The Untold Story of the Speed King: Fastest WWII Battleship Exposed
Across the world's oceans, legends were born. I’m talking about the fastest WWII battleships ever built.
From the British Royal Navy’s King George the 5th-class battleships, the WW2 Japanese Yamato-class, to America’s World War II Iowa-class battleships... Their speed and power left an indelible mark on naval history. Unfortunately no battleships operate today.
So which World War Two battleship took the prize of being the fastest?
0:00 Intro
1:00 Japanese Yamato class
1:30 British King George V class
2:15 German Bismarck class
2:57 French battleship Richilieu
3:17 HMS Hood
4:00 United States Navy Iowa class
We discuss all the biggies...
From the Imperial Japanese Navy, the IJN Yamato and IJN Musashi
From the British Royal Navy, HMS King George V, HMS Anson, HMS Prince of Wales, HMS Duke of York, and HMS Hood
From the German Navy, the Bismarck, Tirpitz, and Scharnhorst
From the French Navy, The Battleship Richilieu
And from the United States Navy, the Iowa-class battleships USS Iowa, USS New Jersey, USS MIssouri, USS Nevada, and USS Wisconsin
Footage utilized in this video was obtained from....
US National Archives... www.archives.gov/
SS Jeremiah O'Brien Museum... www.ssjeremiahobrien.org/
COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER UNDER SECTION 107 OF THE COPYRIGHT ACT OF 1976, ALLOWANCE IS MADE FOR “FAIR USE” FOR PURPOSES SUCH AS CRITICISM, COMMENT, NEWS REPORTING, TEACHING, SCHOLARSHIP, EDUCATION AND RESEARCH. FAIR USE IS A USE PERMITTED BY COPYRIGHT STATUTE THAT MIGHT OTHERWISE BE INFRINGING.
Screen captures and motion clips used in this video are protected by the Fair Use Law, section 107 used for commentary, criticism, news reporting or education for transformative use.
www.copyright.gov/fair-use/mo...
G'day Ken. Nevada was built in 1914 as one of 2 "Nevada class" battleships, thus is not one of the 4 completed Iowa class.
You beat me to it. Nevada (BB 36) was one of the earliest "Standard" type battleships, launched 11 July 1914. Her designed top speed was around 21 knots but she only achieved 20.5 knots.
@@robertf3479 And he forgot the fifth ship in the KGV class. You'd think these Drach wannabes could at least stand to get the basics right, but you'd be wrong.
@@stevebloom5606 Drach doesn't know everything he could though. He should read a bit more about naval gunnery pertaining to battleships vs battleship engagements particularly in the WWI era I reckon. Like a nobody punter like me, just from reading an old book that cost $5 and written by a RN naval gunnery expert, knows more than Drach. 1 book. Sometimes you can't get through to experts and he is an expert - I'll give him that but it is annoying since you get fobbed off, dismissed, ignored and sometimes told you're wrong.
@@robertf3479 They put inaccuracies in so people comment and it helps the algorithm therefore income.
@@ThePaulv12 yes, I had the same thought once I saw the flurry of messages pointing out the errors.
There were only four Iowa class. Iowa, New Jersey, Missouri, and Wisconsin. The USS Nevada was NOT an Iowa class. The Nevada could only make 21 knots and was a US Standard, not a fast battleship like the Iowas.
He added a fifth ship to the Iowa class, and also forgot the fifth ship of the King George V class, HMS Howe.
Illinois and Kentucky were planned Iowa class but not completed, Navada, BB-36 was laid down 1912. interestingly, Kentucky's bow is attached to Wisconsin due to a little sea crash.
@@thomasmoore8142, hence the USS Wisconsin has the nickname "USS WisKy".
@@jamesfahey4508🎉😢😢il nuovo 🎉😂🎉😮
Qqq1😢🎉5
Well done, but I don't think Nevada belongs on the list of Iowas.
Yea that is a goof. Nevada is not an Iowa class BB.
He mixed USS Nevada with USS Wisconsin And left out HMS Howe with the KGVs.
Nevada is a class on its own. There were only two Nevada-class BBs: Nevada and Oklahoma.
@@christiandietz6341 Yeah, both the Nevada and the Iowa class were named after states with famous seafaring traditions. Lol
@@HighlanderNorth1 With both states having legendary deep water ports
There's a story of a British fast mine layer with a top speed somewhere in the 40's (knots). She was part of an international task force after the war, and already quite old. So the Yank admiral sends her a signal to where she was tooling around at the bag of the task force in words and intentions to the effect "Make your best speed and we''ll seeya in the harbour because you're old and we're not waiting" and the Brit answers "Okey dokey", drops a gear and accelerates through the fleet and gets to harbour hours before the rest. Hooray for old ships!
HMS Manxman( Abdiel Class) was one of the RN fast minelayers..
@@longhunter1951 That's the one!
Just forget about the British, oh and the French, we already forgot about them right?
Was she one of the Steam turbine jobs? they had problematic engines due to there high steam pressure, but where very fast Also lots of cavitation
@@marsmars9130 No ... there were LP and HP turbines but they wore out with time, 5 years. There were various boilers, Thornycroft and Johnson and Parsons, I mean yeah, they were made to be broken like toy soldiers, they didn't need to last. War wouldn't last as long, boat is sunk, crews lost.
Two things: The British KG5 class also had a fifth ship named HMS Howe. I didn't hear that one mentioned. Also, the USS Nevada was not a ship of the Iowa class. Nevertheless, an interesting video.
The fastes british battleship was not the HMS Anson, but the HMS Vanguard. In July 1946, she reached a speed of 31.57 knots. However, she missed the WW2. Laid down 2 October 1941, she was commissioned at 12 May 1946.
HMS Vanguard could hit 31 knots in rough weather unlike the Iowa class which could go top speed in calm weather!
@@BHuang92 What about HMS Howe? She was capable of 28.3 kts, but not even listed in the class.
HMS Vanguard was its own class. The KGV class is what he is talking about.
A pity that the British didn’t keep the Vanguard as a WW2-era museum piece they could enjoy as we do the Iowa’s.
@@brianjob3018 If any of them, I'd rather have seen one of the Queen Elizabeth's saved, they all served with absolute distinction. Or for that matter, Rodney or Nelson.
The Hood was classed as a battlecruiser. I've always heard that the difference between a battlecruiser and a battleship was that a battlecruiser had battleship armaments but a cruiser's armor, which reduced weight to make the ship faster and more maneuverable. I could be wrong, though.
You're right. Or, in case of the german battlecruisers reducing the calibre to gain speed. And the Iowas are designed after the same idea as the Hood - only 12 inch armour both, but over 30 knots. 14 inch were battleship standard at this time.
yes, correct-the "Mighty Hood" was always meant to have improved deck armour fitted in the inter war years, but she toured around the world in the inter-war years and the work was never carried out-with consequences for the fatal encounter with Bismarck and Prinz Eugen.
@@Dackah Though even thicker deck armour may not have prevented what happened, as I think the conclusion was that it was the RN's obsession with rate-of-fire versus magazine safety procedures which were the root of the problem.
@@dogsbodyish8403 The armour skimping dates back to jacky Fishers obsession with speed and the large light cruisers which were built, the ships that followed in the Glorious, Furious etc and of course HMS Hood. To give range the ships were built with lower armour scantlings as the lower overall weight meant that the cruising range was extended without having to compromise on draught and fuel capacity. Sadly the poor armour thickness especially on the deck meant that the ships were vulnerable to plunging fire as shown by HMS Hood
The British battle-cruisers did indeed have great speed achieved by reduced deck Armour but they also had more powerful longer range guns. The idea was to have them firing out of range of battleships. They were also to dominate enemy cruisers. -The German Scharnhorst class were not battle cruisers. There was no such concept in the Germany Navy. The Scharnhorst had exceptional side armour (more than bismarck) but its deck armour was more evenly distributed over a greater area than the latter Washington and London Naval Treaty ships tended to "all or nothing' armour" where they idea was to have extremely thick armour over the most critical areas but thin over less critical ones. The Scharnhorst Class like Bismark Class had a a thick armour belt to just above the water line with a 'tortoise shell' on top of that. Above that was another Armour deck designed to deflect shallow shells but also to decap, defuse and tumble so that they would have reduce penetration. -The German Battleships were not designed to fight at a distance. They did deliberately have long range guns to fight at a distance if needed but were optimized to win a fight at below about 16000 yards. Their purpose was raiding of convoys and hit and run. The Germans were the first to have a fire control radar (Seetakt in 1938) and their H-39 battleships started thickening deck armour. -Americans who compare the Iowa Class with Bismark Class should consider that the proper comparison is Carolina Class with Bismark Class. The H-39 were laid down at the same time as Iowa but after 2000 and 4000 tons of keel was down were scrapped to build u-boat. -The H class had diesel engines and although they could do 30.5 knots (good speed but slower than Iowa) their diesels gave them an incredible range of about 18000 nautical miles at 24 knots so they would be hard to catch just on that basis.
During speed trials in 1985/6 Missouri cranked out 35 knots off the coast of California. I had on hell of a great ride aboard the Mighty MO.
Thanks for your service. Sounds like a fun cruise that day.
You also forgot the 5th KGV ship HMS Howe. Nevada? Iowa, New Jersey, Wisconsin and Missouri were the ships of the Iowa class with the futher two Kentucky and Illinois which were never completed. Nevada and her sister Oklahoma were laid down in 1914.
Thanks again Ken for another thought provoking episode! You really stirred up a USS Hornet's nest.
The New Jersey was operational during the Vietnam war. She stood offshore and shelled enemy assets with her massive 16" main batteries and her secondary 5" guns. Its such a pity that the Navy no longer sees a role for these magnificent Iowa class ships. Heavily armored, fast, and formidable gun platforms.
Should have kept 2 and led battle groups that did not need carrier support.
They are obsolete more missiles are far better than there guns and they cost to much for what they bring to the table. They would be a liability.
The new jerseys KZhead channel is great! Lots of cool stuff on it.
@@billalumni7760 They did lead battle groups...that was the whole point of the 80's reactivations. The Navy would have preferred Nimitz CVs, but with ten year lead times, the time frame was bad. Lehman pointed out that the Iowas had at least 20 years of life left on their hulls, armor meant to resist 16" shells (and wasn't afraid of a 600 lb warhead on an antiship missile), and the first could be out of the gate and running in under a year. Finally, they added a long range shore bombardment option to the fleet (the 16" could have been RAP'ed, fired shells with rocket-assistance, giving them a range of 90+ miles... never ever built but I was a Gunners mate and we were taught about them. 5" RAPS were used in Vietnam). Center the BBs in the middle of an amphibious group and you have a surface action group that can beat anything in the world, especially a Kirov battle group, pounding the crap out of any coastal area on the planet. Unfortunately, the Iowas were in surprising bad shape, never properly repaired, and NO spare parts available, and sucked massive resources (they actually had to recall some reservists to train the crew). I think Wisconsin took almost 8 years to be reactivated at almost a billion dollars...only to be stricken a few years later.
@@scottwatts3879 Had not even thought about putting them into the middle of an amphibious group. With the amphibious assault carrier it would have all the air support needed. Too bad it never happened.
There is the chase of the Japanese destroyer Nowaki out of Truk. A fleet of American gunships, including the Iowa and New Jersey, chased the Nowaki at speeds more than 30 knots while firing their forward cannons. The Nowaki was forced to zig zag to avoid the 16 inch shells splashing the water all around her. The Nowaki could do 35 knots in a straight line and slowly open the distance from the chasing American battleships, but if she tried that, she would have been nailed. After an hour of this chase, Admiral Spruance ordered the chase broken off. I think this was Class A psychological warfare! Let one Japanese ship escape who would have to report to his fleet command that the Americans have full sized battleships that can keep up with destroyers.
Actually, that incident made things BETTER for the Japanese, because the original plan was to launch an airstrike to sink all the remaining Japanese ships. But the airstrike was called off just so the Iowas could say they got to sink an already-sinking training ship and two damaged destroyers (which nowhere near justifies the expenditure of building a new battleship, let alone two), which directly led to Nowaki escaping when she’d have been sunk (and the Americans did NOT intentionally let her go as “psychological warfare”, she just plain got away). In short, the Iowas *directly reduced enemy losses by being present at Truk.* Spruance fucked up there.
@@bkjeong4302 No doubt the airstrike could have sunk the Nowaki. But anti-aircraft guns on the Nowaki and the damaged ships could have shot down several American birds so there is that consideration. I don't believe there were any American casualties on the battleships during the Nowaki chase and the other Japanese ships trying to escape Truk were sunk. Did the survival of the Nowaki, with splinter damage and a crew of PTSD cases, reporting what they went through to Admiral Toyoda, the guy who took over for Yamamoto, actually help the Japanese cause? The Nowaki now graces the sea bottom near Leyte Gulf. Classic psychological war technique is to beat the crap out of the enemy forces but to let one go, even if that requires releasing a POW. As for the 4 Iowas, we got our money's worth out of them by blasting the Japanese held islands to support the island hopping campaign and to add to the misery of those Japanese stuck on the bypassed islands. The New Jersey spent the last few months of the war being overhauled in Bremerton because she just plain wore out her cannons. If we're replacing and relining the big cannons on a battleship we are getting our money's worth. It's primary purpose is to be a giant self propelled artillery battery.
@@RogerWKnight The survival of a destroyer for another few months did help the Japanese cause, since Japan was running out of destroyers at this point and every single surviving one helped. No, the US didn’t get its money’s worth out of the Iowas, and had people known that the Iowas would end up being the world’s most gigantic and expensive CLAAs and shore bombardment platforms, they wouldn’t have been built. A battleship’s purpose is to fight enemy capital ships to gain sea control, NOT to serve as a shore bombardment platform. The US already had plenty of aircraft carriers that could do that job better than any battleships could, plenty of pre-existing old Standards to do shore bombardment with and plenty of cruisers and destroyers to use as AA escorts: the Iowas were completely pointless and wasteful regardless of what they ended up doing. And stop subscribing to the ridiculous idea that Spruance intentionally let Nowaki go as a form of psychological warfare.
Again, a high speed cruiser with max. 35kn is still way slower as a battleship following it, if it is manovering... so what´s your point?
@@steffenjonda8283 The point the Iowas made things better for the Japanese by being there and that we shouldn’t play up their involvement at Truk as an achievement?
The Holy Grail standard for top speed during the war was always 35 knots. But bear in mind, that is flank speed, and the boilers are burning through fuel oil at an alarming rate giving tremendously reduced range. Speed fit a very unique application: to get the carrier task force into attack position quickly without being spotted.
My understanding is that the American battleships were designed for speed in the calmer waters of the Pacific where the seas were not as stormy, with smaller waves as compared to the north Atlantic ocean. Therefore they could only reach there top speed when the seas were smooth. They had to significantly slow down in rough seas, which applies to all ships, but especially for the Iowa class. I'm sure someone will correct me if this info is incorrect.
"Black Dragon" FTW. A plausible explanation for why New Jersey was the fastest Iowa-class is the circumstances of her 35.2 knot speed run. The only Iowa-class to be deployed during the VietNam era, Big J had just come out of the reserve fleet and pre-deployment refit, so mechanical systems were at their peak. She had lost most of her WW2-era light and medium anti-aircraft emplacements, along with the substantial manpower and ammunition needed to serve these weapons, but had not gained the missiles, Seawiz, and radar that would be deployed to all of the Iowas in the '80s. And, by construction, she was already the lightest Iowa-class because of Iowa herself having the extra deck of conning tower to add weight, and both Wisconsin and Missouri having the heavier forward and aft armor bulkheads. So she might have been at the lightest displacement of any Iowa of their careers.
My father served on New Jersey in Korea. He claimed it was easily fast enough to ski behind.
She was simply making the run downhill.
The 35.2 knot run is a poorly substantiated claim, it's believed the true top speed is rather lower around 33kn, still the fastest around iirc. look up 'speed thrills' on navweaps, it's a multi part series with testimony from even one of the people who did the actual NJ triels (Not just a random crewmember, albeit he wasn't a full primary source as it wasn't exactly his primary duty to check the speeds and such) In ST 2 it's pointed out that all sources of the 35 knot run are dubious at best: "Since I did my original essay on "Fastest Battleships" awhile ago, I've heard at least twenty claims that the Iowa class battleships could achieve even higher speeds than what I have in the essay. In about ten of those cases, I've gone to the trouble of tracking down the supposed source of the claim. In every case that I've investigated, there either proved to be no such source, the book in question made no such claim, the person was conveniently not available, or (my personal favorite) someone mistook a mile-per-hour value for a nautical-mile-per-hour value (the Iowa's designed top speed of 32.5 knots is 37 MPH)." By the end of ST2 the conclusion is at full overload steam, NJ could indeed theoretically reach 35kn according to all speed curves, with amateur calculations In ST5 it is pointed out that NJ *Never made such steam* nor recorded such speeds (It's easier to read out steam pressure), so it's unlikely she ever made such speed. At most they were told hearsay by a former XO: "I have been exposed to this controversy for a long time. Early on in my career as a naval architect, I met a former XO of USS New Jersey from the Vietnam period. He swore that she had made 35 knots on her way back to the US after the famous deployment. When I questioned this number and cited some of the sources, he deferred to my engineering knowledge but offered a theory: That the cold water temperatures in the Northern Pacific basin could have improved condenser vacuum, resulting in more than rated power being developed by the engines. It is a fact that naval condensers are slightly undersized compared to merchant ship practice for similar steam conditions in order to make engine rooms more compact, and therefore, vacuum may be slightly less at full power because enough heat can't be transferred away from the exhaust steam. Of course, this is a limit on power, but if you look at the steam tables, the difference is not large enough to boost power by 19%, which is about what it would need to be in order to advance from 32 knots to 35 knots. So, ever since that time (1980), I have doubted the myth of the 35-knot battleships, and later on I had occasion to see the proof for myself."
She may have been at that time, but in 1968, she became the heaviest when she was fully loaded and weighed over 60,000 tons, which is yamato size displacement
@@clankplusmand this is countered by a number of sailors and officers on the ships at the time of these speed runs. But then I guess that is not good enough for you
Speed is cool but redesigning mountain ranges and sinking islands is pretty cool as well.
Great video, great job! TY
One has to wonder how fast the Illinois and Kentucky would have been had they been completed. They were the 5th and 6th Iowa Class that would have been all wielded construction and a few hundred tons lighter. First 4 Iowa's were both Wielded and Riveted.
Our helo detachment cruised with USS Sacramento during a RIMPAC exercise. She had two shafts powered by half of the power plant taken from the incomplete USS Kentucky. Despite her 54,000 ton full load displacement, only slightly less than an Iowa Class, Sacramento had a published top speed of 30 knots but in actual service she was known to outrun many steam powered destroyers. Half the power of an Iowa, nearly the same displacement and nearly the same speed as an Iowa class. The Sacrementos were fantastic ships that gave the US Navy decades of trouble free service. The Sacramento was the only steam powered ship I have deployed on that never suffered a major casualty and went dead in the water. Every other steam powered ship I deployed on went dead in the water with boiler problems at least once, and sometimes more often (USS Kiska, what a pile !)
@@philsalvatore3902 I have read about the Sacramento Class. They were impressive.
If you look up photo's of USS Kentucky, you can plainly see she wasn't all welded though 🤓 Plenty of rivets on the hull.
Excellent stuff bro
You could waterski quite nicely behind the Iowa class, way behind with the propeller wake, but at 2 miles to stop you’d have a long wait for them to come back around to get you if you ever went down!
Can anyone of knowlege acknowlage the stresses encountered from the New Jersey going from All Ahead Flank to All Back Emergency? Wow, what a testamony of our engineering during slide rule technology and that ship must have been shaking like crazy. Just like abusing the guns of the Iowa till they blew up killing several to well exceed design limits. Thanks for the great video from B.C., Michigan.
@@jefffrayer8238 You should see a "Crash Stop" on a Ticonderoga class cruiser. They are quite a bit faster than an Iowa Class. The engine order telegraph I saw on Antietam went to 45 knots and the OOD told us the main limit to their top speed was how much power the shafts would tolerate before snapping. We were helicopter pilots aboard for a visit. Later on I experienced some flank speed turns while our helo was chained to her deck, rotors turning awaiting permission to launch while she executed a series of hard turns. I was seeing 20 degrees angle of bank on our attitude indicator as the ship rolled during the turns! At those speeds a Tico is throwing up a rooster tail higher than the fantail, clearly visible out the rear ramp of our helicopter. It's something to experience. The "black shoe Navy" seldom impressed me but the Antietam was a special ship with a great crew and they were sure proud of her. Ticos, like Sprucans and Burkes, use gas turbines geared to the shafts. They run the shafts at a constant RPM and use variable pitch props to regulate speed. A crash stop is accomplished by reversing the pitch on the blades. No need to stop and reverse the shafts. I saw Antietam go from full speed to a dead stop in two hull lengths. White water was boiling up all around her. Some years before when I was on a cadet cruise in the Coast Guard Academy I saw a Hamilton class cutter do the same thing, crash stop in two hull lengths so it isn't a fluke.
@@jefffrayer8238 I would think there'd be a crazy amount of cavitation which wouldn't allow much stress all told, I would think the major stress would come from a dead stop to full power, that's stress there.
It must be remembered that the Iowas were extremely wet ships as was the Hood aft at high speed. Nimitz pointed this out on numerous occasions. The most stable gun platform was the vanguard with her flared bow. It must be remembered however that in any battleship vs battleship engagement if you lose your radar and radar directed firing it's virtually game over.
Glad to see Richilieu, she's often overlooked. Like Vittorio Veneto was apparently... ☹ Nevada is Oklahoma's sister, not Iowas. Aaannd, we all know HMS Hood is a battlecruiser, right? ( right ) 🙂
Yes indeed - surprised to hear no mention of anything Italian.
A different take on things, I like it thank you 😃😃😃😃✔✔
HMS Hood was arguably, the first 'fast' battleship.....She, Renown & Repulse were only battlecruisers by the Royal Navy's own designation of what a battleship & battlecruiser were. The RN Classified any ship with battleship calibre armament, that could travel over 24kts a Battlecruiser, anything slower was classified as a Battleship. As warships got faster and technology improved, that pretty much went out the window. Hood's armour was comparable to the later Iowa class of U.S. Battleship....
The French Gloire was actually the first "Fast Battleship" because her speed was faster then other Battleships of the day. As for the first true fast Battleships the British Queen Elizabeth class from WWI were true Battleships that exceeded the speed of other contemporary ships and are considered the first Fast Battleships.
USS Nevada was NOT part of the Iowa class ! She and her sister Oklahoma were the first of the "Standard" type of battleships. They were launched in 1916. The Iowa class were MUCH later, being launched during World War 2. Originally intended to be a class of six ships, only four were completed, Iowa, New Jersey, Missouri, and Wisconsin. The other two, Illinois and Kentucky were begun, but never completed.
The Iowas were built to escort fast carrier task groups so high speed was essential for that mission.
Thanks for the comment. I had never heard that before. Learned something new. Thanks!
They were NOT built to escort carrier task groups. That was just a byproduct of their speed. They were built to be fast enough to run down and battle the Japanese Kongo class ships.
I love how when he mentions the King George V class, he completely forgets HMS Howe, there was 5 in the class, not 4
Iowa Class were the greatest surface warships ever built in my opinion. Once they were modernized in the 1980s, they were a massive weapons platform that was unmatched at the time with pure raw firepower in its big guns plus the missile systems that were added on. Sadly, these ships are now only museum pieces, but at least they were not scrapped so we can continue to enjoy them as reminders of the might of our Naval history for years to come.
It's always been my thought that a couple of those ships should have been left almost as is and with out some of the upgrades in the in the electronics in case of an EMP attack! The upgraded missile systems would never run on the old computer system so that would never be saved, but the big guns and some of the anti-aircraft systems might possibly work even after an EMP attack?
The Iowas were obsolete upon launch like every other ship on this list.
Yet the USS Missouri had to be saved from an Iraqi anti-ship missile, during Desert Storm, by a Royal Navy Destroyer, HMS Gloucester.
@@nicksykes4575 Well let's see. Iowa class: Steel armor thicknesses..citadel/conning tower, 17.5 inches thick, armor belt, 12 inches thick, decks, up to 6 inches thick.. that said, what is ONE anti-ship missile going to do to a Iowa class battleship? Some damage, won't sink it. If you knew what you're talking about, the Missouri's infrared flares and chaff had already defeated the missile's guidance and wasn't going to hit anyway. The Gloucester still did a good job at shooting the missile down. Modern anti-ship missiles are intended for modern warships, ships that have a fraction of the armor that older battleships have. You're talking about a ship that was intended to absorb 1 1/2 ton high explosive, armor piercing shells. Modern missiles have nowhere near that destructive power.
@@FlyinBrian777😅
The Nevada was not an Iowa class ship, it was pre-war. There was intended to be a 5th Iowa class ship that was started but not completed. When the Wisconsin damaged her bow it was repaired with the bow from the 5th ship, making the Wisconsin about 6” longer than the other Iowa Class ships.
The Hood was designed as a Battlecruiser. That’s what the Royal Navy said she was. Adding armor does not change the original designation in my opinion.
What weight of munitions and other equipment (including rations & crew) was carried on board the USS New Jersey during the shakedown cruise? Carrying minimum weight would have allowed it to get up to higher speed than a ship fully equipped for battle.
very interesting Ken, you surprised me with the Nevada, I never knew that there was an Iowa class by that name.
@ed12151 There wasn't. He screwed up...badly.
Many historians today consider HMS HOOD to be a fast battleship as her side armour was equal, if not better than the Queen Elizabeth class given the 12” plate was inclined thus increasing the thickness. Her displacement & main armament were also larger than the KGV class of battleships. But I’m sure debate will continue on how she should be classified.
I think it’s actually 11.76" at 12 degrees
Scharnhorst class had 11 in guns, built to be refitted with twin 15 in mounts. With 15 in guns, maybe a battleship but guns were significantly heavier, would have lost at least 2 knots of speed. As built, an American Alaska class with super heavy 12 in guns or a DesMonies class with auto fire 8 in guns would have easily taken them out. And they were just heavy cruisers moving at 36 knots. (One of the Alaskas on working up clocked 36.2 knots). Keeping them off the list was justified. Jean Bart and Vanguard were completed after WWII. Title does say WWII battleships so they need not be included. Italy's battleships were flawed but they did look pretty, but a mention of them should have been included. Otherwise, nice video.
Thank you for watching. I didn't know the Scharnhorst was designed to be refitted with 15 in guns. And you're probably correct, with that additional weight brings a loss of a couple of knots speed. Thanks for mentioning the Italian battleships. Was the French BB Jean Bart completed after WWII?
I believe so. One of the rounds from the BB Massachusetts penetrated one of her turrets. It wasn't until WWII was over that she could finish fitting out in France. Been known to be wrong.
Yup Hood deserves to be on your list (:
It's not "the HMS.." You wouldn't say "the His Majesty's ship..."
HMS Vanguard? Last British Battleship laid in 1941, completed in 1946 - with a sustainable top speed of 31/32 knots in almost all weather. The Iowa class did its speed trials in calm weather and No the Hood was a battle Cruiser.
There were five King George V. King George V, Prince of Wales, Duke of York, Howe, and Anson. There were only four Iowas. The USS Nevada was the lead ship of her own class, commissioned in 1916, with a top speed of 21 knots. Also the Italian Littorio battle ships had a recorded speed of 31.4 knots. Errors that big might lead on to question the rest of the video.
Wikipedia had a edit war to hide Yamato sinking itself.
Hey, interesting video. Love it. 2 mistakes: USS Nevada was a much older and slower class of BBs; there were 5 KGVs, you missed out HMS Howe. Glorious to have the HMS Hood on that list. Everything except her formal classification speaks for her to be a fast BB, not a BC. But you could have also mentioned the HMS Vanguard with her 31,57 kn on trials! Hood and Vanguard the most beautiful warships ever built.
I know its all personal, but I just have never viewed Hood as a beautiful warship. Its always been ugly to me.
@@rizon72 yes, it’s personal. No problem. I liked the Hood most, runner-up Vanguard and than Tiger. But I am tolerant to other tastes, accept the Nelsons or Dunkerques 😅
@@sebastianbockholt8302 I've always thought the Richelieu was a good looking ship.
Tiger for me.
In my ranking the Tiger was the 3rd following Hood and Vanguard 😉 but the Nelsons… 🤔 they made a good job and their design was ok, when thinking of the treaty and UK‘s need for 16“ guns but not allowed to realize the Invincibles
KG5, Prince of Wales, Duke of York, Anson, and Howe are the 5 King George 5 Class BBs. Nevada was not an Iowa Class BB. 4 of the Class were completed, Iowa, New Jersey, Wisconsin, and Missouri.
Hood was a battlecruiser and classed as such. In press releases and official dispatches she was referred to as a battlecruiser as well. I don’t think there is much question on that point.
So is the Iowa class if you look at the arguments for and against ie are they and the hood ... Battlecrusiers Battleships Or Fast Battleships
Hood was designed as a battlecruiser, as were the Kongo class, so if you're disqualifying battlecruiser I guess neither count. However I'm a little surprised you skipped the Littorio class which were capable of reaching 30 knots.
Congratulations, I subscribed. I haven't subscribed to 2 other weapon based video channels simply because their soupy voices to me are like nails scraping on a chalkboard. BUT how about a linked video that tells us exactly what differences there are between a battleship and a battle cruiser...
3:07 initially thought WTF is a French battleship doing passing under the Brooklyn Bridge. But it is indeed Richelieu, being towed to the Brooklyn Navy Yard for repairs and modernization on February 11, 1940.
Iowa class was de facto the fastest battleships, due to better ratio lenght/beam (270/33m) and the most powerfull engines (basically 212 000 HP to 225 000 in emergency mode). Richelieu class was built to operate in mediterranean sea against Vittorio Veneto class and had not enough range for oceanic missions.
Ok, lets clear up the hood, she was laid down a battle cruiser. She was to be fast, and well armed with 8 15" guns, which was at the time put oh her on par with the best battleships being made. her armour was to be light as it wasn't thought that armour would be needed, she would hunt smaller faster ships who's smaller guns could be protected against by weaker armour. At the battle of jutland both the royal navy and high sea's fleet threw their battlecruisers into the main line of battle as leaving them out could potentially give the enemy a firepower advantage. you got these big ships with battleship guns, might as well have them shoot at something during this very important battle. For the british at least that lack of armour that battlecruisers typically have came back to bite them in the ass as 3 battlecruisers exploded after being hit. The entire concept of the battle cruiser was now brought into question. HMS hood was in construction at the time was ordered to be brought to battleship armour standards, and would finish construction with the same 12" of belt armour as warspite. While it is very often said that hood was sunk cause she had poor deck armour there is literally no evidence for this. her deck armour wasn't bad for the time and either way she was way to close to the bismark for the bismark to piece her deck, she famously had started her turn to give broadside which she only would of done if she was close enough to the bismark for plunging fire to not be a problem. While we will never know what sunk the hood it is understood that she was not sunk by a shell punching through all 3 layers of deck armour. To conclude she was designed as a battlecruiser. but brought up to royal navy battleship armour standards. she ended up with the same firepower and armour as the queen Elizabeth class, at the time the most advanced battleships of the royal navy. she was a lot larger than those ships, with the extra displacement being used for engines which gave her her very impressive top speed. Was she a battleship of battlecruiser then? she was both... you can really argue it both ways. people at the time called her a battlecruiser, she had been designed that way and with her impressive speed it was a role she could still carry out. however she could also be used as a battleship. later these kinda ships designed for both roles would be called fast battleships. so in hindsight she was a fast battleship. but at the time she was called a battlecruiser... I'm gonna stop writing now
There should have been 6 iowa class iowa, new jersey, Missouri, Wisconsin, kentucky, illinois but WW2 ended before the last 2 could be finished. Wisconsin is the last numbered battleship but Missouri was the last completed after Wisconsin
Nevada was a Nevada class. Great research, bro.
Read awhile ago when the New Jersey was traveling from the west coast to her final resting p!ace in Camden NJ and high in the water due to no 5 & 16" shells, powder bags & very small crew she broke the speed record. She was the last battleship to travel thru the Panama Canal before it was turned over to Panama believe in 2000. Brilliant young man Ryan S has made well over 500 u tube vidios on the NJ. battleship. Guys a walking enclopidia on the Iowa class battleships.
I loved the video he did last summer (I think) on how a sailor's uniform was designed to help keep him afloat if he had the misfortune to end up in the water.
One would hope that the Iowa class were pretty speedy as they were designed as Fast Battleships that could keep up with the Carriers.
No, that wasn’t why they were built to be fast. They were built to be fast to chase down enemy ships of a similar speed, and it was just a nice bonus that this made them fast enough to keep up with carriers (which STILL failed to actually justify the strategic investment put into them). It should also be noted that the USN preferred to sacrifice speed in most of its battleship designs (as seen by the NorCals and SoDaks being much slower).
@@bkjeong4302 I shall bow tto your superior knowledge on tthis one. Either way, 30 odd knottts is way fast enough in lumpy waters
Nice Report there on the Comparisons . But there's an Awful lot of Conjecture on the Ship's Actual Dimension's of Which Class they belonged to, and Battle Cruisers are a Smaller Class of Ship's ⚓⚓ with Heavy Enough Guns & Tonnage Overall to be Described or Listed as Battleship's. But Really they were in a Classification of Thier Own. Thus when Opposing Forces we're putting Convoy Escort's together. The task was So difficult or almost impossible too Do? Because of the Limited No's of Escorting Vessel's that could Handle Thier Capabilities Admirable. Great Video 📷📸 & Interesting Storyline. Thank You.
Hood was up armored and was clearly a battleship. Surprised you don’t know that
Always a good idea to verify the ships in a class before releasing the video. Picky point, saying THE HMS ( insert ship name) just sounds weird.
Yeah, no. The Nevada wasnt iowa class but Missouri was
The South Dakota class were fast Battleships, and should also have been listed
Thanks for the comment. I'm not familiar with the SD-class, but will definitely look them up. May make for a good follow-up video.
@@HistoryX North Carolina class as well all 4 of the S.D, class and the 2 NC class were designed for 28 knots
Hood never got her last refit which would have made her as good as a Battleship. She was launched a Battlecruiser.
Loved the video but got a couple things mixed up: Theres was 5 King George V class battleships, you forgot HMS Howe The Iowa Class consisted of 4 ships, the USS Nevada was not one of them, she was an older WWI era Drednought. HMS Vanguard was technically the fastest British Battleship at around 31 knots
What about the Vittorio Veneto class? They were also capable of 30 kn. And Richelieu's sister ship Jean Bart was also slightly faster if I remember well. And if you mentioned Hood and Scharnhorst/Gneisenau as problematic, you should also mention Strasbourg/Dunquerque (also 30 kn battleships/battlecruisers).
The Italians get no respect. If the 15" shells developed for Littorio and her sisters had been more consistent, the Royal Navy would've been fairly screwed. Marvelous ships.
@@johngregory4801 The ships themselves were relatively lightly armored IIRC. But the real issue is that the Italians were always afraid to commit them to battle. There were a couple opportunities to wreck a convoy with at least a couple passes before the RN could get into sight, but the Italians never engaged.
@@recoil53 Well, they had an "interesting" idea about a thin outer shell to decap AP shells, then a void (which was later filled with concrete), then the armor belt. The question was whether or not an AP shell's fuse would detonate the charge before, during or after the shell slammed into the armor. IIRC, none of the class actually got hit in the armor belt, so we can't know if it was a sound concept.
@@johngregory4801 That is interestingly close to modern tanks armor, with hard ceramic plates layered in between softer steel.
@@recoil53 The Littorios were actually quite well-protected, at least on the belt.
Missed HMS Howe in the KG V class and Hood after her upgrades and at her tonnage was a fast battleship rather than a battle cruiser for me.
There was no Iowa class USS Nevada. There were two Iowas planned (Illinois and Kentucky) but subsequently cancelled.
USS Iowa (BB-61) USS New Jersey (BB-62) USS Missouri (BB-63) USS Wisconsin (BB-64) USS Illinois (BB-65) USS Kentucky (BB-66) ---------------nix Nevada
What about USS Indianapolis? A Portland style battleship, top speed 37.6 mph. Holds the world's record of 72(?) Hrs SanFrancisco to Pearl Harbor averaging 33 mph, for a battleship.
I think the USS Nevada doesn‘t belong to the Iowas. The Italian Littorio class should also be mentioned here.
HMS Hood was a battle cruiser, not a battleship. This was a concept developed by the Royal Navy for ships with battleship armament and cruiser speed, and a number were in service during WW1. Their most notable action was at the Falklands in 1914, when 2 of them caught and destroyed Graf Spee's East Asiatic Squadron of heavy and light cruisers, exactly the job they were designed for. They were not intended to take on enemy battleships because their speed and armament came at the expense of inadequate armour protection. However, as someone wisely remarked, " If they look like battleships they will be expected to fight like battleships"
"Unfortunately no battleships operate today." Really? Big fat targets, hugely expensive, marginally effective, floating industrial accidents waiting to happen.
The 35 knot run of NJ is a poorly substantiated claim, it's believed the true top speed is rather lower around 33kn, still the fastest around iirc. look up 'speed thrills' on navweaps, it's a multi part series with testimony in part 5 from one of the people who did the actual NJ trials (Not just a random crewmember, an actual project lead / naval architect) In ST 2 it's pointed out that all sources of the 35 knot run are dubious at best: "Since I did my original essay on "Fastest Battleships" awhile ago, I've heard at least twenty claims that the Iowa class battleships could achieve even higher speeds than what I have in the essay. In about ten of those cases, I've gone to the trouble of tracking down the supposed source of the claim. In every case that I've investigated, there either proved to be no such source, the book in question made no such claim, the person was conveniently not available, or (my personal favorite) someone mistook a mile-per-hour value for a nautical-mile-per-hour value (the Iowa's designed top speed of 32.5 knots is 37 MPH)." By the end of ST2 the conclusion is at full overload steam, NJ could indeed theoretically reach 35kn according to all speed curves, with amateur calculations In ST5 it is pointed out that NJ *Never made such steam* nor recorded such speeds (It's easier to read out steam pressure), so it's unlikely she ever made such speed. At most they were told hearsay by a former XO: "I have been exposed to this controversy for a long time. Early on in my career as a naval architect, I met a former XO of USS New Jersey from the Vietnam period. He swore that she had made 35 knots on her way back to the US after the famous deployment. When I questioned this number and cited some of the sources, he deferred to my engineering knowledge but offered a theory: That the cold water temperatures in the Northern Pacific basin could have improved condenser vacuum, resulting in more than rated power being developed by the engines. It is a fact that naval condensers are slightly undersized compared to merchant ship practice for similar steam conditions in order to make engine rooms more compact, and therefore, vacuum may be slightly less at full power because enough heat can't be transferred away from the exhaust steam. Of course, this is a limit on power, but if you look at the steam tables, the difference is not large enough to boost power by 19%, which is about what it would need to be in order to advance from 32 knots to 35 knots. So, ever since that time (1980), I have doubted the myth of the 35-knot battleships, and later on I had occasion to see the proof for myself."
The 30kt Italian Littorio class battleships deserve mention.
I Don't think the Nevada was Iowa class. BB-36 was launched in 1916. During shakedown she reached a top sustainable speed of 20.5 knots. After being sunk at Pearl Harbor she was repaired and modernized in 1942. I could find no documentation to determine if her speed was increased as a result.
@jamesbrowne6351 Correct. Nevada was an older class. The design work on what would become the Iowa class started around 1937-38 and it got heaver as more and more 20 MM where added during the war, and even 40 MM. Since Nevada was a WW 1 ship, it would have little to no AA guns. These would have to be added, weight increases, speed decreases.
HMS Hood and KMS Scharnhorst were both defiantly Battlecruisers (Heavycruisers). Cruiser armour but Battleship guns. It could be argued that Hood was more armoured than almost all cruisers, and almost approached Battleship level, but she did fall just shy of it. Some of Hoods Main Belt Armour was added as an after thought after the Battle of Jutland showed flaws in the British level of armour on their ships, and was not part of her original design.
The Prince of Wales is a good example of that " Policy". She survived but with very serious "wounds" against the Bismark and Prinz Eugen. And a few months after She and the Repulse didin't had such luck.
Check the armor layout, thickness and percentage of total ship displacement. Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were probably best described as lightly armed battleships. They for sure were up to the contemporary standards in side belt, conning tower, deck and turret armor.
@@danconnolly2341 Lightly armoured BB's = Battlecrusiers.
Scharnhorst & Gneisenau were really more undergunned battleships (11 in vs 14 in). If they'd been upgunned as was planned they'd have been battleships. As it was, the lack of firepower was telling when Scharhorst went up against Duke of York at North Cape.
@@humanprehistory was more than enough to sunk the Carrier HMS Glorious with One of the longest range salvos in naval history. Not bad at all.
Two things: The King George V-class battleships were a class of 5 battleships, not 4. HMS King George V, HMS Prince of Wales, HMS Duke of York, HMS Anson and HMS Howe. Also, for the Iowa-class, there was no USS Nevada in that class. While there were 6 ships in total in the class (2 were scraped in the late 50's before being completed), none of them were named Nevada. The only USS Nevada that come to mind is the lead ship of the Nevada-class that was commissioned back in 1914, USS Nevada and USS Oklahoma. The first line of American Standard-type battleships that would become the centerpiece of the US Navy for the next 25 plus years.
Thanks for the comment. Yes, several mistakes made. Totally forgot HMS Howe, and of course Nevada was not an Iowa-class. Might have to be a follow-up video.
The USS Nevada was NOT an Iowa-class battleship. It was the lead ship (first of two) of the Nevada class of battleships launched in 1916.
No HMS Howe, Nevada wasn’t an Iowa class and no mention of the Italian Vittorio Veneto.
Thanks for the comment. Yes, several mistakes made. Totally forgot HMS Howe, and of course Nevada was not an Iowa-class. Finally, the Italians never crossed my mind. Might have to be a follow-up video.
The fastest battleship during operations in WW2 was USS New Jersey, which logged a speed of 32.7 knots in 1944. None of the Iowa class BBs achieved a 35- knot speed until decades after WW2 ended.
Hood belongs on the list
Thanks for watching the video, Peter!
Man worked so hard to try to make this into a 10-minute long video
Please inform your commentator that it is incorrect to pre-fix Royal Naval ships with "The" before naming them The correct way to identify them by name is just HMS followed by the ships name. Thank you
There were six Iowa Class in design. I am brushing some 50 years of study to say that "Kentucky", but memory is an issue for me. One thing for sure, the Iowa, New Jersey, Wisconsin, or Missouri had to have its bow replaced after a collision. Nevada, Kentucky or whatever, were scrapped, but not before the bow was used as a replacement on the damaged hull.
Hood is rather first ever fast battleship. Because of speed was called battlecruiser. Sharnhorst and Gneisenau were built to carry 381mm gunns. 280mm had to be replaiced during war. Never happened. Channel "Battleship New Jersey" mentioned those things.
Классный канал, от подачи не устаёшь
There were 5 King George V class battleships, you forgot the HMS Howe.
The earlier U.S. battleships North Carolina and South Dakota were no slouches either. I don't remember that much off the top of my head but I know were FAST.
No mention of Italy? They had at least 2 battleships that went faster than 31 knots.
Interesting but you forgot Italy battleships. I believe there were 2-3 of them that had speed at 30 kn.
The german Scharnhorst-Class was definitly a class a of battleshhips. Look at the international standard work about battleships and battlercruisers called Battleships and Battlecruisers 1905 -1970 written by naval expert Siegfried Breyer!! If the Gneisenau would had upgraded from 11 inch to 15 inch guns the ship would be transformed to an battlecruiser because the relationship between calibre and armor and speed makes the difference between battleships and battlecruiser.
The No 1 Italian battleship Vittorio Veneto should definitely on this list
Given their extremely long service lives and late life major modernization refits which Iowa is the fastest likely tended to vary over time. New Jersey was the fastest to be officially clocked. She also had the more extensive refits due to her having seen the longest active use. Although all things being even in terms of maintenance, Wisconsin in theory should have the slight edge. Her bow was slightly longer following a collision with a destroyer. They had to slice off her bow and replace it with the bow of the never finished Kentucky. The entire purpose of the Iowas’s long thin bows is just hydrodynamic shaping to allow them to reach much higher speeds. And Wisconsin or “Wiskey” is slightly longer.
Even with the bow replacement, New Jersey is still longer. They only cut off a part of the bow way above the waterline. NJ still holds the record as the longest and fastest. She was built longer due to a combination of material imperfections and being built by laborers from her own state.
uss nevada is an iowa class bb???? what was her hull # ????? I would really like to know.🤔
In fact, the Richelieu was a little faster than the Hood, and much more armoured. The most recent battleships were of course superior to the olders ...
First of all the Nevada is not an Iowa class battleship. Regarding the USS, New Jersey’s record breaking run my father was on the ship when it achieved that speed. He was a Mustang LDO Lieutenant, and was the admin/personnel officer during the Vietnam deployment.
Non sarebbe male riportare anche i dati delle corazzate italiane classe Vittorio Veneto.
There were five battleships in the KG IV class, you forgot HMS HOWE. Nevada was not an Iowa class BB.
It is incorrect to refer to ships of the Royal Navy as "the" HMS xx. You essentially are saying "the His/Her Majesty's Ship", which is grammatically incorrect. It is just HMS xx.
Two puzzling errors in what is otherwise a well produced, factually accurate video. First, there was a fifth ship in the King George V class, namely HMS Howe, which entered service at roughly the same time as HMS Anson. Second, USS Nevada was not an Iowa class battleship. Nevada was completed in 1912, was severely damaged and beached at Pearl Harbor, was then reconstructed and had a hectic career in both the Atlantic and Pacific in 1943-45, gaining a reputation as the most accomplished American shore bombardment battleship. She fought at, among several other battles, both Normandy and Okinawa. There were, however, two further members of the Iowa class, namely Illinois and Kentucky, which were incomplete at the end of World War II and eventually scrapped.
I never even heard of the term Battle Cruiser before, but knots as speed never made any sense to me either......
military classifications of ships are often fuzzy and without clear boundaries, but for the Hood, everything is clear: it is a battlecruiser. when you have such thin armor, your huge size is not enough reason to call yourself a battleship! I noticed you neglected to mention two other fast ships : Dunkirk and Strasbourg. You can also argue about them - battleships or battlecruisers.
Complete BS. Hood had the same degree of armour that was carried by the RN Queen Elizabeth battleships that fought toe to toe with the enemy through WW1 & WW2. Bismarck belt armour = 12.6 inches Hood belt armour = 12 inches (Though angled so as to give 13 inches of protection). Bismarck deck armour = 4 inches Hood deck armour = 3 inches
HMS Hood was was definitely the fastest british battleship. And i know people are going to say that it wasn't a battleship, it was a battlecruiser, but it had armor equal to the Queen Elizabeth class, but instead of having 13 inch slab sided plate Hood had 12 inch inclined armor plate increasing the equivalent thickness, they had the same 3 inch deck Hood's barrettes were 2 inches thicker and Hoods turret face plates were 2 inches thicker. Therefore many naval historians have argued that Hood was the first actual fast battleship. Originally the Brits considered any ship over 26 knots to be a battlecruiser. When building the KGV class they were called battlecruisers to begin with until logic prevailed, and HMS Vanguard was called a fully armored battlecruiser when it was obviously a fast battleship.
Nevada is the lead ship of her class and the first of the standard type battleships of the United States Navy
You forgot the Littorio class,Littorio,Vittorio Veneto and Roma (and the never completed Impero) that were faster then the Bismarck with nearly 31 knots.
Thanks for the comment. Yes, the Italians never crossed my mind. Might have to be a follow-up video.
Speed is great,but in a gunfight it's power & armor that gives the edge.
04:17 USS Nevada was not an Iowa Class battleship. USS Kentucky and USS Illinois were the last planned ships of this class but were never completed.