If you want to read a great novel about the Royal Navy, featuring the sinking of the H.M.S. Royal Oak, go on Amazon.com and reference "The Cost of Courage" by Joseph Cordaro.
Between 3:39 and 3:52 it's our Austro-Hungarian battleship, the SMS Szent István, which sank at the Adria in 1918... it didn't take part in the Battle of Jutland.
@GegeGtHun That is correct. It is the sinking of the Szent Istvan (or St. Stephen, named after the patron saint king of Hungary). It was sunk by an Italian MAS or motor torpedo boat even though the Croatians had publicly proclaimed the day before that they were independent from the former empire and were not belligerents. The Croatian admiral aboard with many of his crew died. They had not resisted the arrival of the Italians. Who knows who was at fault for this.
@FRAGIORGIO1 Szent Istvan was sunk well before the war ended on open sea. The ship you are talking about is her sister ship Viribus Unitis, renamed "Jugoslavija" the day before, sunk at harbor by diversants and it was not a Croatian but a ship of the newly formed state of Serbs Croats and Slovenes.
@VersusARCH Thank you for your correction. The admiral aboard the Viribus Unitis and the remaining sailors (after those of other ethnic groups had left) I had read were practically all Croatian, but as you said, it was for the new combined kingdom.
I dont particularly like the German navy in WW1, it favoured raids on ports and specialised in killing and maiming civilians. Scarbourough been a prime example.
But the RN owned them hook and line at the Battle of Falklands 1914, and after Jutland we didnt see them out again. Good Job. UK still ruled the waves.
@FellowTownsman Strategy isn't your strong suit , nor the laws of war either . All these so called civilian targets were defended and fortified locations with coastal artillery , and therefore perfectly legitimate targets .
The aim was to tempt the royal navy to divide its force at scapaflow and allow it to be defeated in detail , an aim which was pretty close to being achieved at Jutland . As for " not seeing them out again " look at the Bremmer and Brumse .
Keep in mind..that german battle cruisers designed to be lightly armoured and very fast had been doing raids along the english coast prior to Jutland.
The shelling of folkstone comes to mind
It was was partly in response to those provocative raids that the brits brought out all the big guns and dashed south from scapa flow in an attempt to catch what they thought was another of these raids.
Kind of like Gettysburg. Neither side really knew what was going on they just kept throwing in troops
Ummm, there is some text in this vid that makes me wonder whether the maker knows that the British lost at Jutland...it was a tragi-comedy of British errors, even with the huge advantages of pre-intelligence of German movements and intentions, and a 3/2 numerical advantage. Surprises me that anyone would gloat over that battle. Fascinating piece of history though.
@CNCTEMATIC the british didnt lose.when two oposing forces meet with the intention of annialating eachother,and both forces fight,and destroy each others ships,and then one force runs away under the cover of darkness.and never challenges the othe force again,and is eventualy starved into defeat,which one do you think is the winner..answers on a postcard.you can argue the old tactical over strategic victory,but one fleet remained unchallenged and the other was penned up forthwith.
@soledweller, at the rate the British ships were being damaged or sank their "victory" was going to be so costly in ships and personnel that the temporary efect of the victory was going to be too costly. The british lost 16 ships to the Germans 11, multiply that figure in a longer engagement and the 5 extra ships lost by the poorly armored British Navy could have been 80 the German losses could have been 55. I am sure that the German Navy could afford to do so, but not the British.
@Wolfen443 ok,im trying to make sence of your thinking,perhaps you should look at were the british were taking losses,and were there main destructive firepower was coming from,ie,the 28 ships of the grand fleet dreadnoughts,now whilst you say that the british would have lost further ships,then with every subsequent loss the odds change,as the british losses were in the battlecruisers,and armoured cruisers yet no dreadnoughts were put out of action,then a 28 to 16 odds on battle would have ensued
@soledweller, too many factors play in for modern day armchair admirals to claim to be right or wrong. But I agree. the Germans were outgunned and had to dissengage at some point. I was just doing a quick multiplication of the ships and loses in personnel plus another dayor two of battle or a German manouver that might have given then a potential edge. But in the absence of them, the outcome of the battle remains a British tactical victory, costly for sure.
@Wolfen443 armchair admirals,i like it,but perhaps its not such a bad thing that all these years later people such as you and i still debate on such a crucilal chapter,all those dead ,all that sacrifice,the least we can do is remember them and from time to time argue there individual vertues and strengths and remember that there was a battle royale and it did take place and if we cant always agree on who truely was the victor that day,at least we,l do them the service of arguing there greatness.
@Wolfen443 and as the main cause of the destruction would have rained down from these guns,then you cant escape the fact that,on all fronts the germans were out numbered and outgunned,and that the cause of there doom would have been from a fleet that they couldnt even get near from the sheer weight of fire power,i cant see how prolonging the battle would have reasulted in more losses for the british,when there main line of battle ships had the high seas fleet in range.and were landing hits.
@Wolfen443 your also stating that the british ships were under armoured,in regard to the battle cruisers that is true,but in regard to the bulk and backbone of the grand fleet,the dreadnoughts,this armour question is unqualified,as they carried much heavier armour,arrainged to a more protective and defensive level.whilst the wider beam of the german vessels allowed generaly for thicker armour,in regard to the dreadnoughts whos armour was also thick and well distributed,this comparison is one
@Wolfen443 when you consider the ranges involved and the destructive effects on a shell hit from both fleets,unfortunatly for those who study such things,the dreadnoughts of both the high seas fleet and the grand fleet never really got to grips with each other as did the battlecruisers to be able to better judge there abilities and resilience in a direct full on battle,in this regard i still think that superiour weight of fire power would have won out.
@CNCTEMATIC the british didnt lose.when two oposing forces meet with the intention of annialating eachother,and both forces fight,and destroy each others ships,and then one force runs away under the cover of darkness.and never challenges the othe force again,and is eventualy starved into defeat,which one do you think is the winner..answers on a postcard.you can argue the old tactical over strategic victory,but one fleet remained unchallenged and the other was penned up forthwith.
@CNCTEMATIC good point,but i did say"never challenges the other force again"the battle of france was not a cut and dried reasult,granted the german army held the field(europe)or most of it,but this battle was a battle fought over a long period,whilst the french were defeated and the BEF driven form france,the reasult was that 4 or so years later the battle would be concluded with a counter attack(D-DAY) reasulting in victory.
@CNCTEMATIC to seperate both points for the sake of logic as you say,is that juttland was concluded with a historicly held fact:the high seas fleet never challenged the grand fleet in force again.were as the battle for france concluded with a victory for the german army,who were subsequently driven back into germany and defeated some 4 years later.correct me if im wrong but i fail to see the corrolation between these two historicaly held events,
@soledweller A clearer correlation then would be Third Kharkov. Everyone agrees that was a German victory. But the Russian advance continued mercilessly. Or even Borodino. Jutland is the one battle where people look beyond the battle to find the victor. A victory for English naval strategy over the course of the war (which it achieved) does not equal victory at Jutland. Germans went out to sink some British cruisers and did so, not win the North Sea. Outperformed them comprehensively.
@CNCTEMATIC with reference to the war on the russian front,thats moving the goal posts somewhat,whilst debate there could fill many hours,thats not my intent to argue the finer points of that particular chapter,to stick to my intended method of debate (juttland)it was not the intension of the high seas fleet to sink a few cruisers,there intension was to significantly reduce the grand fleet numerical advantage to a point were battle could be fought on equal terms.
@CNCTEMATIC this was to be atchieved by tempting the grand fleet out in part with raids(scarbourough)and then catching them with superour numbers or uboat traps.the high seas fleet never expected to meet the grand fleet that day granted but they did engage all the same with the intent to destroy,jellico only had to keep his fleet intact to continue to hold his superiourity,its true the british failed to capitalise on a prime target and lost ships
@CNCTEMATIC but the result was that one force ran from the field and the other chased it back to home,ok if you want to argue that the high seas fleet exacted more "blood" then your right,but they still had to escape for safety before they were destroyed,and that any historian or student will tell you,had the high seas fleet remained it would have been ground down and sunk.in that respect sheer was incompetent in allowing his fleet to be caught out by the grand fleet in the first place.
The problem for the British was that their warships had to fulfil a worldwide role. Large coal bunkers for long voyages which the German navy could use for extra shells.The Germans could build ships which only had to operate in the North Sea. It was seen rightly as a real problem.
Germ. Navy did a good Job. No English Dreadnought was ever seen in the Baltic, none of them shelled German towns as the German did at Scarborough and other places , even the Northern part of the channel was controlled by Germany. Raw ore from Sweden was aviable throughout the whole war via Norway . France & England where finished Russia allready, if America wouldnt have had a vital interest to keep up their biggest debtor England alive, we would have seen the Grandfleet at anchor at Helgoland.
@BlitzWotan No that's not right. The Baltic has no strategic significance. Whoever controls the Skagerrak controls the Baltic. Look at a map. The British had never attempted to control the Baltic .Yes they might have liked to but they wouldnt have spent time & money trying. It certainly did not justify the vast German expenditure on the navy just to control it.
@tincoffin England was incapable to enter it. That there was allways a strategic interest shows the set up of 4 "Fisher Tyes" cruisers, like Furious and others which allow them to enter the shallow waters only designed for the Baltic.
The key question is, would England keept out of a conflict if Germany would not have had a such a competitive navy. I say no, people like Churchill, Fisher would allways "Copenhagen" German cities. Since Drake its the nature of England to fight like pirates
@BlitzWotan No it was just impossible for the British . In 1801 Nelson at the Battle of Copenhagen had succeeded in getting through the Skagerrak because he managed amazingly to keep out of range of the shore batteries . But with the technology of 1940 I don't think they would have thought of even trying. The point is this : The Germans did not need Dreadnoughts to hang onto the Baltic so why did they build them?
@tincoffin: England under Fisher / Churchill was a jealous opponent, which could not accept a strong German Empire. The German Fleet was good to secure regional interests. I dont want to imagine what England would have done to us, besides the blocade which was against international law !
From a offensive point it was useless, very costy. Germany should have concentrated on subs which sunk 11 Million tons ( 6.500 Ships)
@BlitzWotan You just have to ask yourself one question which is " What did Britain have to gain from the war ". the answer is obviously nothing . The empire was already too big . Britain only entered the war because Germany had decided to challenge her navy with an arms race. After France it would be us next .The navy was everything to England - unlike continental powers we had no standing army . Before 1890 Germany was regarded as an ally .
US citizens are confused come July 4th, in fact until 1941 the only real potential threat to the USA came from the Royal Navy, in the 1812-14 war the Royal Navy destroyed US merchant fleet, beat their navy from the sea, mounted marine operations, recaptured Maine and built a 3 decker on the great lakes, and yes we burnt the white house too even whilst we bottled up the French
the british fleet was the greates the world had evver kmnown at that time noithing could beat us or touch us..rule britania we ruled the waves where no one has ever to date ...long live england
we'll lets say Britania got lucky with Jacky Fisher, because as he descriped your fleet was very very outdated: too slow, outgunned, or a heavy use of coal at the beginning of the 20th century. But yes in numbers you had a great fleet. The Industrial Revolution wasn't that realised in the effort of the navy. Der Kaiser and Von Tirpitz realised far more that a modern Empire in the running needs a modern! fleet to rule the sea.
I think not so certain, Britain was able to complete Dreadnought in months in a royal dockyard and the Royal navy mislead the world. But Fisher sacrificed armour for speed We might have had 12 QE class 15 inchers at Jutland had it not been for Fisher and his Baltic project, Renoun, Repulse, Furious, Glorious, Courageous cost huge amounts of money - and why build Revenge class when you have the QE's ?????
That was the past.You are a little nation now living from long forgotten glories!.If not for the Americans you would have lost both World Wars.That is an undeniable fact.!
@musicologo1able we dont need to hark back to long forgotten glories,there coming home on a daily basis in coffins,eveyone of them chalking up this nations gift of life and liberty,for those who would sneer and yet look to the floor when asked to stand up and be counted.
@musicologo1able If the past had not happened the way it did, then the United States may only be inhabited by Red Indians. I remind you that the USA is soon to be toppled by CHINA as the new super power. At least the UK had the greatest EMPIRE that the world has ever or will ever witness. The Yanks can't even beat the peasants of VIETNAM. And Great Britain is still too powerful for any nation to want to go to war with. The USA is the quantity, but the UK is the QUALITY.
@spotswood4444 oh baby,what sort of hallucinogens are you taking? brits got their ass kicked by germans in both WWI and WWII.
WWI just turned favorable for the entente when US entered war and WWII was won by US material given to russia and a ridicolous death toll paid by the red army outnumbering since 1943 the german wehrmacht in the east 7:1 and still loosing 13 million soldiers.brits where on the winners side but could not call themselfs winners by "own means"
@chris99103 You need educating sunshine. First of all the first world war was won by the allies, due to the enormous German losses of men and equipment, and also the fact that Germany ran out of money, as the Jews that financed Germany withdrew their cash. The tide of WW1 had started to turn in late 1916, and the Americans were not involved until 1917. In actual fact, the amount of equipment given by the USA, and Britain to the Soviets in WW2, was very small and certainly not enough to matter.
@spotswood4444 you are just plain wrong.US gave more than 18.000 aircraft to russia.more than 2000 locomotives.Nearly all russian tank engines where US built and hundreds of thousands!!! of US built trucks provided logistics for russian industria and troop supply.US provided clothing and canned rations for red army and britain would not have survived without lend-lease.read the agreements before making a fool out of yourself. Anyway,useless discussing this further as you lack serious knowledge
@chris99103 What was actually used with any success against the Germans by the Red army, was in fact made by Russia. All that Britain supplied to them, along with the USA was only a token gesture of friendship. It was mainly the bad weather conditions that defeated the Germans, along with their poor supply lines. And also that Russia is so big, and the German tanks were so heavy that they consumed lots of fuel, which they did not have. Hitler was not able to invade Britain, so Russia was stupid.
@chris99103 You are correct, Britain did have a lend lease agreement with the USA, and we have only recently finished paying it off. But when an idiot like Hitler decides to invade countries all over Europe, then desperate measures are called upon, but what really matters was the outcome of the war.My Father who died last year was a Sergeant Major in the British Recconaisance Corps, and He lived with my Mother in Detmold in Westphalia, in 1946, and the Germans were really desperate by then.
@chris99103 It is you that needs educating, as for the supplies to Russia, a lot of them ended up becoming victims of U boat activity, and never arrived in Russia. The statistics that you mention as fact, are a complete work of fiction, as I have said yes there were supplies to Russia, but it was a small amount of equipment, and was a token gesture by the allies. I would like to know where you get your information from, and what is the name of this comedian.
@spotswood4444 read the original lend lease agreements between US and UK and US and Russia and stop talking bullshit.With your statement you just made a complete idiot out of yourself...you are mentally so petrified in your ignorance that you would still deny the facts even if they would kick you in your ass..you are the type of guy who thinks just becasue he dont know where to find the right info it doesnt exist or it must be fake as it does not fit your fantasy.No need to bother with you more
@spotswood4444 sorry if I was a bit harsh..no offense....but obviously you dont have acess to real proven stats and correct economic and production numbers...in both wars US interference turned the tide of the war...but you are free to think whatever fits you...cheers
@chris99103 The main bombing of Germany was done by the British, and the Lancaster bomber which could carry 22000 lbs of bombs, was the main bomber at Dresden. The US B17 could only carry 8000 lbs of bombs, despite it being a large 4 engined bomber. And the RAF defeated the Luftwaffe at the Battle of Britain.
@spotswood4444 after kicking russia out of the war germany launched an new offensive in march 1918 annihalating the brit front and in may they where a few dozen km to Paris...the french army was nearly beaten and officers had to threat french soldiers to death to avoid desertion...just the arriving US troops prevented the total collapse and in juli allies started counteroffensive..even after that US president offered white peace to germany which the stubborn german chief of staff denied
@chris99103 If you look at most senior officers that were around in WW1, they were all stubborn as you call it. There were no real strategies that succeeded in WW1, as the whole war was a disaster for both sides. And during both WW1 and WW2 one thing is for certain, if Britain had not become involved, then the rest of the allies would have lost both wars. Britain was the key to victory. And in WW2 Hitler was worried and concerned about the British as we had the 2nd biggest navy at the time.
Anyway, it's sad how people always brag with a nation's conqouring abilities. Every empire was founded on brutality,suppression and suffering. And every empire feeded on all the assets,skills and cultural archievements of the conqoured nations, stealing them and calling them theirs.Basiacally, bragging about big empires is bragging about a single aggressive and barbaric ability to conqour. That is disgusting. WW3 is inevitable with thinking like that
@Puschit1 The British Empire was so good for humanity, as in the end all members of the British Empire were much better off than if they had never been members of the Empire. Just look at India, and Australia, New Zealand, Canada, etc. All have flourished due to our sphere of influence.
Have you never heard the phrase "You cannot make an omelette without breaking eggs"? Well that applies here.
The world is full of insignificant nations like Iran, Syria, North Korea, but not one is listened to.
What one nation thinks is "civilized" or "good for humanity" is totally wrong or barbaric for the next one. The kelts were considered barbarians by the romans, yet their culture was in fact much more advanced.
I just hope for you that nobody else will ever brake your eggs in order to force their system, ideals, religion etc. down your throat.
Iran actually provides a moral raincheck and proves to be a stunningly persistant and not easily influenced nation. It is misunderstood. You do not speak Farsi, so im sure you believe Ahmadinejad said he wants israel to be wiped off the map. They are a secular, closed nation. They do not want our influence within their borders, and it should not be there anyway! If they are seeking nukes, it is merly for them to be able to say, hey you wont push us around, back off.
@mattmatt115 You are of course correct, to date only the USA has nuked civillians. But as we all now know, that saved lives as many thousands more would have died on all sides should the allies have attempted to invade japan, in a D day style invasion. Hiroshima and nagasaki did prove one thing, it is possible to defeat a nation of fanatics like japan, so with this in mind all other fanatical nations should take note. (Iran, Syria, North korea etc).
@spotswood4444 Well if you look at all of the nations that we had within our empie at the time, yes we had to be ruthless to initially gain the empire, but every single country in the empire benefitted from our civilization and culture, and not a single country can say today that they ended up worse off for being in the British empire.The fact is that the whole world has benefitted from the British attitude to life and the search for knowledge. So the fact is that the British Empire was GOOD.
@altoids79762 The USA only defeated the British in 1776 because of help from the French (FACT).
The British were at a distinct disadvantage in 1776, due to the supply problems of shipping equipment 3000 miles in old wooden vessels that relied on the wind to move them. The USA soldiers were fighting on their own doorstep, so you should have easily beat the brits, but as usual the Americans fight very badly, as in Vietnam etc. But in 1776 you were up against the British Redcoats. You needed help
@spotswood4444 the only reasen we got help was cause we deafeated yall at the battle of saratoga witch concinced the french of giiving us supplies and training our militias(fact)
and believe it or not the the people who were wanting to seperate were only 2% of the colonial population
@spotswood4444 i thought the british had the most powerful navy at that time i dont think a weak french navy can ruin that espesialy with the man-o-war on the brit side
@spotswood4444 also if we fought so badly how did we win the mexican-american war ,helped a LOT in ww2 ,won the korean war and won the first gulf war in less than a year
@altoids79762 The Mexicans have never been much of a fighting force for a start, and as for you winning the Korean war, well if you look up the facts on the Korean war it ended in a stalemate, and that is why we still have North and South Korea.As for winning the first gulf war, don't forget that many nations helped you including the UK. You did help a LOT in the 2nd world war, but you could have helped more if you had joined in in 1939 instead of 1942.
Dude, no offence, but Vietnam was for yanks was what Afghanistan and South Africa and the boers where for you brits :) Please don't claim that you where the biggest force EVER,that is just plain ridiculous! Probably nobody will rise to the same level with the Romans, Ottoman turks or Mongols. Now those were EMPIRES
@spargkpt Please look in the history books, The Boer war in South Africa was a victory for Great Britain.
Also the glorious British empire was by FAR the biggest in history, we controlled a quarter of the people on earth. The Romans were confined to Europe and North Africa, we Brits were worldwide. There has never been an empire that is even 30% as influential as the British empire. The British gave the modern world culture and civilisation. The others were a bunch of savages.
The Romans were not confined by anyone, only technology limited their expansion. Keep in mind that the Romans and their system of values are the base for your empire, plus that compared to you who claim to have ruled 30% of the world, they ruled at the very least 50% of their known world, and that makes you look like school boys; I'm not trying to troll you, but you obviously seem to be suffering of impartiality; you have an important place in history,but not THE most important
@spargkpt I do not deny that the Romans were influential, but the countries that they invaded and ruled were just a collection of badly run nations that needed influencing, and so any other slightly more advanced nation would have ruled as easily. Just as the Romans were influential in establishing the western way of life, we were also influential in shaping many nations throughout the world, and mainly for their own good. The fact is that the USA would not have been as good without our help.
@spargkpt Modern civilisation has grown out of western Europe, with most European nations playing a part.
However Great Britain has achieved so much more than France and Germany for example, only Spain comes close. France and Germany have tried to rule and have an empire, but have never gained what they wanted.
The fact is that the UK is the most respected nation in the world even now in 2011, other nations listen when we talk. ALL other countries are jealous of the UK and what we have done.
@spotswood4444 thats bullshit dude.I qoute you something from your own people "Not the political doctrine of Hitler has hurled us into this war. The reason was the success of his increase in building a new economy. The roots of war were british envy, greed and fear." Major General J.F.C. Fuller, historian, England.Who was the jealous one here ? btw most technology we use today has been invented in Germany...TV,Computer,Plastics,CD,JetEngine,Atomic Energy,X-Ray,Car,Combustion Engine etc
@chris99103 Firstly, the combustion engine was formed not by one country, but a collaboration of work spanning many centuries from many different nations. A recent survey also deduced that 56% of the world's most important inventions were British, with America in second at less than 20%. The survey was also done by the Japanese. That is the extent of British legacy before you start harping on about German inventions.
@spotswood4444 and just for the record...the Holy Roman Empire of German Nations ruled Europe for over 600 years when England was not even on the Radar yet. They introduced public education,invented the bookprinting, reformed the church (brits where among first who took over Luthers protestantism) The German Hanse where the first democratic structure in europe. Germany invented the social legaslation, healhcare, pensionsystem,unemployment insurance, could go on forever.learn a bit before talking
@spargkpt Funny, I could have SWORN the British Empire was the largest in history, seeing as it covered one quarter of the globe. Ever heard the saying "The Sun never sets on the British Empire"? Silly misinformed Yank. Saying "now those were empires" just makes you look like an idiot. Also, we didn't lose either of the Boer Wars. Fact of the matter is, we could have crushed them if we wanted to but we were preoccupied conquering far more useful places.
@imachristian100 i take it the rest of the UK doesnt get a look in then, remember that the Royal Navy is a British not English force, considering the fact that back then as now a lot of our new warships, such as the Type 45's are built on the Clyde in SCOTLAND! Sadly the RN is no longer what it was!
@imachristian100 ehm..biggest fleet of that time,not greatest! Brits got their ass kicked in skagerrak 1916 by germans.Brits had huge overwhelming force but lost far more big ships than germans and could not sink german battleships and cruisers by direct hits.This was due to two main differences in construction and tech. 1 german ships where far more steadfast and could take more hits and 2 their artillery aiming system where far superior to the brit one..
@chris99103 In WW2 the Royal Navy was second in size only to the Imperial Japanese navy, but a great number of British warships were from WW1, and so compared to the German Pocket battleships like Bismarck, and Tirpitz, the British ships were often considerably older and out of date. The Germans made the same mistake over and over again in WW2, what the Germans had was the Best Ships, Best Tanks, Best Airforce etc, but they did not have enough to beat the number of allied equipment.
@spotswood4444 so true...WWII was won by american equipment and the ridicolous death toll paid by the Red Army...aprox. 10 million russian soldiers...Western Allies just kept Germans busy to avoid that they can move over 40 Divisions from France to Russia which would have turned the war in the east again into german favour.."Who he wants to defend everything will defend nothing" Frederick II from Prussia
@chris99103 Take the Kriegsmarine for example, it was very small. Very good, but too small to win in the end.
The Luftwaffe was also very good, but lacked good 4 engined bombers, and the main fighter the ME109, was nose heavy and had a very narrow undercarriage which caused it to be unstable on take off and landing. And also the Tiger tank, which was the best heavy tank of WW2, but that is no good when 3 Shermans are surrounding it. The fact is to win you need a bit of quality and quantity.
@imachristian long live england and her empire, 0.11 forth rail bridge, minutes away from rosyth naval dockyard, kingdom of fife scotland.
if youre elderly then youre part of my parents generations. a very hard working and underestimated part of the british history.. if youre young and its all about land of hope and glory and england then ponder what lifes about and dare i suggest it, grow up. heres a link which shows where im coming from. a scot. watch corries, scotland will flourish.
I would say today that the USA and then Russia rule todays waves. I would say Britain today ranks 3rd in naval power. The only reason i say this is due to the capability of Russian offensive anti-ship missiles ONLY.
They have missiles which travel at multipe times greater speeds than our Harpoon does, and faster than the SM2, which results into a greatly reduced time to detect, engage and intercept the missile
One missile has a terminal 3rd stage which propels it to hypersonic velocity
accually unrelated. the yellow thing was imprinted by a video converter. The audio is muffled because it was recorded by a microphone held next to a stereo. sorry ill try to bring you better qualitiy next time.
Yes, this is interesting if have put another video on youtube, almost the same footage with all the same tags, the only real difference is the music which is something different. This vid has 5 times the views. i think its unrelated (of course) by strange anyway)
Yeah Bismarc's main concept in ship building was: "A ship is built to stay afloat" all other aspects of german ships were only secondary. British ships were built to balance firepower,manouverability and survivability. British losses however are misleading, 3 battlecruisers were lost. So many people have blamed this on the ships, when it was not the ships, but their usage that was all wrong. Battlecruisers were built for combat against cruisers or anything smaller not battleships/battlecruisers
It can be argued that any ship that was sunk by gunfire had 'inadequate' armour protection, so I would say that british battlecruisers had perfectly adequate armour ptoection. The main problem was ammunition handling procedure. We see an almost similar catastrohic magasine flare narrowly avoided in seydlitz; an event which prompted radical reform of german shell and cordite handling.
Exactly, we also see that HMS Tiger, which got hit multiple times, did not explode, demonstrating the importance of good ammuniton and charge handling.
Not at the moment, but ill try to get some footage of it. Because your very right, it would be incredible to see 14 a2inch guns. I dont think battleships would fire a full broadside all to often though, to much strain.
Dreadnought was on channel guarding duty when jutland took place, so wasnt involved. Dreadnoughgt, aside from on exercises probably didnt fire its guns in anger. Anyway dreadnought had only 10*12inch. Still a full broadside would be great.
requiem for a dream fits perfecly with the images, the opening with the glimpses of these steel titans is spine tingling! i taped the documentary in 2004, it was a 2 hour special called Jutland; Clash of the Dreadnoughts, it used deep sea video and cgi rendering combined with ww1 footage, superb programme i cancelled a night out to watch it!
Thanks, ill try my hardest to get to watch that show, its just the most fascinating of topics. TO ALL: Experiencing technical problems, technology these days is so ****** useless that im going to have to postpone the release even more. Sorry.
it was amazing. there was a CGI map of Invincible's wreck site, the bow is upturned while the stern is upright with Y turret still in place. the midships P and Q turrets blew off like champagne corks and landed upside down, the whole midsection was obliterated. the Queen Mary and Indefatigable are mostly unrecogniseable debris fields as salvers have been at what little was left after they blew since the 50's. some pictures of Lutzow too which is upright but heavily scavenged.
Its truly incredible. Thanks so much, great recomendation, i watched it the other day, some random channel. Good jutland documentaries are always so hard to find these days, its all biased opinions and incorect evaluations of ships and their command. Still, what happened to those three unfortunate battlecruisers was tragic, but incredible all the same. Thanks again.
dit it show the cgi rendering of invincible's mechanics coming together? it showed hull shape, engines, propulsion and guns all coming together then camera pans out, turrets turn and it fires a broadside. truly awesome! the rusting wrecks are a testament to the potential catastrophe awaiting all who went to sea on british battlcruisers, a brilliant but flawed idea, as some said "eggshells armed with hammers!"
But i have to disagree with you, battlecruisers were built to combat armoured cruisers or smaller, nothing bigger. They weren't meant for fleet actions, but as fast protecters of britains trade and commerce, tracking down enemy cruisers in far corners of the world. I beleive their employment,not their design was the problem.
yes you're right, when used as their intended "outgun a cruiser, outrun a battleship" role they were superb weapons. just through using them beyond their roles got them labelled as death traps.
@CoffeeandCocoa True. The battlecruisers, as invisioned by Adm. Fisher, were supposed to be cruiser killers. But, you put those big guns on a big ship and any admiral of the time will have a hard time not putting them into a battleline. BTW, I think the CGI raparound was of HMS Dreadnought.
yeah im sorry about that, when i was converting the video from flash to WMV. i had to use this program to convert the files and it imprinted the video with that sign. I think it means i may be breaching some copywright matter, something i try to be quite carefull with, but hey its a non-commercial project so to hell with it, im going to put something covering it in the final documentary.
kotori87 that sound like thay dident wont to bump in to them like thay made sure they dident lol no matter it kept the royal navy as the number 1 sea power till the end so job done mind you the german u boat thing was very good and it changed the shape of war till about 1943 when the u boat started to be hunted not the hunter but full marks
ok the germans sunk more ships but ran away the british were useing a ner gunnery machine that was a for runner of a computer but in the end the germans lost as thay never came out again so the british won but wonderfull film and not a battle i would wont to be in both sides were very braveand hats off to all that took part
they DID come out again... they just didn't bump into the Grand Fleet again. And then they switched to unrestricted sub warfare, so there was no more need to risk the High Seas Fleet anymore.
There is also of course the fact that british guns were firing shells that often failed to explode. Other wise many german ships would be at the bottom with a bunch of huge 15inch shell holes in them from the QE's
Great video,most interesting of all naval battles,some of the greatest warships of all time(Warspite Seydlitz)still endless debate and books being written 92 years latter.
If you want to read a great novel about the Royal Navy, featuring the sinking of the H.M.S. Royal Oak, go on Amazon.com and reference "The Cost of Courage" by Joseph Cordaro.
logancody05 2 months ago
It was the largest moder naval battle indeed, but I belived the largest ever was the one involving the Spanish Grand Armada.
Wolfen443 4 months ago
@Wolfen443
Most probably was the Battle of Leyte Gulf/Operation Sho-go
HelmutVillam 1 month ago
@Wolfen443 modern? no one is alive who served in this battle
LTrakinat 2 weeks ago
Excellent
rebsunrise 4 months ago
does anyone knows the music? it fits in a magical way to the powerful speech of these impressive images. Any one heared this music before?
b.t.w. I think it needs more cowbells
soeder1 7 months ago
@soeder1 Requiem For A Dream
MiddleMinecraft 7 months ago
@r13373 Yes that was a famous quote but the guy who said it did not mention the loss of life he was too worried about the ships...a disgrace
WELLBRAN 8 months ago
6,000 British,2,500 German dead.
tolrem 9 months ago
@tolrem I am glad someone mentioned the losses this is usually overlooked talking of battles especially at sea
WELLBRAN 8 months ago
@tolrem But the High Seas Fleet banished to port and British supremacy in the North Sea assured.
Vot63 6 months ago
Between 3:39 and 3:52 it's our Austro-Hungarian battleship, the SMS Szent István, which sank at the Adria in 1918... it didn't take part in the Battle of Jutland.
GegeGtHun 1 year ago
@GegeGtHun That is correct. It is the sinking of the Szent Istvan (or St. Stephen, named after the patron saint king of Hungary). It was sunk by an Italian MAS or motor torpedo boat even though the Croatians had publicly proclaimed the day before that they were independent from the former empire and were not belligerents. The Croatian admiral aboard with many of his crew died. They had not resisted the arrival of the Italians. Who knows who was at fault for this.
FRAGIORGIO1 6 months ago
@FRAGIORGIO1 Szent Istvan was sunk well before the war ended on open sea. The ship you are talking about is her sister ship Viribus Unitis, renamed "Jugoslavija" the day before, sunk at harbor by diversants and it was not a Croatian but a ship of the newly formed state of Serbs Croats and Slovenes.
VersusARCH 5 months ago
@VersusARCH Thank you for your correction. The admiral aboard the Viribus Unitis and the remaining sailors (after those of other ethnic groups had left) I had read were practically all Croatian, but as you said, it was for the new combined kingdom.
FRAGIORGIO1 5 months ago
I dont particularly like the German navy in WW1, it favoured raids on ports and specialised in killing and maiming civilians. Scarbourough been a prime example.
But the RN owned them hook and line at the Battle of Falklands 1914, and after Jutland we didnt see them out again. Good Job. UK still ruled the waves.
FellowTownsman 1 year ago
@FellowTownsman Strategy isn't your strong suit , nor the laws of war either . All these so called civilian targets were defended and fortified locations with coastal artillery , and therefore perfectly legitimate targets .
The aim was to tempt the royal navy to divide its force at scapaflow and allow it to be defeated in detail , an aim which was pretty close to being achieved at Jutland . As for " not seeing them out again " look at the Bremmer and Brumse .
Oh and I am English and a naval buff
zarquon53 9 months ago
@FellowTownsman Maybe thats why we export more then germany today.
jrobertsoneff 8 months ago
Keep in mind..that german battle cruisers designed to be lightly armoured and very fast had been doing raids along the english coast prior to Jutland.
The shelling of folkstone comes to mind
It was was partly in response to those provocative raids that the brits brought out all the big guns and dashed south from scapa flow in an attempt to catch what they thought was another of these raids.
Kind of like Gettysburg. Neither side really knew what was going on they just kept throwing in troops
chutoi26 1 year ago
ah wtf not this song again... get some imagination
punditkitchenfailure 1 year ago
who created this trailer?
emosquit 1 year ago
the royal navy won at jutland the german navy lost
kevinkards1 1 year ago
i wonder when exactly it shall be released
i also need to use this vid for a school project if dont mind
999christinedaae 1 year ago
the britains lost more ships, but the germans never went out with their fleet anymore.
Ostfriese777 1 year ago
Smoke from funnels and from burning ships, explosions, roaring gun fires, screaming sailors... The show must have been fantastic and terrifying!
jerrymail 1 year ago
Ummm, there is some text in this vid that makes me wonder whether the maker knows that the British lost at Jutland...it was a tragi-comedy of British errors, even with the huge advantages of pre-intelligence of German movements and intentions, and a 3/2 numerical advantage. Surprises me that anyone would gloat over that battle. Fascinating piece of history though.
CNCTEMATIC 1 year ago
@CNCTEMATIC the british didnt lose.when two oposing forces meet with the intention of annialating eachother,and both forces fight,and destroy each others ships,and then one force runs away under the cover of darkness.and never challenges the othe force again,and is eventualy starved into defeat,which one do you think is the winner..answers on a postcard.you can argue the old tactical over strategic victory,but one fleet remained unchallenged and the other was penned up forthwith.
soledweller 1 year ago
@soledweller, at the rate the British ships were being damaged or sank their "victory" was going to be so costly in ships and personnel that the temporary efect of the victory was going to be too costly. The british lost 16 ships to the Germans 11, multiply that figure in a longer engagement and the 5 extra ships lost by the poorly armored British Navy could have been 80 the German losses could have been 55. I am sure that the German Navy could afford to do so, but not the British.
Wolfen443 1 year ago
@Wolfen443, correction 4 more British ships than Germans still make it 70 britsh losses against 55.
Wolfen443 1 year ago
@Wolfen443 ok,im trying to make sence of your thinking,perhaps you should look at were the british were taking losses,and were there main destructive firepower was coming from,ie,the 28 ships of the grand fleet dreadnoughts,now whilst you say that the british would have lost further ships,then with every subsequent loss the odds change,as the british losses were in the battlecruisers,and armoured cruisers yet no dreadnoughts were put out of action,then a 28 to 16 odds on battle would have ensued
soledweller 1 year ago
@soledweller, too many factors play in for modern day armchair admirals to claim to be right or wrong. But I agree. the Germans were outgunned and had to dissengage at some point. I was just doing a quick multiplication of the ships and loses in personnel plus another dayor two of battle or a German manouver that might have given then a potential edge. But in the absence of them, the outcome of the battle remains a British tactical victory, costly for sure.
Wolfen443 1 year ago
@Wolfen443 armchair admirals,i like it,but perhaps its not such a bad thing that all these years later people such as you and i still debate on such a crucilal chapter,all those dead ,all that sacrifice,the least we can do is remember them and from time to time argue there individual vertues and strengths and remember that there was a battle royale and it did take place and if we cant always agree on who truely was the victor that day,at least we,l do them the service of arguing there greatness.
soledweller 1 year ago
@Wolfen443 and as the main cause of the destruction would have rained down from these guns,then you cant escape the fact that,on all fronts the germans were out numbered and outgunned,and that the cause of there doom would have been from a fleet that they couldnt even get near from the sheer weight of fire power,i cant see how prolonging the battle would have reasulted in more losses for the british,when there main line of battle ships had the high seas fleet in range.and were landing hits.
soledweller 1 year ago
@Wolfen443 your also stating that the british ships were under armoured,in regard to the battle cruisers that is true,but in regard to the bulk and backbone of the grand fleet,the dreadnoughts,this armour question is unqualified,as they carried much heavier armour,arrainged to a more protective and defensive level.whilst the wider beam of the german vessels allowed generaly for thicker armour,in regard to the dreadnoughts whos armour was also thick and well distributed,this comparison is one
soledweller 1 year ago
@Wolfen443 when you consider the ranges involved and the destructive effects on a shell hit from both fleets,unfortunatly for those who study such things,the dreadnoughts of both the high seas fleet and the grand fleet never really got to grips with each other as did the battlecruisers to be able to better judge there abilities and resilience in a direct full on battle,in this regard i still think that superiour weight of fire power would have won out.
soledweller 1 year ago
@CNCTEMATIC the british didnt lose.when two oposing forces meet with the intention of annialating eachother,and both forces fight,and destroy each others ships,and then one force runs away under the cover of darkness.and never challenges the othe force again,and is eventualy starved into defeat,which one do you think is the winner..answers on a postcard.you can argue the old tactical over strategic victory,but one fleet remained unchallenged and the other was penned up forthwith.
soledweller 1 year ago
@soledweller the problem is by that logic the Germans lost the Battle of France in 1940.
CNCTEMATIC 1 year ago
@CNCTEMATIC good point,but i did say"never challenges the other force again"the battle of france was not a cut and dried reasult,granted the german army held the field(europe)or most of it,but this battle was a battle fought over a long period,whilst the french were defeated and the BEF driven form france,the reasult was that 4 or so years later the battle would be concluded with a counter attack(D-DAY) reasulting in victory.
soledweller 1 year ago
@CNCTEMATIC to seperate both points for the sake of logic as you say,is that juttland was concluded with a historicly held fact:the high seas fleet never challenged the grand fleet in force again.were as the battle for france concluded with a victory for the german army,who were subsequently driven back into germany and defeated some 4 years later.correct me if im wrong but i fail to see the corrolation between these two historicaly held events,
soledweller 1 year ago
@soledweller A clearer correlation then would be Third Kharkov. Everyone agrees that was a German victory. But the Russian advance continued mercilessly. Or even Borodino. Jutland is the one battle where people look beyond the battle to find the victor. A victory for English naval strategy over the course of the war (which it achieved) does not equal victory at Jutland. Germans went out to sink some British cruisers and did so, not win the North Sea. Outperformed them comprehensively.
CNCTEMATIC 1 year ago
@CNCTEMATIC with reference to the war on the russian front,thats moving the goal posts somewhat,whilst debate there could fill many hours,thats not my intent to argue the finer points of that particular chapter,to stick to my intended method of debate (juttland)it was not the intension of the high seas fleet to sink a few cruisers,there intension was to significantly reduce the grand fleet numerical advantage to a point were battle could be fought on equal terms.
soledweller 1 year ago
@CNCTEMATIC this was to be atchieved by tempting the grand fleet out in part with raids(scarbourough)and then catching them with superour numbers or uboat traps.the high seas fleet never expected to meet the grand fleet that day granted but they did engage all the same with the intent to destroy,jellico only had to keep his fleet intact to continue to hold his superiourity,its true the british failed to capitalise on a prime target and lost ships
soledweller 1 year ago
@CNCTEMATIC but the result was that one force ran from the field and the other chased it back to home,ok if you want to argue that the high seas fleet exacted more "blood" then your right,but they still had to escape for safety before they were destroyed,and that any historian or student will tell you,had the high seas fleet remained it would have been ground down and sunk.in that respect sheer was incompetent in allowing his fleet to be caught out by the grand fleet in the first place.
soledweller 1 year ago
The problem for the British was that their warships had to fulfil a worldwide role. Large coal bunkers for long voyages which the German navy could use for extra shells.The Germans could build ships which only had to operate in the North Sea. It was seen rightly as a real problem.
tincoffin 1 year ago
Germ. Navy did a good Job. No English Dreadnought was ever seen in the Baltic, none of them shelled German towns as the German did at Scarborough and other places , even the Northern part of the channel was controlled by Germany. Raw ore from Sweden was aviable throughout the whole war via Norway . France & England where finished Russia allready, if America wouldnt have had a vital interest to keep up their biggest debtor England alive, we would have seen the Grandfleet at anchor at Helgoland.
BlitzWotan 1 year ago
@BlitzWotan No that's not right. The Baltic has no strategic significance. Whoever controls the Skagerrak controls the Baltic. Look at a map. The British had never attempted to control the Baltic .Yes they might have liked to but they wouldnt have spent time & money trying. It certainly did not justify the vast German expenditure on the navy just to control it.
tincoffin 1 year ago
@tincoffin England was incapable to enter it. That there was allways a strategic interest shows the set up of 4 "Fisher Tyes" cruisers, like Furious and others which allow them to enter the shallow waters only designed for the Baltic.
The key question is, would England keept out of a conflict if Germany would not have had a such a competitive navy. I say no, people like Churchill, Fisher would allways "Copenhagen" German cities. Since Drake its the nature of England to fight like pirates
BlitzWotan 1 year ago
@BlitzWotan No it was just impossible for the British . In 1801 Nelson at the Battle of Copenhagen had succeeded in getting through the Skagerrak because he managed amazingly to keep out of range of the shore batteries . But with the technology of 1940 I don't think they would have thought of even trying. The point is this : The Germans did not need Dreadnoughts to hang onto the Baltic so why did they build them?
tincoffin 1 year ago
@tincoffin: England under Fisher / Churchill was a jealous opponent, which could not accept a strong German Empire. The German Fleet was good to secure regional interests. I dont want to imagine what England would have done to us, besides the blocade which was against international law !
From a offensive point it was useless, very costy. Germany should have concentrated on subs which sunk 11 Million tons ( 6.500 Ships)
BlitzWotan 1 year ago
@BlitzWotan You just have to ask yourself one question which is " What did Britain have to gain from the war ". the answer is obviously nothing . The empire was already too big . Britain only entered the war because Germany had decided to challenge her navy with an arms race. After France it would be us next .The navy was everything to England - unlike continental powers we had no standing army . Before 1890 Germany was regarded as an ally .
tincoffin 1 year ago
the guy 'coffeandcocoa' is my other account, cos this one seems not to work. so he is me aswell....
CoffeeandCocoa 2 years ago
oh just another thing lol...why is the usa jelouse of us lol...ph yes history we got one lol////y ask y
imachristian100 2 years ago
US citizens are confused come July 4th, in fact until 1941 the only real potential threat to the USA came from the Royal Navy, in the 1812-14 war the Royal Navy destroyed US merchant fleet, beat their navy from the sea, mounted marine operations, recaptured Maine and built a 3 decker on the great lakes, and yes we burnt the white house too even whilst we bottled up the French
caferacer56 2 years ago
the british fleet was the greates the world had evver kmnown at that time noithing could beat us or touch us..rule britania we ruled the waves where no one has ever to date ...long live england
imachristian100 2 years ago
couldnt agree more.
although i try to take a non biased view point......
CoffeeandCocoa 2 years ago
we'll lets say Britania got lucky with Jacky Fisher, because as he descriped your fleet was very very outdated: too slow, outgunned, or a heavy use of coal at the beginning of the 20th century. But yes in numbers you had a great fleet. The Industrial Revolution wasn't that realised in the effort of the navy. Der Kaiser and Von Tirpitz realised far more that a modern Empire in the running needs a modern! fleet to rule the sea.
viowave 2 years ago
I think not so certain, Britain was able to complete Dreadnought in months in a royal dockyard and the Royal navy mislead the world. But Fisher sacrificed armour for speed We might have had 12 QE class 15 inchers at Jutland had it not been for Fisher and his Baltic project, Renoun, Repulse, Furious, Glorious, Courageous cost huge amounts of money - and why build Revenge class when you have the QE's ?????
Germany got lucky
caferacer56 2 years ago
And by the way remember Michiel de Ruyter... and the Brother or Gebroeders de Witt:
Remember Chatham ... if we wanted we The Dutch would have ruled Britania and the seas back in the 17th century.
viowave 2 years ago
That was the past.You are a little nation now living from long forgotten glories!.If not for the Americans you would have lost both World Wars.That is an undeniable fact.!
musicologo1able 1 year ago
@musicologo1able we dont need to hark back to long forgotten glories,there coming home on a daily basis in coffins,eveyone of them chalking up this nations gift of life and liberty,for those who would sneer and yet look to the floor when asked to stand up and be counted.
soledweller 1 year ago
Comment removed
soledweller 1 year ago
@musicologo1able "Long forgotten?" Only by the ignorant.
imcustomized 1 year ago
@musicologo1able If the past had not happened the way it did, then the United States may only be inhabited by Red Indians. I remind you that the USA is soon to be toppled by CHINA as the new super power. At least the UK had the greatest EMPIRE that the world has ever or will ever witness. The Yanks can't even beat the peasants of VIETNAM. And Great Britain is still too powerful for any nation to want to go to war with. The USA is the quantity, but the UK is the QUALITY.
spotswood4444 1 year ago 2
@spotswood4444 oh baby,what sort of hallucinogens are you taking? brits got their ass kicked by germans in both WWI and WWII.
WWI just turned favorable for the entente when US entered war and WWII was won by US material given to russia and a ridicolous death toll paid by the red army outnumbering since 1943 the german wehrmacht in the east 7:1 and still loosing 13 million soldiers.brits where on the winners side but could not call themselfs winners by "own means"
chris99103 1 year ago
@chris99103 You need educating sunshine. First of all the first world war was won by the allies, due to the enormous German losses of men and equipment, and also the fact that Germany ran out of money, as the Jews that financed Germany withdrew their cash. The tide of WW1 had started to turn in late 1916, and the Americans were not involved until 1917. In actual fact, the amount of equipment given by the USA, and Britain to the Soviets in WW2, was very small and certainly not enough to matter.
spotswood4444 1 year ago
@spotswood4444 you are just plain wrong.US gave more than 18.000 aircraft to russia.more than 2000 locomotives.Nearly all russian tank engines where US built and hundreds of thousands!!! of US built trucks provided logistics for russian industria and troop supply.US provided clothing and canned rations for red army and britain would not have survived without lend-lease.read the agreements before making a fool out of yourself. Anyway,useless discussing this further as you lack serious knowledge
chris99103 1 year ago
@chris99103 What was actually used with any success against the Germans by the Red army, was in fact made by Russia. All that Britain supplied to them, along with the USA was only a token gesture of friendship. It was mainly the bad weather conditions that defeated the Germans, along with their poor supply lines. And also that Russia is so big, and the German tanks were so heavy that they consumed lots of fuel, which they did not have. Hitler was not able to invade Britain, so Russia was stupid.
spotswood4444 1 year ago
@chris99103 You are correct, Britain did have a lend lease agreement with the USA, and we have only recently finished paying it off. But when an idiot like Hitler decides to invade countries all over Europe, then desperate measures are called upon, but what really matters was the outcome of the war.My Father who died last year was a Sergeant Major in the British Recconaisance Corps, and He lived with my Mother in Detmold in Westphalia, in 1946, and the Germans were really desperate by then.
spotswood4444 1 year ago
@chris99103 It is you that needs educating, as for the supplies to Russia, a lot of them ended up becoming victims of U boat activity, and never arrived in Russia. The statistics that you mention as fact, are a complete work of fiction, as I have said yes there were supplies to Russia, but it was a small amount of equipment, and was a token gesture by the allies. I would like to know where you get your information from, and what is the name of this comedian.
spotswood4444 1 year ago
@spotswood4444 read the original lend lease agreements between US and UK and US and Russia and stop talking bullshit.With your statement you just made a complete idiot out of yourself...you are mentally so petrified in your ignorance that you would still deny the facts even if they would kick you in your ass..you are the type of guy who thinks just becasue he dont know where to find the right info it doesnt exist or it must be fake as it does not fit your fantasy.No need to bother with you more
chris99103 1 year ago
@spotswood4444 sorry if I was a bit harsh..no offense....but obviously you dont have acess to real proven stats and correct economic and production numbers...in both wars US interference turned the tide of the war...but you are free to think whatever fits you...cheers
chris99103 1 year ago
@chris99103 in both wars a change in the tide led to US intervention
themajorgeneral88 1 year ago
@chris99103 The main bombing of Germany was done by the British, and the Lancaster bomber which could carry 22000 lbs of bombs, was the main bomber at Dresden. The US B17 could only carry 8000 lbs of bombs, despite it being a large 4 engined bomber. And the RAF defeated the Luftwaffe at the Battle of Britain.
spotswood4444 1 year ago
@spotswood4444 after kicking russia out of the war germany launched an new offensive in march 1918 annihalating the brit front and in may they where a few dozen km to Paris...the french army was nearly beaten and officers had to threat french soldiers to death to avoid desertion...just the arriving US troops prevented the total collapse and in juli allies started counteroffensive..even after that US president offered white peace to germany which the stubborn german chief of staff denied
chris99103 1 year ago
@chris99103 If you look at most senior officers that were around in WW1, they were all stubborn as you call it. There were no real strategies that succeeded in WW1, as the whole war was a disaster for both sides. And during both WW1 and WW2 one thing is for certain, if Britain had not become involved, then the rest of the allies would have lost both wars. Britain was the key to victory. And in WW2 Hitler was worried and concerned about the British as we had the 2nd biggest navy at the time.
spotswood4444 1 year ago
@spotswood4444
Bigger than the roman empire?
Anyway, it's sad how people always brag with a nation's conqouring abilities. Every empire was founded on brutality,suppression and suffering. And every empire feeded on all the assets,skills and cultural archievements of the conqoured nations, stealing them and calling them theirs.Basiacally, bragging about big empires is bragging about a single aggressive and barbaric ability to conqour. That is disgusting. WW3 is inevitable with thinking like that
Puschit1 1 year ago
@Puschit1 Yes about 5 times bigger than the Roman Empire, actually.
spotswood4444 1 year ago
@spotswood4444
So you took the bait and ignored everything else I said. Thank you for proving my point so efficiently.
Puschit1 1 year ago
@Puschit1 The British Empire was so good for humanity, as in the end all members of the British Empire were much better off than if they had never been members of the Empire. Just look at India, and Australia, New Zealand, Canada, etc. All have flourished due to our sphere of influence.
Have you never heard the phrase "You cannot make an omelette without breaking eggs"? Well that applies here.
The world is full of insignificant nations like Iran, Syria, North Korea, but not one is listened to.
spotswood4444 1 year ago
@spotswood4444
What one nation thinks is "civilized" or "good for humanity" is totally wrong or barbaric for the next one. The kelts were considered barbarians by the romans, yet their culture was in fact much more advanced.
I just hope for you that nobody else will ever brake your eggs in order to force their system, ideals, religion etc. down your throat.
Puschit1 1 year ago
@Puschit1 We in Britain are too clever for that to be allowed to ever happen.
And we have the worlds most powerful country as our close friend, the USA.
spotswood4444 1 year ago
Iran actually provides a moral raincheck and proves to be a stunningly persistant and not easily influenced nation. It is misunderstood. You do not speak Farsi, so im sure you believe Ahmadinejad said he wants israel to be wiped off the map. They are a secular, closed nation. They do not want our influence within their borders, and it should not be there anyway! If they are seeking nukes, it is merly for them to be able to say, hey you wont push us around, back off.
To date, only USA nuked Civs
mattmatt115 1 year ago
@mattmatt115 You are of course correct, to date only the USA has nuked civillians. But as we all now know, that saved lives as many thousands more would have died on all sides should the allies have attempted to invade japan, in a D day style invasion. Hiroshima and nagasaki did prove one thing, it is possible to defeat a nation of fanatics like japan, so with this in mind all other fanatical nations should take note. (Iran, Syria, North korea etc).
One thing is sure, no nation can beat the USA
spotswood4444 1 year ago
@spotswood4444 Well if you look at all of the nations that we had within our empie at the time, yes we had to be ruthless to initially gain the empire, but every single country in the empire benefitted from our civilization and culture, and not a single country can say today that they ended up worse off for being in the British empire.The fact is that the whole world has benefitted from the British attitude to life and the search for knowledge. So the fact is that the British Empire was GOOD.
spotswood4444 1 year ago
@spotswood4444 the revolutionary war and 1812 say otherwise
altoids79762 1 year ago
@altoids79762 The USA only defeated the British in 1776 because of help from the French (FACT).
The British were at a distinct disadvantage in 1776, due to the supply problems of shipping equipment 3000 miles in old wooden vessels that relied on the wind to move them. The USA soldiers were fighting on their own doorstep, so you should have easily beat the brits, but as usual the Americans fight very badly, as in Vietnam etc. But in 1776 you were up against the British Redcoats. You needed help
spotswood4444 1 year ago
@spotswood4444 the only reasen we got help was cause we deafeated yall at the battle of saratoga witch concinced the french of giiving us supplies and training our militias(fact)
and believe it or not the the people who were wanting to seperate were only 2% of the colonial population
altoids79762 1 year ago
@altoids79762 The French navy helped the US by attacking British supply ships.
spotswood4444 1 year ago
@spotswood4444 i thought the british had the most powerful navy at that time i dont think a weak french navy can ruin that espesialy with the man-o-war on the brit side
altoids79762 1 year ago
@spotswood4444 also if we fought so badly how did we win the mexican-american war ,helped a LOT in ww2 ,won the korean war and won the first gulf war in less than a year
altoids79762 1 year ago
@altoids79762 The Mexicans have never been much of a fighting force for a start, and as for you winning the Korean war, well if you look up the facts on the Korean war it ended in a stalemate, and that is why we still have North and South Korea.As for winning the first gulf war, don't forget that many nations helped you including the UK. You did help a LOT in the 2nd world war, but you could have helped more if you had joined in in 1939 instead of 1942.
spotswood4444 1 year ago
@spotswood4444
Dude, no offence, but Vietnam was for yanks was what Afghanistan and South Africa and the boers where for you brits :) Please don't claim that you where the biggest force EVER,that is just plain ridiculous! Probably nobody will rise to the same level with the Romans, Ottoman turks or Mongols. Now those were EMPIRES
spargkpt 1 year ago
@spargkpt Please look in the history books, The Boer war in South Africa was a victory for Great Britain.
Also the glorious British empire was by FAR the biggest in history, we controlled a quarter of the people on earth. The Romans were confined to Europe and North Africa, we Brits were worldwide. There has never been an empire that is even 30% as influential as the British empire. The British gave the modern world culture and civilisation. The others were a bunch of savages.
spotswood4444 1 year ago
@spotswood4444
The Romans were not confined by anyone, only technology limited their expansion. Keep in mind that the Romans and their system of values are the base for your empire, plus that compared to you who claim to have ruled 30% of the world, they ruled at the very least 50% of their known world, and that makes you look like school boys; I'm not trying to troll you, but you obviously seem to be suffering of impartiality; you have an important place in history,but not THE most important
spargkpt 1 year ago
@spargkpt I do not deny that the Romans were influential, but the countries that they invaded and ruled were just a collection of badly run nations that needed influencing, and so any other slightly more advanced nation would have ruled as easily. Just as the Romans were influential in establishing the western way of life, we were also influential in shaping many nations throughout the world, and mainly for their own good. The fact is that the USA would not have been as good without our help.
spotswood4444 1 year ago
@spargkpt Modern civilisation has grown out of western Europe, with most European nations playing a part.
However Great Britain has achieved so much more than France and Germany for example, only Spain comes close. France and Germany have tried to rule and have an empire, but have never gained what they wanted.
The fact is that the UK is the most respected nation in the world even now in 2011, other nations listen when we talk. ALL other countries are jealous of the UK and what we have done.
spotswood4444 1 year ago
Comment removed
chris99103 1 year ago
@spotswood4444 thats bullshit dude.I qoute you something from your own people "Not the political doctrine of Hitler has hurled us into this war. The reason was the success of his increase in building a new economy. The roots of war were british envy, greed and fear." Major General J.F.C. Fuller, historian, England.Who was the jealous one here ? btw most technology we use today has been invented in Germany...TV,Computer,Plastics,CD,JetEngine,Atomic Energy,X-Ray,Car,Combustion Engine etc
chris99103 1 year ago
@chris99103 Firstly, the combustion engine was formed not by one country, but a collaboration of work spanning many centuries from many different nations. A recent survey also deduced that 56% of the world's most important inventions were British, with America in second at less than 20%. The survey was also done by the Japanese. That is the extent of British legacy before you start harping on about German inventions.
MiddleMinecraft 7 months ago
@spotswood4444 and just for the record...the Holy Roman Empire of German Nations ruled Europe for over 600 years when England was not even on the Radar yet. They introduced public education,invented the bookprinting, reformed the church (brits where among first who took over Luthers protestantism) The German Hanse where the first democratic structure in europe. Germany invented the social legaslation, healhcare, pensionsystem,unemployment insurance, could go on forever.learn a bit before talking
chris99103 1 year ago
@spargkpt Funny, I could have SWORN the British Empire was the largest in history, seeing as it covered one quarter of the globe. Ever heard the saying "The Sun never sets on the British Empire"? Silly misinformed Yank. Saying "now those were empires" just makes you look like an idiot. Also, we didn't lose either of the Boer Wars. Fact of the matter is, we could have crushed them if we wanted to but we were preoccupied conquering far more useful places.
MiddleMinecraft 7 months ago 2
@MiddleMinecraft 'far more useful places'? like what? afghanistan? timbuktu? ha ha
HaroldsCatsRevenge 6 months ago
@HaroldsCatsRevenge No, like India, Hong Kong, Australia, Canada and most of Africa.
MiddleMinecraft 6 months ago
@imachristian100
Tja, die größte Flotte der Welt. Aber auch qualitativ der deutschen Flotte weit unterlegen. Damals galt schon: "Vorsprung durch Technik"
SuperSkeptiker 1 year ago
@imachristian100 i take it the rest of the UK doesnt get a look in then, remember that the Royal Navy is a British not English force, considering the fact that back then as now a lot of our new warships, such as the Type 45's are built on the Clyde in SCOTLAND! Sadly the RN is no longer what it was!
fladewarn 1 year ago
@imachristian100 Good job the german navy was a lot smaller
jrobertsoneff 1 year ago
@imachristian100 ehm..biggest fleet of that time,not greatest! Brits got their ass kicked in skagerrak 1916 by germans.Brits had huge overwhelming force but lost far more big ships than germans and could not sink german battleships and cruisers by direct hits.This was due to two main differences in construction and tech. 1 german ships where far more steadfast and could take more hits and 2 their artillery aiming system where far superior to the brit one..
chris99103 1 year ago
@chris99103 In WW2 the Royal Navy was second in size only to the Imperial Japanese navy, but a great number of British warships were from WW1, and so compared to the German Pocket battleships like Bismarck, and Tirpitz, the British ships were often considerably older and out of date. The Germans made the same mistake over and over again in WW2, what the Germans had was the Best Ships, Best Tanks, Best Airforce etc, but they did not have enough to beat the number of allied equipment.
spotswood4444 1 year ago
@spotswood4444 so true...WWII was won by american equipment and the ridicolous death toll paid by the Red Army...aprox. 10 million russian soldiers...Western Allies just kept Germans busy to avoid that they can move over 40 Divisions from France to Russia which would have turned the war in the east again into german favour.."Who he wants to defend everything will defend nothing" Frederick II from Prussia
chris99103 1 year ago
@chris99103 Take the Kriegsmarine for example, it was very small. Very good, but too small to win in the end.
The Luftwaffe was also very good, but lacked good 4 engined bombers, and the main fighter the ME109, was nose heavy and had a very narrow undercarriage which caused it to be unstable on take off and landing. And also the Tiger tank, which was the best heavy tank of WW2, but that is no good when 3 Shermans are surrounding it. The fact is to win you need a bit of quality and quantity.
spotswood4444 1 year ago
@imachristian long live england and her empire, 0.11 forth rail bridge, minutes away from rosyth naval dockyard, kingdom of fife scotland.
if youre elderly then youre part of my parents generations. a very hard working and underestimated part of the british history.. if youre young and its all about land of hope and glory and england then ponder what lifes about and dare i suggest it, grow up. heres a link which shows where im coming from. a scot. watch corries, scotland will flourish.
weeeck13 1 year ago
I would say today that the USA and then Russia rule todays waves. I would say Britain today ranks 3rd in naval power. The only reason i say this is due to the capability of Russian offensive anti-ship missiles ONLY.
They have missiles which travel at multipe times greater speeds than our Harpoon does, and faster than the SM2, which results into a greatly reduced time to detect, engage and intercept the missile
One missile has a terminal 3rd stage which propels it to hypersonic velocity
mattmatt115 1 year ago
@imachristian100
Or Long live BRITAIN
judge105 10 months ago
this song is in requim for a dream good movie
014649 2 years ago
@014649
The song is Lux Aeterna by Clint Mansell from the movie requiem for a dream.
jimmywrangles 2 years ago
Urgh, Requiem For A Dream: Most overused mediocre song on youtube ever. The only song more prolific is Let The Bodies Hit The Floor.
nozero1 2 years ago 12
completely right! I was just telling that to myself before reading your comment :D
lape2002 2 years ago
They must have used a earbud to play the audio track because it sounds muffled. Must be that anoying yellow clam symbol at the lower left.
MikeofWyoming 2 years ago
accually unrelated. the yellow thing was imprinted by a video converter. The audio is muffled because it was recorded by a microphone held next to a stereo. sorry ill try to bring you better qualitiy next time.
cocoaandcoffe 2 years ago
I know it sucks because requiem for a dream is such a great song.
ele90 2 years ago
Yes, this is interesting if have put another video on youtube, almost the same footage with all the same tags, the only real difference is the music which is something different. This vid has 5 times the views. i think its unrelated (of course) by strange anyway)
cocoaandcoffe 2 years ago
0:14 the rail bridge i can see that fom where i live
Phil1796 2 years ago
Really? Do you live near Scapa Flow?
Mabee you could send me some pictures from your house?
CoffeeandCocoa 2 years ago
no the forth rail bridge on the forth but on holiday im going near sacpa flow i can probly go there
Phil1796 2 years ago
the bridge is over the firth, not scapa. beatty's cruisers were based there.
bobgatauburn 2 years ago
yea i relised, sorry
cocoaandcoffe 2 years ago
@CoffeeandCocoa
That's the Forth rail bridge, near Edinburgh.
Rdeboer 1 year ago
Yeah Bismarc's main concept in ship building was: "A ship is built to stay afloat" all other aspects of german ships were only secondary. British ships were built to balance firepower,manouverability and survivability. British losses however are misleading, 3 battlecruisers were lost. So many people have blamed this on the ships, when it was not the ships, but their usage that was all wrong. Battlecruisers were built for combat against cruisers or anything smaller not battleships/battlecruisers
CoffeeandCocoa 2 years ago
It can be argued that any ship that was sunk by gunfire had 'inadequate' armour protection, so I would say that british battlecruisers had perfectly adequate armour ptoection. The main problem was ammunition handling procedure. We see an almost similar catastrohic magasine flare narrowly avoided in seydlitz; an event which prompted radical reform of german shell and cordite handling.
Fortramnasdaq 2 years ago
Exactly, we also see that HMS Tiger, which got hit multiple times, did not explode, demonstrating the importance of good ammuniton and charge handling.
HelmutVillam 2 years ago
Any footage of HMS Agincourt firing a full broadside by chance? Just imagine all fourteen 12 inch guns firing at once....
mki89fre 3 years ago
Not at the moment, but ill try to get some footage of it. Because your very right, it would be incredible to see 14 a2inch guns. I dont think battleships would fire a full broadside all to often though, to much strain.
CoffeeandCocoa 3 years ago
haha,what,about,hms,dreadnought?
321kapow 2 years ago
Dreadnought was on channel guarding duty when jutland took place, so wasnt involved. Dreadnoughgt, aside from on exercises probably didnt fire its guns in anger. Anyway dreadnought had only 10*12inch. Still a full broadside would be great.
CoffeeandCocoa 2 years ago
requiem for a dream fits perfecly with the images, the opening with the glimpses of these steel titans is spine tingling! i taped the documentary in 2004, it was a 2 hour special called Jutland; Clash of the Dreadnoughts, it used deep sea video and cgi rendering combined with ww1 footage, superb programme i cancelled a night out to watch it!
bassistmatt 3 years ago
Thanks, ill try my hardest to get to watch that show, its just the most fascinating of topics. TO ALL: Experiencing technical problems, technology these days is so ****** useless that im going to have to postpone the release even more. Sorry.
CoffeeandCocoa 3 years ago
it was amazing. there was a CGI map of Invincible's wreck site, the bow is upturned while the stern is upright with Y turret still in place. the midships P and Q turrets blew off like champagne corks and landed upside down, the whole midsection was obliterated. the Queen Mary and Indefatigable are mostly unrecogniseable debris fields as salvers have been at what little was left after they blew since the 50's. some pictures of Lutzow too which is upright but heavily scavenged.
bassistmatt 3 years ago
Its truly incredible. Thanks so much, great recomendation, i watched it the other day, some random channel. Good jutland documentaries are always so hard to find these days, its all biased opinions and incorect evaluations of ships and their command. Still, what happened to those three unfortunate battlecruisers was tragic, but incredible all the same. Thanks again.
CoffeeandCocoa 2 years ago
dit it show the cgi rendering of invincible's mechanics coming together? it showed hull shape, engines, propulsion and guns all coming together then camera pans out, turrets turn and it fires a broadside. truly awesome! the rusting wrecks are a testament to the potential catastrophe awaiting all who went to sea on british battlcruisers, a brilliant but flawed idea, as some said "eggshells armed with hammers!"
bassistmatt 2 years ago
Yes, yes truly amazing.
But i have to disagree with you, battlecruisers were built to combat armoured cruisers or smaller, nothing bigger. They weren't meant for fleet actions, but as fast protecters of britains trade and commerce, tracking down enemy cruisers in far corners of the world. I beleive their employment,not their design was the problem.
CoffeeandCocoa 2 years ago
yes you're right, when used as their intended "outgun a cruiser, outrun a battleship" role they were superb weapons. just through using them beyond their roles got them labelled as death traps.
bassistmatt 2 years ago
@CoffeeandCocoa True. The battlecruisers, as invisioned by Adm. Fisher, were supposed to be cruiser killers. But, you put those big guns on a big ship and any admiral of the time will have a hard time not putting them into a battleline. BTW, I think the CGI raparound was of HMS Dreadnought.
cabbievonbump 1 year ago
@bassistmatt They sacrificed armour for armaments, speed and manoeuvrability which in tum made the battle cruiser a powerful but vulnerable warship
fishini 1 year ago
i would like to know what that yellow thing in the bottom corner is. it sort of ruins the video but very good anyway
thewrightbrotherz 3 years ago
yeah im sorry about that, when i was converting the video from flash to WMV. i had to use this program to convert the files and it imprinted the video with that sign. I think it means i may be breaching some copywright matter, something i try to be quite carefull with, but hey its a non-commercial project so to hell with it, im going to put something covering it in the final documentary.
CoffeeandCocoa 3 years ago
Im sorry about the delay in the release of "Clash of steel monsters". It will be released by Febuary! Thank you!
CoffeeandCocoa 3 years ago
kotori87 that sound like thay dident wont to bump in to them like thay made sure they dident lol no matter it kept the royal navy as the number 1 sea power till the end so job done mind you the german u boat thing was very good and it changed the shape of war till about 1943 when the u boat started to be hunted not the hunter but full marks
ashsue99 3 years ago
ok the germans sunk more ships but ran away the british were useing a ner gunnery machine that was a for runner of a computer but in the end the germans lost as thay never came out again so the british won but wonderfull film and not a battle i would wont to be in both sides were very braveand hats off to all that took part
ashsue99 3 years ago
they DID come out again... they just didn't bump into the Grand Fleet again. And then they switched to unrestricted sub warfare, so there was no more need to risk the High Seas Fleet anymore.
kotori87 3 years ago
Not in the same capacity they didnt. And sub warfare didnt prove decisive to the blockade.
PintJohnBull 3 years ago
There is also of course the fact that british guns were firing shells that often failed to explode. Other wise many german ships would be at the bottom with a bunch of huge 15inch shell holes in them from the QE's
CoffeeandCocoa 3 years ago
Green boy shell introduced mid 1917 if they come out again after this date the QE,S and R,S do exactly as you describe.
elswick1542 3 years ago
@ashhole99: Laberst du immer so´n Scheiße? Typisch Inselaffe!
nicky21072 3 years ago
english please!
CoffeeandCocoa 3 years ago
heey coffee and cocoa...
its alpha 6!!!
nice vid. what music is this??
horror trailer works gr8!!
nicorivard 3 years ago
Amazing, sad many had to die thou, nice video
alvarengaadilson 3 years ago
Great video,most interesting of all naval battles,some of the greatest warships of all time(Warspite Seydlitz)still endless debate and books being written 92 years latter.
elswick1542 3 years ago
COMMENT!!!!!
CoffeeandCocoa 3 years ago