The Austrian-Hungarian battleship 'Saint Stephen', hahahahaha, 'Szent Istvan', of course. As if a composers name would be John Sebastian Creek. The comment is ridiculous, not mentioning turbines in Dreadnought.
The comment is rubbish. Only the pictures are interesting.
This isn't the version of "Weapons of World War 2" i remember first seeing in 2003
(the original version of this series was presented by "Major Gordon Corrigan" & had a completely different Intro & end titles, although a lot of the info in this is the same)
Why Nugus Martin completely changed the series into this form i have never been able to
the sun never set in the british empire...british battle cruisers were lightly armored to be fast to race around globe to a crisis area (think falklands 1914 after coronel off chile) (3 blew up at jutland1916) ww-2 uparmored hood low in water...first to get hammered!
the 1922 washington naval disarmament treaty (pres harding) screwed up everything!...but u-boat and fleet submarines! (both sides went unrestricted in ww-2)
british history videos are very misleading!...in ww-1 and ww-2 battlecruisers are not battleships!...just because british battlecruisers explode to plunging fire...not all fully crewed battleships were obsolete!
@HelmutVillam Best guess would be money and time. The lead time required for ships of the time was about 4-8 years from design to commission. If I recall correctly, the Nelsons were the only 16"ers in the entire fleet,. The KGVs were originally designed to have 3 quad turrets, but had turret B reduced to a twin due to weight limitations. The USS NC class were originally designed w/ 3 quad 14" turrets as well with an eye of switching over to triple 16's.
just imagine how long Vanguard would have took to be completed if they had chose to also design new guns and turrets for her. Luckily courageous and glorious' guns were available. Weren't new BL1 16" being developed anyway for the G and N3s? In that case surely it would have not taken so much time to develop and install 15 new turrets of them for the KGVs, perhaps even less than it took to develop the 14" turrets. But maybe weight would have been an issue, we'll never know now.
@EmperorTiger It wouldn't have mattered. 16 incher's were allowed under the WNT. Plus, when the King George V's were fitting out, the WNT had been abolished.
This documentary makes as incorrect statement: The Japanese did not ignore the treaty of 1921, and signed the renewal in 1931. They repudiated and withdrew from the treaty in 1935. Germany was not a signatory to the treaty, but under the Versailles treaty of 1919 had to follow it. Britain was really the only country that followed the treaty exactly, everyone else "fudged" the books, so to speak.
Oh my I guess the Brit quickly stealing turrets from the Wobbly 8 to answer the USS South Carolina, and USS Michigan... with the Turbine engines she did make a superior ship.. but her 10 guns poorly sited against USN 8 gun in 4 turrets were more effect. She would need better speed to run from these two... stealing turrets let them finish dreadnought ahead of the USN Pair.. 2 year building time for them...
The crew of HMS Hood had 1 418 men aboard not 2300.
MrUsernamessuckalots 2 months ago
knowyourworld17 Thanks for posting, from Lima, Perú, Very interesting.
musicaenlaniebla 5 months ago
The Austrian-Hungarian battleship 'Saint Stephen', hahahahaha, 'Szent Istvan', of course. As if a composers name would be John Sebastian Creek. The comment is ridiculous, not mentioning turbines in Dreadnought.
The comment is rubbish. Only the pictures are interesting.
eskatee 5 months ago
This isn't the version of "Weapons of World War 2" i remember first seeing in 2003
(the original version of this series was presented by "Major Gordon Corrigan" & had a completely different Intro & end titles, although a lot of the info in this is the same)
Why Nugus Martin completely changed the series into this form i have never been able to
assertain.
TSR1989FF 1 year ago
the sun never set in the british empire...british battle cruisers were lightly armored to be fast to race around globe to a crisis area (think falklands 1914 after coronel off chile) (3 blew up at jutland1916) ww-2 uparmored hood low in water...first to get hammered!
m60a3ttsmilwaukee 1 year ago
the 1922 washington naval disarmament treaty (pres harding) screwed up everything!...but u-boat and fleet submarines! (both sides went unrestricted in ww-2)
m60a3ttsmilwaukee 1 year ago
british history videos are very misleading!...in ww-1 and ww-2 battlecruisers are not battleships!...just because british battlecruisers explode to plunging fire...not all fully crewed battleships were obsolete!
m60a3ttsmilwaukee 1 year ago
@m60a3ttsmilwaukee
I think I speak for everyone here when I say that made absolutely no sense.
madhammudeux 1 day ago in playlist Uploaded videos
Maybe it's called a he because it's just a HEap.
tryithere 2 years ago
ma stomach hurts...
TheZuikaku 2 years ago 3
O ye, i imagine Yamato class as a surprise to ALLIED forces..
Artas1984 2 years ago 2
We percieved Yamato had 16 inchers and was 50,000 tons even as late as July 1945, months after we sunk the Yamato's and Shinano.
Contrajoe 2 years ago
i thought prince of wales had 15 inch guns,,,
sajuuk212 2 years ago
The Prince of Wales carried 10x14" guns.
Originally she was designed to carry 16" guns but when the war started it was decided to fit the 14" to speed up production times.
jimmywrangles 2 years ago
Eludes me why the Admiralty didn't use the tried and tested 16" Mark 1 BL guns from the Nelsons, instead of taking time to design the new Mark 2s.
HelmutVillam 1 year ago
@HelmutVillam Best guess would be money and time. The lead time required for ships of the time was about 4-8 years from design to commission. If I recall correctly, the Nelsons were the only 16"ers in the entire fleet,. The KGVs were originally designed to have 3 quad turrets, but had turret B reduced to a twin due to weight limitations. The USS NC class were originally designed w/ 3 quad 14" turrets as well with an eye of switching over to triple 16's.
cabbievonbump 1 year ago
@HelmutVillam
just imagine how long Vanguard would have took to be completed if they had chose to also design new guns and turrets for her. Luckily courageous and glorious' guns were available. Weren't new BL1 16" being developed anyway for the G and N3s? In that case surely it would have not taken so much time to develop and install 15 new turrets of them for the KGVs, perhaps even less than it took to develop the 14" turrets. But maybe weight would have been an issue, we'll never know now.
HelmutVillam 1 year ago
no, 14 in to fit with the Washington Navy treaty
EmperorTiger 2 years ago
@EmperorTiger It wouldn't have mattered. 16 incher's were allowed under the WNT. Plus, when the King George V's were fitting out, the WNT had been abolished.
Contrajoe 2 years ago
bismarck was a "he" not a she -_-
gromsky21 2 years ago 2
die bismarck -, depp es gibt keine mänlichen schiffsnamen
KoutaSeto 2 years ago
The wobbly 8?
leather064 3 years ago
This documentary makes as incorrect statement: The Japanese did not ignore the treaty of 1921, and signed the renewal in 1931. They repudiated and withdrew from the treaty in 1935. Germany was not a signatory to the treaty, but under the Versailles treaty of 1919 had to follow it. Britain was really the only country that followed the treaty exactly, everyone else "fudged" the books, so to speak.
Bullettube 3 years ago 9
@Bullettube Of course everyone who was in WWII does that for the most part. :-l
dogfight001 1 year ago
Oh my I guess the Brit quickly stealing turrets from the Wobbly 8 to answer the USS South Carolina, and USS Michigan... with the Turbine engines she did make a superior ship.. but her 10 guns poorly sited against USN 8 gun in 4 turrets were more effect. She would need better speed to run from these two... stealing turrets let them finish dreadnought ahead of the USN Pair.. 2 year building time for them...
crpdst2003 3 years ago