Alternate history question for you, what do you think the outcome would have been if the USN had gone through with their plan to help the US Maines at the second Japanese attack on Wake Island?
An no dramatic music, fake historians and every scripted word designed to keep the viewer hooked only until the next ad break. TV is dead. I cant watch TV documentaries anymore.
@@anonymous2513456 My favorite was Battle 360. "Hundreds of yard workers swarm to trick out the mighty flattop and get her ripped and ready for more combat." I guess they saved a lot of money hiring teenagers to write the scripts.
Don't forget the insistence of repeating the same point over and over and over and over 😒 I think the worst one I watched was Drain the Oceans or something daft like that. They were the numpties that had Bismarcks turrets on upside down on the CGI model as well as repeating the line "if we drain the oceans..." every 5 ficken minutes. Like it was in the title! We got the idea going in 😂
TV execs are convinced the average normie can't process technical details, subtle interactions, or follow the sequence of events of a battle. Sadly, they're exactly right, and that's the audience they produce for. Idiots.
This is off the subject, but in this video, and others, mention is made of US ships being equipped with .50 machine guns for AA defense at the beginning of WWII. They were ineffective and largely replaced with 20-mm guns. Fast forward 70 years, and .50 machine guns are back on our ships for force protection against small boats. Sometimes called the “forever machine gun, they have in essence been in production since 1921. Over 6 million were produced for every service (USA, USN, USAF, USMC, and USCG) and keeping track of all of them is impossible. They are periodically sent in for repair, and in 2015 a US Army arsenal received one with serial number 324, meaning it was 94 years old!
The 20mm Oerlikon evolved into the 20mm Phalanx CIWS and is now the most fearsome anti aircraft, missile, small vessel and everything in-between weapon in the US arsenal.
Huh. I had gotten the impression that the .50 Browning was a WWI era weapon, not interwar. Then again, if it were WWI I suspect I'd've heard about the fledgling US Army Air Corp's pilots replacing the guns on their SPADs and Nieuports with M2s.
@@cynderfan2233 Based on unclas data (engagement range, projectile velocity, rate of fire) CIWS can get off a 4.6 sec burst against a high sub-sonic missile like Exocet (Mach 0.93). Time is cut in half for a Mach 2 missile. Since the fire control system tracks both the outgoing projectiles and the incoming missile (and makes adjustments to cause a “collision”) a target can be engaged by only a single CIWS. Live-fire testing on manned ships against drones (now suspended) has caused casualties since missile “debris” hit the ship. SeaRAM which combines the RAM missile with the CIWS radar offers advantages.
BarryT1000 - _This is off the subject, but in this video, and others, mention is made of US ships being equipped with .50 machine guns for AA defense at the beginning of WWII._ _They are periodically sent in for repair, and in 2015 a US Army arsenal received one with serial number 324, meaning it was 94 years old!_ *M2 = Ma Deuce !* Good Story - Thanks for sharing !
That beacon on Arc Royal was a brilliant idea. I love how in the past people came up with all of these brilliant and sometimes insane ideas to accomplish things we have computers do for us now. The amount of imagination and tinkering that went into that is just terrific.
As a matter of fact, modern-day VOR stations used in civil air navigation still use almost exactly the same system as _Ark Royal's_ homing beacon - the only differences being that the beam rotates once per second, rather than once per minute, and the station also transmits time signals instead of requiring the pilot to sync up an onboard clock before flight.
The British came up with many innovative ideas in Carrier development. They came up with the angled deck , so a carrier can recover & still launch a strike force simultaneously. They also came up with the Optical Landing System ( OLS) that helps guide pilots on proper guide path to land, previously everyone used a Landing Signal Officer with “ paddles” .
"It was thought that one bomb hit should impair a carrier's operations and two would knock it out of operational tasks completely" Apparently Enterprise didn't get the memo.
Alan Hughes they just missed the memo of “Don’t sail your CV right past a German fleet”. Unless your captain has the nonchalant skill whilst listing lazily to the left and the band plays mini the moocher.
@Jurassic Aviator You can almost hear what the first american seeing an aircraft carrier must have said: "Good god, immagine how many guns we can put on all this nice, flatt deck! What do you say? That deck's reserved for something other than guns?" *beat "Ok, good one. For a minute, you almost had me."
@@stonks6616 physics. You ever trued opening a door close to the hinge rather than using the handle, it's much harder and requires more force. Less force is needed further away from the point of balance/centre of mass. Looking at the height of HMS Captain, it makes sense that it would have capsized at some point, the height of the masts amplifying the effects of wind as well as making it easier to unbalance during turns and rough seas
hammer1349 so........ sort of like leverage........., since that ship was tall and got pushed a bit. It was easier to tip because of all the extra weight now heading down with some momentum?
Enterprise and Warspite. Neither ship should have been scrapped. Both deserved to be museum ships. The Old Lady and Grey Ghost gave everything they could, survived hit after hit to be taken out not by the enemy but by bureaucrats ballancing ledgers. Injustice, aye.
@Evilmike42 Aye. The USN made sure that the name Enterprise will live on forever in it's many reincarnations. As for the Brits.....I dunno they made a Carrier Queen Elizabeth. It would've been kinda meta if they named the second carrier Warspite instead of Prince of Wales.
the problem is the upkeep would be fucking expensive. HMS Victory takes 1.5 million pounds a year and thats made of wood, significantly smaller and doesn't rust.
I agree but the other train of thought I have is that these were ships of war built and spent their careers waging war, should a warship then just sit in a harbour and become a museum and slowly rusting with time or should they be scrapped and their parts used on either future warships or civilian ships where they in a sort of weird way continue to travel on the seas?
I think it's interesting that each of the carrier navies recognized the need for a dedicated carrier design once the treaty allowed it. All three designed their new carrier: Hiryu/Soryu, Ranger, Ark Royal. All three were unhappy with their first designs, and all three then went down a different path and built the design they liked/went with: Shokaku, Yorktown, Illustrious.
Not only that, the Shokakus, Yorktowns, and Illustriouses would go on to be tied neck and neck for the title of being the most dangerous capital ships the world had ever seen, until the Essexes came along.
The naval treaties restricted the amount of battleships a navy could have, it also stipulated a max tonnage and gun size. And to boot, there was also a pretty long capital ship holiday, which got the navies scratching themselves to build ships. Given the limitations, looking at the aircraft carrier as at least a supplementary force for your fleet was probably pretty obvious for any large navy, how to go about doing it was far more complicated though.
I believe the term is "weapons system". Form follows function. :) The brain-work that went in before ever draughtsman's pencil touched paper has been well revealed by Drach.
The non-alternating machinery spaces were a weakness because in the event a fireroom or engine room suffering a hit or an engineering casualty the entire propulsion plant could be knocked offline causing the ship to go "hot, dark and quiet", something you never want to see. The Essex Class ships answered this in a huge way by alternating two forward firerooms, Main Control (#1 Engine Room), then two more firerooms, each having an SSTG and finally the after engine room. The Main Steam System was also able to cross-connect throughout the engineering plant, both port and starboard side so #8 boiler in four fireroom could provide steam to the forward engine room. The Navy took every lesson learned in the twenties and thirties and incorporated them into the Essex and Iowa class ships. The last Essex class ship was in service for almost fifty years, the final straw for her was the degradation of her watertight integrity. I was on board for her last operational engineering inspection, it was a very sad day when word came down that it was over... Like that, one day we were thinking about the next time we would get underway to finding out we were to decommission her and all get orders to our next commands. The last time I sailed on her I was on watch in one of the firerooms, the only lights we had were from the emergency lights, the boilers were cold iron and the only thing you could hear was the water rumbling under the hull while they towed us about five miles from the Downtown Pensacola pier to the pier at NAS Pensacola. The USS Lexington even outlasted the USS Coral Sea, which was supposed to replace her but ended up being decommissioned a year or two earlier.
That thing you say about the USS Enterprise: that is absolutely true. The most decorated US ship of the war was scrapped despite Adm. Halsey and many others' protests. I read "The Big E" by Barrett Tillman, and in interviews with Enterprise crew members, he brings up that some people didn't want it to be preserved as a museum because of the notion that it would desecrate the importance and loss of life endured on the ship. However, that does not take away from the fact that she was ultimately scrapped and now we will never get to enjoy seeing her in real life, save that one stern plate they did preserve. That being said, I believe it's ultimately the people, the crew members and their individual stories and experiences that make the difference rather than the ships. We need to get more veterans' stories before they're all gone. Great video, very thorough.
The real stupidity is that stuff like the Iowas, which were obsolete upon launch and have a far less noteworthy service record, managed to get themselves saved while a ship that actually deserved to be preserved wasn't.
Bk Jeong while you are correct, they were new, great trainer ships, and a huge pr boost for the navy. Plus, the end of WW2 being signed on the deck of the U.S.S Missouri secured their place in history. Sometimes history remembers those who didn’t do something impressive but merely was in the right place at the right time. Saddest waste of history were the ships lost to atomic testing. Sure we needed the science but damn, what a waste.
@@wrayday7149 The fact the Iowas were preserved simply for PR reasons (which are far less of a justification for preservation than E's career) IS the problem. They really should have been scrapped (or better yet, never completed in the first place) and criticized as a massive procurement disaster, much like how the Yamato-class is criticized for similar reasons. Instead, they received ridiculous levels of undeserved praise.
@@bkjeong4302 well also remember they just build the boats, yes outdated by CV warfare standards but still had modern equipment and could keep up with the carriers to provide massive AA support as opposed to the old North Carolina's back to the Texas class afloat. On top of the old navy guard wanted to be on BB's as they were seen as the prestige ship where now CV's are that. I believe the Navy mulled the idea of turning them into missile boats when that technology came online but by then they were too old to really overhaul. But more over... We would of never got the epic movie Under Siege with no Mighty Mo.... nor would we have fought off hte aliens in Battleship without her.
The Nora, Mass, and Aly are highly noteworthy for being substantially as-built. There are vanishingly few such exhibits. This is an accident of history. That the Big E would also have been effectively so underlines her loss as an historic relic. Don't blame the Noras and SoDaks for what they are... if not for treaty restrictions they'd have been built as Iowas... or Montanas. :) The survival of the Iowas is due to Cold War mind-set (economy)... and their rebuild upon 19th century Ronald Reagan rah-rah. Or, in other words, late-onset sentimentality for WW-2. The vets of WW-2 had little time or stomach for such... until some, once into their retired "golden years".
Im still in awe in how they can build something so big that floats on the water, and able to flex and yet stay rigid and be able to stay together, and yet stay afloat after being hit with bombs and torpedoes, etc.... It really is a work of art
shot try working the flight deck of a Nimitz class. The first time I saw the Carl Vinson it was so foggy that you couldn't see her bow from the fantail
Further, the "Hour On Floating Airports" is but the 2nd installment of a 3-part series. And frankly, if I were a betting man, I'd wager a 1/50 scale garden CVE model that there will be an 4th "adjunct" video to clean up certain loose ends. If this channel charged tuition, we'd all be earning degrees from the University of Drachinifel.
I love your site and the work you do. I'm an old ex US Navy destroyer sailor, Charles F Adams class DDG, USS Barney DDG-6. Thank you so much for what you do.
In that “Scout Carriers” lunacy you can almost see the genesis of the infamous and often unfairly maligned CVE Escort Carriers. The “Kaiser Carriers” were surprisingly effective in their niches. “Convoy Escort and Sea Patrol” in the Atlantic. And as fully organic air units for invading ground forces. Thus freeing up the heavy hitting fleet carriers for direct offensive operations.
That was my first thought as well. Of course less capable, but when we consider how they helped to closed the Atlantic Gap, and in the Pacific bring replacement a/c to CVs, their roles should not be derogated at all. Combustible and vulnerable, sure. Expendable ... I'm not so sure. They filled an important gap.
There was a loophole in the Washington treaty the Brits could have exploited. According to the treaty, any carrier in commission or building, at the time of the treaty, was regarded as experimental and exempt from the treaty's replacement schedule, meaning they could be replaced with new carriers at any time. Argus, Eagle and Hermes all met that criteria. Eagle wasn't that bad. It had a bit of speed and a bit of size. It could cruse with a division of QEs and provide CAP and recon. But Argus had no speed and Hermes had no size. Argus and Hermes could both have been reclassified as something non-carrier, like sub tenders, and free up enough tonnage to build a second Ark Royal.
The Interwar carriers demonstrate that the strength of the aircraft carrier vs gun ships is not only increased range, but the ease of upgrading the main weapon. Fly on a new generation of aircraft and the main strike weapon is greatly increased. Only the nuclear shells of the Iowa's gave battleships a post build attack upgrade of the same type of magnitude.
And that upgrade for the Iowas was irrelevant to the carrier vs. big gun matchup, because they still weren't going to be able to shoot at a carrier with the Katie shells.
@@MartinCHorowitz But that doesn't change the fact the Iowas were basically obsolete upon launch and forced into secondary roles like AA escort duties or shore bombardment, where they weren't necessary or even the best strategic choices (subcapital units could actually do both of these thing just fine, and at less cost). They really should have been cancelled.
@@bkjeong4302 No the primary role of the Iowas to function as an Armored CIC, which they did. When being started they were intended as a strike weapon by some, but they we setup to function as command and control ship. As longs a ship has a mission, even if not the original planned mission it isn't obsolete.
@@MartinCHorowitz The Iowas were intended to chase down enemy fast capital ships when laid down. There was no intent of using them as a specialized command vessel. And a ship is obsolete when other ships can do any of its possible missions better than it can, even if it's still capable fo doing those things. An Iowa can do some things, but other ships were better (strategically, and in many cases tactically) for all of these things.
I mean, the SBD _almost_ fills Ghormley's specification (and indeed was even pressed into an anti-torpedo bomber role at Coral Sea). Later in the war, so do the F6F and F4U.
@Chris_Wooden_Eye The SBD was faster, had a higher rate of climb and obviously could out dive the Skua, and was more maneuverable as well. Other than that the Skua was a better aircraft.
"The Skua performed reasonably well in air combat against enemy bombers in Norway and the Mediterranean but suffered heavy losses against fighters and was withdrawn from the front line in 1941." www.tangmere-museum.org.uk/aircraft-month/blackburn-skua
The three main purpose-built CV classes (Yorktowns, Shokaku-class/the Cranes, Illustrious-class) in the late 1930s are among my favourites (in fact, they’re probably my favourite capital ships from any period in modern naval history): they’re the carriers built around the time naval aviation came of age and rendered battleships obsolete, and all three of these classes saw serious action, especially against each other in the Pacific. Seriously the Yorktowns and Shokakus really went at each other (until the latter ran out of pilots) in the single greatest rivalry between enemy capital ships in history.
It was actually 1:0 for the Shokakus in that duel. It was mostly their aircraft that forced the USN to abandon Hornet at Santa Cruz. Yorktown after suffering damage to the Skokakus at Coral Sea was taken out at Midway by Hiryu and I-168 (not due to the Shokakus). Enterprise survived damage by the Shokakus twice (Eastern Solomons, Santa Cruz), Shokaku survived damage to the Yorktowns three times (Coral Sea, Eastern Solomons, Santa Cruz) only to be sunk by a submarine at the Philipine Sea. Zuikaku vas eventually sunk at Cape Engano but by an air strike by Essexes, not Yorktowns (even though one of the Essexes involved was named Yorktown).
@@VersusARCH Yes the Shokakus actually killed one of the Yorktowns and came close to killing the other two (as well as surviving major damage inflicted by the Yorktowns), but they gutted their air groups doing it, which made things easy for the Essex-class later.The Shokakus certainly did more damage to the Yorktowns than vice versa, but it was a Pyrrhic victory. I do think of the Shokakus as easily the best Axis capital ships and some of the most badass warships in WWII. You have to give them credit for what they did accomplish.
Another brilliant video. It's really interesting to hear about why the ships were designed and built the way they were and the reasoning behind the inevitable compromises. Can't believe the video is over an hour long, certainly doesn't feel it. Wish half my lectures had been this interesting....
Wholly Holy Molies. This episode is chock-a-block stuffed full of more detail than a one hour audio-video presentation can sustain: From physical design consideration to carrier tactics and operational concerns... to strategies for long-term deployment. Wow! Excelent work, Drach.
I believe the term is "weapons system". Form follows function. :) The brain-work that went in before ever draughtsman's pencil touched paper has been well revealed by Drach.
This was one of your most enjoyable videos to watch. Each of these ships were important during WW2 and to learn of their design compromises was very interesting. Thank you.
Which the US improved upon by coding the direction the beam was pointing during its rotation into the beacon signal. But that is exactly what we call an "elegant" solution.
That was a fantastic video! In discussing HMS Ark Royal, the size of the drydock she was built in restricted the length of the ship’s underwater hull, but that was compensated for by having the flight deck 118 ft longer. In the graving docks I am familiar with, the ship’s length overall (when sitting on the blocks) must be factored in. It would be helpful to see a sketch or photo of Ark Royal in drydock.
Agreed with your assessment that the loss of Enterprise is one of the greatest travesties towards preserving ships that ever was. Right up there with the rather egregious treatment of USS Texas.
Drach's videos definitely shed a different light on naval history than that of 'navweaps' which gives a somewhat biased impression and certainly doesn't give the 'whole picture'. Thanks Drach.
I'm glad you agree that one of the biggest crimes against ship preservation was scrapping CV-6. :( And HMS Warspite. But at least the latter is understandable and reasonable given the UK's post-war situation (lamentable, but reasonable). The former? Not so much. I have a feeling that jackass who wanted the 8-in guns on every carrier design was responsible. Either him or the asshat behind the Mk 14 debacle. ...Okay, maybe not them, but I gotta blame someone and asshats like that are good targets.
At-least there is the tradition for there always to be a ship named USS Enterprise in the fleet. USS Enterprise (CVN-65) scrapping is also understandable despite being the third longest serving US Navy ship ever, given that she has a nuclear reactor.
@@FirstDagger The real killer for museum ship status for CVN-65 is that she has multiple reactors. Decommissioning 1 reactor would be prohibitively expensive on its own. More than one is a confirmed kill.
@@timberwolf1575 The reactors have to be decommissioned anyway. For a museum all you would have to do for safety is defuel and seal the reactors. Then weld the hatches to the reactor compartments shut. If you really want to be sure fill the compartments with concrete. Of course that does nothing to reduce the real expense of dealing with the lunatic regulations for disposing of nuclear waste and the green fascists responsible for them. Of course the navy had a perfectly good reactor on a submarine that was damaged beyond cost effective repair by an arson set fire that had nothing to do with the reactor and the Navy scrapped it rather than use it to supply power to an isolated facility that is burning diesel for electricity.
Your mention of HMS Ark Royal reminded me of the one laid down in 43'. Back in the late 60's I caroused around with a bunch of Royal Marines from the HMS Ark Royal R 09, playing drinking games, playing darts and trading punches all in fun, great crew and great ship, this old cruiser sailor and a few friends will never forget the comradery, but at 71 I'm not sure how long they can be remembered. USS Newport News (CA-148) November - India - Quebec - Quebec "Fair Winds and Following Seas" Brothers
Drach will get to look back with grey hair and a dram of Scotch in 40 years and know he's created definitive historical UA-cam content that will stand the test of time. As I believe he once said, he developed this content because he looked for it and it simply didn't exist at the time.
Well said. I have a ton of books and have been into this stuff since childhood (and I'm 62 now). This archive is THE definitive on line resource for all things 20th Century Warships
I loved this video. So informative and entertaining. What I love the most about it was that it broke down the strategic realities facing the 3 great Naval powers. What is good for the IJN, may not be the same for the USN or the RN, and the same for the realities facing the USN and the RN as well. Very well done.
Really looking forward to your episode that includes HMS Unicorn. My Grandfather served as a Royal Marine on her and I’ve never found out a great deal about her WWII service. It would give me another link too a great man. Thanks.
Wow, it's really interesting to see the different theories in design of the three navies, and you can really, really see the various design theories and the tinkering of carrier theory withing the R.N. Great video as always, Drachnifel, keep 'em coming!!
This was a fascinating time for carrier development. I have offered, from time to time, that the USN was nuts building the Lexingtons. The USN had so little experience with Langley, and a bit of advice from the Brits, that they really didn't know what they were doing. It's a miracle the Lexingtons came out as well as they did. On the other hand, without the Lexingtons, there would have been enough tonnage in the treaty quota to build three more Yorktowns, with enough left over to build Wasp as another full sized Yorktown, or enough tonnage to build three 27,000 ton proto-Essexes, while refusing to go along with the Brit's push to cut carrier tonnage to only 23,000.
Well... the Lex and Sara did so much to develope American carrier doctrine and operations. They highly advised the design of the Yorks and Essexes. Given an ideal world... ... ...
@@its1110 that developmental work could have been done with Ranger. As Drac's video said, in war games it was found that "a carrier found is a carrier sunk", and the Navy was very concerned about having nearly half of it's carrier tonnage allotment under the treaty tied up in only two ships. The USN did a lot of work in trying to divy up the remaining tonnage in a large number of small ships but decided that a ship as small as Ranger wasn't really up to the job, hence the move back to a larger hull with the Yorktowns.
Given the circumstances of the war, it seems to me that the lack of torpedo protection was less important than it seems. Ultimately it was destroyed by being hit by 3 submarine torpedoes. These three hits resulted in an abandon ship yet was still not enough to put the carrier under the waves. Ultimately it had to receive an additional 3 torpedoes to sink only to go under hours later. The damage it received would put most any carrier under including those with torpedo protection. The Wasp provided immense help early in the war, and its large carrying capacity proved valuable just for ferrying aircraft; ask Malta. The addition of this imperfect design helped early in the Pacific war in the Guadalcanal campaign and elsewhere ultimately achieving a strategic stalemate through 1942 which was pretty good considering how the war started.
A note on Wasp. She was originally planned on being restricted to the Atlantic like the Ranger, but due to the losses at Coral Sea, and Midway reduced the numbers of fleet carriers in the Pacific and Wasp was sent to alleviate these losses.
Facinating series, thanks. As an engineer I find the "why it is that way" just as important as the "this is what it is". However I would like a few captions on the photos so that I know which ship or class I am looking at and how it relates to the commentary.
At times his narrations overlap the photo’s shown and vice versa. As for the proper identification of the different carriers, most subscribers are Navy enthusiasts or history buffs. He does have videos on the different class of carriers, battleships, escorts, defensive weapons and so on in relation to naval warfare.
CV-6 Enterprise’s ship bell is at Annapolis on the grounds and her stern nameplate is on public display in a town square in New Jersey which was Halsey’s birthplace and home.
@Jurassic Aviator They went on to create the fuckup that sank the USS Tang, one of if not the most successful US submarine of WW2, the Mark 18 torpedo.
They still retain the naming conventions, albeit today the names of mythical creatures go to submarines rather than carriers. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C5%8Dry%C5%AB-class_submarine
Wasp was given an asymmetric hull to balance the weight of the island. Have you heard if there was an attempt to widen the flight deck on the port side to achieve this, while adding a certain amount of width to this limited design? This can also be asked of the hull conversions that are the CVL and CVE classes. The CVL flight deck was notably narrow, and would seem to benefit from this approach.
@@stanleyrogouski Yorktown rightly deserves to be a very famous ship, but she didn't spend time fighting the Japanese solo with one hand tied behind her back like Big E did for a while after Santa Cruz when her forward elevator was locked in the up position due to damage.
As an engineer, It would be hell. The admirals would rebalance complement, armor, armament, speed, etc, then send you back to the board to run the numbers. Around and around it would go. Then when they settled, newer planes showed and back to the board. Good thing mild steel welds easily.
While my field is not naval, I can say that this is how engineering often goes. You left out the part where after construction everyone including you, the end user, and people who had nothing to do with project think about how it should have been done differently.
This was wonderful. I anxiously await the wartime carriers. Also...whenever the discussion turns to aircraft carriers, I'm reminded that I would love to hear your take on the two side paddle wheel training aircraft carriers of the U.S. Navy...the USS Wolverine, and the USS Sable. Are they by chance on one of your to-do lists?
Nice one. I'd like to know your thoughts on the new JSDF "helicopter carriers". This is not a treaty issue but about the Japanese constitution. I saw an interview with an officer on one of the ships. When questioned about conversion to true carriers he laughed and said that would take months.
It would take landing the f35Bs. The ability to operate non svtol craft would take a few weeks of yard time, while the electromagnetic catapults are installed in their pre prepared berths from storage.
"Okay but how do we guide our pilots back to the carrier at night?" "Radar?" "Without alerting the enemy." ".....okay, this is going to sound crazy, but how about a lighthouse?"
Note that, while it is possible to build a "surface only" gun by limiting the elevation, there is no such thing as an "anti-aircraft only" gun. This was demonstrated by any number of night time encounters by US cruisers who's 5"/25 guns felt no compunction against banging away at surface targets. Also, "American version of the Skua": I believe the SBD Dauntless covers this pretty well, being equipped with two M2 0.50" machineguns for the pilot. This was certainly adequate for shooting down other recon aircraft in the Pacific.
5:55 - Say, if a nation defined a battleship with a flying-off deck or auxiliary carrier deck (like the IJN Ise for instance) as a regular battleship where the launching of aircraft is a secondary feature, and not its primary function. Would it count towards the aircraft carrier definition according to the treaty? Nevertheless, I got a pretty funny image in my head of Yamato with all her AA guns and secondary armaments stripped off and replaced by cranes and aircraft catapults in all directions. With a hanger at the rear end of the superstructure. Can't imagine that'd be a very effective AA defense system, but it would be one for the history books! xD
The greatest injustice to aircraft carriers as a whole was that none were ever built by France. The wine cellars aboard a French carrier would have been truly epic, just be sure to bring your own cheese. Priorities people, priorities.
@@richardtaylor1652 Oh come on now. As "nice" as that might sound I think more of a large battle ship with a flight deck and hanger instead of a gun platform and munitions, but with an excellent wine cellar attached to the galley instead of stale and weak beer.
I think the Ryujou _could_ have stayed useful if the loophole hadn't been closed. Given that her redesigns were made _after_ the loophole got closed, it would stand to reason that her designers at that point weren't exactly concerned with tonnage restrictions anymore - given she would count against the carrier limit anyway. Had the loophole _not_ been closed, there would have been at least a _chance_ that her designers could have found a way to do away with her stability problems _within_ her tonnage limit.
1: I want those 8in guns! 2: Dude, what do you want to use them against? 1: Enemy crusiers! 2: And do you by any accident know that our ship is not made to fight enemy cruisers at all?
In 1921, the Japanese government asked the British to dispatch a naval air mission to help develop Japanese naval aviation. There were reservations on the part of the Admiralty about granting the Japanese unrestricted access to British technology, but the British government eventually relented, hoping it would lead to a lucrative arms deal. The Sempill Mission of 1921-1922 was led by Captain William Forbes-Sempill, a former officer in the Royal Air Force experienced in the design and testing of Royal Navy aircraft during World War I. The mission consisted of 30 members, who were largely personnel with experience in naval aviation and included pilots and engineers from several British aircraft manufacturing firms. The Japanese were trained on several new British aircraft such as the Gloster Sparrowhawk; ...These planes eventually provided the inspiration for the design of a number of Japanese naval aircraft. Technicians become familiar with the newest aerial weapons and equipment... Naval aviators were trained in various techniques such as torpedo bombing, flight control and carrier landing and take-offs; ... The mission also brought the plans of the most recent British aircraft carriers, such as HMS Argus and HMS Hermes, which influenced the final stages of the development of the carrier Hōshō... Sempill later become a Japanese spy. Over the next 20 years, he provided the Japanese with secret information on the latest British aviation technology. His espionage work helped Japan rapidly develop its military aircraft and its technologies before the Second World War. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sempill_Mission
Passage of the Treachery Act of 1940 led to sixteen people being shot by firing squad or hanged for treachery, but Sempill, a peer, was never prosecuted. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Forbes-Sempill,_19th_Lord_Sempill
Just saw this tank in a live demonstration. Was awesome! That 105 firing makes a heck of an impression! Even though the powder load wasn’t near an actual wartime round.
Wow didnt know there were so many carrier designs! How many carriers of the various types have there been in all? There are 13 USNavy carriers now, right? That seems like a lot, but the numbers in WWII always seems to be mindblowingly huge.
Of course, modern US carriers are twice as big as WW2 carriers. When you consider that the US isn't even at war and it becomes a pretty crazy amount of ship even now
Pinned post for Q&A :)
Took you long enough.... Get with the program Drach!!
God bless everyone, hey drachinifel I suggest you to make videos about latinoamerican wars, you can find naval campaigns there.
Which class of ships was most useful during ww2?
Alternate history question for you, what do you think the outcome would have been if the USN had gone through with their plan to help the US Maines at the second Japanese attack on Wake Island?
why did the US make plans for a Torpedo Battleship in 1912 and did any other nations make designs of there own. And if so why?
this is so much better than any history show
1. no ads like history
2. actually freaking informative
An no dramatic music, fake historians and every scripted word designed to keep the viewer hooked only until the next ad break. TV is dead. I cant watch TV documentaries anymore.
@@anonymous2513456 My favorite was Battle 360. "Hundreds of yard workers swarm to trick out the mighty flattop and get her ripped and ready for more combat." I guess they saved a lot of money hiring teenagers to write the scripts.
@@acr08807 LOL I know of fanfiction writers who can write better than that. The thought of a carrier with big muscle arms is entertaining though.
Don't forget the insistence of repeating the same point over and over and over and over 😒
I think the worst one I watched was Drain the Oceans or something daft like that. They were the numpties that had Bismarcks turrets on upside down on the CGI model as well as repeating the line "if we drain the oceans..." every 5 ficken minutes. Like it was in the title! We got the idea going in 😂
TV execs are convinced the average normie can't process technical details, subtle interactions, or follow the sequence of events of a battle. Sadly, they're exactly right, and that's the audience they produce for. Idiots.
This is off the subject, but in this video, and others, mention is made of US ships being equipped with .50 machine guns for AA defense at the beginning of WWII. They were ineffective and largely replaced with 20-mm guns. Fast forward 70 years, and .50 machine guns are back on our ships for force protection against small boats. Sometimes called the “forever machine gun, they have in essence been in production since 1921. Over 6 million were produced for every service (USA, USN, USAF, USMC, and USCG) and keeping track of all of them is impossible. They are periodically sent in for repair, and in 2015 a US Army arsenal received one with serial number 324, meaning it was 94 years old!
Which brings the thought that next year the old girl will be 100 years old and still going strong.
The 20mm Oerlikon evolved into the 20mm Phalanx CIWS and is now the most fearsome anti aircraft, missile, small vessel and everything in-between weapon in the US arsenal.
Huh. I had gotten the impression that the .50 Browning was a WWI era weapon, not interwar.
Then again, if it were WWI I suspect I'd've heard about the fledgling US Army Air Corp's pilots replacing the guns on their SPADs and Nieuports with M2s.
@@cynderfan2233 Based on unclas data (engagement range, projectile velocity, rate of fire) CIWS can get off a 4.6 sec burst against a high sub-sonic missile like Exocet (Mach 0.93). Time is cut in half for a Mach 2 missile. Since the fire control system tracks both the outgoing projectiles and the incoming missile (and makes adjustments to cause a “collision”) a target can be engaged by only a single CIWS. Live-fire testing on manned ships against drones (now suspended) has caused casualties since missile “debris” hit the ship. SeaRAM which combines the RAM missile with the CIWS radar offers advantages.
BarryT1000
- _This is off the subject, but in this video, and others, mention is made of US ships being equipped with .50 machine guns for AA defense at the beginning of WWII._
_They are periodically sent in for repair, and in 2015 a US Army arsenal received one with serial number 324, meaning it was 94 years old!_
*M2 = Ma Deuce !*
Good Story - Thanks for sharing !
That beacon on Arc Royal was a brilliant idea.
I love how in the past people came up with all of these brilliant and sometimes insane ideas to accomplish things we have computers do for us now. The amount of imagination and tinkering that went into that is just terrific.
Necessity is the mother of invention after all.
As a matter of fact, modern-day VOR stations used in civil air navigation still use almost exactly the same system as _Ark Royal's_ homing beacon - the only differences being that the beam rotates once per second, rather than once per minute, and the station also transmits time signals instead of requiring the pilot to sync up an onboard clock before flight.
😢 ml
The British came up with many innovative ideas in Carrier development. They came up with the angled deck , so a carrier can recover & still launch a strike force simultaneously. They also came up with the Optical Landing System ( OLS) that helps guide pilots on proper guide path to land, previously everyone used a Landing Signal Officer with “ paddles” .
"It was thought that one bomb hit should impair a carrier's operations and two would knock it out of operational tasks completely"
Apparently Enterprise didn't get the memo.
"When a kamikaze hits a US carrier, it’s six months repair at Pearl. In a Limey carrier it’s a case of “sweepers, man your brooms”."
Alan Hughes lol
Yorktown didn't either. Shame she got the memo about torpedoes though.
Oh, Enterprise got the memo, she just had plot armor on a similar level to HMS Warspite.
Alan Hughes they just missed the memo of “Don’t sail your CV right past a German fleet”. Unless your captain has the nonchalant skill whilst listing lazily to the left and the band plays mini the moocher.
Drach, how do you manage to you manage to create such a volume of high-quality content? Many thanks to you.
Star Trek Theory Lolol gotta be
Tea, lots of tea.
He is on an IV drip of Ironbru.
His work was horrible until he got rid off the Kamchatka.
Sleep? That's something weak people do. GO FULL BRIT, OR GO HOME.
The history of interwar CVs look like a constant struggle between lads who wanted or didn't want 8 inch guns on their carriers ngl
I know my side; everything looks better with a gun on it.
More dakka!
@@fuzzyhair321 Have you achieved maximum dakka reception?
@Jurassic Aviator You can almost hear what the first american seeing an aircraft carrier must have said:
"Good god, immagine how many guns we can put on all this nice, flatt deck! What do you say? That deck's reserved for something other than guns?"
*beat
"Ok, good one. For a minute, you almost had me."
Stanley Rogouski Entirely agree. Only 15” guns would have helped with S & G.
"result in an HMS Captain moment" is my favorite analogy for a boat rolling over now. Thanks, Drach!
How does that even happen
@@stonks6616 physics. You ever trued opening a door close to the hinge rather than using the handle, it's much harder and requires more force. Less force is needed further away from the point of balance/centre of mass. Looking at the height of HMS Captain, it makes sense that it would have capsized at some point, the height of the masts amplifying the effects of wind as well as making it easier to unbalance during turns and rough seas
hammer1349 so........ sort of like leverage........., since that ship was tall and got pushed a bit. It was easier to tip because of all the extra weight now heading down with some momentum?
@@stonks6616 pretty much yeah
hammer1349 k
Enterprise and Warspite. Neither ship should have been scrapped. Both deserved to be museum ships. The Old Lady and Grey Ghost gave everything they could, survived hit after hit to be taken out not by the enemy but by bureaucrats ballancing ledgers. Injustice, aye.
@Evilmike42 Aye. The USN made sure that the name Enterprise will live on forever in it's many reincarnations. As for the Brits.....I dunno they made a Carrier Queen Elizabeth. It would've been kinda meta if they named the second carrier Warspite instead of Prince of Wales.
We get a new SSBN to be named Warspite, launching some time in the early 2030s...
@@UchihaPercy there's talk of one of our new SSBM submarines being called Warspite.
the problem is the upkeep would be fucking expensive. HMS Victory takes 1.5 million pounds a year and thats made of wood, significantly smaller and doesn't rust.
I agree but the other train of thought I have is that these were ships of war built and spent their careers waging war, should a warship then just sit in a harbour and become a museum and slowly rusting with time or should they be scrapped and their parts used on either future warships or civilian ships where they in a sort of weird way continue to travel on the seas?
I think it's interesting that each of the carrier navies recognized the need for a dedicated carrier design once the treaty allowed it. All three designed their new carrier: Hiryu/Soryu, Ranger, Ark Royal. All three were unhappy with their first designs, and all three then went down a different path and built the design they liked/went with: Shokaku, Yorktown, Illustrious.
Not only that, the Shokakus, Yorktowns, and Illustriouses would go on to be tied neck and neck for the title of being the most dangerous capital ships the world had ever seen, until the Essexes came along.
@@bkjeong4302 Agreed.
The naval treaties restricted the amount of battleships a navy could have, it also stipulated a max tonnage and gun size. And to boot, there was also a pretty long capital ship holiday, which got the navies scratching themselves to build ships. Given the limitations, looking at the aircraft carrier as at least a supplementary force for your fleet was probably pretty obvious for any large navy, how to go about doing it was far more complicated though.
@@pedrofelipefreitas2666 Carriers were controlled by number and tonnage too.
A fascinating 5-minute (plus or minus a hour) analysis of the mission driven design choices of the major interwar carrier fleets.
I believe the term is "weapons system".
Form follows function.
:)
The brain-work that went in before ever draughtsman's pencil touched paper has been well revealed by Drach.
The non-alternating machinery spaces were a weakness because in the event a fireroom or engine room suffering a hit or an engineering casualty the entire propulsion plant could be knocked offline causing the ship to go "hot, dark and quiet", something you never want to see. The Essex Class ships answered this in a huge way by alternating two forward firerooms, Main Control (#1 Engine Room), then two more firerooms, each having an SSTG and finally the after engine room. The Main Steam System was also able to cross-connect throughout the engineering plant, both port and starboard side so #8 boiler in four fireroom could provide steam to the forward engine room. The Navy took every lesson learned in the twenties and thirties and incorporated them into the Essex and Iowa class ships. The last Essex class ship was in service for almost fifty years, the final straw for her was the degradation of her watertight integrity. I was on board for her last operational engineering inspection, it was a very sad day when word came down that it was over... Like that, one day we were thinking about the next time we would get underway to finding out we were to decommission her and all get orders to our next commands. The last time I sailed on her I was on watch in one of the firerooms, the only lights we had were from the emergency lights, the boilers were cold iron and the only thing you could hear was the water rumbling under the hull while they towed us about five miles from the Downtown Pensacola pier to the pier at NAS Pensacola. The USS Lexington even outlasted the USS Coral Sea, which was supposed to replace her but ended up being decommissioned a year or two earlier.
"Ranger with a pair of triple 8-inch guns"
*DUDE. WHAT.*
Seems about right. She really has a massive pair of......turrets ( . Y . )
Lead the way....
@@Colonel_Overkill Huge... tracts of land.
And so the Cruiser Carrier was aborted... with a coat hangar
I wonder if we should expect it in WoWS as a premium?
That thing you say about the USS Enterprise: that is absolutely true. The most decorated US ship of the war was scrapped despite Adm. Halsey and many others' protests. I read "The Big E" by Barrett Tillman, and in interviews with Enterprise crew members, he brings up that some people didn't want it to be preserved as a museum because of the notion that it would desecrate the importance and loss of life endured on the ship. However, that does not take away from the fact that she was ultimately scrapped and now we will never get to enjoy seeing her in real life, save that one stern plate they did preserve. That being said, I believe it's ultimately the people, the crew members and their individual stories and experiences that make the difference rather than the ships. We need to get more veterans' stories before they're all gone. Great video, very thorough.
The real stupidity is that stuff like the Iowas, which were obsolete upon launch and have a far less noteworthy service record, managed to get themselves saved while a ship that actually deserved to be preserved wasn't.
Bk Jeong while you are correct, they were new, great trainer ships, and a huge pr boost for the navy. Plus, the end of WW2 being signed on the deck of the U.S.S Missouri secured their place in history. Sometimes history remembers those who didn’t do something impressive but merely was in the right place at the right time.
Saddest waste of history were the ships lost to atomic testing. Sure we needed the science but damn, what a waste.
@@wrayday7149 The fact the Iowas were preserved simply for PR reasons (which are far less of a justification for preservation than E's career) IS the problem. They really should have been scrapped (or better yet, never completed in the first place) and criticized as a massive procurement disaster, much like how the Yamato-class is criticized for similar reasons. Instead, they received ridiculous levels of undeserved praise.
@@bkjeong4302 well also remember they just build the boats, yes outdated by CV warfare standards but still had modern equipment and could keep up with the carriers to provide massive AA support as opposed to the old North Carolina's back to the Texas class afloat. On top of the old navy guard wanted to be on BB's as they were seen as the prestige ship where now CV's are that.
I believe the Navy mulled the idea of turning them into missile boats when that technology came online but by then they were too old to really overhaul.
But more over... We would of never got the epic movie Under Siege with no Mighty Mo.... nor would we have fought off hte aliens in Battleship without her.
The Nora, Mass, and Aly are highly noteworthy for being substantially as-built. There are vanishingly few such exhibits. This is an accident of history. That the Big E would also have been effectively so underlines her loss as an historic relic.
Don't blame the Noras and SoDaks for what they are... if not for treaty restrictions they'd have been built as Iowas... or Montanas. :)
The survival of the Iowas is due to Cold War mind-set (economy)... and their rebuild upon 19th century Ronald Reagan rah-rah. Or, in other words, late-onset sentimentality for WW-2. The vets of WW-2 had little time or stomach for such... until some, once into their retired "golden years".
Last time I was this early, the Kido Butai weren’t coral reefs
*expensive and curious fish dwellings
Raygio Vanno Moommonm
Doesnt Kido Butai basically mean strike force?
FangABXY FangABXY good one
Hey! The Kido Butai are sunk far too deeply for coral to grow on them! XD
Im still in awe in how they can build something so big that floats on the water, and able to flex and yet stay rigid and be able to stay together, and yet stay afloat after being hit with bombs and torpedoes, etc.... It really is a work of art
shot try working the flight deck of a Nimitz class. The first time I saw the Carl Vinson it was so foggy that you couldn't see her bow from the fantail
"Oh hey a Drachinifel upload, Imma just watch this real qui-MARY MOTHER OF GOD AN HOUR ON FLOATING AIRPORTS."
Further, the "Hour On Floating Airports" is but the 2nd installment of a 3-part series.
And frankly, if I were a betting man, I'd wager a 1/50 scale garden CVE model that there will be an 4th "adjunct" video to clean up certain loose ends.
If this channel charged tuition, we'd all be earning degrees from the University of Drachinifel.
@@77thTrombone And likely a fifth, after all he has to cover CVEs, CVLs, seaplane carriers, and the sillies.
@@Thirdbase9 no doubt, sir; no doubt. After all, this is The Incomparable Drachinifel we're talking about!
@@Thirdbase9 ...And still only in "5 minutes (more or less)(mostly more...much more)"
@@fredlougee2807 the intro actually said rum ration, not sure if that necessarily has any indication of video length...
I love your site and the work you do. I'm an old ex US Navy destroyer sailor, Charles F Adams class DDG, USS Barney DDG-6. Thank you so much for what you do.
In that “Scout Carriers” lunacy you can almost see the genesis of the infamous and often unfairly maligned CVE Escort Carriers. The “Kaiser Carriers” were surprisingly effective in their niches. “Convoy Escort and Sea Patrol” in the Atlantic. And as fully organic air units for invading ground forces. Thus freeing up the heavy hitting fleet carriers for direct offensive operations.
Enter taffee 1, 2 and 3 XD
@@hammer1349 Enter, kind of slowly, taffee 1,2 and 3 XD. (Fixed it for you.)
@@scottgiles7546 enter kinda slowly and undermanned taffy 1,2, and 3
That was my first thought as well. Of course less capable, but when we consider how they helped to closed the Atlantic Gap, and in the Pacific bring replacement a/c to CVs, their roles should not be derogated at all.
Combustible and vulnerable, sure. Expendable ... I'm not so sure. They filled an important gap.
@@Thumpalumpacus exactly. There are a lot of U-Boat sailors in Davy Jones locker put there by jeep carriers
There was a loophole in the Washington treaty the Brits could have exploited. According to the treaty, any carrier in commission or building, at the time of the treaty, was regarded as experimental and exempt from the treaty's replacement schedule, meaning they could be replaced with new carriers at any time. Argus, Eagle and Hermes all met that criteria. Eagle wasn't that bad. It had a bit of speed and a bit of size. It could cruse with a division of QEs and provide CAP and recon. But Argus had no speed and Hermes had no size. Argus and Hermes could both have been reclassified as something non-carrier, like sub tenders, and free up enough tonnage to build a second Ark Royal.
"a second Ark Royal"
Think of the destroyers!
@@MyVanir Not really, the only carrier that ALL destroyers feared was HMAS Melbourne. It developed quite a taste for snacking on destroyers.
@@MyVanirMutsuki is quivering in fear
The Interwar carriers demonstrate that the strength of the aircraft carrier vs gun ships is not only increased range, but the ease of upgrading the main weapon. Fly on a new generation of aircraft and the main strike weapon is greatly increased. Only the nuclear shells of the Iowa's gave battleships a post build attack upgrade of the same type of magnitude.
And that upgrade for the Iowas was irrelevant to the carrier vs. big gun matchup, because they still weren't going to be able to shoot at a carrier with the Katie shells.
@@bkjeong4302 The shell did upgrade the shore bombardment capability, which was the ships primary mission when it was introduced.
@@MartinCHorowitz But that doesn't change the fact the Iowas were basically obsolete upon launch and forced into secondary roles like AA escort duties or shore bombardment, where they weren't necessary or even the best strategic choices (subcapital units could actually do both of these thing just fine, and at less cost). They really should have been cancelled.
@@bkjeong4302 No the primary role of the Iowas to function as an Armored CIC, which they did. When being started they were intended as a strike weapon by some, but they we setup to function as command and control ship. As longs a ship has a mission, even if not the original planned mission it isn't obsolete.
@@MartinCHorowitz The Iowas were intended to chase down enemy fast capital ships when laid down. There was no intent of using them as a specialized command vessel.
And a ship is obsolete when other ships can do any of its possible missions better than it can, even if it's still capable fo doing those things. An Iowa can do some things, but other ships were better (strategically, and in many cases tactically) for all of these things.
"armed with effectively US Navy versions of the Skua"
it was not a long scream but there was a scream at that thought
I mean, the SBD _almost_ fills Ghormley's specification (and indeed was even pressed into an anti-torpedo bomber role at Coral Sea). Later in the war, so do the F6F and F4U.
@Chris_Wooden_Eye The SBD was faster, had a higher rate of climb and obviously could out dive the Skua, and was more maneuverable as well. Other than that the Skua was a better aircraft.
"The Skua performed reasonably well in air combat against enemy bombers in Norway and the Mediterranean but suffered heavy losses against fighters and was withdrawn from the front line in 1941."
www.tangmere-museum.org.uk/aircraft-month/blackburn-skua
The three main purpose-built CV classes (Yorktowns, Shokaku-class/the Cranes, Illustrious-class) in the late 1930s are among my favourites (in fact, they’re probably my favourite capital ships from any period in modern naval history): they’re the carriers built around the time naval aviation came of age and rendered battleships obsolete, and all three of these classes saw serious action, especially against each other in the Pacific.
Seriously the Yorktowns and Shokakus really went at each other (until the latter ran out of pilots) in the single greatest rivalry between enemy capital ships in history.
It was actually 1:0 for the Shokakus in that duel. It was mostly their aircraft that forced the USN to abandon Hornet at Santa Cruz. Yorktown after suffering damage to the Skokakus at Coral Sea was taken out at Midway by Hiryu and I-168 (not due to the Shokakus). Enterprise survived damage by the Shokakus twice (Eastern Solomons, Santa Cruz), Shokaku survived damage to the Yorktowns three times (Coral Sea, Eastern Solomons, Santa Cruz) only to be sunk by a submarine at the Philipine Sea. Zuikaku vas eventually sunk at Cape Engano but by an air strike by Essexes, not Yorktowns (even though one of the Essexes involved was named Yorktown).
@@VersusARCH Yes the Shokakus actually killed one of the Yorktowns and came close to killing the other two (as well as surviving major damage inflicted by the Yorktowns), but they gutted their air groups doing it, which made things easy for the Essex-class later.The Shokakus certainly did more damage to the Yorktowns than vice versa, but it was a Pyrrhic victory.
I do think of the Shokakus as easily the best Axis capital ships and some of the most badass warships in WWII. You have to give them credit for what they did accomplish.
Bk Jeong so i guess you mean hornet?
@@stonks6616 For the Yorktown that got sunk? Yep.
Bk Jeong yep, although why was a port side bridge bad?
Is this after the cv rework?
It takes drach 4 days to put out the same amount and level of content dan carlin does in 4 months. superhuman.
"Part Three, when he gets around to it." Hmm...Maybe if we all email him a picture of a Roundtoit, it'll speed things up?
dropdead234 give yourself an uppercut!
🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️......is that you dad?
I‘ve had a roundtoit for years, must be worn out by now, as I keep not getting around to things:)
Another brilliant video. It's really interesting to hear about why the ships were designed and built the way they were and the reasoning behind the inevitable compromises.
Can't believe the video is over an hour long, certainly doesn't feel it. Wish half my lectures had been this interesting....
Your euphemisms and analogies are blissful as ever, Drach.
Wholly Holy Molies.
This episode is chock-a-block stuffed full of more detail than a one hour audio-video presentation can sustain: From physical design consideration to carrier tactics and operational concerns... to strategies for long-term deployment.
Wow!
Excelent work, Drach.
I believe the term is "weapons system".
Form follows function.
:)
The brain-work that went in before ever draughtsman's pencil touched paper has been well revealed by Drach.
This was one of your most enjoyable videos to watch. Each of these ships were important during WW2 and to learn of their design compromises was very interesting. Thank you.
That homing beacon watch trick is amazing
Which the US improved upon by coding the direction the beam was pointing during its rotation into the beacon signal.
But that is exactly what we call an "elegant" solution.
And is still in use with a faster update time as a VOR beacon at most IFR equiped airports with an additional reference pulse.
Ah, now this is a video I’ve been waiting for ! Shame it’s 7am and I haven’t slept yet...
I'm right there with ya buddy! Not a wink. 🤬
1pm here in central Europe, glad i got rid of some office boredom. Still, i feel you guys...
Sleep is for the weak.
half past 1 here in the UK, stayed up through 7am.
That was a fantastic video!
In discussing HMS Ark Royal, the size of the drydock she was built in restricted the length of the ship’s underwater hull, but that was compensated for by having the flight deck 118 ft longer. In the graving docks I am familiar with, the ship’s length overall (when sitting on the blocks) must be factored in. It would be helpful to see a sketch or photo of Ark Royal in drydock.
Agreed with your assessment that the loss of Enterprise is one of the greatest travesties towards preserving ships that ever was. Right up there with the rather egregious treatment of USS Texas.
@Archangelglenn, USS Olympia cries in the corner. While USS Long Beach and USS Reno screams in a thousand pieces.
Drach's videos definitely shed a different light on naval history than that of 'navweaps' which gives a somewhat biased impression and certainly doesn't give the 'whole picture'. Thanks Drach.
I'm glad you agree that one of the biggest crimes against ship preservation was scrapping CV-6. :( And HMS Warspite. But at least the latter is understandable and reasonable given the UK's post-war situation (lamentable, but reasonable). The former? Not so much. I have a feeling that jackass who wanted the 8-in guns on every carrier design was responsible. Either him or the asshat behind the Mk 14 debacle.
...Okay, maybe not them, but I gotta blame someone and asshats like that are good targets.
At-least there is the tradition for there always to be a ship named USS Enterprise in the fleet.
USS Enterprise (CVN-65) scrapping is also understandable despite being the third longest serving US Navy ship ever, given that she has a nuclear reactor.
@@FirstDagger The real killer for museum ship status for CVN-65 is that she has multiple reactors. Decommissioning 1 reactor would be prohibitively expensive on its own. More than one is a confirmed kill.
@@timberwolf1575
The reactors have to be decommissioned anyway. For a museum all you would have to do for safety is defuel and seal the reactors. Then weld the hatches to the reactor compartments shut. If you really want to be sure fill the compartments with concrete.
Of course that does nothing to reduce the real expense of dealing with the lunatic regulations for disposing of nuclear waste and the green fascists responsible for them.
Of course the navy had a perfectly good reactor on a submarine that was damaged beyond cost effective repair by an arson set fire that had nothing to do with the reactor and the Navy scrapped it rather than use it to supply power to an isolated facility that is burning diesel for electricity.
@@timberwolf1575 Actually, there is no market for another carrier museum. There are near a half dozen already.
@@calvingreene90 Nobody is crying for another carrier museum. Nuke or not.
G'day, from Copenhagen, Denmark.
Allways a treat with new content from Drachnifel!
Your mention of HMS Ark Royal reminded me of the one laid down in 43'. Back in the late 60's I caroused around with a bunch of Royal Marines from the HMS Ark Royal R 09, playing drinking games, playing darts and trading punches all in fun, great crew and great ship, this old cruiser sailor and a few friends will never forget the comradery, but at 71 I'm not sure how long they can be remembered. USS Newport News (CA-148) November - India - Quebec - Quebec "Fair Winds and Following Seas" Brothers
*"THIS MEANS YOU, JAPAN!"*
Lol
All hail the loophole exploiter
6:52
Japan: Izumo class is not an aircraft carrier! Honestly! I swear it!
@@1zeisele Rest of the world: "The only idiots who believe that are the idiots that deserve to be deceived..."
The five minute guide to warships!!!! Somewhat exceeding your treaty obligations, don't you think!
He found the Ryūjō Loophole. :)
I been watching vids everyday, for a week now and still have a huge volume of material to watch... Thank you for all tye quality work...
As usual, very comprehensive overview of the interwar carriers. Good stuff, Drach.
"Emdens". Mucke der Emden. One of the greatest sagas of adventure ever. German raider Emden's story is a worthy one for any naval enthusiast.
the ones that made it home from asia?
@@marxel4444 Yes.
Only some of the crew did, and with a sail boat and some camels!
@@AtomicBabel Like I said, one hell of an adventure.
Drach will get to look back with grey hair and a dram of Scotch in 40 years and know he's created definitive historical UA-cam content that will stand the test of time. As I believe he once said, he developed this content because he looked for it and it simply didn't exist at the time.
Well said. I have a ton of books and have been into this stuff since childhood (and I'm 62 now). This archive is THE definitive on line resource for all things 20th Century Warships
Drach is a multi-national treasure. Forgive his medieval larping...he's the greatest naval historian of my time.
I loved this video. So informative and entertaining. What I love the most about it was that it broke down the strategic realities facing the 3 great Naval powers. What is good for the IJN, may not be the same for the USN or the RN, and the same for the realities facing the USN and the RN as well. Very well done.
Really looking forward to your episode that includes HMS Unicorn. My Grandfather served as a Royal Marine on her and I’ve never found out a great deal about her WWII service. It would give me another link too a great man. Thanks.
Wow, it's really interesting to see the different theories in design of the three navies, and you can really, really see the various design theories and the tinkering of carrier theory withing the R.N. Great video as always, Drachnifel, keep 'em coming!!
This was a fascinating time for carrier development. I have offered, from time to time, that the USN was nuts building the Lexingtons. The USN had so little experience with Langley, and a bit of advice from the Brits, that they really didn't know what they were doing. It's a miracle the Lexingtons came out as well as they did. On the other hand, without the Lexingtons, there would have been enough tonnage in the treaty quota to build three more Yorktowns, with enough left over to build Wasp as another full sized Yorktown, or enough tonnage to build three 27,000 ton proto-Essexes, while refusing to go along with the Brit's push to cut carrier tonnage to only 23,000.
Well... the Lex and Sara did so much to develope American carrier doctrine and operations. They highly advised the design of the Yorks and Essexes.
Given an ideal world... ... ...
@@its1110 that developmental work could have been done with Ranger. As Drac's video said, in war games it was found that "a carrier found is a carrier sunk", and the Navy was very concerned about having nearly half of it's carrier tonnage allotment under the treaty tied up in only two ships. The USN did a lot of work in trying to divy up the remaining tonnage in a large number of small ships but decided that a ship as small as Ranger wasn't really up to the job, hence the move back to a larger hull with the Yorktowns.
Given the circumstances of the war, it seems to me that the lack of torpedo protection was less important than it seems. Ultimately it was destroyed by being hit by 3 submarine torpedoes. These three hits resulted in an abandon ship yet was still not enough to put the carrier under the waves. Ultimately it had to receive an additional 3 torpedoes to sink only to go under hours later. The damage it received would put most any carrier under including those with torpedo protection. The Wasp provided immense help early in the war, and its large carrying capacity proved valuable just for ferrying aircraft; ask Malta. The addition of this imperfect design helped early in the Pacific war in the Guadalcanal campaign and elsewhere ultimately achieving a strategic stalemate through 1942 which was pretty good considering how the war started.
Gem! Excellent topic with almost no easily accessible info. Kudos on the amount of research done.
Awesome video. Learn something new all the time with you. And I thought I had a clue. Lots of great unseen photos. Great job Drach.
Still waiting for this covid to end and welcome you to my ship the Massachusetts. You will enjoy her. She is pretty.
A note on Wasp. She was originally planned on being restricted to the Atlantic like the Ranger, but due to the losses at Coral Sea, and Midway reduced the numbers of fleet carriers in the Pacific and Wasp was sent to alleviate these losses.
Yay finally the next installment. I've been waiting for this. Its about time you covered Americas best and largest cruisers they ever built.
Beautiful. This is one hour well-spent.
Facinating series, thanks. As an engineer I find the "why it is that way" just as important as the "this is what it is". However I would like a few captions on the photos so that I know which ship or class I am looking at and how it relates to the commentary.
At times his narrations overlap the photo’s shown and vice versa. As for the proper identification of the different carriers, most subscribers are Navy enthusiasts or history buffs. He does have videos on the different class of carriers, battleships, escorts, defensive weapons and so on in relation to naval warfare.
CV-6 Enterprise’s ship bell is at Annapolis on the grounds and her stern nameplate is on public display in a town square in New Jersey which was Halsey’s birthplace and home.
Still the worst decision of the navy.
@Jurassic Aviator They went on to create the fuckup that sank the USS Tang, one of if not the most successful US submarine of WW2, the Mark 18 torpedo.
I always liked the Soryu and Hiryu’s names. They mean “Green Dragon” and “Flying Dragon” respectively. 😉
I very much prefer the Cranes to the Dragons.
They still retain the naming conventions, albeit today the names of mythical creatures go to submarines rather than carriers.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C5%8Dry%C5%AB-class_submarine
Japan is the best at naming ships
Kaga means “increased joy” in Japanese.
But in Spanish, it sounds like the word for “pooping”. 👀
Literally yes. With those Chinese characters, Ka is to increase、and Ga is joy or happiness. But Kaga is old name of a specific region in Japan.
Wasp was given an asymmetric hull to balance the weight of the island. Have you heard if there was an attempt to widen the flight deck on the port side to achieve this, while adding a certain amount of width to this limited design?
This can also be asked of the hull conversions that are the CVL and CVE classes. The CVL flight deck was notably narrow, and would seem to benefit from this approach.
Thanks Drach, I enjoy long videos like this one
Also known as
The birth of the legends, the Yorktown's
I'd argue in favor of the legend of Yorktown (CV-5). Counted as dead by her own side twice and returned to the fight, once in the same day.
@@stanleyrogouski Yorktown rightly deserves to be a very famous ship, but she didn't spend time fighting the Japanese solo with one hand tied behind her back like Big E did for a while after Santa Cruz when her forward elevator was locked in the up position due to damage.
@@stanleyrogouski he did command a Klingon build British ship the HMS /HMAV Bounty 😁
Damned shame what happened to her.
@@stanleyrogouski Gene said the Enterprise-A was the Yorktown renamed in honor of them saving the earth from the space whale probe.
I watched a solid 3 hours of this channel in a row
@Marry Christmas well that means i need to watch it more thanks
The WWII US carriers rumored to have coffee machines which would be enough to raise stream for emergency sailing... Something I might need :)
Want to wipe out the USN in a big hurry? Steal the coffee makers. And don't stop running.....
@@dropdead234 And maybe the can openers too.
Can't wait for the next part honestly CVs are my favorite type of navy ship.
As an engineer, It would be hell. The admirals would rebalance complement, armor, armament, speed, etc, then send you back to the board to run the numbers. Around and around it would go. Then when they settled, newer planes showed and back to the board. Good thing mild steel welds easily.
Well... Hell for the naval architects, anyway. By the time it gets to the implementing engineers the design should be rather firm. :)
While my field is not naval, I can say that this is how engineering often goes. You left out the part where after construction everyone including you, the end user, and people who had nothing to do with project think about how it should have been done differently.
Such great content to play in the background whilst studying along with Mark Feltons content. Thanks a lot to you!
What a brilliant coincidence, I just watched the previous part yesterday!
As usual Drachinefel gives us the data and narrative with a level of excitement and interest we all like thank you!
This was wonderful. I anxiously await the wartime carriers. Also...whenever the discussion turns to aircraft carriers, I'm reminded that I would love to hear your take on the two side paddle wheel training aircraft carriers of the U.S. Navy...the USS Wolverine, and the USS Sable. Are they by chance on one of your to-do lists?
www.heroesondeck.com/ is a very good documentary on the subject (my dad helped finance the project)
Impressive, as always!! Thank you very much for sharing your knowledge in these interesting topics.
I don’t think I ever would be able to hear the fate of Enterprise without feeling pain in my heart.
My father served on Enterprise. Her picture was the only one on his desk.
Your knowledge is vast,research profound and presentation masterful,I salute you sir.
Nice one.
I'd like to know your thoughts on the new JSDF "helicopter carriers". This is not a treaty issue but about the Japanese constitution. I saw an interview with an officer on one of the ships. When questioned about conversion to true carriers he laughed and said that would take months.
It would take landing the f35Bs.
The ability to operate non svtol craft would take a few weeks of yard time, while the electromagnetic catapults are installed in their pre prepared berths from storage.
To be fair, being a Harrier Carrier never stopped the Invincibles from being considered proper aircraft carriers...
@2:09 interesting to see USS Saipan CVL-48 with helicopters embarked. Later to be converted into communications relay ship Arlington AGMR-2. Cheers!
I'd assume the Shinano will also make an appearance in the next episode even though she was a conversion as well?
The only remnant of USS Enterprise is the ship's name plate which is displayed at River Vale Veterans Memorial Park in River Vale, NJ
Ship's bell at USNA.
"Okay but how do we guide our pilots back to the carrier at night?"
"Radar?"
"Without alerting the enemy."
".....okay, this is going to sound crazy, but how about a lighthouse?"
I LOVE THIS CHANNEL !!! GREAT WORK !! THANK YOU DRACHINIFEL FOR ALL YOU BRING TO US !!!👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏🙂👏👏👏👏👏👏👏🙂🙂🙂🙂👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏
Note that, while it is possible to build a "surface only" gun by limiting the elevation, there is no such thing as an "anti-aircraft only" gun. This was demonstrated by any number of night time encounters by US cruisers who's 5"/25 guns felt no compunction against banging away at surface targets.
Also, "American version of the Skua": I believe the SBD Dauntless covers this pretty well, being equipped with two M2 0.50" machineguns for the pilot. This was certainly adequate for shooting down other recon aircraft in the Pacific.
5:55 - Say, if a nation defined a battleship with a flying-off deck or auxiliary carrier deck (like the IJN Ise for instance) as a regular battleship where the launching of aircraft is a secondary feature, and not its primary function. Would it count towards the aircraft carrier definition according to the treaty?
Nevertheless, I got a pretty funny image in my head of Yamato with all her AA guns and secondary armaments stripped off and replaced by cranes and aircraft catapults in all directions. With a hanger at the rear end of the superstructure.
Can't imagine that'd be a very effective AA defense system, but it would be one for the history books! xD
The greatest injustice to aircraft carriers as a whole was that none were ever built by France.
The wine cellars aboard a French carrier would have been truly epic, just be sure to bring your own cheese.
Priorities people, priorities.
So we are basically talking about an ocean liner with a flight deck on top?
@@richardtaylor1652 Oh come on now.
As "nice" as that might sound I think more of a large battle ship with a flight deck and hanger instead of a gun platform and munitions, but with an excellent wine cellar attached to the galley instead of stale and weak beer.
Bearn, Clemanceau, Foch, CDG ?
Well done, Drach.
Please, please, please put captions under pictures of the different ships to identify them.
Finally,
Thank you drach!
Great vid Drach, I really like the Ryujo's and USS Ranger's designs.
I love how you make American naval writers sound so British when you quote them! LOL!
This is the earliest I've ever gotten a post in on a drachinifel vid, thanks for all the cool videos!
The names of the 3 main American carriers for the 1st part of the war of such a ring to it Hornet, enterprise and Yorktown
isn't much better than waking up on my day off with drachinifel in my inbox with a video. rushes to get coffee and watch
"They were *supposed* to have been the same."
Yeah. That's what they always say.
You are a living Legend, Sir!
I think the Ryujou _could_ have stayed useful if the loophole hadn't been closed. Given that her redesigns were made _after_ the loophole got closed, it would stand to reason that her designers at that point weren't exactly concerned with tonnage restrictions anymore - given she would count against the carrier limit anyway. Had the loophole _not_ been closed, there would have been at least a _chance_ that her designers could have found a way to do away with her stability problems _within_ her tonnage limit.
Estos videos tuyos son hermosos! Muchas Gracias!
1: I want those 8in guns!
2: Dude, what do you want to use them against?
1: Enemy crusiers!
2: And do you by any accident know that our ship is not made to fight enemy cruisers at all?
Excellent post sir!!!
In 1921, the Japanese government asked the British to dispatch a naval air mission to help develop Japanese naval aviation. There were reservations on the part of the Admiralty about granting the Japanese unrestricted access to British technology, but the British government eventually relented, hoping it would lead to a lucrative arms deal.
The Sempill Mission of 1921-1922 was led by Captain William Forbes-Sempill, a former officer in the Royal Air Force experienced in the design and testing of Royal Navy aircraft during World War I. The mission consisted of 30 members, who were largely personnel with experience in naval aviation and included pilots and engineers from several British aircraft manufacturing firms.
The Japanese were trained on several new British aircraft such as the Gloster Sparrowhawk; ...These planes eventually provided the inspiration for the design of a number of Japanese naval aircraft. Technicians become familiar with the newest aerial weapons and equipment... Naval aviators were trained in various techniques such as torpedo bombing, flight control and carrier landing and take-offs; ... The mission also brought the plans of the most recent British aircraft carriers, such as HMS Argus and HMS Hermes, which influenced the final stages of the development of the carrier Hōshō...
Sempill later become a Japanese spy. Over the next 20 years, he provided the Japanese with secret information on the latest British aviation technology. His espionage work helped Japan rapidly develop its military aircraft and its technologies before the Second World War.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sempill_Mission
Passage of the Treachery Act of 1940 led to sixteen people being shot by firing squad or hanged for treachery, but Sempill, a peer, was never prosecuted.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Forbes-Sempill,_19th_Lord_Sempill
Perhaps if Sempill had lead a mission to the RAF it would have provided the RN with Zeros, Vals and Kates?
Amazing research effort, script and narattion. Fine job!
> The US navy was considering having multiple smaller carriers
Jeune Ecole: Now this looks like a job for me
They are back to arguing about carrier size right now.
Just saw this tank in a live demonstration. Was awesome! That 105 firing makes a heck of an impression! Even though the powder load wasn’t near an actual wartime round.
Wow didnt know there were so many carrier designs! How many carriers of the various types have there been in all? There are 13 USNavy carriers now, right? That seems like a lot, but the numbers in WWII always seems to be mindblowingly huge.
Of course, modern US carriers are twice as big as WW2 carriers. When you consider that the US isn't even at war and it becomes a pretty crazy amount of ship even now
@@silverhost9782 twice as big? 4.5 times the displacement
@@jukeseyable also with jets using missiles.
13? since when?
Official policy is 12 carriers, but it's been 11 for quite some time now.
Another great video thank you! I look forward to your next one as always.
55:56 ...No, I won't give in, I won't give in until I'm Victorious!