2 Destroyers Try to Protect a Carrier - HMS Glorious Documentary

2024 ж. 3 Мам.
490 831 Рет қаралды

Get 10% off your first month of therapy with BetterHelp: betterhelp.com/historigraph #ad
To get early access to Historigraph videos and to support their creation, please support us on Patreon: / historigraph
On the afternoon of June 8th 1940, the British Aircraft Carrier HMS Glorious was steaming west across the Norwegian sea, having evacuated aircraft from northern Norway. Suddenly, the German battleships Scharnhorst and Gneisenau appeared on the horizon and opened fire. As Glorious turned away and tried to scramble aircraft, it fell to Acasta and Ardent to mount a desperate battle against overwhelming odds.
0:00 - Intro
0:44 - Norway 1940
3:10 - Taken by Surprise
5:38 - The Onslaught Begins
8:25 - Glorious Crippled
11:06 - The Last Stand of HMS Acasta
Credits:
Artwork by:
/ chrisbyflanker
Lead animation by CKD Productions
Written, Supporting Animation, Directed and Produced by:
/ addaway23
► Twitch: / historigraph
► Second Channel: / @historigraphextra5461
► Twitter: / historigraph
►Facebook: / historigraph
►Instagram: / historigraph
►Patreon: / historigraph
Sources:
John Winton, Carrier Glorious (Cassell: 1986)
Howland, V. W. (1994). The Loss of HMS Glorious: An Analysis of the Action. Warship International, 31(1), 47-62. www.jstor.org/stable/44891558
Stephen Roskill, Churchill and the Admirals (Pen and Sword, 1977)
Corelli Barnett, Engage The Enemy More Closely: The Royal Navy in the Second World War (Penguin, 1991)
Henrik Lunde, Hitler’s Preemptive War: The Battle for Norway, 1940. (kindle edition)
Earl Ziemke, German Northern Theater of Operations 1940-1945. (kindle edition)
Full Casualty List for HMS Glorious can be found here: www.naval-history.net/xDKCas19...
Music Credits:
"Rynos Theme" Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 4.0 License
creativecommons.org/licenses/b...
"Crypto" Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 4.0 License
creativecommons.org/licenses/b...
"Stay the Course" Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 4.0 License
creativecommons.org/licenses/b...
Other music and SFX from Epidemic Sound

Пікірлер
  • Get 10% off your first month of therapy with BetterHelp: betterhelp.com/historigraph #ad

    @historigraph@historigraph3 ай бұрын
    • Betterhelp is incredibly shady, why are you taking a sponsorship from them in 2024? This is not some obscure thing

      @Tom_Cruise_Missile@Tom_Cruise_Missile3 ай бұрын
    • God awful choice of sponsor, really disappointing to see you stoop this low

      @_Shaugen@_Shaugen3 ай бұрын
    • @@_ShaugenI can excuse KZheadrs hawking shitty products if it's something unimportant, but mental health care is insulting

      @robcaulfield58@robcaulfield583 ай бұрын
    • Weird to see Betterhelp ads showing up again considering the huge fiasco a few years ago.

      @bobbyhill3323@bobbyhill33233 ай бұрын
    • Try looking at the battle off samar. It's a literal david-vs-goliath battle, where a few escort carriers, destroyers, and destroyer escorts fought against the full Japanese fleet off Samar, 1944 and won.

      @Yippe-yk7ix@Yippe-yk7ix3 ай бұрын
  • WW2 destroyers see a ship 10x their size and are all like "Cowabunga it is."

    @QuantumShock1@QuantumShock13 ай бұрын
    • Uss Johnston goes brrrr

      @nonbigbrain9662@nonbigbrain96623 ай бұрын
    • @@nonbigbrain9662On god

      @Mika-ph6ku@Mika-ph6ku3 ай бұрын
    • Basically turn into the shipmaster Elite from Halo3. "Then it is an even fight"

      @Xeonerable@Xeonerable3 ай бұрын
    • @@nonbigbrain9662 the battle off Samar wasn’t David vs Goliath, it was David vs Godzilla And yet Johnston and Sammy B didn’t care for such meager things as odds.

      @birbfromnotcanada@birbfromnotcanada3 ай бұрын
    • Destroyer officers and crews were a whole different breed

      @threecedarshomestead1330@threecedarshomestead13303 ай бұрын
  • these stories of destroyer crews putting up one heck of a fight against battleships are truly humbling and inspiring. The death toll on of these naval engagements on the other hand are absolutely terrifying. And the fact that neither of these crews received any recognition for this is a real shame

    @CookieMonster-nt8hh@CookieMonster-nt8hh3 ай бұрын
    • I agree 100%. Fear the man when he has nothing to lose. The captin knew he was going down. The fact he almost took down one of those goliaths was incredible. Shame it hasn't been recognised yet. I'm sure videos such as this may help to rectify this if at all possible

      @Jabarri74@Jabarri743 ай бұрын
    • No recognition, because the government didn't want to draw attention to the fact that Glorious was sunk while defended by just two destroyers, just like its sister Courageous the previous year. They lost Courageous to a U-boat which was ironic because Courageous had been set to hunting U-boats, and they had almost lost Ark Royal three days earlier which had the same mission and 3 destroyers escorting it but fortunately, that U-boat attack failed. The U-boat was sunk. The first U-boat sunk. The U-boat attacks convinced the Admiralty not to use fleet carriers as U-boat hunters but it didn't teach them to adequately protect them.

      @DomWeasel@DomWeasel3 ай бұрын
    • All due to one incompetent Captain.

      @jimmiller5600@jimmiller56003 ай бұрын
    • @@jimmiller5600 In Das Boot set in late 1941 there's a scene where the Kaleun (Der Alte) bitterly notes that the British have stopped making mistakes. And now that the enemy is acting competently, the war is turning brutally against the German submariners, especially as the leading Nazis care little about naval warfare and are focused almost entirely on the Eastern Front. And it is very telling that the German triumphs at sea had more to do with British arrogance and incompetence than German skill. Courageous and Glorious both sunk due to completely inadequate escorts, Royal Oak sunk at Scapa Flow in the very heart of the Royal Navy, Ark Royal sunk by a single torpedo due to severe design flaws, Barham sunk after the U-boat was actually detected but the detection was dismissed, HMS Audacity was sunk while operating outside the convoy it was meant to protect despite specific Admiralty orders not to do so...

      @DomWeasel@DomWeasel3 ай бұрын
    • ​@@Jabarri74 He could have struck his colours and surrendered. Saving himself and the crew. He did not. And the crew followed orders.

      @Fuhrerjehova@Fuhrerjehova3 ай бұрын
  • The Royal Navy has never acknowledge the courage of their two destroyers. But the German veterans after the war were full of praises for the way Acasta and Ardent tried to protect the mother ship.

    @wolfu597@wolfu5973 ай бұрын
    • That's something that a lot of people gloss over, The navies of countries especially hold each other in a lot of mutual respect and courtesy. In a time of ideals clashing and people killing each other, there are still gentlemen.

      @bobbabouy8537@bobbabouy85372 ай бұрын
    • ​@@bobbabouy8537 Fr. Honour was more present in the seas and sky. A bit ironic (or poetic) knowing chivalry died on land the moment guns become the standard.

      @estebanatachaoarguedas6321@estebanatachaoarguedas63212 ай бұрын
    • ​@@bobbabouy8537 Except the japanese, with some very few exceptions. Both the Americans and the Japanese often saw each other as subhuman, and therefore often didn't recognize gallantry the same way. The only one I can think of off the top of my head was some Japanese recognizing the heroics of Taffy 3, but I'm sure there's more.

      @TheEDFLegacy@TheEDFLegacyАй бұрын
    • ​@@estebanatachaoarguedas6321 Yes the gallant Luftwaffe strafing columns of Polish refugees.

      @jackster2568@jackster2568Ай бұрын
  • Destroyers do not go silently into the night

    @nonkynonk@nonkynonk3 ай бұрын
    • wow, you stole a boring quote from a boring movie.

      @GM-xk1nw@GM-xk1nw3 ай бұрын
    • @@GM-xk1nwonly thing more boring is your mother in bed.

      @Mika-ph6ku@Mika-ph6ku3 ай бұрын
    • It's not originally from the movie​@@GM-xk1nw

      @HaydenLau.@HaydenLau.3 ай бұрын
    • wow, nobody likes you@@GM-xk1nw

      @tylerdeacon4886@tylerdeacon48862 ай бұрын
    • @@GM-xk1nw Do not go gentle into that good night, Old age should burn and rave at close of day; Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

      @sasakalak4681@sasakalak46812 ай бұрын
  • Such bravery and tragedy. My grandfather was a CPO on Glorious, his wife and my mother carried his loss throughout their lives.

    @simonhayter5984@simonhayter59843 ай бұрын
    • Sincerest respects to his service, sacrifice and memory.

      @walterkronkitesleftshoe6684@walterkronkitesleftshoe66843 ай бұрын
    • Huge respect

      @secretagent86@secretagent863 ай бұрын
    • Mine was a machinist on Gneisenau, captured during Operation Berlin after being part of a prize crew, then 7 years as PoW in Canada. Got lucky I guess.

      @hernerweisenberg7052@hernerweisenberg70522 ай бұрын
    • @@hernerweisenberg7052 War and conflicts inevitably brings huge cost and damage at the individual level. Respect to your grandfather for his service.

      @simonhayter5984@simonhayter59842 ай бұрын
    • "The least we can do is make a show" is simply legendary. This man needs to be immortalized

      @alainpbat3903@alainpbat39032 ай бұрын
  • We laid a wreath from our ‘Ardent’ in a moving service on a grey cold day over the resting place of the WW2 ‘Ardent’ in the winter of 1981/2. Little did we know that we would meet a similar fate 6 months later in the Falklands. RIP Brothers.

    @robertyoung6396@robertyoung63963 ай бұрын
    • Respects to your own service Rob.

      @walterkronkitesleftshoe6684@walterkronkitesleftshoe66843 ай бұрын
    • The last 3 HMS Ardent's have all sunk...there was HMS Ardent that was sunk at the Battle of Jutland. TY for your service during a very difficult conflict o7

      @jyralnadreth4442@jyralnadreth44423 ай бұрын
    • I was in Hanson Division at Raleigh, named after Shaun Hanson and HMS Ardent. What you went through defies imagination. Thank you for all you did

      @Peoples_Republic_of_Devonshire@Peoples_Republic_of_Devonshire2 ай бұрын
    • A family member was on Fearless he did come home, the bravery of all who served will always be remembered God bless them Lest we Forget

      @robertadams3576@robertadams35762 ай бұрын
    • ​@@jyralnadreth4442thats why you dont name ships after ones that have already sunk eg. Titan and Titanic

      @Glub_blub@Glub_blub2 ай бұрын
  • For an aircraft carrier to be caught so unaware of enemy vessels at that range is simply criminal.

    @jumpdawg799@jumpdawg7993 ай бұрын
    • Maybe it was used as a "ferry", making the use of their capabilities really hard to deploy. Still im sure there must have been some kind of based aircraft patrols over the area of the crossings. If there were any, then they probably left a gap, in which the kriegsmarine managed to enter safely.

      @lightravenn@lightravenn3 ай бұрын
    • It should never have been allowed to separate from the convoy. Especially for such a trivial reason as "Court marshall".

      @meiketorkelson4437@meiketorkelson44373 ай бұрын
    • @@lightravenn Captain Guy D'Oyly-Hughes was proceeding independently with his escorting destroyers because he wanted to court martial his Commander (Air), J. B. Heath, the bloke in charge of HMS Glorious's air group. Ignoring advice from other officers he decided it was not necessary to have aircraft up searching the surrounding area for possible German warships. That fundamentally stupid decision cost three ships and around 1500 men. Aircraft were only ordered to launch after the Kriegsmarine had opened fire, they were still in the process of being readied when the first hit went through the flight deck and put paid to that.

      @gwtpictgwtpict4214@gwtpictgwtpict42143 ай бұрын
    • Based on what I've heard here and elsewhere, it was the captain who should have been court-martialed even before the incident. He had no understanding of aircraft carriers which is a reason why his superiors should have been court-martialed. But that's not how things go​@@meiketorkelson4437

      @ronmaximilian6953@ronmaximilian69532 ай бұрын
    • the captain of Glorious thought he could outran Gneisenau and Scharnhorst. Wrong descicion but not criminal.

      @barfuss2007@barfuss200718 күн бұрын
  • Also don't underestimate Acasta's torpedo. Those repairs took 6 months and meant that Scharnhorst would be unavailable for consideration for Sealion. Same as Gneisenau which took a submarine torpedo shortly after. Just one more factor on why the Kriegsmarine were dead set against even attempting Sealion.

    @Caratacus1@Caratacus13 ай бұрын
    • Germany had no dedicated amphibious landing craft (unlike say Japan at this point) and even if they hadn't lost a fifth of their destroyers in the Norwegian Campaign; they were still massively outnumbered by the Royal Navy that would have been delighted for a German fleet to sail into the Channel bottleneck. Sealion was never a real possibility, even if the Luftwaffe had annihilated the RAF down to the last plane.

      @DomWeasel@DomWeasel3 ай бұрын
    • People don’t realize how small the kriegsmarine surface fleet really was, the Japanese center force in the battle of layte gulf had more vessels that the Germans had combined during all the war. Edit: I just made the count: 4 battleships (Bismarck out of the picture immediately) 6 heavy cruisers (I’m counting the “pocket battleships”, also blucher and graf spee out of the picture immediately) 6 light cruisers (barely sea worthy, 2 also out early on) 40 destroyers (1/4 of which got lost in a single battle earlier on and another 1/4 that was commissioned so late in the war that pretty much got sent to the slaughter house)

      @d.olivergutierrez8690@d.olivergutierrez86903 ай бұрын
    • @@d.olivergutierrez8690 The Germans estimated in 1939 they would need until 1945 to build enough ships to match the Royal Navy, and that was only if the British didn't build a single ship in response. The Royal Navy started the war with 184 destroyers. Germany started with 22... And a year later had lost ten of them. Britain meanwhile had built more destroyers of its own to replace its losses and increase its strength, along with fifty provided by the Americans.

      @DomWeasel@DomWeasel3 ай бұрын
    • Frankly that could actually be counted against her, because Sealion would have definitely ended the war early in favor of the allies.

      @aquila4460@aquila44603 ай бұрын
    • ​@@aquila4460 for real, it's what really annoys me when people claim that WW2 was even a close fight. The only thing Germany could do was bomb a few parts of the UK, and that wasn't going to knock them out of the war. The only way Germany could have defeated the UK was a naval invasion, and the answer to that is "with what ships?" They could maybe, MAYBE get boots on the ground, but the moment they landed on the UK, the entire Royal Navy would converge on the English Channel, and they wouldn't be able to get a single ship of supplies through. That's not even factoring the Soviet Union, either. For some reason there's this assumption that the USSR would have surrendered if they lost Moscow, but that's completely false. The USSR was already preparing to evacuate Moscow, and while it would be a hit to morale, they had lost many, many other significant cities. If Moscow fell, the USSR would just set up a temporary capital elsewhere, and keep fighting. They knew that the deeper Germany got, the longer their supply lines got, so they had no reason to surrender and would keep the war going until they faced mass revolts.

      @MatthewSmith-sz1yq@MatthewSmith-sz1yq3 ай бұрын
  • Truly awe inspiring. I do wonder if the captain of Glorious, had he survived, would've faced his own court martial for failing to maintain a proper lookout or combat air patrol.

    @1977Yakko@1977Yakko3 ай бұрын
    • Hard to say, he would absolutely deserve court martial for dereliction of duty but it depends on the political fallout. If Glorious managed to escape (possibly at the cost of the destroyers), then yes, it probably would happen. If Glorious still got sunk but he was later rescued by another RN ship, he probably would have been allowed to quietly resign in disgrace (or forced out if he refused). Yes, it's letting him off but it's also saving the RN the embarrassment of admitting that they lost a carrier to incompetence. They covered up the whole thing for years historically, after all. Kind of hard to court martial someone for something you aren't admitting actually happened...

      @dashsocur@dashsocur3 ай бұрын
    • @@dashsocur They would easily have court martialled him for losing the Glorious. They just wouldn't make the charges known to the public. The British armed forces did it all the time during the 19th and early 20th century. Preventing scandals that might embarrass the British government was a full time job for the War Office and Admiralty. There's a reason why the 'ex-officer drummed out of the military under "mysterious circumstances"' is a stock character in novels from the period.

      @DomWeasel@DomWeasel3 ай бұрын
    • There's not enough room on the ship or the hangers to carry all those planes. Thus they had to have the RAF planes on deck. That's why there's no CAP.

      @WALTERBROADDUS@WALTERBROADDUS3 ай бұрын
    • @@WALTERBROADDUSEven so there was no reason that Glorious needed to return without the rest of British task force.

      @bradleydavies4781@bradleydavies47812 ай бұрын
    • @@bradleydavies4781 there was a dispute on the ship That was supposed to lead to a court-martial. The captain requested to return early.

      @WALTERBROADDUS@WALTERBROADDUS2 ай бұрын
  • Destroyer captains were truly a different breed

    @HaydenLau.@HaydenLau.3 ай бұрын
    • Read about Capt Gerard Broadmead Roope RN.

      @walterkronkitesleftshoe6684@walterkronkitesleftshoe66843 ай бұрын
    • ​@@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684 I know of him. Or Captain Evans of the USS Johnston.

      @HaydenLau.@HaydenLau.3 ай бұрын
    • Yeah they dont make em that stupi d any more

      @erichvonmanstein6876@erichvonmanstein68762 ай бұрын
    • The same was true of most of the RN frigate captains during the Falklands war.

      @Smannellites@Smannellites2 ай бұрын
  • WW2 is just full of naval stories that are inspiring and heartbreaking of all these little destroyers taking the gloves off against impossible odds.

    @Xeonerable@Xeonerable3 ай бұрын
  • Not all heroes wear capes. Some are just damned good at lining up torpedo shots.

    @Kalah_@Kalah_3 ай бұрын
    • And murdering their crew for no reason

      @erichvonmanstein6876@erichvonmanstein68762 ай бұрын
  • Great account of the encounter. An added snippet from my various readings, _HMS Ardent_ had only a single survivor. He was picked up by a German seaplane, taken as a POW, then released mid-war for health reasons.

    @mbryson2899@mbryson28993 ай бұрын
    • It was actually two survivors at first, but one quickly died of exposure. Acasta suffered a very similar fate in this regard, with two survivors managing to survive long enough to be picked up by a Norwegian merchant ship. One of the two later died of his wounds, leaving Leading Seaman C.G. Carter as the sole survivor.

      @garystu9878@garystu98783 ай бұрын
    • @@garystu9878 Turns out, spending multiple days on a life raft in the North Atlantic (even in summer) is bad for one's health.

      @PRC533@PRC5333 ай бұрын
    • The survivor of Ardent was present at the commissioning of the last Ardent in October 1977.

      @1669Python@1669Python2 ай бұрын
  • I love these David vs Goliath stories of destroyers fighting to the bitter end against hopeless odds. These ww2 sailors were built different!

    @Mika-ph6ku@Mika-ph6ku3 ай бұрын
    • Uh .....this isnt a david and Goliath story. In that story david wins. Here?........... they're a$$es were handed to them

      @erichvonmanstein6876@erichvonmanstein68762 ай бұрын
  • No search planes from carrier. You’d think the U boat threat alone would justify quite an aerial scout effort.

    @paulgee8253@paulgee82533 ай бұрын
  • It's an interesting fact that the files relating to the sinking of the Glorious are among the very few left from WW2 that are STILL Classified. It promotes theories. Why was there no lookout, why was there no CAP, why was there almost no escort, what was she doing out there. Was it to do with saving Norwegian gold reserves, the Norwegian Royal Family, the Court Martial, etc.etc.. I doubt I'll be alive when (if) they eventually get de-classified, but I'd love to know what's so utterly controversial in those files!

    @Caratacus1@Caratacus13 ай бұрын
    • Makes no sense they are still classified. They were heroes on the destroyers. If something smells like BS it usually is. Probably the reason no one got recognition for their gallantry which stinks

      @Jabarri74@Jabarri743 ай бұрын
    • Embarrassing to have put someone so incomprehensibly stupid in command of Glorious and her escorts. There were signs of incompetence, and even mental disorder, which I suspect were reported and ignored by higher command. Such information would have been turned up in the investigation. Ultimately responsibility could have gone all the way to the top. Not good for morale, you know. (Bull Halsey and Marc Mitcher, as well as David Beatty earlier, were protected from their stupidities as well, and there were others.) The destroyer commanders were shortchanged to avoid further attention--something else that would be embarrassing if widely known.

      @charlesfaure1189@charlesfaure11893 ай бұрын
    • Never bet against simple incompetence. It is a human superpower.

      @jimmiller5600@jimmiller56003 ай бұрын
    • @@jimmiller5600 And my comment on this was removed for nothing obvious. Clearly more to this than meets the eye. Hope you see this before it gets yeeted and deleted

      @Jabarri74@Jabarri743 ай бұрын
    • Any idea why comments are being removed from replying to this?

      @Jabarri74@Jabarri743 ай бұрын
  • Lt Cdr Barker was a true hero. His son Capt Nick Barker was a great man and my Commanding Officer onboard HMS Endurance in 1980/81. My first ship in the Royal Navy? HMS Ardent (1977-79)

    @1669Python@1669Python2 ай бұрын
  • You have done a marvelous work of history telling. I'm a retired US Air Force officer but I must say, the British Royal Navy has a wonderful tradition of gallantry.

    @steveinspokane3096@steveinspokane30963 ай бұрын
    • Haha yes going down fighting after f*&Ck1ng up is a bit of a British traddition :-)!

      @tomriley5790@tomriley57902 ай бұрын
  • The Ardent and Acasta were in a similar similar situation to the destroyers Johnston, Samuel B. Roberts, and Hoel at the Battle off Samar (part of the Battle of Leyte) against the IJN's First Mobile Striking Force, Center Force, under the command of Admiral Takeo Kurita. Kurita commanded several battleships including the Yamato, the most powerful battleship ever built. The tin cans charged and engaged Yamato and Co. to protect escort carriers and transports. Like Ardent and Acasta, they too, were destroyed. But their actions were beyond brave and will be extolled in naval circles forever.

    @jamesmasonaltair1062@jamesmasonaltair10623 ай бұрын
    • And Admiral Halsey probably should have been reprimanded if not courts-marshaled. His one job was to screen the landing forces and he took his carrier fleet chasing after a decoy force and left the US destroyers to clean up his f**k up. Ten thousand troops could have died.

      @richierich8555@richierich85552 ай бұрын
  • 13:21 Damn. An awful situation for sure but a badass way for that British captain to meet his end. With a cigarette lit and a goodbye/good luck wave to his men before going down with his ship.

    @p03saucez@p03saucez3 ай бұрын
  • All three HMS Ardents of the 20th Century were lost in action . Sobbering thought .

    @guyk2260@guyk22603 ай бұрын
  • Complacency. That's the word that kept coming across my mind the entire time leading up to the engagement.

    @ShadowVFX@ShadowVFX3 ай бұрын
  • You got to be kidding me...if there were ever crews more deserving of postumous awards, than those on the Ardent and Acasta i have not heared of them.

    @RicWalker@RicWalker2 ай бұрын
  • Not to take anything away from the captains of both these vessels, but... there's a genuine sadness at AB Carter not scoring a gong for that torpedo launch. Fine work. Deserved proper recognition.

    @tassiehandyman3090@tassiehandyman30903 ай бұрын
  • 8:51 I can’t help but think that would kinda make for a epic painting. Depicting this moment.

    @aaronstreeval3910@aaronstreeval39103 ай бұрын
  • I wasn't aware that Barker and Glasford hadn't been recognised for their efforts. Glasford's words to his crew put me in mind of the words of the USS Johnston's commander before her heroics, who also saw a battleship and decide "Come and have a go if you think your hard enough!". I think it's probably because all the historical interest is on what the heck Glorious was doing with no CAP, no observers and just two old, mildly obsolete A-Class destroyers for escort. Those decisions got three ships sunk and 1500 men killed, which is appalling. That embarrassing failure is probably why there isn't more recognition for Ardent and Acasta; the Royal Navy don't really want to talk about why such heroic sacrifices were necessary. But their story is just as heroic as Johnston, Glowworm and all the destroyers that assaulted Narvik, and definitely deserve much more recognition, precisely *because* of the hugely embarrassing circumstances. I appreciate the effort to recognise the actions of destroyers. The big carrier and battleship engagements are well known, but the utter fearlessness and bravery of so many destroyers and cruisers deserves just as much publicity and recognition. In that vein, do you have plans to cover Force K's utter demolition of the Duisberg Convoy in Nov '41? Which has been called one of the Royal Navy's most brilliant naval victories of WWII.

    @deaks25@deaks253 ай бұрын
  • Please drop BetterHealth. It undermines the credibility of this channel

    @imperator9343@imperator93433 ай бұрын
    • Agreed. Always disappointing to see that name appear on otherwise excellent channels

      @Puckosar@Puckosar2 ай бұрын
    • I don’t know much about BetterHealth beyond what’s in their ads, why do you think it undermines the credibility of the channel?

      @Jeremy_plays_sax@Jeremy_plays_sax2 ай бұрын
    • @@Jeremy_plays_sax dubious practices regarding the therapists they employ such as poor pay (and in the past they had unlicensed counselors providing services) and last year they were fined for misusing customer data (always what you want from a therapy provider).

      @imperator9343@imperator93432 ай бұрын
    • Needs to make money from somewhere, might as well be from them.

      @tomriley5790@tomriley57902 ай бұрын
    • @@tomriley5790 Or.... they could make money without shilling a shady product.

      @imperator9343@imperator93432 ай бұрын
  • The bravery of the Destroyers never ceases to amaze me. The decisions they made to go head to head with state of the art Battleships in the face of certain death leaves me speechless and emotional. I try to imagine the emotions these men felt knowing they were going to die but doing their duty regardless. Mentioned in Dispatches is an insult given the ultimate outcome of allowing the troop transports to get home safely

    @marklong930@marklong9303 ай бұрын
  • Charles Glasfurd's speech to his crew after the Ardent sunk made my breathe catch in my throat, I served in the Marine Corps and if my brothers and sisters fell in battle I wouldn't want anything more than to go down with them fighting, to continue to fight in a hopeless already seemingly lost battle is true courage and bravery. God bless these men.

    @bobbabouy8537@bobbabouy85372 ай бұрын
  • What kind of drugs did they give destroyer crews…….. the balls on these men

    @David-hd1gv@David-hd1gv3 ай бұрын
    • Soldiers widely used amphetamines in WW2, they were even given out by the army

      @thor.halsli@thor.halsli3 ай бұрын
    • It’s a miracle the destroyers didn’t sink under the weight of them

      @nonbigbrain9662@nonbigbrain96623 ай бұрын
    • @@nonbigbrain9662 😂 noice

      @David-hd1gv@David-hd1gv3 ай бұрын
    • @@nonbigbrain9662indeed

      @jeanadames8230@jeanadames82303 ай бұрын
    • esprit de corps is a hell of a drug

      @samarkand1585@samarkand15853 ай бұрын
  • I genuinely teared up when I saw the courage these little ships displayed. its criminal they didn't get the recognition they deserved.

    @TheBlackwolf5011@TheBlackwolf5011Ай бұрын
  • You have to be an incredible brave man to decide your fate (sinking with you ship) like that. Leaving your family, children, mom and father just for your honor. Im always speechless when I hear about those men.

    @jeanadames8230@jeanadames82303 ай бұрын
    • I mean he led the ship on a suicide charge, would be a bit awkward for him then to just hop on a life boat and be like "Tally ho chaps, hope not too many of your friends died in that whole hulabaloo, let's go home". You kinda have to commit after a decision like that.

      @BobbyBlockable@BobbyBlockable3 ай бұрын
    • @@BobbyBlockable The only way he should get off if NOBODY on his ship died or due to his commands

      @billhanna2148@billhanna21483 ай бұрын
    • Whist its incredibly romantic, it is a pretty senseles waste of life to die by going down with your ship when there's a chance of rescue & seemingly no lifeboat shortage, unlike circa 1912, for example. Nothing to take away from his heroic efforts but all those hours of training, experience, plus the toll on crew, family & friends, I mean, fight, fight to the bitter end if you can! I'm reminded of Alaska Airlines 261 pilot Captain Thomson, who after trying to fly the plane inverted alongside his copilot (jackscrew in the tail broke- faulty maintenance & cost cutting at Alaska), and as the nose pitched down, into the water he remarked "Here we go." & died, no survivors. Don't give in to despair. Resist, if you can.

      @skullsaintdead@skullsaintdead3 ай бұрын
    • ​@@BobbyBlockableI would argue he couldn't have escaped even if he wanted to. The wind kept pushing the smoke away and while the destroyer was faster than the battleships it wasn't that much faster. He had the choice to die at close range or at long range.

      @sethvanast8323@sethvanast83233 ай бұрын
    • @@sethvanast8323 actually no. Heavy cruisers won’t waste high caliber ammo on a long shot and much smaller target. accuracy, reload time and how fast destroyers can change direction is simply too much for heavy guns that’s why the used smaller caliber guns against destroyers back then. So, he could’ve survived if he choose to run since the cruisers won’t chase him.

      @jeanadames8230@jeanadames82303 ай бұрын
  • Their are 1000s of men of that convoy that owe their lives to the man who fired that torpedo. I hope he survived , but I suspect not.

    @alanh1406@alanh14063 ай бұрын
    • His story is told in the book "the man who hit the scharnhorst " by John Austin.

      @christopherhill4438@christopherhill44382 ай бұрын
  • The first few years of the war could be summarized as “the Allies underestimated their opponents”

    @LancasterResponding@LancasterResponding3 ай бұрын
  • Nice work on the animation on the shells hitting Glorious. Did not know that Scharnhorst has the record of one of the longest shots ever scored by a battleship. It’s one of my favourite battleships that keeps on shining!

    @Joey_Liu@Joey_Liu3 ай бұрын
    • Basically it's tied for the longest shot with Warspite.

      @tomriley5790@tomriley57902 ай бұрын
  • According to a documentary from the 90s, Bletchley Park, although they hadn't cracked Engima, from radiolocation, they knew German navy were in the arena. But their reports were ignored. The Glorious's captain was criminally inept.

    @meiketorkelson4437@meiketorkelson44373 ай бұрын
  • Thank you for showing more about this, especially what was happening on the Glorious.

    @colindunnigan8621@colindunnigan86213 ай бұрын
  • Very cool, thank you for helping me with my History projects 👍🏻👍🏻

    @KurtGove-yq8zr@KurtGove-yq8zr3 ай бұрын
  • Destroyer Skippers of WWII were a special breed of brave. Great video.

    @brokenbridge6316@brokenbridge63163 ай бұрын
  • Thanks you for the amazing vids!! Naval battles are my absolute favorite and you have the best videos about them.

    @asamann1738@asamann17383 ай бұрын
  • I think the Captain of HMS Glowworm was awarded the VC on the recommendation of the German Captain of the Admiral Hipper.

    @dp-sr1fd@dp-sr1fd3 ай бұрын
  • I appreciate the effort put into the editing.

    @dale6947@dale69473 ай бұрын
  • Exceptional video and it's absolutely sinking to hear that those valiant sailors haven't been given the credit they deserve. The ending was very moving, great episode!

    @paintingpanzers@paintingpanzers3 ай бұрын
  • I loved the use of diagrams and how it detailed the damage the glorious had to deal with! Same thr torpedo and artillery shells, very well done video

    @K3end0@K3end03 ай бұрын
  • Always so exited when I see a new historigraph video, and I was not disappointed!

    @sjorgen1236@sjorgen12363 ай бұрын
  • Scoring hits on two seperate battleships and forcing one to return to port after the same battleship has just sank a carrier is insane bro, these destroyer captains have balls of steel so strong not even a battleship could damage them

    @mnemo7096@mnemo70964 күн бұрын
  • I have a picture of my Grandad taking off from HMS Glorious (june 1932) with one of those destroyers in the backgorund, it's a beautiful shot. It was taken by my grandad's rear gunner. I had no idea i was 8 years away from never existing!

    @flatspot2050@flatspot20502 ай бұрын
  • Fantastic documentary as usual!

    @bigsarge2085@bigsarge20853 ай бұрын
  • There is a plaque in Troon Old Parish Church in Scotland remembering a lost parishioner on HMS Acosta.

    @douglasclarkson788@douglasclarkson7883 ай бұрын
  • Great video. Thanks for posting.

    @Jmac1962@Jmac19623 ай бұрын
  • Absolutely stunning bravery

    @selfawaretrashcan4594@selfawaretrashcan45943 ай бұрын
  • Excellent video! Thankyou 🎉

    @user-ih7gc7dt9l@user-ih7gc7dt9l3 ай бұрын
  • Interesting to see a return to a subject already covered but I've always been interested in the tragedy of "Glorious". To think if "Acasta" had scored a second hit, "Scharnhorst" may have had very serious problems. R-I-P those on all three ships.

    @SatNavDan@SatNavDan3 ай бұрын
  • Fantastic video as always

    @bigbreadtime7624@bigbreadtime76243 ай бұрын
  • Another terrific Historigraph video. Love this channel.

    @JHruby@JHruby3 ай бұрын
  • Sometimes heroes will not have an audience or a light of gratitude for what they've done. But at least we can remember these brave men now. Rest in peace sailors of Glorious, Ardent, and Acasta. Your sacrifice was not in vain.

    @legolas-xu6ou@legolas-xu6ou3 ай бұрын
  • Thank you for a great video. :D Brilliant. I hope to see more royal navy videos.

    @dudedude1808@dudedude18083 ай бұрын
  • Fantastic content. Thank you.

    @coyote4237@coyote42373 ай бұрын
  • I remember your previous on the sinking how the captain of the HMS Glorious refused to do CAP because he didn't believe in it. I know beggars can't be choosers when it comes to personal during war but the sinking could have been prevented.

    @avengermkii7872@avengermkii78723 ай бұрын
  • Great video and quite humbling. Recently watched a chat on another channel about the award of VCs (or any award at all) and how it can be a bit haphazard, with all sorts of things coming into play.

    @buonafortuna8928@buonafortuna89283 ай бұрын
  • What at terrific video and looking glorious in 4k! 👏

    @robbabcock_@robbabcock_3 ай бұрын
  • Love the new naval artillery animation.

    @jgong1@jgong13 ай бұрын
  • Absolutely smashing lads. Cheers

    @LCDRformat@LCDRformat2 ай бұрын
  • If my memory is correct, Glorious did not have all her boilers online when the battle began. Just another sign of a poorly captained ship.

    @jimmiller5600@jimmiller56003 ай бұрын
    • Not really, boilers require cleaning and maintenance so having one or more shut down while running on the others was a fairly common occurrence. The incompetence was in not having a few swordfish up keeping a look out on the surrounding area. The clue is in the Royal Navy designation of the swordfish, TSR, Torpedo, Spotter, Reconnaissance. Had that been done there's a good chance Scharnhorst and Gneisenau would have been spotted before they spotted Glorious allowing her to work up to full speed and GTFO.

      @gwtpictgwtpict4214@gwtpictgwtpict42143 ай бұрын
  • Congratulations on the much improved visuals.

    @EdGeyy@EdGeyy2 ай бұрын
  • Destroyers man... How come the smallest of blue water ships are more often than not the absolute bravest as well?

    @AugmentedGravity@AugmentedGravity3 ай бұрын
  • another great video highlighting the insane sacrifice and bravery of ww2 destroyer crews

    @sircommander27@sircommander273 ай бұрын
  • Thank you for your account, which highlights well the bravery of the Captains of Ardent and Acasta. The reasons for continued secrecy by the British Government regarding the sinking of Glorious, Acasta and Ardent remain shrouded in mystery. Secrets that are not scheduled to be released until 2041. Many are waiting for that release. My Uncle died on Glorious and my family still awaits that information. As well as failing to recognise the bravery of Ardent and Acasta, the Royal Navy, to their shame, refused to recognise the crews of the three ships in an official memorial until 2002. The families were not able to claim the Polar service medal, to which the crew were entitled, until the early 2000s. This belated recognition was finally dragged across the line by the persistent interventions of Alan Beith and Tam Dalyell in Parliament. There are details surrounding this naval disaster for Britain that are embarrassing to the Royal Navy and the British Government. The actions of the Devonshire, in particular, are questionnable and this was discussed in the parliamentary debate about Glorious's sinking in 1999. There is more to this. Surely this drama and the heroics of Ardent and Acasta would be worthy of a film?

    @fitzdiggers-562@fitzdiggers-56222 сағат бұрын
  • I wonder how differently this would've went had they launched CAP's. If they had enough torpedoes, they possibly could've even sunk the German battleships! At the very least, cause them to retreat. In the end, it's touching to hear how their sacrifice likely saved the lives of thousands of other servicemen.

    @seanplace8192@seanplace81923 ай бұрын
    • If they’d been able to get aircraft away they might have been able to distract the Germans & buy Glorious, Ardent & Acasta enough time to escape but that’s probably the best they could have expected. Glorious didn’t have a very large air wing at the time of the engagement.

      @grahamstrouse1165@grahamstrouse11653 ай бұрын
    • @@grahamstrouse1165 I'd disagree attacks by swordfish would be a serious threat to both Scharnhorst and Gneisenau at the very least they're not going to be able ot steam in a straight line and their position is going to be known which is likely to result in a cruiser meeting up and shadowing them (HMS York was nearby but didn't receive enough information) and that would likely lead to them withdrawing to Germany - if not then the RN Heavies would have been vectored in.... (similar to what happened to Bismark).

      @tomriley5790@tomriley57902 ай бұрын
  • This is the first video I watch and I feel I obsessed with this channel 😭

    @DrFerk2@DrFerk22 ай бұрын
  • Kind of absurd to have a carrier escorted with only 2 destroyers. But, the destroyers knew their duty, that aft torpedo ensign, knew his duty. Terrible stuff. But good stuff at the sametime.

    @jonny-b4954@jonny-b49543 ай бұрын
  • It's been proposed that HMS Glorious was on it's way to attack a Swedish port (despite their neutrality), to deny what was considered vital iron ore shipments to Germany. It was one of Churchill's plans ( on Wiki somewhere, with it's proper code name). There originally were supposed to be 3 carriers attacking (the ones that had supported the Norway invasion & withdrawal), but in the end, only HMS Glorious was left. The reason given for no CAP patrol, or aircraft on deck, were that the Swordfish aircraft , were having to be modified at very short notice to have the range to attack the Swedish port. The armourers were still doing this when they met the German warships. The hurricanes on board were whatever could be got back from Norway, & it was quite chaotic. There is still no excuse for no lookout. Whilst HMS Glorious' commander did have a personal dispute with another naval Officer, it seems odd this would interfere with wartime duties. A RN cruiser did hear their distress calls, but couldn't help as it was ferrying the Norwegian Royal Family back to Britain. Whatever their ships, & against great odds, RN crews never showed a lack of courage, even if they only had converted merchant ships/cruisers (HMS Jervis Bay & Rawalpindi etc)

    @eric-wb7gj@eric-wb7gj3 ай бұрын
    • I would like to learn more about this but it sounds highly unlikely considering Sweden does not have any ports along the North Sea (only Baltic Sea) and that the HMS Glorious was sailing away from Norway increasing the flight range to Sweden. The Skagerrak Strait was controlled by Nazi Germany and was obviously not an option so I don`t quote see how this would make sense when there was land based airports closer to Swedish Ports?

      @hsmedsvik@hsmedsvik3 ай бұрын
    • @@hsmedsvik The port was on the Baltic side, which is why the Swordfish were going to have to leave crew behind & extend range. The plan was frowned upon by the military, & politically, attacking a neutral would have been seen as very bad, but the iron ore was considered vital for Germany by Churchill (which it was, but they traded with Sweden so got it anyway, & also from France). Found it - 'Operation Paul' - planned British attack on Lulea. I don't think Churchill mentions it in his memoirs either. It's been brushed under the carpet.

      @eric-wb7gj@eric-wb7gj3 ай бұрын
  • Great video tyvm

    @bradleyclutton4564@bradleyclutton45642 ай бұрын
  • That was very cool and really moving.

    @DanielGurney@DanielGurney2 ай бұрын
  • Great Video

    @MaxMustermann-kn8pd@MaxMustermann-kn8pd3 ай бұрын
  • I'd love a series on other seiges of WW2, the videos in the Budapest series were some of the best you've made and were fantastic to watch. You could do Stalingrad, Leningrad or Berlin there's so many options.

    @bradleywoods1999@bradleywoods19992 ай бұрын
  • Excellent video, and I'll applaud the quality of your narration. Had the CO survived, he would have been court-martialled and found guilty on serious charges. This disaster was avoidable. The key question: was the CO of GLORIOUS aware that these two enemy ships had been last 'imaged', in Germany, on, I believe, the 4th - so could have been at sea in his area?

    @well-blazeredman6187@well-blazeredman61873 ай бұрын
  • why were no aircrafts launched?

    @pellejohansen@pellejohansen3 ай бұрын
    • Good question, I'll try and explain this in a short

      @historigraph@historigraph3 ай бұрын
    • Allied Carrier Couldn’t launch Aircraft! 🛩️⚓️ #navy #ww2 #history

      @historigraph@historigraph2 ай бұрын
    • when tf was this a thing on yt

      @AveriV1@AveriV12 ай бұрын
    • ​​@@AveriV1 lol I just found this out rn

      @Yorshe@Yorshe2 ай бұрын
    • ​@@Yorshe Me 2 it's kinda like Instagram now but better

      @Tsirkon@Tsirkon2 ай бұрын
  • HMS glorious, the carrier with the most inglorious final action.

    @overboss9599@overboss95993 ай бұрын
  • Another quite brilliant portrayal, thank you. 👍 📚 🇬🇧 🙏

    @DaveSCameron@DaveSCameron3 ай бұрын
  • It would be very interesting to know what the after action interviews of the surviving crew members produced. It would also be interesting to know if the after action analysis included any recommendations or "lessons learned" action items that were distributed throughout the British navy; like don't become complacent and have a combat air patrol aloft when your aircraft carrier is sailing in hostile waters during war time. Respectfully, W.S.

    @wmschooley1234@wmschooley12343 ай бұрын
  • It's very dated now, at least culturally, but "The Cruel Sea" by Nicholas Monsarrat really helps put you on the bridge of a WWII RN warship. It's still an outstanding window into that part of the war by an author who served on and commanded Corvettes and Frigates during that war

    @terrycunningham8118@terrycunningham81182 ай бұрын
  • One thing you can say about the Royal Navy, even when outgunned and outnumbered, they were aggressive and willing to put up a fight.

    @highlanderknight@highlanderknight3 ай бұрын
  • scoring a hit on the third try from 24km is bonkers

    @andy4an@andy4an3 ай бұрын
    • Same as HMS Warspite on Guillio Cesare.

      @walterkronkitesleftshoe6684@walterkronkitesleftshoe66843 ай бұрын
    • ​@@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684And GC actually straddled Warspite a minute before she was herself hit.

      @niclasjohansson4333@niclasjohansson43333 ай бұрын
    • @@niclasjohansson4333 Close !!! But no cigar !!!

      @walterkronkitesleftshoe6684@walterkronkitesleftshoe66843 ай бұрын
  • Always hearing stories of the underdog ships being so cool. Respect to the men on those destroyers, not that they really had a choice.

    @ven7165@ven71653 ай бұрын
  • 16 more years and we will know the true story of this event (100 years secret). The KM did not consider this a victory, and Adm Wilhelm Marschall was relieved of his command because he attacked the warship instead of troopships, used too much ammo, and caused Scharnhorst to be damaged. There are 4 theories on this incident, I think 3 have been covered here (low on fuel, court martial, and Operation Paul), so here's the 4th: Heavy cruiser Devonshire had passed by, sailing within 48-80 km from the battle, flying the flag of Vice-Admiral John Cunningham. Survivors from Glorious and a few of Devonshire's crew testify that Glorious had sent a sighting report to Devonshire. However, Cunningham ordered the sighting to be suppressed and sailed away at high speeds, strictly following his orders. There are even allegations that there was confusion over wireless telegraph frequencies aboard Glorious, which contributed to the failure to give a sighting report. This debate over the circumstances of her sinking was the subject of discussion in the House of Commons on 28 January 1999 by Alan Beith, MP Berwick-upon-Tweed. It is posited that Devonshire couldn't go to rescue Glorious because it would endanger King Haakon VII, the Norwegian Royal Family, the entire Norwegian Cabinet and other Members of Parliament, and gold on board. Glorious had managed to send out 1 or 2 Morse-code action reports. In addition to the possibility of the message being garbled, or the location in the message being wrong, some also think that the message contained information that dissuaded Devonshire from helping, like danger in the area. Indeed, Devonshire did immediately go on full alert, increase speed and zigzag, which was the telltale sign that a battle was about to happen. Devonshire also had strict orders to stay the course for home and to maintain strict radio silence to protect their VIPs.

    @SennaAugustus@SennaAugustus2 ай бұрын
  • Will Jingles bring this up in his videos? Great videos as always!

    @mdbizzarri@mdbizzarri3 ай бұрын
  • This whole situation could have been avoided if Captain Guy D'Oyly-Hughes had not been in such a hurry to court marshall his flying officers and gone back with the rest of the fleet, The fact he was not even flying recon just adds to it, all those deaths just for one man's lack of understanding and pride

    @swichkite@swichkiteАй бұрын
  • Destroyer captains are just a different breed

    @gshadow00@gshadow003 ай бұрын
  • To the crews of the HMS Ardent, HMS Acasta, and HMS Glorious, you did your duty well and a pray that you are at peace. Rest well gentlemen and my you never be forgotten.

    @kylecarmichael5890@kylecarmichael58902 ай бұрын
  • Those sailors wil never be forgotten

    @darthfader1970@darthfader19703 ай бұрын
  • 2:38 into the video there is a mistake: the ship in the foreground is the Gneisenau and in the background is the Scharnhorst. The difference between the 2 ships is easy to spot: the Gneisenau has its mainmast at the back of the funnel. The Scharnhorst had its mainmast further back on the ship, at the back of the hangar.

    @ralfhtg1056@ralfhtg10562 ай бұрын
  • Nice video

    @noahsomething160@noahsomething1603 ай бұрын
  • Acasta and Ardent were like we go down you coming with us. Respect

    @JimboShogun0686@JimboShogun06863 ай бұрын
  • Not even a Lookout on Duty. Brilliant! Where did they think they were? On an Island Cruise?

    @RTmadnesstoo@RTmadnesstoo2 ай бұрын
  • The difference in competence and courage of the two destroyer captains, compared with the incompetent and negligent captain of Glorious could not be more stark.

    @Smannellites@Smannellites2 ай бұрын
  • Great video. Maybe you could do the Battle of May Island 1918 some time, seeing how it is the aniversary today.

    @nicofolkersma2535@nicofolkersma25353 ай бұрын
  • Suggestion for map related thing. Petsamo was part of Finland in 1940, Karelia was lost in Winter War. Norway did not had land contact with Soviet Union at this time. Nice animations, you made lot of work. Thank you for your good videos.

    @ANJING_SITUMORANG@ANJING_SITUMORANG3 ай бұрын
    • Winter war concluded March 40, this video is set June 40

      @historigraph@historigraph3 ай бұрын
    • @@historigraph Petsamo was annexed by Soviet Union after Continuation War, not Winter War. So your map is wrong.

      @ReichLife@ReichLife3 ай бұрын
  • It’s insane they scored a hit from that distance

    @Jameskn1@Jameskn13 ай бұрын
KZhead