For the "most 40k thing", I'd submit something that's only tangentially naval: The raid on St.Nazaire. That's basically THE stereotypical Space Marine action...crashing into the target, kicking ass, planting a massive bomb and then fighting their way back out before the timer goes off. Put the action on a spacedock instead of a french port and you've got yourself a 40k scenario nobody's going to question.
2:53:15 Another general prize to the USN for taking Da Orky Appoach to every hull they had afloat and adding MOAR DAKKA until they couldn't figure out where to fit it.
One of the things about Captain Langsdorff was that he found and sank a ship after making sure that the crew were uninjured and safely on their lifeboats. However, he realised that in the middle of the ocean there was a chance that they would not be found and picked up. Therefore, the radio operator under direct orders from Langsdorff used the old pre-war call letters of _Admiral Graff Spee_ to call up the RN fleet following up behind and gave exact long and lat where they'd sank the ships and therefore where the boats where He was an officer and a gentleman of the highest order and a worthy foe EDIT: On the subject of false musters, I am aware of someone being entered onto the books around the age of 3 and gaining "promotions" over the years which led the to Admiralty trying very very very hard when the fella was in his late 80s or early 90s to get him to retire because they realised he was still on the books and would have to offer him a fleet command in time of war - I can't remember his name, but I remember there was a wiki article about it
He didn’t really “call up the RN.” He had the signal giving the location of _SS Clement_ repeated until he heard it acknowledged and repeated by the radio station at Pernambuco; the radio station added a kindly meant “hasta luego.” By and to all accounts, Langsdorff took personally the duty of a ship’s captain to preserve the safety of helpless sailors, and he was one of the last military officers to consider war as a contest between and against each combatant’s _weapons,_ rather than between and against their _people._
Reminds me of the Russian story of Lieutenant Kije, a fictitious Army officer created by a typo in a muster roll who was conveniently blamed for misdeeds. He was later promoted multiple times for his heroism in battle, but when Tsar Paul wanted to meet this brave officer, he unfortunately died. The story is best known for the music Sergei Prokofiev wrote for a Soviet film in 1934.
Spruance's use of the heavy cruiser Indianapolis as his flagship is an illustrative example. It was a big enough ship to have all the necessary facilities for him and his staff, yet small enough that it allowed Spruance to move himself between different parts of his fleet without taking a capital unit out of position. During the initial landings, Spruance kept the Indianapolis close to the beaches and transports, where he could easily confer with Turner and the other ground/amphibious commanders, while also providing some fire support. Then, when he got reports that the Japanese fleet was out, he was able to move his ship from the landing areas to join the carrier force. Then, Spruance just inserted the Indianapolis into the screen of the carrier group that included Mitscher's flagship, and had the same ease of quick communication with him throughout the upcoming battle. In contrast, Halsey's choice of the battleship New Jersey as his flagship at Leyte Gulf denied him the same flexibility. New Jersey couldn't be sent off anywhere (for example, as part of TF 34) without Halsey having to go with it. It's highly debatable whether that was actually a factor in his choosing not to leave TF 34 behind guarding the San Bernardino Strait, but it does illustrate the point. Halsey couldn't detach a capital unit (one of his fast battleships) without giving up his own physical proximity to and effective command of his main carrier fleet.
Another reason to have a non-combatant vessel as your flagship is that they often have a lot more room to host staff facilities. Which makes them nicer places in which to live, not to mention in which to host cocktail parties.
That's why I love Captain Blood, they use just more smashing action of cannon-fire, but it shows them using fire embers into the cannon and fire basically fiery shrapnel burning the wood and sails. Not exploding.
In the case of Karita, he made the cruiser his flagship as that was the ship he'd commanded from for the majority of the war. It was the ship he was used to commanding from so he used that one.
@@Halinspark Earlier in the war he commanded mostly cruiser squadrons so that was always his command ship. Placed in command of center force he just kept using his old flagship.
When a modern American carrier task force goes to sea not only is there an admiral commanding the entire force and his staff aboard but the admiral commanding the escorts and his staff is also aboard.
Personally, if I were inclined to find an aircraft carrier loophole in the naval treaties, I'd look into "this is a fast supply ship, not a carrier, pay no attention to how it's built like a carrier up to the hangar deck level. And that warehouse full of flight deck pieces, elevators, arresting gear, ignore that." Sort of doing the Sangamon conversions of Cimarron oilers, but designed that way to begin with and possibly much larger. There's nothing in the treaties to say you can't have a 30,000 ton oiler or supply vessel.
No no, you misunderstand! It LOOKS like a carrier, but that's just because we like the aesthetic, what's that? It carries airplanes? Well, yes...but it also carries shells as well, but it's not a cruiser now is it?
@@Rammstein0963. The planes are also carrying more fuel, it's just more efficient to deliver already fuelled vehicles to the front lines instead of just fuel on it's own don't ya know? And sometimes those planes take off to make special "supply deliveries" that the ship doesn't have time to stop for on the way to its destination.
Could you consider the Furious, Courageous and Glorious in their original guises as Funnies? I've thought them more as large high speed monitors than Battlecruisers.
Probably a better/more accurate description. The other description I'd go with is mistake. I honestly don't think anyone actually took 5 mins to actually think about why they were building them and what for before they were finished. Don't think they'd even have been that great in the proposed Baltic Raid. They certainly had to be courageous to sail with the guns and armour that they had, so they were aptly named.
Speaking of Captain Bligh... I don't think we've ever had a Wednesday special on his voyage to Timor? And just how he managed to pull off this lifeboat feat?
@@greenseashipsIt’s a close run thing, but I have always held the view that Bligh’s journey was the greater achievement due to the circumstances in which it began. The follow up voyages (returning to England, the Pandora etc) just add to the horror.
For "Heavy Cruisers (and Transports)" used as flagships, it's also the point that many times the capital ships that have the flag facilities already have a Flag Officer and their staff occupying them. Wheras heads of state or another flag officer leading a specific operation is transient and it would be disruptive to the tenant flag officer's command to 'bump' them off their flagship.
I thought when talking about funnies, you would have mentioned the Roman Corvus? I suspect the enemy thought they looked funny the first time it was used.
11 inch was a known calibre in smooth bor and rifled muzzle loaders, the weird 283 calibre has much to do with how the lands and grooves were set - the famous K18 17cm long cannon in WW2 was also 173 mm, so down to manufacture.
It's also worth mentioning that Sweden also looked at 10 and 12 inch guns for Sverige during development. The most well armed proposal that I'm aware of is from 1911 and carries 6 x 12 inch guns
1:02:47 also in this scene in particular the first rate would have a pretty good chance against those two ships, definitely the black pearl and also either the two pirates ships or the EIC ship is sailing against the wind and still going forward.
Bligh suffered most especially on Bounty from the fact that most officers and the"volunteers"on Bounty like Christian saw themselves as gentlemen whilst Bligh with his mercantile and before the mast background was not seen as such
Not sure if the comparison is perfect, but in the army (pre firearms becoming standard) the commander would often be with the cavalry. A quick unit that can hit a heavy blow when pointed in the right direction. Or as a reserve to plug holes when and where they occur. Your Battleships would be your Infantry, Cruisers your Cavalry and your Destroyers are your Archers.
2:52:22 Well i'd have to say that a lot of Destroyers, like Piorun, Cossack, Johnston, Samuel B. Roberts etc. all seemingly being Khorne worshipers or they are showing the usual Imperial Guardsman attitude depending how you read it. Oh and i know this is Warhammer Fantasy, but BurOrd seemingly all being Skavens as they keep coming up with complex ideas that often make no sense and usually don't work out and/or hurting their own side in the end usually doing more damage to boot.
Flying Dutchman in potc decided to become American for a bit "how much gun can i physically fit on my ship? Now how can i bully physics into letting me add a few more"
A US Navy carrier air group has a captain in charge because it is a separate command outside of the carrier. He is answerable only to the battlegroup commander. Both captains cooperate to complete their mission.
2:37:35 Is it true that the RN were so unimpressed with both the 14” and 16” guns they had in 1942, that even if they could have built enough for another battleship, they still would have chosen to use spare 15” for _Vanguard?_
Didn't the captain of the Tone also claim that he ordered his gunnery officer to direct his fire away from the part of the Gambier Bay where the crew was in the process of abandoning ship because he was so impressed by how orderly and disciplined they were as they did it?
Seems doubtful. At medium to long range, you’re looking at shell dispersion of at least several hundred yards in each salvo, so it’s not really practical to target a specific part of a ship. Well, you could use a specific part as your aim point, you can’t expect to actually hit one specific part of a ship. You’d just be moving your shell spread slightly one way or the other, which reduces the likelihood of any hits at all. It would be more likely that the captain ordered them to switch targets once Gambier Bay’s crew abandoned ship, as there were plenty of other ships that weren’t sinking.
Mail Call (0:16:12) On "Routine Patrol" there were also Mail Bouys that would be anchored at a specific location for the ship on Patrol to pick up their mail and then leave the return mail!
Naval funnies for WWII brings to mind Project Habakkuk Okay the end result is just a, very large, carrier. But a pykrete ship with a hull refrigeration plant is pretty oddball
Unfortunately the only Destroyer museum ship close to me is a Daring class , so imagine that to be quite a bit larger than a Japanese destroyer from WW2 . I will still visit the HMAS Vampire though
1:09:23 the lack of anchors probably wasn't a major thing for the loss of the Armarda off Scotland Ireland as in a seaway sheet archors rather than lumpy metal things were the only valid requirement, -if a sheet anchor can't stop a ship in a windward scenario an iron anchor will equally struggle no to least due to lack of chain length and striking a secure sea floor. And even when a ship has struck its anchors, sheet anchors are relativily easy to fashion from existing materials on ships -especially age of sail ships.
Interesting choice for the penultimate question's answer. I personally (being more of a general history guy and less of a naval expert) would have chosen the trireme design. It was the granddaddy of galley design. It was the most important warship design from the 6th to the 3rd century B.C. and its various successor types dominated Mediterranean naval warfare to at least the battle of Lepanto, so 2000 years give or take. Well the bireme was basically the daddy of the trireme (and I just realized, that as we are talking about ships, I should have said granny). Anyway I don't think you can beat the galley in terms of longevity. I at least know of no other ship type that stayed relevant as a main combatant in naval warfare for more than two millennia.
RE: Schill and P Class cruisers. I believe Schill is based upon one of several war time "Handelszerstörer" designs; related to the P class but newer. One - with turbines - had a single funnel.
George Melly's "Rum, Bum and Concertina" which includes his service in the Royal Navy in the later years of WW2 and the immediate post-war period, has some information on ship's libraries, including his finding an extensive selection of the works George Bernard Shaw in the ship's library, which proved most useful when defending himself after being found to be in possesion of anarchist literature.
I don't remember what show it was on. I believe it was Dogfights on the battle off Samar. It was an interview of a Johnson crewman. They ended up fighting a Japanese destroyer squadron. They were dead and sinking and pretty much had nothing left to fire. He said he saw a destroyer go past him and someone saluted them. I don't remember reading anything about it in the book Last Stand of the Tin Can.
@2:52 - your numbers on the running costs of Capital ships appears to ignore crew costs, which would surely be highly significant with a complement of two thousand or more on some vessels. You also pointedly avoided converting 1920’s pounds to present day value, since of course all the numbers become astronomically large.
I mentioned crew costs as a variable depending on what the ship was doing, fully manned, 'peacetime' manned or in reserve. I additionally pointed out that calculating this was difficult as each rank was paid differently so you'd have to work out the exact makeup of a ships crew and then take their individual rates from the Navy Estimates. There is little point in converting 1920's pounds to 2023 pounds as 1) The question asked about the operating costs of those ships at the time, there are no comparable ships today. 2) Directly converting via inflation is a poor way of approximating value, depending on how you scale them, there are at least 4 different figures a 1920's monetary amount could be worth in 2023 and all are very different.
Didn't Lt. Myles Barrett of the Hoel claim that some Japanese sailors threw what he initially thought were grenades at him but turned out to be potatoes?
I recall on the USS Crommelin (FFG37) which was a OH Perry class frigate, there was a small lounge a bit forward on 2nd deck which had about a hundred books. The rule was to read them there but some sailors would take one for some night reading in their rack and return it the next day. About half were fiction of some kind, some were biographies and some were humor. It was in this library that I found Daniel Gallery and his book, 'Stand By-y-y To Start Engines', and read more of his work from there that was at the base library.
I served on an Adams class DDG in the late 60s. Our library was a little cubby off the mess deck, containing maybe a couple dozen books. It was there I first encounter Theodore Roscoe's book about destroyer actions in WWII. A few years ago, I finally obtained a copy of my own. And yes, I have read Gallery's books, but we didn't have any on board.
Many, many years ago, 40 + years ago I took navigation at school ! On the Naval charts we were using at that time there was an area in the Moray Firth off Invergordon thatvwas marked as a submarine training ground? Why was this?
The galley fed the body and the Library fed the mind and soul...I believe Readers Digest was donated to the US military . All the best to you and yours... PAB
Having been in drydock several times, I will point out to you that the reason for no ammunition is that the firemains are not in normal commission, as sea suction for the firepumps is not a thing. Yes, you do have shore firemain, but....
The Vickers 14 inch naval gun seems to be the gun that was crying out for a Navy to adopt?? Was there any navy that run 😢with it as their primary weapon?
Cramped in... in 87 in CIC of LSD32 we had 16 or 20 people in a 12x12 ft compartment. A drt, 2 radar repeaters, many phones, a chief and lieutenant... lol. And our CIWS control. It was cozy
Extracts from Admiral E.C. Troubridge's courtmartial regarding these guns include these comments: "The 9.2-inch Mark XI [guns used on HMS Defence] has always been known as an inaccurate gun. It is probably due to the high muzzle velocity. The 9.2-inch Mark X [guns]. . . are inaccurate at certain stages of wear of the gun. Otherwise they are accurate guns" and "For the 9.2-inch Mark X and XI and 7.5-inch Mark II the average spread [dispersion] was 200 - 250 yards at a range of 7000 - 8000 yards" (180 - 230 m spread at ranges of 6,400 - 7,300 m).
If there is significant evidence (and not just from the Japanese side-in that case I'd be much more skeptical unless the evidence was especially compelling) that a Japanese destroyer saluted Johnston as she was sinking, but it’s unlikely that the crew would line up on deck during a battle and also unlikely that a Johnston survivor would be able to see AND identify the captain saluting while abandoning ship, isn’t the most likely option that the Johnston survivors who reported the incident misidentified one of the Japanese officers or crew as the captain?
My guess is that it happened, but it was just the captain and assorted bridge crew (those people immediately around the captain) who did so. That would explain why some Johnston survivors described crew members “lining the rails”, since the rails in that specific area around the bridge would effectively have been lined. Also, it makes sense why they would say the captain was involved even if they might not have been able to identify that specific individual - if you see a bunch of people all lined up near the bridge saluting you, you’d figure the captain was one of them.
It's more likely that the Johnston's crew are busy submerging themselves just under the surface to avoid getting picked of by rifle fire amd such accounts were romanticization by troops stationed in Japan post war, or victimization spread by the Japanese.
@@fidjeenjanrjsnsfh Good point. Explains why men were lined up at the rails. And the salute might have been the command to shoot. There are various ways of making a 'salute'.
@@fidjeenjanrjsnsfh We have accounts from both sides in this case, the Japanese accounts might be historical revisionism (common thing for them) but that’s not as likely for the American accounts. Were any of Johnston’s crew ever stationed in Japan during the occupation?
Old British gallons were a quart more than the US gallon up into the 60’s or so. So doing math down to gallons from tones of fuel burned could through some numbers off
I rarely look at the comments of these videos I should look at them more. They provide answers or nore information to a certain question in Drydock. Lastly, another two parter. Better strap in
My idea for the escort carrier is as an escort carrier. Basically, the same thing you said about the Fuso battleship. Have the ship as a 32 knot ship. Have it only carry fighter aircraft to be used as CAP for the fleet. Technically, the same thing could have been done with the light carriers and Ranger if the escort carrier was too slow.
To the fellow beginning his history major, some advice: find the exact area you want to work in and immediately continue on for a masters in that field. While studying, volunteer or take a job in that field/line of work while doing your schooling to make connections and network. This will help you immensely when you are job hunting. And don’t rely solely on loans. Apply for scholarships and grants as much as you can.
Mr. Drach, the Japanese salute story is covered in the very nice book “The Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors.” I have the book and can send it to you if you like. I actually kept the book for you. Please reply and we will get in touch so I can send the book. There was also a Japanese sailor who threw a can of tomato’s at a survivor in the water.
1:24:50 My question wasn't about 11" being uncommon, but why did they choose 283 instead of 280 or 279(11"). German guns after 305 are all rounded for example
I wonder if the particularity why it is precisely 283 mm instead of another number, is probably a choice made somewhere in the the design process that or needs access in the Swedish archives. I would not look to deep into the meaning of it though, the shells are not EXACTLY 280 , 279 mm or something like that in the first place.
Well my "blue" siblings in the senior service had a fondness of 'odd' calibres at the time, proposal 'A' for the what eventually became the Sverige-class had 194mm guns as secondary armament while the Swedish 15cm naval cannon was actually a 152mm gun. None of the Swedish books I've looked at so far explains exactly why the 28cm cannon m/12 was actually 283mm, for that level of detail you will probably have to go to the Bofors archive or Krigsarkivet (War Archive). The later is likely where the records of the naval advisory board that recomended the 28cm/283mm as the main alternative is to be found. (The navy did want 12 inch/305mm guns but it proved impossible to design an alternative with twin 305mm turrets that had the speed and armour that the Swedish navy wanted while still displacing no more than 7500 tons.)
@@Vonstab 152 mm is exactly 6 inches so there are many reasons for that. 194 mm is odd indeed but 283 caught my eyes in particular because Germany also used the same number.
@natthaphonhongcharoen Sweden uses the metric system so a 150 or 155mm calibre would have been the logical choice. Digging into the sources it turns out that the origin of the 152mm calibre is the Swedish purchase of Armstrong 6 inch guns in 1883. In the early 1880s there was a crisis in the Swedish arms industry. Finspång who supplied the navy with the bulk of their cannon lacked the know-how and machinery to make modern steel artillery. Bofors knew the process thanks to cooperation with Krupp but only had the capacity to make light artillery. So Armstrong was contracted to deliver 9.2 and 6 inch guns while Finspång and Bofors wrestled with improving their ability to a point where they could deliver modern medium and heavy naval artillery. In the end Bofors succeed but the Swedish navy liked their experience with the Armstrong 6 inch so much that they preferred that calibre to the naval version of the Bofors 16cm so 152mm stuck as the medium calibre of the Swedish navy and costal artillery. The 194mm cannon was likely inspired by the French Canon de 194mm modele 1902. The naval board was likely using foreign weaponry in those cases where there was no existing Swedish design that met the requirements. Which suggests that the choice of 283mm took inspiration from Germany.
1) Where would you rate _Wasp_ in the list of “expedient” aircraft carriers - those which were built to use up treaty tonnage, converted from other large warships (not from civilian vessels), built as quickly as possible ahead of foreseen events, or as “full scale experiments?” 2) Do you think _Wasp_ would have been more successful (or at least survived longer) if the USN had decided to put a smaller air group aboard her in exchange for improved (or, really, more than zero) survivability elements?
Regarding Bligh, he was plenty bad but it didn't have much to do with the mutiny. IIRC he was involved in a fair number of atrocities against various native populations, but that was pretty much a general thing in the empires of the time.
Re: 00:29:58 - Modern US carriers I have to wonder what the US Navy Brass could have been thinking when they made that decision in the 1980s. If the Ship's Captain decides to go one way and CAG wants to go the other way who wins? Every Carrier I ever deployed on had an Admiral onboard who directed where the Carrier Battle Group went and what the Airwing's target were. CAG is just like a tenant command on any Naval Air Station or Facility. The Commanding Officer of the Base generally had the last say over what a tenant command did.
Mind, modern US carriers are not treated as individual ships, but as the centerpiece of a single tactical unit, the Carrier Battlegroup. There is no "conflict" between the CAG and Ship's captain, because they are functionally administrative subordinates to the Battlegroup Commander who actually controls the whole bunch of ships and planes as one unit. In other words, every US supercarrier has an admiral who is CAG, Ship's Captain, and Fleet Commander in one person.
Regarding the comment on Bligh's lack of "brutality" and that being a factor in mutinies, not just his. (question at about 25:00): I am reminded of a comment I read a long time ago on the retreat to Corunna during the Peninsular Campaign, to the effect that the units which suffered most from desertion and ill discipline were those of the Light Division, where Sir Johgn Moore had famously "light" discipline compared to that of the other British Army units. It would seem that "sparing the rod" spoiled not only the child, but also the military unit!
02:31:32 I was rather surprised at your comment that KGV was more fuel effiecient than it's American counter part. While I do not dispute the source you cited, it is contrary to what I have read in D. K. Brown's "NELSON TO VANGUARD: Warship Design and Developement 1923 to 1945" Where he states that " at low speeds, King George V burnt 39 per cent more fuel than Washington which still retained a big advantage at higher speeds." The higher steam pressure, improved turbines, and other improvements were mentioned by Brown as contributing to the higher fuel efficiency, lighter machinery, and higher safety factors. The higher steam temperatures and operating pressures should from a physics standpoint result in higher fuel efficienty.
I agree, it is very odd and I expected the same, but when I looked at KGV's fuel use figures from her trials and the USN's recorded figures it upended things, but I still had to report based on those figures. As I mentioned I suspect it might've been due to optimisation for specific speeds, as well as the poor quality fuel KGV had in the mid-war, which is when she ran with the NorCal's.
"Were British battleships a lot more inefficient in fuel burning than their US counterparts?" I would look up Vice-Admiral Sir Louis Le Bailly's comments on this if I were you Drachinifel. The problem was more to do with the lack of jointing compound in RN ships. He comments how in Tokoyo Bay he visited Missouri and toured here engineering spaces in 2s. Whereas his USN counterpart cried off halfway through his tour of DoY's engineering spaces due to heat exhaustion and filth.
@@StylinandProfilinBBsandBBQ it’s a sample by Cab Calloway I forget the exact name. Obviously the only the gunfire was added. The beat was always banger.
1:12:17 The best thing the USN could have done with the Wasp was to unbolt and extend the deck and then lower it onto a fourth Yorktown hull being built alongside Hornet, recycling the CV-7 hull and powerplants along the way. To me, the Wasp is the most fascinating of the interwar USN carriers because her history was so short and it took place in both the Atlantic & Pacific. IIRC she has not had an crew and history themed book about her like The Big E or Queen of the Flat-tops. We know the saga of the rest except for Ranger (who is in the same circumstances as Wasp story-wise) by heart. What tales are we missing from Wasp & Ranger? I would welcome some recommendations!
Didn't the Casablanca's have Skinner engines, a late 30's development.The basic principle was long known, but getting it to work was not easy. Unaflow engines can run at slightly higher rpm than triple expansion, their availability allowed production of a 20 knot carrier without turbines.
Regarding the North Carolina versus the King George V fuel efficiency it's my understanding that coal has a higher energy density than the oil that North Carolina would have used. 50 to 70% higher. I don't know if any of the comparisons between the two actually account for the difference in fuel type. If such a conversion were not done or worse if it were done incorrectly then someone would get very deceptive numbers.
Which do you consider the better / more “efficient” design: a 10,000t heavy cruiser with 9x8” guns (three triples), capable of 32kts, with as much armor as would fit; or a 8,000t light with 12x6” guns (four triples), capable of 33kts, with as much armor as would fit?
I have not responded in a while here since most of the topics were not of too much interest to me. But this comparison between the US and British battleships seems to me to be a bit biased, which Drach in general strives quite hard not to do. Given that, at 2:31:31 the efficiency of US battleships vs British ones seems to be reviewed and analyzed in a strange way. The comparison of US vs. British ships that Drach used was based on fuel used per shaft horse power. But this seems to be very strange to me. No one looks at an automobile's efficiency based on the gas used per engine horse power. All measurements are simply fuel used based on distance traveled! Then Drach also pointed out that ships designed to run at a certain speed, that those designed to run at a slower speed will get worse 'fuel used per shaft horse power' that would be less efficient when running at a higher speed as compared to ships designed to run at the faster speed. I would question point as well. Efficiency of any machine is an inherent production of that machine, and not so related to speed. For instance, car can be designed to run at most efficient at a certain speed, say 50 MPH, and another can be designed to use an engine that its max efficiency is at 60 MPH. But this does NOT mean that the car deigned to best run at 50 MPH will burn far more, or measurably more, at 60 MPH than the car designed with its engine geared for 60 MPH. The normal measure of car efficiency is what miles per gallon each gets at those speeds, and furthermore, the car with the engine designed to deliver its best efficiency at 60 MPH may get worse miles per gallon at all speeds. So, unless this is totally different when basing efficiency on fuel used per horsepower, I do not follow your conclusions in either case. In my ballistics file I do not compare or rate efficiency of the WW II battleships, so I have no real figures to present here, and if I did, it would be SOLELY on miles (or knots) per gallon. I do have the ships weights (displacements) and their range, and range is always given at a certain constant speed. Unfortunately, the statistics I could find on all these WW II battleships do not show the ranges at the same speed! I suppose I could calculate knots/gallon based on these ranges at the different speeds, but it will not be a comparison of apples to apples with the average speeds varying from ship to ship[ so much. With some of the data in my ballistics file, I do interpolate some power and gun distance figures, but for this topic I would have to do this for fuel used per distance, so I will look and see if this is doable with my data, but it still an interpolation process may not produce really accurate results. (Interpolation is a process where you estimate a points of data, based on at least two other points of actual data. ) I think without doing this analysis, this real response to the question presented is really an unknown, but it appears that the person who posted the question did have some research that did definitely imply that that the British battleships ships were less efficient than the US ones. But this could also be an over simplification because this may have varied significantly from ship to ship - in other words, which battleships are you comparing, which may come down to when was each designed and built, or had its engines replaced/overhauled, as well as its size (weight, as well as width since both will impact the ships efficiency traveling through water). I will try to do this analysis using my ballistics file, and report back here if I can come up with some reasonable figures. But when I do this, 'efficiency'' will be based solely in knots per gallon. If I can find multiple range figures per ship (thus range at different speeds for the same ship and thus get different knots/gallon figures per ship), then the resultant numbers may have validity. For more info, the range of the British battleships without exception were greatly less than the US ships. But as pointed out by Drach already, this could depend on many factors, some of which are not related to overall engine efficiency. In general, the British ships were designed with much smaller fuel capacity, partly with the thought they they would be fighting mainly in the North Atlantic, and the Mediterranean, and that there were ample place to refuel in those areas of operation. Thus, they were never designed to go across the Atlantic and fight on the other side there, as their cruisers were more aptly afforded. The US battleships were designed for decades to traverse both the Atlantic and the Pacific, which was a mark of just about all the US ships (and boats, like the subs). There were some exceptions to the British battleship ranges, such as the Nelson class, which had a range of 7,000 nautical miles at 16 knots, which is excellent.
Lmao, I could imagine it was the crew of the most cursed destroyer of Japan 😊 it would not surprise me one bit if it's true that they also threw them supplies as well, I mean why not I'm sure they were traitors to every other crew that they ever sailed with considering they always came out unscathed😂😂
A :Post Ship had to be a Ship, i.e. a three masted, shipped rigged vessel. There were no other types of Post Ship. Cochrane was not a was a Commander when he had Speedy. The Gamo capture took place on May 6, 1801. Cochrane was promoted to Post Captain on August 6, 1801.
A :Post Ship had to be a Ship, i.e. a three masted, shipped rigged vessel. There were no other types of Post Ship. Cochrane was not a Post Captain when he commanded Speedy, he was a Commander. The Gamo capture took place on May 6, 1801. Cochrane was promoted to Post Captain on August 6, 1801.
Well, just to be fair. Villeneuve wasn't incompetent either. V's main problem was the lack of training and "war gaming", which persisted in the French fleet under Boney. Boney didn't really care about naval matters beside his goal to invade or hurt Britain.
@wierdalien1 Boney had no clue about naval matters and continuously disregarded advice from flag officers. On one occasion, Boney wanted to watch a landing rehearsal at Bologne, despite he had been advised by his naval staff that conditions were unfavourable. Result: Dozens of boats destroyed, 2,000 soldiers drowned.
Transports would be the flag ship for landing operations. They also modified Treasury Class Coast Guard cutters were refit to be landing command ships. Convoys in the north Atlantic used large cargo ships for the commodore to command the merchant ship. The Commodores being retired RN senior officers, recalled to active duty. Quite a few being toroedoed and lost. The commodore being subordinate to the escort commander, who was junior to him rank. One would think this would be awkward. Reality was the professionalism of those involved made it work. Civility, etquet and basic politeness helped.
the United states had the Department of War in the preceding years before the Department of Defense it uses the Pentagon as the marker of the change. There existed small course of study on various subjects including Chickens and Poultry raising for example. I also had the course for using a machine shop in a setting without electricity. The paperback books were made available and the test materials were held in the ships office. The same method as for the advancement courses for Seaman them the individual 3 and 2s for each work specialty ie Bosun Mater or BM. Then the 1 and C . There are General Military requirements and Job Specific requirements . Many opportunities for self improvement located in the ships library if you dared to look
Though exploding ordnance existed since at least the 15th century, they were not used much as anti-ship ordnance until around the 1850s, near the very end of the Age of Sail and well after most movies are set. This was mostly because the shells had a habit of blowing up in the guns firing them and it was very hard to isolate the effects of a detonating gun on a ship's deck like one could on land.
I believe the Bounty's mission was to secure samples of breadfruit in Tahiti, for possible transplantation to the British possessions in the West Indies.
Couldn't you blow up a battleship with a 8" shell by attempting to rain down shells into the ship's funnel in an attempt to explode the ship's powerplant?
02:31:31 - Were British battleships a lot more inefficient in fuel burning than their US counterparts? This "report" referred to by the original questioner sounds like something the US Navy Supply Corps would draw up in anticipation of a KGV sailing with a US formation. They would want to estimate fuel needs for the KGV at American operational speeds, which were, on average, higher than the Royal Navy's at the time. Since the US Navy of the time favored a cruising speed of 15 knots and built plans around that speed, Americans want to know how well KGV did at 15 knots rather than how well the British ships did at their designed cruising speeds of around 10 knots. More importantly, it would explain why this report is not a major part of the historical record, because it would be highly circumstantial and not really applicable beyond the specific situation of ensuring the US Navy properly accommodated the fuel requirements of a KGV if it sailed with a US formation. Such a report would not be concerned with judging the quality of the ship, just focused on the practical needs of the ships in a specific service situation. What is clear in the historical record is that in British service, and so British operating speeds, the KGVs had excellent economy, even with bad fuel. They had short operating ranges not because of bad efficiency, but because the British were inclined to save tonnage on fuel capacity in general. Why build a battleship to sail 15,000 nm on internal stores where there is a major British port within 3,000 nm of most every point on the globe the British care about?
My fav time of month drydock extended version
For the "most 40k thing", I'd submit something that's only tangentially naval:
The raid on St.Nazaire.
That's basically THE stereotypical Space Marine action...crashing into the target, kicking ass, planting a massive bomb and then fighting their way back out before the timer goes off. Put the action on a spacedock instead of a french port and you've got yourself a 40k scenario nobody's going to question.
You know what, it it really does seem like that.
using old destroyer as boarding torpedo is something space marines would do
2:53:15 Another general prize to the USN for taking Da Orky Appoach to every hull they had afloat and adding MOAR DAKKA until they couldn't figure out where to fit it.
The most 40k Thing ever is either the The raid on St.Nazaire, or "whatever the Crew of the Barb is up to on any given day".
One of the things about Captain Langsdorff was that he found and sank a ship after making sure that the crew were uninjured and safely on their lifeboats. However, he realised that in the middle of the ocean there was a chance that they would not be found and picked up. Therefore, the radio operator under direct orders from Langsdorff used the old pre-war call letters of _Admiral Graff Spee_ to call up the RN fleet following up behind and gave exact long and lat where they'd sank the ships and therefore where the boats where
He was an officer and a gentleman of the highest order and a worthy foe
EDIT: On the subject of false musters, I am aware of someone being entered onto the books around the age of 3 and gaining "promotions" over the years which led the to Admiralty trying very very very hard when the fella was in his late 80s or early 90s to get him to retire because they realised he was still on the books and would have to offer him a fleet command in time of war - I can't remember his name, but I remember there was a wiki article about it
He didn’t really “call up the RN.”
He had the signal giving the location of _SS Clement_ repeated until he heard it acknowledged and repeated by the radio station at Pernambuco; the radio station added a kindly meant “hasta luego.”
By and to all accounts, Langsdorff took personally the duty of a ship’s captain to preserve the safety of helpless sailors, and he was one of the last military officers to consider war as a contest between and against each combatant’s _weapons,_ rather than between and against their _people._
The British are our opponents the sea is our enemy. --- Captain Langsdorff (probably)
@@calvingreene90
Probably centuries before he was born but it wasn't the British, it was the other side.
Reminds me of the Russian story of Lieutenant Kije, a fictitious Army officer created by a typo in a muster roll who was conveniently blamed for misdeeds. He was later promoted multiple times for his heroism in battle, but when Tsar Paul wanted to meet this brave officer, he unfortunately died. The story is best known for the music Sergei Prokofiev wrote for a Soviet film in 1934.
Spruance's use of the heavy cruiser Indianapolis as his flagship is an illustrative example. It was a big enough ship to have all the necessary facilities for him and his staff, yet small enough that it allowed Spruance to move himself between different parts of his fleet without taking a capital unit out of position. During the initial landings, Spruance kept the Indianapolis close to the beaches and transports, where he could easily confer with Turner and the other ground/amphibious commanders, while also providing some fire support. Then, when he got reports that the Japanese fleet was out, he was able to move his ship from the landing areas to join the carrier force. Then, Spruance just inserted the Indianapolis into the screen of the carrier group that included Mitscher's flagship, and had the same ease of quick communication with him throughout the upcoming battle.
In contrast, Halsey's choice of the battleship New Jersey as his flagship at Leyte Gulf denied him the same flexibility. New Jersey couldn't be sent off anywhere (for example, as part of TF 34) without Halsey having to go with it. It's highly debatable whether that was actually a factor in his choosing not to leave TF 34 behind guarding the San Bernardino Strait, but it does illustrate the point. Halsey couldn't detach a capital unit (one of his fast battleships) without giving up his own physical proximity to and effective command of his main carrier fleet.
That's a great point.
Another reason to have a non-combatant vessel as your flagship is that they often have a lot more room to host staff facilities.
Which makes them nicer places in which to live, not to mention in which to host cocktail parties.
That's why I love Captain Blood, they use just more smashing action of cannon-fire, but it shows them using fire embers into the cannon and fire basically fiery shrapnel burning the wood and sails. Not exploding.
In the case of Karita, he made the cruiser his flagship as that was the ship he'd commanded from for the majority of the war. It was the ship he was used to commanding from so he used that one.
I also believe the Takao-class were built with the intention of being flagship-capable, but my source for that is one book I read part of a while ago.
@@Halinspark Earlier in the war he commanded mostly cruiser squadrons so that was always his command ship. Placed in command of center force he just kept using his old flagship.
When a modern American carrier task force goes to sea not only is there an admiral commanding the entire force and his staff aboard but the admiral commanding the escorts and his staff is also aboard.
Personally, if I were inclined to find an aircraft carrier loophole in the naval treaties, I'd look into "this is a fast supply ship, not a carrier, pay no attention to how it's built like a carrier up to the hangar deck level. And that warehouse full of flight deck pieces, elevators, arresting gear, ignore that."
Sort of doing the Sangamon conversions of Cimarron oilers, but designed that way to begin with and possibly much larger. There's nothing in the treaties to say you can't have a 30,000 ton oiler or supply vessel.
No no, you misunderstand! It LOOKS like a carrier, but that's just because we like the aesthetic, what's that? It carries airplanes? Well, yes...but it also carries shells as well, but it's not a cruiser now is it?
@@Rammstein0963. The planes are also carrying more fuel, it's just more efficient to deliver already fuelled vehicles to the front lines instead of just fuel on it's own don't ya know? And sometimes those planes take off to make special "supply deliveries" that the ship doesn't have time to stop for on the way to its destination.
Could you consider the Furious, Courageous and Glorious in their original guises as Funnies? I've thought them more as large high speed monitors than Battlecruisers.
Probably a better/more accurate description. The other description I'd go with is mistake.
I honestly don't think anyone actually took 5 mins to actually think about why they were building them and what for before they were finished. Don't think they'd even have been that great in the proposed Baltic Raid.
They certainly had to be courageous to sail with the guns and armour that they had, so they were aptly named.
Speaking of Captain Bligh... I don't think we've ever had a Wednesday special on his voyage to Timor? And just how he managed to pull off this lifeboat feat?
As far as I'm concerned, nobody did nearly as much with a lifeboat as Ernest Shackleton but I'd be happy to hear about some honorable mentions!
@@greenseashipsIt’s a close run thing, but I have always held the view that Bligh’s journey was the greater achievement due to the circumstances in which it began. The follow up voyages (returning to England, the Pandora etc) just add to the horror.
For "Heavy Cruisers (and Transports)" used as flagships, it's also the point that many times the capital ships that have the flag facilities already have a Flag Officer and their staff occupying them. Wheras heads of state or another flag officer leading a specific operation is transient and it would be disruptive to the tenant flag officer's command to 'bump' them off their flagship.
I thought when talking about funnies, you would have mentioned the Roman Corvus? I suspect the enemy thought they looked funny the first time it was used.
My least favourite 'trope' is sailing ships charging around the ocean at high speed and in all directions like powered vessels.
11 inch was a known calibre in smooth bor and rifled muzzle loaders, the weird 283 calibre has much to do with how the lands and grooves were set - the famous K18 17cm long cannon in WW2 was also 173 mm, so down to manufacture.
It's also worth mentioning that Sweden also looked at 10 and 12 inch guns for Sverige during development. The most well armed proposal that I'm aware of is from 1911 and carries 6 x 12 inch guns
1:02:47 also in this scene in particular the first rate would have a pretty good chance against those two ships, definitely the black pearl and also either the two pirates ships or the EIC ship is sailing against the wind and still going forward.
Bligh suffered most especially on Bounty from the fact that most officers and the"volunteers"on Bounty like Christian saw themselves as gentlemen whilst Bligh with his mercantile and before the mast background was not seen as such
The intro music to dry drydock will live in my head for the rest of my life. 😂❤
Not sure if the comparison is perfect, but in the army (pre firearms becoming standard) the commander would often be with the cavalry. A quick unit that can hit a heavy blow when pointed in the right direction. Or as a reserve to plug holes when and where they occur. Your Battleships would be your Infantry, Cruisers your Cavalry and your Destroyers are your Archers.
2:52:22 Well i'd have to say that a lot of Destroyers, like Piorun, Cossack, Johnston, Samuel B. Roberts etc. all seemingly being Khorne worshipers or they are showing the usual Imperial Guardsman attitude depending how you read it.
Oh and i know this is Warhammer Fantasy, but BurOrd seemingly all being Skavens as they keep coming up with complex ideas that often make no sense and usually don't work out and/or hurting their own side in the end usually doing more damage to boot.
And hiding in the tunnelz when they are approached about problems
Flying Dutchman in potc decided to become American for a bit "how much gun can i physically fit on my ship? Now how can i bully physics into letting me add a few more"
The first Geneva Convention was adopted in 1864, and significantly revised and replaced in 1906, 1929, and finally 1949.
you have strange way to spell geneve must to do checklist :D
I recall Admiral Spruance commanded 5th Fleet from USS Indianpolis until she suffered torpedo damage
A US Navy carrier air group has a captain in charge because it is a separate command outside of the carrier. He is answerable only to the battlegroup commander. Both captains cooperate to complete their mission.
2:37:35
Is it true that the RN were so unimpressed with both the 14” and 16” guns they had in 1942, that even if they could have built enough for another battleship, they still would have chosen to use spare 15” for _Vanguard?_
Didn't the captain of the Tone also claim that he ordered his gunnery officer to direct his fire away from the part of the Gambier Bay where the crew was in the process of abandoning ship because he was so impressed by how orderly and disciplined they were as they did it?
Seems doubtful. At medium to long range, you’re looking at shell dispersion of at least several hundred yards in each salvo, so it’s not really practical to target a specific part of a ship. Well, you could use a specific part as your aim point, you can’t expect to actually hit one specific part of a ship. You’d just be moving your shell spread slightly one way or the other, which reduces the likelihood of any hits at all. It would be more likely that the captain ordered them to switch targets once Gambier Bay’s crew abandoned ship, as there were plenty of other ships that weren’t sinking.
Thanks Drachinifel for the Stern Walk answer I'd seen it on Warspite and QE and was trying to figure out what it was
Mail Call (0:16:12) On "Routine Patrol" there were also Mail Bouys that would be anchored at a specific location for the ship on Patrol to pick up their mail and then leave the return mail!
Naval funnies for WWII brings to mind Project Habakkuk
Okay the end result is just a, very large, carrier. But a pykrete ship with a hull refrigeration plant is pretty oddball
Unfortunately the only Destroyer museum ship close to me is a Daring class , so imagine that to be quite a bit larger than a Japanese destroyer from WW2 . I will still visit the HMAS Vampire though
1:09:23 the lack of anchors probably wasn't a major thing for the loss of the Armarda off Scotland Ireland as in a seaway sheet archors rather than lumpy metal things were the only valid requirement, -if a sheet anchor can't stop a ship in a windward scenario an iron anchor will equally struggle no to least due to lack of chain length and striking a secure sea floor. And even when a ship has struck its anchors, sheet anchors are relativily easy to fashion from existing materials on ships -especially age of sail ships.
Interesting choice for the penultimate question's answer. I personally (being more of a general history guy and less of a naval expert) would have chosen the trireme design. It was the granddaddy of galley design. It was the most important warship design from the 6th to the 3rd century B.C. and its various successor types dominated Mediterranean naval warfare to at least the battle of Lepanto, so 2000 years give or take. Well the bireme was basically the daddy of the trireme (and I just realized, that as we are talking about ships, I should have said granny). Anyway I don't think you can beat the galley in terms of longevity. I at least know of no other ship type that stayed relevant as a main combatant in naval warfare for more than two millennia.
I need Drydock Merch.
RE: Schill and P Class cruisers. I believe Schill is based upon one of several war time "Handelszerstörer" designs; related to the P class but newer. One - with turbines - had a single funnel.
If it's the same Yukikaze that you talked about yesterday I would seriously doubt there's any record/memoir from said Captain with that record LOL.
Oh, I don't know. At least he'd still be alive to write one, which is more than most of the captains of the ships that he was escorting could say.
Thanks Drach.
George Melly's "Rum, Bum and Concertina" which includes his service in the Royal Navy in the later years of WW2 and the immediate post-war period, has some information on ship's libraries, including his finding an extensive selection of the works George Bernard Shaw in the ship's library, which proved most useful when defending himself after being found to be in possesion of anarchist literature.
I don't remember what show it was on. I believe it was Dogfights on the battle off Samar. It was an interview of a Johnson crewman. They ended up fighting a Japanese destroyer squadron. They were dead and sinking and pretty much had nothing left to fire. He said he saw a destroyer go past him and someone saluted them. I don't remember reading anything about it in the book Last Stand of the Tin Can.
@2:52 - your numbers on the running costs of Capital ships appears to ignore crew costs, which would surely be highly significant with a complement of two thousand or more on some vessels. You also pointedly avoided converting 1920’s pounds to present day value, since of course all the numbers become astronomically large.
I mentioned crew costs as a variable depending on what the ship was doing, fully manned, 'peacetime' manned or in reserve. I additionally pointed out that calculating this was difficult as each rank was paid differently so you'd have to work out the exact makeup of a ships crew and then take their individual rates from the Navy Estimates.
There is little point in converting 1920's pounds to 2023 pounds as 1) The question asked about the operating costs of those ships at the time, there are no comparable ships today. 2) Directly converting via inflation is a poor way of approximating value, depending on how you scale them, there are at least 4 different figures a 1920's monetary amount could be worth in 2023 and all are very different.
Didn't Lt. Myles Barrett of the Hoel claim that some Japanese sailors threw what he initially thought were grenades at him but turned out to be potatoes?
Well, the US threw potatoes at the Japanese... So it would be fitting a reverse Uno Card
I recall on the USS Crommelin (FFG37) which was a OH Perry class frigate, there was a small lounge a bit forward on 2nd deck which had about a hundred books. The rule was to read them there but some sailors would take one for some night reading in their rack and return it the next day. About half were fiction of some kind, some were biographies and some were humor. It was in this library that I found Daniel Gallery and his book, 'Stand By-y-y To Start Engines', and read more of his work from there that was at the base library.
I really enjoyed Gallery’s books.
I served on an Adams class DDG in the late 60s. Our library was a little cubby off the mess deck, containing maybe a couple dozen books. It was there I first encounter Theodore Roscoe's book about destroyer actions in WWII. A few years ago, I finally obtained a copy of my own. And yes, I have read Gallery's books, but we didn't have any on board.
@@maynardcarmer3148 Which one? I served on DDG7 in the late 80's, and don't remember much of a library.
@VintageCarHistory
The Sellers, DDG 11
Many, many years ago, 40 + years ago I took navigation at school ! On the Naval charts we were using at that time there was an area in the Moray Firth off Invergordon thatvwas marked as a submarine training ground? Why was this?
The galley fed the body and the Library fed the mind and soul...I believe Readers Digest was donated to the US military . All the best to you and yours... PAB
Having been in drydock several times, I will point out to you that the reason for no ammunition is that the firemains are not in normal commission, as sea suction for the firepumps is not a thing. Yes, you do have shore firemain, but....
The Vickers 14 inch naval gun seems to be the gun that was crying out for a Navy to adopt?? Was there any navy that run 😢with it as their primary weapon?
I believe the Japanese did, in a mixture of British-built and Japanese-built guns, for the Kongo, Ise, and Fuso classes.
Yes the IJN.
Cramped in... in 87 in CIC of LSD32 we had 16 or 20 people in a 12x12 ft compartment. A drt, 2 radar repeaters, many phones, a chief and lieutenant... lol. And our CIWS control.
It was cozy
56:56
Kapow …
Kapow …
Kapow …
Kapow …
Kapow …
Kapow …
That oughta scare away those pesky aeroplanes.
Extracts from Admiral E.C. Troubridge's courtmartial regarding these guns include these comments: "The 9.2-inch Mark XI [guns used on HMS Defence] has always been known as an inaccurate gun. It is probably due to the high muzzle velocity. The 9.2-inch Mark X [guns]. . . are inaccurate at certain stages of wear of the gun. Otherwise they are accurate guns" and "For the 9.2-inch Mark X and XI and 7.5-inch Mark II the average spread [dispersion] was 200 - 250 yards at a range of 7000 - 8000 yards" (180 - 230 m spread at ranges of 6,400 - 7,300 m).
If there is significant evidence (and not just from the Japanese side-in that case I'd be much more skeptical unless the evidence was especially compelling) that a Japanese destroyer saluted Johnston as she was sinking, but it’s unlikely that the crew would line up on deck during a battle and also unlikely that a Johnston survivor would be able to see AND identify the captain saluting while abandoning ship, isn’t the most likely option that the Johnston survivors who reported the incident misidentified one of the Japanese officers or crew as the captain?
My guess is that it happened, but it was just the captain and assorted bridge crew (those people immediately around the captain) who did so. That would explain why some Johnston survivors described crew members “lining the rails”, since the rails in that specific area around the bridge would effectively have been lined. Also, it makes sense why they would say the captain was involved even if they might not have been able to identify that specific individual - if you see a bunch of people all lined up near the bridge saluting you, you’d figure the captain was one of them.
It's more likely that the Johnston's crew are busy submerging themselves just under the surface to avoid getting picked of by rifle fire amd such accounts were romanticization by troops stationed in Japan post war, or victimization spread by the Japanese.
@@fidjeenjanrjsnsfh
Good point. Explains why men were lined up at the rails. And the salute might have been the command to shoot.
There are various ways of making a 'salute'.
@@fidjeenjanrjsnsfh
We have accounts from both sides in this case, the Japanese accounts might be historical revisionism (common thing for them) but that’s not as likely for the American accounts. Were any of Johnston’s crew ever stationed in Japan during the occupation?
Wouldn't the proposed pykrete aircraft carrier be classified as a "funny"?
Old British gallons were a quart more than the US gallon up into the 60’s or so. So doing math down to gallons from tones of fuel burned could through some numbers off
I rarely look at the comments of these videos I should look at them more.
They provide answers or nore information to a certain question in Drydock.
Lastly, another two parter. Better strap in
My idea for the escort carrier is as an escort carrier. Basically, the same thing you said about the Fuso battleship. Have the ship as a 32 knot ship. Have it only carry fighter aircraft to be used as CAP for the fleet. Technically, the same thing could have been done with the light carriers and Ranger if the escort carrier was too slow.
To the fellow beginning his history major, some advice: find the exact area you want to work in and immediately continue on for a masters in that field. While studying, volunteer or take a job in that field/line of work while doing your schooling to make connections and network. This will help you immensely when you are job hunting. And don’t rely solely on loans. Apply for scholarships and grants as much as you can.
Mr. Drach, the Japanese salute story is covered in the very nice book “The Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors.” I have the book and can send it to you if you like. I actually kept the book for you. Please reply and we will get in touch so I can send the book. There was also a Japanese sailor who threw a can of tomato’s at a survivor in the water.
The 8,000 ton limit resulted in the Dido (5,600-5,900 tons) and Atlanta (6,700 tons) classes.
1:24:50 My question wasn't about 11" being uncommon, but why did they choose 283 instead of 280 or 279(11"). German guns after 305 are all rounded for example
I wonder if the particularity why it is precisely 283 mm instead of another number, is probably a choice made somewhere in the the design process that or needs access in the Swedish archives. I would not look to deep into the meaning of it though, the shells are not EXACTLY 280 , 279 mm or something like that in the first place.
Ah, I shall re-answer in next week's episode!
Well my "blue" siblings in the senior service had a fondness of 'odd' calibres at the time, proposal 'A' for the what eventually became the Sverige-class had 194mm guns as secondary armament while the Swedish 15cm naval cannon was actually a 152mm gun. None of the Swedish books I've looked at so far explains exactly why the 28cm cannon m/12 was actually 283mm, for that level of detail you will probably have to go to the Bofors archive or Krigsarkivet (War Archive). The later is likely where the records of the naval advisory board that recomended the 28cm/283mm as the main alternative is to be found. (The navy did want 12 inch/305mm guns but it proved impossible to design an alternative with twin 305mm turrets that had the speed and armour that the Swedish navy wanted while still displacing no more than 7500 tons.)
@@Vonstab 152 mm is exactly 6 inches so there are many reasons for that. 194 mm is odd indeed but 283 caught my eyes in particular because Germany also used the same number.
@natthaphonhongcharoen Sweden uses the metric system so a 150 or 155mm calibre would have been the logical choice.
Digging into the sources it turns out that the origin of the 152mm calibre is the Swedish purchase of Armstrong 6 inch guns in 1883.
In the early 1880s there was a crisis in the Swedish arms industry. Finspång who supplied the navy with the bulk of their cannon lacked the know-how and machinery to make modern steel artillery. Bofors knew the process thanks to cooperation with Krupp but only had the capacity to make light artillery. So Armstrong was contracted to deliver 9.2 and 6 inch guns while Finspång and Bofors wrestled with improving their ability to a point where they could deliver modern medium and heavy naval artillery.
In the end Bofors succeed but the Swedish navy liked their experience with the Armstrong 6 inch so much that they preferred that calibre to the naval version of the Bofors 16cm so 152mm stuck as the medium calibre of the Swedish navy and costal artillery.
The 194mm cannon was likely inspired by the French Canon de 194mm modele 1902. The naval board was likely using foreign weaponry in those cases where there was no existing Swedish design that met the requirements. Which suggests that the choice of 283mm took inspiration from Germany.
1) Where would you rate _Wasp_ in the list of “expedient” aircraft carriers - those which were built to use up treaty tonnage, converted from other large warships (not from civilian vessels), built as quickly as possible ahead of foreseen events, or as “full scale experiments?”
2) Do you think _Wasp_ would have been more successful (or at least survived longer) if the USN had decided to put a smaller air group aboard her in exchange for improved (or, really, more than zero) survivability elements?
Yukikaze saluting Johnston? Final proof that it was a spy!
Regarding Bligh, he was plenty bad but it didn't have much to do with the mutiny. IIRC he was involved in a fair number of atrocities against various native populations, but that was pretty much a general thing in the empires of the time.
Re: 00:29:58 - Modern US carriers
I have to wonder what the US Navy Brass could have been thinking when they made that decision in the 1980s. If the Ship's Captain decides to go one way and CAG wants to go the other way who wins? Every Carrier I ever deployed on had an Admiral onboard who directed where the Carrier Battle Group went and what the Airwing's target were. CAG is just like a tenant command on any Naval Air Station or Facility. The Commanding Officer of the Base generally had the last say over what a tenant command did.
Mind, modern US carriers are not treated as individual ships, but as the centerpiece of a single tactical unit, the Carrier Battlegroup. There is no "conflict" between the CAG and Ship's captain, because they are functionally administrative subordinates to the Battlegroup Commander who actually controls the whole bunch of ships and planes as one unit.
In other words, every US supercarrier has an admiral who is CAG, Ship's Captain, and Fleet Commander in one person.
Regarding the comment on Bligh's lack of "brutality" and that being a factor in mutinies, not just his. (question at about 25:00):
I am reminded of a comment I read a long time ago on the retreat to Corunna during the Peninsular Campaign, to the effect that the units which suffered most from desertion and ill discipline were those of the Light Division, where Sir Johgn Moore had famously "light" discipline compared to that of the other British Army units. It would seem that "sparing the rod" spoiled not only the child, but also the military unit!
Many sailing ships had masts well over 100 feet in height. How were the various sections spliced together to reach such lofty heights?
02:31:32
I was rather surprised at your comment that KGV was more fuel effiecient than it's American counter part.
While I do not dispute the source you cited, it is contrary to what I have read in D. K. Brown's "NELSON TO VANGUARD: Warship Design and Developement 1923 to 1945"
Where he states that " at low speeds, King George V burnt 39 per cent more fuel than Washington which still retained a big advantage at higher speeds."
The higher steam pressure, improved turbines, and other improvements were mentioned by Brown as contributing to the higher fuel efficiency, lighter machinery, and higher safety factors.
The higher steam temperatures and operating pressures should from a physics standpoint result in higher fuel efficienty.
I agree, it is very odd and I expected the same, but when I looked at KGV's fuel use figures from her trials and the USN's recorded figures it upended things, but I still had to report based on those figures. As I mentioned I suspect it might've been due to optimisation for specific speeds, as well as the poor quality fuel KGV had in the mid-war, which is when she ran with the NorCal's.
@@Drachinifel
I understand, it is a problem when you have contradictory, but authoritative sources.
Your love of physics and engineering questions? Was the Fraude tanks the ultimate mix of both?
Captains have lots of scrambled egg on their hats Drach. They're easy to spot.
"Were British battleships a lot more inefficient in fuel burning than their US counterparts?"
I would look up Vice-Admiral Sir Louis Le Bailly's comments on this if I were you Drachinifel. The problem was more to do with the lack of jointing compound in RN ships. He comments how in Tokoyo Bay he visited Missouri and toured here engineering spaces in 2s. Whereas his USN counterpart cried off halfway through his tour of DoY's engineering spaces due to heat exhaustion and filth.
Ok and? US Admiral would have appreciated the heat in the Arctic
That iwould being song is banger. Sup mates? Happy dry dock…
I agree. Anyone know what’s the name of that song?
@@StylinandProfilinBBsandBBQ it’s a sample by Cab Calloway I forget the exact name. Obviously the only the gunfire was added. The beat was always banger.
“Wat dat de” by teknoaxe? It’s cab calloway
2:47:23 Where do you find the cost and maintenance of those ships?
1:12:17 The best thing the USN could have done with the Wasp was to unbolt and extend the deck and then lower it onto a fourth Yorktown hull being built alongside Hornet, recycling the CV-7 hull and powerplants along the way. To me, the Wasp is the most fascinating of the interwar USN carriers because her history was so short and it took place in both the Atlantic & Pacific. IIRC she has not had an crew and history themed book about her like The Big E or Queen of the Flat-tops. We know the saga of the rest except for Ranger (who is in the same circumstances as Wasp story-wise) by heart. What tales are we missing from Wasp & Ranger? I would welcome some recommendations!
Didn't the Casablanca's have Skinner engines, a late 30's development.The basic principle was long known, but getting it to work was not easy. Unaflow engines can run at slightly higher rpm than triple expansion, their availability allowed production of a 20 knot carrier without turbines.
I would be interested in a video on "Unsinkable Sam" the Bismarck's cat. I know you've done ship's cats but none have the history of this cat.
It doesn't have to be a "valid" point by the rules of war to still have been a real factor.
Didn’t William Bligh of Bounty fame command Agamemnon (the 64 gun former Nelson command) at the Battle of Copenhagen?
Regarding the North Carolina versus the King George V fuel efficiency it's my understanding that coal has a higher energy density than the oil that North Carolina would have used. 50 to 70% higher. I don't know if any of the comparisons between the two actually account for the difference in fuel type. If such a conversion were not done or worse if it were done incorrectly then someone would get very deceptive numbers.
Which do you consider the better / more “efficient” design: a 10,000t heavy cruiser with 9x8” guns (three triples), capable of 32kts, with as much armor as would fit; or a 8,000t light with 12x6” guns (four triples), capable of 33kts, with as much armor as would fit?
I have not responded in a while here since most of the topics were not of too much interest to me. But this comparison between the US and British battleships seems to me to be a bit biased, which Drach in general strives quite hard not to do. Given that, at 2:31:31 the efficiency of US battleships vs British ones seems to be reviewed and analyzed in a strange way. The comparison of US vs. British ships that Drach used was based on fuel used per shaft horse power. But this seems to be very strange to me. No one looks at an automobile's efficiency based on the gas used per engine horse power. All measurements are simply fuel used based on distance traveled! Then Drach also pointed out that ships designed to run at a certain speed, that those designed to run at a slower speed will get worse 'fuel used per shaft horse power' that would be less efficient when running at a higher speed as compared to ships designed to run at the faster speed. I would question point as well. Efficiency of any machine is an inherent production of that machine, and not so related to speed. For instance, car can be designed to run at most efficient at a certain speed, say 50 MPH, and another can be designed to use an engine that its max efficiency is at 60 MPH. But this does NOT mean that the car deigned to best run at 50 MPH will burn far more, or measurably more, at 60 MPH than the car designed with its engine geared for 60 MPH. The normal measure of car efficiency is what miles per gallon each gets at those speeds, and furthermore, the car with the engine designed to deliver its best efficiency at 60 MPH may get worse miles per gallon at all speeds. So, unless this is totally different when basing efficiency on fuel used per horsepower, I do not follow your conclusions in either case.
In my ballistics file I do not compare or rate efficiency of the WW II battleships, so I have no real figures to present here, and if I did, it would be SOLELY on miles (or knots) per gallon. I do have the ships weights (displacements) and their range, and range is always given at a certain constant speed. Unfortunately, the statistics I could find on all these WW II battleships do not show the ranges at the same speed! I suppose I could calculate knots/gallon based on these ranges at the different speeds, but it will not be a comparison of apples to apples with the average speeds varying from ship to ship[ so much. With some of the data in my ballistics file, I do interpolate some power and gun distance figures, but for this topic I would have to do this for fuel used per distance, so I will look and see if this is doable with my data, but it still an interpolation process may not produce really accurate results. (Interpolation is a process where you estimate a points of data, based on at least two other points of actual data. )
I think without doing this analysis, this real response to the question presented is really an unknown, but it appears that the person who posted the question did have some research that did definitely imply that that the British battleships ships were less efficient than the US ones. But this could also be an over simplification because this may have varied significantly from ship to ship - in other words, which battleships are you comparing, which may come down to when was each designed and built, or had its engines replaced/overhauled, as well as its size (weight, as well as width since both will impact the ships efficiency traveling through water). I will try to do this analysis using my ballistics file, and report back here if I can come up with some reasonable figures. But when I do this, 'efficiency'' will be based solely in knots per gallon. If I can find multiple range figures per ship (thus range at different speeds for the same ship and thus get different knots/gallon figures per ship), then the resultant numbers may have validity.
For more info, the range of the British battleships without exception were greatly less than the US ships. But as pointed out by Drach already, this could depend on many factors, some of which are not related to overall engine efficiency. In general, the British ships were designed with much smaller fuel capacity, partly with the thought they they would be fighting mainly in the North Atlantic, and the Mediterranean, and that there were ample place to refuel in those areas of operation. Thus, they were never designed to go across the Atlantic and fight on the other side there, as their cruisers were more aptly afforded. The US battleships were designed for decades to traverse both the Atlantic and the Pacific, which was a mark of just about all the US ships (and boats, like the subs). There were some exceptions to the British battleship ranges, such as the Nelson class, which had a range of 7,000 nautical miles at 16 knots, which is excellent.
Why were the R Class Battleships Royal Sovereign and Revenge not given tripod foremasts, like their sisters?
11:38 would you say the crew of the USS Vestal was experienced with Enterprise's layout? 😂
Lmao, I could imagine it was the crew of the most cursed destroyer of Japan 😊 it would not surprise me one bit if it's true that they also threw them supplies as well, I mean why not I'm sure they were traitors to every other crew that they ever sailed with considering they always came out unscathed😂😂
Happy Thanksgiving!
A :Post Ship had to be a Ship, i.e. a three masted, shipped rigged vessel. There were no other types of Post Ship. Cochrane was not a was a Commander when he had Speedy. The Gamo capture took place on May 6, 1801. Cochrane was promoted to Post Captain on August 6, 1801.
A :Post Ship had to be a Ship, i.e. a three masted, shipped rigged vessel. There were no other types of Post Ship. Cochrane was not a Post Captain when he commanded Speedy, he was a Commander. The Gamo capture took place on May 6, 1801. Cochrane was promoted to Post Captain on August 6, 1801.
Well, just to be fair. Villeneuve wasn't incompetent either. V's main problem was the lack of training and "war gaming", which persisted in the French fleet under Boney. Boney didn't really care about naval matters beside his goal to invade or hurt Britain.
Ehh complicated, but yeah
@wierdalien1
Boney had no clue about naval matters and continuously disregarded advice from flag officers.
On one occasion, Boney wanted to watch a landing rehearsal at Bologne, despite he had been advised by his naval staff that conditions were unfavourable.
Result: Dozens of boats destroyed, 2,000 soldiers drowned.
1:47:00 So in the end I guess it WAS a good place to enjoy a tobacco product. As long as you were a commanding officer :D
Transports would be the flag ship for landing operations. They also modified Treasury Class Coast Guard cutters were refit to be landing command ships. Convoys in the north Atlantic used large cargo ships for the commodore to command the merchant ship. The Commodores being retired RN senior officers, recalled to active duty. Quite a few being toroedoed and lost. The commodore being subordinate to the escort commander, who was junior to him rank. One would think this would be awkward. Reality was the professionalism of those involved made it work. Civility, etquet and basic politeness helped.
In the age of sail, what did they do to “dispose” with a “worn out warship”?
the United states had the Department of War in the preceding years before the Department of Defense it uses the Pentagon as the marker of the change. There existed small course of study on various subjects including Chickens and Poultry raising for example. I also had the course for using a machine shop in a setting without electricity. The paperback books were made available and the test materials were held in the ships office. The same method as for the advancement courses for Seaman them the individual 3 and 2s for each work specialty ie Bosun Mater or BM. Then the 1 and C . There are General Military requirements and Job Specific requirements . Many opportunities for self improvement located in the ships library if you dared to look
I thought there were powder filled cannonballs available so that they would actually explode after being fired
Not in the 1760s
Though exploding ordnance existed since at least the 15th century, they were not used much as anti-ship ordnance until around the 1850s, near the very end of the Age of Sail and well after most movies are set.
This was mostly because the shells had a habit of blowing up in the guns firing them and it was very hard to isolate the effects of a detonating gun on a ship's deck like one could on land.
Why does the Bounty have plants in the picture circa 23:00 mins? E.g. eating or botany on the Bounty. Were they common on ships at that time?
I believe the Bounty's mission was to secure samples of breadfruit in Tahiti, for possible transplantation to the British possessions in the West Indies.
@@ronaldfinkelstein6335 If I recall correctly the breadfruit plants were thrown overboard as well by the mutineers.
@@ronaldfinkelstein6335 Ah, thanks!
What is the Anchor Turning trope?
Re tropes??? How accurate is/ was the star trek " scottish" cheif engineer accurate? And why?
US considered armor:speed:firepower for ships much as Germany considered it for tanks.
Motor vehicles in the U.S. are most efficient well below typical highway speeds.
Couldn't you blow up a battleship with a 8" shell by attempting to rain down shells into the ship's funnel in an attempt to explode the ship's powerplant?
02:31:31 - Were British battleships a lot more inefficient in fuel burning than their US counterparts?
This "report" referred to by the original questioner sounds like something the US Navy Supply Corps would draw up in anticipation of a KGV sailing with a US formation. They would want to estimate fuel needs for the KGV at American operational speeds, which were, on average, higher than the Royal Navy's at the time.
Since the US Navy of the time favored a cruising speed of 15 knots and built plans around that speed, Americans want to know how well KGV did at 15 knots rather than how well the British ships did at their designed cruising speeds of around 10 knots.
More importantly, it would explain why this report is not a major part of the historical record, because it would be highly circumstantial and not really applicable beyond the specific situation of ensuring the US Navy properly accommodated the fuel requirements of a KGV if it sailed with a US formation. Such a report would not be concerned with judging the quality of the ship, just focused on the practical needs of the ships in a specific service situation.
What is clear in the historical record is that in British service, and so British operating speeds, the KGVs had excellent economy, even with bad fuel. They had short operating ranges not because of bad efficiency, but because the British were inclined to save tonnage on fuel capacity in general. Why build a battleship to sail 15,000 nm on internal stores where there is a major British port within 3,000 nm of most every point on the globe the British care about?
Watching the views tick over, whilst the likes stay constant? C'mon guys if you view please leave a like😅😅😅
👍👍