Drach. I have been with you since Robo-voice and truly understand the need to vent at morons. But I am old and have realized that arguing with said morons is counterproductive to my life. I am looking forward to many years of naval history. Thank you. Tom.
Incredible stuff … 299 dry docks and how many questions answered..? We the viewers are fortunate to have such a rich source of History.. Thank you very much Drach ..!
In terms of what he does, it's basically many years worth of free college lectures on naval history. No BS, just an expert talking on his subject of expertise.
I've read an argument made by Robert Lundgren in 2011 on one of his old naval forums that Yamato's shell made direct contact with White Plains. He stated that the shell scraped off White Plain's keel before exploding underneath, leaving an 18-inch by 8-inch gouge in the carrier, backed up by photographic evidence. This may be detested by the fact he didn't actually include this statement in the book, but it's worth noting
But in the naval community, you have ships destroyed by near-misses like the Suzuya. When you're shooting big enough ordinance, just being near the impact of a miss can be devastating.
My Maritime History Professor liked to tell the tale of 5 ships that headed to the "East" for Pepper. two years later, one ship returned, which with paying off the lost ships and sailors still gave them 400% Return on investment.
My first question answered - nice. I figured the obvious one in WW2 would be a carrier - the thing would be halfway to Habakkuk, for god's sake. But I also figured it'd be fun to hear you discuss that possibility, and also to hear some ideas that weren't carriers, hence asking about both wars.
Slightly surprised that in your discussion on land based aircraft against shipping you didn't mention the rocket equipped aircraft of the Banff Strike Wing (RAF Dallachy Beaufighterss and RAF Banff Mosquitos) which I'm given to understand were fairly successful . Nor indeed the Mosquito XVIII which used the 6-pounder (57mm) anti-tank gun as a U-Boat buster. Of course, given that I live within 10 miles of Dallachy and grew up within 10 miles of Banff, I may be biased 🙂
Regarding the reported US warship in the Thames in the 1960s, I've done a quick search of on-line newspaper archives and the nearest thing I can find is a list of 16 US warships (including USS Essex) that would be visiting Portsmouth during December 1961 as part of a NATO exercise.
All stability “calculations” were just rules of thumb until Pierre Bouguer invented the concept of the metacenter in 1746 in Traité du Navire. The problem wasn’t that ship constructors before this were working in different units, it was that the rules they were following were just rules of thumb and had no relation to reality,
Regarding gunnery radar, there's a key development that happened in the mid-war period. It's discussed in the articles on Fast Battleship Gunnery in Warship International 2005-2006 - with nice drawings showing what the radar screens looked like when this capability was in use. This allows you to see the splashes from shells. If the guns are on target, the splashes will bracket the target - and thus you'll see three pulses on the radar screen. This is different from just measuring range: it gives you feedback on what actually happened when the shells reached the target (which is not instantaneous, there's a flight time involved), and thus ultimately improves accuracy. In theory something similar can probably be done with optical systems, with a human being looking at the splashes and trying to see if there is a straddle, but the evidence presented in the WI articles is that using radar for this purpose (or maybe radar+optical combined) was far superior. So WW2 gunnery radar is not just about measuring target range. It doesn't work against land targets (no splash!). I don't think this was unique to the USN: like a lot of advanced Allied WW2 technology I think it was a joint effort, I believe the British called it a 'fall of shot' set - at least, I've seen that term in books by JE MacDonnell, Australian author and former WW2 destroyer gunnery officer. Not sure when it was first deployed, but it was definitely present on US fast battleships during the late war period. The USS New Jersey achieved the longest range straddle in WW2, at 35,700 yards, against the Japanese destroyer Nowaki - which did manage to escape, being already at extreme range at that point. Still, it must have been quite a shock to the destroyer's crew to see those enormous splashes appearing all around them from a source that was already over the horizon!
For the person who asked about land based bombers, do have a look at YT videos on the Bismarck Sea massacre and on Pappy - a chap who loved modifying aircraft to add insane amounts of fire power to the cast off aircraft allocated to the airforces based in Australia. There are several channels who cover these in great detail if that kind of thing attracts you.
Re: losses in age of sail question. I HIGHLY recommend reading the book LONGITUDE by Dava Sobel in which she outlines the tragic loss of 6 British warships in one incident in 1710 bc they couldn’t accurately identify their longitude on a trip back to England before creation of the sextant and then the Harrison sea clock.
I learn so much from your videos like I have a boring screen name (some you relate are hilarious) and you seem to know how to handle the keyboard experts/warriors with humor and aplomb. Keep up the fun and education Drach!
For the 40:48 question, kinda as Drachs was saying with regards to Axis vs Allied POW ship friendly fire incidents, the majority of such sinkings were usually on Axis shipping carrying Allied POWs, and expanding on that a bit further, the Mediterranean, when it came to the European theater, was much more chock full of those kinds of incidents than the Atlantic or Indian Oceans (apart from the two Drachs mentioned, from those regions, I can only think of two more, the Empress of Canada in 1943, and Arandora Star in 1940). When it comes to the Mediterranean, simply because of the relative confines and the struggle of shipping to get through in that body of water produced a very high number of such friendly fire incidents, both Allied and Axis. Operation Crusader being one big generator of these with ships departing Tobruk carrying Axis POWs (like Chakdina and Shuntien), and in return in late 1942 with incidents like Scillin with Allied POWs and Axis shipping. Perhaps most egregiously, after the surrender of Italy, you had German forces seizing many Italian ships, and using this new fleet in 1943 and into 1944 to transport Italian POWs who either did not join the Germans to continue fighting or even fight against the Germans. The following are four such POW ships sunk, as well as the lives lost: Sinfra (around 2,100), Ardena (around 750), Donizetti (all 2,055 aboard), Petrella (2,670). Similar to Japanese POW ships in the Pacific, three of the four ships just named were not even liners, but your average freighter; only Ardena was a small ferry.
Re: Screaming Hansl das Wunderwaffen Experten and the likes of it. Banned all the Luft'46 loons from my group talking about the Bell, Haunebu II and all that alien arsch probing stuff from my group. Ambience and interaction improved 500% within a week. Morale of the story: Never let the loons attempt to run your show in your place. Had a few Greek modelers issuing some offing threats because I quoted a greek author about the EVA (Air Force) and the political inside battles that prevented a more effective rythm of operations in Africa. Absolute bonkers. Cheers. Edit: Had to finish some translation work and there were several Drydocks in the backlog. Perfect match. Thanks for helping my ADHD'ed brain with a long, grueling task, Drach!)
Re: USS Arizona. Another factor is almost certainly that she was NOT a GQ, which means the various doors and hatches through out the entire hull were open allowing further pressure relief. Namely a bigger area to pressurize, but only a certain amount of volume of quantity expanding gas...
00:33:13 Actually highball was contemporaneous with the larger bombs used on the dams (op, Chastise) raid and Highball was also a back spinner, the reason it was never used (and there was a plan which was to be carried out by 618 Sqdn to attack Tirpitz at the same time as the Dams raid but they could not develop the Highball to sufficient reliability to risk using it and handing any failed attempt to the Germans, so after Chastise in May 1943 there was no possibility of a Highball attack on Tirpitz - the Germans having moored and net protected the ship to prevent a Highball attack. But tests continued at Loch Striven using HMS Malaya with a view to using the weapon against Japan. Some damage was caused by an inert Highball bomb on HMS Malaya the plan was to use it against assets in Singapore in 1945 with the aircraft and system being sent out to India in early 1945, but nothing became of it, possibly because Mosquitos weren't favoured in SEAC
I'm surprised Béarn didn't make your list of bottom 3 converted carriers. Ok, thanks to the French armistice she sat out the bulk of the war and would have been fairly useless even if she was the best carrier in the world. But wouldn't she have been fairly useless even if she'd somehow stayed in the fight?
Saw the mention of the Des Moines. Considering when she was built, and the fact that she was equipped with both 8" and 3" automatic cannons.... Were you surprised that they didn't have the first generation of the 5/54 automatic for their secondary?
On European PoWs being transported to North America: The US imported enough Italian PoWs it could create “Italian Service Units”, giving these PoWs almost free reign to roam unsupervised around the parts of California the US had just deemed too sensitive for Americans to keep living in and thus needed to be removed from. The ISUs were done, at least partly, in order to address the labor shortage that said removal of Americans created. (It was as dumb as it sounds. Unsurprisingly the same exact "military genius" was in charge of the removal, the ISU, and the infamous Newport “investigations” from the interwar.)
The Australians had a different approach. After sorting out the troublemakers and genuine ideologues, they allocated Italians to farms in cool climate mountain valleys, so any attempted escapes would have to be over mountains or down the valleys through towns where guards were stationed ready to intercept escapees. But the Italians were happy to sit out the war as farm workers growing crops like hops and there were almost no escape attempts.
Way to go dude, congrats on success. I am currently installing 48Volt electric propulsion system on my classic Sailing Yacht.....Drydocks are good for productivity/bblood pressure...usually ahahah. Happy Days
Regarding HMS Surprise’s officers in the movie, I think you’re confusing or misremembering a couple of things. A frigate of Surprise’s size would certainly have had three commissioned lieutenants, and the dialogue shows that Surprise did, at least initially. Partway through the movie, one of the midshipmen (Calamy) is promoted to acting 3rd lieutenant, so obviously they were supposed to have a third lieutenant and probably did initially, but he was presumably lost somewhere on the initial part of the voyage before the film picks up. It’s never explicitly said, but it seems like Midshipman Hollom had held the acting lieutenant appointment initially - he’s clearly the oldest of the midshipmen, Calamy receives the appointment right after Hollom dies, and that would also explain why Hollom was officer of the watch during the opening scene that leads up to the initial battle. Also, Aubrey was a full “Post-Captain” in the film, and Master and Commander was not an ad hoc rank. Commander had become an official rank about a decade prior to the time the movie takes place, and was a distinct step between lieutenant and captain (though lieutenants could still be promoted directly to captain). You may have been thinking of a lieutenant placed in command of a small vessel - a “lieutenant commanding”, which was a temporary and unofficial rank, but gave rise to the modern official rank of lieutenant commander.
Re torpedos on large bombers. The original spec for the Avro Manchester include provision for carrying torpedos, hence the long bomb bay inherited by the Lancaster (and eventually by the Shackleton). The spec also included catapult launching (abandoned) and dive capability (abandoned). While the dams raid did prove that Lancasters could operate at torpedo dropping heights, a stationary dam is a different category of problem to a manoeuvring and shooting warship.
Both PBY Catalinas and B-17s were used in "masthead bombing", sometimes referred to as 'skip bombing'. These aircraft are similiar in size to the Lancaster, not exactly the same but probably close enough for a comparison here. See "Black Cat Raiders of WWII" by Richard C Knott and "Sketches of a Black Cat" by Ron Miner for more information on the Catalina operations, which were mostly conducted at night. Many hits were reported, including on cruisers and destroyers: I don't know if anybody has done a comprehensive study comparing claims to provable damage. Note that the Catalina pilots didn't use their fancy bomb sights: they found them completely useless for masthead bombing. I believe both the British and the US employed Catalinas, though I'm not yet well read on the British use of these aircraft. For what it's worth, I think the final sub in the movie Greyhound is sunk by an RAF Catalina. All this suggests to me that Lancasters could have been used for masthead bombing of ships: it has slightly less wing area than the Catalina, but more powerful engines so it should be able to operate at lower heights with reasonable control, though perhaps it might have to operate at a somewhat faster speed which would make aiming harder. I think Lancasters were used in some cases to attack U-Boats with depth charges and perhaps other weapons: I've never studied those operations but the fact that they happened also suggests that masthead bombing of ships by Lancasters would have been feasible. I think that fundamentally torpedo bombing is actually easier than masthead bombing, so my guess is the Lancasters could have been set up to do that as well with a good expectation of success - assuming they were able to fly slowly enough (to safely release the particular torpedoes that were available) without stalling!
@@sugarnads I think you meant 'mounted' instead of 'not mounted'. Agree. That's probably why they did it at night. In some cases the PBYs would throttle down their engines to reduce the noise they made (maybe not a good option for the Lancaster, not sure!) to gain surprise. The Black Cat Raiders book talks about a number of incidents where the aircraft took heavy damage from AA but still made it home. There are other cases where aircraft never returned and some of those may have involved successful use of AA. Fortunately for the Allied fliers, none of the Axis powers had the kind of AA that the Allies would eventually deploy on Allied ships such as US fast battleships - which probably could have shredded these aircraft. The PBYs had radar that could spot enemy ships at night, I'd assume the B-17s did as well. I found a reference to an attack by B-17s against Rabaul on the night of 22-23 October 1943 - this seems to have been the first time B-17s used the masthead bombing technique - quite successfully. The PBYs actually started masthead attacks much earlier, during the Solomon Islands fighting, but I'm not sure how successful they were at that point. One successful masthead attack by PBYs was on 24 October 1943, which resulted in the sinking of the Japanese destroyer Mochizuki. I also discovered on re-reading parts of the "Black Cat Raiders" book that they did in fact use torpedoes as well as bombs for low level night attack. Given the problems with US torpedoes, I'd want to see some confirmation of reported hits before assessing the effectiveness of these attacks, but again that suggests the Lancasters could possibly also have been used in this role.
@@bluelemming5296 I know the ‘Black Cats’ PBYs did night torpedo missions, but my readings suggest the main masthead bombers were the B-25 and A-20, the best example perhaps being the Bismarck Sea operation. I was not aware of deliberate low-level B-17 missions. The P2BY Privateer and the Coastal Command B-24 were adapted to lower level operations (removal of ball turret, exhaust turbochargers off the engines) but not really to masthead/skip bombing tactics.
@@proteusnz99 Cool, thanks for chiming in, that gives me more starting points for additional research into this interesting topic. Re-reading the history of the PBY squadrons, such as VPB-52, VPB-11, VPB-34, it looks like the Pacific PBYs were shifted from 'Black Cat' aka attack missions to 'Dumbo' aka air-sea rescue and also ASW missions in 1944, maybe because there were better aircraft available for the masthead bombing missions and the PBYs were still superb in the other roles.
41:00 they also sent POWs to india and australia, mostly from the african and middle eastern parts of the conflict. most were italians I believe, my grandfather was one
1:32:55 “I’m gonna blow you up … as soon as I get this pointed at you … just you wait … don’t move … I’m still rotating … don’t move … hooooold still … and BOOM!” (Shot missed) “Dang. But I know the change I need to make to hit with the next shot … I’m going to reload … hold still … hoooooold still…”
I actually can’t really think of a more thorough Samar book than Lundgren’s, in large part because almost every other Samar book (such as TLSotTCS) basically parrots Morrison’s account even in cases where it’s definitely false (Chokai’s torpedo explosion that never happened being an example). That said, I do think there are places where Lundgren could have looked at details more thoroughly, not to mention that even his book is now somewhat dated with the new wreck discoveries. On the subject, regardless of Yamato’s gunnery at Samar, the old narrative about Kongo being the real threat is definitely false, because Lundgren’s analysis definitively proves most of her supposed hits could never have come from her based on her own logs; she wasn’t shooting at anything during that part of the battle. If those hits weren’t from Yamato (and I’d argue the fatal hits on Hoel and maybe Gambier Bay didn’t come from her), they’d have come from cruisers, not Kongo.
Kongo only sank Samuel B Roberts and possibly helped to cripple Heerman. She never landed a single hit on Hoel. All battleship caliber shells that hit Hoel were actually 16.1-inch shells from Nagato. Yamato did fire on and hit Hoel during her sinking, but only with her 6.1-inch secondary guns, and in fact I think the hit that knocked out Hoel's land boiler is credited to a 6.1-inch shell from Yamato by Lundgren. I also highly doubt Kongo hit Gambier Bay. She claimed one hit on the flat top, and said hit was also claimed by Yamato who had the shorter range and the correct firing angle. Battleship Caliber hits on Taffy 3; Johnston and Gambier Bay (and possibly White Plains)-Yamato Heerman and Samuel B Roberts-Kongo Hoel-Nagato Kalinin Bay-Haruna Speaking of Gambier Bay, I've also read up that, according to Imperial fleet, Chikuma was suffering from engine trouble and couldn't make past 18 knots around the time Gambier Bay was coming under heavy fire, meaning she actually couldn't have "closed to point blank range" as is sometimes stated. As for the other cruisers, Kumano and Suzuya were well out of the fight, Tone and Haguro were busy beating the living shit out of Kalinin Bay, Chokai was recovering from getting her stern blown off by Samuel B Roberts, and Yahagi was leading that destroyer line that battled Johnston, leaving only Noshiro as a candidate for the cruiser that attacked Gambier Bay, and it is indeed stated in both her Wiki and Imperial fleets that she attacked the flat top. Even then, most of the cruiser shells hit Gambier Bay's flight deck, starting a large fire, with the majority of the fatal damage being inflicted by Yamato's main guns.
@@metaknight115 I literally said that Kongo did basically nothing during the battle except for the final hit on Sammy B because she wasn’t firing on anything when most of her supposed hits happened…
@@bkjeong4302 I was more taking about the hits that sank Hoel around 8:30. You said you'ed argue she scored no hits, when I'm pretty sure she definitively didn't without debate, as she was not firing on Hoel at that time while Nagato and Yamato were, Nagato with all her guns and Yamato with her secondary battery only.
I'll post this question again on a relevant video but another fun question for a DD episode, with NJ in drydock right now, if she fired her aft or foreword main guns, where would the shells end up? (for the rear triple, ignore the shipyard building right behind her, though I have a sneaking feeling that the sheetmetal of a building like that wouldn't do too much to the overall shell speed) the more difficult (though possibly more fun) question would be the 5"-38's but that can be for another time was great briefly seeing you at the dock on Sunday, Thanks again!
Lost a comment to UA-cam filters in a rather funny way. Was talking about metallic hydrogen which needed to be shortened. Using the first letters as common with elements apparently inferred to the bot as a forbidden topic.
Prior to WW1 the Russians investigated the question of semi dreadnoughts engaging a dreadnought and concluded that you needed four semi dreadnoughts to engage a single dreadnought at likely battle ranges. They used this formation effectively in the Black Sea during WW1 against SMS Goeben.
Massed torpedo bombers (the Golden Comb) were used against convoy PQ18 to good effect, but tactics against it were quickly developed. Skip bombing was, to my understanding, used in combination with mast-height bombing (which is pretty much skip-bombing without enough distance for the bomb to skip). Obviously, ultra-low altitude bombing is fine against unarmed cargo ships, but not terribly clever against warships. Saying that, some of the aircraft with lots of guns fitted in the nose would do flak suppression. I can't remember where, but I was reading about the Mosquito 'Tsetse' variant (6-pounder gun in the nose) and the attack profile (for smaller ships) was not to fire at the ship itself, but at the water just off to one side. Deflection caused when hitting water would take the shell on a path intercepting the hull slightly below waterline level. Solid shot was used rather than explosive to maximise this effect.
Surface search radars would also tend to have a longer Pulse Width (amount of time during which the radar broadcasts continuously) and lower Pulse Repetition Frequency (number of pulses per second). The former puts more energy in the pulse, improving your chances of a return but decreasing your resolution a bit. The former allows more time for the pulse to go out and come back before it gets confused with the next pulse, thus improving range. And yes, I know that modern radars get around that last by coding the pulses, but that's a bit beyond the time frame being discussed.
Re: 1:24:53 in addition to the issues already stated there are also significant design trade-offs when it comes to things like beam-width, frequency, pulse interval, etc... Optimizing a radar for longer range and efficient continuous operation (low frequency, long pulse intervals) required a different design of antenna and tranciever from a radar optomized for precision (shorter pulse intervals the better) The difference is analogous to wide angle vs telephoto lenses in photography.
Re 01:25, Fire Control Radar - I recall reading about the battle with the Bismark, possibly in Kennedy's book. On one of the RN ships the radar was showing incoming shells. Perhaps later in the war radar may have shown outgoing shells, indicating accuracy in line, if this was followed up.
I recommend you do a video on the Aconit (formerly HMS Aconite) was one of the nine Flower-class corvettes. And one on Canadas only aircraft carrier HMCS Magnificent, the Magi
Avro Manchester which became Lancaster had a rather large bomb bay specifically to take two torpedoes. Why you would want to do this is not my problem but that is what they did.
19:30 I can confirm that ammonium picrate is shock insensitive. Goodness knows, I tried hard after I synthesised it when I was 15. An easy nitration of salicylic acid (aspirin) displaces the aromatic carboxyl group from the benzene ring. What I really remember is the beautiful orange needle shaped crystals it forms when recrystallised from water. Edit: don't try this at home, kids.
Question: While HMS Warspite certainly had an amazing career, would it be an overstatement to say she definitively had THE best battleship career? I mean, she helped to sink 8 ships, but an enemy capital ship such as a battleship or battlecruiser is not on that list, meaning despite helping to sink 8 ships she only has an equal amount to tonnage sunk as ships that sank one or two ships but had a capital ship in their kill list. Even then, definitively stating Warspite had the best battleship career would simply be understating a number of other ship’s careers. IJN Mikasa sank or helped to sink four Russian battleships and damaged or crippled three others, sinking over four times her tonnage, and two battle line engagements, including one that was so devastating it won the Russo-Japanese war, and she surviving being hit by over 60 naval shells, at least 20 of which were battleship caliber. SMS Derfflinger saw action time and time again, including helping to sink both HMS Queen Mary and HMS Invincible at Jutland. Even the other ships of the QE class had amazing careers. Barham and Valiant damaged basically every German capital ship that was damaged at Jutland, with Valiant escaping the battle undamaged. Valiant helped to sink both MN Bretagne and MN Provence, making her the only QE to have sank enemy battleships, and both Barham and Valiant saw action at Cape Matapan.
Yeah I do think Warspite’s career is a bit overblown at times due to a lot of her game coming from actions where she wasn’t serving as a capital ship (I. E. Against other capital ships), which is kind of the point of building a battleship in the first place. Valiant had a better track record there.
@@bkjeong4302 For comparison, Valiant's battleship actions consist of Jutland and Mers El Kebir, which were indeed pretty good, albeit both of these were shared with other ships and thus indistinguishable. Valiant's is special for practically never getting hit, was not hit at either by battleships or planes, was only scratched by a bomb at Crete, and even the limpet mine fell off her hull, resulting in only 6 months repair time vs QE's 1.y years. However, half of the time that Valiant doesn't get targetted, Warspite is the one getting hit instead, and whilst Warspite didn't get as many hits as Valiant, Calabria was still pretty successful. Barham hit Richelieu twice at Dakar, along with the one managing most damage at Jutland (we know it knocked out Von Der Tann's steering). Malaya technically was involved in 3, (Jutland, Calabria, Genoa) but didn't hit much. A battleship definitely has more roles than fighting other battleships though, pitting a battleship against only cruisers and/or destroyer with sufficient escorts is definitely also why a battleship is worth building, force overmatch
Re: HMS Great Eastern, world's largest aircraft carrier Can you imagine her doing a "Doolittle" with Lancasters carrying Tall Boys or even Grand Slams???
Because the optics just provide the necessary data to the fire control computers, ship ID is something that was done by human personnel across all navies.
Was wondering if the Great Eastern could have been used as a Great Lakes training flattop like the U.S. had? Oh, and, lol, the cannon you picked was my first thought as well. : )
Between the wars the British government kept trying to reduce the size of battleships and their armament. If they succeeded in reducing battleships to 30,000 w/ 14" guns, would the advances in naval technology allowed to be competitive with older construction? If so, what might these ships have looked like. Tim
As for mathematical calculation, the Slide Rule was invented in the 1620's. Could, or would, that have been used by the engineers working on the Stability question?
The Pearl Harbor attack was successful because it happened at the transition from peace to war. If the Pacific fleet was still in San Diego at the start of the war then sending the Kido Butai to await the arrival of the Pacific fleet would be extremely risky. Even if the carriers were safe from attack the Hawaiian defenses would have been on a war footing and the effectiveness of the attack would be reduced. The Japanese still could have opened the war with a Pearl Harbor infrastructure attack and that might have worked out better for the Japanese in the long run because it would have pinned the fleet to the Eastern Pacific until the base could be put back in order and the impact of blowing up structures on the American public would be nowhere near the level 3000 people and the loss of capital ships.
00:33:13 For a country that was never much good as a naval or maritime aviation power the Soviets in early WW2 1941 to beginning of 1944 made good use of HP Hampdens in the torpedo bomber role, and it was a very obsolete plane even by mid 1941 standards.
I actually did look into Robert Lundgren's book and had to pretty much discard it wholesale when it effectively said, "Hoel broke off and charged the Japanese formation at about the same time Johnston did but I have no idea how Hoel managed to reach the Japanese much later."
Near miss (By George Carlin) Here's a phrase that apparently the airlines simply made up: near miss. They say that if 2 planes almost collide, it's a near miss. B!!t, my friend. It's a near hit! A collision is a near miss. [WHAM! CRUNCH!] "Look, they nearly missed!" "Yes, but not quite.” He had a point: the terminology used in the English language is really quite bad at times ... which probably increases the confusion in naval history discussions.
It seems to me that Admiral Tamon Yamaguchi of the Hiryu would have been a far more successful admiral-in-charge for the KB. I challenge the wisdom of forfeiting the expense, education and knowledge each of them represented to the IJN.
Putting on your think about Politics of the period cap, and using your crystal ball.... If the US Battleships hadn't forward deployed to Pearl Harbor, do you think the US would have gone to war if Japan had ignored the Philippines and hit East/South East Asia?
Anyone have any good recommendations for a book on the Battle of Samar (slightly more narrative?) Need a good fathers day gift for someone who's well-studied in history but otherwise ignorant of Samar.
Can’t actually think of any. The obvious answer is Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors but it’s rather inaccurate based on later historiography (though some of the biggest issues on the American side of things were things that were already noted in various primary sources but hadn’t been looked at for whatever reason)
@bkjeong4302 Thanks for the response. I may look into the reviews of the Tin Can Sailors book then. My father is a retiree that happens to have an interest an history, so some errors are okay as long as it's nothing super egregious.
@@prussianhill It mostly has superb reviews, but only because most people are unaware of its problems (it basically parrots and expands on the traditional narratives about the battle that everyone accepted before Lundgren’s analysis, belated recognition of various primary source on both sides, and later the wreck finds disproved a number of major details). Unfortunately it’s by far the most popular book on the subject, and there hasn’t been any book that’s as readable as it is while actually being up to date in historical knowledge.
I don't think you're "irrevocably biased" to the Brits, but it seems to me you rarely pass up an opportunity to slag other navies and perhaps skip over many RN flaws of a similar style. For clarity, I'm American.
I find British Naval Historians to be very neutral. Both you and AC Clark are dependable. Only random Brit NWE WWII fans seem to get pretty nationalistic. Not all of course. Many of those in response to US ignoramuses spouting their stupidities and they outnumber y'all. It's frustrating, and you do very well sailing past these. The ocean is vast.
Drach. I have been with you since Robo-voice and truly understand the need to vent at morons. But I am old and have realized that arguing with said morons is counterproductive to my life. I am looking forward to many years of naval history. Thank you. Tom.
He's not arguing with them, he's pointing out how they're wrong and leaving it at that. Everyone else can see it and laugh at those morons.
Morons seem to favour the left side of politics I find. But stupid seems to attract stupid which is understandable in my opinion
The internet made everyone disagree with each other on everything. I find it best to listen to videos, and then go touch grass.
Incredible stuff … 299 dry docks and how many questions answered..? We the viewers are fortunate to have such a rich source of History.. Thank you very much Drach ..!
He made interesting sounds for what, 5+ hour drydock.
For some reason, I read that as "dry socks."
I thought it was the beginning of a joke 😔
In terms of what he does, it's basically many years worth of free college lectures on naval history. No BS, just an expert talking on his subject of expertise.
5 hours of Drachs Drydock is exactly what i needed on a nice rainy Sunday morning. Thank you, Drach
I've read an argument made by Robert Lundgren in 2011 on one of his old naval forums that Yamato's shell made direct contact with White Plains. He stated that the shell scraped off White Plain's keel before exploding underneath, leaving an 18-inch by 8-inch gouge in the carrier, backed up by photographic evidence. This may be detested by the fact he didn't actually include this statement in the book, but it's worth noting
Rate of fire for RN battlecruisers at Jutland: In the pistol shooting community there is a saying that, "You can't miss fast enough to win."
But in the naval community, you have ships destroyed by near-misses like the Suzuya. When you're shooting big enough ordinance, just being near the impact of a miss can be devastating.
@@Edax_Royeaux As they say, "Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades” and a 15-inch shell is a helluva hand grenade. :)
@MravacKid still on top of would be nice
@@MravacKid Horse shoes, hand grenades and dancing.
@@Edax_Royeaux That might be true when you're tossing HE shells, but how much damage would an AP shell with maybe 20kg of filler do with a near miss?
My favorite part of this Drydock was hearing MiniDrach 😊
Congratulations, you two!!!
My Maritime History Professor liked to tell the tale of 5 ships that headed to the "East" for Pepper. two years later, one ship returned, which with paying off the lost ships and sailors still gave them 400% Return on investment.
My first question answered - nice.
I figured the obvious one in WW2 would be a carrier - the thing would be halfway to Habakkuk, for god's sake. But I also figured it'd be fun to hear you discuss that possibility, and also to hear some ideas that weren't carriers, hence asking about both wars.
Drach, I congratulate you on your body of work. What an amazing story of perseverance and internal strength. Well done sir!
Slightly surprised that in your discussion on land based aircraft against shipping you didn't mention the rocket equipped aircraft of the Banff Strike Wing (RAF Dallachy Beaufighterss and RAF Banff Mosquitos) which I'm given to understand were fairly successful . Nor indeed the Mosquito XVIII which used the 6-pounder (57mm) anti-tank gun as a U-Boat buster. Of course, given that I live within 10 miles of Dallachy and grew up within 10 miles of Banff, I may be biased 🙂
Sounding tetchy about the Tsetse...
Regarding the reported US warship in the Thames in the 1960s, I've done a quick search of on-line newspaper archives and the nearest thing I can find is a list of 16 US warships (including USS Essex) that would be visiting Portsmouth during December 1961 as part of a NATO exercise.
All stability “calculations” were just rules of thumb until Pierre Bouguer invented the concept of the metacenter in 1746 in Traité du Navire. The problem wasn’t that ship constructors before this were working in different units, it was that the rules they were following were just rules of thumb and had no relation to reality,
Regarding gunnery radar, there's a key development that happened in the mid-war period. It's discussed in the articles on Fast Battleship Gunnery in Warship International 2005-2006 - with nice drawings showing what the radar screens looked like when this capability was in use.
This allows you to see the splashes from shells. If the guns are on target, the splashes will bracket the target - and thus you'll see three pulses on the radar screen. This is different from just measuring range: it gives you feedback on what actually happened when the shells reached the target (which is not instantaneous, there's a flight time involved), and thus ultimately improves accuracy.
In theory something similar can probably be done with optical systems, with a human being looking at the splashes and trying to see if there is a straddle, but the evidence presented in the WI articles is that using radar for this purpose (or maybe radar+optical combined) was far superior.
So WW2 gunnery radar is not just about measuring target range.
It doesn't work against land targets (no splash!).
I don't think this was unique to the USN: like a lot of advanced Allied WW2 technology I think it was a joint effort, I believe the British called it a 'fall of shot' set - at least, I've seen that term in books by JE MacDonnell, Australian author and former WW2 destroyer gunnery officer. Not sure when it was first deployed, but it was definitely present on US fast battleships during the late war period.
The USS New Jersey achieved the longest range straddle in WW2, at 35,700 yards, against the Japanese destroyer Nowaki - which did manage to escape, being already at extreme range at that point. Still, it must have been quite a shock to the destroyer's crew to see those enormous splashes appearing all around them from a source that was already over the horizon!
For the person who asked about land based bombers, do have a look at YT videos on the Bismarck Sea massacre and on Pappy - a chap who loved modifying aircraft to add insane amounts of fire power to the cast off aircraft allocated to the airforces based in Australia. There are several channels who cover these in great detail if that kind of thing attracts you.
Re: losses in age of sail question. I HIGHLY recommend reading the book LONGITUDE by Dava Sobel in which she outlines the tragic loss of 6 British warships in one incident in 1710 bc they couldn’t accurately identify their longitude on a trip back to England before creation of the sextant and then the Harrison sea clock.
I learn so much from your videos like I have a boring screen name (some you relate are hilarious) and you seem to know how to handle the keyboard experts/warriors with humor and aplomb. Keep up the fun and education Drach!
For the 40:48 question, kinda as Drachs was saying with regards to Axis vs Allied POW ship friendly fire incidents, the majority of such sinkings were usually on Axis shipping carrying Allied POWs, and expanding on that a bit further, the Mediterranean, when it came to the European theater, was much more chock full of those kinds of incidents than the Atlantic or Indian Oceans (apart from the two Drachs mentioned, from those regions, I can only think of two more, the Empress of Canada in 1943, and Arandora Star in 1940). When it comes to the Mediterranean, simply because of the relative confines and the struggle of shipping to get through in that body of water produced a very high number of such friendly fire incidents, both Allied and Axis. Operation Crusader being one big generator of these with ships departing Tobruk carrying Axis POWs (like Chakdina and Shuntien), and in return in late 1942 with incidents like Scillin with Allied POWs and Axis shipping. Perhaps most egregiously, after the surrender of Italy, you had German forces seizing many Italian ships, and using this new fleet in 1943 and into 1944 to transport Italian POWs who either did not join the Germans to continue fighting or even fight against the Germans. The following are four such POW ships sunk, as well as the lives lost: Sinfra (around 2,100), Ardena (around 750), Donizetti (all 2,055 aboard), Petrella (2,670). Similar to Japanese POW ships in the Pacific, three of the four ships just named were not even liners, but your average freighter; only Ardena was a small ferry.
1 Drydock and 2 K subscribers to Go!!
You can taste it!!
Should be 1 million in my opinion. :D I hope he gets there!
Crazy to think next drydock will be nr. 300!
Can we please reach 500k subs by then and make it a double whammy?? That would be insane!
Re: Screaming Hansl das Wunderwaffen Experten and the likes of it.
Banned all the Luft'46 loons from my group talking about the Bell, Haunebu II and all that alien arsch probing stuff from my group. Ambience and interaction improved 500% within a week.
Morale of the story: Never let the loons attempt to run your show in your place.
Had a few Greek modelers issuing some offing threats because I quoted a greek author about the EVA (Air Force) and the political inside battles that prevented a more effective rythm of operations in Africa.
Absolute bonkers.
Cheers.
Edit: Had to finish some translation work and there were several Drydocks in the backlog. Perfect match. Thanks for helping my ADHD'ed brain with a long, grueling task, Drach!)
Did drach just say 'a few fries short of a happy meal'? :)
yes indeedy !
Yes! I heard it clearly! I plan to use it!
He's spending too much time in the USA!?! 🤣🤣🤣
@@jayg1438 Sorry McDonalds is in the UK to.
Thank you for providing this content on this platform. I salute you, Sir!
Re: USS Arizona.
Another factor is almost certainly that she was NOT a GQ, which means the various doors and hatches through out the entire hull were open allowing further pressure relief. Namely a bigger area to pressurize, but only a certain amount of volume of quantity expanding gas...
Part 2 of 2 done Thanks Drach.
00:33:13 Actually highball was contemporaneous with the larger bombs used on the dams (op, Chastise) raid and Highball was also a back spinner, the reason it was never used (and there was a plan which was to be carried out by 618 Sqdn to attack Tirpitz at the same time as the Dams raid but they could not develop the Highball to sufficient reliability to risk using it and handing any failed attempt to the Germans, so after Chastise in May 1943 there was no possibility of a Highball attack on Tirpitz - the Germans having moored and net protected the ship to prevent a Highball attack. But tests continued at Loch Striven using HMS Malaya with a view to using the weapon against Japan. Some damage was caused by an inert Highball bomb on HMS Malaya the plan was to use it against assets in Singapore in 1945 with the aircraft and system being sent out to India in early 1945, but nothing became of it, possibly because Mosquitos weren't favoured in SEAC
I'm surprised Béarn didn't make your list of bottom 3 converted carriers. Ok, thanks to the French armistice she sat out the bulk of the war and would have been fairly useless even if she was the best carrier in the world. But wouldn't she have been fairly useless even if she'd somehow stayed in the fight?
I was expecting Bearn to make an appearance as well.
Saw the mention of the Des Moines. Considering when she was built, and the fact that she was equipped with both 8" and 3" automatic cannons....
Were you surprised that they didn't have the first generation of the 5/54 automatic for their secondary?
Congrats on your kid! They're more fun than a barrel full of monkeys, and about five times as much trouble, but it's worth it.
Will there be confetti and streamers to start off next weeks episode? Quite the accomplishment Drach, thanks a bunch have enjoyed them all.
Italy: when Need For Speed is your building philosophy for a semi-dreadnought.
On European PoWs being transported to North America: The US imported enough Italian PoWs it could create “Italian Service Units”, giving these PoWs almost free reign to roam unsupervised around the parts of California the US had just deemed too sensitive for Americans to keep living in and thus needed to be removed from. The ISUs were done, at least partly, in order to address the labor shortage that said removal of Americans created. (It was as dumb as it sounds. Unsurprisingly the same exact "military genius" was in charge of the removal, the ISU, and the infamous Newport “investigations” from the interwar.)
The Australians had a different approach. After sorting out the troublemakers and genuine ideologues, they allocated Italians to farms in cool climate mountain valleys, so any attempted escapes would have to be over mountains or down the valleys through towns where guards were stationed ready to intercept escapees. But the Italians were happy to sit out the war as farm workers growing crops like hops and there were almost no escape attempts.
My
Way to go dude, congrats on success. I am currently installing 48Volt electric propulsion system on my classic Sailing Yacht.....Drydocks are good for productivity/bblood pressure...usually ahahah. Happy Days
Regarding HMS Surprise’s officers in the movie, I think you’re confusing or misremembering a couple of things. A frigate of Surprise’s size would certainly have had three commissioned lieutenants, and the dialogue shows that Surprise did, at least initially. Partway through the movie, one of the midshipmen (Calamy) is promoted to acting 3rd lieutenant, so obviously they were supposed to have a third lieutenant and probably did initially, but he was presumably lost somewhere on the initial part of the voyage before the film picks up. It’s never explicitly said, but it seems like Midshipman Hollom had held the acting lieutenant appointment initially - he’s clearly the oldest of the midshipmen, Calamy receives the appointment right after Hollom dies, and that would also explain why Hollom was officer of the watch during the opening scene that leads up to the initial battle.
Also, Aubrey was a full “Post-Captain” in the film, and Master and Commander was not an ad hoc rank. Commander had become an official rank about a decade prior to the time the movie takes place, and was a distinct step between lieutenant and captain (though lieutenants could still be promoted directly to captain). You may have been thinking of a lieutenant placed in command of a small vessel - a “lieutenant commanding”, which was a temporary and unofficial rank, but gave rise to the modern official rank of lieutenant commander.
Re torpedos on large bombers. The original spec for the Avro Manchester include provision for carrying torpedos, hence the long bomb bay inherited by the Lancaster (and eventually by the Shackleton). The spec also included catapult launching (abandoned) and dive capability (abandoned).
While the dams raid did prove that Lancasters could operate at torpedo dropping heights, a stationary dam is a different category of problem to a manoeuvring and shooting warship.
Both PBY Catalinas and B-17s were used in "masthead bombing", sometimes referred to as 'skip bombing'. These aircraft are similiar in size to the Lancaster, not exactly the same but probably close enough for a comparison here.
See "Black Cat Raiders of WWII" by Richard C Knott and "Sketches of a Black Cat" by Ron Miner for more information on the Catalina operations, which were mostly conducted at night. Many hits were reported, including on cruisers and destroyers: I don't know if anybody has done a comprehensive study comparing claims to provable damage.
Note that the Catalina pilots didn't use their fancy bomb sights: they found them completely useless for masthead bombing.
I believe both the British and the US employed Catalinas, though I'm not yet well read on the British use of these aircraft. For what it's worth, I think the final sub in the movie Greyhound is sunk by an RAF Catalina.
All this suggests to me that Lancasters could have been used for masthead bombing of ships: it has slightly less wing area than the Catalina, but more powerful engines so it should be able to operate at lower heights with reasonable control, though perhaps it might have to operate at a somewhat faster speed which would make aiming harder.
I think Lancasters were used in some cases to attack U-Boats with depth charges and perhaps other weapons: I've never studied those operations but the fact that they happened also suggests that masthead bombing of ships by Lancasters would have been feasible.
I think that fundamentally torpedo bombing is actually easier than masthead bombing, so my guess is the Lancasters could have been set up to do that as well with a good expectation of success - assuming they were able to fly slowly enough (to safely release the particular torpedoes that were available) without stalling!
Id suggest ACK ACK not mounted on fast moving turning warships might provide more of a deterrent to low flying bombers...
@@sugarnads I think you meant 'mounted' instead of 'not mounted'. Agree.
That's probably why they did it at night. In some cases the PBYs would throttle down their engines to reduce the noise they made (maybe not a good option for the Lancaster, not sure!) to gain surprise.
The Black Cat Raiders book talks about a number of incidents where the aircraft took heavy damage from AA but still made it home. There are other cases where aircraft never returned and some of those may have involved successful use of AA. Fortunately for the Allied fliers, none of the Axis powers had the kind of AA that the Allies would eventually deploy on Allied ships such as US fast battleships - which probably could have shredded these aircraft.
The PBYs had radar that could spot enemy ships at night, I'd assume the B-17s did as well. I found a reference to an attack by B-17s against Rabaul on the night of 22-23 October 1943 - this seems to have been the first time B-17s used the masthead bombing technique - quite successfully.
The PBYs actually started masthead attacks much earlier, during the Solomon Islands fighting, but I'm not sure how successful they were at that point. One successful masthead attack by PBYs was on 24 October 1943, which resulted in the sinking of the Japanese destroyer Mochizuki.
I also discovered on re-reading parts of the "Black Cat Raiders" book that they did in fact use torpedoes as well as bombs for low level night attack. Given the problems with US torpedoes, I'd want to see some confirmation of reported hits before assessing the effectiveness of these attacks, but again that suggests the Lancasters could possibly also have been used in this role.
@@bluelemming5296 I know the ‘Black Cats’ PBYs did night torpedo missions, but my readings suggest the main masthead bombers were the B-25 and A-20, the best example perhaps being the Bismarck Sea operation. I was not aware of deliberate low-level B-17 missions. The P2BY Privateer and the Coastal Command B-24 were adapted to lower level operations (removal of ball turret, exhaust turbochargers off the engines) but not really to masthead/skip bombing tactics.
@@proteusnz99 Cool, thanks for chiming in, that gives me more starting points for additional research into this interesting topic.
Re-reading the history of the PBY squadrons, such as VPB-52, VPB-11, VPB-34, it looks like the Pacific PBYs were shifted from 'Black Cat' aka attack missions to 'Dumbo' aka air-sea rescue and also ASW missions in 1944, maybe because there were better aircraft available for the masthead bombing missions and the PBYs were still superb in the other roles.
41:00 they also sent POWs to india and australia, mostly from the african and middle eastern parts of the conflict. most were italians I believe, my grandfather was one
1:32:55
“I’m gonna blow you up … as soon as I get this pointed at you … just you wait … don’t move … I’m still rotating … don’t move … hooooold still … and BOOM!”
(Shot missed)
“Dang. But I know the change I need to make to hit with the next shot … I’m going to reload … hold still … hoooooold still…”
I actually can’t really think of a more thorough Samar book than Lundgren’s, in large part because almost every other Samar book (such as TLSotTCS) basically parrots Morrison’s account even in cases where it’s definitely false (Chokai’s torpedo explosion that never happened being an example). That said, I do think there are places where Lundgren could have looked at details more thoroughly, not to mention that even his book is now somewhat dated with the new wreck discoveries.
On the subject, regardless of Yamato’s gunnery at Samar, the old narrative about Kongo being the real threat is definitely false, because Lundgren’s analysis definitively proves most of her supposed hits could never have come from her based on her own logs; she wasn’t shooting at anything during that part of the battle. If those hits weren’t from Yamato (and I’d argue the fatal hits on Hoel and maybe Gambier Bay didn’t come from her), they’d have come from cruisers, not Kongo.
Kongo only sank Samuel B Roberts and possibly helped to cripple Heerman. She never landed a single hit on Hoel. All battleship caliber shells that hit Hoel were actually 16.1-inch shells from Nagato. Yamato did fire on and hit Hoel during her sinking, but only with her 6.1-inch secondary guns, and in fact I think the hit that knocked out Hoel's land boiler is credited to a 6.1-inch shell from Yamato by Lundgren. I also highly doubt Kongo hit Gambier Bay. She claimed one hit on the flat top, and said hit was also claimed by Yamato who had the shorter range and the correct firing angle.
Battleship Caliber hits on Taffy 3;
Johnston and Gambier Bay (and possibly White Plains)-Yamato
Heerman and Samuel B Roberts-Kongo
Hoel-Nagato
Kalinin Bay-Haruna
Speaking of Gambier Bay, I've also read up that, according to Imperial fleet, Chikuma was suffering from engine trouble and couldn't make past 18 knots around the time Gambier Bay was coming under heavy fire, meaning she actually couldn't have "closed to point blank range" as is sometimes stated. As for the other cruisers, Kumano and Suzuya were well out of the fight, Tone and Haguro were busy beating the living shit out of Kalinin Bay, Chokai was recovering from getting her stern blown off by Samuel B Roberts, and Yahagi was leading that destroyer line that battled Johnston, leaving only Noshiro as a candidate for the cruiser that attacked Gambier Bay, and it is indeed stated in both her Wiki and Imperial fleets that she attacked the flat top. Even then, most of the cruiser shells hit Gambier Bay's flight deck, starting a large fire, with the majority of the fatal damage being inflicted by Yamato's main guns.
@@metaknight115
I literally said that Kongo did basically nothing during the battle except for the final hit on Sammy B because she wasn’t firing on anything when most of her supposed hits happened…
@@bkjeong4302 I was more taking about the hits that sank Hoel around 8:30. You said you'ed argue she scored no hits, when I'm pretty sure she definitively didn't without debate, as she was not firing on Hoel at that time while Nagato and Yamato were, Nagato with all her guns and Yamato with her secondary battery only.
I'll post this question again on a relevant video but another fun question for a DD episode, with NJ in drydock right now, if she fired her aft or foreword main guns, where would the shells end up?
(for the rear triple, ignore the shipyard building right behind her, though I have a sneaking feeling that the sheetmetal of a building like that wouldn't do too much to the overall shell speed)
the more difficult (though possibly more fun) question would be the 5"-38's but that can be for another time
was great briefly seeing you at the dock on Sunday, Thanks again!
the Great Eastern Super Carrier arguably would just be a "more practical" Habakkuk
Lost a comment to UA-cam filters in a rather funny way. Was talking about metallic hydrogen which needed to be shortened. Using the first letters as common with elements apparently inferred to the bot as a forbidden topic.
Hope you're enjoying your day in Philadelphia.
Prior to WW1 the Russians investigated the question of semi dreadnoughts engaging a dreadnought and concluded that you needed four semi dreadnoughts to engage a single dreadnought at likely battle ranges. They used this formation effectively in the Black Sea during WW1 against SMS Goeben.
Massed torpedo bombers (the Golden Comb) were used against convoy PQ18 to good effect, but tactics against it were quickly developed. Skip bombing was, to my understanding, used in combination with mast-height bombing (which is pretty much skip-bombing without enough distance for the bomb to skip). Obviously, ultra-low altitude bombing is fine against unarmed cargo ships, but not terribly clever against warships. Saying that, some of the aircraft with lots of guns fitted in the nose would do flak suppression.
I can't remember where, but I was reading about the Mosquito 'Tsetse' variant (6-pounder gun in the nose) and the attack profile (for smaller ships) was not to fire at the ship itself, but at the water just off to one side. Deflection caused when hitting water would take the shell on a path intercepting the hull slightly below waterline level. Solid shot was used rather than explosive to maximise this effect.
Surface search radars would also tend to have a longer Pulse Width (amount of time during which the radar broadcasts continuously) and lower Pulse Repetition Frequency (number of pulses per second). The former puts more energy in the pulse, improving your chances of a return but decreasing your resolution a bit. The former allows more time for the pulse to go out and come back before it gets confused with the next pulse, thus improving range. And yes, I know that modern radars get around that last by coding the pulses, but that's a bit beyond the time frame being discussed.
Re: 1:24:53 in addition to the issues already stated there are also significant design trade-offs when it comes to things like beam-width, frequency, pulse interval, etc...
Optimizing a radar for longer range and efficient continuous operation (low frequency, long pulse intervals) required a different design of antenna and tranciever from a radar optomized for precision (shorter pulse intervals the better)
The difference is analogous to wide angle vs telephoto lenses in photography.
Re 01:25, Fire Control Radar -
I recall reading about the battle with the Bismark, possibly in Kennedy's book. On one of the RN ships the radar was showing incoming shells. Perhaps later in the war radar may have shown outgoing shells, indicating accuracy in line, if this was followed up.
surprised not hear a "Bearn" as a bad carrier conversion
I recommend you do a video on the Aconit (formerly HMS Aconite) was one of the nine Flower-class corvettes. And one on Canadas only aircraft carrier HMCS Magnificent, the Magi
Avro Manchester which became Lancaster had a rather large bomb bay specifically to take two torpedoes. Why you would want to do this is not my problem but that is what they did.
Enjoyed every minute
19:30 I can confirm that ammonium picrate is shock insensitive.
Goodness knows, I tried hard after I synthesised it when I was 15. An easy nitration of salicylic acid (aspirin) displaces the aromatic carboxyl group from the benzene ring.
What I really remember is the beautiful orange needle shaped crystals it forms when recrystallised from water.
Edit: don't try this at home, kids.
I find it funny that "Great Easton, WWII edition" basically just turned into a slightly more reasonable version of Habakkuk made entirely of steel.
Question: While HMS Warspite certainly had an amazing career, would it be an overstatement to say she definitively had THE best battleship career? I mean, she helped to sink 8 ships, but an enemy capital ship such as a battleship or battlecruiser is not on that list, meaning despite helping to sink 8 ships she only has an equal amount to tonnage sunk as ships that sank one or two ships but had a capital ship in their kill list.
Even then, definitively stating Warspite had the best battleship career would simply be understating a number of other ship’s careers. IJN Mikasa sank or helped to sink four Russian battleships and damaged or crippled three others, sinking over four times her tonnage, and two battle line engagements, including one that was so devastating it won the Russo-Japanese war, and she surviving being hit by over 60 naval shells, at least 20 of which were battleship caliber. SMS Derfflinger saw action time and time again, including helping to sink both HMS Queen Mary and HMS Invincible at Jutland. Even the other ships of the QE class had amazing careers. Barham and Valiant damaged basically every German capital ship that was damaged at Jutland, with Valiant escaping the battle undamaged. Valiant helped to sink both MN Bretagne and MN Provence, making her the only QE to have sank enemy battleships, and both Barham and Valiant saw action at Cape Matapan.
Yeah I do think Warspite’s career is a bit overblown at times due to a lot of her game coming from actions where she wasn’t serving as a capital ship (I. E. Against other capital ships), which is kind of the point of building a battleship in the first place. Valiant had a better track record there.
@@bkjeong4302 For comparison, Valiant's battleship actions consist of Jutland and Mers El Kebir, which were indeed pretty good, albeit both of these were shared with other ships and thus indistinguishable. Valiant's is special for practically never getting hit, was not hit at either by battleships or planes, was only scratched by a bomb at Crete, and even the limpet mine fell off her hull, resulting in only 6 months repair time vs QE's 1.y years. However, half of the time that Valiant doesn't get targetted, Warspite is the one getting hit instead, and whilst Warspite didn't get as many hits as Valiant, Calabria was still pretty successful. Barham hit Richelieu twice at Dakar, along with the one managing most damage at Jutland (we know it knocked out Von Der Tann's steering). Malaya technically was involved in 3, (Jutland, Calabria, Genoa) but didn't hit much. A battleship definitely has more roles than fighting other battleships though, pitting a battleship against only cruisers and/or destroyer with sufficient escorts is definitely also why a battleship is worth building, force overmatch
Yeah, but Warspite gets bonus points simply for the name. Metal as f*ck
Re: HMS Great Eastern, world's largest aircraft carrier
Can you imagine her doing a "Doolittle" with Lancasters carrying Tall Boys or even Grand Slams???
Did Drach really give his list of the 3 least valuable carrier conversions without mentioning Bearn?
My father told me about Italian POWs interned at Fort Benning in 1942-43.
In 1943 the US actually tried installing a 75mm cannon in the nose of B-25s. Rate of fire was abysmally low and the experiment not successful.
Can you include the King Edwards amongst the semi-dreadnoughts? They had secondary 9.2 inch guns plus tertiary 6 inch.
Piric Acid is a bright red substance that is used as a histological stain. Has to be kept under oil
Thanks!
Diapers (Nappies) are expensive, Congrads, Uncle Drach.
if Yamato's optical fire systems were so fantastic why didnt the optics operators notify superiors they were firing on destroyers?
Because the optics just provide the necessary data to the fire control computers, ship ID is something that was done by human personnel across all navies.
@@bkjeong4302 thanks!
Was wondering if the Great Eastern could have been used as a Great Lakes training flattop like the U.S. had? Oh, and, lol, the cannon you picked was my first thought as well. : )
Baby Drach ❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤ I can hear her during Yamato.
Re Malta. I just finished and recommend Operation Pedestal by Sir Max Hastings.
Between the wars the British government kept trying to reduce the size of battleships and their armament. If they succeeded in reducing battleships to 30,000 w/ 14" guns, would the advances in naval technology allowed to be competitive with older construction? If so, what might these ships have looked like.
Tim
With the latter day great eastern, such a ship would have put Habbakuk into the shade
1:59:12 Sorry Drach, but the Regina Elena only had two 305/40 guns in single turrets.
As for mathematical calculation, the Slide Rule was invented in the 1620's. Could, or would, that have been used by the engineers working on the Stability question?
The Pearl Harbor attack was successful because it happened at the transition from peace to war. If the Pacific fleet was still in San Diego at the start of the war then sending the Kido Butai to await the arrival of the Pacific fleet would be extremely risky. Even if the carriers were safe from attack the Hawaiian defenses would have been on a war footing and the effectiveness of the attack would be reduced. The Japanese still could have opened the war with a Pearl Harbor infrastructure attack and that might have worked out better for the Japanese in the long run because it would have pinned the fleet to the Eastern Pacific until the base could be put back in order and the impact of blowing up structures on the American public would be nowhere near the level 3000 people and the loss of capital ships.
It seems that my question for this month got missed somehow.
1:14:06 I think you can blame The Mighty Jingles for this myth
His approach seems to be... why stick to dull facts when making up an entertaining story is more fun.
00:33:13 For a country that was never much good as a naval or maritime aviation power the Soviets in early WW2 1941 to beginning of 1944 made good use of HP Hampdens in the torpedo bomber role, and it was a very obsolete plane even by mid 1941 standards.
Based on those angry comments I shudder to think what Drac would say about a non British ship
(ps I heard mini drach, but did I also hear a drach-hound in the background? or is that a neighbour dog)
@45:12 How dare you call my beautiful Bismarck overweight! -Every Kriegsmarine fanboy ever.
I actually did look into Robert Lundgren's book and had to pretty much discard it wholesale when it effectively said, "Hoel broke off and charged the Japanese formation at about the same time Johnston did but I have no idea how Hoel managed to reach the Japanese much later."
Near miss (By George Carlin)
Here's a phrase that apparently the airlines simply made up: near miss. They say that if 2 planes almost collide, it's a near miss. B!!t, my friend. It's a near hit! A collision is a near miss.
[WHAM! CRUNCH!]
"Look, they nearly missed!"
"Yes, but not quite.”
He had a point: the terminology used in the English language is really quite bad at times ... which probably increases the confusion in naval history discussions.
See also "badly beaten"
It seems to me that Admiral Tamon Yamaguchi of the Hiryu would have been a far more successful admiral-in-charge for the KB. I challenge the wisdom of forfeiting the expense, education and knowledge each of them represented to the IJN.
Putting on your think about Politics of the period cap, and using your crystal ball....
If the US Battleships hadn't forward deployed to Pearl Harbor, do you think the US would have gone to war if Japan had ignored the Philippines and hit East/South East Asia?
dont know whats cutest? Mrs drach typing away in thr background, or baby Drach burbbling away?
I survived to the end, where is my medal ;)
"Women, children, and aircrew first"
Take that frock off, Bigglesworth! You're fooling no one.
@@notshapedforsportivetricks2912 look, what happens in the ready room, STAYS in the ready room…
Anyone have any good recommendations for a book on the Battle of Samar (slightly more narrative?) Need a good fathers day gift for someone who's well-studied in history but otherwise ignorant of Samar.
Can’t actually think of any. The obvious answer is Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors but it’s rather inaccurate based on later historiography (though some of the biggest issues on the American side of things were things that were already noted in various primary sources but hadn’t been looked at for whatever reason)
@bkjeong4302 Thanks for the response. I may look into the reviews of the Tin Can Sailors book then. My father is a retiree that happens to have an interest an history, so some errors are okay as long as it's nothing super egregious.
@@prussianhill
It mostly has superb reviews, but only because most people are unaware of its problems (it basically parrots and expands on the traditional narratives about the battle that everyone accepted before Lundgren’s analysis, belated recognition of various primary source on both sides, and later the wreck finds disproved a number of major details).
Unfortunately it’s by far the most popular book on the subject, and there hasn’t been any book that’s as readable as it is while actually being up to date in historical knowledge.
52:20 - But I LIKE cursing every third word. ;-)
Hahahahahaha, you went on for quite a while about caustic commentors. Recording that must have been quite cathartic.
I don't think you're "irrevocably biased" to the Brits, but it seems to me you rarely pass up an opportunity to slag other navies and perhaps skip over many RN flaws of a similar style.
For clarity, I'm American.
I find British Naval Historians to be very neutral. Both you and AC Clark are dependable. Only random Brit NWE WWII fans seem to get pretty nationalistic. Not all of course.
Many of those in response to US ignoramuses spouting their stupidities and they outnumber y'all.
It's frustrating, and you do very well sailing past these. The ocean is vast.
Wasn't the French carrier, Bearn, a converted ship? It was pretty useless.
True!
I've found that, generally, the best reaction is not to react.😐
I made a video about POWs in America during the Second World War.
9th, 26 May 2024
😂😂😂 what does surprising how do you know everything?😮😮
:)
What can you say about yamato fan boys, they always overrate that ship.