegreenhat. U can't just stare at numbers. Some WWII warplanes had bigger guns than modern fighters of today, but that don't guarantee it a better fighter does it?! I don't really know what ur purpose of this debate is?! No ship were willing to engage the Bismarck alone, wich is kind of understandable. U can't compare armor straight off, there are diffrent classes there aswell, and B had an elastic torp armor wich weren't very common.
kokohero 1 year ago
Yet the old Revenge class battleship Ramillies was order to break from her convoy and engage Bismarck. That was assuming she was still attempting to to destroy convoys. Instead she headed to France. The battleship HMS Rodney was 14 years old in 1941. Still she went in and engaged the "superior" enemy. On paper Rodney's armor and armament were superior to Bismarck's. Rodney had 16in guns vs 15in. 14in thick armored belt vs 13 for Bismarck. 6in thick single armored deck.
thatkidinthegreenhat 1 year ago
Over 16in thick on the front face of the main gun turrets vs 14in for Bismarck. Rodney's torpedo bulkheads were 300mm thick vs 45mm.
thatkidinthegreenhat 1 year ago
@thatkidinthegreenhat And so?
kokohero 1 year ago
That disproves your theory of Bismarck being "unsinkable". The best battleship ever built. The largest warship afloat.
thatkidinthegreenhat 1 year ago
@thatkidinthegreenhat No love..I never said she was unsinkable..as proved by history. I said the two ships were very modern and extremely powerful when they set sail. Two diffrent things..now give it a rest please.
kokohero 1 year ago
"I said the two ships were very modern and extremely powerful when they set sail." Three screw propulsion. When every British battleship from Dreadnought to Vanguard minus the Nelson class had 4. Dual armored decks and main belt. Mixed secondary battery. Single torpedo bulkhead vs 4 for latter allied ships. Dual gun main turrets less effective than the triple gun turrets. Weak stern section. As my comment below pointed out 14 year old battleships had better armor and a heavier broadside.
thatkidinthegreenhat 1 year ago
@thatkidinthegreenhat Oh Christ..U still here debating? Doesn't really matter what U write mate..those numbers can all be found by a few google-clicks..but no matter your numbertricks those ships became legendary. I tried to explain before that U can't just compare numbers straight off , just like U can't compare a bomberplane to an attack/ fighter. U try to make 'em seem mediocre..and if so..why all the efforts tring to destoy them..haha would be enough to send a canoe for 'em.
kokohero 1 year ago
Good one. First of all there is no debate. Those "numbers" mean everything. It showed in combat. When Bismarck's main battery was silenced/destroyed. When Rodney's 16in guns penetrated above the waterline. Just like Bismarck was hit by "2300" shells. At least the stuff I get is accurate.
thatkidinthegreenhat 1 year ago
Why was it so hard to sink them. Simple in the case of Tirpitz it show the impotence of the multiple engined heavy bomber. For Bismarck had the range been longer she would have been doomed quicker. Those "insignificant" numbers showed the armored citadel was vulnerable to long range plunging fire.
thatkidinthegreenhat 1 year ago
Im so sick of these endless fights that even are not about facts but emotions. Blah blah..US navy..blah blah..german warmachine..blah blah..U'd speak german if it wasn't for us..blah blah, and my granddad did this and that! None of U ppl writing here had any part of the war so why U dishonor the ppl that did and suffered by acting like children fighting over who's got the strongest dad. ALL NATIONS get fucked in war, there are no heroes, only men being lead to death by politicians.
kokohero 1 year ago
Daaamn, four of those together would have won the atlantic for sure...
slimshaddyyy 1 year ago
I was so tied with the Bismarck that I didnt even know about the Tirpitz..Awesome video kingtiger. Thank you
MrTrustnooneok 2 years ago
I had a model of the Tirpitz and then my nephew destroyed it! :(
I still have the Bismarck though, which I haven't put together yet.
ultima76 2 years ago 12
p;ease yar can u send me copy or pic of that?
143anudip 2 years ago
75 % done here :P
JFCPantheras 2 years ago
mave.foorumi.eu
marjis3 1 year ago
@ultima76 Dude if it was me i would kill him dude .. :S
rock4eternity666 1 year ago
I had a Brit friend who´s old uncle was about to go into the Hood as part of the crew, but he was sick, and couldn´t go. He consider it was a very bad luck no to be part of the proud crew... but after the sunk the bad luck was a tremendous good luck (only 3 survivers as far as I know). Is not easy to figure out the grade of disgrace suffered by those souls at such massive enourmous ships... impressive engineering and such the drama.
Krieghalter1 2 years ago 5
A sitting duck is always a good target
Buemmo 2 years ago 2
I have a model of the Tirpitz.
Notyiffhunter 2 years ago 7
Me too :) 1/350 scale
AukraNET 2 years ago
@AukraNET
me too : D
toryo1 2 years ago
@Notyiffhunter your model is now diamonds
Iluvbuckethead1 1 year ago
@Notyiffhunter my opa was on the tirpitz and was on the shore drinking piss when they drop the mines,i remember him telling me what a party they had but anyway he passed away in 96 and i inherited his model which sat on his tv for 30 yrs in brisbane australia before he died, now it sits on mine,,,,Kick ass!!
justorota 1 year ago
Put Tirpitz And Bismark Together And Take yamato And musashi And IJN Shinano Put them together And The US Iowa Classes and the Never build Montana Classes
Iwantsanta 2 years ago 2
This is impossible.
Japans Battleships working single (samurai strategy). How You see, this is other strategy from Germans Kriegsmarine.
(Information from History TV)
damian198571 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
LOL first the Nazi try to challenge the RAF and failed then the Royal Nazi and failed again, then the British Army , what do you know, FAILED again!
RickDev09 2 years ago
The bismarck sank the "Hood" with 5 salvos in under 8 minutes. it took the hole british fleet to take out the bismarck and still it was just luck, becuse of a british torpedo plane hit the roter of the bismarck making it unable to moveg(turn), it took over 400 hits before sinking....
MrAcenan 2 years ago 3
The Bismark hit on the Hood was pure luck as shown in a new program a few seconds later and hoods thickest armour would of took the hit. watch Battle of the Hood and Bismark.
talpore 2 years ago
talpore.....luck? luck? No disrespect intended, but that's nonsense and you know it. The gunners aboard Bismarck were very efficient and Hood's deck was extremely thin....dangerously thin. So good aim on the Germans part plus a thin deck on Hood equals disaster.
Dont forget that Bismarck even severely damaged HMS Prince Of Whales...Luck?
DarkMachine 2 years ago
yes the Hood was manouering to present her best armour to the bismarck which was her downfall .the Bismark gunners were exellent but even they could not hope to get the shot they got.watch program Bismarck vs Hoods i think its on youtube.they found the Hood and worked out what happened.
talpore 2 years ago
@DarkMachine
BISMARCK AND YAMATO "THEY WILL NEVER COMING BACK
.check the vid debate.
G777GUN 1 year ago
Neither will HMS Hood or Prince Of Whales? What's your point?
DarkMachine 1 year ago
@DarkMachine
If Bismarck made it to 1943 would Bismarck win against the Iowa class. Fitted with a wurzburg radar. That was the debate. And so far Bismarck is winning.
G777GUN 1 year ago
Bismarck winning? How do you figure that one? Assuming you are right and Bismarck had radar equivalent or superior doesn't correct the many other flaws of the ship. Her main battery consisted of 8, 15in guns in dual gun turrets. The triple gun turret arrangement proved to be superior. Bismarck had a mixed secondary battery. A dedicated anti-ship battery of 5.1in guns. Heavy AA battery of 4.1in guns. Where as the Iowas had the more effective 5in dual purpose guns. The Iowas were 3 knots faster..
thatkidinthegreenhat 1 year ago
The 4.1/65 guns were more accurate than the 5/38. And iowas secondary guns cannot be compared to Bismarcks. The 5.9/55 can shoot at 25,153 yards. The shells weighed nearly 100 lbs!
The 16/50 guns are most likly to kill Bismarck if it sinks it that is. Bismarck had 15/52 (thats including chamber) which had a bit more accuracy.
G777GUN 1 year ago
Yet the Iowa's AA and main armament had radar fire control systems and analog computers. Bismarck's main armament was relying on optical sights. I don't care how good the human gunner is, the radar is always better. Bismarck couldn't shoot down swordfish biplanes. Iowa class' AA guns had proximity fuses as well. Bismarck's success is based on the fact that she sunk Hood. A battlecruiser with inadequate deck armor. When the hit from Bismarck was a lucky hit at best. Hood simply turned into it.
thatkidinthegreenhat 1 year ago
at 33 knots vs 30 for the Bismarck. The Iowa's armor was superior to the Bismarck's. Bismarck's deck armor was inferior. Possessing two armored decks. When the single armored deck was superior. The Iowa class also had more heavily armored main gun turrets than the Bismarck class. Bismarck's citadel armor was also useless. Bismarck had only a single torpedo bulkhead vs multiple torpedo bulkheads on the Iowas.
thatkidinthegreenhat 1 year ago
Check the vid debate it will save me talking about it all over again.
But there are flaws with the Iowa design. Basically why did one torpedoe flood north carolina with 1000 tons of water. Its because Iowa has the same design as North Carolina class just more armour and longer. Aka the main belt is buried making it possible for iowa to lose its outer hull. And the belt does not go all the way to the bottom. There is a vulnerable gap between the belt and the belly of the ship.
G777GUN 1 year ago
Yea, but the Iowa's still have a an actual torpedo defense system. Bismarck does not. Bismarck was flooded by multiple torpedo hits. The only thing that saved her was the fact that she had true watertight compartments.
thatkidinthegreenhat 1 year ago
@thatkidinthegreenhat
Err. thats wrong the torpedoes went nowhere near any of the compartments. This was found out at the dive wreck site of Bismarck.
G777GUN 1 year ago
Yea what about the hit that jammed the rudder? That also caused additional flooding increasing her list to port. Bismarck also failed to shoot down any of the attacking aircraft.
thatkidinthegreenhat 1 year ago
@thatkidinthegreenhat
Oh not again. Look at the info on the vid debate, okay. I am fed up of having to repeat everything. but you did say somthing new. The flooding was minimal and the list was increased. But it did not take 1000 tons of water.
G777GUN 1 year ago
Err. Your radar guns dont sound very accurate:
South Dakota both fired at the Sendai with their 16 in (410 mm) guns at a range of 11,000 yards (6.3 mi; 10 km). Almost simultaneously, Washington fired three of her starboard 5-inch guns at Shikinami. All of the 16 in (410 mm) shots missed,42 from Washington, and Rear Admiral Shintarō Hashimoto ordered Sendai and Shikinami to retreat and lay down a smoke screen. However, Washington fired until they were well out of visual view.
11,000yards?
G777GUN 1 year ago
You forgot the Battle of the North Cape when the battlecruiser Scharnhorst was sunk. Her radar knocked out made her useless. It was the radar guided guns of HMS Duke of York that sank her. In poor weather and heavy seas. You also forgot the Battle of Surigao Strait. Where USS West Virgina achieved a hit. In complete darkness and 22,000 yards with her first salvo. In the Battle off Samar an American force of destroyers were able to beat off 4 battleships and 8 cruisers. The superior fire..
thatkidinthegreenhat 1 year ago
FUCK OFF THE USS SHIPS...........!!!!!! Bismarck still got its name in history you asshole...... The world needs a 2nd HITLER now.........So that he can teach u assholes USA a very good lessons.....
hellaboyz 1 year ago
Yea Bismarck has its place in history. The ship sank. Over 1000 young men died long before their time was up. With that said the Bismarck class was obsolete even before they entered battle. Three screw propulsion. Dual armored decks. Mixed secondary battery. Citadel armor. Ineffective torpedo defense. Inferior fire control systems. An armored belt that wasn't sloped or well shaped.
thatkidinthegreenhat 1 year ago
@thatkidinthegreenhat Did you read any facts whatsoever? No ship in history took that much beating and kept sailing..no ship ever had that much firepower..it wasn't the ship that failed, it was descisions made, cuz no ship can take on an entire fleet on its own..although Bismarck did, and almost made it.
kokohero 1 year ago
Wait. HMS Warspite was struck 3 times by guided missiles and did not sink. The Japanese battleship Musahi took seventeen bombs and nineteen torpedo hits. No other ship had that firepower? The Iowa, South Dakota, and North Carolinas had 9 16in guns to Bismarck's 8 15in. The Yamato class had 9 18in guns. Bismarck vs an entire fleet? The most ships she faced at once was 5 ships. When the destroyers Cossack, Piorun, Maori, Sikh, and Zulu attacked. At her end she faced 4 ships.
thatkidinthegreenhat 1 year ago
@thatkidinthegreenhat Uhrm..the entire atlantic fleet was in the chase..the mediterranian fleet was engaged aswell. The airforce was in for the hunt..yea I'd say she had hell of more than four ships after her. But I don't understand why this discussion. She was a hell of a battleship that went to history an one of the mightiest vessels of all times. Don't understand why pl always have to get personally engaged and fight over things like this..all things reffering to ww2 is the same! Drop it!
kokohero 1 year ago
Repulse and the cruiser Sheffield of Force H never made contact with Bismarck. The old battleship Ramillies present in the Atlantic also never made contact. The whole air force? Flying boats. Repulse also took part, but never encountered the enemy.
thatkidinthegreenhat 1 year ago
Do I read. Yes. The question is do you. I have presented you with all of these facts. Facts you continue to ignore. Typical Bismarck fanboy.
thatkidinthegreenhat 1 year ago
@thatkidinthegreenhat. There were about 10 000 shells fired. And even if U have sources that state otherwise I'd say only 500 hits speaks for itself. But the discussion isn't really about facts but about pride and emotions. Many US residents are very sensitive when it comes to their military force. You watch Hollywood movies and believe what U see ("Hey I watched Band Of Brothers..I know what the war was like!!"). Why can't you just admire great engineering?
kokohero 1 year ago
Why? The German navy could have built a much better ships than it did. Even if they chose the 15in gun. They could have still manufactured triple gun turrets. The Scharnhorst/Gneisenau battlecruisers/battleships proved this. This would have given the Bismarck class even greater firepower. Had they incorporated 4 screw propulsion the ships would have had greater maneuverability. They also would have been wider. This would have made them even more stable gun firing platforms.
thatkidinthegreenhat 1 year ago
Had they chosen dual purpose secondary armament they would have had more effective heavy AA battery. A single thick armored deck would have provided better protection than 2 armored decks. A ship that would have been wider and longer could have allowed for heavier bulkier machinery. Which in turn would have meant a greater maximum top speed. All of these improvements would have saved weight. This in turn would allow more of their displacement to be in their armor protection.
thatkidinthegreenhat 1 year ago
control systems of the American destroyers receive some credit for the victory. In comparison the very poor systems used by the Japanese.
thatkidinthegreenhat 1 year ago
That's right MrAcenan.....And that that clearly shows Bismarcks supiority over any British battle ship back then. Let's continue to be fair and present facts....well said.
DarkMachine 2 years ago
@MrAcenan ; That's because Germany had been preparing for war, and Great Britain didn't. Still, unlike the rest of Europe, we fought , we had to deal with Japan, Italy, Vichy France, we were alone with no shortage of enemies. The Torpedo plane's hit, was the hand of God, luck does not exist. We bloodied the Luftwaffe and sent them packing, with every fighter we had, in the air. Causing Hitler to abandon "Operation Sealion", his biggest mistake, as later he would be fighting a 2 front War.
locheelad2 1 year ago
@locheelad2 Great britain was the Allid naval front in Europe they dident send much of there navy over to the US helping with japan. so mainly Great britains fleet was in Europe.
"was the hand of God, luck does not exist" oh dear.....
"his biggest mistake" his biggest mistake was going into Russia, if it wasent for that we all would probably be germans now....
MrAcenan 1 year ago
@MrAcenan If he had defeated Gt. Britain, and he came close, the Americans could never have come, Hitler could have fought and beaten Russia. No worry about 2nd front. Now get real pal, Gt. Britain had an Empire, biggest ever. Do you not think British ships were in the Med., Crete, Malta, Greece, Egypt, etc.. They sank the French Navy when they would not join us, sank the Italian Navy with Torpedo Planes from ships, best Navy in the World, still is, not biggest but best.
locheelad2 1 year ago
lol ? Go find out the kill/death ratio, and dont count CIVILIANS. Then ur loling will be over.
MissMan666 2 years ago
As I understand it three midget subs made it past the torpedo nets and into the fjord. Something happened to the third as it and its crew were lost. The sub was located years later not far from its intended target. The two crews that survived were awarded the Vic. Cross for bravery where as the lost crew were given nothing. I believe those men were as brave as the survivors and should have been posthumously awarded the Vic. Cross as well. As a Yank I can do nothing but Brits should see to it.
logancody07 2 years ago 2
Only the commanders of the x-craft were given VC.
kingtiger88 2 years ago
@logancody07 mate as a grandson of a survivor of tirpitz they bloody should have got a vc,no different, they were brave men even opa said so, and he said either way war had nothing to do with the men just that they would have smashed beer together not fight!!!
justorota 1 year ago
Wasn't the Bismarck bigger than the Tirpitz? If i'm not mistaken its was the largest capital ship ever commissioned at that time.
XOneirokritikosX 2 years ago
Tirpitz had 5k tons more armor.
hairyjohn12 2 years ago
Bismarck is the same size but as hairyjohn said Tirpitz got more deck armor to protect it from plounding fire and bombs
SpecterDK3400 2 years ago