Of the surviving WW2 battleships today is USS Massachusetts the only one to have engaged another battleship? And if so what other surviving museum ships from WW2 have engaged or sunk Battleships in ship to ship surface actions?
Its often said the the Iowa class ships did not perform their intended task of fighting enemy warships, however did the the Iowa's sink any warships in surface actions during WW2?
What are your thoughts on Submarine aircraft carriers (if produce in mass and successfully championed by Yamamoto) and its possible impacts on the Pacific theater of WW2?
In reality how useful where rebuilt WW1 battleships? For example, had Hms Queen Elizabeth been going into the battle of Denmark strait instead of Hms Prince of Wales would the Battle have ended better?
I really appreciate you not putting commercials in these videos you make. I watch your videos to go to sleep, and a commercial in the middle of it would literally prevent me from watching your content. I don’t watch your content to go to sleep because it’s boring and puts me to sleep, but rather I find it quite interesting, and you a fantastic orator. It’s basically listening to a extremely well spoken man talking about stories of warboats and everything related to warboats (warships*😅), perfect bedtime story for a full-grown man. Thank you sir, not only does it help me but because I generally get through about 20 minutes of content before falling asleep, I end up watching every episode about four or five times, giving you 4 to 5 times the view count 😉
This! Absolutely this! Many thanks to YOU as well for giving such a precise and eloquent description of (consequently) my thoughts and engagement with Drach's wonderful content too!
I will second that, I'm the Crusher or Cuck Crushers, so when I'm not spending up to 6 hours crushing cuck crushers, then it's hard for me to sleep with all this energy, and you Sir are the only one that can help put this beast to sleep.
As a submariner myself, in relation to your pressure effects on submarines I will tell a story. So we have a milk machine, just a small fridge that contains a bag of milk, well below a certain depth that I'm not at liberty to say we were unable to change our milk bag out because a pipe would be compressed just enough to prevent us from opening the door to this "cow" as we call it. Quite a funny thing to show new guys as the come aboard and go underway their first time.
the bit about incompetent admirals, talking about Japan vrs Korea. It's worth noting, about Admiral Yi Sun Sin, that _after_ being handed the command of a massively decimated Korean navy and told to stop Japan (for the SECOND time that conflict - the majority of the Korean navy got taken out in the initial Japanese attack) Yi pulled it off. Again. probably the GOAT for naval commanders.
Indeed, even Admiral Togo said being touted as the Nelson of the East was a fair assessment, but would never agree to being compared to Admiral Yi, as according to him, Yi had no equal
Myeongyang really was something in the annals of naval history; normally quantity trumps quality, especially with a 10:1 numerical advantage plus a mobility advantage, but thanks to Yi's very clever use of tidal currents and positioning, Yi's 13 vessels were able to fend off 133 Japanese warship plus over 200 Japanese support craft (sinking 31 of the 133 warships in the process).
@@bkjeong4302 With better guns against an enemy built around boarding, all you really need to do is keep them at a safe distance! He had one advantage and did everything possible to amplify it.
Re: Blowout panels in gun turrets There's another key difference to tanks that you sort of touched on, and that I think is important. On a tank's turret, the blowout panel is for the ammunition storage only, not for the entire turret. The ammunition is in its own little compartment, usually in the back of the turret, and separated from the crew compartment by substantial bulkheads or blast doors. These will only open briefly during the loading process, and otherwise remain closed in combat. The ammunition can burn and explode inside its compartment, rupture the blowout panels, and heat up the bulkhead/doors considerably - but the crew remains protected from the fire and explosion itself. In a ship's turret, the gun crew is in the same general space as the shells and charges they're currently loading (and which could explode in case of detonation). Blowout panels might reduce damage to turret and its components, but I doubt they would do much for the crew.
@@mcguirecrsr the issue with this is tanks carry between 50 to 100 rounds In ships the main battery carry around 120-150 rounds per gun in a single magazine and are literally 4x the size and blast.
@@bengrogan9710 Plus, blowing large panels into the water fast enough is hard. And those panels are armor steel and not small. And they're inboard of things like torpedo defenses, so you'd have to go down, which would break the keel. I 'spect a magazine explosion would be preferable.
@@mcguirecrsr It takes a lot to say a magazine explosion would be "Preferable" in any circumstance - In real terms the all Barbettes had a blowout panel of sorts in the fact that a magazine detonation would likely throw the turret clear and then pray your ship survived Other than that I know magazines had flooding valves that could be used in many cases where a fire started which is likely as close as you can get
it seems to me that blowout panels on ships were a choice of "Which leg do you want to get stabbed in?". There is just too much explosive potential in a ship magazine to really mitigate. hopefully you can direct the blast upwards and out, but when several tens of thousands of pounds of explosives/propellant goes off, you're fucked whichever way the coin flips.
Drach failed to mention Won Kyun also scuttled his ENTIRE initial fleet at the start of the Imjin war because he thought a couple of fishing boats were the incoming Japanese. When he finally reversed his order his fleet of over 100 ships was down to 2-3 ships. Imagine the damage Yi could have done if he had 100 more ships. Edit cause one of my sentences went missing ZZZ.
I'd say the commander of the Spanish armada takes the cake - losing an entire fleet to a few fireships and some bad but not catastrophic weather. He was a thoroughly inexperienced guy who did have a competent advisor but it didn't work in the end. Also you had Jacob von Wassenaer Obdam, an army colonel given command of the Dutch fleet in a crisis of unity who oddly enough actually came up with a sound tactical doctrine later successfully implemented by admiral Michiel de Ruyter, but had ill suited ships and no experience to implement it, consequently getting himself killed in one of the worst defeats in Dutch naval history. Compared to those two any of the admirals Drach listed were experts since they could... sail at least. Of those he listed the worst one was the Korean guy, then Villeneuve (with Mandalzade Hüsameddin Pasha of the Chesma debacle, giving him a run for his money), then Persano. Instead of Beatty who while very flawed was still in quite a few respects competent, Drach should have listed Yevgeny Alekseev, viceroy of Russia's Far East, who had bouts of command over the First Pacific Squadron of the Russian Navy in the Russo-Japanese War, an outright incompetent. WW2... Tough call all were at least competent, I disagree inclucing Gensoul, his biggest mistake being allowing himself to be surprised through insufficient scouting... Perhaps Angelo Iachino would be my candidate (first Matapan and then failing to press his huge advantages in the Battles of the Sirte). Or Karel Doorman who lost one destroyer wrecked (non-combat loss) and another one lost in one of his own minefields... On the Japanese side Admirals Sentaro Omori (of Empress Augusta Bay debacle), Sadamichi Kajioka (1st attempt to invade the Wake Island debacle), Hiraoki Abe (who messed up the 1st Naval Battle of Guadalcanal although he had superior force) perhaps even Boshiro Hosogoya (for retreating at Komandorski Island) and three certainly competent admirals who made costly mistakes: Chuichi Nagumo Gunichi Mikawa and Takeo Kurita. Probably the Soviets have some good contenders too. Germans: Oskar Kummetz of the Barents Sea debacle, Brits? Dudley Pound (QF-17), Victor Crutchley of the Savo Island debacle. US: Carleton Wright (Tassafaronga debacle), Daniel Callaghan (messed up US plan for the First Naval battle of Guadalcanal, won by sheer luck, but got himself and Adm Norman Scott killed in the process), William Halsey (almost lost the entire invasion of the Philippines in an afternoon). French pretty much have only Gensoul out there to be considered, but many of the listed admirals from other countries were way worse.
You mentioned aircraft laying mines. The B-29 mine laying missions during WW2 were epic flights that were over 2000 miles round trip with one mind boggling mission done by B-29, Flak Alley Sally, which completed 4400 miles round trip, 19 hours and 40 minutes non stop. -- Been over dosing on these Drydock episodes! Love ‘em!
I bought a boat when I was a young man. I called up a girl I fancied and told her that I bought a boat and named it after you, come down to the docks and check it out. I called two other girls and told them the same thing. All three showed up at the same time and saw the boat. On the stern was the name, 'After You'.
There's possibly another layer to "The world wonders". The Battle of Samar occurred on the anniversary of the Battle of Balaclava (25 October 1854), which is most known for Tennyson's poem "Charge of the Light Brigade". While these lines are pretty far apart in the poem, they're also rhymed and thus relatively easily associated: "Not though the soldier knew/Someone had blundered", "Charging an army while/All the world wondered", "O the wild charge they made!/All the world wondered". If Halsey had made that association, it'd have been an even bigger slap in the face.
I've always wondered if Halsey's radio officer bore a secret grudge. Every single ship in the task force saw the RR and removed the phrase... except for the guy who was showing this to the admiral? Hmm.
@@Ealsante It would be a fairly badly kept secret considering the amount of critical messages Halsey's flag supposedly never received or were transmitted late.
Billy Shakespeare also contributed to 25 October with his King Henry “St Crispans speech” Commander Evans was a combat veteran that had served with the ABCD fleet very early in WWII. Band of brothers echoed in the Battle off Samar.
Well, actually Halsey probably did make the connection which is probably why one of his staff told him to get ahold of himself. My older brother studied that in the 6th grade & taught it to me, 3rd grade. So... an Admiral as old as Halsey, imho, would probably know it by heart, & more than likely make the connection immediately!
as a former signalman (army) it was instantly obvious to me . .......smart ass signalman told to "just put something in" id expect this result😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅
Hi Drachinifel, as a Chinese I know there are quite some studies went into the Yalu river fight by Chinese Scholars (as this is one of those painful memory you wouldn’t be able to forget as a Chinese), and I think I might have read one of those long times ago, although I wouldn’t expect them to be translated to English. I wouldn’t be able to physically go and get books on these, but i would certainly happy to help with any language barrier. Always enjoy your drydock episode, keep it up!
Oddly enough, I was just thinking it would be pretty awesome to get Drach to do a special video about the Halifax Disaster. Hearing you call out the action of that Coast Guard cutter cements that desire.
Yes indeed, Drach, that's a N. American WWI merchant marine disaster of huge proportions. (1917). The fire, then explosion in Halifax, Nova Scotia, when "Imo" crashed into explosives ship "Mont Blanc" with the freighter still afloat, the French ship blown to smithereens and thousands killed- ONSHORE !
In all my years in public service I'd say this was a killer characteristic in ANY position. I'd also say it is what drives a lot of people to seek advancement and promotion, which means it becomes increasingly common with increasing rank. It should probably be a disqualifying personal trait, but I doubt it ever will be in any civilisation ever.
The story I've read was the "the World Wonders" message to Halsey not due to the decrypt officer but due to a rookie clerk. Once a message was decrypted, everything in the message was included so a message could be verified if a question about it came up. It was then passed on to a clerk typist to type up the message before it went to the recipient(s). IN this case, the rookie didn't realize "The World Wonders" was actually padding so he typed up everything, stuffed it in an envelope, and handed to off to a messenger for delivery. Thus began the small nuclear explosion on the _New Jersey_ .
Nice to see Won Gyun get his time of the spotlight :) Here in Korea he is regarded as the epitome of incompetence and corruption, whereas Admiral Yi is revered as one of the most prominent national heroes.
As a Veteran of the U.S. Coast Guard, I say the biggest contribution during WW II, is the delivery of the fighting forces of the U.S. Marines to the beaches in the Pacific and U.S. Army to the beaches of Normandy and Africa, and Italy has to be the greatest contribution - by far. Medals of Honor were won during the repeated trips made by U.S. Coast Guard coxswain under horrendous enemy fire - often while themselves were wounded as they also evacuated the wounded from those beaches. But let us not argue about this. During WWII, the U.S. Coast Guard was absorbed into the U.S. Navy.
YAMATO's 26" (66cm) Vickers Hardened turret face plates. These plates were the thickest armor plates ever put on a warship. When the SHINANO's unused turret face plates (the one that was turned into the cursed aircraft carrier) were tested at the US Naval Proving Ground, Dahlgren, Virginia, after WWII, along with several other plates of various kinds and thicknesses of Japanese naval armor, they found out the following: (1) The plate, hit by inert 2700-pound US Navy 16" Mark 8 MOD 6 (latest version) AP shells at right-angles, snapped in half at the impact point in both the hit that did not quite penetrate and the hit that completely penetrated. (2) In neither case was the projectile damaged (other than the expected loss of the AP cap and some scratches). This allowed a very good measure of the plate's quality relative to a hypothetical US Class "A" armor plate of the same thickness. (3) The plate was, as all VH plates were, non-cemented (no thin carburized surface layer, as used by most non-Japanese armor of this face-hardened kind), yet the lack of this thin super-hard surface layer did not change anything. This was actually true for all face-hardened armor by WWII due to the superior AP shells in use, but only Japan had the courage to delete the expensive thin face layer added over the thick deep face behind it. Such a thin surface layer was destroyed by the high-hardness AP caps used by new naval AP projectiles after WWI and the Japanese decided that it did not make sense to keep such a useless layer. Considering Japanese concepts of "tradition", this was amazing! It also was the correct decision and VH armor did not suffer because of it. (4) All Japanese VH armor kept the same face thickness as the previous British-derived Vickers Cemented (VC) armor that they got the use of when KONGO was made prior to WWI in the UK. It did increase the carbon content to a rather high 0.55% to ease hardening of the thick armor and had other improvements, but on the who it used the VC manufacturing methods unchanged. This caused some problems with the plates above 22" (barbette armor thickness), as the breaking of the 26" test plate showed. During WWII, changes in the hardening and tempering methods were found to correct the breakage problem, but no more such armor was being made for ships by then. (5) VC plates had a 35% face thickness (to the point where the softer back layer started), but in most foreign Krupp Cemented-type armors, such numbers (which varied rather a lot!) were only averages and goals, not tight requirements. Not so with the Japanese: ALL, repeat, ALL, Japanese ship-installation (rather than experimental) VH plates of whatever thickness, including the 26" armor (!!!), had EXACTLY 35% face thickness, the best quality control I have ever seen in any armor, period. It seems that the later post-WWII Japanese successes in electronics were not a fluke... The Japanese plate turned out to be 89% as good in steel quality compared to the latest US naval armor steel, if a plate of that thickness of Class "A" armor had been made with a 35% face, instead of the actual 55% face used in US WWII Class "A" armor. This made it the best WWI-era non-cemented armor and, for that matter, one of the best WWI-era face-hardened-type armors of any kind whatsoever. Indeed, a couple of experimental plates made of VH armor using different face thicknesses and heat treatments when tested by both the US and UK after WWII were found to be THE BEST PLATES EVER TESTED BY THOSE PROVING GROUNDS!!!! And, the two testing facilities could not figure out why this was true, which seems to me an admission that they really do not know how face-hardened armor works. I figured out that lack of understanding in my studies, too, but these reports were official navy documents, which shows some "guts" to make such an admission...
The quality and the thickness of the armor was not the failure point. Well, the thickness kind of was because they couldn't weld such thick armor belts so they decided to bolt them in. And after tests when a large amount of bolts failed, they were afraid to report it so the problem was not fixed and the ships were destroyed to the weak points of bolts and related leaks.
As a concrete datapoint, the oldest ship we know the name of is from the Egyptian Eighteenth Dynasty (1550-1600 BC). She was called the "Wild Bull", and appears in the journal of Ahmose, son of Abana.
I am sure that boats have been named since hominids found out that logs could be hollowed out to take them across water. To this day people have names for their cars. It is just a thing humans do. We name things to personalise them.
@@808bigisland Assuming that was indeed its name and not just the type of boat it was, or that it even existed at all (the flood definitely happened, the geological record supports that fact, but the Ark is another story).
@@z3r0_35 There were many flood events in the black sea and fertile crescent aera. I ve seen Neolithic dugouts. Neanderthal crossed from Gibraltar to Morocco. Indonesia, Australia was settled by boat repeatedly 40000 years ago. At age five I built my first raft, sailed single-hand dinghies. Sail on vintage Polynesian canoes, vintage schooner, racers and boat the pacific today. Ocean crossings are feasible with very basic equipment and Polynesian style navigation. Sumeria was a river civilisation. Bog floats made of Reed are likely there.
I have watched this a few time but today I woke up to this episode playing from a night of autoplay..... UA-cam knows me well and pretty much autoplayed 3 prior drydocks as I was sleeping. I enjoy the content in my sleep and in the day time. You have 100% achieved what you wanted to do with long form content
I'd imagine a lot of high-ranking Admirals were concerned with their legacy and possible impact an history. But being on the top of the google results for "incompetend Admiral" was surly not what most had in mind.
Brass cases for obturation (sealing of the beach) were common in German artillery of all sorts, both at sea and in land. Even German army's the 80 cm Schwerer Gustav double railway gun had such casings. Thanks for another great Drydock, Drach!
I was lucky enough (if you want to call it that) to assist a work party in clearing the forecastle deck of such cases, on a far smaller scale (5”x54) quite soon after firing stopped. It’s amazing how much heat those cases retain even after 2-3 minutes after firing. I’d think there would be some type of handling equipment for cases that required manual clearing them, even if it was only minimal handling to pitch them overboard. I wish I had saved a few of them for other purposes, “trench art” so to speak. The base of a 5” case cut off to 3” in height make wonderful ash trays, I’m sure the more talented fellows could polish and engrave them to beautiful things, rather than scrapping or deep sixing them
@@Zephyrmec Sounds like quite the adventure, Zephyrmec. As I recall, many artillerists were issued gloves, often partly made of asbestos! Safe hands bad lungs. Thanks for your service!
It was interesting when You mentioned Ships names. You mentioned HMS Bellerophon. A Relative of Mine was in command of the Bellerophon under Admiral Nelson at the Battle of the Nile. Later Admiral Henry D'Esterre Darby. Nelson wrote this to Him as they were both recovering from wounds suffered in the battle. "My Dear Darby, I grieve for your heavy loss of Brave fellows, but look at our glorious Victory. We will give you every assistance as soon as you join us, till then God Bless You. Ever yours faithfully," Horatio Nelson We shall both I trust soon get well. - Admiral Nelson, 3 August 1798. My Mothers Maiden name was Darby as well as My Middle name.
I was on the SSN 705. We never did the string thing but we could tell depth changes just by sound. Like there was a crosswise catwalk that would make creaking noises passing 400 ft.
Was on the Hyman G Dickover SSN 709, Mount penis SSN 765, and the come fuck me blue SSBN 737. On one of them I used to watch the tile curl in the athwartships passageway. Oh and that sound wasn't "hull pop". The official term was "modular shift".
The figure seen on the Ski Jump on both Prince of Wales and Queen Elizabeth is the ship's chaplain. The chaplain on queen Elizabeth can be seen in most shots of the ship entering Portsmouth - usually at the centre of a group on the Ski Jump and sometimes alone and holding a tree branch/wooden staff.
well, Beatty being first in your google results says something about you I guess - for me it's Admiral Ozzel (the guy that got killed by Vader in Episode V for letting basically the entire Rebellion escape Hoth), which says something about me lol
I somehow got Admiral Hackett. Some curious digging found that he's from Mass Effect 3, a game I have never played, owned, searched about or interacted with... what the hell Google?
00:00:30 Yeah... In this particular war Korean force was filled with grossly incompetent generals admirals who did absolutely nothing against battle-hardened Japanese invading forces, only saved by Japanese forces' overextension, Chinese Dynasty's colossal reinforcements and, off course, admiral Yi's great bravery and competence. In fact admiral Yi gained more respect from enemy Japanese rather than from fellow Korean themselves, so much so that before the battle of Tsushima Admiral Togo prayed for victory to Yi, who was regarded by Japanese as a kind of martial deity... Japanese navy genuinely thought that Yi is the best admiral ever in entire Eastern Asian history!
I don't think I have heard you asked whether you are a sailor. For me, it is a sublime pleasure in life to cruise around the Chesapeake Bay. Sailing at night is a special kind of pleasure, as one may more easily drift back in time, sharing experiences of sailors 3 or 400 years ago Drach, I've been meaning to compliment you on the the improvements you've been making, particularly the indexed questions on the timer at the bottom of the screen and including those below the video in the description.
Fantastic video as always Drach. Not meaning to be difficult, just wanted to point out for the sake of overlap and extra work that you answered two questions here that you answered on the live stream as well. One was about the Leonardo Da Vinci and I can't remember the 2nd one but I'm sure someone else will spot it. Two thoughts from this spectacular marathon of a Q@A. 1) As far as the HMS Victory that foundered in a storm. Any chance that someone or some organization in England at that time kept track of particularly nasty storms that brewed up ?? We know the date that the Victory sank which helps alot. Maybe you could try and use that as a way to figure out how bad this storm was to sink a 1st rate. 2) Using Live Oak to make the framing and ribs of the Six Frigates was a brilliant move but Live Oak is exceptionally hard to work. It dulls tools really quickly and grows in really weird and wonderful shapes. The first working parties sent into the swamps to cut the trees to a man contracted disease. And having each Frigate built in a different yard did result in each one being rather unique and different then its sisters. USS United States was i believe known as "The old covered wagon" because she was an ungainly ship.
Yes except he leaves out part that when RKKF recieved Royal Sovereign their reports that ship was in horrible state and the machinery was way too heavily worn
"The world wonders." I think that the explanation here is that somehow Seymour got caught in a time warp and was transported from Jutland in 1916 to Leyte Gulf in 1944.
Maybe this particular communications specialist didn't get along with his admiral and intentially made the "mistake" to indirectly throw some shade at Admiral Halsey. ^^
The "staff" is the "mace" carried by the Drum Major of the pipe band. In one scene, the snare drums are lined up across the front of the flight deck, with the Drum Major to their right, mace in hand. For a better picture of him: ua-cam.com/video/2ksG63oUR_Q/v-deo.html
You do a great job. Most students today can’t read. I know whereof what I speak. I teach. You are creating what my poor English calls a “narrative” which even my most challenged students readily grasp. You are at least keeping the lamp of learning alight, all be it dimly by my 1950’s standards. Many thanks.
I found this channel by accident and now I am addicted. Holy crap Battleships are SO much cooler than tanks. Here in the U.S. we have something called Battleship Cove in Fall River, MA. I am going to plan a trip to see one of these things in real life. Love this channel!
That is home to the USS MASSACHUSETTS. There were 4 of that class and the USS ALABAMA,(of that class) is berthed at MOBILE, ALABAMA. I have been to both BATTLESHIPS in my lifetime.
WWII’s greatest Coast Guard hour, Signalman 1stClass Douglas A Monroe. Or that time with Grenades and 1911s! I think the Fulmar would have made a decent torpedo or carrier-based bomber.
I got excited when I saw the question about the da Vinci in the index, but, at that time mark, in the audio, is a second question about bulbous bows. I have been looking into the attempted salvage of the da Vinci, the RM's wish list for how it was to be rebuilt, and the resulting cost escalation, due to the feature creep.
"Has technology ever advanced in" ran into this playing Harpoon on PC back in the 90's lost the entire fleet to russian missiles but my Battle ship kept on chugging, got in gun range finally and sank everything , bit of a pyrrhic victory
Tuna noodle "hotdish", the bane of lunchrooms. Sadly, it can exist Which is poetic considering it was for why and how the jumbled phrase "the world wonders" fitting into the message.
"We have to go out, we don't have to come back." Was the original creed of the old Lifeguard Service which was folded in with the Treasury Service to become the Coast Guard.
Right now, this is my staple viewing / listening. I like to be reasonably knowledgeable on most things. Now I know a good amount on Warships. What's not to like.
I would think that the real impetus for the adoption of snorkels on subs was airborne radar. A snorkel represents a significantly smaller radar cross section than a conning tower which would be exposed while recharging on the surface. Use of a snorkel in the vicinity of sonar would require giving up the three dimesnional advantages in sub maneuvering.
wrt to the question about DD guns with fixed or semi-fixed ammo at 56:37, eons ago, I saw a training film on the 5"/38, with it's semi-fixed ammo, in the all singing, all dancing, enclosed turret with integral ammo hoist. iirc, there were two men: one drops the propellant in the loading tray, the other drops the shell in the loading tray, then the rammer pushes both in together. The film explained the choice of semi-fixed ammo: crew fatigue. By breaking the load into two pieces, they kept the weight of each piece down, so the loaders could keep loading longer without becoming exhausted. 5"/38 shells weigh about 55lbs and the propellant about 30lbs. I pity the guys that had to load a 5"/25, because it's fixed rounds weighed 80lbs.
I’m always surprised that no one thinks to point out Admiral Halsey! Of course the allied victory at the Battle of Leyte covers a myriad of faults but Halsey’s running off to chase a Japanese distraction leaving the landing forces vulnerable was an exceptional dereliction of duty!
Yeah, you can say Admiral Halsey was an idiot in hindsight. However, those carriers posed a significant threat. There may have only been 100 planes altogether on those carriers but Halsey didn't know that. I think Halsey's problem was that he was just getting old. And the war, although the US was close to winning the war, was just getting to be a little too much for him. And he was going after what he saw as a significant threat. Which 100 planes, unchecked could do a bit of damage. But he should have left behind some battleships to guard the straight.
He was ready and willing to leave some battleships behind but when he transmitted this, everyone took it as he'd already done so and thus didn't tell him he needed to so he didn't. Halsey did make big mistakes but nothing nearly close to the scale of those made by the people on that list Drach gave.
For the first question, it's Won Gyun, pronounced Gyoon. Also, Won is his family name so he should be referred to as Admiral Won :) edit: although he was the furthest admiral from winning anything but eh
The Japanese Type 3 Shrapnel/Incendiary shells used timed fuzes for air bursts to give widespread damage, had a small Shimose (Japanese term for British Lyddite explosive) fragmentation bomb in its base in addition to the huge number of "Roman Candle" incendiary tubes filling most of its insides, and, while AA potential was indeed negligible, they were VERY EFFECTIVE shore bombardment weapons against exposed things like aircraft or other unprotected flammable equipment within range of naval gunfire. When KIROSHIMA was destroyed by WASHINGTON after hitting SOUTH DAKOTA a few times, KIRISHIMA had its hoists initially loaded with either Type 3 or Type 4 nose-fuzed HE shells for a major shore-bombardment attack, so most hits on SOUTH DAKOTA were from those shells, which did rather little damage, until the Japanese ship could "clear its throat" and finally get some Type 91 AP shells into its guns, and even then only got a single hit with one of those before WASHINGTON blew it out of the water. This single AP hit was against the aft main armament barbette of SOUTH DAKOTA that is one of the most unusual, though somewhat minimal in its final effects, hits by an AP shell on an enemy warship that ever happened, to my knowledge. As a shore-bombardment shell, however, when combined with Type 4 HE shells with instantaneous impact nose fuzes and, if hitting protected things like buried shell/bomb magazines, the Type 91 AP shells, Type 3 shells were rather effective weapons.
On the Darings the 4.5 turrets are certainly between deck mounts, they have shell handling rooms, hoists and magazines below them feeding through the deck in to the turret. Exactly the same mount was the standard twin 4.5 mount used up until the single, automatic Mk 8 mount was introduced on the Type 42 Destroyer and Type 21 Frigate. The bofors and torpedo tubes are deck mounted, the Squid anti submarine mortar is between the two, while the actual mount is deck mounted the magazine and handling room is below deck and comes up in to a deck house.
Great work Drak. However, you’re wrong about the Fulmar. To be fair, a lot of people are but the Fulmar was actually very effective kite and had a one to one ratio against land based fighters. Most of its losses where against defensive fire from bombers due to them having to close to suicidal ranges to defeat the armour as they only had .303s.
I always differ battlecrusiers and battleships by their intended opponents. Battlecrusiers should be built primarily to fight targets smaller than itself most notably cruisers. Battleships should be built primarily to combat other battleships
When he said it I looked over at my 1 gallon can. Maybe a couple cans sprayed evenly throughout, and a couple rounds fired, would shake the rust loose.
Down Periscope is an awesome movie if you want a light comedy/adventure flick, AND the production company did in fact help restore the submarine used in the film, USS Pampanito, to become a museum ship currently located in San Francisco.
OK, that was an awesome answer to my question! (+2 points for also pronouncing my name correctly!) From the sounds of the state of Royal Sovereign, it almost sounds like it would have been better to let the Russians keep it!!
There have been a lot of rumours and stories over the years that the ship was in a much worse state then just the turrets being stuck. Neglect including watertight doors either stuck open or closed, rooms which definetly weren't latrines being used as latrines, hull damage suggesting it had been beached, burnt out and never repaired electrics, boilers in such a poor state that the ship was probably only capable of half it's design speed safely. etc. We may never know which items are true or which are made up digs at the Soviets... But with a ship as obsolete the RN probably didn't need much of a reason to scrap the thing, after all they scrapped the recently modernised and still very capable Renown.
@@godalmighty83 she was lent for five years and returned at the end of five years. yes, she was in a poor state, but there was never any intention of returning her to service. Consider that far more capable ships, Renown, Valiant and Queen Elizabeth had already gone to the scrap yard by this date.
As always, most interesting and informative and above all, very enjoyable. One of my grandchildren has started watching these with me, he enjoys your style as much as I do. Thank you for including Admiral Beatty. As a career naval officer, I couldn’t agree more, plus, anyone who makes false entries to burnish his reputation should be dismissed rather than made commander of the fleet. Being Italian, we are taught a slightly different perspective on the Punic wars. Rome defeated the Carthaginian Navy by devising means to bring their land power to sea. It should also be noted that the Romans did not use slaves, instead depending on sailors and Marines, which I think gave them a decided advantage over the slave rowed Carthaginian ships. The Romans also had to control the sea lanes to safely move their troops across the Mediterranean especially for the second and third wars, in this they were most successful.
Cranes are a pretty recent addition on ships, there may have been used to launch float planes. On proper ships it was all derricks, and the boom at the base of a mast is your derrick, so already at hand, may require some additional rigging,
Okay Thank I’ll ythank your you for sure thankful wlove goodness thank we are your thoughts are so thoughtful fup it of yme your efor the best subtleties I’ve always been happy to see your isto you own family love me thank us love for Roy you to and I are You she it thank us love love for your you happy happy memories of happiness love thank us love love happiness thank each thank for hrthe lasted few days ago when us was hweeks and blessings to tof Sharon week planting to jd with you you and still enjoy the ecan I
I would imagine that any message starting with "Hi Everybody" would decode in a message full of in incomprehensible so-called medical terminology, full of quack claims and number of attempts to promote a juice loosener.
PART 2 Here is what seemed to have happened (simplified), from my study. When the first armored seagoing warships came into being in 1859-1850 (British WARRIOR and French GOIRE) and, very shortly thereafter, were a huge part of the naval battles in the US during its Civil War of 1861-1865, the armored warsdhip made the old wooden warships totally obsolete in a "flash". New armor-piercing ammunition had to be devised to punch through the heavier ship armor of the enemy warship's gun mounts and hull, since it quickly became obvious during the US Civil War that the old spherical cannot balls of either cast iron or wrought iron no longer "cut it" (literally in many cases). The elongated cylindrical projectile, originally with a flat nose but rapidly that changed to oval or, more often pointed for better drag reduction and longer range and better thick armor penetration performance, replaced the cannon ball, and the improved metallurgy and heat treatment of cast iron (Palliser and Grüson chilled cast iron) projectiles and, later, steel projectiles, which were stronger. So now you had projectiles that could punch holes in the enemy armor much like the old cannon balls could punch holes in the thick wooden sides of the old sailing "Ships of the Line". Also, chilled cast iron projectiles and, originally but less and less as steel-manufacturing expertise improved, any shells that penetrated the thicker armored regions would be broken into pieces while going through the plate. Then, in the 1890s, the French invented the much-stronger and less brittle nickel-steel armor, the US invented Harveyized (cemented/carburized on a thin, but extremely hard, face layer using mild or, better, nickel-steel) and, finally, German Krupp created an even stronger nickel-chromium low-carbon steel of maximum strength (even after WWII it was not improved much) that could be deep-face-hardened (plus in most cases the Harveryized surface added too) forming Krupp "Type 420" (test plate number in 1894) armor steel and "Krupp Cemented" (KC) armor, the basis of heavy naval side armor until the end of the Ironclad Era circa 1945-1950. These face-hardened armor and even, when very thick, homogeneous, ductile armors could again break up impacting projectiles whether they penetrated or not, much of the time. The invention of the "AP Cap" (thick, originally soft-steel, nose protection that could keep projectile intact, sometimes at least, when penetrating face-hardened armor at a low angle from right-angles impact -- 15-20 degrees was about maximum originally, though some improved soft-capped designs could handle 30 degrees against thinner face-hardened plate) again allowed intact penetration of even face-hardened plate and the use of moderately large (up to maybe 4% by weight in some cases) high explosive fillers to be added with some hiope that the fillers would increase the internal damage to the enemy warship (for example, Germany used solid shot in its AP shells until adding AP caps in 1902 since they realized that any explosive filler was almost useless and just made the projectile body weaker by making a huge interior hole in it.) As such, during the latter part of the 19th Century, an AP projectile (effectively AP shot, no matter what filler might have been used, that broke up during penetration) had its primary purpose to punch holes in the outer armor of the enemy target and send fragments of the shell and armor into the target as shrapnel radiating from the back surface of the hole just made (quite effective against gun mounts!). Ship hulls countered this by adding internal thinly-armored "protective/splinter plating" bulkheads and "protective decks" to soak up these fragments, including putting coal bunkers behind the belt armor, which worked extremely well at this. As this was the typical result, there was no reason to try to make an HE-filled AP projectile that could penetrate more than the outer armor and, hopefully, remain intact just long enough for a non-delay base fuze (circa 0.003-second due to inertia) to blow up during or just after penetrating the outer armor, increasing the damage there, though not doing much better deeper into the enemy warship behind its internal light layers of protection. END OF PART 2
The layout of Borodino's main armament was indeed something of a Russian habit. It was called the Cuniberti layout after its Italian creator. Vittorio Cuniberti's groundbreaking article in the 1903 Jane's called for an "all-big-gun" fighting ship with 12 12-inch main guns, and he proposed thick armor. His concepts fit right in with much of progressive naval thinking. Italy;s first dreadnought, Cuniberti layout (laid down in 1909). The Russians claimed that they came up with the layout themselves, but given the similarity of the two designs, I have my doubts.
Re Excessive brass cartridges in turrets. A mechanical carousel-type rotating door could be an option for removing the brass with reduced exposure time to the turret. A mechanical device would allow for very heavy armored doors. It could be a physical strain or time-consuming for sailors. Not to rotate the carousel but to securely lock the doors very securely when not rotating and could be faster than manual locking. Possibly like the rotating locks that separate parts of the ship from flooding or blasts between sections but with greater. But the door could have heavier armor than most doors on ships. Rather than using rods for the locking a larger and heavier block could be used on all 4 sides of the door. Or could be a circular door depending on design preferences. An option for a round door would be like a circular water drain as used on streets that only open one way. A strong lock would not be needed and may be a more simple and reliable option. A rotating carousel door could also be used with a circular hatch. A round door could protect the crew from outside blasts. A circular door could be used for pressure release from internal blasts. But the turret crew would likely die anyway. Having a blast panel like the Abrams tank uses for its ammunition could reduce the blast going down under the turret and the ammunition rooms. The powder and ammunition rooms could be better protected with a one-way door to reduce blasts from turrets. I am not sure what doors are already in use. So they likely have effective blast doors. And modern guns are much more mechanically operated. Reducing the need for crews in turrets and ammunition magazines. And a blast release door on the turret could still be used. I am sure they have very good systems but was just brainstorming. Maybe Drachinifel has better information on blast protection. Could Mr Drachenfel talk about the effectiveness of British and US anti-piracy and anti-slavery operations in Africa and how effective the operations were in the 1800s including the battle for Tripoli to save European slaves and hostages? How did Julius Caesar kill the pirates in Africa that captured him for slavery?
When referring to the Higgins boat (LCVP) it was typically made of plywood, however the ramp was steel. The British landing craft (LCA) was armoured with steel plate in various places for added protection, but to describe either of these craft as biscuit tins seems a little incorrect in my opinion.
Notes concerning modern warship technology that greatly influence the fact that you do not want an enemy to get its hands on your warships. First, as noted, they might find out about your ship's capabilities that it did not know about before. This is due to the fact that, in the Age of Sail, ship design and weapon tech was not hidden since it really could not be (everything was exposed and, other than the size of the guns on a ship, there was nothing that was very "revolutionary" about your equipment compared to an enemy's). Starting in the mid19th Century, this all changed by the fact that advances in technology could give your ships an advantage that COULD be hidden until suddenly revealed to an enemy, even such revolutionary things as entire armored ship designs during the US Civil War, which you would think would be difficult to hide, but MONTOR sure surprised VIRGINIA when it suddenly showed up "just in the nick of time". This can of course be the reverse and demonstrate that your equipment is inferior in important ways (Russians finding out that German tank technology at the start of WWII was so inferior -- they thought that they were being tricked). Second, the internal capabilities of naval fire-control and weapon tech, even when displayed to others can have internal capabilities that the potential enemy does not even understand how to evaluate as an advantage to you. For example, Japanese Type 91 AP ammo with its "diving" underwater hit capability (somewhat overrated, to be sure, but even if you saw the shells sitting right in front of you, you would not know it could do that). More important, the introduction of AC power aboard your warships to allow electronic circuits with extremely superior ability to send and receive very precise information around the ship from sensors or from the fire-control calculators to the weapons mounts -- US Synchro/Sensyn "multi-speed" data transmission devices and German Magnetic Amplifiers for the same purpose using AC electrical power to allow the US to develop during WWII completely "untouched by human hands" Remote Power Control capabilities that had the data be amplified WITHOUT INCREASING THE ERRORS AS HAD PREVIOUSLY OCCRRED WITH SUCH AMPLIFICATION so that the signal could be directly input into the controls to aim things like heavy armored gun turrets to accuracies BETTER THAN the typical human could do in a manual "follow-the-point" scheme where the person operating the mount controls had to "eyeball" the data indicators shown to him and try keep accurately up with its changes by hand. Even if an enemy found out that you were changing over some of the power in a warship to AC from the older universal DC previously used, that enemy would have to already be knowledgeable about such new communication tech to realize what you are doing to create a superior system over his still-DC systems. Thus, in modern times, one of your ships being captured could give the enemy LOTS of "new tech" he hadn't even thought of, which is a big danger to you.
The germans wanted bigger guns, because the newer british dreadnoughts were getting thicker armor. The 12 inch guns were fine for the pre Revenge and Queen Elizabeth classes. Not because the guns proved to be bad. I dont need to be one of these "fanboys" to realise that.
I think one other reason medium and heavy bombers were converted to carry torpedoes was due to the ineffectiveness of level bombing, particularly from medium to high altitudes, against ships underway. This also led to tactics like skip-bombing.
Borodinos look like the Blackseas Dreadnought project... except they tried to actually build them. Overly ambitious... with ignoring pretty much capabilities of their own shipyards, costs... and the use for it. Yeah no, we can not build the guns or the turbines in numbers we want ourself, and order them from foreign powers... we are pretty much in an economic crisis for 20 years, but let's go spending for battlecruisers.Also, while we are doing that, let's order ships, that are already way more expensive, than the Duma approved funds! And will probably rise further due to a tiny bit of internal corruption.
The Halifax explosion is still the biggest man-made non-nuclear explosion at 2.9kt, even beating the 2.7kt explosion in Beirut this week (and the 2.7kt of ammonium nitrate probably equates to a smaller weight of TNT, to be picky).
Did the British not fake a nuclear explosion in Australia to convince the Americans that Britain could build their own A-bomb and thereby allowed the US to share 'secrets' including the results of the TubeAlloys project?
Although I was never really a naval wargamer (Triremes and some WW2 Navwar plus a box of unpainted Ironclads) , I enjoy these videos and I find things that I didnt expect to find interesting every time.
I understand that Admiral King was an Anglophobe in World War 2, but I had always thought his World War 1 equivalent, Admiral Sims, was an Anglophile. Was the concern of the Royal Navy over the US Navy post-war expressed during the discussion of the scuttling of the High Seas Fleet in Scapa Flow a concern over a potential foe or just naval staff and administrators expressing a desire to maintain their budgets?
A couple of comments in the second hour. The American 6"/47 had a rate of fire of 8-10 rounds per minute, while the British 6" was 6-8 rounds per minute and the Japanese 155 mm was 5-6 rounds per minute. Compare this with 3-4 rounds per minute for the 8" guns in all three navies, and it's apparent that the US gets a lot more out of their light cruisers than either of the other two. Spacing REALLY depends on the commander of the squadron. Callaghanvtook his squadron into a tion on November 13th with 700 yards between cruisers, 500 yards between destroyers, and 800 yards separating the cruiser force from the destroyer groups on each end of the line. Two days later, Lee had his destroyers at a comparable spacing but 5,000 yards between them and the two battleships, which were (IIRC) separated by about 1,000 yards.
I also Googled “Incompetent Admiral” and it was King first and Beatty second. You spoke at length about Admiral King in another video and to me it seems he was a good admiral.
Pinned post for Q&A :)
Do you think the kriegsmarine could have been able to defeat the soviet navy in ww2 in a straight up gunfight a la jutland?
Of the surviving WW2 battleships today is USS Massachusetts the only one to have engaged another battleship? And if so what other surviving museum ships from WW2 have engaged or sunk Battleships in ship to ship surface actions?
Its often said the the Iowa class ships did not perform their intended task of fighting enemy warships, however did the the Iowa's sink any warships in surface actions during WW2?
What are your thoughts on Submarine aircraft carriers (if produce in mass and successfully championed by Yamamoto) and its possible impacts on the Pacific theater of WW2?
In reality how useful where rebuilt WW1 battleships? For example, had Hms Queen Elizabeth been going into the battle of Denmark strait instead of Hms Prince of Wales would the Battle have ended better?
I really appreciate you not putting commercials in these videos you make. I watch your videos to go to sleep, and a commercial in the middle of it would literally prevent me from watching your content. I don’t watch your content to go to sleep because it’s boring and puts me to sleep, but rather I find it quite interesting, and you a fantastic orator. It’s basically listening to a extremely well spoken man talking about stories of warboats and everything related to warboats (warships*😅), perfect bedtime story for a full-grown man. Thank you sir, not only does it help me but because I generally get through about 20 minutes of content before falling asleep, I end up watching every episode about four or five times, giving you 4 to 5 times the view count 😉
This! Absolutely this!
Many thanks to YOU as well for giving such a precise and eloquent description of (consequently) my thoughts and engagement with Drach's wonderful content too!
I personally agree, but my gf complains he makes her sleepy.
I will second that, I'm the Crusher or Cuck Crushers, so when I'm not spending up to 6 hours crushing cuck crushers, then it's hard for me to sleep with all this energy, and you Sir are the only one that can help put this beast to sleep.
Me too. I love military history, and I appreciate the content. But the reading is very calming.
“C’mon Texas!!!” BB-35 USS Texas
Lol i do the same 😂
As a submariner myself, in relation to your pressure effects on submarines I will tell a story. So we have a milk machine, just a small fridge that contains a bag of milk, well below a certain depth that I'm not at liberty to say we were unable to change our milk bag out because a pipe would be compressed just enough to prevent us from opening the door to this "cow" as we call it. Quite a funny thing to show new guys as the come aboard and go underway their first time.
Cows, dogs and bug juice machines, gotta love them.
Thank you for standing the watch!
"Whatever you do, if we are below *couth*m, do not go take a drink!"
@@AtomicBabel ok, i know what bug juice is, and now a cow, but what is a dog?
@@giovannicorbarigasparini5352 the ice cream machine.
@@giovannicorbarigasparini5352 picture chocolate ice cream dispensing into a bowl. 🐕
the bit about incompetent admirals, talking about Japan vrs Korea. It's worth noting, about Admiral Yi Sun Sin, that _after_ being handed the command of a massively decimated Korean navy and told to stop Japan (for the SECOND time that conflict - the majority of the Korean navy got taken out in the initial Japanese attack) Yi pulled it off. Again. probably the GOAT for naval commanders.
Indeed, even Admiral Togo said being touted as the Nelson of the East was a fair assessment, but would never agree to being compared to Admiral Yi, as according to him, Yi had no equal
Myeongyang really was something in the annals of naval history; normally quantity trumps quality, especially with a 10:1 numerical advantage plus a mobility advantage, but thanks to Yi's very clever use of tidal currents and positioning, Yi's 13 vessels were able to fend off 133 Japanese warship plus over 200 Japanese support craft (sinking 31 of the 133 warships in the process).
@@bkjeong4302 With better guns against an enemy built around boarding, all you really need to do is keep them at a safe distance! He had one advantage and did everything possible to amplify it.
@@RobinTheBot which is what a good commander should do.
@@RobinTheBot Didnt work for Carthage.
Rescue flotilla 1. Ifyou ask me, anyone willing to run unarmed and unarmmored into a fire fight to pull people out is a special kind of brave.
Re: Blowout panels in gun turrets
There's another key difference to tanks that you sort of touched on, and that I think is important. On a tank's turret, the blowout panel is for the ammunition storage only, not for the entire turret. The ammunition is in its own little compartment, usually in the back of the turret, and separated from the crew compartment by substantial bulkheads or blast doors. These will only open briefly during the loading process, and otherwise remain closed in combat. The ammunition can burn and explode inside its compartment, rupture the blowout panels, and heat up the bulkhead/doors considerably - but the crew remains protected from the fire and explosion itself.
In a ship's turret, the gun crew is in the same general space as the shells and charges they're currently loading (and which could explode in case of detonation). Blowout panels might reduce damage to turret and its components, but I doubt they would do much for the crew.
Nah, you put the blowout panels down in the magazines. Make them sort of self-flooding.
@@mcguirecrsr the issue with this is tanks carry between 50 to 100 rounds
In ships the main battery carry around 120-150 rounds per gun in a single magazine and are literally 4x the size and blast.
@@bengrogan9710 Plus, blowing large panels into the water fast enough is hard. And those panels are armor steel and not small. And they're inboard of things like torpedo defenses, so you'd have to go down, which would break the keel.
I 'spect a magazine explosion would be preferable.
@@mcguirecrsr It takes a lot to say a magazine explosion would be "Preferable" in any circumstance - In real terms the all Barbettes had a blowout panel of sorts in the fact that a magazine detonation would likely throw the turret clear and then pray your ship survived
Other than that I know magazines had flooding valves that could be used in many cases where a fire started which is likely as close as you can get
it seems to me that blowout panels on ships were a choice of "Which leg do you want to get stabbed in?". There is just too much explosive potential in a ship magazine to really mitigate. hopefully you can direct the blast upwards and out, but when several tens of thousands of pounds of explosives/propellant goes off, you're fucked whichever way the coin flips.
Talking about incompetent admirals through history, but only using Beatty’s picture for the whole thing is the correct amount of shade.
Drach failed to mention Won Kyun also scuttled his ENTIRE initial fleet at the start of the Imjin war because he thought a couple of fishing boats were the incoming Japanese. When he finally reversed his order his fleet of over 100 ships was down to 2-3 ships. Imagine the damage Yi could have done if he had 100 more ships.
Edit cause one of my sentences went missing ZZZ.
Must have been a tough choice for Drach, Beatty or Gensoul . . .
Admiral King feels left out. Well, he didn't trust Brits anyway....
I'd say the commander of the Spanish armada takes the cake - losing an entire fleet to a few fireships and some bad but not catastrophic weather. He was a thoroughly inexperienced guy who did have a competent advisor but it didn't work in the end.
Also you had Jacob von Wassenaer Obdam, an army colonel given command of the Dutch fleet in a crisis of unity who oddly enough actually came up with a sound tactical doctrine later successfully implemented by admiral Michiel de Ruyter, but had ill suited ships and no experience to implement it, consequently getting himself killed in one of the worst defeats in Dutch naval history.
Compared to those two any of the admirals Drach listed were experts since they could... sail at least. Of those he listed the worst one was the Korean guy, then Villeneuve (with Mandalzade Hüsameddin Pasha of the Chesma debacle, giving him a run for his money), then Persano. Instead of Beatty who while very flawed was still in quite a few respects competent, Drach should have listed Yevgeny Alekseev, viceroy of Russia's Far East, who had bouts of command over the First Pacific Squadron of the Russian Navy in the Russo-Japanese War, an outright incompetent.
WW2... Tough call all were at least competent, I disagree inclucing Gensoul, his biggest mistake being allowing himself to be surprised through insufficient scouting... Perhaps Angelo Iachino would be my candidate (first Matapan and then failing to press his huge advantages in the Battles of the Sirte). Or Karel Doorman who lost one destroyer wrecked (non-combat loss) and another one lost in one of his own minefields... On the Japanese side Admirals Sentaro Omori (of Empress Augusta Bay debacle), Sadamichi Kajioka (1st attempt to invade the Wake Island debacle), Hiraoki Abe (who messed up the 1st Naval Battle of Guadalcanal although he had superior force) perhaps even Boshiro Hosogoya (for retreating at Komandorski Island) and three certainly competent admirals who made costly mistakes: Chuichi Nagumo Gunichi Mikawa and Takeo Kurita. Probably the Soviets have some good contenders too. Germans: Oskar Kummetz of the Barents Sea debacle, Brits? Dudley Pound (QF-17), Victor Crutchley of the Savo Island debacle. US: Carleton Wright (Tassafaronga debacle), Daniel Callaghan (messed up US plan for the First Naval battle of Guadalcanal, won by sheer luck, but got himself and Adm Norman Scott killed in the process), William Halsey (almost lost the entire invasion of the Philippines in an afternoon). French pretty much have only Gensoul out there to be considered, but many of the listed admirals from other countries were way worse.
Even that shade is still not enough.
He's the human incarnation of the Kamchatca.
You mentioned aircraft laying mines.
The B-29 mine laying missions during WW2 were epic flights that were over 2000 miles round trip with one mind boggling mission done by B-29, Flak Alley Sally, which completed 4400 miles round trip, 19 hours and 40 minutes non stop.
--
Been over dosing on these Drydock episodes! Love ‘em!
I bought a boat when I was a young man. I called up a girl I fancied and told her that I bought a boat and named it after you, come down to the docks and check it out. I called two other girls and told them the same thing. All three showed up at the same time and saw the boat. On the stern was the name, 'After You'.
Awesome! Lol!
@CipiRipi00 whos gonna stop me? You! Ha! Ha!
@CipiRipi00 Ill be around as long as I care to be! Lol!
@CipiRipi00 girls I cheated? What the f are you smokin?
Well played, Sir!
The first named “boat” that was “named” has been covered by Drach, it was “Floaty log.”.. one for the Channel teenagers.
There's possibly another layer to "The world wonders". The Battle of Samar occurred on the anniversary of the Battle of Balaclava (25 October 1854), which is most known for Tennyson's poem "Charge of the Light Brigade". While these lines are pretty far apart in the poem, they're also rhymed and thus relatively easily associated: "Not though the soldier knew/Someone had blundered", "Charging an army while/All the world wondered", "O the wild charge they made!/All the world wondered". If Halsey had made that association, it'd have been an even bigger slap in the face.
I've always wondered if Halsey's radio officer bore a secret grudge. Every single ship in the task force saw the RR and removed the phrase... except for the guy who was showing this to the admiral? Hmm.
@@Ealsante It would be a fairly badly kept secret considering the amount of critical messages Halsey's flag supposedly never received or were transmitted late.
Billy Shakespeare also contributed to 25 October with his King Henry “St Crispans speech” Commander Evans was a combat veteran that had served with the ABCD fleet very early in WWII. Band of brothers echoed in the Battle off Samar.
Well, actually Halsey probably did make the connection which is probably why one of his staff told him to get ahold of himself. My older brother studied that in the 6th grade & taught it to me, 3rd grade. So... an Admiral as old as Halsey, imho, would probably know it by heart, & more than likely make the connection immediately!
as a former signalman (army) it was instantly obvious to me . .......smart ass signalman told to "just put something in" id expect this result😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅
"There seems to be something wrong with our Bloody ships today!"
Perhaps Beatty, but maybe, just maybe, you have a part in this
"Well, well, well. If it isn't the consequences of my own actions." - David Richard Beatty, *never*
Hi Drachinifel, as a Chinese I know there are quite some studies went into the Yalu river fight by Chinese Scholars (as this is one of those painful memory you wouldn’t be able to forget as a Chinese), and I think I might have read one of those long times ago, although I wouldn’t expect them to be translated to English. I wouldn’t be able to physically go and get books on these, but i would certainly happy to help with any language barrier. Always enjoy your drydock episode, keep it up!
Oddly enough, I was just thinking it would be pretty awesome to get Drach to do a special video about the Halifax Disaster. Hearing you call out the action of that Coast Guard cutter cements that desire.
Yes indeed, Drach, that's a N. American WWI merchant marine disaster of huge proportions. (1917). The fire, then explosion in Halifax, Nova Scotia,
when "Imo" crashed into explosives ship "Mont Blanc" with the freighter still afloat, the French ship blown to smithereens and thousands killed- ONSHORE !
"Indy Neidell's Fursona", had me rolling on the floor, well done lads
Someone should be brave and ask him what it is...
That made me laugh too
On his discord server we have a Drachinifel's Fursona
You're welcome
Fursona or persona ??
Incompetent admirals: the 1 common thing with your pick seem to be personal pride over the common good for the fleet in question.
In all my years in public service I'd say this was a killer characteristic in ANY position. I'd also say it is what drives a lot of people to seek advancement and promotion, which means it becomes increasingly common with increasing rank. It should probably be a disqualifying personal trait, but I doubt it ever will be in any civilisation ever.
@@tamlandipper29 0oolllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllo9o9ooooooooooooooooooooooooooo99oooooooooooooooooooooooo9o9ooo9ooooooooo9oo9o lol
That's how all bad officers work. The intelligence to make an adequate decision is not rare. However, personal flaws often get in the way.
Fantastic discourse gentlemen!
Yeah
The story I've read was the "the World Wonders" message to Halsey not due to the decrypt officer but due to a rookie clerk. Once a message was decrypted, everything in the message was included so a message could be verified if a question about it came up. It was then passed on to a clerk typist to type up the message before it went to the recipient(s). IN this case, the rookie didn't realize "The World Wonders" was actually padding so he typed up everything, stuffed it in an envelope, and handed to off to a messenger for delivery. Thus began the small nuclear explosion on the _New Jersey_ .
Nice to see Won Gyun get his time of the spotlight :) Here in Korea he is regarded as the epitome of incompetence and corruption, whereas Admiral Yi is revered as one of the most prominent national heroes.
Probably our most famous military officer ever.......
As a Veteran of the U.S. Coast Guard, I say the biggest contribution during WW II, is the delivery of the fighting forces of the U.S. Marines to the beaches in the Pacific and U.S. Army to the beaches of Normandy and Africa, and Italy has to be the greatest contribution - by far. Medals of Honor were won during the repeated trips made by U.S. Coast Guard coxswain under horrendous enemy fire - often while themselves were wounded as they also evacuated the wounded from those beaches. But let us not argue about this. During WWII, the U.S. Coast Guard was absorbed into the U.S. Navy.
No need to argue. Brave men!
YAMATO's 26" (66cm) Vickers Hardened turret face plates. These plates were the thickest armor plates ever put on a warship. When the SHINANO's unused turret face plates (the one that was turned into the cursed aircraft carrier) were tested at the US Naval Proving Ground, Dahlgren, Virginia, after WWII, along with several other plates of various kinds and thicknesses of Japanese naval armor, they found out the following:
(1) The plate, hit by inert 2700-pound US Navy 16" Mark 8 MOD 6 (latest version) AP shells at right-angles, snapped in half at the impact point in both the hit that did not quite penetrate and the hit that completely penetrated.
(2) In neither case was the projectile damaged (other than the expected loss of the AP cap and some scratches). This allowed a very good measure of the plate's quality relative to a hypothetical US Class "A" armor plate of the same thickness.
(3) The plate was, as all VH plates were, non-cemented (no thin carburized surface layer, as used by most non-Japanese armor of this face-hardened kind), yet the lack of this thin super-hard surface layer did not change anything. This was actually true for all face-hardened armor by WWII due to the superior AP shells in use, but only Japan had the courage to delete the expensive thin face layer added over the thick deep face behind it. Such a thin surface layer was destroyed by the high-hardness AP caps used by new naval AP projectiles after WWI and the Japanese decided that it did not make sense to keep such a useless layer. Considering Japanese concepts of "tradition", this was amazing! It also was the correct decision and VH armor did not suffer because of it.
(4) All Japanese VH armor kept the same face thickness as the previous British-derived Vickers Cemented (VC) armor that they got the use of when KONGO was made prior to WWI in the UK. It did increase the carbon content to a rather high 0.55% to ease hardening of the thick armor and had other improvements, but on the who it used the VC manufacturing methods unchanged. This caused some problems with the plates above 22" (barbette armor thickness), as the breaking of the 26" test plate showed. During WWII, changes in the hardening and tempering methods were found to correct the breakage problem, but no more such armor was being made for ships by then.
(5) VC plates had a 35% face thickness (to the point where the softer back layer started), but in most foreign Krupp Cemented-type armors, such numbers (which varied rather a lot!) were only averages and goals, not tight requirements. Not so with the Japanese: ALL, repeat, ALL, Japanese ship-installation (rather than experimental) VH plates of whatever thickness, including the 26" armor (!!!), had EXACTLY 35% face thickness, the best quality control I have ever seen in any armor, period. It seems that the later post-WWII Japanese successes in electronics were not a fluke...
The Japanese plate turned out to be 89% as good in steel quality compared to the latest US naval armor steel, if a plate of that thickness of Class "A" armor had been made with a 35% face, instead of the actual 55% face used in US WWII Class "A" armor. This made it the best WWI-era non-cemented armor and, for that matter, one of the best WWI-era face-hardened-type armors of any kind whatsoever. Indeed, a couple of experimental plates made of VH armor using different face thicknesses and heat treatments when tested by both the US and UK after WWII were found to be THE BEST PLATES EVER TESTED BY THOSE PROVING GROUNDS!!!! And, the two testing facilities could not figure out why this was true, which seems to me an admission that they really do not know how face-hardened armor works. I figured out that lack of understanding in my studies, too, but these reports were official navy documents, which shows some "guts" to make such an admission...
The quality and the thickness of the armor was not the failure point. Well, the thickness kind of was because they couldn't weld such thick armor belts so they decided to bolt them in. And after tests when a large amount of bolts failed, they were afraid to report it so the problem was not fixed and the ships were destroyed to the weak points of bolts and related leaks.
Multiple torpedo strikes especially rudder areas - what ya going to do now ?
One of the best war historians for anyone that enjoys all war history from Egypt to England’s HMS line of Warships.
As a concrete datapoint, the oldest ship we know the name of is from the Egyptian Eighteenth Dynasty (1550-1600 BC). She was called the "Wild Bull", and appears in the journal of Ahmose, son of Abana.
I am sure that boats have been named since hominids found out that logs could be hollowed out to take them across water. To this day people have names for their cars. It is just a thing humans do. We name things to personalise them.
@@stephaniewilson3955 Might want to read it again. It's the oldest ship that we KNOW the name of.
@@z3r0_35 Ark. Sumerian flood story. 1600-1800 BCE. Maybe a little older.
@@808bigisland Assuming that was indeed its name and not just the type of boat it was, or that it even existed at all (the flood definitely happened, the geological record supports that fact, but the Ark is another story).
@@z3r0_35 There were many flood events in the black sea and fertile crescent aera. I ve seen Neolithic dugouts. Neanderthal crossed from Gibraltar to Morocco. Indonesia, Australia was settled by boat repeatedly 40000 years ago. At age five I built my first raft, sailed single-hand dinghies. Sail on vintage Polynesian canoes, vintage schooner, racers and boat the pacific today. Ocean crossings are feasible with very basic equipment and Polynesian style navigation. Sumeria was a river civilisation. Bog floats made of Reed are likely there.
I have watched this a few time but today I woke up to this episode playing from a night of autoplay..... UA-cam knows me well and pretty much autoplayed 3 prior drydocks as I was sleeping. I enjoy the content in my sleep and in the day time. You have 100% achieved what you wanted to do with long form content
My grandpa was a merchant mariner in ww2 and I'm sure the coast guard made him feel safer. Thanks for the mention of the unsung heroes.
I'd imagine a lot of high-ranking Admirals were concerned with their legacy and possible impact an history. But being on the top of the google results for "incompetend Admiral" was surly not what most had in mind.
Lists to avoid. Easiest way to avoid it is being an high ranking admiral.
@@magnemoe1 i9no9ninonnnionnnnon9niion9nionnnionnninoinoninoko9iniin99inionononnokoninok9inino9inniin999nionninoninonninon9innon99ninokoninonino9inioi9non99iiniinnok9nninoinion9ininiin9iiniinonninooinnpo9oni9ni
@@magnemoe1 joining 99 milk onion olm ininionnn
In
"surly not what most had in mind"
Surly to bed, Surly to writhe...
Brass cases for obturation (sealing of the beach) were common in German artillery of all sorts, both at sea and in land. Even German army's the 80 cm Schwerer Gustav double railway gun had such casings. Thanks for another great Drydock, Drach!
I was lucky enough (if you want to call it that) to assist a work party in clearing the forecastle deck of such cases, on a far smaller scale (5”x54) quite soon after firing stopped. It’s amazing how much heat those cases retain even after 2-3 minutes after firing. I’d think there would be some type of handling equipment for cases that required manual clearing them, even if it was only minimal handling to pitch them overboard. I wish I had saved a few of them for other purposes, “trench art” so to speak. The base of a 5” case cut off to 3” in height make wonderful ash trays, I’m sure the more talented fellows could polish and engrave them to beautiful things, rather than scrapping or deep sixing them
@@Zephyrmec Sounds like quite the adventure, Zephyrmec. As I recall, many artillerists were issued gloves, often partly made of asbestos! Safe hands bad lungs. Thanks for your service!
It was interesting when You mentioned Ships names. You mentioned HMS Bellerophon. A Relative of Mine was in command of the Bellerophon under Admiral Nelson at the Battle of the Nile. Later Admiral Henry D'Esterre Darby. Nelson wrote this to Him as they were both recovering from wounds suffered in the battle. "My Dear Darby, I grieve for your heavy loss of Brave fellows, but look at our glorious Victory. We will give you every assistance as soon as you join us, till then God Bless You.
Ever yours faithfully,"
Horatio Nelson
We shall both I trust soon get well.
- Admiral Nelson, 3 August 1798. My Mothers Maiden name was Darby as well as My Middle name.
I was on the SSN 705. We never did the string thing but we could tell depth changes just by sound. Like there was a crosswise catwalk that would make creaking noises passing 400 ft.
Was on the Hyman G Dickover SSN 709, Mount penis SSN 765, and the come fuck me blue SSBN 737. On one of them I used to watch the tile curl in the athwartships passageway. Oh and that sound wasn't "hull pop". The official term was "modular shift".
Sunday after a shift of 12 hours isolated emergency care in 32c Temperatures clothed in plastics, drydock delivers as usual :)
Greetings from your American brother. I went straight to bed though. Watching before shift. 11 bed critical access emergency room.
You're getting paid, stop complaining....
@@ami2evil Sometimes it does not feel like it really, but true
The figure seen on the Ski Jump on both Prince of Wales and Queen Elizabeth is the ship's chaplain. The chaplain on queen Elizabeth can be seen in most shots of the ship entering Portsmouth - usually at the centre of a group on the Ski Jump and sometimes alone and holding a tree branch/wooden staff.
it's a Bagpiper.
Too bad it isn't SATAN HIMSELF...
Thank you for providing this opportunity to ask and receive precise accurate info.
well, Beatty being first in your google results says something about you I guess - for me it's Admiral Ozzel (the guy that got killed by Vader in Episode V for letting basically the entire Rebellion escape Hoth), which says something about me lol
Admiral Ozzel for me as well. He came out of lightspeed to close to the system after all. He is as clumsy as he is stupid.
I got Ernest King... strange that.
I got King for search pages, for images, it's Ozzel and Admiral Marcus from Star Trek Into Darkness.
I got Ozzel, King and Beatty in search. In images I saw Ozzel, Marcus, King and Beatty in Images.
I somehow got Admiral Hackett. Some curious digging found that he's from Mass Effect 3, a game I have never played, owned, searched about or interacted with... what the hell Google?
Former USAF junior officer enjoying the long format naval discussions. Thanks
00:00:30 Yeah... In this particular war Korean force was filled with grossly incompetent generals admirals who did absolutely nothing against battle-hardened Japanese invading forces, only saved by Japanese forces' overextension, Chinese Dynasty's colossal reinforcements and, off course, admiral Yi's great bravery and competence. In fact admiral Yi gained more respect from enemy Japanese rather than from fellow Korean themselves, so much so that before the battle of Tsushima Admiral Togo prayed for victory to Yi, who was regarded by Japanese as a kind of martial deity... Japanese navy genuinely thought that Yi is the best admiral ever in entire Eastern Asian history!
That is fascinating. Thanks for shining the light on some of Korea's historically important heros .
한국의 역사적으로 중요한 영웅들을 조명해주셔서 감사합니다.
I don't think I have heard you asked whether you are a sailor.
For me, it is a sublime pleasure in life to cruise around the Chesapeake Bay. Sailing at night is a special kind of pleasure, as one may more easily drift back in time, sharing experiences of sailors 3 or 400 years ago
Drach, I've been meaning to compliment you on the the improvements you've been making, particularly the indexed questions on the timer at the bottom of the screen and including those below the video in the description.
The last time I was this early the Камчатка was still reporting torpedo boats attacking it.
You have been here this early quite frequently then?
@@davidandmartinealbon3155 I am under attack by torpedo boats.
Imagining a time when she wasn't concerned for torpedoe boats
I cant watch these fast enough to catch up! These are simply OUTSTANDING!
Fantastic video as always Drach.
Not meaning to be difficult, just wanted to point out for the sake of overlap and extra work that you answered two questions here that you answered on the live stream as well. One was about the Leonardo Da Vinci and I can't remember the 2nd one but I'm sure someone else will spot it.
Two thoughts from this spectacular marathon of a Q@A.
1) As far as the HMS Victory that foundered in a storm. Any chance that someone or some organization in England at that time kept track of particularly nasty storms that brewed up ?? We know the date that the Victory sank which helps alot.
Maybe you could try and use that as a way to figure out how bad this storm was to sink a 1st rate.
2) Using Live Oak to make the framing and ribs of the Six Frigates was a brilliant move but Live Oak is exceptionally hard to work. It dulls tools really quickly and grows in really weird and wonderful shapes. The first working parties sent into the swamps to cut the trees to a man contracted disease.
And having each Frigate built in a different yard did result in each one being rather unique and different then its sisters. USS United States was i believe known as "The old covered wagon" because she was an ungainly ship.
Yes except he leaves out part that when RKKF recieved Royal Sovereign their reports that ship was in horrible state and the machinery was way too heavily worn
I think people keep asking about bad admirals just so we can hear you shred Beatty one more time. I do enjoy it way too much.
"The world wonders." I think that the explanation here is that somehow Seymour got caught in a time warp and was transported from Jutland in 1916 to Leyte Gulf in 1944.
Maybe this particular communications specialist didn't get along with his admiral and intentially made the "mistake" to indirectly throw some shade at Admiral Halsey. ^^
20:30 Holy Daka! Impressive bit of perspective once someone puts their glasses on & identifies the object on the right. Real bit of kit that.
The "staff" is the "mace" carried by the Drum Major of the pipe band. In one scene, the snare drums are lined up across the front of the flight deck, with the Drum Major to their right, mace in hand. For a better picture of him: ua-cam.com/video/2ksG63oUR_Q/v-deo.html
You do a great job. Most students today can’t read. I know whereof what I speak. I teach.
You are creating what my poor English calls a “narrative” which even my most challenged students readily grasp.
You are at least keeping the lamp of learning alight, all be it dimly by my 1950’s standards.
Many thanks.
They were actually expansion joints on older submarines so that the hull can flex without warping the inside
I found this channel by accident and now I am addicted. Holy crap Battleships are SO much cooler than tanks. Here in the U.S. we have something called Battleship Cove in Fall River, MA. I am going to plan a trip to see one of these things in real life. Love this channel!
I think Drach was planning to visit before The Present Circumstances
That is home to the USS MASSACHUSETTS. There were 4 of that class and the USS ALABAMA,(of that class) is berthed at MOBILE, ALABAMA. I have been to both BATTLESHIPS in my lifetime.
WWII’s greatest Coast Guard hour, Signalman 1stClass Douglas A Monroe.
Or that time with Grenades and 1911s!
I think the Fulmar would have made a decent torpedo or carrier-based bomber.
Harry Dean Stanton's expression of perplexity is priceless! 🧐.....
approx 6:30.
I got Ernest King as the result for Incompetent Admiral.
I got excited when I saw the question about the da Vinci in the index, but, at that time mark, in the audio, is a second question about bulbous bows. I have been looking into the attempted salvage of the da Vinci, the RM's wish list for how it was to be rebuilt, and the resulting cost escalation, due to the feature creep.
"Has technology ever advanced in" ran into this playing Harpoon on PC back in the 90's lost the entire fleet to russian missiles but my Battle ship kept on chugging, got in gun range finally and sank everything , bit of a pyrrhic victory
Beginning to love sundays for the daily drach unwind
"Biscuit tins" is I think my favorite Britishism so far...
Plus I want the recipe to "Michigan Pacific Stroganoff"!
Tuna noodle "hotdish", the bane of lunchrooms.
Sadly, it can exist
Which is poetic considering it was for why and how the jumbled phrase "the world wonders" fitting into the message.
1:37:00 I love how it even has 6 guns pointed directly at its own masts and sails
"We have to go out, we don't have to come back." Was the original creed of the old Lifeguard Service which was folded in with the Treasury Service to become the Coast Guard.
should bring that creed back.
They don't go out to rescue anyone?
They are going out to be rescued?
Will they be close enough to Britain's waters for the RNLI to help them?
Right now, this is my staple viewing / listening. I like to be reasonably knowledgeable on most things. Now I know a good amount on Warships. What's not to like.
I would think that the real impetus for the adoption of snorkels on subs was airborne radar. A snorkel represents a significantly smaller radar cross section than a conning tower which would be exposed while recharging on the surface. Use of a snorkel in the vicinity of sonar would require giving up the three dimesnional advantages in sub maneuvering.
wrt to the question about DD guns with fixed or semi-fixed ammo at 56:37, eons ago, I saw a training film on the 5"/38, with it's semi-fixed ammo, in the all singing, all dancing, enclosed turret with integral ammo hoist. iirc, there were two men: one drops the propellant in the loading tray, the other drops the shell in the loading tray, then the rammer pushes both in together. The film explained the choice of semi-fixed ammo: crew fatigue. By breaking the load into two pieces, they kept the weight of each piece down, so the loaders could keep loading longer without becoming exhausted. 5"/38 shells weigh about 55lbs and the propellant about 30lbs. I pity the guys that had to load a 5"/25, because it's fixed rounds weighed 80lbs.
I’m always surprised that no one thinks to point out Admiral Halsey! Of course the allied victory at the Battle of Leyte covers a myriad of faults but Halsey’s running off to chase a Japanese distraction leaving the landing forces vulnerable was an exceptional dereliction of duty!
"Halsey was an idiot" - Marko Ramius
Yeah, you can say Admiral Halsey was an idiot in hindsight. However, those carriers posed a significant threat. There may have only been 100 planes altogether on those carriers but Halsey didn't know that. I think Halsey's problem was that he was just getting old. And the war, although the US was close to winning the war, was just getting to be a little too much for him. And he was going after what he saw as a significant threat. Which 100 planes, unchecked could do a bit of damage. But he should have left behind some battleships to guard the straight.
Johnston saved him too lol
He was ready and willing to leave some battleships behind but when he transmitted this, everyone took it as he'd already done so and thus didn't tell him he needed to so he didn't. Halsey did make big mistakes but nothing nearly close to the scale of those made by the people on that list Drach gave.
This is brilliant!! I could (and have) spent hours listening to this! Outstanding.
For the first question, it's Won Gyun, pronounced Gyoon. Also, Won is his family name so he should be referred to as Admiral Won :)
edit: although he was the furthest admiral from winning anything but eh
The Japanese Type 3 Shrapnel/Incendiary shells used timed fuzes for air bursts to give widespread damage, had a small Shimose (Japanese term for British Lyddite explosive) fragmentation bomb in its base in addition to the huge number of "Roman Candle" incendiary tubes filling most of its insides, and, while AA potential was indeed negligible, they were VERY EFFECTIVE shore bombardment weapons against exposed things like aircraft or other unprotected flammable equipment within range of naval gunfire. When KIROSHIMA was destroyed by WASHINGTON after hitting SOUTH DAKOTA a few times, KIRISHIMA had its hoists initially loaded with either Type 3 or Type 4 nose-fuzed HE shells for a major shore-bombardment attack, so most hits on SOUTH DAKOTA were from those shells, which did rather little damage, until the Japanese ship could "clear its throat" and finally get some Type 91 AP shells into its guns, and even then only got a single hit with one of those before WASHINGTON blew it out of the water. This single AP hit was against the aft main armament barbette of SOUTH DAKOTA that is one of the most unusual, though somewhat minimal in its final effects, hits by an AP shell on an enemy warship that ever happened, to my knowledge. As a shore-bombardment shell, however, when combined with Type 4 HE shells with instantaneous impact nose fuzes and, if hitting protected things like buried shell/bomb magazines, the Type 91 AP shells, Type 3 shells were rather effective weapons.
As of early 2022, I searched 'incompetent admiral', and Villenueve was the first result. You can see why Napoleon wanted this guy out of command ASAP.
As of October 2022, it's back to Beatty.
On the Darings the 4.5 turrets are certainly between deck mounts, they have shell handling rooms, hoists and magazines below them feeding through the deck in to the turret. Exactly the same mount was the standard twin 4.5 mount used up until the single, automatic Mk 8 mount was introduced on the Type 42 Destroyer and Type 21 Frigate.
The bofors and torpedo tubes are deck mounted, the Squid anti submarine mortar is between the two, while the actual mount is deck mounted the magazine and handling room is below deck and comes up in to a deck house.
When you are so fast that only the patrons are here
Not me!
Want a cookie?
13 bombards and a small dragon...!!! That was my favorite description of this episode.😀😀👍👍
William Dampier had an energetic Carpenter who managed to sink HMS Roebuck, on his own to the great distress of everyone onboard.
Great work Drak. However, you’re wrong about the Fulmar. To be fair, a lot of people are but the Fulmar was actually very effective kite and had a one to one ratio against land based fighters. Most of its losses where against defensive fire from bombers due to them having to close to suicidal ranges to defeat the armour as they only had .303s.
I always differ battlecrusiers and battleships by their intended opponents. Battlecrusiers should be built primarily to fight targets smaller than itself most notably cruisers. Battleships should be built primarily to combat other battleships
Played some over the holidays and now that I have the correct term to call muppets muppets, I’m a much better player. Thanks Claus!
1:20:34 abouts. "I don't think they make WD40 in cans that big", top-shelf thinking, lol.
Actually WD-40 comes in really big cans 55 Gallon drum UPC 0 79567 49013 5
When he said it I looked over at my 1 gallon can. Maybe a couple cans sprayed evenly throughout, and a couple rounds fired, would shake the rust loose.
I woke up middle of the night and this was playing and didn't change it XD
Soviet 1939 Navy: Worst among the Big 7
Soviet WeeGee Navy: *FOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL!* SOVIET NAVY IS BEST IN THE WORLD!
Down Periscope is an awesome movie if you want a light comedy/adventure flick, AND the production company did in fact help restore the submarine used in the film, USS Pampanito, to become a museum ship currently located in San Francisco.
OK, that was an awesome answer to my question! (+2 points for also pronouncing my name correctly!) From the sounds of the state of Royal Sovereign, it almost sounds like it would have been better to let the Russians keep it!!
There have been a lot of rumours and stories over the years that the ship was in a much worse state then just the turrets being stuck. Neglect including watertight doors either stuck open or closed, rooms which definetly weren't latrines being used as latrines, hull damage suggesting it had been beached, burnt out and never repaired electrics, boilers in such a poor state that the ship was probably only capable of half it's design speed safely. etc. We may never know which items are true or which are made up digs at the Soviets... But with a ship as obsolete the RN probably didn't need much of a reason to scrap the thing, after all they scrapped the recently modernised and still very capable Renown.
@@godalmighty83 she was lent for five years and returned at the end of five years. yes, she was in a poor state, but there was never any intention of returning her to service. Consider that far more capable ships, Renown, Valiant and Queen Elizabeth had already gone to the scrap yard by this date.
@@davidbirt8486 Yeah, that's what I said...
As always, most interesting and informative and above all, very enjoyable. One of my grandchildren has started watching these with me, he enjoys your style as much as I do. Thank you for including Admiral Beatty. As a career naval officer, I couldn’t agree more, plus, anyone who makes false entries to burnish his reputation should be dismissed rather than made commander of the fleet. Being Italian, we are taught a slightly different perspective on the Punic wars. Rome defeated the Carthaginian Navy by devising means to bring their land power to sea. It should also be noted that the Romans did not use slaves, instead depending on sailors and Marines, which I think gave them a decided advantage over the slave rowed Carthaginian ships. The Romans also had to control the sea lanes to safely move their troops across the Mediterranean especially for the second and third wars, in this they were most successful.
50:00 Naming of ships reminds me of "Naming of Cats" from the musical Cats.
Cranes are a pretty recent addition on ships, there may have been used to launch float planes. On proper ships it was all derricks, and the boom at the base of a mast is your derrick, so already at hand, may require some additional rigging,
Would like to see the sea-adapted Spitfires
J look here
Okay thanks babe babe I’ll hit it tomorrow I ui I
Okay well if wetehy do eye iI can I do it I call wwhat I e say Lu
Thank only until you just sent you s get your approval from us me tit you have to rup againi on your I and your js will
Okay Thank I’ll ythank your you for sure thankful wlove goodness thank we are your thoughts are so thoughtful fup it of yme your efor the best subtleties I’ve always been happy to see your isto you own family love me thank us love for Roy you to and I are You she it thank us love love for your you happy happy memories of happiness love thank us love love happiness thank each thank for hrthe lasted few days ago when us was hweeks and blessings to tof Sharon week planting to jd with you you and still enjoy the ecan I
That's an awesome picture of the Des Moines. Nice. Happy Sunday to you sir.
I would imagine that any message starting with "Hi Everybody" would decode in a message full of in incomprehensible so-called medical terminology, full of quack claims and number of attempts to promote a juice loosener.
Hello Dr. Nick!
U he
You are not supposed to talk about Dr. Faux Pas on screwtube with out a warning to the plebs.
Once again thanks for the producing what had become my most looked forward to personal times.
A cup or three of coffee alone with Drach, bliss.
02:21:21 clearly the encryption officer on the USS New Jersey was seized by the ghost of Ralph Seymour
PART 2
Here is what seemed to have happened (simplified), from my study.
When the first armored seagoing warships came into being in 1859-1850 (British WARRIOR and French GOIRE) and, very shortly thereafter, were a huge part of the naval battles in the US during its Civil War of 1861-1865, the armored warsdhip made the old wooden warships totally obsolete in a "flash". New armor-piercing ammunition had to be devised to punch through the heavier ship armor of the enemy warship's gun mounts and hull, since it quickly became obvious during the US Civil War that the old spherical cannot balls of either cast iron or wrought iron no longer "cut it" (literally in many cases). The elongated cylindrical projectile, originally with a flat nose but rapidly that changed to oval or, more often pointed for better drag reduction and longer range and better thick armor penetration performance, replaced the cannon ball, and the improved metallurgy and heat treatment of cast iron (Palliser and Grüson chilled cast iron) projectiles and, later, steel projectiles, which were stronger. So now you had projectiles that could punch holes in the enemy armor much like the old cannon balls could punch holes in the thick wooden sides of the old sailing "Ships of the Line". Also, chilled cast iron projectiles and, originally but less and less as steel-manufacturing expertise improved, any shells that penetrated the thicker armored regions would be broken into pieces while going through the plate. Then, in the 1890s, the French invented the much-stronger and less brittle nickel-steel armor, the US invented Harveyized (cemented/carburized on a thin, but extremely hard, face layer using mild or, better, nickel-steel) and, finally, German Krupp created an even stronger nickel-chromium low-carbon steel of maximum strength (even after WWII it was not improved much) that could be deep-face-hardened (plus in most cases the Harveryized surface added too) forming Krupp "Type 420" (test plate number in 1894) armor steel and "Krupp Cemented" (KC) armor, the basis of heavy naval side armor until the end of the Ironclad Era circa 1945-1950. These face-hardened armor and even, when very thick, homogeneous, ductile armors could again break up impacting projectiles whether they penetrated or not, much of the time. The invention of the "AP Cap" (thick, originally soft-steel, nose protection that could keep projectile intact, sometimes at least, when penetrating face-hardened armor at a low angle from right-angles impact -- 15-20 degrees was about maximum originally, though some improved soft-capped designs could handle 30 degrees against thinner face-hardened plate) again allowed intact penetration of even face-hardened plate and the use of moderately large (up to maybe 4% by weight in some cases) high explosive fillers to be added with some hiope that the fillers would increase the internal damage to the enemy warship (for example, Germany used solid shot in its AP shells until adding AP caps in 1902 since they realized that any explosive filler was almost useless and just made the projectile body weaker by making a huge interior hole in it.)
As such, during the latter part of the 19th Century, an AP projectile (effectively AP shot, no matter what filler might have been used, that broke up during penetration) had its primary purpose to punch holes in the outer armor of the enemy target and send fragments of the shell and armor into the target as shrapnel radiating from the back surface of the hole just made (quite effective against gun mounts!). Ship hulls countered this by adding internal thinly-armored "protective/splinter plating" bulkheads and "protective decks" to soak up these fragments, including putting coal bunkers behind the belt armor, which worked extremely well at this. As this was the typical result, there was no reason to try to make an HE-filled AP projectile that could penetrate more than the outer armor and, hopefully, remain intact just long enough for a non-delay base fuze (circa 0.003-second due to inertia) to blow up during or just after penetrating the outer armor, increasing the damage there, though not doing much better deeper into the enemy warship behind its internal light layers of protection.
END OF PART 2
Last time I was this early ... I've never been this early.
The layout of Borodino's main armament was indeed something of a Russian habit. It was called the Cuniberti layout after its Italian creator. Vittorio Cuniberti's groundbreaking article in the 1903 Jane's called for an "all-big-gun" fighting ship with 12 12-inch main guns, and he proposed thick armor. His concepts fit right in with much of progressive naval thinking. Italy;s first dreadnought, Cuniberti layout (laid down in 1909). The Russians claimed that they came up with the layout themselves, but given the similarity of the two designs, I have my doubts.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_battleship_Dante_Alighieri
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vittorio_Cuniberti
4:26 oddly enough I got Ernest King xD
Re Excessive brass cartridges in turrets. A mechanical carousel-type rotating door could be an option for removing the brass with reduced exposure time to the turret. A mechanical device would allow for very heavy armored doors. It could be a physical strain or time-consuming for sailors. Not to rotate the carousel but to securely lock the doors very securely when not rotating and could be faster than manual locking. Possibly like the rotating locks that separate parts of the ship from flooding or blasts between sections but with greater. But the door could have heavier armor than most doors on ships. Rather than using rods for the locking a larger and heavier block could be used on all 4 sides of the door. Or could be a circular door depending on design preferences.
An option for a round door would be like a circular water drain as used on streets that only open one way. A strong lock would not be needed and may be a more simple and reliable option. A rotating carousel door could also be used with a circular hatch. A round door could protect the crew from outside blasts. A circular door could be used for pressure release from internal blasts. But the turret crew would likely die anyway. Having a blast panel like the Abrams tank uses for its ammunition could reduce the blast going down under the turret and the ammunition rooms. The powder and ammunition rooms could be better protected with a one-way door to reduce blasts from turrets. I am not sure what doors are already in use. So they likely have effective blast doors. And modern guns are much more mechanically operated. Reducing the need for crews in turrets and ammunition magazines. And a blast release door on the turret could still be used.
I am sure they have very good systems but was just brainstorming. Maybe Drachinifel has better information on blast protection. Could Mr Drachenfel talk about the effectiveness of British and US anti-piracy and anti-slavery operations in Africa and how effective the operations were in the 1800s including the battle for Tripoli to save European slaves and hostages? How did Julius Caesar kill the pirates in Africa that captured him for slavery?
When referring to the Higgins boat (LCVP) it was typically made of plywood, however the ramp was steel.
The British landing craft (LCA) was armoured with steel plate in various places for added protection, but to describe either of these craft as biscuit tins seems a little incorrect in my opinion.
More like cigar boxes with motors.
Notes concerning modern warship technology that greatly influence the fact that you do not want an enemy to get its hands on your warships. First, as noted, they might find out about your ship's capabilities that it did not know about before. This is due to the fact that, in the Age of Sail, ship design and weapon tech was not hidden since it really could not be (everything was exposed and, other than the size of the guns on a ship, there was nothing that was very "revolutionary" about your equipment compared to an enemy's). Starting in the mid19th Century, this all changed by the fact that advances in technology could give your ships an advantage that COULD be hidden until suddenly revealed to an enemy, even such revolutionary things as entire armored ship designs during the US Civil War, which you would think would be difficult to hide, but MONTOR sure surprised VIRGINIA when it suddenly showed up "just in the nick of time". This can of course be the reverse and demonstrate that your equipment is inferior in important ways (Russians finding out that German tank technology at the start of WWII was so inferior -- they thought that they were being tricked).
Second, the internal capabilities of naval fire-control and weapon tech, even when displayed to others can have internal capabilities that the potential enemy does not even understand how to evaluate as an advantage to you. For example, Japanese Type 91 AP ammo with its "diving" underwater hit capability (somewhat overrated, to be sure, but even if you saw the shells sitting right in front of you, you would not know it could do that). More important, the introduction of AC power aboard your warships to allow electronic circuits with extremely superior ability to send and receive very precise information around the ship from sensors or from the fire-control calculators to the weapons mounts -- US Synchro/Sensyn "multi-speed" data transmission devices and German Magnetic Amplifiers for the same purpose using AC electrical power to allow the US to develop during WWII completely "untouched by human hands" Remote Power Control capabilities that had the data be amplified WITHOUT INCREASING THE ERRORS AS HAD PREVIOUSLY OCCRRED WITH SUCH AMPLIFICATION so that the signal could be directly input into the controls to aim things like heavy armored gun turrets to accuracies BETTER THAN the typical human could do in a manual "follow-the-point" scheme where the person operating the mount controls had to "eyeball" the data indicators shown to him and try keep accurately up with its changes by hand. Even if an enemy found out that you were changing over some of the power in a warship to AC from the older universal DC previously used, that enemy would have to already be knowledgeable about such new communication tech to realize what you are doing to create a superior system over his still-DC systems. Thus, in modern times, one of your ships being captured could give the enemy LOTS of "new tech" he hadn't even thought of, which is a big danger to you.
The germans wanted bigger guns, because the newer british dreadnoughts were getting thicker armor. The 12 inch guns were fine for the pre Revenge and Queen Elizabeth classes. Not because the guns proved to be bad. I dont need to be one of these "fanboys" to realise that.
I think one other reason medium and heavy bombers were converted to carry torpedoes was due to the ineffectiveness of level bombing, particularly from medium to high altitudes, against ships underway. This also led to tactics like skip-bombing.
Borodinos look like the Blackseas Dreadnought project... except they tried to actually build them. Overly ambitious... with ignoring pretty much capabilities of their own shipyards, costs... and the use for it.
Yeah no, we can not build the guns or the turbines in numbers we want ourself, and order them from foreign powers... we are pretty much in an economic crisis for 20 years, but let's go spending for battlecruisers.Also, while we are doing that, let's order ships, that are already way more expensive, than the Duma approved funds! And will probably rise further due to a tiny bit of internal corruption.
The Halifax explosion is still the biggest man-made non-nuclear explosion at 2.9kt, even beating the 2.7kt explosion in Beirut this week (and the 2.7kt of ammonium nitrate probably equates to a smaller weight of TNT, to be picky).
Did the British not fake a nuclear explosion in Australia to convince the Americans that Britain could build their own A-bomb and thereby allowed the US to share 'secrets' including the results of the TubeAlloys project?
Although I was never really a naval wargamer (Triremes and some WW2 Navwar plus a box of unpainted Ironclads) , I enjoy these videos and I find things that I didnt expect to find interesting every time.
when I took your challenge and go-ogled "incompetent admiral"
and Beatty came up 2nd, after of all people Earnest King...
interesting whatwhat?
At the 2:20 mark, had you edited in the sound of horses whinnying when mentioning the Bluecher, I would’ve lost my mind! Thanks for these great posts!
I understand that Admiral King was an Anglophobe in World War 2, but I had always thought his World War 1 equivalent, Admiral Sims, was an Anglophile. Was the concern of the Royal Navy over the US Navy post-war expressed during the discussion of the scuttling of the High Seas Fleet in Scapa Flow a concern over a potential foe or just naval staff and administrators expressing a desire to maintain their budgets?
A couple of comments in the second hour. The American 6"/47 had a rate of fire of 8-10 rounds per minute, while the British 6" was 6-8 rounds per minute and the Japanese 155 mm was 5-6 rounds per minute. Compare this with 3-4 rounds per minute for the 8" guns in all three navies, and it's apparent that the US gets a lot more out of their light cruisers than either of the other two.
Spacing REALLY depends on the commander of the squadron. Callaghanvtook his squadron into a tion on November 13th with 700 yards between cruisers, 500 yards between destroyers, and 800 yards separating the cruiser force from the destroyer groups on each end of the line. Two days later, Lee had his destroyers at a comparable spacing but 5,000 yards between them and the two battleships, which were (IIRC) separated by about 1,000 yards.
I also Googled “Incompetent Admiral” and it was King first and Beatty second.
You spoke at length about Admiral King in another video and to me it seems he was a good admiral.
His main flaw was his inability to cooperate with the English which caused a lot of unecesary allied losses.
Appreciate your efforts at producing interesting content