Loading...The Royal Navy battlecruiser HMS Duncan, named after Admiral Duncan who led the British fleet to victory against the Dutch in 1797 at the Battle of Camperdown. Somehow, the Dutch just keep sneaking their way into these videos!
All music licensed from www.epidemicsound.com and www.machinimasound.com
Merchandise!
https://teespring.com/stores/mighty-jingles-salt-mine-eu
https://teespring.com/stores/mighty-jingles-salt-mine-na
If you have a World of Warships replay, consider using a hosting service like https://replayswows.com/
Just be aware that I get hundreds of emails every week and I can’t promise that I’ll show what you send in.
Another day, another battle. Thanks for the video as always! :]
Wasn’t it Admiral Beatty who said something along the lines of, “there seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today”?
“Uuuuh actually Jingles”
@John Fisher Beatty then went on to blame his failures on his Flag Officer, Seymour, whom he employed in that role knowing that Seymour wasn’t qualified as a Flag Officer and hadn’t completed training in fleet communications. Seymour had a mental breakdown and died by suicide in the early 20s after Beatty essentially publicly laid the blame for the losses at Jutland on his shoulders.
@DERP Squad the sign of a good leader…always make sure there is someone in line to take the blame if things go South!
@DERP Squad I am aware of that and what has that got to do with what Beatty said to Chatfield???
It seems all too many people love to join in Beatty bashing without thinking of what other circumstances lay in Seymour getting the Flag officer position when he was unqualified. Like having very powerful Naval and political connections and his lack of seeking further training after years in the role. No one seems to ask that.
The BC explosions seem more in line with poor propellant design than few were aware of at that time while we are with 20/20 hindsight.
@DERP Squad well Beatty had great political connections …. but rather little sense, if one was cruel one might state that he was more of an army politican than a leader
“There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today” Adm David Beatty
@ch09pa so weird that other admirals could do it ( I mean how did Scheer or Hipper manage ??? ) … plus Beatty was subservient to Admiral Jellicoe (who actually faced the really hard decisions ) , and even failed to inform his superior and the commander of his supporting Warship Squadron properly of his command decisions
@TBJ TBJ hear hear… sounds familiar to me
@Nick Klavdianos well you mean HMS Invincible and 18+ Battleships firing at the German Battlecruisers (minus Moltke who was already in no fighting state ) during the “Death Charge” running straight at them as a distraction to allow the Main German battleline to withdraw ? I doubt we will ever know which shell by which ships struck Lützow “just where” exactly, since HMS Invincible did not survive, and I guess the impact holes on Lützow probably have no markings… there is a similar claim for HMS Lion scoring hits early in the battle above the armour deck allowing water into the bow, which would cause the sinking later
@Silverhost978 could argue German BC, able to run 30 knots, and mostly making it out alive may have been a wiser concept. Fischer’s concept may simply not have anticipated the advances in gunnery and precisions on rangefinders ?
@mynameiswritinwater As already mentioned, the German BCs survived not because of their design, but because of problems on the end of the British. Poor gunnery, communication and shell quality led to German BCs surviving better. Advances in rangefinding would have benefitted the British more because their guns were bigger and could reach out further- assuming their commander knew what he was doing…
“Howdy folks, hope you’re all having a good one, and welcome back to World of Broken Replays with Rear Admiral Jingles”
Lmao
Currently sick but still need to go to school. Thank you Jingles for this slight reprieve.
Also, no DDs in this battle. First time I’ve seen that before
Actually Jingles… The quote “There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today” was from Admiral Beatty, not Admiral Jellicoe. Don’t worry though, it was entirely his fault for pressuring the officers and men to remove the safety systems in an attempt to improve rate of fire, resulting in spare charges being held in the turrets, and interlocks between the magazines and handling rooms being removed. Further, don’t worry more, this had no detrimental effect on his career, as he went on to be First Sea Lord between 1919 and 1927.
All true. But the armour on the battlecruisers could be penetrated directly anyhow. Indefatigable (6″ armour) was likely sunk by a direct magazine penetration. As was the Hood. And British cordite, unlike German cordite (see Seydlitz), exploded rather than burned….
Last I knew, this is regarded as an apophrycal quote (that is, did not actually happen). But it’s a good story.
@Alan Downey Problem with your claim with Hood is that her armour was not Battlecruiser grade, it was battleship grade. Her armour was actually pretty good for a Battleship, if old fashioned. You see what most people forget about Hood is that work on her was paused after Jutland while the battle was analysed. Hood was hugely up armoured whilst still in the build phase. Its why her completion was delayed, and partially why she ended up several thousand tons higher in displacement than the design suggests. Also no one knows where the round penetrated, except it probably was NOT through her main belt armour.
Fact is while it is true those BC’s armour could have been penetrated, good ammunition safety procedures would have seen all but Indefatigable saved. While German cordite might not explode unlike British (not actually true, strictly speaking, but I’ll let it go) had the German BC’s been using the same lax procedures then several of them would have gone up as well. In fact one almost did at the Battle of Dogger Bank, only very prompt flooding of her magazines saved her, an event the Germans learned from…..
@alganhar1 Drachinefel has a good video on the probable reasons for the loss of HMS Hood. I suggest you look it up as your comments indicate a real knowledge of the subject.
@alganhar1 Still, the armor that Hood recieved, was almost instantly obsolete after launch, due to the introduction of delayed fused in the AP-shells. So the armor it did get, was woefully inadequate for a WW2 gunnery-fight. Still, the English at least tried and learned from Jutland.
The G3 design were actually very, very powerful and had an armour scheme that was unsurpassed by any other battlecruiser; in fact the armour was better than some battleships. The N3 design, the battleship companions to the G3s, would have had guns matching the Yamato class and armour that was even thicker. Vert much kick-ass ships had they been built.
World of Warships doesn’t measure all-or-nothing internal armour schemes that well, so ships with that armour schemes end up eating significant amounts of penetration damage on the unarmoured parts of their hulls and superstructures.
Saw Flambass rush the middle of Two Brothers in an aircraft carrier once, and *still* made it work. It was just jaw-dropping.
@BroSantodes I believe he was in Kaga if the original comment is about the same match im thinking of. He had 2 division mates as well.
Flambass could sail a turd down the middle of two brothers and still make it work!! That guy is just hilariously epic 😂😂😂
Didn’t he also get a ram kill in the same game? survived the ram as well… (or more likely he’s done CV middle many times….)
Jingles, thank you for providing some fun listening and a few laughs this morning!!
For a moment, I thought that this was the Type 45 destroyer… then I realized that this was the never-built G3 battlecruiser. Then I learned that the crazy WoWS driver #Flambass was driving it! Yup, just another classic game of his…
Jingles videos are such a joy and a pleasure. No matter hwo crap the day is, listening to his knowledge and laughter is just the fucking best.
I almost wanted to correct the mighty jingles when he was describing a carrier as a citadel from the water line to the flight deck.
I was on the now decommissioned USS John F Kennedy. Older carrier.
As I wasn’t in the air wing explosive departments, I have seen them parading bombs and missles around not only the hangar Bay but also the flight deck.
A small elevator brought up the ordnance to the hangar Bay from a protective hold deep in the ship. And then the ordnance went to the flight deck by way of the big elevators.
So, yeah. During combat, a carrier IS a probably the best Pickens for instant clapping of their a$$ cheeks.
Glad to see some know their history and who said what (and that it was his fault that the Battlecruisers were more vulnerable than they should have been).
Unlocked this ship a few days ago. Really good ship if you understand angling and overmatch game mechanics.
The funny thing about the kearsarge. He is running an ammo det flag to prevent citadels. His flight deck is a massive AP sponge cause it never damage saturates. Can say this from experience of both fighting and playing kearsarge.
Small correction: the G3’s were actually very well armoured. Much like Hood, they would’ve been fast battleships, just twenty years early. The G3 design was actually, on paper, superior to most WW2 battleships.
Fun fact the G3 battle cruisers were nearly made as the keels had been layed down by the time the Washington naval treaty ended it as well as many other fun big old ships
I nearly only had good games with that ship. I like the Duncan.
As a matter fact Jingles, Bismarck and affiliates’ turtleback armor scheme has one weakness. It’s very vulnerable to 45 degree from the bow or stern at whatever range. You can joust a Bismarck and punch right through it if you fire under turret Anton or Dora at the right angle. Also works on GKs, and other high tier German fatties. On lower tiers, just fire at the bow section with an angle of 45 degrees, it works with other nations BBs as well.
I also tried it in Antlantic Fleet. If you don’t aim for the center of the ship but under the turrets, a King George can sink a Bismarck in two salvos. I think the Brits didn’t know how to really use their guns, they were trained with a 19th Century aiming tactic whereas the engineers where aware of armor angles. In short, Rodney and King Goerge could have sunk the Bismarck much more quickly if they aimed their guns more accurately to tactical effect instead of just pummeling the target down. (of course at too short range, it’s not possible…)
There is no such thing as a perfect armor scheme in fact.
Don’t forget that the floating storages of aviation fuel and ammo known as CVs are one of the classes (can you guess the second?) which are immune to *Detonation.*
I love the fact that there’s a panasian dd lurking around where there’s actually no dd in that match