A long time ago I sketched out a story where British intelligence got wind of Japanese plans for Pearl Harbor very early on, and Churchill was so desperate to bring the US into the war that not only did he not pass on any warning to the US, he had all British documents on Pearl Harbor leaked to the Japanese So something like this I'm guessing
Lamb chops are obviously a mini biography or battle review dish. Guide to Warships is your staple, steak is best but I find a juicy burger is an acceptable substitute. Drydocks are best paired with fish or an oven roasted chicken breast and potatoes.
Regarding declassifications of documents. Having experience in the matter, I'd also add that just cause something is declassified doesn't mean you can find it. Think the final scene in Raiders of the Lost Ark, multiplied by the dozens if not hundreds of storage locations. That's exactly what it's like. Tens of thousands of boxes each with oddles of documents sitting in some storage facility. Yes, there are often indexes, but the titles of those documents in the index may be ambiguous. For example, the index/title might be "Meeting Minutes of the Committe on Intelligence, March, 1943". Only until someone actually reads it will they find perhaps that the US bribed the Japanese pilots escorting Yamamoto to let the P-38 get in to shoot him down. Unless someone quickly finds the proverbial needle in the haystack, it'll may take years before revelations come out, if any. Heck, in the US we're still finding interesting nuggets from the civil war 160 years ago!!!!
As someone who writes (non naval) history that reflects my experience. You order a file of documents that has a title that sounds potentially useful and when you visit the massive archive building to go through the file, it reveals very little. But after you publish the article or book someone points out that valuable info is contained in a file that you never considered inspecting.
Forget about Raiders, it will be more like Yes Minister. In one episode the Minister, Jim Hacker, was about to be embarassed by a petition that he himself had lead when his party was in opposition. He instructed Bernard, his personal secretary, to get rid of it. Innocently, Bernard asked if it should be filed or shredded. Hacker, in near panic, emphasised that no one should ever see it again. Bernard then replied "In that case, I'll file it Minister".
Ugaki's diary gives 6 possible causes for the presence of the American fleet at Midway. These include: 1) submarine spotting the IJN fleet departing; 2) intelligence from Russian ships; 3) security leakage (but only by the Army!); 4) general radio intelligence; 5) discovery of landing force on the previous day (but ruled unlikely); 6) educated guess based on Coral Sea (apparently fake information disseminated by the US). There was also interception of Nagumu's radio transmission.
Good point. Based on what survives in terms of documentary evidence (at least, that has made it into English), Ugaki's diary is yet more evidence of just how unwilling the Japanese were to consider the possibility that their codes had been broken to any extent.
@@richardmalcolm1457 More from Ugaki's diaray, this from 30 July 1942: "The United States is said to have known all about our strength disposition in the middle of April. They must have succeeded in decoding, which was the cause of our defeat at Midway." How this information was gleaned is not given. The Japanese made a major change in their JN25 code on 1 August 1942.
@@sk43999 Interesting -- I was not familiar with this diary entry! I *would* be curious what basis there was for this speculation by Ugaki (or if indeed it was only that -- just speculation), and how widely it might have been shared. I tend to think it must not have gained much traction, because the subsequent changes in JN-25 in summer 1942 and spring 1943 were just that - upgrades to JN-25. If the IJN general staff really believed that the Allies had substantially cracked it, they would surely have wanted to move on to a more fundamental change in their code, and use the existing one in the meantime sparingly, and even to mislead the US through false communications. But....this doesn't seem to have happened.
Anything that needs to be classified for longer than the construction of the first nuclear weapons. Must be pretty mind blowing stuff. Then again time has a way of damping the effect. Some Kennedy assassination stuff was recently declassified. The most interesting tidbit was Oswald called the KGB in Moscow before the assassination. I found that interesting. Because it's not like in the early 60s you could Google something like that. You would have to know it by heart.
Admiral King had a press conference on June 7, 1942 (his first of the war) where he made some careful statements about how the US came to be near Midway. He implied it was a combination of submarine recon and top down thinking about likely IJN actions.
What if they had discovered the idea behind the Quicksink bomb in WW2? Imagine telling King or one of the other Navy Brass the idea. "Yes sir you have that right. We're intentionally trying not to hit them."
00:05:43 Rather than redesign to HO105 it might have been more valid to change the feed design in the otherwise fairly adequate 25mm. The Japanese had 20 mm Oerlikons in service even before they fixed on the Hotchkiss 25 mm system. And the IJA had developed a 20mm Type 98, which could probably adapted to belt feed. But in reality, like everyone else they really needed a 37-45 mm weapon.
Why not take the direct approach, license the 40mm from Bofors? It was available about the same time as the Hotchkiss. Bofors would license it to anyone with a checkbook. The Soviets licensed the 25mm version from Bofors, reverse engineered it, and scaled it up to 37mm.
If the Royal Navy had acquired nuclear weapons in 1945, I absolutely guarantee that someone would have found a way to strap one to a Swordfish. I doubt that the temptation could be resisted.
They probably would not have had any trouble finding someone to drop it either. Right so go in at 20' and drop the thing when I am 100 yards from the target, and get out of there as fast as I can. That is fair enough but why do I need to wear sun cream in December? Is this new weapon canned sunshine or something like that?
Something interesting in sealed documents? I am waiting for the release of everything, or at least everything left there, on the Hess affair. There have been a lot of speculations on whether certain people were "too interested" in Hess' peace proposal and that embarrassment was covered up. That should be fully exposed or refuted.
QUESTION: - Drach, do you think the RN and the Britsh government could have convinced the other powers to sign the Naval treaties that only focused on captial ships, no restrictions on size or numbers of cruisers or destroyers? Surely using capital ship budgets and crews for crusiers and destoryers would have allowed the RN to maintain numerical superiority, and maintain imperial sea lanes, whilst maintaining captial ship parity? The RN was, are and will continue to be desperate for crusiers, particularly heavy crusiers and destoryers through the 30's upto today.
Why do people have this obsession with trying to cheat? Arms negotiation policies were meant to do just that. Control arms and their proliferation. Not create loopholes. not to make more weapons of war.
@@WALTERBROADDUS OP is not talking about anyone “cheating” a treaty. He’s talking about a treaty that only defined and restricted capital ships (perhaps submarines too), leaving all navies free to build whatever cruisers they chose. He is positing that the RN would have been well-able to keep pace with or stay ahead of the world in cruisers, which really was a high priority, perhaps even higher than big-gun ships.
@@WALTERBROADDUS So, was making exception to the “no carriers” rule by allowing carriers up to 10,000 cheating? Was banning construction of ships _except for_ those smaller than 10K tons and armed with 8” guns cheating? In your world view, it seems, any contract with a clause that includes “except for” would be cheating. Weird. “Cheating” is when a party agrees to a set of rules and then not following them. Not when all parties agree to a set of rules and then follow them.
In your recent, and excellent conclusion video featuring Captain Walker, in a section in the second half, you describe various stats about his squadron during a fete given at their home port. You mention that sailors spent money at local pubs, the canteen and something called "Tambola" (I'm not sure I've spelled it correctly). What is a Tambola? To my American ears it sounds like a nightclub/lounge name, or ballroom name, which was a common practice during the period. IE we are broadcasting live from the Tambola room at the East Buggeringhamshire Hotel with the swinging sounds of the Tommy Dorsey Orchestra and the incomparable Miss Vera Lynn.
He he! 😂 It's basically a low stakes raffle with multiple prizes per round. Oh, and to get the atmosphere right at the East Buggeringhamshire Hotel, it probanly should have been Al Bowlly's orchestra, though he had been killed in the London Blitz.
"Tambola" is I think the shop onboard the ship, like the US naval vessels like New Jersey has a whole trinket shop and I think this is of a similar concept.
@@notshapedforsportivetricks2912 thanks for the British Orchestra tip. I grew up in a house with my dad's massive record collection of 1930s jazz and big band music. I'll have to see if he had any recordings of him.
I don’t understand. If upper plate has an apparent 30% reduction, and you put 8 inches on top with 2 on bottom, you get an apparent 7.6 inches, which is less than the 8 inch plate alone. Does putting a plate behind actually SUBTRACT thickness?
Assuming the Americans had gone "Sod the Treaty limitations" three years earlier than they did, perhaps as a result of figuring out what the Japanese were doing, what effects would this have had on the Essex, Iowas, and other designs?
There's still a little something called, "The Great Depression." There is no great change. This obsession with cheating on treaties is a modern generation thing.
@@WALTERBROADDUS “Building military things, big military things, lots of big military things” was one of the strongest levers that lifted the US _out_ of the Great Depression, which did not officially end (in the way a depression is defined in economic terms) until Q4 1941 - after the US had begin building military things, big military things, lots of big military things, in earnest. Had the US federal government decided, in 1936, to ignore treaties and ramp up military construction to a level not historically seen until mid-1941, the US economic recovery would have _accelerated._
Dude. U.S. expenditures for defense and education, 1910-2021 compiled by Wm. Robert Johnston last modified 29 January 2023 “Defense spending” in the US almost doubled between 1935 and 1940, and in 1941 was _ten times_ what it was in 1935. Congress, and FDR, did a good job of getting US military production going several years before the nation entered WW2, while assuring the US that the nation would not enter war. Had the 1940 spending been done in 1937, the economic effect starting in 1938 would have been much like what happened in 1941.
Wait, what is the thing with the documents surrounding the sinking of HMS Glorious going missing (mentioned at 4:35)? This seems like a big deal. May you please make a video on this?
Ah. If the (lower + .7 upper) formula came from the U.S. in the 1920s or 1930s, it's in the context of improving standard battleships' deck armor by a increment smaller than the original, e.g. Tennessee class 3.5 original + 2.5 additional, effectively 5.25.
32:05 And if they had been just a tetch slower, perhaps at Jutland they would not have gotten so far ahead of the Grand Fleet, and the nominally attached Fifth Battle Squadron, and spent so much time facing off against the First Scouting Squadron without support.
They used triple mounts, probably to make up for the slow rate of fire, but that meant fewer emplacements. The biggest problem was that they were magazine fed. They really only had time to fire off one magazine, meaning they had 15 rounds to stop a plane compared to the 60 round drum of an Oerlikon. Better make them count.
@@bigwitt187they had single, twin, and triple mounts. One concept with the triple mounts was to fire from one barrel while changing out others, so the entire mount could (hopefully) maintain a steady 120 rounds per minute or so.
There were about five problems documented by the US after the war. The low magazine size was an issue, as was the slow elevation and traverse of the larger mounts, but also the inadequate sights, excessive vibration, and excessive flash.
@@kemarisite True, I didn't mean to say they were only triple mounts, but that is primarily what was used on larger ships to save weight. There wasn't enough time to change magazines during an attacker's approach, so while they might keep up steady fire, they still had no more than 45 rounds coming from a triple mount at a single plane.
I would like to think that German and Japanese pilots that were on the receiving end of the fire of 6 or 8 .50 caliber M2AN projectiles, thought it was not adequate enough to be effective....
No one's questioning the effect of .50 rounds on target, the issue is their effective range in the anti aircraft role. Its all well and good to have your ship plastered with M2s on single or twin pedestals, or even navalized M45 quadmounts, that's likely to start scoring solid hits at 800-1000 yards range, but that's cold comfort if the plane dropped its torpedo already at 1500 yards. That's why in the span of four years USN light AA went from throwing up streams of .50 cal to 20mm to gone in favor of medium caliber weapons, which themselves progressed from 1.1" to 40mm to proximity fuzed automatic 3" guns, that was simply what was needed to reach out and swat a plane form the sky before it released its ordnance.
Thanks for answering my question. I suspected the answer would something like that but I’m not as read up as you are and maybe you’d read something or saw something that hinted at a secret that could rewrite the history books.
00:39:14 Vasco da Garma compares favourably with Norwegian coastal ship such as HNOMS Norge or HNOMS Tordenskjold Or the german SeigFried Class, and probably at a better value. Although all the Norewegian ships would have been in service until late 1940s had the Germans not intervened on the likes of Norge.
I kinda wonder if the reason a lot of the history channels aren't getting more views is the proliferation of these shall we say "adult content" looking commentors that appear shortly after each video does and youtube's suppressing based off of detecting bot comments
@@WALTERBROADDUS The comments left by other people/bots on someone else's video have absolutely nothing to do with your own personal algorithm, what I'm saying is that if youtube is detecting bot comments on a video there's a chance that they may be suppressing it.
@@WALTERBROADDUS they aren't ads, they're literally comments on this video unless they got deleted, they're pretty obviously bots with scantily clad women as their profile pics
Regarding the speed vs Armour question on battle cruisers 00:27:29. If the RN used small tube boilers how much extra armor could they have added if they had converted the weight savings into armor without loosing speed and how much with loosing a knot? Same question with going to an all or nothing armor scheme as well ie. small tube boilers and an all or nothing armor scheme with a willingness to loose up to a knot of speed. In either case, was belt armor necessarily the best use of extra armor? The battle cruisers that were lost, and Lion, all had their turrets/magazines penetrated perhaps that would have been a better priority for extra armor even with lax powder handling being the ultimate reason for their loss.
Drach has stated in other content that if the QE class had had small tube boilers, they could have comfortably reached 26kts without any decrease in displacement. Using the rough calculations he used discussing the Lions, the QEs could have had another inch of belt armor and still delivered on their 25 kt design speed. They managed 24 kts in actual service, so increasing the power would yield 26 kts for the original design, which would be reduced about one knot by the added displacement of the extra inch of armor. They would have been the first “fast battleship class” rather than “a class of battleship that was a bit faster than the norm.”
@@dougjb7848 The question is not so much increasing the speed but more protection and where to put it. I believe a better use would be to increase the armor protecting the turrets (perhaps using the heavier protected battleship turrets) barbettes and magazines. the belt armor could have been increased around the machinery spaces with any left over weight or if they were willing to lose some speed. It is possible that, if they had gone to an all or nothing scheme, they might have been able to thicken a greater area of the belt armor than just the machinery spaces.
00:57:35 How are you going to get an Ohka up to operative speed? from a deck of any vessel, and if you could strap enough JATOGs to it, then a Submarine or even a PT boat similar to the Israeli/French Sa'ar 3 boat would a better bet.
"Stargate levels of change" Ooh, could we, could we? Pretty please, with a cherry on top?
A long time ago I sketched out a story where British intelligence got wind of Japanese plans for Pearl Harbor very early on, and Churchill was so desperate to bring the US into the war that not only did he not pass on any warning to the US, he had all British documents on Pearl Harbor leaked to the Japanese
So something like this I'm guessing
@@TomLuTonYes, but was he able to persuade Hitler to declare war on the USA.
That would be the difficult bit.
Saturday night. Lamb chops and Drydock. Perfection!!
Lamb chops are obviously a mini biography or battle review dish. Guide to Warships is your staple, steak is best but I find a juicy burger is an acceptable substitute. Drydocks are best paired with fish or an oven roasted chicken breast and potatoes.
That's your time zone. In my time zone, we enjoy the Drydocks with a hearty farm breakfast.
Sunday afternoon. Making chicken pot pie casserole and Drydock. Also very good
I don't get dry docks until Sunday so I'm 💩 out of luck on that 1 tbh 😂
I want a "Drach designs his own battleship" episode.
It will have 25mm Japanese AA 😀.
@@arthurschipper8906 Done already. Go back and find the Ultimate Admirals episodes.
See 5-minute guide on USS New Mexico
I want a "Drach builds his own battleship" episode.
Needs to be an American, Japanese, Italian, German, British one, and if he has time Russian or French ones
Regarding declassifications of documents. Having experience in the matter, I'd also add that just cause something is declassified doesn't mean you can find it. Think the final scene in Raiders of the Lost Ark, multiplied by the dozens if not hundreds of storage locations. That's exactly what it's like. Tens of thousands of boxes each with oddles of documents sitting in some storage facility. Yes, there are often indexes, but the titles of those documents in the index may be ambiguous. For example, the index/title might be "Meeting Minutes of the Committe on Intelligence, March, 1943". Only until someone actually reads it will they find perhaps that the US bribed the Japanese pilots escorting Yamamoto to let the P-38 get in to shoot him down. Unless someone quickly finds the proverbial needle in the haystack, it'll may take years before revelations come out, if any. Heck, in the US we're still finding interesting nuggets from the civil war 160 years ago!!!!
As someone who writes (non naval) history that reflects my experience. You order a file of documents that has a title that sounds potentially useful and when you visit the massive archive building to go through the file, it reveals very little. But after you publish the article or book someone points out that valuable info is contained in a file that you never considered inspecting.
Forget about Raiders, it will be more like Yes Minister.
In one episode the Minister, Jim Hacker, was about to be embarassed by a petition that he himself had lead when his party was in opposition. He instructed Bernard, his personal secretary, to get rid of it. Innocently, Bernard asked if it should be filed or shredded.
Hacker, in near panic, emphasised that no one should ever see it again.
Bernard then replied "In that case, I'll file it Minister".
Ugaki's diary gives 6 possible causes for the presence of the American fleet at Midway. These include: 1) submarine spotting the IJN fleet departing; 2) intelligence from Russian ships; 3) security leakage (but only by the Army!); 4) general radio intelligence; 5) discovery of landing force on the previous day (but ruled unlikely); 6) educated guess based on Coral Sea (apparently fake information disseminated by the US). There was also interception of Nagumu's radio transmission.
Good point. Based on what survives in terms of documentary evidence (at least, that has made it into English), Ugaki's diary is yet more evidence of just how unwilling the Japanese were to consider the possibility that their codes had been broken to any extent.
@@richardmalcolm1457 More from Ugaki's diaray, this from 30 July 1942: "The United States is said to have known all about our strength disposition in the middle of April. They must have succeeded in decoding, which was the cause of our defeat at Midway." How this information was gleaned is not given. The Japanese made a major change in their JN25 code on 1 August 1942.
@@sk43999 Interesting -- I was not familiar with this diary entry! I *would* be curious what basis there was for this speculation by Ugaki (or if indeed it was only that -- just speculation), and how widely it might have been shared. I tend to think it must not have gained much traction, because the subsequent changes in JN-25 in summer 1942 and spring 1943 were just that - upgrades to JN-25. If the IJN general staff really believed that the Allies had substantially cracked it, they would surely have wanted to move on to a more fundamental change in their code, and use the existing one in the meantime sparingly, and even to mislead the US through false communications. But....this doesn't seem to have happened.
Declassified expected surprises: More info on the USA - Uboat war of 1941 pre-Pearl Harbor.
Anything that needs to be classified for longer than the construction of the first nuclear weapons. Must be pretty mind blowing stuff.
Then again time has a way of damping the effect. Some Kennedy assassination stuff was recently declassified. The most interesting tidbit was Oswald called the KGB in Moscow before the assassination.
I found that interesting. Because it's not like in the early 60s you could Google something like that. You would have to know it by heart.
22:20. Drach answers the riddle of steel!
Admiral King had a press conference on June 7, 1942 (his first of the war) where he made some careful statements about how the US came to be near Midway. He implied it was a combination of submarine recon and top down thinking about likely IJN actions.
Best opening tune on all of UA-cam
What if they had discovered the idea behind the Quicksink bomb in WW2? Imagine telling King or one of the other Navy Brass the idea. "Yes sir you have that right. We're intentionally trying not to hit them."
Excellent as always.
Drydock 1242: discussion of recently declassified documents regarding the stargate discovery during ww2
Surely the idea of trials are to find out what things will break and what any problems are with handling, guns etc.
Sunday afternoon. Cold drink and drachinefel good idea
00:05:43 Rather than redesign to HO105 it might have been more valid to change the feed design in the otherwise fairly adequate 25mm. The Japanese had 20 mm Oerlikons in service even before they fixed on the Hotchkiss 25 mm system. And the IJA had developed a 20mm Type 98, which could probably adapted to belt feed. But in reality, like everyone else they really needed a 37-45 mm weapon.
Why not take the direct approach, license the 40mm from Bofors? It was available about the same time as the Hotchkiss. Bofors would license it to anyone with a checkbook. The Soviets licensed the 25mm version from Bofors, reverse engineered it, and scaled it up to 37mm.
If the Royal Navy had acquired nuclear weapons in 1945, I absolutely guarantee that someone would have found a way to strap one to a Swordfish. I doubt that the temptation could be resisted.
They probably would not have had any trouble finding someone to drop it either. Right so go in at 20' and drop the thing when I am 100 yards from the target, and get out of there as fast as I can. That is fair enough but why do I need to wear sun cream in December? Is this new weapon canned sunshine or something like that?
Something interesting in sealed documents? I am waiting for the release of everything, or at least everything left there, on the Hess affair. There have been a lot of speculations on whether certain people were "too interested" in Hess' peace proposal and that embarrassment was covered up. That should be fully exposed or refuted.
This house doesn't understand it either.
Did he lose mind or his loyalty.
A massive piece of armor stamped “CARNEGIE” somewhat answers my question from last week 😂
QUESTION: - Drach, do you think the RN and the Britsh government could have convinced the other powers to sign the Naval treaties that only focused on captial ships, no restrictions on size or numbers of cruisers or destroyers? Surely using capital ship budgets and crews for crusiers and destoryers would have allowed the RN to maintain numerical superiority, and maintain imperial sea lanes, whilst maintaining captial ship parity?
The RN was, are and will continue to be desperate for crusiers, particularly heavy crusiers and destoryers through the 30's upto today.
Why do people have this obsession with trying to cheat? Arms negotiation policies were meant to do just that. Control arms and their proliferation. Not create loopholes. not to make more weapons of war.
@@WALTERBROADDUS
OP is not talking about anyone “cheating” a treaty.
He’s talking about a treaty that only defined and restricted capital ships (perhaps submarines too), leaving all navies free to build whatever cruisers they chose.
He is positing that the RN would have been well-able to keep pace with or stay ahead of the world in cruisers, which really was a high priority, perhaps even higher than big-gun ships.
Who pays for the boats ?
@@dougjb7848 that kind of still defeats the purpose of arms limitation. And trying to carve out exceptions, is cheating.
@@WALTERBROADDUS
So, was making exception to the “no carriers” rule by allowing carriers up to 10,000 cheating?
Was banning construction of ships _except for_ those smaller than 10K tons and armed with 8” guns cheating?
In your world view, it seems, any contract with a clause that includes “except for” would be cheating.
Weird.
“Cheating” is when a party agrees to a set of rules and then not following them.
Not when all parties agree to a set of rules and then follow them.
What's that suspended ceiling made of?
Armor plate.
Is that wise?
Dunno. Ask me after a couple bad storms. Or battles.
45:40 TBF, we pronounce Cairo like 3-4 different ways, depending on where you live.
Thanks Drach.
Hope thst we get the vid on armour production soon. 🤞
Great DD thanks.
An example of a sub famously sunk during tests was the USS Squalus. Have you done a video on it and/or on Momsen?
In your recent, and excellent conclusion video featuring Captain Walker, in a section in the second half, you describe various stats about his squadron during a fete given at their home port.
You mention that sailors spent money at local pubs, the canteen and something called "Tambola" (I'm not sure I've spelled it correctly).
What is a Tambola?
To my American ears it sounds like a nightclub/lounge name, or ballroom name, which was a common practice during the period. IE we are broadcasting live from the Tambola room at the East Buggeringhamshire Hotel with the swinging sounds of the Tommy Dorsey Orchestra and the incomparable Miss Vera Lynn.
He he! 😂 It's basically a low stakes raffle with multiple prizes per round.
Oh, and to get the atmosphere right at the East Buggeringhamshire Hotel, it probanly should have been Al Bowlly's orchestra, though he had been killed in the London Blitz.
"Tambola" is I think the shop onboard the ship, like the US naval vessels like New Jersey has a whole trinket shop and I think this is of a similar concept.
@@notshapedforsportivetricks2912 thanks for the British Orchestra tip. I grew up in a house with my dad's massive record collection of 1930s jazz and big band music. I'll have to see if he had any recordings of him.
21:20 Vickers is sending their Representative immediately.
Can anyone remember which dry dock it was where Drach addressed the 90 year rule originally?
He has an excel spreadsheet with past questions on his webpage. It looks like it's the Drydock 140 at the 23:19 mark.
I don’t understand. If upper plate has an apparent 30% reduction, and you put 8 inches on top with 2 on bottom, you get an apparent 7.6 inches, which is less than the 8 inch plate alone. Does putting a plate behind actually SUBTRACT thickness?
Assuming the Americans had gone "Sod the Treaty limitations" three years earlier than they did, perhaps as a result of figuring out what the Japanese were doing, what effects would this have had on the Essex, Iowas, and other designs?
There's still a little something called, "The Great Depression." There is no great change. This obsession with cheating on treaties is a modern generation thing.
@@WALTERBROADDUS
“Building military things, big military things, lots of big military things” was one of the strongest levers that lifted the US _out_ of the Great Depression, which did not officially end (in the way a depression is defined in economic terms) until Q4 1941 - after the US had begin building military things, big military things, lots of big military things, in earnest.
Had the US federal government decided, in 1936, to ignore treaties and ramp up military construction to a level not historically seen until mid-1941, the US economic recovery would have _accelerated._
@@dougjb7848 most of FDR's program was non defense spending. Nor was the nation or Congress in a pro defense spending mood.
Dude.
U.S. expenditures for defense and education, 1910-2021 compiled by Wm. Robert Johnston
last modified 29 January 2023
“Defense spending” in the US almost doubled between 1935 and 1940, and in 1941 was _ten times_ what it was in 1935.
Congress, and FDR, did a good job of getting US military production going several years before the nation entered WW2, while assuring the US that the nation would not enter war.
Had the 1940 spending been done in 1937, the economic effect starting in 1938 would have been much like what happened in 1941.
Wait, what is the thing with the documents surrounding the sinking of HMS Glorious going missing (mentioned at 4:35)? This seems like a big deal. May you please make a video on this?
How long will the children of Philip Mountbaten stay alive?
Ah, the old faithful annual question ...
Do you expect anything earth-shattering from WW2 declassification?
God was anti facist?
love all of D's work- cant stand the intro music to this
And? It's my favorite Sunday song 😊
Ah. If the (lower + .7 upper) formula came from the U.S. in the 1920s or 1930s, it's in the context of improving standard battleships' deck armor by a increment smaller than the original, e.g. Tennessee class 3.5 original + 2.5 additional, effectively 5.25.
When all of WW2 documents are finally declassified, we are going to learn that no one knew anything and no one did anything...LOL
Drach: have you read the book "Operation Snow"?
32:05
And if they had been just a tetch slower, perhaps at Jutland they would not have gotten so far ahead of the Grand Fleet, and the nominally attached Fifth Battle Squadron, and spent so much time facing off against the First Scouting Squadron without support.
Beatie didn't recognise a trap but if he did, would the enemy fleet come closer. ?
Can you go over a saliors pay and how it worked over the years
Cost of watching is an Empty Sut commercial.
Wasn't the main problem with the Japanese 25mm the mount rather than the gun?
They used triple mounts, probably to make up for the slow rate of fire, but that meant fewer emplacements. The biggest problem was that they were magazine fed. They really only had time to fire off one magazine, meaning they had 15 rounds to stop a plane compared to the 60 round drum of an Oerlikon. Better make them count.
@@bigwitt187they had single, twin, and triple mounts. One concept with the triple mounts was to fire from one barrel while changing out others, so the entire mount could (hopefully) maintain a steady 120 rounds per minute or so.
There were about five problems documented by the US after the war. The low magazine size was an issue, as was the slow elevation and traverse of the larger mounts, but also the inadequate sights, excessive vibration, and excessive flash.
@@kemarisite True, I didn't mean to say they were only triple mounts, but that is primarily what was used on larger ships to save weight. There wasn't enough time to change magazines during an attacker's approach, so while they might keep up steady fire, they still had no more than 45 rounds coming from a triple mount at a single plane.
I would like to think that German and Japanese pilots that were on the receiving end of the fire of 6 or 8 .50 caliber M2AN projectiles, thought it was not adequate enough to be effective....
No one's questioning the effect of .50 rounds on target, the issue is their effective range in the anti aircraft role. Its all well and good to have your ship plastered with M2s on single or twin pedestals, or even navalized M45 quadmounts, that's likely to start scoring solid hits at 800-1000 yards range, but that's cold comfort if the plane dropped its torpedo already at 1500 yards. That's why in the span of four years USN light AA went from throwing up streams of .50 cal to 20mm to gone in favor of medium caliber weapons, which themselves progressed from 1.1" to 40mm to proximity fuzed automatic 3" guns, that was simply what was needed to reach out and swat a plane form the sky before it released its ordnance.
Making vague attempts to follow the treaty. :)
Thanks for answering my question. I suspected the answer would something like that but I’m not as read up as you are and maybe you’d read something or saw something that hinted at a secret that could rewrite the history books.
⚓
00:39:14 Vasco da Garma compares favourably with Norwegian coastal ship such as HNOMS Norge or HNOMS Tordenskjold Or the german SeigFried Class, and probably at a better value. Although all the Norewegian ships would have been in service until late 1940s had the Germans not intervened on the likes of Norge.
I kinda wonder if the reason a lot of the history channels aren't getting more views is the proliferation of these shall we say "adult content" looking commentors that appear shortly after each video does and youtube's suppressing based off of detecting bot comments
I think that has much to do about your own algorithm?
@@WALTERBROADDUS The comments left by other people/bots on someone else's video have absolutely nothing to do with your own personal algorithm, what I'm saying is that if youtube is detecting bot comments on a video there's a chance that they may be suppressing it.
@@Krazmedic I don't see any such ads
@@WALTERBROADDUS they aren't ads, they're literally comments on this video unless they got deleted, they're pretty obviously bots with scantily clad women as their profile pics
@@Krazmedic still has little to do with History Channel views or subs.
Drachinifel 3:16 says I just informed your ass!
28th, 22 September 2024
First? Really? Greetings, Drach!
And second‽ I'm usually trying to fall asleep at this hour...
Regarding the speed vs Armour question on battle cruisers 00:27:29. If the RN used small tube boilers how much extra armor could they have added if they had converted the weight savings into armor without loosing speed and how much with loosing a knot? Same question with going to an all or nothing armor scheme as well ie. small tube boilers and an all or nothing armor scheme with a willingness to loose up to a knot of speed. In either case, was belt armor necessarily the best use of extra armor? The battle cruisers that were lost, and Lion, all had their turrets/magazines penetrated perhaps that would have been a better priority for extra armor even with lax powder handling being the ultimate reason for their loss.
Drach has stated in other content that if the QE class had had small tube boilers, they could have comfortably reached 26kts without any decrease in displacement.
Using the rough calculations he used discussing the Lions, the QEs could have had another inch of belt armor and still delivered on their 25 kt design speed.
They managed 24 kts in actual service, so increasing the power would yield 26 kts for the original design, which would be reduced about one knot by the added displacement of the extra inch of armor.
They would have been the first “fast battleship class” rather than “a class of battleship that was a bit faster than the norm.”
@@dougjb7848 The question is not so much increasing the speed but more protection and where to put it. I believe a better use would be to increase the armor protecting the turrets (perhaps using the heavier protected battleship turrets) barbettes and magazines. the belt armor could have been increased around the machinery spaces with any left over weight or if they were willing to lose some speed. It is possible that, if they had gone to an all or nothing scheme, they might have been able to thicken a greater area of the belt armor than just the machinery spaces.
00:57:35 How are you going to get an Ohka up to operative speed? from a deck of any vessel, and if you could strap enough JATOGs to it, then a Submarine or even a PT boat similar to the Israeli/French Sa'ar 3 boat would a better bet.
Same as with a scout plane: catapult powered by either compressed air, steam or explosive charge.
Can anyone remember which dry dock it was where Drach addressed the 90 year rule originally?
He has an excel spreadsheet with past questions on his webpage. It looks like it's the Drydock 140 at the 23:19 mark.
@@kemarisitethank you for your help mate