You guys should do an episode on the myths around the Battle of Britain and invite Dilip Sarkar MBE on. He is a great and prolific author who knows more about the battle than just about anyone. He has also written books about many of the pilots involved as well as being currently honorary President of the Battle of Britain Memorial Trust.
Samuel Johnson once said, “No man will be a sailor who has contrivance enough to get himself into a jail; for being in a ship is being in a jail, with the chance of being drowned.”
Thank you for having Drachinifel on as your naval expert for these questions. He is an amazing historian; knowledgeable, thorough, scrupulous, and able to convey facts in an engaging and understandable fashion.
@@realistic.optimist he never claimed to have served nor has he claimed to be a naval expert hes a historian and engineer he has not claimed to have ever served
But she had the most powerful and accurate guns in the North Sea, penetrating 70% more than Rodney's 16-inch guns, and as much as the 16/45 of the North Carolina and South Dakota.
@@TTTT-oc4eb So much so that she wrecked Rodney without taking a scratch. No sorry she totally failed to hit Rodney while being reduced to a hazard to navigation herself.
@@meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee2 Bismarck listing to port and the rudder damage made it impossible to find a continuous FC solution, and her slow speed made her a sitting duck. Even so, she straddled Rodney long before vice versa. And in addition to Rodney, KGV and two heavy cruisers were firing on her. It took 45 minutes before the last of Bismarck's main guns went silent. For a comparison, it took Bismarck 13 minutes to sink Hood and send PoW packing.
@@TTTT-oc4eb Indeed, the ballistic and penetration tables for the Bismark's 15 inch guns are easily available on line and she could easily penetrate HMS Hoods armored belt at 16km. Claims of British Naval Historians that Hood wasn't penetrated get down to the claim that Hood was turned towards the Bismarck creating a sever incline but it has to be a severe incline and there are no " black boxes" to record this. They are relying on calculations to assume Hood completed her turn. I really would not expect objectivity on British sources on this.
That costs money and politicians, despite wasting our money hand over fist all the time wouldn't have made enough on them to justify it to their loving public.
@@danspragens4935 Someone had to be distract the Germans while the Tribals went on torpedo runs, although the Poles being a bunch of mad lads made out of brass I'm surprised they didn't also launch fish.
If Bismarck isn’t a super ship then what ship (that was actually built) is? It’s basically between the Yamato, Iowa and Bismarck. Of those only one has sunk an enemy ship in it’s class.
One of the things I really appreciate about Times Radio History is what a good host James Hanson is. He asks relevant questions, is a good listener, and above all he doesn't interrupt his guests, which can't be said for some of his guests. He is a brilliant interviewer.
Drach, from such humble beginnings to “guest expert”. Very rarely, do you support a content creator, do you get to see them achieve greatness, Drach is one such person.
Excellent interview. The Times Radio host did a very good job of acting like a professional and letting his guest speak without interruption or inserting to much of his own commentary. Other presenters can learn from this. Like others I have been following Draco for years. Kudos to both host and guest.
Very true and I've seen people comment about how stupid the RN was and/or how pathetic HMS Hood was. But the lack of refit comes down to both need to have her at crisis points and the RN's biggest enemy according to Admiral Fisher, Treasury.
@@johnfisher9692 Yep, and in the world where Hood gets her refit, at least one of the ships that did get theirs can't get it, which includes ships like Renown and Warspite that went on to play some pretty major roles in WW2.
@@johnfisher9692Those people doesn’t even understand that Hood was very well armored. Despite being called Battlecruiser. Her armor is as equal to Queen Elizabeth Class, or even better. Sometimes I always making a joke about HMS Hood is basically a very Slip Queen Elizabeth. Battlecruiser development for the British were further ahead than other Nations. Hood was the latest gen among of all Battlecruisers where the gap between Battlecruiser and Battleship start connecting into Fast Battleship. If Hood doesn’t exist. Iowa will never existed. Armor plating on Iowa were very identical to Hood. Angled belt that are thinner than thick flat belt. Hood isn’t pathetic, she is very good ship. It just that one lucky shot from Bismarck that killed her. She was ridiculously unlucky. If you swap Hood to Iowa and Bismarck for Yamato and Yamato hit Iowa the same place like how Bismarck did to Hood. Iowa would react the same thing. Magazine Detonation. Even more violent because larger caliber and more explosives. Like I said those people had ZERO understanding that Naval Battle in WWII are more luck based than anything. Sometimes you get the very unfortunate ones. Hood was getting shot by 1/million chance and she received it. And for the records. RN lose their carrier less than let’s say the USN do.
@@johnfisher9692 Treasury or Trenchard (or rather his legacy)? The bomber was to always get through, take the fight to the enemy's heart, and bomber procurement received a lot of funding in the 1930s. Chamberlain, for some of this period, was a chancellor and also an advocate of the RAF, although at least as much of fighters as bombers.
@@Tepid24Warspite never got a full refit. The only capital ships that did were QE, Valiant & Renown. I’m pretty sure the RN could have passed on one of those three. The Brits were reluctant to take Hood out of service partly out of ego. She was the biggest capital ship in the world for the better part of twenty years. They wanted to keep her around to show the flag. Truth is they could’ve shown the flag with a lot of other ships.
I’d say it was one of my favorite Drachisms, but on second thought that’s some tough competition so who knows! At least one of my favorites was probably “spontaneously and involuntarily disintegrated” (or something to that effect).
Term "super" is by definition relative. The Bismarck was a decent battleship for it's timeframe. I really don't even recall it being called a "super" ship. The only ship I recall being called a "super" battleship was the Yamato. Battleships were already getting to be obsolete by this timeframe anyway.
Superdreadnought is an actual official classification, and denotes any uniform main battery battleship with a caliber greater than 12 inches, so I guess she was a superdreadnought. She was also a fast battleship, by definition. A reasonably advanced piece of equipment, but with woefully inefficient construction.
Acknowledged. It WAS however 25% larger than allowed via restrictions placed on Germany after WW1, so surprised the world. Terminating the British Flagship in about 3 minutes with only a handful of survivors was kind of super.......
@@Braindamagedpotato Or North Carolina, trading 2kts for 9x16inch guns at 45.000t displacement. The overweight of the Bismarck is only eclipsed by the Admiral Hippers.
There is a lot of overselling of Bismark. Her hull was exceptionally well reinforced against torpedo hits and she had good gun direction. However, if there is a vote for the best battleship design, it is probably for the US Iowa class which were still valued as operational ships into the 1990s.
@@juneabbey9538because she was listing and stuck turning in a circle? Literally every battleship won’t be able to land a hit on their target if all their systems had been destroyed
@@juneabbey9538at Denmark strait a fully functional Bismarck with a fresh Crew scored 6 Hits in less then 15 minutes.Rodney 3 days later need more than 15 minutes to Hit Bismarck the First time
@@ricoh.3162You don't say that the ship, which was older, had been at sea for a while now, and was en route for a refit before she turned around needed a bit longer to score a hit compared to a newer ship fresh out of the docks?
Italian PT boat commanders and crews were extremely daring. Some would even say borderline reckless. This contrasted dramatically with the capital ship xaptainds and fleet admirals who were extremely "conservative" to be generous.
Well they also did supply runs into north Africa with cruisers loaded with drums of fuel on the decks. That takes a special kind of reckless as well lol
Italy couldn't afford to lose any of its naval deterrent. Ultimately, their capital ships weren't enough to deter a naval invasion. Torpedo boats, on the other had, are expendable.
@@CanalTremocos I mean, by 1943 Italy was quite low on fuel and was mostly using its capital ships as mobile AA batteries to move port to port. And even so, they were preparing to sail out to counter the landing in Calabria on the day of the Armistice.
@@glenchapman3899 after the battle of Matapan the Italian naval command finally decided to sponsor the research on radar technology that had been going slowly since the late 30s because of arrogance. (Iachino literally told the guy who was working on it "no one fights a naval battle at nigh" and the team developing it received basically no funding until Matapan.) A fun fact, among the guys working on it was the man who coined the term "microwaves", professor Nello Carrara. By mid 1941 the EC3/bis was operational on Littorio , replaced in early 1942 with an upgraded version and in September the same year by the EC3/ter "Gufo". Vittorio Veneto was also equipped with one, probably around the same time, and Roma was fitted with one during completion. Naval command however believed Germany's false information about the British having "anti radar technology" (the Allies had no such thing until 44) so ordered the crews to only switch the radar on while in proximity of enemy forces. An order that crews promptly ignored, as they used the Gufo as a search radar and conveniently "forgot" to mention it in the ships' logbooks, thus avoiding sanctions.
One interesting little fact about Bismarck is that she was designed for some advanced anti-aircraft guns and mounts, but those particular guns were instead delivered to the Soviet Union as part of the non-aggression treaty (which also included a large loan from the USSR to Germany and various technology transfers from Germany to the USSR) and she went to sea on her only sortie with older weapons. An interesting fact to consider given that she was fatally crippled by some biplanes.
Do you happen to know where I can find information on said advanced anti-aircraft guns and mounts sent to the Soviet Union? I know that the Germans transferred the incomplete Admiral Hipper class Lützow and were supposed to transfer more things (38cm guns and turrets for the Kronshtadt class battlecruisers, etc.) but didn't due to the German invasion of the Soviet Union, but I never found any information about transferring naval AA guns in the various economic deals. Also, I can't seem to find any AA weapon system used/developed by the Kriegsmarine that makes sense timewise with the deals in question. Many thanks.
The battle of the river Platt kind of showed that it wasn't how good the ship was but how they were used that often determined the winner anyway. Love Drach's British humor. He is probably the best naval historian of our time.
Same, i stumbled across his channel when the Dry Dock was in single digits, been hooked and subscribed ever since. I'm proud to have had three questions answered and I'm not a on patreon
When I was a small child during WW2 I listened to BBC news. I apparently ran excitedly to my grandma and shouted "DADDY SUNK THE SCHARNHOST". (Daddy was at sea at the time!). So there".
Are you talking about those two Japanese battleships that are at the bottom of the ocean? They spent all their time running from the US Navy's battleships because their guns were a joke compared to the Iowa's, their range of accurate fire was 1½ times those Japanese ships, they'd have never stood a chance against them in a fight and is why they spent their careers running away from the US Navy.
@@dukecraig2402 'They spent all their time running from the US Navy's battleships because their guns . . .' Hardly, as they never encountered any American battleships. And the Iowas (as well as the other US Pacific battleships) never encountered the Yamatos.
@@augustosolari7721 Warspite ran away at least twice whilst without power, once at Messina and once at Cornwall. The sailors did consider her to be sentient.
I appreciate the experts you have on your channel as well as the intelligence of your questions. Drach can be difficult to listen to at times, but he is very knowledgeable about his area of expertise; almost everything naval.
As a longtime Patreon member of Drach’s UA-cam channel I am more than delighted to see him here on Times Radio History. His research and ability to explain what can be, at times, complex topics is second to none. Well done Times Radio History, you now have a new subscriber.
I also think the people of a south London Town appreciate his road planning and engineering skills in his previous career (not sure if it is previous and has gone UA-cam full time)
When I was at RAF Gütersloh, Germany in the early 90's a German technician asked me if next time I was in Blighty could I pick him up a Black & Decker electric drill as the German Bosh ones were rubbish - I laughed as so many lads back home wanted a Bosh - I guess we often think something the other fella has is more exotic - I like Dewalt myself!
Drachinifel is almost on the mark as far as Midway goes. He's correct, but completely overlooks the USS Yorktown and its importance in American lore. It was the lead ship of the Yorktown-class. The other two ships in the class was the USS Enterprise and the USS Hornet who have serious lore of their own. The USS Yorktown took a beating at Coral, limped to Pearl, was declared to need 3 months of repairs minimum but was dispatched to Midway after 72 hours of rushed repairs. Where it survived a Japanese attack, was repaired again, put up a giant US flag to signal its return to service, endured a second attack where the Japanese mistook it for a different undamaged carrier, was abandoned, survived the night afloat, salvage crew put onboard the next morning when a IJN sub torpedo took it to the bottom. Where it still stands upright today. Its the story of the USS Yorktown within the larger context of Midway that gives the battle such weight in American lore. Because it best represents the ability of the American people to not give up and to get back up even after being knocked down again and again.
When you were going into the fact people don't know, and started with Fisher, I thought it'd be about his acronym invention. For those who don't know, Fisher was responsible for the very first-ever recorded use of the acronym "OMG". And yes, he meant exactly the same thing by it that we do.
She was enough to sink one battlecruiser, and to damage one battleship. The better part of two British were required to hunt her down, which was only achieved through a lucky hit by a Swordfish torpedo.
The Bismark was built to be a commerce raider. She was not the most powerful, but she was pretty fast, big problem for the Royal Navy. Bismark could pick off merchant ships at a distance AND run away from most bigger ships.
The fact that she was built to be a commerce raider was the worst idea you can have for a large battleship.... It already failed with the Gneisenau/Scharnhorsts lol
@feroxk.9266 Er, Just the Tripitz anchored in Norway, going nowhere soon, kept a lot of the Royal Navy that could have been useful operating somewhere else, stuck in Scappa Flow. Just saying.
I do know that. BUT: Too many compromises to make it feasible as a commerce raider as well as a true battleship. All the flaws came from that compromise. IF they designed it to be a true battleship it really would have been the threat the british thought it was. The Tirpitz partially removed all those flaws thats why it was the "better" Bismark and why the brits took all that effort.
@@CanadianDolphinSurf @CanadianDolphinSurf Then, what? (Neither was the Graf Spee, I suppose.) Bismark's mission was to disrupt convoys and avoid confrontations with the Royal Navy. Surely, that much we can agree on? Or that the German Navy was hopelessly outmatched by the Brits, can we agree on that, too? Are you also saying that Bismark was sent out on a mission for which she was not originally thought out? Keeping in mind that the Bismark was not exactly the Yamato, a different concept. We just established that fact. So, please, I'm on the edge of my chair typing here, what was Bismarck designed and optimized to do?
Pound for pound, protection vs mobility vs firepower, Iowa class, especially Missouri and Wisconsin with their beefed up bulkheads, have to be the most competent battleship designs of all time, which is not a surprise since they are basically also the very last battleship class to be designed and produced, so it just makes sense they are like that, build upon the experience of all that came before.
Pound for pound, it is the 31,000 tons Queen Elizabeth class, battle tested, 2 world wars, first ever fast battleship, first ever oil battleship, great armour, arguably the best naval guns ever made.
I have a sneaking admiration for the italian navy in ww2. Ok they didnt prove decisive in theatre but they had the technical capacity, sailing skill and will to fight enough to be a serious threat.
And unlike other axis navies they knew what they were doing when it came to antisubmarine warfare. The UK lost a lot of subs to Italian ASW in the med.
@@dovetonsturdee7033 The Italian mini subs were few in numbers but very effective. Also they were probably the most advanced in design and manufacture.
Good Ships are vital, good crews, essential. Some ships fought well above their weight division. HMS Warspite is one of these. She was already a Veteran of WW1.
It's interesting that Richelieu was probably a superior battleship, but was prevented from showing this by the overall political situation. In the Napoleonic era the British Navy was supreme, but captured French warships were admired for their build quality.
What's funny about Bismarck is that it's considered the biggest and most powerful battleship to sail the Atlantic, yet Iowa was heavier and South Dakota had more fire power then her, despite being smaller.
It wasn't a supership but it sure shot some super rounds against not-so-super Hood, slapped Prince of Wales with some more super shots, escape the radar from two cruisers and ultimately if it wasn't for the combined forces of a bunch of British surface units, including an aircraft carrier and several cruisers and battlehips, Bismarck would reach France and have a super welcome by the Kriegsmarine. Also it was quite super how Bismarck helped Prinz Eugen run away without the British forces noticing.
The attack on Mers Al kebir was only sanctioned by Churchill because we feared French seapower and were concerned it would come under the control of the Germans.
@@Cailus3542 They were given every opportunity to surrender or sail to the US for internment. Pride and the well-known French arrogance caused that debacle, not Churchill.
The French assured the British that they would scuttle their ships rather than let them fall into the hands of the Germans. The British wouldn't trust that the French would be able to meet this commitment. A few years later the Germans tried to seize the French fleet in Vichy France, but the French scuttled it first.
Splendid episode. And, yes, I subscribe to Drach. The concluding comment about Admiral Fisher is worth the price of admission...if you were charging admission. Well done: good questions, good answers.
I disagree with Drach's determination that the Iowa class was the best class of warship. I assert that whatever ship Ching Lee is on is the best class of warship.
Germans demonstrated excellent gunnery, esp. when their gunnery radar was used. The Bismarck class also featured many very advanced features for the time. So that's part of why she was seen as a big threat.
I don't think anyone has referred to DKM Bismarck as a super ship, but she was compared to HMS Hood, a post WW1 battlecruiser, which had not been upgraded enough to compete against the technology of WW2. I lost an uncle on the Hood. Whatever one says about Hood, the facts are she was sunk in the opening phase of the Battle of the Denmark Strait and therefore could not match the Bismarck. Churchill, who was supposed to have some expertise on naval power (upon hearing of the Hood explosion) ordered Admiral Tovey to tow Hood back to Scapa Flow.
@@ravenclaw8975 Bismarck inspite of being every wehraboo's dream ship, had an operational career that lasted NINE DAYS, and that was inspite of having the 44,000,000 square mile North Atlantic ocean in which to run away and hide in, in the era before "over the horizon" radars, satellites, GPS or even comprehensive air coverage !!! There's no accounting for a "million to one hit" on a ship, as HMS Hood found out to her cost... attributing "uberness" to Bismarck on that occurance highlights a complete lack of insight into the situation, it's akin to me landing a lucky blow on Mike Tyson's chin before he then rips me to pieces. It doesn't make me a superb boxer.
The bulk of the French navy did its best to stay "neutral" due to the FACT that it had sailors with roots in both Vichy and Occupied France. Depending on the ship or shore station, you could have a civil war or mutiny if you attacked one side or the other. Tough situation.
That’s not entirely fair. If you’re talking about the Lewis Gilbert movie from 1960 then you have to trace that back to C.S.Forester’s book. Like a lot of other books of that era, there were a lot of grey areas that had to be filled in, either because some of the information was still secret or not available for other reasons. There were only three survivors from the Hood, for example, so the actual cause of her sinking was not well understood until her wreck was found. Forester never made any bones about the fact that it was a novel, based closely on reality. The movie didn’t either. So what you call ‘bad TV’ is only as bad as you want it to be. But it’s no good blaming the media for something that basically comes down to viewer choices. You can either watch the movie and take it at face value or you can read what the card says on the screen and accept it for what it is.
@@thethirdman225 bad TV as in cable TV documentaries more written to create excitement then tell the facts. With narration more like disco djs from the 70s.
If this was an example of political accuracy on pretty much everything. Economics, national security, domestic issues, etc. The world would be a much better place. Thank you for the most balanced, informative , and respectable forum on these subjects. Fascinating subject matter. Presented in a remarkably fascinating way. One area concerning the Italian Navy. Their capital ships had issues in combat. Their frogmen were an example to many Navy's on clandestine operations.
Agreed about Warspite. The achievements she pulled off puts it on the very top spot by some distance. Also, not enough people talk about accuracy and seamanship. Warspite probably had one of the most skilled and experienced crews out of all of them. It makes a huge difference under intense battle conditions.
The opposite. Inefficiencies made it need to be larger. Inefficient engines needed to be larger to achieve required shaft horsepower. Larger engines meant more weight of armor protection to cover the larger area required to contain these engines. Heavier weight of armor required a larger engine for this heavier ship to reach the required speed.. Meant that achieving the same level of speed, firepower and armor required a larger more expensive ship.
@@iansneddon2956 She was both faster and had much better range than KGV, as well as much more powerfull guns, better TDS and at least as good armor. She should be compared to the equally large and heavy, and indeed very similar, HMS Vanguard.
@@TTTT-oc4eb The speed difference with KGV was not all that significant. A slight edge for Bismarck. Range is not relevant as the Royal Navy could count on a large network of port/support facilities. Bismarck's guns were more powerful than the 14" guns of the KGV class, but were not superior to the 16" guns of the Nelson class. Armor protection is where you really miss the mark. The KGV class had overall thicker armor than Bismarck with a much superior armor layout. I think with the improvements in British armor in the late 1930s the KGV could be argued to be better protected than Rodney or Nelson. Turret armor was sacrificed a bit in the design, but I'm not aware of any turret hits on a KGV class that would prove much on this. The pounding inflicted on Bismarck showed that the 14" guns were effectively penetrating Bismarck's turrets as well as assisting Rodney in turning Bismarck into a flaming wreck. Overall, KGV was better protected against Bismarck's guns than Bismarck was protected against KGV's. Especially at longer ranges. The superior number of guns for KGV would give KGV a bit more advantage - for as long as they would continue to fire (was more an issue with PoW than KGV). I suggest you look up Nathan Okun's detailed analysis of Bismarck's armor which highlights weaknesses in the layout. Such as an armored weather deck that was too thick - such that it would deflect a completely penetrating projectile downward improving its penetration against the lower armor deck. Bismarck would have been batter off with a 1.5" weather deck and a thicker lower armor deck - or just saving on the weight and cost saved. The turtleback armor scheme of Bismarck provided great protection for the lower hull (magazines, machinery spaces) at lower ranges (optimized for fighting at WW I ranges it seems), but this left a lot of the upper hull more vulnerable to hits. The use of these spaces for communications and electrical equipment increased the likelihood of failures in these in battle (as happened with the loss of command and control in Bismarck early in the final battle and the need for crew to run messages through the ship. The turtleback armor scheme also reduced the buoyancy of Bismarck's citadel and increased the danger of flooding above the armor deck. Shallow belt protection also allowed shells to hit and explode just under the armor (PoW scored such a hit, taking out one of Bismarck's boilers.) Rather than "at least as good", Bismarck's armor was inferior to both Rodney and KGV.
@@iansneddon2956 Range is relevant for considering why the Bismarck was the way it was, the lack of a need for very long range ships due to their empire is actually a boon for the British I'd think, it allowed them to devote more weight into making their ships deadlier.
I have to say, the Furious class was a fraud. It used the idea of a shallow draft ship to cover landings from the North Sea as its excuse, but it was just Fisher going too far with too much gun on too little hull. Those landings appear to never have been seriously contemplated. Luckily a better use was found for the hull.
"The presumed bunch of lunatics who are going to come along..." 10th Destroyer Flotilla in WWII: "A call is upon us, lads!" Drach being Drach is always such an entertaining thing.
Hood wasn't really a pier warship to Bismark though, that's a myth in and of itself. Hood was a worn out Battle Cruiser from 1918 going up against a Battleship from 1939.
The Germans did not intend to use the Bismark to go head-to-head with the British navy. Instead, they intended to use it to supplement their uboat threat, as a commerce raider. In this regard, it was a “super” threat. If it were allowed to prowl the mid-Atlantic, it had the potential to sink entire convoys.
but that relies on the royal navy either ignoring her or beeing unable to find her. and giant battleships are *slightly* more visible than subs. i find that premise absurd personally, and i really dont get why the germans thought it was a good idea
Bismarck had some flaws, but she was a tough cookie. The damage to her steering from an airborne torpedo attack is what ultimately led to her destruction. She couldn't maneuver when confronted by Rodney and King George V. She took a tremendous pounding before she went down.
In many ways what actually doomed Bismarck was a single 14" shell from Prince of Wales. It hit her forward fuel storage, cutting off a substantial portion of her supply and forcing her to turn for France. The leaking fuel left a visible oil slick behind the ship, which allowed Allied aircraft to locate her after she managed to escape the cruisers that were shadowing her. The Swordfish strike wouldn't have been possible without that.
@@warp9p659 One of the hidden issues with Bismarck - she was actually a very brittle ship outside her armor. For example during the battle of Denmark Straight she managed to do some serious damage to her own radar systems due to blasts from her own guns
Remember to subscribe to Times Radio History: www.youtube.com/@TimesRadioHistory?sub_confirmation=1
So say we all.
Hitler and Eva Braun escaped to Argentina. Watch the docudrama film Greywolf and Mark Felton videos; Find the Fuhrer, if you don’t believe me.
Subscribed :) Great interview, thank you.
You guys should do an episode on the myths around the Battle of Britain and invite Dilip Sarkar MBE on.
He is a great and prolific author who knows more about the battle than just about anyone.
He has also written books about many of the pilots involved as well as being currently honorary President of the Battle of Britain Memorial Trust.
great to see Drach getting some recognition!
I see Drach, I watch.
Me 2😊
Me 3.
M4
Me 5
Absolutely!
I watched Drach for years. This makes me so happy to see him recognised by the established media and given air time.
Yea, I always wondered what the guy looked like, I thought he'd be older.
Honestly, I’m hoping to see him one of these days on a wired video “naval historian reacts to battleship movies”
I mean he’s a recognized parter of the USNI so he’s petty legit
I remember watching my first video narrated by text-to-speech, and I commented that he really should just voice them in person... I'm glad he did!
this other youtube channel right here is "established media"? Or are you referring to something else.
"land warfare with an increased risk of drowning" . Drach has a wonderful turn of phrase .😂
@@mcmoose64 - Yes, that was a great description.😉
Absolutely, he is tremendously knowledgeable but also has a great sense of humour in the way he can describe things.
Hopefully millions more will be exposed to his brilliant sharp wit.
Drachisms are great. sm
Samuel Johnson once said, “No man will be a sailor who has contrivance enough to get himself into a jail; for being in a ship is being in a jail, with the chance of being drowned.”
"Are there any myths when it comes to naval warfare?"
Me staring at the *DAYS* worth of drydock videos.
Yeah a few
Did you mean Naval Legend Sovetsky Soyuz?
Weeks, probably!
@@neilwilson5785 about 4 weeks if played nonstop, according to a very rough estimate
Just remember, there are still people who believe that Japan didn’t have torpedo boats in the Baltic not only in 1905, but both World Wars.
@@kingleech16 FOOOLS
Thank you for having Drachinifel on as your naval expert for these questions. He is an amazing historian; knowledgeable, thorough, scrupulous, and able to convey facts in an engaging and understandable fashion.
There’s always a troll.
@@realistic.optimist he never claimed to have served nor has he claimed to be a naval expert hes a historian and engineer he has not claimed to have ever served
@@realistic.optimist If you 'were' a USN Captain, with that attitude, it would be a bad day for the USN.
@@shirleymental4189 He's never served himself because no self respecting retired officer would ever have the attitude he does. He's a walter mitty
@@jeff-p8l LOL
"Didn't Bismarck have the biggest guns in the world?"
"Bismarck didn't even have the biggest guns in the North Sea."
But she had the most powerful and accurate guns in the North Sea, penetrating 70% more than Rodney's 16-inch guns, and as much as the 16/45 of the North Carolina and South Dakota.
@@TTTT-oc4eb Keep dreaming old chap.
@@TTTT-oc4eb So much so that she wrecked Rodney without taking a scratch. No sorry she totally failed to hit Rodney while being reduced to a hazard to navigation herself.
@@meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee2 Bismarck listing to port and the rudder damage made it impossible to find a continuous FC solution, and her slow speed made her a sitting duck. Even so, she straddled Rodney long before vice versa. And in addition to Rodney, KGV and two heavy cruisers were firing on her.
It took 45 minutes before the last of Bismarck's main guns went silent. For a comparison, it took Bismarck 13 minutes to sink Hood and send PoW packing.
@@TTTT-oc4eb Indeed, the ballistic and penetration tables for the Bismark's 15 inch guns are easily available on line and she could easily penetrate HMS Hoods armored belt at 16km. Claims of British Naval Historians that Hood wasn't penetrated get down to the claim that Hood was turned towards the Bismarck creating a sever incline but it has to be a severe incline and there are no " black boxes" to record this. They are relying on calculations to assume Hood completed her turn. I really would not expect objectivity on British sources on this.
I'm so glad Drach mentioned Warspite and Richelieu. Both should have been preserved as museum ships.
Along with Enterprise
God almighty… That they didn’t even preserve her *mast*… 😭
If only... Wish you the best
That costs money and politicians, despite wasting our money hand over fist all the time wouldn't have made enough on them to justify it to their loving public.
20:28 "[The Duquesne] could be taken down by a particularly angry destroyer."
USS Johnston has entered the chat.
ORP Piorun shrugs
Good thing for the French that they were our allies, sort of.
@@roo72 I suppose they are busy taunting the Bismarck, but I'm always happy for the Poles to join in.
USS Melvin and USS Bennion: Allow us to introduce ourselves
@@danspragens4935 Someone had to be distract the Germans while the Tribals went on torpedo runs, although the Poles being a bunch of mad lads made out of brass I'm surprised they didn't also launch fish.
The fact the Bismarck sunk the HMS Hood, be it a lucky shot or no. I think adds to the myth.
Yamato was designed to defeat two standards. Bismarck defeated two ships much more powerful than the standards.
@@stanleyrogouskiBismarck did not defeat two ships
@stanleyrogouski I'd say Hood being more powerful than the Standards (including the Colorado's) is quite debatable.
@@Edawgpilot She gutted the Hood and the Prince of Wales ran away.
@@battleship6177 Colorado couldn't have caught the Bismarck.
Drach dispensing naval wisdom is always a good watch o7
🤣😂🤭👉
I quite agree, Drach Dispensing naval wisdom is always a good watch.
lol
Of couse it's not a Super Ship. Super ships are Tier 11, Bismark only Tier 8.
Tier is the German word for “animal,” which adds another aspect…
😂😂😂
How many thier11 ships sunk one capital ship and damaged another
@@tomhenry897in how many comment sections are presented to cope and seethe btw
If Bismarck isn’t a super ship then what ship (that was actually built) is? It’s basically between the Yamato, Iowa and Bismarck. Of those only one has sunk an enemy ship in it’s class.
“Land warfare with an increased chance of drowning“ is such a magnificently Drachinifel thing to say
just had the same thought 😁
Its a slightly modified quote from Oscar Wilde. He was speaking of "sea travel" rather than Land warfare
One of the things I really appreciate about Times Radio History is what a good host James Hanson is. He asks relevant questions, is a good listener, and above all he doesn't interrupt his guests, which can't be said for some of his guests. He is a brilliant interviewer.
Drach, from such humble beginnings to “guest expert”. Very rarely, do you support a content creator, do you get to see them achieve greatness, Drach is one such person.
Excellent interview. The Times Radio host did a very good job of acting like a professional and letting his guest speak without interruption or inserting to much of his own commentary. Other presenters can learn from this. Like others I have been following Draco for years. Kudos to both host and guest.
Agreed
Drachinifel is my go to expert when it comes to naval history.
😂😂 what a tool
Why do you need an expert when you are fully capable of reading all the books necessary to become an expert myself.
It is not tiime efficient
@@titanscerw Says who?
@@Bellthorianexactly, these people are idio ts
My Grandfather served on Hood during the round the world cruise 1922. Hood never had the refit she should have had prior to ww2.
Very true and I've seen people comment about how stupid the RN was and/or how pathetic HMS Hood was.
But the lack of refit comes down to both need to have her at crisis points and the RN's biggest enemy according to Admiral Fisher, Treasury.
@@johnfisher9692 Yep, and in the world where Hood gets her refit, at least one of the ships that did get theirs can't get it, which includes ships like Renown and Warspite that went on to play some pretty major roles in WW2.
@@johnfisher9692Those people doesn’t even understand that Hood was very well armored. Despite being called Battlecruiser. Her armor is as equal to Queen Elizabeth Class, or even better. Sometimes I always making a joke about HMS Hood is basically a very Slip Queen Elizabeth. Battlecruiser development for the British were further ahead than other Nations. Hood was the latest gen among of all Battlecruisers where the gap between Battlecruiser and Battleship start connecting into Fast Battleship. If Hood doesn’t exist. Iowa will never existed. Armor plating on Iowa were very identical to Hood. Angled belt that are thinner than thick flat belt.
Hood isn’t pathetic, she is very good ship. It just that one lucky shot from Bismarck that killed her. She was ridiculously unlucky. If you swap Hood to Iowa and Bismarck for Yamato and Yamato hit Iowa the same place like how Bismarck did to Hood. Iowa would react the same thing. Magazine Detonation. Even more violent because larger caliber and more explosives.
Like I said those people had ZERO understanding that Naval Battle in WWII are more luck based than anything. Sometimes you get the very unfortunate ones. Hood was getting shot by 1/million chance and she received it. And for the records. RN lose their carrier less than let’s say the USN do.
@@johnfisher9692 Treasury or Trenchard (or rather his legacy)? The bomber was to always get through, take the fight to the enemy's heart, and bomber procurement received a lot of funding in the 1930s. Chamberlain, for some of this period, was a chancellor and also an advocate of the RAF, although at least as much of fighters as bombers.
@@Tepid24Warspite never got a full refit. The only capital ships that did were QE, Valiant & Renown. I’m pretty sure the RN could have passed on one of those three. The Brits were reluctant to take Hood out of service partly out of ego. She was the biggest capital ship in the world for the better part of twenty years. They wanted to keep her around to show the flag.
Truth is they could’ve shown the flag with a lot of other ships.
Yay, our prayers has been answered :D in future please consider inviting Rex's hangar!
And TIK.
@@rolfrevmanNo no no he’s a pointless DIK
@@rolfrevmanHell no you have to be kidding man BALD AF unserious hack of a UA-camr
@@rolfrevmanshut up
As long as we dont ask Rex to discuss the development of interwar French bombers lol
A charming relaxed young interviewer and an articulate intellectual navel historian - they need no puffed-up drama or gimmicks to communicate
Drach recently was talking about the Duquesne and he said a particularly high speed seagull could penetrate their armour.
He does have a way with words doesn't he?
Kind of like the HMS Hood.
I’d say it was one of my favorite Drachisms, but on second thought that’s some tough competition so who knows!
At least one of my favorites was probably “spontaneously and involuntarily disintegrated” (or something to that effect).
@@gregwasserman2635absolutely not hood, she had a 12in inclined belt just like iowa did, and you wouldn't call the iowa's armor paper thin would you
@@andrewp8284"suddenly self disassembed" "found buoyancy was overrated" "the Kamchatka" he has many to choose from.
Here because of Drachinifel. Always nice to hear his thoughts on stuff!
And if you want more of this kind of thing you can devote half a day to Drach's weekend Drydock videos.
Or fill a month or so with 5 min guides.
Or entire lockdown and watch all his stuff.
Heh heh. I've watched a hundred or so of Drach's videos but can't handle the Drydock.
@@copiousfool I'm still about a year behind on Drydocks but I started late.
I got lost , had to start dry docks over " from the top !"
Term "super" is by definition relative. The Bismarck was a decent battleship for it's timeframe. I really don't even recall it being called a "super" ship. The only ship I recall being called a "super" battleship was the Yamato. Battleships were already getting to be obsolete by this timeframe anyway.
Superdreadnought is an actual official classification, and denotes any uniform main battery battleship with a caliber greater than 12 inches, so I guess she was a superdreadnought. She was also a fast battleship, by definition. A reasonably advanced piece of equipment, but with woefully inefficient construction.
Acknowledged. It WAS however 25% larger than allowed via restrictions placed on Germany after WW1, so surprised the world. Terminating the British Flagship in about 3 minutes with only a handful of survivors was kind of super.......
Battleships was far from obsolete, it was the other way around actually that made them rarely used as Carriers was considered more expendable.
@@znail4675 Just no.
I AM THE PENULTIMATE WEAPON AFLOAT: Bismark
Fairy Swordfish: BWAHAHAHA!
Penultimate? Did you mean ultimate?
@@markdrummond7 Oh, the Wehraboos all know the H-class battleships were coming ANY DAY NOW.
Well, it was better than the HMS Hood, so there's that...
The ship's name was literally in the title and you still couldn't spell it correctly.
"Hold this torpedo for me, chap."
Bismarck 50.000 long tons
Richelieu 44.000 long tons
Same armament, similar armor, similar range, +2kts for the french, nuff said.
Not even going to mention the improved armaments found on Richelieu , her better gun fire control AND an actual attempt at dual purpose gunnery
@@Braindamagedpotato Or North Carolina, trading 2kts for 9x16inch guns at 45.000t displacement.
The overweight of the Bismarck is only eclipsed by the Admiral Hippers.
German designers: “efficiency? What’s that?”
@@Edawgpilotwell both got nowhere really, did they?
Yikes. I didn't know that Richelieu's displacement was so much lower. You could stuff a light (very light) cruiser into that gap.
I'm a simple man. I see Drachinifel I upvote.
Not a pound for air to ground is an excellent aviation history channel - highly recommended!
Although the French possessed fine modern ships, a prime consideration in WW2 is that these ships lacked wheels.
Do you mean wheels for steering?
@@Laotzu.Goldbug Wheels for getting to the only battles that mattered to the survival of France; fighting the germans on land.
A Richelieu on tracks does sound terrifying in an absurd kind of way... I kind of almost wish that was a thing we got.
yes but even if they had wheels, the richelieu only had front facing turrets so it wouldnt have been much help on the retreat!! ;))
There is a lot of overselling of Bismark. Her hull was exceptionally well reinforced against torpedo hits and she had good gun direction. However, if there is a vote for the best battleship design, it is probably for the US Iowa class which were still valued as operational ships into the 1990s.
If she had such good gun direction, why didn't she lay glove on Rodney or KGV
@@juneabbey9538because she was listing and stuck turning in a circle?
Literally every battleship won’t be able to land a hit on their target if all their systems had been destroyed
@@yukiakito3083 Spot on. Her first salvo on Hood was on for range and only slightly out on horizontal angle. The next salvo straddled.
@@juneabbey9538at Denmark strait a fully functional Bismarck with a fresh Crew scored 6 Hits in less then 15 minutes.Rodney 3 days later need more than 15 minutes to Hit Bismarck the First time
@@ricoh.3162You don't say that the ship, which was older, had been at sea for a while now, and was en route for a refit before she turned around needed a bit longer to score a hit compared to a newer ship fresh out of the docks?
Italian PT boat commanders and crews were extremely daring. Some would even say borderline reckless. This contrasted dramatically with the capital ship xaptainds and fleet admirals who were extremely "conservative" to be generous.
Well they also did supply runs into north Africa with cruisers loaded with drums of fuel on the decks. That takes a special kind of reckless as well lol
Italy couldn't afford to lose any of its naval deterrent. Ultimately, their capital ships weren't enough to deter a naval invasion. Torpedo boats, on the other had, are expendable.
@@CanalTremocos I mean, by 1943 Italy was quite low on fuel and was mostly using its capital ships as mobile AA batteries to move port to port. And even so, they were preparing to sail out to counter the landing in Calabria on the day of the Armistice.
@@lolloblue9646 And they realized the British had pretty good radar, which made Italian capital ships extremely vulnerable .
@@glenchapman3899 after the battle of Matapan the Italian naval command finally decided to sponsor the research on radar technology that had been going slowly since the late 30s because of arrogance. (Iachino literally told the guy who was working on it "no one fights a naval battle at nigh" and the team developing it received basically no funding until Matapan.)
A fun fact, among the guys working on it was the man who coined the term "microwaves", professor Nello Carrara.
By mid 1941 the EC3/bis was operational on Littorio , replaced in early 1942 with an upgraded version and in September the same year by the EC3/ter "Gufo". Vittorio Veneto was also equipped with one, probably around the same time, and Roma was fitted with one during completion.
Naval command however believed Germany's false information about the British having "anti radar technology" (the Allies had no such thing until 44) so ordered the crews to only switch the radar on while in proximity of enemy forces. An order that crews promptly ignored, as they used the Gufo as a search radar and conveniently "forgot" to mention it in the ships' logbooks, thus avoiding sanctions.
One interesting little fact about Bismarck is that she was designed for some advanced anti-aircraft guns and mounts, but those particular guns were instead delivered to the Soviet Union as part of the non-aggression treaty (which also included a large loan from the USSR to Germany and various technology transfers from Germany to the USSR) and she went to sea on her only sortie with older weapons. An interesting fact to consider given that she was fatally crippled by some biplanes.
Do you happen to know where I can find information on said advanced anti-aircraft guns and mounts sent to the Soviet Union? I know that the Germans transferred the incomplete Admiral Hipper class Lützow and were supposed to transfer more things (38cm guns and turrets for the Kronshtadt class battlecruisers, etc.) but didn't due to the German invasion of the Soviet Union, but I never found any information about transferring naval AA guns in the various economic deals. Also, I can't seem to find any AA weapon system used/developed by the Kriegsmarine that makes sense timewise with the deals in question. Many thanks.
The battle of the river Platt kind of showed that it wasn't how good the ship was but how they were used that often determined the winner anyway.
Love Drach's British humor. He is probably the best naval historian of our time.
With Midway, the intelligence benefit of Joseph Rochefort in finding a crib into the Japanese codes cannot be overestimated.
Cannot be underestimated? So it was worthless then? I think you mean it cannot be overestimated.
@Nitedawg1 😆 Oops. Correction noted. Comment revised.
@@gmf121266 nice 👍
"A particularly angry destroyer"
*USS Johnston has entered the chat.*
I've been watching this seaman for some years. His talks are serious, accurate and most interesting. I am very glad he is here today.
Same, i stumbled across his channel when the Dry Dock was in single digits, been hooked and subscribed ever since.
I'm proud to have had three questions answered and I'm not a on patreon
It's very kind of Drach to help out a small channel like this one, even if he is being paid !
Nice to hear that the mythical, nay epic status of the super ship KAMCHATKA is not in question.
There's never been an equal to the Kamchatka, something we should all regularly thank the deity of our preference for.
Kamchatka, the best Japanese ship to never fly the flag of the Rising Sun.
Defeated the Baltic fleet all on its own
When I was a small child during WW2 I listened to BBC news. I apparently ran excitedly to my grandma and shouted "DADDY SUNK THE SCHARNHOST". (Daddy was at sea at the time!). So there".
Bismarck: Super battleship swagger.
Yamato & Musashi: Hysterical 460mm giggle.
Are you talking about those two Japanese battleships that are at the bottom of the ocean?
They spent all their time running from the US Navy's battleships because their guns were a joke compared to the Iowa's, their range of accurate fire was 1½ times those Japanese ships, they'd have never stood a chance against them in a fight and is why they spent their careers running away from the US Navy.
@@dukecraig2402 dude... Ships do not run away, they are not conscious beings. Admirals AND captains tell them what to do
Well, the Bismarck actually sank a large ship unlike the Yamatos, which were the largest targets ever constructed.
@@dukecraig2402 'They spent all their time running from the US Navy's battleships because their guns . . .'
Hardly, as they never encountered any American battleships. And the Iowas (as well as the other US Pacific battleships) never encountered the Yamatos.
@@augustosolari7721 Warspite ran away at least twice whilst without power, once at Messina and once at Cornwall. The sailors did consider her to be sentient.
The well documented "Drach Bump" is a must for all creators
I appreciate the experts you have on your channel as well as the intelligence of your questions. Drach can be difficult to listen to at times, but he is very knowledgeable about his area of expertise; almost everything naval.
Most important ship in ww2? The transport ship
Agreed. Without the Liberty ship, we'd have been in serious trouble.
Ice cream barge
As a longtime Patreon member of Drach’s UA-cam channel I am more than delighted to see him here on Times Radio History. His research and ability to explain what can be, at times, complex topics is second to none. Well done Times Radio History, you now have a new subscriber.
Drach is one of the great historian/storytellers of our times. Thanks for having him on this show!
I also think the people of a south London Town appreciate his road planning and engineering skills in his previous career (not sure if it is previous and has gone UA-cam full time)
@@Simon-jj2pu Public works? Our Drach? How can I love this man any further??
Awesome to feature the one and only Drachinifel! ❤
A wild Drach appears, Fleet approves of Drach Appearing in random places.
It is so deserved that Drach is being recognized for his expertise in naval history. I have enjoyed his content for years and learned a lot.
When I was at RAF Gütersloh, Germany in the early 90's a German technician asked me if next time I was in Blighty could I pick him up a Black & Decker electric drill as the German Bosh ones were rubbish - I laughed as so many lads back home wanted a Bosh - I guess we often think something the other fella has is more exotic - I like Dewalt myself!
It doesn't matter these days, all power tools are made in China. Personally I choose Milwaukee.
@@philhawley1219 My Dad built his 2 bedroom cabin using all Milwaukee tools - the circular saw was especially impressive
Drachinifel is almost on the mark as far as Midway goes.
He's correct, but completely overlooks the USS Yorktown and its importance in American lore. It was the lead ship of the Yorktown-class. The other two ships in the class was the USS Enterprise and the USS Hornet who have serious lore of their own. The USS Yorktown took a beating at Coral, limped to Pearl, was declared to need 3 months of repairs minimum but was dispatched to Midway after 72 hours of rushed repairs. Where it survived a Japanese attack, was repaired again, put up a giant US flag to signal its return to service, endured a second attack where the Japanese mistook it for a different undamaged carrier, was abandoned, survived the night afloat, salvage crew put onboard the next morning when a IJN sub torpedo took it to the bottom. Where it still stands upright today.
Its the story of the USS Yorktown within the larger context of Midway that gives the battle such weight in American lore. Because it best represents the ability of the American people to not give up and to get back up even after being knocked down again and again.
When you were going into the fact people don't know, and started with Fisher, I thought it'd be about his acronym invention.
For those who don't know, Fisher was responsible for the very first-ever recorded use of the acronym "OMG". And yes, he meant exactly the same thing by it that we do.
Drach's Battle of Jutland series make good ASMR!
His "Voyage of the Damned" series however, pure comedy
@@jon-paulfilkins7820Yes, that and When the 2nd Pacific Squadron thought it couldn't get any worse... is a must
@@klutttmuttsprutt6087 Well, Russians, "And then things got worse" seems to be an unofficial motto for them...
i loved the pq17 video
especially the iceberg flotilla
except the bit with the grand fleet rolling out the haze in battle formation has the hairs of the neck standing on end...
She was enough to sink one battlecruiser, and to damage one battleship. The better part of two British were required to hunt her down, which was only achieved through a lucky hit by a Swordfish torpedo.
Yeah, she was a proper modern battleship for her day, which is no pushover. And she got some lucky breaks before she got some unlucky ones.
@@Alsadiusshe was a modern capable ship, just a little inefficient. Not terrible, but not a wunderwaffe either.
The Bismark was built to be a commerce raider. She was not the most powerful, but she was pretty fast, big problem for the Royal Navy. Bismark could pick off merchant ships at a distance AND run away from most bigger ships.
The fact that she was built to be a commerce raider was the worst idea you can have for a large battleship.... It already failed with the Gneisenau/Scharnhorsts lol
@feroxk.9266 Er, Just the Tripitz anchored in Norway, going nowhere soon, kept a lot of the Royal Navy that could have been useful operating somewhere else, stuck in Scappa Flow. Just saying.
I do know that.
BUT: Too many compromises to make it feasible as a commerce raider as well as a true battleship.
All the flaws came from that compromise.
IF they designed it to be a true battleship it really would have been the threat the british thought it was.
The Tirpitz partially removed all those flaws thats why it was the "better" Bismark and why the brits took all that effort.
Bismarck was NOT built as a commerce raider.
@@CanadianDolphinSurf @CanadianDolphinSurf Then, what? (Neither was the Graf Spee, I suppose.) Bismark's mission was to disrupt convoys and avoid confrontations with the Royal Navy. Surely, that much we can agree on? Or that the German Navy was hopelessly outmatched by the Brits, can we agree on that, too? Are you also saying that Bismark was sent out on a mission for which she was not originally thought out? Keeping in mind that the Bismark was not exactly the Yamato, a different concept. We just established that fact. So, please, I'm on the edge of my chair typing here, what was Bismarck designed and optimized to do?
So happy to see Drach on your channel! Hope he's with you frequently!
The Maginot line didn't fail. It did what they constructed it to do. The Germans just avoided it
Gotta love the description of medieval Naval combat.
Land warfare with an increased risk of drowning.
Pound for pound, protection vs mobility vs firepower, Iowa class, especially Missouri and Wisconsin with their beefed up bulkheads, have to be the most competent battleship designs of all time, which is not a surprise since they are basically also the very last battleship class to be designed and produced, so it just makes sense they are like that, build upon the experience of all that came before.
Pound for pound, it is the 31,000 tons Queen Elizabeth class, battle tested, 2 world wars, first ever fast battleship, first ever oil battleship, great armour, arguably the best naval guns ever made.
So great to see Drach work with a smaller youtuber to help em out.
Blistering barnacles, ration the rum, hoist the rudder, scuttle the ports, Drach is on deck. 👏🏻🥃
I have a sneaking admiration for the italian navy in ww2. Ok they didnt prove decisive in theatre but they had the technical capacity, sailing skill and will to fight enough to be a serious threat.
And unlike other axis navies they knew what they were doing when it came to antisubmarine warfare. The UK lost a lot of subs to Italian ASW in the med.
Yet never were
@@tomhenry897 admiral Cunningham would disagree
@@nerd1000ify The RN lost 45 submarines to all causes in the Mediterranean. The Italian Navy lost 88, or 75% of their strength in 1940.
@@dovetonsturdee7033 The Italian mini subs were few in numbers but very effective. Also they were probably the most advanced in design and manufacture.
Really fascinating discussion. Thank you.
Thank you, for making these videos! I do like the interview conversation format. Cheers!
Good Ships are vital, good crews, essential. Some ships fought well above their weight division. HMS Warspite is one of these. She was already a Veteran of WW1.
Two of my favorites come together Drachinifel and Times Radio (:
Upon sighting the Drach, I naturally gave the order to view, that's my style Sir!
A Sharpe quote? You are truly a man of culture!
Now that's soldering!
What a great interview! I'm a big fan of Drach, now I'm subscribed here as well.
It's interesting that Richelieu was probably a superior battleship, but was prevented from showing this by the overall political situation. In the Napoleonic era the British Navy was supreme, but captured French warships were admired for their build quality.
Wonderful program so informative , and well spoken , and easily followed , thanks Drach ' 🇺🇸
What's funny about Bismarck is that it's considered the biggest and most powerful battleship to sail the Atlantic, yet Iowa was heavier and South Dakota had more fire power then her, despite being smaller.
It wasn't a supership but it sure shot some super rounds against not-so-super Hood, slapped Prince of Wales with some more super shots, escape the radar from two cruisers and ultimately if it wasn't for the combined forces of a bunch of British surface units, including an aircraft carrier and several cruisers and battlehips, Bismarck would reach France and have a super welcome by the Kriegsmarine.
Also it was quite super how Bismarck helped Prinz Eugen run away without the British forces noticing.
Yup
The attack on Mers Al kebir was only sanctioned by Churchill because we feared French seapower and were concerned it would come under the control of the Germans.
Not Churchill's finest moment.
A hypothetical unified German/Italian/French navy would be a very serious threat to UK.
Decisive even.
@@Cailus3542 They were given every opportunity to surrender or sail to the US for internment. Pride and the well-known French arrogance caused that debacle, not Churchill.
The French assured the British that they would scuttle their ships rather than let them fall into the hands of the Germans. The British wouldn't trust that the French would be able to meet this commitment.
A few years later the Germans tried to seize the French fleet in Vichy France, but the French scuttled it first.
Splendid episode. And, yes, I subscribe to Drach. The concluding comment about Admiral Fisher is worth the price of admission...if you were charging admission. Well done: good questions, good answers.
I disagree with Drach's determination that the Iowa class was the best class of warship. I assert that whatever ship Ching Lee is on is the best class of warship.
Gunnery crews that he trained were very dangerous to the enemy.
Excellent topics and conversations!
Germans demonstrated excellent gunnery, esp. when their gunnery radar was used. The Bismarck class also featured many very advanced features for the time. So that's part of why she was seen as a big threat.
I don't think anyone has referred to DKM Bismarck as a super ship, but she was compared to HMS Hood, a post WW1 battlecruiser, which had not been upgraded enough to compete against the technology of WW2. I lost an uncle on the Hood. Whatever one says about Hood, the facts are she was sunk in the opening phase of the Battle of the Denmark Strait and therefore could not match the Bismarck. Churchill, who was supposed to have some expertise on naval power (upon hearing of the Hood explosion) ordered Admiral Tovey to tow Hood back to Scapa Flow.
Surprisingly uninformed for the supposed nephew of a HMS Hood crewman
@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684 Hi Troll! Hood is at the bottom of the Denmark strait! It took many ships to sink the Bismarck. Quod erat demonstrandum.
@@ravenclaw8975 Bismarck inspite of being every wehraboo's dream ship, had an operational career that lasted NINE DAYS, and that was inspite of having the 44,000,000 square mile North Atlantic ocean in which to run away and hide in, in the era before "over the horizon" radars, satellites, GPS or even comprehensive air coverage !!!
There's no accounting for a "million to one hit" on a ship, as HMS Hood found out to her cost... attributing "uberness" to Bismarck on that occurance highlights a complete lack of insight into the situation, it's akin to me landing a lucky blow on Mike Tyson's chin before he then rips me to pieces. It doesn't make me a superb boxer.
Glad to see this was official working with Drach, at first I thought it was one of those channels that just takes other videos to play them lol :p
Top man Drac !
Great vid as they all are The one the other week with Ryan was great 😊
So Fisher was then running a variant of the Roman dictum, "Si vis pacem parabellum."
Nice to put a face to the voice of my favourite naval historian. Always great content on Drachnifel's channel.
I was waiting for HMS Warspite and I was not disappointed.
The bulk of the French navy did its best to stay "neutral" due to the FACT that it had sailors with roots in both Vichy and Occupied France. Depending on the ship or shore station, you could have a civil war or mutiny if you attacked one side or the other. Tough situation.
Drachinifel? You have my attention. He's one of the best, and well-deserving of a much bigger audience.
Brilliant discussion. Loved it. The man knows his stuff
Bad TV made the Bismarck a super battleship, not reality.
That’s not entirely fair. If you’re talking about the Lewis Gilbert movie from 1960 then you have to trace that back to C.S.Forester’s book. Like a lot of other books of that era, there were a lot of grey areas that had to be filled in, either because some of the information was still secret or not available for other reasons. There were only three survivors from the Hood, for example, so the actual cause of her sinking was not well understood until her wreck was found.
Forester never made any bones about the fact that it was a novel, based closely on reality. The movie didn’t either. So what you call ‘bad TV’ is only as bad as you want it to be.
But it’s no good blaming the media for something that basically comes down to viewer choices. You can either watch the movie and take it at face value or you can read what the card says on the screen and accept it for what it is.
Took on 2 British capital ships
Sunk one damaged the other and made it flee
There’s your super
@@thethirdman225 bad TV as in cable TV documentaries more written to create excitement then tell the facts. With narration more like disco djs from the 70s.
@@tomhenry897 that sounds like an interesting story, tell me how did it end?
@@dr.brigh0275just like he said sank one,made the other run away
If this was an example of political accuracy on pretty much everything. Economics, national security, domestic issues, etc. The world would be a much better place. Thank you for the most balanced, informative , and respectable forum on these subjects. Fascinating subject matter. Presented in a remarkably fascinating way.
One area concerning the Italian Navy. Their capital ships had issues in combat. Their frogmen were an example to many Navy's on clandestine operations.
Drachinifel does a fabulous job on and with his naval history programs! Awesome!!
Agreed about Warspite. The achievements she pulled off puts it on the very top spot by some distance.
Also, not enough people talk about accuracy and seamanship. Warspite probably had one of the most skilled and experienced crews out of all of them. It makes a huge difference under intense battle conditions.
Bismarck being heavier than the RN battleships gave it the reputation, but it seems that heavier just meant less efficient
The opposite. Inefficiencies made it need to be larger. Inefficient engines needed to be larger to achieve required shaft horsepower. Larger engines meant more weight of armor protection to cover the larger area required to contain these engines. Heavier weight of armor required a larger engine for this heavier ship to reach the required speed.. Meant that achieving the same level of speed, firepower and armor required a larger more expensive ship.
@@iansneddon2956 She was both faster and had much better range than KGV, as well as much more powerfull guns, better TDS and at least as good armor. She should be compared to the equally large and heavy, and indeed very similar, HMS Vanguard.
Hoods standard displacement was almost identical to that of Bismarck.
@@TTTT-oc4eb The speed difference with KGV was not all that significant. A slight edge for Bismarck. Range is not relevant as the Royal Navy could count on a large network of port/support facilities.
Bismarck's guns were more powerful than the 14" guns of the KGV class, but were not superior to the 16" guns of the Nelson class.
Armor protection is where you really miss the mark. The KGV class had overall thicker armor than Bismarck with a much superior armor layout. I think with the improvements in British armor in the late 1930s the KGV could be argued to be better protected than Rodney or Nelson. Turret armor was sacrificed a bit in the design, but I'm not aware of any turret hits on a KGV class that would prove much on this. The pounding inflicted on Bismarck showed that the 14" guns were effectively penetrating Bismarck's turrets as well as assisting Rodney in turning Bismarck into a flaming wreck. Overall, KGV was better protected against Bismarck's guns than Bismarck was protected against KGV's. Especially at longer ranges. The superior number of guns for KGV would give KGV a bit more advantage - for as long as they would continue to fire (was more an issue with PoW than KGV).
I suggest you look up Nathan Okun's detailed analysis of Bismarck's armor which highlights weaknesses in the layout. Such as an armored weather deck that was too thick - such that it would deflect a completely penetrating projectile downward improving its penetration against the lower armor deck. Bismarck would have been batter off with a 1.5" weather deck and a thicker lower armor deck - or just saving on the weight and cost saved.
The turtleback armor scheme of Bismarck provided great protection for the lower hull (magazines, machinery spaces) at lower ranges (optimized for fighting at WW I ranges it seems), but this left a lot of the upper hull more vulnerable to hits. The use of these spaces for communications and electrical equipment increased the likelihood of failures in these in battle (as happened with the loss of command and control in Bismarck early in the final battle and the need for crew to run messages through the ship.
The turtleback armor scheme also reduced the buoyancy of Bismarck's citadel and increased the danger of flooding above the armor deck.
Shallow belt protection also allowed shells to hit and explode just under the armor (PoW scored such a hit, taking out one of Bismarck's boilers.)
Rather than "at least as good", Bismarck's armor was inferior to both Rodney and KGV.
@@iansneddon2956 Range is relevant for considering why the Bismarck was the way it was, the lack of a need for very long range ships due to their empire is actually a boon for the British I'd think, it allowed them to devote more weight into making their ships deadlier.
My face is still stuck to the screen! This guys GOOOOOD!!!!
The Battle of Midway was a major kick in Japan's Rising Suns.
It’s not a super ship, but it’s a legendary ship.
Even mythical in the eyes of enthralled "worshippers".
Jackie Fisher was a formidable man and he was correct in pretty much all of his Navy career. And the fun fact just go to prove it!
except for 20"+ guns
I have to say, the Furious class was a fraud. It used the idea of a shallow draft ship to cover landings from the North Sea as its excuse, but it was just Fisher going too far with too much gun on too little hull. Those landings appear to never have been seriously contemplated. Luckily a better use was found for the hull.
@@Duke_of_Petchingtonto be fair they're completely insane ideas. But I love the idea of cruising around at 30kts with 6x 20in guns
"The presumed bunch of lunatics who are going to come along..."
10th Destroyer Flotilla in WWII: "A call is upon us, lads!"
Drach being Drach is always such an entertaining thing.
Hood wasn't really a pier warship to Bismark though, that's a myth in and of itself.
Hood was a worn out Battle Cruiser from 1918 going up against a Battleship from 1939.
The Germans did not intend to use the Bismark to go head-to-head with the British navy. Instead, they intended to use it to supplement their uboat threat, as a commerce raider. In this regard, it was a “super” threat. If it were allowed to prowl the mid-Atlantic, it had the potential to sink entire convoys.
but that relies on the royal navy either ignoring her or beeing unable to find her. and giant battleships are *slightly* more visible than subs. i find that premise absurd personally, and i really dont get why the germans thought it was a good idea
Bismarck had some flaws, but she was a tough cookie. The damage to her steering from an airborne torpedo attack is what ultimately led to her destruction. She couldn't maneuver when confronted by Rodney and King George V. She took a tremendous pounding before she went down.
One on one ,even fully functional she probably would have lost to either of those ships
@@jamesricker3997 I seriously doubt it. My opinion.
Her rudder hit was a design decision (flaw).
In many ways what actually doomed Bismarck was a single 14" shell from Prince of Wales. It hit her forward fuel storage, cutting off a substantial portion of her supply and forcing her to turn for France. The leaking fuel left a visible oil slick behind the ship, which allowed Allied aircraft to locate her after she managed to escape the cruisers that were shadowing her.
The Swordfish strike wouldn't have been possible without that.
@@warp9p659 One of the hidden issues with Bismarck - she was actually a very brittle ship outside her armor. For example during the battle of Denmark Straight she managed to do some serious damage to her own radar systems due to blasts from her own guns
Bonus daily Drach chat 😊 You definitely have top notch guests.
I think half of bismarks reputation is down to hoods destruction