Shame you can not buy decent models of WW1 battlecruisers, though i am pleased with my recently aquired model of HMS Astute, for a sub it is a really nice model :)
@MrHistorian123 Thanks for pointing out that it was Inflexible. Your comment about Invincible's funnels seems ambiguous. I believe you are saying, as I implied in my other comment, that Invincible's funnels were all three of equal height. Regards. I once had models of Invincible and several other capital ships, armoured and light cruisers as well as destroyers of Jutland made out of balsa wood at a scale of 1" = 100'. A friend started making the High Seas fleet.
Invincible could be distinguished from her sisters, Indomitable and Inflexible, by their higher fore funnels. The "Lutzow" class ships with tripod masts could not be Lutzow, but either Derfflinger later in the war or the later-built Hindenburg. Many thanks for an excellent video!
Makes me proud that Invincible was a Geordie ship (built at Elswick Newcastle)
She inflicted more harm on the Germans than any other British capital ship in WW1. Horace Hood was a very fine officer - the navy lost an exceptional Admiral that day!!!
remember they did not have radar or sonar!...bad weather forcast grounded the zeppelins...and the u-boat arm was too slow and far out of position...night fighting was by search lights illumination lights...signals by x-mas tree lights(germans) admirals lost all control...
excellent!...thankyou!...ww-1 naval and jutland-1916 are best understood by wargaming this huge battle many times...both sides had serious recon and command+control problems...we should not judge the admirals on both sides too harshly...their radio morse code system and signal flags we undependable...so was the british fleet air arm hms englaid (short-184 of rutland) and hms campania turned back...many problems communicating!
@caferacer56 D´accord!! Best book I´ve ever read abot Jutland. Excellent maps too, but no photos at all. Written by and for naval officers, I´m afraid.
Bismarks armour was easily penetrated by British 14" & 16". Elswick is right, the exploding ships at Jutland were caused by build up of ammo in the turrets in an attempt to use higher rate of fire to compensate for poor accuracy due to lack of practice. Firth of Forth had no gunnery ranges. Hoods squadron was at Scapa for gunnery practice & was replaced temporarily by 5th battle squadron.
According to the photographs taken by Ballard Bismark was pierced like a swiss cheese. "Easy to penetrate" is relative, but the British 14" & 16" were certainly up to the job. Bismarks armour was thinner than British practice. Incidently trials after WW1 showed that Bayerns armour was penetrable by the improved British 15" shells.
I once tried to count the number of shell penetrations and size on video and pictures of Bismarck but gave up very soon after there are just so many,strange that only 4 can be found on the belt,the confusion I think comes from the large number of none penetrating hits from 8" 6" and 5.25" shells.
Have you read "The rules of the game" by Andrew Gordon? Some excellent explanations re the British failure at Jutland. Also some good explanations for the poor magazine practices in the battlecruisers. No opportunities for gunnery practice when based at Rosyth so Chatfield encouraged greater rate of fire as a substitute for poor accuracy. This was suppressed after the war. It`s an excellent book & I recommend it.
Probably one of the few I have not read,will have to take a look thanks for the tip,the story of the magazine overloading poor practice and cover up is well explained in The Grand Fleet by D K Brown.
Do look it up. It has a slant I have never come across before. Not so much about tactics, but more about why there was a dearth of ability amongst senior commanders. Also, I thought Tryon of Victoria fame was a stupid martinet - not so, he was the way forward & it was a tragedy that he was killed in a tragic accident.
@futch2121 A very good read, some of the examples are beyond belief, cant remember off hand but the one were a ship sank after being rammed during a turn to harbour because the ships were to close in the med
Was the practice of loading the ship up to the gunnels with extra cordite charges still being practiced at the time of the Battle of the Demark straight?
Makes one wonder?
After all it was the British Admiralty that accredited the Hoods sinking to a 38cm hit from Bismarck when both British and German reports on the day claimed that particular salvo missed?
@derbbus Nope. The cause of the Invincible (and other RN battlecruisers) losses at Jutland was well understood by the end of WW1 and strongly corrected for. HMS Hood's loss was almost certainly due to an explosion of her 4inch magazine amidship, which then detonated the main magazines. The exact cause of the 4in magazine explosion is unknown, though possible candidates include either 11-inch or 15-inch gunfire, or explosion of poorly-stored 4in shells (NOT cordite) outside the magazines.
I'm given to understand that the cordite used by the Royal Navy was rather volitile; once it ignited you got a big bang.
Prior to the hood actually exploding there was a huge de-flageration sending sheets of flame hundreds of feet into the air like some monsterous firework.
Thats certainly cordite burning; but freely, thats to say it wasn't confined inside the walls of a magazine.
It's a bit of a mystery why there wasn't just one, big, bang.
@derbbus According to Ted Briggs one of the three survivors the 4" gundeck recieved a hit and the ready use ammunition started brewing up, that's the cordite burning right there, less than a minute later she exploded.
It's unclear as to what the exact cause was, It could have been the 4" magazine or the midsips torpedoes or even a main magazine that exploded..we'll never know for sure.
31 may 16 at the 8,25 after the end of defence ,many hits on lutzow great fire and smoke more problem of visibility distance 6 7000 m few salve to the enemy;at 8,29 derfflinger open fire on invincible first salve 2 hits of 4 second -100m 2hits ,every 20s a salve of 4,at 8,31 after a salve of hits the end ; some hits of invincible on derfflinger. from hase : artillery director of derfflinger
The 3rd battlecruiser squadron (Invincible class) engaged the German battlecruisers with good visibility,the British ships were obscured from the German ships at the time,Invincible scored a large number of hits on Lutzow,Invincible exploded after a turret hit IIR both Lutzow and Derflinger claimed the hit,again IIR Campell in Jutland an analysis of the fighting credits the hit to Lutzow,but in the smoke of battle we will never know for sure.
Probably not the Jutland explosions resulted from turret hits and flash caused by bad practice and ammo overloading,Hood,s explosion was probably caused by direct magazine penetration.
in his memory Hase described this episody and all the systems was up to date for best security: in turret only 3 shells and the launch charge was protected ,many turrets were destroied during the jutland but only an old germany ship exploded . command tower s derfflinger (350mm)resist to 2 381shell.20 hits of 380 supported this ship during the death s run .the wins of the day was the german s battlecruisers they had fight with the grouppe of beatty ,hood ,evan thomas and the grand fleet ...
You must remember at the Battle of the Dogger Bank, the Germans nearly lost the SMS Seydlitz due to improper stoage of the cordite charges. A shell from HMS Lion penetrated Seydlitz's aft turrent, caught the cordite on fire then it spread to the next turrent though a hatch because men were trying to excape the fire. Both turrent crews were lost. The ship was saved by flooding the magazines. The British learned the hard way at Jutland. "There is something wrong with our bloody ships today."
royal navy supremacy: ships ,guns. intelligence, but 3 battlecruisers is blowup is only casuality? at the falklands little gun power for germany .the cruiser sank at dogger bank is slow and little for a battlecruisers squadroon
Funny how no one ever mentions the RN battlecruisers that each took over 15 main armament hits - at Jutland AND Dogger Bank - without blowing up, namely Lion and Tiger. Moreover, Invincible was hit about a dozen times at the Falklands to little effect. These facts don't fit in with received opinion about British battlecruisers. A bit like how nobody ever mentions HMS Hood sinking Bretagne at Mers-el-Kebir
That is very true,real reason was not the armour but the ammunition handling,Derfflinger sister of Lutzow had the aft gun mount penetrated 10.5" armour but did not explode due to a better drill the thicker armour was not a factor as it was penetrated.
Also very interesting were the post-war Baden Trials where Germany's latest battleship was subjected to gunnery tests from the improved 15" Greenboy shells. Even the thickest armour - the 13.4" turret face - was penetrated easily, the shell detonating inside. In fact one, after piercing the upper belt, travelled the entire width of the ship blowing out the funnel strakes and uptakes. There's no doubt that had the RN had these much better shells that many more German ships would have been sunk.
Yes if only the Greenboy mk3a was available in 1916,another factor I think in the battlecruisers design was the Argo Pollen fire control,if it ever worked a light fast ship could have used a fast rate of change of range but still hit a less sophisticated enemy,that could not hit back so armour was almost irrelevant,if it could be made to work,opinions differ even today.
Hood had a further improved type of shell but not the most up to date 6 calibre ratio head type in 1941,Greenboy was a WW1 shell developed after the battle of Jutland,Hood was no match for Bismarck in 41 it was designed in 1916.
The test distance was 15,000 yards, average battle range. The Greenboys penetrated Baden's 13.75 inch turret face easily. One shell also pierced the belt, travelled almost the entire width of the ship, then exploded deep in her boiler room.
German ships didn't come out so well at Falklands, Dogger Bank or Heligoland Bight, which a lot of people ignore. As I said, people are only interested in received opinion.
of all the main commanders hipper was the best , commanding his battlecruisers with flair and determination.
he handled them superbly.
lutzow , of his squadron was scuttled but she had been so badly damaged by invincible that she would never have made it back to harbour and would have been sunk by the royal navy on the following day.
invincible herself , with her squadron did well in the battle , it was just her unfortunate luck to be caught in a good area of visibility close to the germans.
scheer can be faulted for getting his fleet into a bad situation but he managed to extricate his fleet very well.
jellicoe centralised far to much and not enough initiative was shown by a lot of his subordinates , also the shells were not of the quality they should have been and jellicoe badly neglected night fighting techniques and training.
beatty was brave but neglected gunnery and signalling in his battlecruiser fleet and did not use his ships to their best advantages.
Beatty was to me a complete incompetent(brave though)told by Captain Chatfield of Lion that German gunnery was devastating inside 16000yds but not effective outside he closed to 16000yds! preferred to play tennis to gunnery exercise,Hipper and Jellicoe should be remembered,Beatty forgotten.
they were never intending to fight a full fleet action with the numbers being so overwhelming on the royan navies side and if they had not forced their escape during the night , with the poor state of their battlecruisers and a number of battleships they would have been annihilated the next day.
jellicoe was in control of the seas the next day and yet again the german navy had escaped from the british.
it was found by an expedition relatively recently that the british battlecruisers were stocking up on more ammunition than the ships were designed for , consequently they had ammunition and cordite stacked outside the magazines.
with their thinner armour this proved lethal.
beatty and jellicoe knew this and apparently hushed it up after the battle.
At the Falklands battle one of Invincible guns fired 109 round with another 11 to go,designed load was 80 rpg,Investigation post Jutland put the blame squarely on overloading and handling ,covered up the officer involved was sent to the China station.
Brits are the greatest sailors in history...nobody could ever deny this. Britannia really ruled the waves. So, why suggest that the results of Jutland was even? Lutzow took more punishment than that an english dreadnought could have stood and had to be finished off with a (german) torpedo, english battlecruisers blew up like crackers. That's it.
In a battle on land sea or air the winner is in command of the area fought over after the battle,so Germany can no more claim to have won than the Brits,huge difference between the RN BC,S and German BC,S but the BB,S are far closer in armour and RN ships have greater fire power,Germany won the run to the south but overall the battle was inconclusive that to me makes it fascinating.
Very tough ships indeed,by the time the destroyer fired the torpedo the ship was awash up to the gun turrets the screws had left the water and could no longer steer,great testament to the designers and crew.
beatty was in lion class ..horatio in invincible class poor of armour no good for battle against german battlecruiser..beatty instructions condamned horatio...
A very interesting video you have here, and the pictures are excellent. The narrative was a bit hard to follow, but otherwise its a good piece of work.
I think the props were stolen by Danish scrap men in about 1956 also I think the Queen Marys were also taken at about the same time,Lutzows upturned hull was exploded so parts could be removed.
Scharnhorst etc almost escaped,Both bc,s were almost out of ammo one 12" gun fired 109 rounds,they were designed to carry 80 per gun!one well placed shot?
at Jutland invincible was commanded by rear adm Hood,his widow launched HMS Hood.
fire control officer at both battles(Danruther)was the god son of the German composer Wagner.
It´s kind of curious, that HMS Invincible was set on fire and then exploded with ADM Hood on board and in WWII the HMS Hood exploded nearly the same way!
0.34: After detecting the British in Port Stanley Kapitän zur See Maerker asked Graf Spee to attack due to his (Correct!) suspicion that the British were loading coal. Spee refused. The last signal from Scharnhorst was: "Admiral to commander: you were right".
Then Scharnhorst turned towards the adversary to launch her torpedoes.
Shame you can not buy decent models of WW1 battlecruisers, though i am pleased with my recently aquired model of HMS Astute, for a sub it is a really nice model :)
shathriel 5 months ago
@shathriel IMS make a range of 1/350 WW1 German battleships.
akula971 3 months ago
At 1:30 that must have been the Indomitable with her higher forefunnel.
FRAGIORGIO1 6 months ago
@FRAGIORGIO1 No - it's Inflexible.
1) I have that picture in one of Anthony Preston's books annotated as Inflexible; Invincible's funnels were equally tall.
2) Indomitable wasn't at the Battle of the Falkland islands.
MrHistorian123 1 month ago
@MrHistorian123 Thanks for pointing out that it was Inflexible. Your comment about Invincible's funnels seems ambiguous. I believe you are saying, as I implied in my other comment, that Invincible's funnels were all three of equal height. Regards. I once had models of Invincible and several other capital ships, armoured and light cruisers as well as destroyers of Jutland made out of balsa wood at a scale of 1" = 100'. A friend started making the High Seas fleet.
FRAGIORGIO1 1 month ago
Invincible could be distinguished from her sisters, Indomitable and Inflexible, by their higher fore funnels. The "Lutzow" class ships with tripod masts could not be Lutzow, but either Derfflinger later in the war or the later-built Hindenburg. Many thanks for an excellent video!
FRAGIORGIO1 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Lest we forget.
jimmywrangles 8 months ago
What music was used for this? Excellent.
neckronn99 11 months ago 2
@neckronn99 Its by Craig Armstrong from the film Plunket and Maclain.
elswick1542 11 months ago
Makes me proud that Invincible was a Geordie ship (built at Elswick Newcastle)
She inflicted more harm on the Germans than any other British capital ship in WW1. Horace Hood was a very fine officer - the navy lost an exceptional Admiral that day!!!
ToonandBBfan 1 year ago
I believe HMS Monmouth was lost at the battle of Coronel, not the Falklands.
Curtissaviation 1 year ago
remember they did not have radar or sonar!...bad weather forcast grounded the zeppelins...and the u-boat arm was too slow and far out of position...night fighting was by search lights illumination lights...signals by x-mas tree lights(germans) admirals lost all control...
m60a3ttsmilwaukee 1 year ago
excellent!...thankyou!...ww-1 naval and jutland-1916 are best understood by wargaming this huge battle many times...both sides had serious recon and command+control problems...we should not judge the admirals on both sides too harshly...their radio morse code system and signal flags we undependable...so was the british fleet air arm hms englaid (short-184 of rutland) and hms campania turned back...many problems communicating!
m60a3ttsmilwaukee 1 year ago
Good video, what is the music at the end?
ukchris64 1 year ago
Jutland - the German perspective by V. E. Tarrant is a good read and very objective, very few errors and good maps, he has worked it out very well
caferacer56 1 year ago 2
Have got that one,good recent book is called Death in the grey wastes.
elswick1542 1 year ago
@caferacer56 D´accord!! Best book I´ve ever read about Jutland.... excellent maps but no photos at all!!
oskarsurf 1 year ago
@caferacer56 D´accord!! Best book I´ve ever read abot Jutland. Excellent maps too, but no photos at all. Written by and for naval officers, I´m afraid.
oskarsurf 1 year ago
very good Pictures :)
TheMe110 2 years ago
Thanks
elswick1542 2 years ago
Bismarks armour was easily penetrated by British 14" & 16". Elswick is right, the exploding ships at Jutland were caused by build up of ammo in the turrets in an attempt to use higher rate of fire to compensate for poor accuracy due to lack of practice. Firth of Forth had no gunnery ranges. Hoods squadron was at Scapa for gunnery practice & was replaced temporarily by 5th battle squadron.
futch2121 2 years ago 2
Dream on!
StaffanGoldschmidt 2 years ago
What have I said that is not fact?
futch2121 2 years ago
@futch2121 ?easily
hollin61 2 years ago 4
@hollin61 Battleship armour is definitely not easy to penetrate,by the way found a copy of the Von Hass book in English on line,a great read.
elswick1542 2 years ago
According to the photographs taken by Ballard Bismark was pierced like a swiss cheese. "Easy to penetrate" is relative, but the British 14" & 16" were certainly up to the job. Bismarks armour was thinner than British practice. Incidently trials after WW1 showed that Bayerns armour was penetrable by the improved British 15" shells.
futch2121 2 years ago
I once tried to count the number of shell penetrations and size on video and pictures of Bismarck but gave up very soon after there are just so many,strange that only 4 can be found on the belt,the confusion I think comes from the large number of none penetrating hits from 8" 6" and 5.25" shells.
elswick1542 2 years ago
UPS ?
hollin61 2 years ago
i have an italian version of 1932
hollin61 2 years ago
I will have to keep looking.
elswick1542 2 years ago
Have you read "The rules of the game" by Andrew Gordon? Some excellent explanations re the British failure at Jutland. Also some good explanations for the poor magazine practices in the battlecruisers. No opportunities for gunnery practice when based at Rosyth so Chatfield encouraged greater rate of fire as a substitute for poor accuracy. This was suppressed after the war. It`s an excellent book & I recommend it.
futch2121 2 years ago
@futch2121
Probably one of the few I have not read,will have to take a look thanks for the tip,the story of the magazine overloading poor practice and cover up is well explained in The Grand Fleet by D K Brown.
elswick1542 2 years ago
Do look it up. It has a slant I have never come across before. Not so much about tactics, but more about why there was a dearth of ability amongst senior commanders. Also, I thought Tryon of Victoria fame was a stupid martinet - not so, he was the way forward & it was a tragedy that he was killed in a tragic accident.
futch2121 2 years ago
@futch2121 A very good read, some of the examples are beyond belief, cant remember off hand but the one were a ship sank after being rammed during a turn to harbour because the ships were to close in the med
dougstiro 2 years ago
@futch2121
Was the practice of loading the ship up to the gunnels with extra cordite charges still being practiced at the time of the Battle of the Demark straight?
Makes one wonder?
After all it was the British Admiralty that accredited the Hoods sinking to a 38cm hit from Bismarck when both British and German reports on the day claimed that particular salvo missed?
derbbus 10 months ago
@derbbus Nope. The cause of the Invincible (and other RN battlecruisers) losses at Jutland was well understood by the end of WW1 and strongly corrected for. HMS Hood's loss was almost certainly due to an explosion of her 4inch magazine amidship, which then detonated the main magazines. The exact cause of the 4in magazine explosion is unknown, though possible candidates include either 11-inch or 15-inch gunfire, or explosion of poorly-stored 4in shells (NOT cordite) outside the magazines.
trims2u 9 months ago
@trims2u
I'm given to understand that the cordite used by the Royal Navy was rather volitile; once it ignited you got a big bang.
Prior to the hood actually exploding there was a huge de-flageration sending sheets of flame hundreds of feet into the air like some monsterous firework.
Thats certainly cordite burning; but freely, thats to say it wasn't confined inside the walls of a magazine.
It's a bit of a mystery why there wasn't just one, big, bang.
derbbus 9 months ago
@derbbus According to Ted Briggs one of the three survivors the 4" gundeck recieved a hit and the ready use ammunition started brewing up, that's the cordite burning right there, less than a minute later she exploded.
It's unclear as to what the exact cause was, It could have been the 4" magazine or the midsips torpedoes or even a main magazine that exploded..we'll never know for sure.
jimmywrangles 8 months ago
@trims2u It would be a miracle if 11 inch gunfire caused it, as none of the German ships carried guns of that calibre!
Prinz Eugen mounted 8 inch guns; the nearest 11 inch guns were on Scharnhorst/Gneisenau which were c2000 miles away - a bit too far to do any damage.
MrHistorian123 1 month ago
31 may 16 at the 8,25 after the end of defence ,many hits on lutzow great fire and smoke more problem of visibility distance 6 7000 m few salve to the enemy;at 8,29 derfflinger open fire on invincible first salve 2 hits of 4 second -100m 2hits ,every 20s a salve of 4,at 8,31 after a salve of hits the end ; some hits of invincible on derfflinger. from hase : artillery director of derfflinger
hollin61 2 years ago
I have tried for some time to find an English copy the Von Hase book without luck,English books often quote him.
elswick1542 2 years ago
many hits on invincible by derfflinger .who sank the invincible?i think was derfflinger
hollin61 2 years ago
The 3rd battlecruiser squadron (Invincible class) engaged the German battlecruisers with good visibility,the British ships were obscured from the German ships at the time,Invincible scored a large number of hits on Lutzow,Invincible exploded after a turret hit IIR both Lutzow and Derflinger claimed the hit,again IIR Campell in Jutland an analysis of the fighting credits the hit to Lutzow,but in the smoke of battle we will never know for sure.
elswick1542 2 years ago
IN 41 HOOD HAD THE SAME PROBLEM?
hollin61 2 years ago
Hello hollin
Probably not the Jutland explosions resulted from turret hits and flash caused by bad practice and ammo overloading,Hood,s explosion was probably caused by direct magazine penetration.
elswick1542 2 years ago
in his memory Hase described this episody and all the systems was up to date for best security: in turret only 3 shells and the launch charge was protected ,many turrets were destroied during the jutland but only an old germany ship exploded . command tower s derfflinger (350mm)resist to 2 381shell.20 hits of 380 supported this ship during the death s run .the wins of the day was the german s battlecruisers they had fight with the grouppe of beatty ,hood ,evan thomas and the grand fleet ...
hollin61 2 years ago
You must remember at the Battle of the Dogger Bank, the Germans nearly lost the SMS Seydlitz due to improper stoage of the cordite charges. A shell from HMS Lion penetrated Seydlitz's aft turrent, caught the cordite on fire then it spread to the next turrent though a hatch because men were trying to excape the fire. Both turrent crews were lost. The ship was saved by flooding the magazines. The British learned the hard way at Jutland. "There is something wrong with our bloody ships today."
1916jutland 2 years ago
royal navy supremacy: ships ,guns. intelligence, but 3 battlecruisers is blowup is only casuality? at the falklands little gun power for germany .the cruiser sank at dogger bank is slow and little for a battlecruisers squadroon
hollin61 2 years ago
Funny how no one ever mentions the RN battlecruisers that each took over 15 main armament hits - at Jutland AND Dogger Bank - without blowing up, namely Lion and Tiger. Moreover, Invincible was hit about a dozen times at the Falklands to little effect. These facts don't fit in with received opinion about British battlecruisers. A bit like how nobody ever mentions HMS Hood sinking Bretagne at Mers-el-Kebir
beastatlay 2 years ago 3
That is very true,real reason was not the armour but the ammunition handling,Derfflinger sister of Lutzow had the aft gun mount penetrated 10.5" armour but did not explode due to a better drill the thicker armour was not a factor as it was penetrated.
elswick1542 2 years ago
Also very interesting were the post-war Baden Trials where Germany's latest battleship was subjected to gunnery tests from the improved 15" Greenboy shells. Even the thickest armour - the 13.4" turret face - was penetrated easily, the shell detonating inside. In fact one, after piercing the upper belt, travelled the entire width of the ship blowing out the funnel strakes and uptakes. There's no doubt that had the RN had these much better shells that many more German ships would have been sunk.
beastatlay 2 years ago
Yes if only the Greenboy mk3a was available in 1916,another factor I think in the battlecruisers design was the Argo Pollen fire control,if it ever worked a light fast ship could have used a fast rate of change of range but still hit a less sophisticated enemy,that could not hit back so armour was almost irrelevant,if it could be made to work,opinions differ even today.
elswick1542 2 years ago
gunnery test.. distance?there s no dubt of germany engineering; battlefield is real test ,in 1941 hood have greenboy shell?
hollin61 2 years ago
Hood had a further improved type of shell but not the most up to date 6 calibre ratio head type in 1941,Greenboy was a WW1 shell developed after the battle of Jutland,Hood was no match for Bismarck in 41 it was designed in 1916.
elswick1542 2 years ago
The test distance was 15,000 yards, average battle range. The Greenboys penetrated Baden's 13.75 inch turret face easily. One shell also pierced the belt, travelled almost the entire width of the ship, then exploded deep in her boiler room.
German ships didn't come out so well at Falklands, Dogger Bank or Heligoland Bight, which a lot of people ignore. As I said, people are only interested in received opinion.
beastatlay 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
America was the best britian never went threw things that we had gone threw.
We fought the war for them.
KyleLexington 2 years ago
as comic guy on the simpsons might say , worst troll ever
shathriel 2 years ago 5
Ever bombed by the Luftwaffe?
elswick1542 2 years ago
of all the main commanders hipper was the best , commanding his battlecruisers with flair and determination.
he handled them superbly.
lutzow , of his squadron was scuttled but she had been so badly damaged by invincible that she would never have made it back to harbour and would have been sunk by the royal navy on the following day.
invincible herself , with her squadron did well in the battle , it was just her unfortunate luck to be caught in a good area of visibility close to the germans.
shathriel 2 years ago
scheer can be faulted for getting his fleet into a bad situation but he managed to extricate his fleet very well.
jellicoe centralised far to much and not enough initiative was shown by a lot of his subordinates , also the shells were not of the quality they should have been and jellicoe badly neglected night fighting techniques and training.
beatty was brave but neglected gunnery and signalling in his battlecruiser fleet and did not use his ships to their best advantages.
shathriel 2 years ago
Beatty was to me a complete incompetent(brave though)told by Captain Chatfield of Lion that German gunnery was devastating inside 16000yds but not effective outside he closed to 16000yds! preferred to play tennis to gunnery exercise,Hipper and Jellicoe should be remembered,Beatty forgotten.
elswick1542 2 years ago
the germans could never claim this has a victory.
they were never intending to fight a full fleet action with the numbers being so overwhelming on the royan navies side and if they had not forced their escape during the night , with the poor state of their battlecruisers and a number of battleships they would have been annihilated the next day.
jellicoe was in control of the seas the next day and yet again the german navy had escaped from the british.
shathriel 2 years ago
it was found by an expedition relatively recently that the british battlecruisers were stocking up on more ammunition than the ships were designed for , consequently they had ammunition and cordite stacked outside the magazines.
with their thinner armour this proved lethal.
beatty and jellicoe knew this and apparently hushed it up after the battle.
shathriel 2 years ago
At the Falklands battle one of Invincible guns fired 109 round with another 11 to go,designed load was 80 rpg,Investigation post Jutland put the blame squarely on overloading and handling ,covered up the officer involved was sent to the China station.
elswick1542 2 years ago
Brits are the greatest sailors in history...nobody could ever deny this. Britannia really ruled the waves. So, why suggest that the results of Jutland was even? Lutzow took more punishment than that an english dreadnought could have stood and had to be finished off with a (german) torpedo, english battlecruisers blew up like crackers. That's it.
frontmann7 2 years ago
In a battle on land sea or air the winner is in command of the area fought over after the battle,so Germany can no more claim to have won than the Brits,huge difference between the RN BC,S and German BC,S but the BB,S are far closer in armour and RN ships have greater fire power,Germany won the run to the south but overall the battle was inconclusive that to me makes it fascinating.
elswick1542 2 years ago
the good armour of lutzow saved the crew...a torpedo of german destroyer, sank this ship
hollin61 2 years ago 3
Very tough ships indeed,by the time the destroyer fired the torpedo the ship was awash up to the gun turrets the screws had left the water and could no longer steer,great testament to the designers and crew.
elswick1542 2 years ago
beatty was in lion class ..horatio in invincible class poor of armour no good for battle against german battlecruiser..beatty instructions condamned horatio...
hollin61 2 years ago
It was Hood on Invincible it was already obsolete,Lion,s guns out ranged all the German ships but the arsehole Beatty closed in to short range.
elswick1542 2 years ago
i wonder why we have some fucked up homos send us "ordinary" against eachother into war ?
Bestbeforeitcomes 2 years ago 3
Yes no more war.
elswick1542 2 years ago
@elswick
No more war.
robinhood48 2 years ago 3
A very interesting video you have here, and the pictures are excellent. The narrative was a bit hard to follow, but otherwise its a good piece of work.
thespawnof66 3 years ago
Is the Invincible the ship that had her props stolen from the wreck? Great vid by the way
dougstiro 3 years ago
I think the props were stolen by Danish scrap men in about 1956 also I think the Queen Marys were also taken at about the same time,Lutzows upturned hull was exploded so parts could be removed.
elswick1542 3 years ago
I have a battleship named after me and one of the greatest NAZI pilots ever my Great+++ Grandfather Gunther Lutzow, and the SMS Lutzow
rlutzow 3 years ago 2
Great name and great ship,have a Prinz Eugen ww2 cruiser video i am developing shuld be good.
elswick1542 3 years ago
Thank you. And yes WW military is a great subject to study and get to know, many interesting things about it. I will check it out when you finish it.
rlutzow 3 years ago 2
Scharnhorst etc almost escaped,Both bc,s were almost out of ammo one 12" gun fired 109 rounds,they were designed to carry 80 per gun!one well placed shot?
at Jutland invincible was commanded by rear adm Hood,his widow launched HMS Hood.
fire control officer at both battles(Danruther)was the god son of the German composer Wagner.
elswick1542 3 years ago
It´s kind of curious, that HMS Invincible was set on fire and then exploded with ADM Hood on board and in WWII the HMS Hood exploded nearly the same way!
robinhood48 3 years ago
0.34: After detecting the British in Port Stanley Kapitän zur See Maerker asked Graf Spee to attack due to his (Correct!) suspicion that the British were loading coal. Spee refused. The last signal from Scharnhorst was: "Admiral to commander: you were right".
Then Scharnhorst turned towards the adversary to launch her torpedoes.
Graf Spee died and his two sons.
robinhood48 3 years ago 2