I hope you're sitting down; we've got a long video! Thanks for watching, everyone, I know it's a different type of video than we're used to but gotta change it up every once in a while! Edit: If anyone was wondering the thumbnail is a photograph of Queen Mary's loss.
@Cbabilon6754 ай бұрын
If I remember correctly, They did a underwater observation of the wrecks of the battle cruisers, In the early two thousands. They had found that the flash doors on many of the turks had been left open. Which is a fault on beauty for allowing this to happen under his watch, And I also believe it was his direct order.
@z1az2852 ай бұрын
it is incredible the same thing happened to the HMS Hood more than twenty years later
@rad666a4 ай бұрын
I've always found it astounding that Beatty was never censured for his policy of "shoot fast, shoot often" that led to the lax ammo handling procedures in the battlecruiser squadrons.
@mahbriggs4 ай бұрын
You are applying hindsight to a danger that was unknown at the time! Cordite was not supposed to explode! True, some experiments had suggested large amounts might, but this was not largely accepted at the time! The idea of very rapid fire to damage and distract your opponents was a rational tactic if you were unaware of the danger! These were basically egg shells armed with sledgehammer! They couldn't afford to engage in a slugging match, you had to hit hard and fast! The German cordite equivalent, with a slightly different formulation, seems to have been slightly more stable.
@NashmanNash4 ай бұрын
It was known at the time that cordite could explode.It was known that the lax handling and procedures were a risk.It was decided to ignore it to get a slightly better rate if fire.Which for all intents and purposes is and qas rather stupid anyway because battleships and battlecruisers rarely if ever got to use their full potential rate of fire. Several of the officers in the Battlecruiser Squadron even wanted to reintroduce all the measures that were removed,only to be overruled. And while the german propellant was slightly more stable,that did not matter in case you get an exploding shell near enough.Seydlitz is proof of thar,nearly blowing up twice. After Doggerbank the germans simply got the exact same lesson the british got,and decided not to be stupid about it
@mahbriggs4 ай бұрын
@NashmanNash It was generallybelieved that cordite would not explode at that time. True there was evidence that it might, but it was not generally believed that it would.
@michaelsnyder38714 ай бұрын
There was an investigative committee, and it recommended that Jellicoe and Beatty be reprimanded for the lack of command emphasis on ammunition safety. Then Jellicoe was promoted to First Sea Lord, Beatty given the Grand Fleet and the admiral chairing the committee was sent out the command the China Squadron. It was then swept under the "Most Secret" rug until fifty years later, it became evident that there was actually nothing wrong with the ships.
@michaelsnyder38714 ай бұрын
@@NashmanNash There were experiments made before 1914 and they suggested that cordite would explode in closed spaces like magazines rather than burn. A test of an equivalent amount of cordite compared to a battleship magazine kept getting cancelled. Beatty knew there was a risk, but he was convinced that if he had gotten just a few more hits at Dogger Bank, the Scouting Force would have had to slow down and he would have destroyed it. He blithely ignored the damage his own ships had suffered. Including a near magazine explosion aboard HMS Tiger.
@Redgolf24 ай бұрын
I knew the Danish violinist Ankar Buch who told me before died that as a kid, he HEARD the battle! He thought it was thunder and as a kid he was afraid. His mother calmed him by telling him that it was the English and the Germans firing cannons at each other! We are surrounded by history, all we have to do is just listen.
@elsantigamer43348 күн бұрын
lol that sounds less scary for sure
@baabo7084 ай бұрын
The British battlecruisers had no business engaging in a fleet action, they were not built for the battle line. Fisher saw them as a deterrent to roving German cruisers, who would engage in commerce raiding. Thus, the Battle of the Falkland Islands was exactly the type of fight the British battlecruisers were meant for, not Jutland.
@CliveN-yr1gv4 ай бұрын
That was an awesome summation of events and possible causes of losses. Years ago I had to work with over aged plastic explosive that was sweating nitorglycerine. It was inherently unstable but defence cuts made buying fresh stocks more difficult. That was the 1970s. That they may have been using old cordite at Jutland is not a shock! You might not feel comfortable to comment on Beaty's leadership and I won't speak ill of the dead. However I have worked with and for officers cut from a similar cloth. Pig headed, narcissistic, and lacking in compassion or empathy. But they do win battles. In peace time it's up to their XOs and, above all, their CPOs to train these officers and instill a bit of humility. It can be done, I know. Another outstanding piece of work. My favorite history channel of all. Kudos and well done 👏🏽🙏🏽⭐
@ImportantNavalHistory4 ай бұрын
Thank you! Always appreciate reading your comments.
@michaelpielorz92834 ай бұрын
one more lame excusion.
@adamstrange78844 ай бұрын
Baetty is spuarly to blame. Letting the Battlecruiser crews get lax on loading procedures is his fault for not enforcement those procedures!
@bigsarge20854 ай бұрын
Entertaining AND informative. Always learn something, thank you!
@colindunnigan86214 ай бұрын
The armored cruiser Defence also suffered a catastrophic explosion, and it was initially believed that the ship had been obliterated, but when the wreck was examined in 2001 it was found to be ins surprisingly good condition, lying upright on the seabed.
@TheHypnogog4 ай бұрын
I am pleased you took the time to pass on this history so capably.
@ronhudson37304 ай бұрын
The losses of the ships due to poor armour design, dangerous ammunition handling and poor gunnery are contributing factors . The actual cause was the incompetence of Beatty. His later promotion to replace Jellicoe, and the actions of his supporters to cover up his incompetence, speak the truth about his personal responsibilty. He must have felt the guilt through the rest of his life because he was the man mainly responsible.
@NashmanNash4 ай бұрын
Had he felt guilty he would not have tried to blame Seymour the way he did...Even Hipper and Scheer were not really on respectful terms with him
@pastorofmuppets23496 күн бұрын
How Beatty wasn't relieved of command after Jutland still blows my mind.
@yxx_chris_xxy3 ай бұрын
As a British Battlecruiser, I appreciate the work you put into this tutorial. Thanks!
@ImportantNavalHistory3 ай бұрын
Please be safe! Try the beef up your turret armor and don’t rush head long into anything!
@VoreAxalon4 ай бұрын
I'll catch up on it later- can't listen yo the premiere on account of a birthday party but it will go on my watch later playlist
@1987phillybilly2 ай бұрын
A very good and through video! Your productions are always top notch.
@stevie62654 ай бұрын
The British also lost 3 large armoured cruisers, at least one of which blew up in true battlecruiser fashion, yet they are so often overlooked.
@mathewkelly99684 ай бұрын
The whole German fleet was trashed , often overlooked
@robertx80204 ай бұрын
@@mathewkelly9968 you have any proof of that? I CAN prove that RN lost more ships and more tonnage ...now show me yours
@michaelsnyder38714 ай бұрын
@@robertx8020 Look it up. Within 30 days all the damaged British capital ships, including HMS Warspite, were repaired and back in service. It took the Germans six months to repair the last of the severely damaged battlecruisers.
@robertx80204 ай бұрын
@@michaelsnyder3871 So the German ships were repaired (and less were SUNK) and you call it a british 'victory' and 'German ships were trashed' Ok If you say so ..I guess we have a different opinion about a 'victory' and tell me ..how long did it take to REBUILD the British ships that were sunk? /s
@michaelpielorz92834 ай бұрын
Years later HOOD followed this tradition. leaving doors open again?
@johnlander46354 ай бұрын
Indefatigable had some weak armour so it was possible to go clean through the armour. However, they seemed to blow up indirectly so not a direct magazine hit but a flash fire zap which went up and down causing the magazines to explode.
@rodmcleod4805Ай бұрын
My grandfatther,Walter Fairbairn,was at the battle of Jutland and remembered the bodies of the destroyed ships crews in the water.He detested any form of war afterwards and left the navy as soon as he could.
@eherrmann014 ай бұрын
Massey's book is an excellent read, I highly recommend it.
@squirepraggerstope35913 ай бұрын
"The [British] Battlecruiser squadrons needed gunnery practice"... which is actually a monumental understatement w.r.t. Beatty's two squadrons, as their gunnery (AND dangerously slapdash munitions and cordite handling practices, against all official procedure) were both, in general, frankly execrable. Like a few other things that ultimately were also Beatty's fault and which all taken together, certainly explain the near loss of HMS Lion and almost certainly the loss of HMS Queen Mary. As well as contributing to increasing the statistical likelihood of further losses and so may even apply to the sinking of HMS Indefatigable too. Though in her case it's not demonstrable anyway. Even more so as neither she nor the other 1st generation battlecruiser, Hood's HMS Invincible (which crew's gunnery skills were superb) had any business whatsoever even being in a line of battle facing other capital ships.
@billballbuster71864 ай бұрын
Bottom line is that the Battlecruiser was never designed to be in the Fleet along side Battleships. They was designed to hunt down and destroy enemy Cruisers and Commerce Raiders, their armour was to keep out 4" and 6" shells from the guns usually carried by these ships. The Battle of the Falklands, December 1914 is a prime example of what they were built for.
@aussiedrifter4 ай бұрын
G'day Mate, I served in the Royal Australian Navy from 1975 to 1981 as a Weapons Mechanic, from my training we obviously studied safe practices in handling ammunition. During one of these classes the battle of Jutland was used as a what not to do example, & the failure of the British magazine & turret personnel to ensure that the flashback doors on the ammunition hoists were not being used. This blatant disregard in ammunition handling safety was used in the belief that a faster rate of fire could be achieved, sadly that was a fallacy & proven later to be of no benefits other than killing everyone involved. The blame started at the very top with Admiral David Beatty & trickled down the chain of command, unfortunately back in the day it was unheard off for any lower deck NCO's or seaman to raise any concerns.
@tomh61834 ай бұрын
Excellent work on the battle and its sad consequences.
@HandyMan6574 ай бұрын
As always, well done. Take care.
@davidmcintyre81454 ай бұрын
It can be fairly said that the cause of the loss of Queen Mary at least; the I class vessels were too weakly armoured and not designed in any way to fight their own kind though the latter battlecruisers with 9 inch belts did far better at rejecting German 11 inch shells was one Admiral Beatty who had demanded higher rates of fire from his ships after Dogger bank and had agreed with if not demanded removal or circumvention of the safety measures in pursuit of this. However after the war Beatty became commander of the Grand fleet so had it become public knowledge that Beatty had made this catastrophic error,one of several including losing contact with the 5th battle squadron then his position would have been untenable and the Admiralty who put him in place would have been severely embarrassed. Not to mention the effect it would have had on naval morale.
@mahbriggs4 ай бұрын
The dangers of cordite explosions was not known at the time. Cordite was supose to burn but not explode!
@davidmcintyre81454 ай бұрын
@@mahbriggs While the explosive nature was not known although the only large scale test had been done in 1897 and was done on newly manufactured material; surely far more testing should have been don especially regarding what was then a relatively new development particularly on aging samples? It was well established that poor quality ingredients and poor manufacturing standards made cordite more volatile as did age. In fact when Grant took over on Lion he discovered that some of the charges in the ship were over 13 years old and he then replaced all the charges on the ship: He also discovered that charges were routinely taken from their cases during drills or exercises and replaced in the wrong case. Failure to maintain temperature of the magazines was also an issue and one that had been highlighted before the war as was stowage of empty coal bags a possible source of spontaneous combustion next to the magazines. It should also be noted that the three navies that suffered catastrophic magazine explosions the RN,IJN and Regia Marina all used not only the same method of nitrification but also Picric acid fillings for their shells meaning that the shell fillings could also have been partially to blame. For all that the removal of safety features and casual disregard for the handling of charges which would have had an 18th century gunner(the man in charge of the powder magazine)recoiling in horror was the main cause of the loss of at least Queen Mary and possibly even the two I class
@mahbriggs4 ай бұрын
@@davidmcintyre8145 And your point is? As I pointed out, while there were clues that cordite could explode in some circumstances, it was generally thought it would just burn! One of the pictures of the Invincible shows the forward magazine burning, while the center magazine explodes.that the forward magazine was burning. David K. Brown has a quite good explanation in his book "the Grand Fleet: Warship Design and Developement 1906-1922" You can make the claim that they should have known, but clearly they did not! Not all propellant behaves the same. Small differences in manufacture can have large effects on its behavior.
@davidmcintyre81454 ай бұрын
@@mahbriggs I did point out that manufacturing processes and mixtures varied but the frankly criminal approach to safety in the battlecruisers which as I have said would have appalled an 18th century gunner and which was in essence demanded by Beatty as a way to increase rate of fire was the main issue, I also like you would recommend Brown,that entire series from"Before the Ironclad"to"Rebuilding the Royal Navy"is excellent as is his take on the Falklands war. Drachinifel also did an excellent segment a few years ago in Drydock 65 during a comparison between Hipper and Beatty that details what he thought would be the reaction of a sensible admiral in this case Hipper to the practices in the British battlecruisers
@michaelsnyder38714 ай бұрын
None of the British battlecruisers suffered a magazine penetration. The German shells failed to penetrate barbettes or fully penetrate turrets. At the ranges and angles of engagement that is not surprising. But hits forced fragments and scabs off the back of the armor, which found powder bags out their storage cans and stored on every deck from the turret to just outside the magazine doors and scuttles. Dives on the wrecks have even shown large numbers of powder bags strewn on and near the wreckage.
@SennaAugustus4 ай бұрын
Jutland showed the incredible design of the world's first fast battleships, the Queen Elizabeth class, who absorbed most of the damage and didn't sink, even if 2 of them (Malaya and Warspite) should have done so given the amount of damage they took, in addition to their accuracy with the best guns Britain has ever made. The fast battleship concept of the QEs meant that there was no longer a need to compromise armour for speed.
@vipertwenty2494 ай бұрын
Speed is everything. Just leave the flash doors open it'll be fine.
@panzerdeal87274 ай бұрын
And keep a sergeant Major handy.....
@NashmanNash4 ай бұрын
From what i read,Major Harvey actually abused the chain of command to have the safety measures,which lions gunnery officer had reintroduced,to be removed again
@michaelpielorz92834 ай бұрын
please stop telling that myth and insulting thousands ov brave sailors.!
@vipertwenty2494 ай бұрын
@@michaelpielorz9283 Please stop posting on subjects you know nothing about.
@panzerdeal87274 ай бұрын
@@michaelpielorz9283 After action damage reports and eyewitness acounts do not equal a myth.
@johnbrinsden87514 ай бұрын
Thanks!
@ImportantNavalHistory4 ай бұрын
Thank you!
@richardcutts1964 ай бұрын
Good video, however there was also Mutsu that exploded in port (1943) and Hood that exploded at the Battle of the Denmark Strait. As far as I know ALL the battleships that exploded, in combat or in harbor, used British style cordite/propellant. One theory was that the stabilizer (petroleum Jelly) actually made it less stable. I remember reading the contention that Hood would not have exploded if she had been using US style propellant, though I don't think there's enough evidence for that.
@wackyotter12354 ай бұрын
I would argue the british using unstable powders ended up being beneficial. Much of the IJN’s doctrine came from the British and so did their powder doctrines. Since the IJN adopted the poor practices, their ships felt it
@philiphumphrey15484 ай бұрын
It seems that whatever blew up Hood was completely unrelated to what happened in Jutland The most popular theory is a 15" shell hitting underwater just below the main armour belt and penetrating the torpedo protection. It was probably a case of the trajectory and the angles being just right (or wrong). Hood had undergone an extensive redesign after the battle of Jutland and her armour was upgraded to the equivalent of a contemporary battleship (e.g. Queen Elizabeth class). The worries about Hood's relatively weak deck armour at the start of world war two related mainly to a new hazard, armour piercing bombs penetrating deck armour (as happened to USS Arizona at Pearl Harbor). Most of the older battleships were at risk.
@festungkurland98044 ай бұрын
@@philiphumphrey1548 not unrelated
@jamesricker39974 ай бұрын
The South Dakota had an accident when loading ammunition. Fortunately the crew was alert and the magazine was imeadetly flooded
@markavons34004 ай бұрын
Hood no one can ever say for sure.The newer (solventless?) German and US propellants were safer but as USS Arizona showed...and Gneisenau's turret fire in 42 put her out of the war.
@stargazer57844 ай бұрын
Armor was too light for a ship of the line, along with poor ammunition handling. Good job.
@michaelsnyder38714 ай бұрын
Not a single German shell penetrated a barbette or into a magazine. And shouldn't have at the ranges and target angles during the battle. The powder was set off by fragments and scabs thrown off the back of the armor, because the powder was out of their storage cans and in places they shouldn't have been.
@seeingeyegod4 ай бұрын
"The Firth of Fourth" sound so fucking British
@oceanhome20234 ай бұрын
How many of us who when we first read about this battle immediately hungered for a rematch that never happened and the entire naval war became anticlimactic 😢 !
@TPW900GP354 ай бұрын
I’m of the opinion that gunnery can’t be that accurate as to land shells on an opposing ship where you targeted it. Unless I’m wrong, it is pure chance to get a hit at all. That being said, British gunnery hadn’t improved much in the interwar years. During the Battle of Denmark Strait between Prince of Wales, Hood, Bismarck, and Prinz Eugen, an observer on the Bismarck was quoted as saying that it seemed to take the British a long time to get Bismarck’s range. The Germans seemed to get the range in a few salvoes, whereas it took the British about four or five salvos! Of course, it was the British Warspite that scored the hit on the Italian battleship at 26,000 yds. in 1940; and then in 1943, Duke of York fired 52 broadsides at Scharnhorst, and scored 31 straddles.
@AugmentedGravity4 ай бұрын
how to
@jamesricker39974 ай бұрын
Cordite was supposed to be stable and it was when it was new. As it aged nitroglycerin crystals formed on the surface, making it highly volatile.
@VersusARCH4 ай бұрын
I still laugh at the British mental gymnastics trying to portray Jutland as anything but a German victory.
@jamesricker39974 ай бұрын
Tactical German victory, Strategic British one
@SennaAugustus4 ай бұрын
"The High Seas Fleet has assaulted its jailors, but it is still in jail." The HSF never sortied again after Jutland, and when pressed to do so, resulted in mutiny leading to the fall of the entire German Empire. How can that be a German victory?
@dovetonsturdee70334 ай бұрын
Just as I find amusing the lengths to which prople will go to portray as victors a fleet which retired from the battlefield and spent almost the whole of the rest of WW1 swinging peacefully cables in the Jade. A fleet whose crews mutinied rather than face the Grand Fleet again, and a fleet which remained inactive as the Royal Navy's Northern Blockade dragged Germany down to starvation & revolution. There is more involved in assessing the result of a battle than simply counting the corpses. Didn't Stalingrad rather demonstrate that?
@hashteraksgage32814 ай бұрын
The pirates always do that, like portraying DUNKINRK as a victory lmao
@dovetonsturdee70334 ай бұрын
@@hashteraksgage3281 Perhaps you might explain how being ordered to lift 40,000 specialist troops out of Dunkirk, and instead managing to lift just over 323,000 was anything other than a victory for the Royal & Merchant Navies?
@colinmartin29214 ай бұрын
Ridiculous that the battle cruisers were used as battleships, they had no business engaging in a slugging match.
@destroyer06854 ай бұрын
HMS Hood anybody?
@kumarandisamy74684 ай бұрын
If RN went one to one with the Japenese imperial navy fleet. Not even one RN ship would survive sail back to England
@hashteraksgage32814 ай бұрын
The royal navy has always been about mediocre ships in large numbers. When the Brits don't have numerical advantage they tend to lose.
@reginaldpasao83904 ай бұрын
How to get things wrong with your bloody ships today
@user-ho4ve8cc4w3 ай бұрын
Победили англичане но потери черт возьми
@mathewkelly99684 ай бұрын
Cue little fascists saying how this was a German victory , strange victory where you hardly ever leave port again and your defeated enemy could put a larger fleet together a week later
@ImportantNavalHistory4 ай бұрын
I’m sorry if I misunderstand your comment. However, whom is it directed towards?
@robertx80204 ай бұрын
It seems hard for ppl likew you not do insult ppl that MIGHT not agree with you and your logic is flawed too! FYI you canj win a battle and still LOSE the war So your comment doens't even make sense