Actually it was both. Prince of Wales in August 1941 and Duke of York in December 1941.

Yes that's right. Just before she was lost in the middle East.

I guess the radar targeting systems.... your guess is as good as mine

A quadruple 356mm turret in a modern battleship

This guy is increasingly using misleading titles to get views

@@bentonmarcum8924 You are correct. I will be less inclined to click in the future

I came here to find out, the last video was about one "epic shot" not sure what that was either. Time to click the do not recommend button I think

Indeed, 15,900 lbs as opposed to 14.112 lbs.

Nah he combined the two together and is all over the place lol. WW1 class had the 5 twin turrets but had 13.5” guns not 14”. He even jumps back and forth between showing the different ships. Long story short he has no idea what he’s talking about lol.

​@corbintodd9339 I would agree. All the content reposts is poorly researched.

They were not "quick" builds persay, the RN slow walks the construction process from 1925-28 for both ships of the Nelson class. Done for two reasons, first to keep work in the dock yards to keep the experience and secondly the processes to keep the ships under the 35k limit required untried technology and materials which needed testing- such as using Aluminum as a replacement for steel in less critical areas, which had not been used by before on an RN ship

I agree with everything you said except that I've always considered Scharnhorst to be a battlecruiser, totally outclassed/outgunned by D of Y.

@@SnowmanN49 - You make an intersting point. The Kriegsmarine always classified the twins as battleships with the RN tending towards the battlecruiser designation if only because of their speed. The main belt thickness on the Scharnhorst being similar to that fitted to the later Bismarck' class. Without wanting to disappear down a rabbit hole a number of commentators regard HMS Hood as the prototype fast battleship as post Jutland her armour arrangements were better than the celebrated Queen Elizabeth class (pre 1930s rebuild). However, because of her speed the RN always designated the Hood as a battlecruiser.

Sadly whilst Britain emerged victorious in the war, it was utterly wrecked and broke. It owed significant sums to the USA and critical infrastructure, housing and transport all needed replacement or upgrade. As well as this significant social and welfare reform occurred with the nationalisation of the railways, road transport and coal industries and the formation of the NHS. Rationing continued into the mid50s. So put simply there was neither the desire nor the funds to preserve ships, otherwise there'd be at least one preserved battleship and carrier. However, hms Belfast is still able to be visited on the Thames, so at least some of the fleet that sunk scharnhorst survive.

A shame? The weapons designed to kill people? you think that's a shame?

The Brits were so broke after the war it wasn't feasible for them to save anything, but I bet they wish they had now.

@@johngaither9263 I agree

No. HMS Warspite.

A.I. told them it’s a title to get clicks. Isn’t it infuriating?!

Radar, the same strange weapon the German Luftwaffe failed to recognize during the Battle of Britain

@@davidvines6498 Radar is not a weapon

That would be a very narrow football field: 160' is the standard width of an NFL field, 220' is the pitch width in *real* football and rugby.

Politics. One variation of the Deutschland class 'pocket battleship' design would have been armed with twin 15" turrets. However, as they were being built to replace the elderly pre-dreadnoughts, it was felt that any enlargement of the gun calibre above the 11" guns of the Preussen class would risk a veto from the Naval Inter-Allied Commission of Control (NIACC) created by the Washington Treaty powers.

You're wrong there the Bismarck 16 in guns

@@MrHuggybear62 Bismarck had 380mm (15") guns, but didn't come out until 1941, 12 years after the first pocket battleship. The twin 15" turrets were designed to be a direct replacement of the triple 11", and there were plans to retrofit Scharnhorst and Gneisnau with 15" turrets. However, these were postponed indefinitely when the leadership lost faith in big-gun ships after Bismarck was sunk.

@@MrHuggybear62 Bismarck was a entirely different class of battleship. Only two of the Bismarck class were built. The Bismarck and the Tirpitz were the largest battleships built by Germany. I'm talking about their regular battleships which were still being armed with inferior 11 inch guns. Giving British battleships with 14 inch guns a range advantage, and twice as much explosive.

In World War 1, the Germans were using 11-inch guns on their battle cruisers because they had a different philosophy for the type than the British. British battle cruisers had the armament of a battleship but less armor because they were designed to hunt cruisers and reducing armor made them faster. German battle cruisers had better armor than British ones and smaller guns so they could be faster than most battleships but still stand in the battle line if they had to.

Correct sir.

a four gun turret is not the same as a quad, where the guns cannot raise and lower separately. same goes for double vs two-gun.

@@jeebusk yes I know, I watch drach so I heard all about it but I just making a point

@@moodogco well if you're going to criticise other people's work, the least you can do is use correct terminology in your criticism :p the 3 double forward, was that a joke?

@@jeebusk yh it is a quad turret on the king George 5th so what r u on about & how is 3 double a joke? Thats what they showed which was the wrong ship!! Do u actually know what your commenting about or a have clue about the subject? I take it u thought u was criticising me even tho I was correct but u didn't have clue what u was going about so didn't realise that fact 🤔 🤣👍

When weapons are captured, according to the laws of war, they may be put into battle by the other side, but they MUST paint it with their nation's colors and markings. I'm not saying that this happened in this instance, it might be just an editorial mistake.

Radar perhaps? Just guessing here.

Thank you. I was coming to that conclusion. Closest thing was radar. You saved me some time.

Not with 10 14" guns and belt armour up to 14" thick. It was a proper battleship of its time, though smaller than later battleships.

@@jrd33 You seem to be an expert. Can you tell me what the difference between a Dreadnought and a Battleship? Is it merely an incremental progression, or is there a fundamental difference of kind?

@@jacqueslefave4296 HMS Dreadnought was a battleship launched in 1906 and was a major step up in terms of power at the time. At the time, people used the term "dreadnought" to refer to battleships build in the style of HMS Dreadnought and "pre-dreadnought" for earlier and less powerful battleships. The term doesn't really have any meaning after that (pretty much all battleships after 1908 were in the dreadnought style).

From context, I got the idea that the dreadnaughts were primarily designed for engagement with other fleets, whereas the battleships were that, but also shore bombardment. I remember reading about the USS Texas, which this author referred to as a dreadnaught, tasked with pre-bombardment of the defenses at Normandy for the D-day landings in WWII. But unlike the modern battleships, they could not elevate the guns high enough to reach where they needed, so in a clever solution, the captain directed that the ballast tanks be flooded with seawater on one side so as to tilt the other side so they could, together with the superstructure of the ship, gain a sufficient tilt and elevation to get a combined elevation and tilt to the artillery so that the targets could be engaged at the higher pillboxes to be useful. It worked, but it suggested to me that the dreadnaughts were not designed for shore bombardment, and probably not over-the horizon artillery fire. This would make sense because at the time the dreadnaught Texas, and others of its era, they probably did not have naval air reconnaissance beyond line of sight of the observation tower. But just because it's a reasonable deduction, doesn't mean it's true. Comments?

@@jacqueslefave4296 Nice logic but that isn't the case. "Dreadnought" was never an official ship designation, it is just a descriptive label. All battleships were capable of shore bombardment. I imagine USS Texas was described as a dreadnought by virtue of her date of launch (1912, just 6 years after HMS Dreadnought). According to Wikipedia, Texas had to flood tanks to increase its maximum gun elevation in order to hit targets that were well inland and outside the ship's normal maximum range. Battleship maximum gun elevation increased over time as advances in propellant, fire control and precision engineering made it possible to engage targets at a range unthinkable when USS Texas was launched. And, or course, radar and naval air reconnaissance.

Dispatching agents

@@SCP_Site_638 OH NO-

It is called Force Concentration. If you have a larger navy, isn't it a good idea to use it? I refer you to the later example of the US Navy at Leyte Gulf.

It’s also not true. Plenty of examples of the RN ships being out numbered and coming out on top. But generally if you’ve got the largest navy, you use it. It’s really poor strategically to go in to a “fair fight”. Also worth remembering the German ships were out hunting merchant ships whilst trying to avoid any RN ships