German ships were very good in rough seas. Instead of diving into the waves they plowed through them. The best battleship that can keep its stability most severe weather is the Yamato due to its wide beam, light bow (for its size) and bulbous bow. German ships had bulbous bow but were not really sticking out. Instead they designed the ships differently so that the center oif the ship would always stay stable. But doesnt work if damaged.
Atlantic bow like the Prinz Eugen, with a over hanging bow rather than the old Admiral Hipper with a shorter bow. Yeah thats true. Worse thing you can have is seawater coming through your turrets. What did you think of the photo i sent you.
i thought it odd. in that the sea state looks calm, yet there she is 'plowing through' and the BB's behind her are sailing 'normally', so im not sure what caused that.
At 2:10 you can see how the water is building up on the bow. Ships of WW2 were ahead of their time. They were too fast. Check out how big the HMS Vangaurds bow was: /watch?v=ibmNfKh9xqE
Captain D'Oyly-Hughes did have at least one child, his daughter Bridget. He wasn't just incompetent, it has also been suggested that he was suffering some form of mental illness. He was at the very least paranoid, & believed his senior officers were conspiring against him. He put his senior air officer ashore pending court martial. He was not in a fit state to command, & did not have routine air patrols flying during the passage home, which would have spotted the enemy ships & avoided tragedy
Scout planes could have help to save Glorious, but being in North Atlantic, visibility can be tricky, it can be a little difficult. This mismatch battle reminds me of Battle of Samar, the only difference is the Americans have bunch of aircraft helping them. The situation could have a lot more different if Glorious managed to launch at least some swordfish to distract the German warship, giving the British destroyers a chance to inflict more damage.
north atlantic? They were near NORWAY so thats the Norwegian sea, and the germans visually spotted the british at 50km distance.......
She had no CAP and no lookout in the crowsnest, and did not immediately change course and increase speed upon the sighting of smoke from unknown vessels..... yes the captain would have been court-martialed, which is kinda ironic since he was heading back to scapa flow to hold a court-martial of the ships previous commander..........
Read: John Winton "Carrier Glorious" for the full story. The torpedoman C. G. "Nick" Carter of Acasta was the hero. Without being ordered to, he fired her last torpedoes as she sank, one of which struck Gneisenau at six miles range. As a result the Scharnhorst & Gniesenau turned back and did not find and sink the ships bringing the men back from Norway. Sometimes it all depends on the individual.
My grandfather John Peel was on HMS Acasta when she went down. My mum was only two years old. He was 27 years old. My mum is 73 and spent her whole life looking for the truth, I will not stop looking. Rest in Peace to all
My father, Bob McBride, was the air gunner who took the radio message from HQ for Glorious to abandon her mission and return home. He insists he personally delivered the message to Captain D'oyly Hughes, but told how that incompetent idiot wanted the glory and decided otherwise. Dad was one of the few rescued, and often said he never forgot the horror of losing comrades and mates for one man's ego and idiocy. None of the crew agreed with the decision but all agreed it was typical of Hughes.
I find it amazing that in the middle of a war, in the most dangerous waters that the ememy prowled, the fool Captaining Glorious didn't have the brains to keep at least two or three planes in the air. I guess the Germans had to have at least some victories during the war, and this was one of them. Still a sad waste cause by bad decisions.
Our navy was spread thin. And we were fighting a war. There was nothing the captain could do. It was an old ship, it couldnt outrun a those german ships. Nor would its aircraft made any difference.
the germans were only faster by 1knot....... that would have given them (the british ships) enough time to launch planes, and in general scream for help. The germans sighted their smoke from 50km..... had they had a CAP, they would have avoided them long before the germans found the, or attacked them with aircraft, or shadowed them until heavier units arrived. Ironic that a ship designed to carry aircraft had no CAP, yet the german ships in the previous days had used their Arados...
Every country had somone who made a bad decision. I dont think the crows nest would have made much of a difference however. Binoculars Vs the Range Finder. Also that smoke was probably only 110ft up from sea level. Also 50Km is damn good range for visual sighting. It was just one carrier. Maybe the captain wanted to preserve fuel. Even if the carrier did have a CAP how would the carrier be a match for those two ship?
There was no escape. It should never have been there.
easy turn opposite direction while increasing speed once max speed is attained (good for both running away and launching aircraft) start frantically radioing that you are in deep shit. Glorious max speed is only 1knot less than the german ships. If they had had a CAP they would have detected the german ships sooner and had more time.
But I agree she should never have been allowed to sail independent of heavier naval forces
I read a book that states in this battle the two escorting Royal Navy destroyers scored a torpedo strike on the Scharnhorst that knocked out 2 of the 3 ships engines and one destroyer scored a direct hit with on B turret of the Scharnost . 40 of the Scharnhorst crew were killed . This never seem to get mentioned in any other account of this battle
I read a book that states in this battle the two escorting Royal Navy destroyers scored a torpedo strike on the Scharnhorst that knocked out 2 of the 3 ships engines and one destroyer scored a direct hit with on B turret of the Schornost . 40 of the Scharnhorst crew were killed . This never seem to get mentioned in any other account of this battle
@MrDaleplan What book? Was it Massey's Castles of Steel? Sounds familiar. I recall, due to the amount of armor on the German ships, they could take an incredible amount of punishment, that was the design philosophy, before the faster British ships.
Survivors saw HMS Devonshire, but she was ordered not to stop 4 fear of subs, as well as having Norwegian VIPs on board. Very cruel. Two days later, only 7 survivors of Glorious recovered. Please correct me if any of this is wrong. Forgive me 4 being a little partisan abt this, however Lieut. Cdr.(Aircraft) P.R.Slessor, for whom I was named, perished on the bridge of Glorious, 70 years ago, along with the Captain. The 2nd shell fired by the enemy was a direct hit on the bridge
@slessorpr You put “Please correct me” in your hail of glib assertions, all unsourced. I just note that none of some 10 relevant books I’ve access to say the survivors saw Devonshire, or vice versa. This seems right given her apparently parallel course (possibly disputed) 100 m to the w of Glorious (eg Brown op cit), safer from the Luftwaffe presumably for the sake of her 461 passengers.
2 Arado sorties that a.m.(1:46) did not see Glorious, Ardent or Acasta (Brown).
@ijolite Thank you for taking me at my word. I sincerely want to know if my 'received' family version of events is wrong or right, and I need folks like you to clarify 4 me. TY . I have since learned that Churchill may not have given permission for Glorious to leave early for Scapa Flow, but he DID cover up this biggest single loss of life in RN history, until 2040. Not an honourable act I think you will agree. The immediate families of over 1500 sailors deserve to know the truth b4 they die.
@slessorpr The troopship Lancastria was sunk with 3000 lives on 17 June. Churchill held the news up for 6 weeks. Glorious’s loss was not hidden.
The RN cocked-up. They assumed big KM ships were in port, until the homebound radio-silent hospital ship Atlantis was freed from this Hipper encounter (7:00) and reported it to the RN ships she met next a.m. By then Glorious was sunk.
She ..”had been caught in a holiday mood”. (Rhys-Jones: “Churchill..Norway campaign”, 2008).
@ijolite Thank you 4 giving me this detail. I will always qualify what I write in future to read, 'Until that time, 8 June, 1940, Glorious was the largest single loss of life in an RN action'. At least the families of the Lancastria know the details of her sinking. Why shd the Glorious' families have to wait another 30 years to find out? What is it the UK govt is so keen to hide regarding the details of HMS Glorious sinking? Are there other RN vessels the '100 year secrecy rule' is applied to?
According to Slessor:”Ministries of deception”, 2002, the Glorious file originally embargoed for 101 yrs was opened in 1993 and is in the Public Records Office . He says it reveals “little that was not already known”. Equally, “All the surviving evidence is freely available...”(said by A.Beith, Hse of Commons, 28 Jan 99). Instead of secrecy, what these people criticise is the limited scope of the official version.
@ijolite I am deeply indebted to you for digging out this info. It is very pleasing to know the details are now available. I wonder what bearing it has on the RN's proposed Court Martials of officers publicly accused by D'Oyly Hughes? The charges were made but never addressed. Since those concerned are dead it is hard to determine what the morally correct course wd be. I wd expect the RN to detail the behaviour of HMS Glorious's Captain who so betrayed his crew. Thank you Sir I stand corrected.
@ijolite Until you gave me the name and date, ijolite, I was not aware that Tim Slessor (who I have never met or spoken to) had written 'Ministries of Deception', but rest assured I will be acquiring a copy within days. Why is it members of the family (albeit obscure Australian ones) are always the last to know? (that was rhetorical, and does not beg an answer). Once more thank you, I wd not otherwise have known of this books existence.
Then this stupid, drunken WW1 ex-submariner, in the days b4 radar, refused to do aerial reconnaissance, and thereby steamed right into the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau. Meanwhile Bletchley Park had warned the Admiralty that it had received coded messages indicating 2 major German battleships had slipped from the Baltic into the Atlantic. Churchill chose to ignore this information. 2 destroyers were also sunk during this exchange. Over 1500 men perished.
The 70th anniversary of the sinking of the Glorious is on June 8 2010. Am I correct in thinking that this single largest loss of life in the history of the RN is still a UK State Secret or have the details of Captain Guy D'Oyly-Hughes incompetence and alcoholism been suppressed? He was given permission to leave Narvik in Norway 2 days b4 the main convoy, by his friend Winston Churchill..
The problem of the jerry Kriegsmarine was that they had no carriers so their battlecruiser/battleship fleet quickly got its ass kicked. Submarines are not enough to win a naval war.
The surface raider philosophy wasn't very practical in the first place.Obviously, the Kriegsmarine was working on a very small timetable with an extremely limited budget. The amount of financial damage done to the Allied war effort through surface raiding was very small compared to the cost of constructing the battleships and battlecruisers used to sink Allied shipping. U-boats would have been a more worthwhile investment than costly battleships.
The newsreel leaves the HMS Glorious battle just before the Scharnhorst was hit by a torpedo from the destroyer HMS Acasta before she sank along with the Glorious and HMS Ardent. Scharnhorst was out of action for several weeks afterwards.
@2983393 Nearer 6 months (my old comment). Was the public told of these torpedoes, S's ( 8 June near C turret 0:27) and G's (20 June through bow 3:24), before the next long damage/repair cycles began in spring 1941 and made them ancient history? In Wochenschau 1940-07-13 an intact G is shown without comment. In "Kampf um Norwegen" 8/8 it says "...no losses..".
In Winton: "Carrier Glorious", 1986, Ardent's shell hit the middle gun of S's B turret. A B turret is not firing at 3:52 (??).
My great great uncle was on the Glorious and it's strange watching this. Does anyone know why there is such secrecy over what happened as my family would love to know what happened, when will we find out?
Was the audience confused - seeing film of a walkover but hearing about "..a hot fight..." (5:48)? Not just the damaged Scharnhorst but Marschall's whole force was at Trondheim the next day, instead of attacking a convoy with 10,000 troops on its way back to the UK. Glorious's survivors saw it in the distance. A 15,000 troop convoy was already to the south. Post-Dunkirk (most of this long newsreel shows the fall of France) Britain and her 1940 allies might have had a worse outcome.
@iroscoe She was a tiny escort carrier and she and her task force at least fought back & launched attack planes, unlke the Glorious who had NO planes aloft when she was sunk.
That wasn't the statement you made though was it?,and your insinuation that only the British were ever complacent and incompetent doesn't bare close scrutiny,will you concede that self evident truth or shall we drag this thread into a nationalistic pissing contest? .
@iroscoe Yes. It was sunk by Jap cruisers and battleships during the Battle off Samar in October 1944. My dad was also part of that battle while serving on the Fanshaw Bay.
@jakefree25 As an American, I resent your attitude. Certainly, there was great irresponsibility on the part of Glorious' captain, but Not because he was British.
Is it true that the man on the destroyer who torpedoed the Scharnhorst was court martialled. I heard, thet as his ship was sinking he was ordered to de-fuse the torpedoes, so that they would not blow up and kill men in the water. But instead he saw the Scharnorst in his sights and fired them all off. In doing so he ensured that Germanys best ship of its day was not available for a possible invasion.
We could add that both HMSs Ardent and Acasta (3:30, 3:45) landed shells on Scharnhorst (V.P.O'Hara:"German fleet.. ",2004). Acasta torpedoed her. Not only for this lapse, Marschall (0:28, 1:01?) was sacked on 18 June. Also within the news deadline, HMS Clyde torpedoed Gneisenau on 20 June. Both battleships went to Kiel for repairs till Dec.
Orama carried 100 or so German PoWs. (D.Brown:"Naval operations...Norway",1950/2000). Presumably the Hipper (7:10) welcomed them off camera.
Graf Zeppelin was launched, but never completed. All construction was ended in '43, and the ship towed to Swinemunde. She was sunk as a target by the Soviet Union, and her wreck finally discovered in 2006.
Hitler's Admirals told him that the German navy wouldn't be able to fight the Royal Navy until 1945. He foolishly went to war knowing this. But, at the same time, the Royal Navy would have started building battleships again. So it was a no win situation for Hitler unless he built aircraft carriers, which he didn't because it wasn't known at the time that the battleships days of ruling the waves was over. Too bad! Battleships are wonderful looking ships.
@1916jutland Adm Canaris was so disgusted with Hitler for starting the war that he persuaded Franco not to side with the Germans and attack Gibraltar but remain neutral.
Didn't Hitler have him executed just a few weeks before Hitler killed himself? I know he was spying for the Allies. I think Hitler had him killed because of this even though the war had come to Hitler's doorstep.
Admiral Raeder thought it was a waist of time and steel to build battleships since he was a veteran submariner. The Bismarck and Tirpitz tonnage together was close to 100,000 tons. Just think how many submarines the Germans could have built. The UK would have been starved to death.
Admrial Canaris didn't have a major role in it I don't think. I've read at least 5,000 were executed and some for pre-knowledge of the planned assassination. They weren't even involved in it. They were executed because they didn't warn about it. I saw a documentary on the History Channel that said if Hitler had been killed that day, 12 million lives would have been saved. That's how many people died from July 20, 1944 until after Hitler killed himself.
It would appear that this ship was lost due entirely to the incompetance of her captain who would no doubt have been court martialled if he had survived
Here we are 69 years later, June 8th the very day the Glorious went down. It is STILL a State Secret as to what happened to her. Why was HMS Devonshire ordered not to stop and pick up survivors, since she steamed straight through them? Radio silence was observed for another 2 days b4 word Glorious was sunk. Why was Devonshire not allowed to help survivors? Why did it take another 2 days b4 Adm. even knew of this disaster.Why is the Official Secrets Act STILL covering this incident??
Of course the Swedish Royals were worth over a thousand of our sailors...just look how grateful the Scandinavians are now. Saving those Royals was far more important than the hundreds of sailors left in the icy oily water to die. Thanks a lot Sir Winston, yr all heart. I'm sure the ppl of Coventry agree with me too...
EMBARRASSING! You are RIGHT arvedui! The truth abt the HMS Glorious fiasco should have ENDED Winston Churchills time as leader b4 it had even begun! It was known from WW1 that WC was profligate with human lives (see what happened to the ANZACS in WCs 'plan' for Gallipolli). He argued the 'greater good' wd be served using Commonwealth troops -native 'colonials' as cannon fodder, wherever possible, thereby saving British lives. Most patriotic... WC thought brutality really 'got things done'...
Then why were British troops sent to die with the colonial cannon fodder then a bit counter productive wouldn't you say? . Gallipoli was an attempt to to break the deadlock and save lives,it was a good idea in principle but it was poorly executed .
If they had just kept up the naval assault they would have broken through to Istanbul and toppled the Turks. The Turks were almost out of ammo and mines. But the Brits were using lame slow fishing trawlers as minesweepers.
I'm not certain of this, but I believe I read somewhere that on only 2 occasions in the 2nd World War did Aircraft Carriers come under direct attack by big-gun capital ships. The Glorious in 1940, and USS Gambier Bay in 1944. Both sank with heavy loss of life. As to Glorious or any Carrier, if it's planes are not in the air, it is the definition of helpless. As much use as an oceanliner. It takes so little to cripple it, to make it impossible to fulfill it's function.
I agree. Death in the North Sea, can't get much worse than that. Why Glorious did not have fighters in the air as she returned to England is a mystery. As to Hitler and the sea, I read that he confided to one of his commanders once that even looking a nautical chart made him feel ill. The German ships, and their crews and officers were 1st class; they just didnt have enough ships, so each one was proportionatly much more valuable.
You have a good point , mind you her sinking could have been prevented , she was running on half of her top speed when the German battlecruisers caught up with her , which meant she was slowed down. If she had been at full speed she may have survived or stood a fighting chance , and I think she did have aircraft on her , but the Germans managed to get a hit in on her Aircraft lift distabaling it so she couldnt lanch them , mind you she was only carrying Swordfish
Still, the KM performed much better than the Reggia Marina, which was a disgraceful shame. Should have taken Malta in the first place, should have fought against the Brit Med Force (that's why you want your warships for, isn't it?!?! control of the sea??!!??) should have planned and coordinated better, specially with the air force, due to the lack of carriers, well, should have done everything better. The Italian admirals were the biggest bunch of assholes ever.
@Sky1green The Regia Marina had 100 (!) submarines that were apparently greatly underutilized, to say the least. Correctly used, they could have afflicted quite a deal of damage on the RN. It is ironic that the Barham and Ark Royal were sunk by German subs in the Mediterranean. The courage and effectiveness of the Italian sailors of the "maiale" (hog) operations riding on torpedoes and sinking 2 UK battleships in Alexandria and some freighters in Gibraltar are beyond discussion.
The RN had the advantage of the carriers, that's true, but, the British anti-ship aircrafts were obsolete slow moving biplanes who were VERY lucky. They wouldn't have a chance against the Japs in the Pacific. The Bismarck was hit by many torpedoes, no damage, until unluckily, one of them hit the rudder and destroyed it, making it imposible to govern the ship. That's the only reason why the RN was able to intercept and sink the Bismarck. They were very lucky, and the Germans very unglück. :-)
the swordfish was lucky twice because they also managed to sink most of the italian fleet in toranto, the reason the swordfish were so successful was most of the aa fire from the germans and italians were calibrated for fasting flying aircaft and had trouble hitting the slower moving tagets. By 43 the baracuda had replaced the swordfish and albacore as well as been supplemented by the avenger.
Your'e right about that; British carriers were excellent ships that only needed some modern aircraft. In contrast, had the Germans completed GRAF ZEPPELIN, it would have flown the naval versions of the BF-109 and the JU-87, two aircraft that were QUITE adaquate. Britain's naval aircraft in 1939 were a scandal. It had to do with bitter rivalry of RAF and RN which continues to this day. Only when Corsairs, Wildcats, & Avengers joined the fleet did UK have the aircraft it needed.
Yes, but the RN had to protect the convoys with warships and destroyers and the Kriegsmarine didn't have to escort anything. All available!!
That means most of the British warships wouldn't have the chance of fighting German ships, unless the Germans wanted. Also because again, most of the british warships were slow moving relics from WWI. In reality, it would've been the Kriegsmarine vs Hood, P of W, KGV, Renown, Repulse and some able cruisers, like Norfolk class. Not too bad for KM.
RN 3 battlecruisers, depending on the med fleet deployment 8 battleships in home waters, 3 aircraft carriers in home waters and numerous light and heavy cruisers.
RN destroyers were also quite formidable and frustrated heavy german and italian ships on a number of occasions.
the lutzow and i think scheer with 6 destroyers were outperformed at the barents sea by 6 smaller destroyers until relieved by 2 light cruisers
It was Scheer and Hipper, I believe. Terrible weather and visiblity on that day. All 6 RN destroyers were knocked out, then suddenly appeared 2 RN cruisers and the Germans withdrew after a smoke screen. They would have defeated the cruisers, although not without receiving some nasty shelling themselves. The KM motto was don't fight unless you can destroy them without sustaining some damage. In case of doubt, don't fight. RN motto was the opposite.
If shatriel is refering to theGerman Rainbow operation that became known asthe battle of the Barents sea then he is correct it was Lutzow and Hipper that were the main German surface units involved in the debacle which saw Hitler order(later recinded)the scrapping of the surface fleet,RN losses were the sinking of the mine sweeper Bramble and the Destroyer Achates and damage to the Destroyer Onslow (whose captain won the VC)i dont think there was much damage to any other of the escort vessels .
after bismark german big ships were ordered to avoid carriers and tirpitz in one of her rare sorties was attacked by HMS victorious albacores but the albacore was to slow and tirpitz had a fortunate escape.
the german cruisers were mechanically unreliable , one of the reasons they did not sortie so often has they might have.
in terms of numbers the RN so out numbered the KM that the german high command knew that a direct confrontation was suicide.
even if they could have concentrated their ships , which they rarely were able to due to reliability problems , the RN would have concentrated a greater force and used carrier aircraft to control the battle.
Regarding the sinking of Courageous and Glorious, it actually worked in the benefit of Britain. The Kriegsmarine was already builiding a carrier, the Graf Zeppelin, but precisely because of the fate of the British carriers, construction was halted by Hitler after considering "that carriers were too vulnerable and Germany is not in need of any of these ships". Another big mistake.
On may 1941, the Kriegsmarine had the Bismarck, Scharnhorst, Gneisenau, Scheer, Lutzow, Prinz Eugen and Hipper ready to sail into the Atlantic. What warships had the Royal Navy ready to fight these ships had the Kriegsmarine sent them in 2 groups to raid the Atlantic sealanes ??? Rodney class was too slow to intercept them, Royal Oak class was no match..., just Hood, KGV, Prince of Wales and the battlecruisers Renown and Repulse. The germans were too cautious.
Nothing happens in a vacuum. If the KGM sent their whole fleet to sea you'd have to assume that the RN would have shifted 4 QE's as well as the 4 R's from the MTO to counter the German threat, bringing the British BB count to 13, 3 Battlecruisers to list capitals only.
Also, the 21 kt battle line would be an important fleet in being, I wouldn't discount it as it could easily park itself off Brest or Gibraltar and seal the fate of any German ships damaged by the 29kt battle line.
A) Thing is the R' class were in escort duties. WRITE'EM OFF. I don't know how long would it take to Royal Sovereign to get ready for action against a German fleet spotted off Bergen when Royal Sovereign might be somewhere near Cape Town. Certainly a while.
B) There was also a Mediterranean Squadron, based in Alexandria, which included battleships until the italians mined some of them, including Barham, Malaya and QE. WRITE'EM OFF.
If you want to play hypotheticals with an aggresive surface KGM you can't assume that Britain would act as they historically. If a German surface fleet were assembled do your really think Britain wouldn't have responded in kind? Especially considering the R-class, and NelRod escorts were a direct response to the threat of Scharnhorst and Gneisenau.
The fast British should would hunt the German surface fleet while the 21kt British fleet -a fleet in being- denied access to German ports.
C) If I were a Brit Admiral I certainly wouldn't dare to park a squadron of slow-moving BB anywhere near Brest or the Channel. That would be the best way to have them sunk by German subs, Stukas and Heinkels.
In short, by the time the Bismarck was ready for action, in case of an all-out confrontation the odds were very much evened between the KM and the RN ships who would, realistically speaking, be considered as ready for action- those parked in British harbours.
The Bismarck was collecting silt on the bottom of the Atlantic for several months before QE and Malaya were mined. You are mistaken about Barham as she was torpedoed Nov 1941.
By 1941 the LW had already lost the Battle of Britain and the was focusing on the med and N Africa. Considering animosity between the LW and KGM I see little reason why Goering would divert strategic assets.
U-boats would have to find the British fleet first which is not easy.
Additionally, the only evenly-matched KGM ship is the Bismarck. The Scharnhorst and Gneisenau would only be of danger to perhaps the Revenges, Barham, and Malaya. Support by QE, Valiant or Nelson, Rodney would force immediate retreat or certain destruction.
Among the fast fleet, even counting the teething problems of the KGVs, the sheer disproportion of firepower would ensure the destruction of several KGM ships, if not immediately, then at the hands of the 21kt fleet waiting in the channel.
@No1118117 The Royal Sovereign class was certainly slow, but the Barham and Malaya were faster, and, although not modernized as were QE, Warspite,and Valiant, were quite capable with their speed and 15" guns to manhandle the Scharnhorst and Gneisnau with their 11" big guns. The Germans could only have hoped to outrun them.
Well, they were not battleships, they were... their own class. They were fairly well protected, side 320mm, main guns 350 mm (armour), main deck 50mm, third deck 150 mm. The armour of the deck is a problem, yes, but compared to KGV class - the best british battleships in my opinion;
side 370 mm, main guns 325 mm, deck 130mm.
KGV has bigger guns, but the time it takes to fire 2 salvos, Scharnhorst has already fired 3 and reloading for salvo #4. And Scharnhorst is faster.
the navy generally wasted its carriers at the start of the war losing courageous to a u-boat and then her sister glorious that had only a 2 destroyer escort in an area the admiralty knew was dangerous.
she did not have any scout aircraft up or could launch any combat aircraft due to her decks being cluttered with RAF fighters.
two of our best pre war carriers lost so early in the war.
If Glorious had survived to return to Britain with the decks crowded with 2 squadrons of Hurricanes(!!) which were never built to land on an aircraft carrier, she wd have been praised highly.. Imagine landing a Hurri on a rolling deck with no arrestor gear!! This was a major coup 4 the Glorious. Shame about the drunken Captain, D'Oyly-Hughes, getting them all killed. They were heroes long b4 the sinking of Glorious.
the scharnhorsts were fast but not well protected for ships of their size , that was the trade off for speed though and they were not very good sea boats , even after having new atlantic bows fitted.
their engines were unreliable and they needed a lot of maintenance.
still beautiful ships but no match for a modernised or madern battleship.
before this fight the old but modernised renown chased both ships into a heavy sea but she could not catch them.
And by the way, and frankly speaking, there is nothing heroic (in my opinion) in sinking a single carrier (barely armed ship if we except his aircrafts) by two of such a powerful battlecruisers armed, in total, with 18 280mm guns.
Both "Scharnhorst" and "Gneisenau" should have 380mm main artillery instead of 280mm...just than they could be considered Germany's best warships in my opinion.
Germany's best (and not only Germany's) were, no doubt about that, the "Bismarck" and her sistership "Tirpitz".
Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were fantastic warships. Fast, well protected, 9 guns + secondary, rapid fire, long range... the best german ships in my opinion. The german navy just didn't perform well. Too cautious. At a time, they had the Scharnhorst, Gneisenau, Bismarck, Scheer, Hipper and Prinz Eugen ready to fight. Why the hell didn't send them into the Atlantic, in 2 battle groups, to fight the brits? they could have destroyed the Royal Navy!!! Stupid...
the german navy was no match in a straight fight , its why they tried to destroy the convoy system and starve britain out of the war , they came close to suceeding too with their wolfpack system
My great uncle was serving on the Scharnhorst and several other warships during the war and survived all the sinkings,ended up a poa in Norway after being rescued from the sea.
Holy smoken! Das is nicht das Glorious geflunken - ist das Ourama. Und der Fuhrer ist einen Grossen Scheisskopf, duden! Ich nicht sprechen deutsche; seine kleider, giben-sie mier, ietsze! Nicht sauber, richtich.... schoen nacht fur einen spatziergang! From Der Terminator.
My Uncle, WIlfred Munslow, was a Marine on board the Glorious and was posted missing presumed dead. One of five sons, all of whom served in HM Forces, he was the only one lost in WWII.
My grandad was one of the 37 known survivors off the glorious, was floating in the sea for 3 days and only managed to get on a raft when someone died, he was picked up by a trawler 5 days later. Frostbite saw him off in the end in 1986. Scary to watch this video
I disagree, S and G were "battlecruisers" but the lack of the planned 15 inch turrets caused Lutzow 11 inchers to be put on but never replaced as planned. Therefore S and G could never really face a dreadnought on equal terms.
The S+G Both technically classed as German Pocket Battleships. Also in this League were the Graf Spee and her sisters. Although the Graf Spee were lighter armed and armoured than the S+G. The S+G were designed as fast surface raiders designed to out gun anything smaller than themselves and outrun anything bigger. Literally a class of their own. Yes an old american warhorse could gun her down. However German Gunnery was superb, damned site better than ours and yours. Yes i'm a brit.
What were they fighting for? Poland? They gave poland to the Soviet USSR, and there it remained for 6 years.. They turned a blind eye as the soviets invaded it in 1939.
This war would have happened anyways, at one point or another.
Even if hitler did not attack Poland (or the USSR), even if Japan did not bomb PH.. we would not be living in peace for the last 60 years.. somewhere, sometime.. the war would beginn
My Grandfather was a US Navy gunner in the Atlantic. He came under fire from German surface ships off of Norway on the way to Murmansk several times (part of the Arctic convoys). Who knows? Maybe they shot at eachother at some point. But the war is long over, so as long as your family aren't a bunch of fucking nazis, I'm glad your grandpa survived as well.
my grandfather was onboard the only battleship norway had, wich escorted the king of norway to england, on the way back the ship was sunk, my grandfather survived to tell of it, he among 15 others
My Great Grandfather was on the Glorious and survived thank god!what a thing to go through for young men and women:( so sad that so many people lost there lives...his name was Joseph Russell and was the best granddad ever.
Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were Battlecruisers!! Even though I am only twelve, I am a world war two nut!!! VivaLosTioz. Bismarck was sunk by numerous ships including HMS KIng George V, HMS Hood (Which was blown up by Bismarck)and others. Because of this Tirpitz (BIsmarck's sister ship) was ordered by Hitler to not see much combat in fear of it might be sunk. VivaLosTioz, I am American adn I think I know more about Nazi Germeny that You. No offense.
@VivaLosTioz2008 Whatever they say, the fact is that the Graf Spee etc. were cruisers armed with 6 -11 inch guns, and the S & G were battlecruisers with 11 inch guns and light armor. Bismarck and Tirpitz were the only real Battleships (heavy armor and 15 inch guns) that Germany had.
Well VivaLosTioz, Scharnhorst and Gneisenau had the armament of a battleship but the speed of a cruiser resulting in average to poor deck armor. These kinds of ships are generally referred to as "battlecruisers". And if you paid attention to some of the documentaries, I believe there was mention that these ships didn't have strong deck armor so they were built as BATTLECRUISERS not battleships.
no, they had 11 in guns which was a tad bit too small to classify as battleships, BBs usually carry 12 in guns in eaerly ships but by WW2, all WW1 and modern BBs had tye smallest calibre of guns as 14in, so they did not pack the punch of a modern BB but their real weapon was the ability to outrun most BBs, with about a 5 knot speed advantage over most BBs, in fact the only BB i think that could keep up with them was the Iowas, thye would use their speed to their advantage
no, German BBs Bismarck+Tirpitz, pocket battleships Graf Spee+Admirla Scheer+Lutzow/Duetchsland, BCs Scharnhorst+Gneisenau, CAs only know a few Admiral Hipper+PrinzEeugen
@JheakrynaKyAlur Yes, the S & G were battlecruisers: armed with only 11 inch guns, had light armor, but had speed. British and American battleships had 14, 15 (Brits), and 16 inch guns. S & G were bigger and better armed than cruisers, which usually had around 6 or 8 inch big guns, but weaker than battleships.
My namesake was Lieut. Cmdr. in charge of a/craft on the Glorious. The Capt, D'Oyly-Hughes, a bad alcoholic refused to follow my namesakes urgent advice not to go anywhere w/out reconnaissance scouts. Hughes bluntly refused and 1207 men died needlessly. The officers were close to mutiny cos of Hughes incompetence. He left 2 days b4 main convoy, special permission from Churchill, so he cd court martial those officers who accused him of drunkenness.Still secret 67 yrs later!!
I had heard that the Captain was hated by all of his officers. Must be nice to play around with so many people's lives when one is an idiot but officially in charge.
Blame stalin. he wanted this war. blame roosevelt, for making those "trade deals" over the Christian death camps where 50-60 million were murdered. So you were lied to by leftwing media war propaganda? your grandfather was lied to, and fought to secure Stalin's ability to have Eastern Europe handed to him on a silver platter. Pat yourself on the back for being credulous.
You have no idea how deceptive atheistical-Bolshevik propaganda is, and *why* Hitler went to war against the devils, huh?
stalinmurdered dont know if you are in the uk, but they have been showing a programme ww2 behind closed doors it shows what stalin was up to using recently released soviet war papers, backs up everything you have just said
Frank Roebuck might have been picked up by HMS Devonshire which on secret mission under strict radio silence evac Norwegian Govt; came across Glorious wreckage and survivors. Admiralty refused permission for Devonshire to stop for survivors due to sensitive cargo of politicians and Royals.Y is this tragic blunder still state secret 68 yrs later?!!
The Scharnhorst was the best of... what? The only thing S&G were good at, was running. They were fast - their only virtue. They were overloaded, wet, mediocre engines, complex & unreliable systems throughout, and weaker than any other battleship in the world. Heck - a 20 year-old American battlewagon would have made short work of Scharnhorst.
Germany's surface fleet was very mediocre, with pitiful destroyers. S&G were fine at sinking merchantmen and Glorious - they ran from Renown.
but PA has more armor, more firepower and that is often the deciding factor in a naval battle, and if i am correct scharnhorst was also bigger by length just lighter
The Pennsylvania and the other Ghost Ships proved how tough they were in returning to fight after Pearl Harbor. The Scharnhorst would've been faster, but a US battleship would've had better fire-control radar (borrowed from the Brits), as well as being able to take it like a champ. Just look at the USS South Dakota at Guadalcanal: lost power to her main guns and still stayed in the fight against the IJS Hiei and Kirishima, returning fire with her AA guns, and survived.
Learned that you can never trust these nazis newsreels!
jrwel14 6 months ago
Now that's what I call Nazi German naval firepower!
Raymund925 7 months ago
@Raymund925 Nothing compared to Japanese navy fire power!
jrwel14 6 months ago
wow
lickmesideways1 7 months ago
Wow, awsome footage.
Fischer0Dude 8 months ago
The Scharnhorst had an absolute advantage over the Glorious in this case, everything. And at 2:20 , that is an Admiral Hipper.
Republic19864 10 months ago
Love the discussion, insights and personal touches...thanks
gmgtroy 11 months ago
footage at 2:20 is a hipper class Heavy Cuiser, i think footage at 2:10 might also be hipper class?
thoguh the footage at 2:22 (clearly a scharnhorst class) shows her 'plowing through' like in the photo you sent me
notsureyou 11 months ago
@notsureyou it is hipper, she was there at the battle
nonamebrand0 9 months ago
@nonamebrand0
not in the battle with glorious, she had been detached
notsureyou 9 months ago
Maybe if they reduced the belt from 350mm to 320mm the ships might have been a tad better in rough seas ;)
notsureyou 11 months ago
@notsureyou
German ships were very good in rough seas. Instead of diving into the waves they plowed through them. The best battleship that can keep its stability most severe weather is the Yamato due to its wide beam, light bow (for its size) and bulbous bow. German ships had bulbous bow but were not really sticking out. Instead they designed the ships differently so that the center oif the ship would always stay stable. But doesnt work if damaged.
G777GUN 11 months ago
@G777GUN
yeah but they were fairly low in the water and so very 'wet' forward which at times caused issues with the foremost turret
notsureyou 11 months ago
@notsureyou
But thats only in rough weather. If you want an example of a wet ship i will send you one.
G777GUN 11 months ago
@G777GUN
she def needs an 'atlantic bow'
Hood was also wet, though she was wet aft :O
notsureyou 11 months ago
@notsureyou
Atlantic bow like the Prinz Eugen, with a over hanging bow rather than the old Admiral Hipper with a shorter bow. Yeah thats true. Worse thing you can have is seawater coming through your turrets. What did you think of the photo i sent you.
G777GUN 11 months ago
@G777GUN
i thought it odd. in that the sea state looks calm, yet there she is 'plowing through' and the BB's behind her are sailing 'normally', so im not sure what caused that.
notsureyou 11 months ago
@notsureyou
At 2:10 you can see how the water is building up on the bow. Ships of WW2 were ahead of their time. They were too fast. Check out how big the HMS Vangaurds bow was: /watch?v=ibmNfKh9xqE
G777GUN 11 months ago
Captain D'Oyly-Hughes did have at least one child, his daughter Bridget. He wasn't just incompetent, it has also been suggested that he was suffering some form of mental illness. He was at the very least paranoid, & believed his senior officers were conspiring against him. He put his senior air officer ashore pending court martial. He was not in a fit state to command, & did not have routine air patrols flying during the passage home, which would have spotted the enemy ships & avoided tragedy
MDWH65 11 months ago
@MDWH65
He didnt even have a spotter in the ships crowsnest....
notsureyou 11 months ago
Scout planes could have help to save Glorious, but being in North Atlantic, visibility can be tricky, it can be a little difficult. This mismatch battle reminds me of Battle of Samar, the only difference is the Americans have bunch of aircraft helping them. The situation could have a lot more different if Glorious managed to launch at least some swordfish to distract the German warship, giving the British destroyers a chance to inflict more damage.
jbrian80 1 year ago
@jbrian80
north atlantic? They were near NORWAY so thats the Norwegian sea, and the germans visually spotted the british at 50km distance.......
She had no CAP and no lookout in the crowsnest, and did not immediately change course and increase speed upon the sighting of smoke from unknown vessels..... yes the captain would have been court-martialed, which is kinda ironic since he was heading back to scapa flow to hold a court-martial of the ships previous commander..........
notsureyou 11 months ago
I WOULD BE 100X BETTER CAPTAIN THEN OF THAT CARRIER because i know EVERYTHING of ww2
socomsix19 1 year ago
Read: John Winton "Carrier Glorious" for the full story. The torpedoman C. G. "Nick" Carter of Acasta was the hero. Without being ordered to, he fired her last torpedoes as she sank, one of which struck Gneisenau at six miles range. As a result the Scharnhorst & Gniesenau turned back and did not find and sink the ships bringing the men back from Norway. Sometimes it all depends on the individual.
Gbrltr 1 year ago
If you want that sourcing, read Eric J.Grove's the Royal Navy, page 187. Or if your lucky, like me go and ask him about it.
liamhart19 1 year ago
German propaganda does not show one of the british destroyers scoring a damaging hit with a torpedo on the Scharnhorst.
liamhart19 1 year ago
My grandfather John Peel was on HMS Acasta when she went down. My mum was only two years old. He was 27 years old. My mum is 73 and spent her whole life looking for the truth, I will not stop looking. Rest in Peace to all
lauraeddie79 1 year ago
My father, Bob McBride, was the air gunner who took the radio message from HQ for Glorious to abandon her mission and return home. He insists he personally delivered the message to Captain D'oyly Hughes, but told how that incompetent idiot wanted the glory and decided otherwise. Dad was one of the few rescued, and often said he never forgot the horror of losing comrades and mates for one man's ego and idiocy. None of the crew agreed with the decision but all agreed it was typical of Hughes.
BumbleBeeBurton 1 year ago
I find it amazing that in the middle of a war, in the most dangerous waters that the ememy prowled, the fool Captaining Glorious didn't have the brains to keep at least two or three planes in the air. I guess the Germans had to have at least some victories during the war, and this was one of them. Still a sad waste cause by bad decisions.
Roadghost88 1 year ago
@Roadghost88
Our navy was spread thin. And we were fighting a war. There was nothing the captain could do. It was an old ship, it couldnt outrun a those german ships. Nor would its aircraft made any difference.
G777GUN 1 year ago
@G777GUN
the germans were only faster by 1knot....... that would have given them (the british ships) enough time to launch planes, and in general scream for help. The germans sighted their smoke from 50km..... had they had a CAP, they would have avoided them long before the germans found the, or attacked them with aircraft, or shadowed them until heavier units arrived. Ironic that a ship designed to carry aircraft had no CAP, yet the german ships in the previous days had used their Arados...
notsureyou 11 months ago
@notsureyou
Every country had somone who made a bad decision. I dont think the crows nest would have made much of a difference however. Binoculars Vs the Range Finder. Also that smoke was probably only 110ft up from sea level. Also 50Km is damn good range for visual sighting. It was just one carrier. Maybe the captain wanted to preserve fuel. Even if the carrier did have a CAP how would the carrier be a match for those two ship?
There was no escape. It should never have been there.
G777GUN 11 months ago
@G777GUN
easy turn opposite direction while increasing speed once max speed is attained (good for both running away and launching aircraft) start frantically radioing that you are in deep shit. Glorious max speed is only 1knot less than the german ships. If they had had a CAP they would have detected the german ships sooner and had more time.
But I agree she should never have been allowed to sail independent of heavier naval forces
notsureyou 11 months ago
@notsureyou
Agreed. A carrier is nothing without powerful escorts.
G777GUN 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I read a book that states in this battle the two escorting Royal Navy destroyers scored a torpedo strike on the Scharnhorst that knocked out 2 of the 3 ships engines and one destroyer scored a direct hit with on B turret of the Scharnost . 40 of the Scharnhorst crew were killed . This never seem to get mentioned in any other account of this battle
MrDaleplan 1 year ago
I read a book that states in this battle the two escorting Royal Navy destroyers scored a torpedo strike on the Scharnhorst that knocked out 2 of the 3 ships engines and one destroyer scored a direct hit with on B turret of the Schornost . 40 of the Scharnhorst crew were killed . This never seem to get mentioned in any other account of this battle
MrDaleplan 1 year ago
@MrDaleplan What book? Was it Massey's Castles of Steel? Sounds familiar. I recall, due to the amount of armor on the German ships, they could take an incredible amount of punishment, that was the design philosophy, before the faster British ships.
comsunjava 1 year ago
Survivors saw HMS Devonshire, but she was ordered not to stop 4 fear of subs, as well as having Norwegian VIPs on board. Very cruel. Two days later, only 7 survivors of Glorious recovered. Please correct me if any of this is wrong. Forgive me 4 being a little partisan abt this, however Lieut. Cdr.(Aircraft) P.R.Slessor, for whom I was named, perished on the bridge of Glorious, 70 years ago, along with the Captain. The 2nd shell fired by the enemy was a direct hit on the bridge
slessorpr 1 year ago
@slessorpr You put “Please correct me” in your hail of glib assertions, all unsourced. I just note that none of some 10 relevant books I’ve access to say the survivors saw Devonshire, or vice versa. This seems right given her apparently parallel course (possibly disputed) 100 m to the w of Glorious (eg Brown op cit), safer from the Luftwaffe presumably for the sake of her 461 passengers.
2 Arado sorties that a.m.(1:46) did not see Glorious, Ardent or Acasta (Brown).
ijolite 1 year ago
@ijolite Thank you for taking me at my word. I sincerely want to know if my 'received' family version of events is wrong or right, and I need folks like you to clarify 4 me. TY . I have since learned that Churchill may not have given permission for Glorious to leave early for Scapa Flow, but he DID cover up this biggest single loss of life in RN history, until 2040. Not an honourable act I think you will agree. The immediate families of over 1500 sailors deserve to know the truth b4 they die.
slessorpr 1 year ago
@slessorpr The troopship Lancastria was sunk with 3000 lives on 17 June. Churchill held the news up for 6 weeks. Glorious’s loss was not hidden.
The RN cocked-up. They assumed big KM ships were in port, until the homebound radio-silent hospital ship Atlantis was freed from this Hipper encounter (7:00) and reported it to the RN ships she met next a.m. By then Glorious was sunk.
She ..”had been caught in a holiday mood”. (Rhys-Jones: “Churchill..Norway campaign”, 2008).
ijolite 1 year ago
@ijolite Thank you 4 giving me this detail. I will always qualify what I write in future to read, 'Until that time, 8 June, 1940, Glorious was the largest single loss of life in an RN action'. At least the families of the Lancastria know the details of her sinking. Why shd the Glorious' families have to wait another 30 years to find out? What is it the UK govt is so keen to hide regarding the details of HMS Glorious sinking? Are there other RN vessels the '100 year secrecy rule' is applied to?
slessorpr 1 year ago
@slessorpr Jutland?
According to Slessor:”Ministries of deception”, 2002, the Glorious file originally embargoed for 101 yrs was opened in 1993 and is in the Public Records Office . He says it reveals “little that was not already known”. Equally, “All the surviving evidence is freely available...”(said by A.Beith, Hse of Commons, 28 Jan 99). Instead of secrecy, what these people criticise is the limited scope of the official version.
You can check there’s plenty more to correct.
ijolite 1 year ago
@ijolite I am deeply indebted to you for digging out this info. It is very pleasing to know the details are now available. I wonder what bearing it has on the RN's proposed Court Martials of officers publicly accused by D'Oyly Hughes? The charges were made but never addressed. Since those concerned are dead it is hard to determine what the morally correct course wd be. I wd expect the RN to detail the behaviour of HMS Glorious's Captain who so betrayed his crew. Thank you Sir I stand corrected.
slessorpr 1 year ago
@ijolite Until you gave me the name and date, ijolite, I was not aware that Tim Slessor (who I have never met or spoken to) had written 'Ministries of Deception', but rest assured I will be acquiring a copy within days. Why is it members of the family (albeit obscure Australian ones) are always the last to know? (that was rhetorical, and does not beg an answer). Once more thank you, I wd not otherwise have known of this books existence.
slessorpr 1 year ago
Then this stupid, drunken WW1 ex-submariner, in the days b4 radar, refused to do aerial reconnaissance, and thereby steamed right into the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau. Meanwhile Bletchley Park had warned the Admiralty that it had received coded messages indicating 2 major German battleships had slipped from the Baltic into the Atlantic. Churchill chose to ignore this information. 2 destroyers were also sunk during this exchange. Over 1500 men perished.
slessorpr 1 year ago
The 70th anniversary of the sinking of the Glorious is on June 8 2010. Am I correct in thinking that this single largest loss of life in the history of the RN is still a UK State Secret or have the details of Captain Guy D'Oyly-Hughes incompetence and alcoholism been suppressed? He was given permission to leave Narvik in Norway 2 days b4 the main convoy, by his friend Winston Churchill..
slessorpr 1 year ago
americans are very very spoiled and we take both our navies for granted!...this footage is priceless!
rocketshipstud1 1 year ago
Gott mit uns
germaniajim 1 year ago
The problem of the jerry Kriegsmarine was that they had no carriers so their battlecruiser/battleship fleet quickly got its ass kicked. Submarines are not enough to win a naval war.
lotsofcooki3s 1 year ago
@lotsofcooki3s
The surface raider philosophy wasn't very practical in the first place.Obviously, the Kriegsmarine was working on a very small timetable with an extremely limited budget. The amount of financial damage done to the Allied war effort through surface raiding was very small compared to the cost of constructing the battleships and battlecruisers used to sink Allied shipping. U-boats would have been a more worthwhile investment than costly battleships.
Grimgerde 1 year ago
I could use a translation...
3y3raven 1 year ago
My uncle John Murray was killed on board the HMS Glorious in this attack. He was 16 years old. God rest his soul. May there be peace.
danicadilly 1 year ago
The newsreel leaves the HMS Glorious battle just before the Scharnhorst was hit by a torpedo from the destroyer HMS Acasta before she sank along with the Glorious and HMS Ardent. Scharnhorst was out of action for several weeks afterwards.
2983393 1 year ago
@2983393 Nearer 6 months (my old comment). Was the public told of these torpedoes, S's ( 8 June near C turret 0:27) and G's (20 June through bow 3:24), before the next long damage/repair cycles began in spring 1941 and made them ancient history? In Wochenschau 1940-07-13 an intact G is shown without comment. In "Kampf um Norwegen" 8/8 it says "...no losses..".
In Winton: "Carrier Glorious", 1986, Ardent's shell hit the middle gun of S's B turret. A B turret is not firing at 3:52 (??).
ijolite 1 year ago
My great great uncle was on the Glorious and it's strange watching this. Does anyone know why there is such secrecy over what happened as my family would love to know what happened, when will we find out?
chaoticliloj 1 year ago
Was the audience confused - seeing film of a walkover but hearing about "..a hot fight..." (5:48)? Not just the damaged Scharnhorst but Marschall's whole force was at Trondheim the next day, instead of attacking a convoy with 10,000 troops on its way back to the UK. Glorious's survivors saw it in the distance. A 15,000 troop convoy was already to the south. Post-Dunkirk (most of this long newsreel shows the fall of France) Britain and her 1940 allies might have had a worse outcome.
ijolite 1 year ago
Comment removed
ijolite 1 year ago
Only the British could lose an intact carrier to gunfire, in daylight no less. I couldn't imagine that happening to a US or Jap carrier
jakefree25 2 years ago
Wasn't the US carrier Gambier Bay lost to gunfire in daylight? .
iroscoe 1 year ago 2
@iroscoe She was a tiny escort carrier and she and her task force at least fought back & launched attack planes, unlke the Glorious who had NO planes aloft when she was sunk.
jakefree25 1 year ago
That wasn't the statement you made though was it?,and your insinuation that only the British were ever complacent and incompetent doesn't bare close scrutiny,will you concede that self evident truth or shall we drag this thread into a nationalistic pissing contest? .
iroscoe 1 year ago
@iroscoe Yes. It was sunk by Jap cruisers and battleships during the Battle off Samar in October 1944. My dad was also part of that battle while serving on the Fanshaw Bay.
cve70 1 year ago
Kudos to your father and all who served,Samar was a very impressive action .
iroscoe 1 year ago
@jakefree25 As an American, I resent your attitude. Certainly, there was great irresponsibility on the part of Glorious' captain, but Not because he was British.
FRAGIORGIO1 4 months ago
Is it true that the man on the destroyer who torpedoed the Scharnhorst was court martialled. I heard, thet as his ship was sinking he was ordered to de-fuse the torpedoes, so that they would not blow up and kill men in the water. But instead he saw the Scharnorst in his sights and fired them all off. In doing so he ensured that Germanys best ship of its day was not available for a possible invasion.
romanbrough 2 years ago
We could add that both HMSs Ardent and Acasta (3:30, 3:45) landed shells on Scharnhorst (V.P.O'Hara:"German fleet.. ",2004). Acasta torpedoed her. Not only for this lapse, Marschall (0:28, 1:01?) was sacked on 18 June. Also within the news deadline, HMS Clyde torpedoed Gneisenau on 20 June. Both battleships went to Kiel for repairs till Dec.
Orama carried 100 or so German PoWs. (D.Brown:"Naval operations...Norway",1950/2000). Presumably the Hipper (7:10) welcomed them off camera.
ijolite 2 years ago
Actualy, germany did have an Aircraft Carrier, Ir was trapped in the russian zone and was called the graff zepplin.
furballFalcon 2 years ago
Graf Zeppelin was launched, but never completed. All construction was ended in '43, and the ship towed to Swinemunde. She was sunk as a target by the Soviet Union, and her wreck finally discovered in 2006.
Exmech2 2 years ago
Hitler's Admirals told him that the German navy wouldn't be able to fight the Royal Navy until 1945. He foolishly went to war knowing this. But, at the same time, the Royal Navy would have started building battleships again. So it was a no win situation for Hitler unless he built aircraft carriers, which he didn't because it wasn't known at the time that the battleships days of ruling the waves was over. Too bad! Battleships are wonderful looking ships.
1916jutland 2 years ago
@1916jutland Adm Canaris was so disgusted with Hitler for starting the war that he persuaded Franco not to side with the Germans and attack Gibraltar but remain neutral.
IanHunedoara8 2 years ago
Didn't Hitler have him executed just a few weeks before Hitler killed himself? I know he was spying for the Allies. I think Hitler had him killed because of this even though the war had come to Hitler's doorstep.
Admiral Raeder thought it was a waist of time and steel to build battleships since he was a veteran submariner. The Bismarck and Tirpitz tonnage together was close to 100,000 tons. Just think how many submarines the Germans could have built. The UK would have been starved to death.
1916jutland 2 years ago
@1916jutland Correct but he was executed for his role in the Von Stauffenberg conspiracy.
IanHunedoara8 2 years ago
Admrial Canaris didn't have a major role in it I don't think. I've read at least 5,000 were executed and some for pre-knowledge of the planned assassination. They weren't even involved in it. They were executed because they didn't warn about it. I saw a documentary on the History Channel that said if Hitler had been killed that day, 12 million lives would have been saved. That's how many people died from July 20, 1944 until after Hitler killed himself.
1916jutland 2 years ago
It would appear that this ship was lost due entirely to the incompetance of her captain who would no doubt have been court martialled if he had survived
veritascrusader 2 years ago 2
@veritascrusader
hell yes
3y3raven 1 year ago
Here we are 69 years later, June 8th the very day the Glorious went down. It is STILL a State Secret as to what happened to her. Why was HMS Devonshire ordered not to stop and pick up survivors, since she steamed straight through them? Radio silence was observed for another 2 days b4 word Glorious was sunk. Why was Devonshire not allowed to help survivors? Why did it take another 2 days b4 Adm. even knew of this disaster.Why is the Official Secrets Act STILL covering this incident??
slessorpr 2 years ago 2
I believe the HMS Devonshire was carrying the dutch royal family at the time.
They could not risk losing them.
MrKrbbholai 2 years ago
Of course the Swedish Royals were worth over a thousand of our sailors...just look how grateful the Scandinavians are now. Saving those Royals was far more important than the hundreds of sailors left in the icy oily water to die. Thanks a lot Sir Winston, yr all heart. I'm sure the ppl of Coventry agree with me too...
slessorpr 2 years ago
Becuse the answer is embarrising for the navy?
arveduilastking 2 years ago
EMBARRASSING! You are RIGHT arvedui! The truth abt the HMS Glorious fiasco should have ENDED Winston Churchills time as leader b4 it had even begun! It was known from WW1 that WC was profligate with human lives (see what happened to the ANZACS in WCs 'plan' for Gallipolli). He argued the 'greater good' wd be served using Commonwealth troops -native 'colonials' as cannon fodder, wherever possible, thereby saving British lives. Most patriotic... WC thought brutality really 'got things done'...
slessorpr 2 years ago
Then why were British troops sent to die with the colonial cannon fodder then a bit counter productive wouldn't you say? . Gallipoli was an attempt to to break the deadlock and save lives,it was a good idea in principle but it was poorly executed .
iroscoe 2 years ago 2
If they had just kept up the naval assault they would have broken through to Istanbul and toppled the Turks. The Turks were almost out of ammo and mines. But the Brits were using lame slow fishing trawlers as minesweepers.
jakefree25 2 years ago
I'm not certain of this, but I believe I read somewhere that on only 2 occasions in the 2nd World War did Aircraft Carriers come under direct attack by big-gun capital ships. The Glorious in 1940, and USS Gambier Bay in 1944. Both sank with heavy loss of life. As to Glorious or any Carrier, if it's planes are not in the air, it is the definition of helpless. As much use as an oceanliner. It takes so little to cripple it, to make it impossible to fulfill it's function.
matapan50 2 years ago
I agree. Death in the North Sea, can't get much worse than that. Why Glorious did not have fighters in the air as she returned to England is a mystery. As to Hitler and the sea, I read that he confided to one of his commanders once that even looking a nautical chart made him feel ill. The German ships, and their crews and officers were 1st class; they just didnt have enough ships, so each one was proportionatly much more valuable.
matapan50 2 years ago
You have a good point , mind you her sinking could have been prevented , she was running on half of her top speed when the German battlecruisers caught up with her , which meant she was slowed down. If she had been at full speed she may have survived or stood a fighting chance , and I think she did have aircraft on her , but the Germans managed to get a hit in on her Aircraft lift distabaling it so she couldnt lanch them , mind you she was only carrying Swordfish
sailingforde04 2 years ago
I can´t help to think about the horrible death of the 1000s of sailors...Allied and germans.Pretty grim
lofi73 2 years ago 2
well done deutsches
heiltony 2 years ago
Hitler was no seaman. He was strictly a landlubber.
Murphoftheturf 2 years ago
is that why he didnt have children?
rdvd7 2 years ago 4
Still, the KM performed much better than the Reggia Marina, which was a disgraceful shame. Should have taken Malta in the first place, should have fought against the Brit Med Force (that's why you want your warships for, isn't it?!?! control of the sea??!!??) should have planned and coordinated better, specially with the air force, due to the lack of carriers, well, should have done everything better. The Italian admirals were the biggest bunch of assholes ever.
Sky1green 3 years ago
@Sky1green The Regia Marina had 100 (!) submarines that were apparently greatly underutilized, to say the least. Correctly used, they could have afflicted quite a deal of damage on the RN. It is ironic that the Barham and Ark Royal were sunk by German subs in the Mediterranean. The courage and effectiveness of the Italian sailors of the "maiale" (hog) operations riding on torpedoes and sinking 2 UK battleships in Alexandria and some freighters in Gibraltar are beyond discussion.
FRAGIORGIO1 4 months ago
The RN had the advantage of the carriers, that's true, but, the British anti-ship aircrafts were obsolete slow moving biplanes who were VERY lucky. They wouldn't have a chance against the Japs in the Pacific. The Bismarck was hit by many torpedoes, no damage, until unluckily, one of them hit the rudder and destroyed it, making it imposible to govern the ship. That's the only reason why the RN was able to intercept and sink the Bismarck. They were very lucky, and the Germans very unglück. :-)
Sky1green 3 years ago
the swordfish was lucky twice because they also managed to sink most of the italian fleet in toranto, the reason the swordfish were so successful was most of the aa fire from the germans and italians were calibrated for fasting flying aircaft and had trouble hitting the slower moving tagets. By 43 the baracuda had replaced the swordfish and albacore as well as been supplemented by the avenger.
pramboy74 2 years ago
Your'e right about that; British carriers were excellent ships that only needed some modern aircraft. In contrast, had the Germans completed GRAF ZEPPELIN, it would have flown the naval versions of the BF-109 and the JU-87, two aircraft that were QUITE adaquate. Britain's naval aircraft in 1939 were a scandal. It had to do with bitter rivalry of RAF and RN which continues to this day. Only when Corsairs, Wildcats, & Avengers joined the fleet did UK have the aircraft it needed.
matapan50 2 years ago
Yes, but the RN had to protect the convoys with warships and destroyers and the Kriegsmarine didn't have to escort anything. All available!!
That means most of the British warships wouldn't have the chance of fighting German ships, unless the Germans wanted. Also because again, most of the british warships were slow moving relics from WWI. In reality, it would've been the Kriegsmarine vs Hood, P of W, KGV, Renown, Repulse and some able cruisers, like Norfolk class. Not too bad for KM.
Sky1green 3 years ago
numbers , lets see.
germany 1 battleship 2 battlecruisers 4 cruisers
RN 3 battlecruisers, depending on the med fleet deployment 8 battleships in home waters, 3 aircraft carriers in home waters and numerous light and heavy cruisers.
RN destroyers were also quite formidable and frustrated heavy german and italian ships on a number of occasions.
the lutzow and i think scheer with 6 destroyers were outperformed at the barents sea by 6 smaller destroyers until relieved by 2 light cruisers
shathriel 3 years ago
It was Scheer and Hipper, I believe. Terrible weather and visiblity on that day. All 6 RN destroyers were knocked out, then suddenly appeared 2 RN cruisers and the Germans withdrew after a smoke screen. They would have defeated the cruisers, although not without receiving some nasty shelling themselves. The KM motto was don't fight unless you can destroy them without sustaining some damage. In case of doubt, don't fight. RN motto was the opposite.
We know the result of that smart policy.
Sky1green 3 years ago
If shatriel is refering to theGerman Rainbow operation that became known asthe battle of the Barents sea then he is correct it was Lutzow and Hipper that were the main German surface units involved in the debacle which saw Hitler order(later recinded)the scrapping of the surface fleet,RN losses were the sinking of the mine sweeper Bramble and the Destroyer Achates and damage to the Destroyer Onslow (whose captain won the VC)i dont think there was much damage to any other of the escort vessels .
iroscoe 2 years ago
after bismark german big ships were ordered to avoid carriers and tirpitz in one of her rare sorties was attacked by HMS victorious albacores but the albacore was to slow and tirpitz had a fortunate escape.
shathriel 3 years ago
the german cruisers were mechanically unreliable , one of the reasons they did not sortie so often has they might have.
in terms of numbers the RN so out numbered the KM that the german high command knew that a direct confrontation was suicide.
even if they could have concentrated their ships , which they rarely were able to due to reliability problems , the RN would have concentrated a greater force and used carrier aircraft to control the battle.
shathriel 3 years ago
Comment removed
abbeyofthelema666 3 years ago
Regarding the sinking of Courageous and Glorious, it actually worked in the benefit of Britain. The Kriegsmarine was already builiding a carrier, the Graf Zeppelin, but precisely because of the fate of the British carriers, construction was halted by Hitler after considering "that carriers were too vulnerable and Germany is not in need of any of these ships". Another big mistake.
Sky1green 3 years ago
On may 1941, the Kriegsmarine had the Bismarck, Scharnhorst, Gneisenau, Scheer, Lutzow, Prinz Eugen and Hipper ready to sail into the Atlantic. What warships had the Royal Navy ready to fight these ships had the Kriegsmarine sent them in 2 groups to raid the Atlantic sealanes ??? Rodney class was too slow to intercept them, Royal Oak class was no match..., just Hood, KGV, Prince of Wales and the battlecruisers Renown and Repulse. The germans were too cautious.
Sky1green 3 years ago
Nothing happens in a vacuum. If the KGM sent their whole fleet to sea you'd have to assume that the RN would have shifted 4 QE's as well as the 4 R's from the MTO to counter the German threat, bringing the British BB count to 13, 3 Battlecruisers to list capitals only.
Also, the 21 kt battle line would be an important fleet in being, I wouldn't discount it as it could easily park itself off Brest or Gibraltar and seal the fate of any German ships damaged by the 29kt battle line.
No1118117 2 years ago
A) Thing is the R' class were in escort duties. WRITE'EM OFF. I don't know how long would it take to Royal Sovereign to get ready for action against a German fleet spotted off Bergen when Royal Sovereign might be somewhere near Cape Town. Certainly a while.
B) There was also a Mediterranean Squadron, based in Alexandria, which included battleships until the italians mined some of them, including Barham, Malaya and QE. WRITE'EM OFF.
Sky1green 2 years ago
If you want to play hypotheticals with an aggresive surface KGM you can't assume that Britain would act as they historically. If a German surface fleet were assembled do your really think Britain wouldn't have responded in kind? Especially considering the R-class, and NelRod escorts were a direct response to the threat of Scharnhorst and Gneisenau.
The fast British should would hunt the German surface fleet while the 21kt British fleet -a fleet in being- denied access to German ports.
No1118117 2 years ago
C) If I were a Brit Admiral I certainly wouldn't dare to park a squadron of slow-moving BB anywhere near Brest or the Channel. That would be the best way to have them sunk by German subs, Stukas and Heinkels.
In short, by the time the Bismarck was ready for action, in case of an all-out confrontation the odds were very much evened between the KM and the RN ships who would, realistically speaking, be considered as ready for action- those parked in British harbours.
Sky1green 2 years ago
As for several historical points:
The Bismarck was collecting silt on the bottom of the Atlantic for several months before QE and Malaya were mined. You are mistaken about Barham as she was torpedoed Nov 1941.
By 1941 the LW had already lost the Battle of Britain and the was focusing on the med and N Africa. Considering animosity between the LW and KGM I see little reason why Goering would divert strategic assets.
U-boats would have to find the British fleet first which is not easy.
No1118117 2 years ago
Additionally, the only evenly-matched KGM ship is the Bismarck. The Scharnhorst and Gneisenau would only be of danger to perhaps the Revenges, Barham, and Malaya. Support by QE, Valiant or Nelson, Rodney would force immediate retreat or certain destruction.
Among the fast fleet, even counting the teething problems of the KGVs, the sheer disproportion of firepower would ensure the destruction of several KGM ships, if not immediately, then at the hands of the 21kt fleet waiting in the channel.
No1118117 2 years ago
@No1118117 The Royal Sovereign class was certainly slow, but the Barham and Malaya were faster, and, although not modernized as were QE, Warspite,and Valiant, were quite capable with their speed and 15" guns to manhandle the Scharnhorst and Gneisnau with their 11" big guns. The Germans could only have hoped to outrun them.
FRAGIORGIO1 4 months ago
Well, they were not battleships, they were... their own class. They were fairly well protected, side 320mm, main guns 350 mm (armour), main deck 50mm, third deck 150 mm. The armour of the deck is a problem, yes, but compared to KGV class - the best british battleships in my opinion;
side 370 mm, main guns 325 mm, deck 130mm.
KGV has bigger guns, but the time it takes to fire 2 salvos, Scharnhorst has already fired 3 and reloading for salvo #4. And Scharnhorst is faster.
Sky1green 3 years ago
i see no mention of ardent or acasta , the two destroyers that sacrificed themselves trying to protect glorious.
both were shot to pieces but not before a torpedo slammed into scharnhorst letting in 2000 tons of water.
along with the gneisenua's damage from the renown both ships were out of action during the battle of britain.
shathriel 3 years ago 2
the navy generally wasted its carriers at the start of the war losing courageous to a u-boat and then her sister glorious that had only a 2 destroyer escort in an area the admiralty knew was dangerous.
she did not have any scout aircraft up or could launch any combat aircraft due to her decks being cluttered with RAF fighters.
two of our best pre war carriers lost so early in the war.
shathriel 3 years ago
If Glorious had survived to return to Britain with the decks crowded with 2 squadrons of Hurricanes(!!) which were never built to land on an aircraft carrier, she wd have been praised highly.. Imagine landing a Hurri on a rolling deck with no arrestor gear!! This was a major coup 4 the Glorious. Shame about the drunken Captain, D'Oyly-Hughes, getting them all killed. They were heroes long b4 the sinking of Glorious.
slessorpr 2 years ago
Yes. Both could have been modernised, their flight decks made full-length.
matapan50 2 years ago
the scharnhorsts were fast but not well protected for ships of their size , that was the trade off for speed though and they were not very good sea boats , even after having new atlantic bows fitted.
their engines were unreliable and they needed a lot of maintenance.
still beautiful ships but no match for a modernised or madern battleship.
before this fight the old but modernised renown chased both ships into a heavy sea but she could not catch them.
shathriel 3 years ago
And by the way, and frankly speaking, there is nothing heroic (in my opinion) in sinking a single carrier (barely armed ship if we except his aircrafts) by two of such a powerful battlecruisers armed, in total, with 18 280mm guns.
Kriegsmarine 4 ever!
hellcat3 3 years ago
Both "Scharnhorst" and "Gneisenau" should have 380mm main artillery instead of 280mm...just than they could be considered Germany's best warships in my opinion.
Germany's best (and not only Germany's) were, no doubt about that, the "Bismarck" and her sistership "Tirpitz".
hellcat3 3 years ago
Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were fantastic warships. Fast, well protected, 9 guns + secondary, rapid fire, long range... the best german ships in my opinion. The german navy just didn't perform well. Too cautious. At a time, they had the Scharnhorst, Gneisenau, Bismarck, Scheer, Hipper and Prinz Eugen ready to fight. Why the hell didn't send them into the Atlantic, in 2 battle groups, to fight the brits? they could have destroyed the Royal Navy!!! Stupid...
Sky1green 3 years ago
destroy the royal navy :)
the german navy was no match in a straight fight , its why they tried to destroy the convoy system and starve britain out of the war , they came close to suceeding too with their wolfpack system
shathriel 3 years ago
Tirpiz was the last one he was on....
bikebandit48 3 years ago
My great uncle was serving on the Scharnhorst and several other warships during the war and survived all the sinkings,ended up a poa in Norway after being rescued from the sea.
bikebandit48 3 years ago
Holy smoken! Das is nicht das Glorious geflunken - ist das Ourama. Und der Fuhrer ist einen Grossen Scheisskopf, duden! Ich nicht sprechen deutsche; seine kleider, giben-sie mier, ietsze! Nicht sauber, richtich.... schoen nacht fur einen spatziergang! From Der Terminator.
Sieg und Puken, Bitchen!
RodentSaurus 3 years ago
lol
cardolino82 3 years ago
My Uncle, WIlfred Munslow, was a Marine on board the Glorious and was posted missing presumed dead. One of five sons, all of whom served in HM Forces, he was the only one lost in WWII.
TM1942 3 years ago
Very strange watching the Glorious go down. My grandad was also one of the 50 survivours. Freaky to think that i wouldn't be here now if he hadn't.
mistybudda 3 years ago
Very strange watching the Glorious go down. My grandad was also one of the 50 survivours. Freaky to think that i wouldn't be here now if he hadn't.
mistybudda 3 years ago
My grandad was one of the 37 known survivors off the glorious, was floating in the sea for 3 days and only managed to get on a raft when someone died, he was picked up by a trawler 5 days later. Frostbite saw him off in the end in 1986. Scary to watch this video
davetherave1981 3 years ago
Your grandad was a luckly man.I live in Brazil.
daltonagre 3 years ago
I disagree, S and G were "battlecruisers" but the lack of the planned 15 inch turrets caused Lutzow 11 inchers to be put on but never replaced as planned. Therefore S and G could never really face a dreadnought on equal terms.
PotatoGunsRule 3 years ago
The S+G Both technically classed as German Pocket Battleships. Also in this League were the Graf Spee and her sisters. Although the Graf Spee were lighter armed and armoured than the S+G. The S+G were designed as fast surface raiders designed to out gun anything smaller than themselves and outrun anything bigger. Literally a class of their own. Yes an old american warhorse could gun her down. However German Gunnery was superb, damned site better than ours and yours. Yes i'm a brit.
TheBadgerousOne 3 years ago
Britain declared war on Germany..
What was she trying to achieve by that?
What were they fighting for? Poland? They gave poland to the Soviet USSR, and there it remained for 6 years.. They turned a blind eye as the soviets invaded it in 1939.
This war would have happened anyways, at one point or another.
Even if hitler did not attack Poland (or the USSR), even if Japan did not bomb PH.. we would not be living in peace for the last 60 years.. somewhere, sometime.. the war would beginn
Anton1941 3 years ago
truth. sweet divine truth.
stalinmurdered 3 years ago
60 years... hehe..6, I wish
Anton1941 3 years ago
I agree.
matapan50 2 years ago
WOW !!! ÜBEL !!!
COOLES VID !!!
warhead75 3 years ago
My grandfather was on the Scharnhorst and he survived-THANK GOD ! Thats War !
Kaleuthomsen 3 years ago 4
If he hadn't survived... you would never have been born..
Peace to your Grossvater - he comes from a good generation of men
Anton1941 3 years ago
My Grandfather was a US Navy gunner in the Atlantic. He came under fire from German surface ships off of Norway on the way to Murmansk several times (part of the Arctic convoys). Who knows? Maybe they shot at eachother at some point. But the war is long over, so as long as your family aren't a bunch of fucking nazis, I'm glad your grandpa survived as well.
cdfe3388 3 years ago
my grandfather was onboard the only battleship norway had, wich escorted the king of norway to england, on the way back the ship was sunk, my grandfather survived to tell of it, he among 15 others
gromsky21 3 years ago
Was your grandfather with the ship on her last mission?
matapan50 2 years ago
My Great Grandfather was on the Glorious and survived thank god!what a thing to go through for young men and women:( so sad that so many people lost there lives...his name was Joseph Russell and was the best granddad ever.
charlie270179 3 years ago
Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were Battlecruisers!! Even though I am only twelve, I am a world war two nut!!! VivaLosTioz. Bismarck was sunk by numerous ships including HMS KIng George V, HMS Hood (Which was blown up by Bismarck)and others. Because of this Tirpitz (BIsmarck's sister ship) was ordered by Hitler to not see much combat in fear of it might be sunk. VivaLosTioz, I am American adn I think I know more about Nazi Germeny that You. No offense.
BismarckIsHuge 3 years ago
did u know the iowas class would owen them all in a 1v1
kuklok1989 3 years ago
and if you learn german, listen to the second
3:06 in the video they say Other Battleships
VivaLosTioz2008 4 years ago
@VivaLosTioz2008 Whatever they say, the fact is that the Graf Spee etc. were cruisers armed with 6 -11 inch guns, and the S & G were battlecruisers with 11 inch guns and light armor. Bismarck and Tirpitz were the only real Battleships (heavy armor and 15 inch guns) that Germany had.
FRAGIORGIO1 4 months ago
Scharnhorst was a german battleship not a cruiser
VivaLosTioz2008 4 years ago
and not a Battleship... it was a Battlecruiser.
JheakrynaKyAlur 4 years ago 2
srry m8 but i build it at a model, 1:200
Its a battleship search it on google.
I live in Germany and i think i know that better then you.
The german BAttleships was Bismarck Tirpiz
Scharnhorst and Gneisenau.
VivaLosTioz2008 4 years ago
Well VivaLosTioz, Scharnhorst and Gneisenau had the armament of a battleship but the speed of a cruiser resulting in average to poor deck armor. These kinds of ships are generally referred to as "battlecruisers". And if you paid attention to some of the documentaries, I believe there was mention that these ships didn't have strong deck armor so they were built as BATTLECRUISERS not battleships.
ultima76 3 years ago
no, they had 11 in guns which was a tad bit too small to classify as battleships, BBs usually carry 12 in guns in eaerly ships but by WW2, all WW1 and modern BBs had tye smallest calibre of guns as 14in, so they did not pack the punch of a modern BB but their real weapon was the ability to outrun most BBs, with about a 5 knot speed advantage over most BBs, in fact the only BB i think that could keep up with them was the Iowas, thye would use their speed to their advantage
HUNDLEYGUY95 3 years ago
no, German BBs Bismarck+Tirpitz, pocket battleships Graf Spee+Admirla Scheer+Lutzow/Duetchsland, BCs Scharnhorst+Gneisenau, CAs only know a few Admiral Hipper+PrinzEeugen
HUNDLEYGUY95 3 years ago
@JheakrynaKyAlur Yes, the S & G were battlecruisers: armed with only 11 inch guns, had light armor, but had speed. British and American battleships had 14, 15 (Brits), and 16 inch guns. S & G were bigger and better armed than cruisers, which usually had around 6 or 8 inch big guns, but weaker than battleships.
FRAGIORGIO1 4 months ago
My grandfather was on the scharnhorst at an 2 cm aa gun. hes still alive name alsen
ajatollarockenrolla 4 years ago
My namesake was Lieut. Cmdr. in charge of a/craft on the Glorious. The Capt, D'Oyly-Hughes, a bad alcoholic refused to follow my namesakes urgent advice not to go anywhere w/out reconnaissance scouts. Hughes bluntly refused and 1207 men died needlessly. The officers were close to mutiny cos of Hughes incompetence. He left 2 days b4 main convoy, special permission from Churchill, so he cd court martial those officers who accused him of drunkenness.Still secret 67 yrs later!!
slessorpr 4 years ago 2
I had heard that the Captain was hated by all of his officers. Must be nice to play around with so many people's lives when one is an idiot but officially in charge.
matapan50 2 years ago
My grandfather was on the Glorious, I suppose it was that bastard of a grandfather of yours that killed him!......Well....thats war time for you eh?
technocar2 3 years ago
Blame stalin. he wanted this war. blame roosevelt, for making those "trade deals" over the Christian death camps where 50-60 million were murdered. So you were lied to by leftwing media war propaganda? your grandfather was lied to, and fought to secure Stalin's ability to have Eastern Europe handed to him on a silver platter. Pat yourself on the back for being credulous.
You have no idea how deceptive atheistical-Bolshevik propaganda is, and *why* Hitler went to war against the devils, huh?
stalinmurdered 3 years ago 2
umm, 64 mil total died in WWII, with only 11 mil max in death camps, read up on history dumbass
HUNDLEYGUY95 3 years ago
stalinmurdered dont know if you are in the uk, but they have been showing a programme ww2 behind closed doors it shows what stalin was up to using recently released soviet war papers, backs up everything you have just said
mickykay1 3 years ago
My Great Grandfather died when the Glorious was bombed by the Germans.
RIP FRANK ROEBUCK
djmattcalaus 4 years ago
Frank Roebuck might have been picked up by HMS Devonshire which on secret mission under strict radio silence evac Norwegian Govt; came across Glorious wreckage and survivors. Admiralty refused permission for Devonshire to stop for survivors due to sensitive cargo of politicians and Royals.Y is this tragic blunder still state secret 68 yrs later?!!
slessorpr 4 years ago
the scharnhorst was the best of the best only us germans could build ships that good
but the scharnhorst sister ships mainly the Cunt where damn good ships
scharnhorst75 4 years ago
The Scharnhorst was the best of... what? The only thing S&G were good at, was running. They were fast - their only virtue. They were overloaded, wet, mediocre engines, complex & unreliable systems throughout, and weaker than any other battleship in the world. Heck - a 20 year-old American battlewagon would have made short work of Scharnhorst.
Germany's surface fleet was very mediocre, with pitiful destroyers. S&G were fine at sinking merchantmen and Glorious - they ran from Renown.
yellowtail3 4 years ago
no, a 40 yr old american battlewagon would, the Pennsylvania was almost 30 yrs old and would've had no prob with her 14in guns vs Scharns puny 11s
HUNDLEYGUY95 3 years ago
yeah but the sharnhorst would probably have been faster, more manuverable and had better aiming equipment. bigger is not always nececerily better.
MetaI666 3 years ago
but PA has more armor, more firepower and that is often the deciding factor in a naval battle, and if i am correct scharnhorst was also bigger by length just lighter
HUNDLEYGUY95 3 years ago
The Pennsylvania and the other Ghost Ships proved how tough they were in returning to fight after Pearl Harbor. The Scharnhorst would've been faster, but a US battleship would've had better fire-control radar (borrowed from the Brits), as well as being able to take it like a champ. Just look at the USS South Dakota at Guadalcanal: lost power to her main guns and still stayed in the fight against the IJS Hiei and Kirishima, returning fire with her AA guns, and survived.
cdfe3388 3 years ago
Let's not forget how badly Kirishima then got mashed. ;)
Joaquin602001 3 years ago
my great grandfather took the Scharnhorst on a killing spree but he went down on the bismarck only a few mounths after returning to port
scharnhorst75 4 years ago
my great grandfather took the Scharnhorst on a killing spree but he went down on the bismarck only a few mounths aft