Comments by "Jim Taylor" (@jimtaylor294) on "HMS King George V (1911) - Guide 411" video.

Eeh; the WWII KGV's did sterling service as well, both actively fighting and in deterrence work. They also had a useful postwar career, being an overmatch solution to Soviet Cruisers. (the USSR not having the ability at the time to build anything bigger)
9
"7 minutes ago" an unexpected achievement to be sure... but a welcome one
8
An underrated class; one of those that's difficult to get scale models thereof 😐 . (at least... so far) Reassuring to know though that - a bit like the SS Great Eastern and HMS Warspite- there's still bits of one in existence today 🤔🙂 .
7
@bkjeong4302 Only you would come up with a biased and demonstrably factually wrong diatribe like that 😆 . As others have pointed out, WWII's KGV's achieved more, and were better designed (none were lost to mines after all, and Warspite [as if to mock the WWI KGV's] surrvived several) PoW mission killed Bismarck, not the Ark Royal. KGV (+ Rodney) perforated Bismarck and destroyed her as a fighting unit. Dorsetshire - and at least one Torpedo from Rodney - put Bismarck on the ocean floor, not Ark Royal.
1
@gargravarr2 Well said.
1
@scottgiles7546 Not really. All it proved was that topically adapting your AAA direction radar, setting your VT fuses correctly, and using more Tracer are all winning ideas. Case in point; the Japanese never sank nor even seriously damaged another allied Battleship (despite plenty of attempts to), while numerous Carriers were damaged and sunk. The RN after all lost HMS Hermes to Jap' air attack in the same year; nobody mentions it because - just like Force Z - no actual lession, besides basic screw-ups with AAA. Battleships would also comfortably outlast the Torpedo Bomber in postwar service, as the latter had been rendered functionally obsolete by wartime AAA developments. Only anti-sub' Torpedo carriage would persist past the 1950's, while the last Battleship wasn't fully decommissioned until 2011.
1