It is always flabbergasting to listen to the depth of knowledge Drach brings to bear in these long Q&A sessions. These are live streams, fer Chrissake! The man is mostly doing this extemporaneously, even if he's had some time to consider the questions beforehand. I'm a nerd, so I can recognize nerd greatness, and this is it. :)
I would love to see and hear the conversation between Drach and Mrs Drach when he tries to persuade her that the 1-1 scale replica of Warspite would totally fit in their back garden.
wrt the question about gas ejection systems in guns, the incident on Missouri that Drac mentioned produced several changes in USN turret design. At the time, the gunners were supposed to inspect the gun chamber for embers or flames, before ramming the next shot. Missouri was on a gunnery training exercise on April 13, 1904. After firing, the crew began ramming the next shot. When the first two bags were rammed, they immediately ignited. Inspection of the turret after the fire found the rammer still fully extended. Flames shooting out of the breech ignited the two bags still on the hoist, because the hoist was completely unprotected. Burning propellant fell from the hoist car in the turret down the barbette, igniting more charges in the handling room at the bottom of the barbette. Thirty six men died that day. The navy decreed that air injections systems be installed in the guns, and that hoists be completely enclosed in trunks with flash proof shutters.
Nah - You're putting us on We ALL KNOW it was because the cunning aspect was the facility to airdrop them - enabling deployment incredibly them swiftly in theatre. 🙄
I think I was first subscribed when you had under 50,000 subscribers. I do remember thinking the "Drydock" was a great addition so not long before that started I think. Thanks for your dedication. 😎🍀
BIG PROBLEM with other nations operating blimps in WW2- after the R101 and Hindenburg tragedies, manned airships with hydrogen was OUT OF THE QUESTION. Meanwhile the only nation with helium was the US and we classified it as a 'strategic material' throughout the war. Meaning that the State Department would likely not have released it even to the UK during wartime. So that means pretty much only the US is going to operate manned airships.
Yh I understand what your saying but tbh honest Britain by ww2 was using kites in the navy at that the beginning & radar took over as we was the most advanced nation developing it & if it wasn't for us the U.S. would of struggled & been yrs behind. Also tbh we was the only nation that could supply uranium for the manhatton project so I'm sure we had a lot of leverage etc.
"Whose coat is it?" When I was in US Air Force Basic Training, everyone was issued a rubber stamp, laundry-resistant ink, and a stamp pad (I'm fairly certain I still have it - 40 years later). You stamped all your issued clothing items except for socks. You were given scraps of cloth to mark with the stamp and sturdy safety pins used to attach your socks together with the marked scrap. That was to make sure items from the weekly bulk laundry could be returned to you. I forget if my fabric raincoat was dry-clean only, but we had to stamp those as well - I think on the large square manufacturer's military specification label.
@@TomFynn I didn't have issues with that ink, but I did have a pen blow up in my fatigue shirt pocket that the laundry couldn't get the stain out of. 🙁I was not happy that it was a fairly new shirt. But that is what my uniform allowance was for. 🙃
In 1999 while crewing a tour boat on Lake Minnetonka, I saw an elderly passenger with a ballcap that said "USS Enterprise 1942-1946". I asked him where he was when the forward elevator blew off after the ship was hit by a kamikaze at Okinawa. He said he was standing in the aft end of the island, and the explosion shook the whole ship.
I... was talking about the midget submariners in Japanese service. You know, the ones the IJN had a lot of hopes for during the Attack on Pearl Harbor but pretty much amounted to nothing then and throughout the war. Sorry for the mix-up in communication Drach.
A Japanese midget sub did manage to sink an old Australian ferry that was being used as a depot ship in one of their ports. Although that's hardly a major achievement, certainly not compared to the Italian mini subs sinking a British battleship.
Drach: I've seen several other channels, and even some acedemics refer to your analysis and conclusions re: Hood's explosion vis-a-vis how a shell may have pierced the magazine, due to the ship's speed and hydrodynamics... Have you considered publishing? (in a peer reviewed journal, a technical analysis of your argument?) Just a thought. (Also, re: hannibal- John Paul Jones? Kinda/sorta, for sheer pain-in-the-ass-ness)
Hi Drach. Regarding the hull numbers for the US Independence-class carriers. If I remember correctly, those ships were originally ordered as "CV", hence their hulls would be contiguous with the other carriers. The "CVL" designation came later, but the hull numbers weren't changed because, as you stated, the ships were still considered part of the fleet carrier mission. The "light" and "heavy" cruisers were pretty much set to the same mission profile, soi they were given hull numbers in series. The Alaska-class were a new breed of cat, so they got a new hull number series.
About the questing regarding the numbering of coats, inventory is one reason (usually they're one-size-fits-all) and is also for when they are issued they are numbered to recognize what coat belongs to who. The original tradition for numbering the coats was to identify who was wearing what if they, for one reason or another, went into the water and drowned or died from injury. It was a grim way of identifying during the first and second world wars, but it was done for accountability of personnel more than inventory of coats. Now days, the tradition of numbering coats is still a thing, only now the numbers are placed INSIDE the coats and that is for inventory use only.
@@johnsweet1915 For the US, since it is about inventory, it comes down to the number of personnel attached to a unit. The number issued to an individual is generally random, but is recorded upon being issued. If a unit has let's say 2000 personnel attached, then the numbers would start at 0001-2000. Of course, there are replacements in storage for damage or lost items and that became the case, the replacement would take on the number of the item it replaces. Prior to the 1920s, floatation devices weren't required for sailors onboard ship, so numbering jackets was crucial for identification, especially if a body was in the water for more than a few days (decay sets in quickly in salt water), which was one of the reasons why numbering was needed. For sure, if one sailor went overboard and/or was unidentifiable due to injury, it could be deduced that the one person not counted in muster was the the identified sailor. However, if there were multiple sailors involved, their crews would want every avenue of identification they could available to them. Sorry for the rambling. I can get carried away sometimes. 🙃
wrt the question about the portability of floating drydocks, USS Dewey, YFD-1 was built in Maryland in 1905. In December, 05, her tow began, across the Atlantic, through the Med, through Suez and the Indian Ocean, arriving in the Philippines in July 1906. At the time, that was the longest tow every successfully completed.
00:10:34 - Smaller ships of the South American Dreadnought race? ARGENTINA - Battleships: 2 vessels acquired (28,000t and 12x305mm+12x152mm); and 1 approved-cancelled vessel (356mm). - Cruisers: No vessel orders (only improvements to existing ones). - Destroyers: 4 vessels acquired (1,000t and 4x102mm+4x533mm); 4 vessels ordered-sold (1,000t and 4x102mm+4x533mm); 4 vessels ordered-requisitioned (1,000t and 4x102mm+4x533mm); and 4 vessel ordered-requisitioned (1,200t and 4x102mm+8x533mm). - Submarines: No vessels orders (only design studies). BRAZIL - Battleships: 2 vessels acquired (19,000t and 12x305mm+20x120mm); 1 vessel ordered-sold (28,000t and 14x305mm+20x152mm, redesigned from 32,000t and 12x356mm+16x152mm); and 1 vessel ordered-cancelled (31,000t and 8x381mm+14x152mm). - Cruisers: 2 vessels acquired (3,100t and 10x120mm+4x457mm); and 1 vessel approved-cancelled (3,200t and 10x120mm+4x457mm). - Destroyers: 10 vessels acquired (500t and 2x102mm+2x457mm); and 5 vessels approved-cancelled (500t and 2x102mm+2x457mm). - Submarines: 3 vessels acquired (200t and 2x457mm). CHILI - Battleships: 2 vessels ordered-cancelled (28,000t and 14x356mm+16x152mm). - Cruise ships: No vessel orders (only canceled modernization projects on existing ones). - Destroyers: 2 vessels acquired (1,400t and 6x102mm+3x457mm); 4 vessels ordered-requisitioned (1,500t and 6x102mm+3x533mm). - Submarines: 2 vessels ordered-requisitioned/stoled (300t and 4x457mm). I hope I don't forget anyone else. I am omitting gunboats and other small or non-oceanic vessels.
Regarding the one about resonance and vibration, my wife is a noise and vibration engineer for an airplane manufacturer. Even to this day, their usual way of finding out if something will have vibration issues in the real world is to go put it on a shaker table for hours at a time, varying the frequency, direction, etc. of the movement over and over again. No model is good enough to ensure that it's actually safe - you need to physically shake it and see what happens. If that's what you do for a new headphone jack on the in-flight entertainment system, makes sense that it's much worse for whole ships.
Drydocks: There is the iconic photo of USS Iowa in ABSD-2. There were several of these docks built that had ten pontoon sections when fully assembled (around 1000ft). For ocean transport the dock was disassembled the wing walls folded down inward to reduce windage so each pontoon could be easily towed individually. The sections could be arranged in any combination, and today the Vigor yard in Portland OR operates a dock with four sections. It is common to see pontoons from ABSD's now used as ramps for unloading car carriers.
Having had the opportunity to sail on various sailing vessels over the years, I'm thinking particularly of a Top-sail Schooner and 6th rate frigate, I'd make the following observations. The Schooler had restrictive views. You constantly had to change side of the ship because the sails were in the way. The Frigate was a pain in full sail to get any kind of view ahead from the quarter deck because the sails were in the way. If you did furl the mainsails, you could actually see ahead from the quarterdeck.
The prop guards on GATO/BALAO class subs were usually removed (COs discretion) before going out on a combat patrol. WAHOO removed hers before leaving Mare Island from overhaul. If you look at the guards, they are constructed in a way that they can be tacked onto the hull while the boat was in dockyard hands and removed when heading out.
Re: Beatty doing things better… history is replete with people who were promoted beyond their optimum competence. Beatty being a shining example… The combination of personality, native-intelligence, training, experience, status, Edwardian-era, birthright etc. made him who he was. He would have eventually hit his competence ceiling - unfortunately that happened when it could be least afforded. Halsey might be cited as another apt example.
"Modern armour": Apparently some turbine blades are grown as single crystals. -- Imagine the front plate of a gun turret as a single crystal. ...And not even one of steel, but grown from molten nickel, with some extra elements. THAT would be a piece of engineering... (Could I join in the process? -- Please? ! )
While I know that most modern explosives are fairly stable without their detonators get them initiated, and the hull of an iron, or steel hulled ship makes a fairly decent Faraday cage, the sort of explosive bolt ideas for detachable armor you were mentioning has me imagining an absolutely terrifying/hilarious scenario where a lightning strike might cause a section of armor to pop off. Unlikely in the extreme, I know.
It wouldn't be "Band of Brothers" style but I would love to see both a miniseries on the Naval Battle of Guadalcanal, and a 2 hour movie on the Battle off Samar.
You know what would actually make a good ship for a "Band of Brotherrs" series? The USS Pensacola. It was never a major key combatant that stole headlines, but the damned ship was *everywhere*. An overgunned and elderly light cruiser forced to pretend to be a heavy cruiser because of the treaty definitions, she was headed into the Phillipenes during Pearl Harbor and was part of that confused mess in Brisbane, escorted the Lexington (TF11) during the early island raids and got some fo the first American AA kills of the war. At Midway when Yorktown was dead in the water, she shot down four (!) torpedo bombers and probably saved the ship (for a little while). She fought in a ton of actions around Guadalcanal, was alongside Hornet when she was sunk, survived the debacle at Savo Island (although taking a Long Lance and losing over a hundred men) and rolled into Tulagi under her own power while still burning brightly. She escaped Tulagi by camouflaging herself as a freakin' *island* (no joke!) and was back in the fight in less than a year. and fought everywhere from Alaskan waters down to the Phillipenes again. She did shore bombardment on too many islands to list (including the big ones like Iwo Jima and Okinawa. She did everything, her scout plane even scored an aerial kill! After surviving absolutely every thing and earning a ridiculous 13 battle stars, she was *nuked* twice in Operation Crossroads in 1946. The ship was a witness to history, and a show that follows her would cover a great deal of the most interesting parts of the Pacific War.
Regarding the "quick release armor", another major reason it is a bad idea is the effect of several thousands of tons of armor plate falling off to the ship's stability. Even as a counter to the weight of flooding it would remove the stabilizing force that would otherwise be a partial or substantial counter to the free-surface effect of the flooding.
Regarding the bouncing Dauntless: carrier-based versions used a solid rubber tailwheel tire with the usual hydraulic shock system. I imagine that might have contributed to the skipping.
For the flotilla/squadron/fleet question, I suppose one might approach it from the other direction and just look at what rank of officer is in command of it.
Regarding the "super armour". The changes to the armour deck and how the superstructure is protected could be a bigger deal than the main belt. That's a lot of weight removed from on high. Or, a massive amount of protection for a similar weight.
Regarding the coats at 1:14:23, foul weather gear is not a uniform item owned by individual sailors. They are what's known as organizational clothing. Owned and issued by the ship or command, and inventoried as such. So each one has the organization's name and a number spray painted on them. That does mean that multiple people have used a coat over the life of the ship. At least that is how it is in the modern USN, I suspect it was the same in the RN.
a Band of Brothers series but based on unsinkable Sam and his (mis)adventures , but he also goes down to S Africa and meets Just Nuisance where they drink beer and play hooky on the Trains without paying. Also they can have Simon the cat from HMS Amethyst Get Aardman to make it , and Gromit's Great Grandad can make an appearance. Timelines might be a bit off
17:10 - Just drill a small hole _into_ the bolt and fill it with explosive (like the explosive bolts they use in spacecraft nowadays). Hey presto, now you can shear the bolt with negligible danger of hull damage!
I think the fact Prince of Wales with at most 5 guns able to fire and a lot of the time less was still the most accurate ship there means once the turn is complete and it has 4 more guns, that yes will degrade over time, however will hit quickly. I don't see how Bismarck is going to do well. Espcially when the Cruisers get involved.
What should Beatty have done NUMBER ONE. Act like he's in charge of the recce screen for the Grand Fleet and tell Jellicoe what is going on! But for some inspired guess work by Jellicoe, Beatty almost led the Grand Fleet into an unintentional German trap! (PS I wrote this thinking you'd used up your allocated changes before you mentioned this as the last item; I still think this is the number onbe though)
Another possibility if a navy developed a 'super armor' as described would be to *say* it's got 4" of armor, but build it with 5", and watch it shrug off anything smaller than battleship guns. So long as you could keep the secret, having your enemies expect to be fighting a ship with 4" of protection but having it have effectively 10" of protection would be a very rude surprise. Alternately, depending on priorities and doctrine, they could leave the armor at 4", weighing the same as 2", and let the weight savings translate to greater speed, though that might be less of an advantage
@@WALTERBROADDUS I never said it did. I was replying to a question asked for this vid. Specifically the one at 4:25 where Drach mentioned the options a navy might have if it developed an armor that offered much better protection than an equal thickness of what everyone else was using. Using the figures he gave for his theoretical 'super armor' in the question. That, by the way, is why I said 'as described'; I was literally referring to what he said.
With reference to your comment about the number of Oberons preserved, did they become available at the moment that interest in preservation was starting. I was delighted to see Ocelot in Chatham as I saw her launched, in fact I believe she was the one that missed the the entrance to Whitewall Creek and got her stern stuck on the mud on the other side of the river. I actually saw Oberon, Ocelot, Onslaught. Objibwe launched, from our boat which was anchored by the Royal Engineers hard. Okenagan I saw from the shed as dad had complimentary tickets to the launch. Chatham claimed to have built a submarine for every year that the Navy had submarines. I also remember seeing a very well-worn submarine come up the river, possibly early '50s. The story that I heard this was Finwhale, which in company Porpoise had been doing under-ice trials during which they put the wind up USS Skate and a Soviet boat Lurking in the same area. They had been fitted with experimental casings made of fibreglass, unfortunately when they came up through the ice the springiness of the Grp carried away the fixings, the casings then floating away. Geoff Stevens.
Naval Band of Brothers. Arguably it was done seventy years ago with the Cruel Sea. If you want a destroyer rather than a corvette, it was done eighty years ago in In Which We Serve. Other possibilities, "Johnnie" Walker and his escort group or Max Horton and his sub in the Baltic.
I will say that in the sinking of the Titanic, Collapsible A did actually float off the deck loaded as the Titanic’s final plunge began. It was a pretty close run thing as the crew had to cut its ropes free because they had been trying to launch it normally. And then it’s described that the wave created by the 1st funnel collapsing pushed it clear of the ship.
Insofar as Naval Technology vs Military Tech. I believe you must look at the continued development of (propeller) screw design. Much of this was the off shoot of regular or civillian industrial design to eliminate cavitation. The idea of special lightweight but strong metal to be used in armor would naturally be developed for commercial cargo ship frame construction. Unless or until some inspired folks put it togeather. It is more likely that armor development would come from military technology. Thus a situation on a cruiser that the modern strong, lightweight frame would carry on it heavy old fasioned armor.
Time to start writing two good script pages per day, Drach. in your spare time, of course. There was a British author who wrote two good pages a day on his daily train commute, and after a year, had around 700 pages in hand for his first book.
Numbers on coats. The numbers being on the left or right of the seam could have another function. Assuming they are hung up either on both sides of a passageway. The number would be shown when hung up with 115 being hung on the right side, number out. 2-- would be on the left wall, number out.
As regards a BoB-type series: love the idea of HMS Warspite. Due to my specific interests, I'd be looking at basing something on 'MGB 658' by Len Reynolds looking at the small boat war in the Med. And maybe stretching the source material into the Atlantic too ;-)
While the heavy Armor might not improve that much, the anispalling armor and thinnerarmor would be much improved, the use of Kevlar for shrapnel, Lithium-aliminum.instead of Duralumin, and Fiberglass for small boat hulls would have made a difference.
Early-model B24s were regarded with suspicion by their crews because the Davis wing flexed rather more in-flight that your average crew was used to. Additionally, some early models were inexplicably lost without any chance to radio out an emergency. The latter (if I recall correctly) was eventually traced to a badly designed hydraulic system. Nevertheless, it was nicknamed 'The Whore', because 'it lacks any form of visible support'. Note: It is possible that I have conflated that nickname with the B26, which was also regarded with suspicion because of the tiny (for the time) wing.
For the destroyer men question, it was a night action in a harbor and one of the destroyers was set to pull a cambledown and the amagi was sunk by a mine as it was retreating.
Honestly, focusing on a cruiser like Boise or Helena could be fun. Boise because she was part of ABDA and of guadalcanal fame. Helena because her active career was very active until when she got sunk
About improving the metallurgy of armor using face harden steel, I don't think the improvements would necessarily that great from alloying, heat treatment, etc. I think we would be more consistent in the composition and hardening techniques because of better control. This would mean the margin required to account for quality differences is less and thus the plate could theoretically be made thinner. But the problem would be are you maybe gaining a 2 or 3% reduction in thickness or a 10 or 15% reduction. I tend to think 2 or 3% is more accurate.
On a naval Band of Brothers style show, I think your mistake is looking for people. A focus on a ship would be an obvious choice for me and I would ideally look for a ship that was present and involved in various events of differing scales and such. For a ship like HMS Norfolk, you ahve the crew on the ship and coming home to Britain as the drums of war start beating. Then move into her hunting for the Scharnhorst, Gneisenau, etc. Then the story of the Bismarck. Moving on to the Arctic and finally getting to sink its teeth into the Scharnhorst. Closing out with operations off Norway, including rhe return of the Royal family. I am sure there are much better options as well. But I believe a ship focussed series would flow much better than one focussed on individuals. Although I would probably prefer a smaller ship what wws present at lots of events to a capital ship. Your core cast would be a selection of ratings and warrant officers who stayed with the ship for the vast majority of the period.
Re the numbers on the back of coats?? When I wirked the rigs, coveralls were laundered and the cabin number was the identifier? So if these jackets need to be dried on a rack its done numerically?..
Bit of a supplement to the Lucitania sinking in May 1915. The U Boat captain was Walther Schweiger (which Ironically means 'Silent' in English). Much argument ensued about the legitimacy of that but Luscitania was carrying 170+ tons of munitions . He had a bad rep for 'shoot first ask questions later'. This was deserved. 2 months earlier he torpedoed a Hospital ship which would have sunk had the crew not grounded her. He sadly perished in Sept 1917, probably a result of running into a mine.
Since you mentioned it, while not a naval subject, would you consider doing perhaps a fun Friday episode on the Tacoma Narrows Bridge? As a competent engineer who csn also explain things, which is something of a rarity, I'd enjoy hearing your thoughts.
How many peeps here thought the picture for drydock showed a ram ship? Took me ages to realise that this was a stern view? Also why was it shaped thus?
Maybe it'd be possible to apply progress with modern composite tank armor on a battleship scale and thickness. But... But someone eventually would fire bigger missiles at it anyway so why would anyone run their fleet into bankruptcy over doing this?
On Hood and Prince of Wales vs Bismarck, the British do have one big advantage. They can afford their ships to be battle damaged. The Germans, being a long way from the nearest friendly ports, the way to them patrolled by more British ships and aircraft, can't. The damage Bismarck had sustained before the fatal hit on Hood was already critical. She was going to be lucky to get either to Norway or to St Nazaire. Any more damage to Bismarck would have most likely been fatal even if the Germans did pull some sort of pyrrhic victory out of the battle.
@Drachinifel At 1 hr 5 min, your comments Drach on seaworthiness of floating drydocks sparked a thought- awareness, knowledge and understanding of rogue waves and ship design features to protect against rogue wave encounters didn't arise until after WW2. In hindsight, in reviewing primary and auxiliary warship losses since the emergence of iron hulls, are any now known to be lost to rogue waves either because the hull design was poor or because the ship was unprepared (poorly loaded or overloaded) to encounter and survive a rogue wave? Just how much awareness of unusually huge waves was there given centuries of sea travel in the age of sail, and what if anything was do e with ship design to make ships survivable against what must have seemed like a thing of folklore or legend in those times?
24:06 I wonder about the Royal Navy's doctrine at the time of Jutland about putting the Invincibles in line of battle when their belt protection was so weak.
Concerning the MacArthur question: While it is often spoken about as an Army/Navy issue but the Army never wanted MacArthur. He was retired and everyone was happy about that. Politics kept him in command, which he was never prepared to command. Many other options were available and would have been a better choice.
Re moving floating dry docks, could you not weld some sort of triangular structues to the bow & stern at the waterline to make it a bit more ship-like and improve towing performance?
YES! Coaling was a major problem. When I say coaling I am referring to coaling at a naval base. The Brits (as well as other major powers) were forced to do some MAJOR international negotiation as well as purchasing land from other countries, so as to have a coaling base located within normal "safe" steaming distances, that their ships would be able to travel to w/o them worrying if they were going to run out of fuel. I think 12 Knots was the average war ships cruising speed, as they traveled from nation to nation (gun boat diplomacy). Yet, they had to buy the land, build the base and coal storage facilities, as well as the inlets, harbors, ports and such. They then need to be able to transport the coal from the warehouses (outer harbor vs. inner harbor was sometime done). After bring the oldest coal from the farthest location (something to do w/ keeping it in good use). They then had the actual sailors who's main job was only to deal w/ coal, used wheelbarrow's to carry the coal from the large dump, to 1 of like 50 coal shoots. They were just pipes that lead down into the furnace rooms. Coaling took anywhere from 18-30 hours to reach full capacity (I am NOT positive on the numbers, yet I know it's at least a half a day, b/c a UK combat unit was topping off the coal bins, b/c they had been chasing an enemy, and the captain was worried he would run out it they found the enemy. So, after 12 or hours of coaling, they saw smoke over the horizon, and the captain had his men keep coaling while he had the boilers sparked up, so as to bring them up to temp (that also took 8-10 or more hours, b/c you have bring a LOT of cold water up to furnace temp and pressure (anywheres from 500-1100 degree F, and get the water to pressures levels of similarly crazy levels. The higher and hotter the more speed. But the UK had "beaucoup coal stations all over the world. Side Note: Sorry for my off the wall rambling, to answer your actual question, I believe that they did try doing coaling at sea, w/ some of the first coaling practice was added by the fact that they had put the coal in 50 or 100 bag, to make it easier and faster to coal the ships. This had a significant impact on the speed at which the ships could be coaled, as the sailors didn't have to worry about loose coal falling of the wheelbarrows, (causing possible hazards if they ran into the chunks of coal on the ships deck). Yet since the coal was bagged, it meant that the lumps were relatively the same size, making it easier and faster to tear the bag open and dump it down the pipe. No shoveling, or sweeping up what feel loose, plus no blockages in the actual pipe b/c the size was nearly the same, unlike when it was all loose coal rocks. This also had a positive affect on the lungs of the men, as there was MUCH less coal dust floating around, since it was bagged. BUT, THEy DID NOT do it at sea, like what we do now. They still had to find a sheltered area. (coral reef, atoll, natural harbor, or anyplace that would protect the ships from the enviroment as well as possible enemies. They found a shallow area, drop anchor, and begin the transfer. Or at least that what I remembered from my studies.....3 decades ago....now I feel as old as a coal power ship....hehheh at least I don't feel as old as a sailing ship...EHEHHE take it light --KB
@@kevinobrien3930 Thank you for the detailed reply - so besides having more energy per unit volume, switching to oil meant other improvements in efficiency. Greater range of action (refueling at sea become practical), quicker response time, and ? fewer people needed to do the task (guys connecting the fuel hose versus a lot of guys with wheelbarrows hefting loose coal and bags.)
I believe that it was occasionally done during the Great War; for example when a german hilfskreuser recoaled from a prize or from a support vessel. You're correct though, it was time-consuming and involved a lot of faffing about.
Regarding detachable armor, were there any attempts to design ships fitted-for-but-not-with thicker armor to cheat the WNT, like the Countys and their superstructure, or the Mogamis with their guns? If not, why not?
Maybe this is just a generational thing? But what is the obsession with Cheating? There seems to be huge portion of the audience who just want to spend time trying to cheat, find loopholes or do something other than actually doing what you are supposed to do?
Numbers on the coats: my guess is they were loan clothing on the supply officer's slop chit. If you needed one you were issued one on loan,but had to give it back when you left the ship.
The obvious choice for a naval Band of Brothers is "Tin Can Titans" the story of DESRON 21. They fought from Guadalcanal to the end of the war. Halsey chose them to be the first ships into Tokyo Bay for the surrender. You could take USS Fletcher as the point of focus.
Was wondering the same. Like Chobham armor or whatever is used on modern tanks. Might be very expensive though. Also, I guess in the modern era we wouldn't use WWII style AP projectiles. Maybe something like the BROACH warhead used on the Storm Shadow missile, with a shaped charge designed to blow a hole in the armor so the rest of the projectile with the secondary HE warhead can explode inside?
I am just musing. Useful question: what is the effect of 450kg high explosives on the *unarmored* parts of a ship? (That’s the payload’s of a Tomahawk cruise missile.) An Iowa 16” HE shell contains “only” 70kg HE, by comparison. So a Tomahawk is equivalent to 6+ 16” shells. That could cause significant damage, even if the citadel is intact, enough to put a battleship out of action for many months. The Soviet Granit missile had a 750 kg payload. I don’t think that even needs to penetrate the armor, it would just blow it thru the hull as a projectile 😢. I think that post WW2, firepower (including air power) simply overwhelms protection.
I disagree with the detachable armour plate being at risk of being able to be lost. One way would be to have the bolts on the outside, and a hull pentration near the bolt, into which explosives can be sent out... So the explosives are only placed outside when its time to destroy the bolt at that explosives. But yeah it would be problematic to detach armour plate in the damaged area.
Britains Hannibal was really Napoleon. The Royal Navy is like Scipios Spanish armies going about dismantaling Hannibal/Napoleons empire and alliances whilst he is unable to face them personally. Difference is Scipio got to beat Hannibal at his Waterloo (Zama) whilst the Royal navy only got to watch Napoleons defeat.
2:55:00 USS Enterprise was the subject of a 2000s History Channel ( take of that what you will) series called Battle 360. Sort of fits the idea but not so much on the personal level. Other than that I can’t think of anything similar to it featuring the Enterprise.
Follow up question about the gun swaps. Are there any surviving guns that participated in famous actions? For example: Rodney's or King George V's guns that destroyed Bismark, Warspite's guns from Jutland or Matapan, or Washington's guns that sank Kirishima.
Something like a Tallboy might have had useful effects on Iwo Jima. I would guess that something like a B29 could carry one with some modifications. I suppose it would depend on how tough the local volcanic rock type was, and how much load-bearing material was left between galleries.
A novel concept. As most of Mount Suribachi was mostly Softer Pumice, it was fairly easy to mine, absorbed the explosions nearly as good as mud. Possibly, a few would collapse part of the caves. Shuri Castle would be a better candidate for Tallboys.
@@WALTERBROADDUS The question was whether (assuming the USN knew what was coming) armour-piercing would have had more effect on the dug-in fortifications at Iwo Jima than the High-Explosive used. The answer given was 'a bit, but not much', because AP is designed to go through inches of steel and detonate, not metres of rock. My response was along the lines of 'well, if the USN knows what they are facing, what might they have found in the inventory that would get it done'. The Tallboy (Grand Slam, Cloudmaker) were specifically designed to bore through large amounts of ground and create an underground cavity into which structures above would collapse. They don't have to destroy the mountain, just collapse the tunnels inside it. Tallboys were used for a similar purpose, to collapse a critical railway tunnel under a mountain just after D-Day.
@@WALTERBROADDUS Agreed. But then again, Britain got Barnes Wallis to design a specific type of bomb to destroy a bunch of dams, then specially rebuilt aircraft and trained crews for that very mission. If, by some odd chance, the USN had got wind of the Iwo Jima fortifications while they were being built, I have to wonder if they would have either a) Asked industry or their allies for a solution, or b) Ignored it and thrown a bunch of marines onto the beach. Bear in mind that the USA developed the rocket-boosted 'Disney' bomb around that time, for destroying hardened U-boat shelters. They also developed some very weird and wonderful weapons that were showing promise in 1945 (pigeon-guided anti-ship weapons and bat-borne incendiary devices for Japan).
On your question on nation's and armour , you show a plate of armour with shots. Do th number next to them show the year of manufacture of the shell ? Eg sv 1814 ?thanks
It is always flabbergasting to listen to the depth of knowledge Drach brings to bear in these long Q&A sessions. These are live streams, fer Chrissake! The man is mostly doing this extemporaneously, even if he's had some time to consider the questions beforehand. I'm a nerd, so I can recognize nerd greatness, and this is it. :)
I would love to see and hear the conversation between Drach and Mrs Drach when he tries to persuade her that the 1-1 scale replica of Warspite would totally fit in their back garden.
"When you said you were going to add a 'scenic ocean view' to our yard, this was NOT what I had in mind."
@@Wolfeson28🤣
Remind me again - HOW big was the Garden?
LOL That is a lot down the line of what I see when asking my wife about this or that, as for my getting a 1-1 scale anything will not happen.
wrt the question about gas ejection systems in guns, the incident on Missouri that Drac mentioned produced several changes in USN turret design. At the time, the gunners were supposed to inspect the gun chamber for embers or flames, before ramming the next shot. Missouri was on a gunnery training exercise on April 13, 1904. After firing, the crew began ramming the next shot. When the first two bags were rammed, they immediately ignited. Inspection of the turret after the fire found the rammer still fully extended. Flames shooting out of the breech ignited the two bags still on the hoist, because the hoist was completely unprotected. Burning propellant fell from the hoist car in the turret down the barbette, igniting more charges in the handling room at the bottom of the barbette. Thirty six men died that day. The navy decreed that air injections systems be installed in the guns, and that hoists be completely enclosed in trunks with flash proof shutters.
There was one turret explosion in WW2 and the determination was under powered air pressure clearing the breech
Your creative use of the AA gun sounds for the question before mine was helpful and illustrative!
Just to clarify, the Pará class from Brazil is named after a state. "Parar" means "stop" in portuguese, "Pará" is a state in northern Brazil ;)
Missed opportunity to have a state called 'stop' if you ask me. 😉
@@nvelsen1975 Oh, believe me, we make those types of jokes here. We have a state called "Thick Bush" and another called "South Thick Bush"
Do stop signs in Brazil have little maps of the state on them?
Nah - You're putting us on
We ALL KNOW it was because the cunning aspect was the facility to airdrop them - enabling deployment incredibly them swiftly in theatre. 🙄
I think I was first subscribed when you had under 50,000 subscribers. I do remember thinking the "Drydock" was a great addition so not long before that started I think. Thanks for your dedication. 😎🍀
BIG PROBLEM with other nations operating blimps in WW2- after the R101 and Hindenburg tragedies, manned airships with hydrogen was OUT OF THE QUESTION. Meanwhile the only nation with helium was the US and we classified it as a 'strategic material' throughout the war. Meaning that the State Department would likely not have released it even to the UK during wartime. So that means pretty much only the US is going to operate manned airships.
Yh I understand what your saying but tbh honest Britain by ww2 was using kites in the navy at that the beginning & radar took over as we was the most advanced nation developing it & if it wasn't for us the U.S. would of struggled & been yrs behind. Also tbh we was the only nation that could supply uranium for the manhatton project so I'm sure we had a lot of leverage etc.
"Whose coat is it?"
When I was in US Air Force Basic Training, everyone was issued a rubber stamp, laundry-resistant ink, and a stamp pad (I'm fairly certain I still have it - 40 years later).
You stamped all your issued clothing items except for socks. You were given scraps of cloth to mark with the stamp and sturdy safety pins used to attach your socks together with the marked scrap. That was to make sure items from the weekly bulk laundry could be returned to you.
I forget if my fabric raincoat was dry-clean only, but we had to stamp those as well - I think on the large square manufacturer's military specification label.
Given how fastidious Navies are with clean clothes, I don't want to imagine what happened if you spilled that laundry-resistant ink on your clothes...
@@TomFynn I didn't have issues with that ink, but I did have a pen blow up in my fatigue shirt pocket that the laundry couldn't get the stain out of. 🙁I was not happy that it was a fairly new shirt. But that is what my uniform allowance was for. 🙃
6 hours of Drydock on a rainy Saturday! Perfect!
In 1999 while crewing a tour boat on Lake Minnetonka, I saw an elderly passenger with a ballcap that said "USS Enterprise 1942-1946". I asked him where he was when the forward elevator blew off after the ship was hit by a kamikaze at Okinawa. He said he was standing in the aft end of the island, and the explosion shook the whole ship.
I... was talking about the midget submariners in Japanese service. You know, the ones the IJN had a lot of hopes for during the Attack on Pearl Harbor but pretty much amounted to nothing then and throughout the war. Sorry for the mix-up in communication Drach.
We all live inna midget submarine !
@@murrayscott9546, we must be a bunch of ocean-going clowns.
@@johannderjager4146 Crash-dive
A Japanese midget sub did manage to sink an old Australian ferry that was being used as a depot ship in one of their ports. Although that's hardly a major achievement, certainly not compared to the Italian mini subs sinking a British battleship.
A midget submarine most certainly torpedoed the U.S.S. Oklahoma on December7 1941.
Drach: I've seen several other channels, and even some acedemics refer to your analysis and conclusions re: Hood's explosion vis-a-vis how a shell may have pierced the magazine, due to the ship's speed and hydrodynamics...
Have you considered publishing? (in a peer reviewed journal, a technical analysis of your argument?)
Just a thought.
(Also, re: hannibal- John Paul Jones? Kinda/sorta, for sheer pain-in-the-ass-ness)
Hi Drach. Regarding the hull numbers for the US Independence-class carriers. If I remember correctly, those ships were originally ordered as "CV", hence their hulls would be contiguous with the other carriers. The "CVL" designation came later, but the hull numbers weren't changed because, as you stated, the ships were still considered part of the fleet carrier mission. The "light" and "heavy" cruisers were pretty much set to the same mission profile, soi they were given hull numbers in series. The Alaska-class were a new breed of cat, so they got a new hull number series.
About the questing regarding the numbering of coats, inventory is one reason (usually they're one-size-fits-all) and is also for when they are issued they are numbered to recognize what coat belongs to who. The original tradition for numbering the coats was to identify who was wearing what if they, for one reason or another, went into the water and drowned or died from injury. It was a grim way of identifying during the first and second world wars, but it was done for accountability of personnel more than inventory of coats. Now days, the tradition of numbering coats is still a thing, only now the numbers are placed INSIDE the coats and that is for inventory use only.
Using the last 3 digits of one's service number or similar? Typical in the UK to use last 3 to identify an individual (e.g. smith 849 Vs smith 237
@@johnsweet1915 For the US, since it is about inventory, it comes down to the number of personnel attached to a unit. The number issued to an individual is generally random, but is recorded upon being issued. If a unit has let's say 2000 personnel attached, then the numbers would start at 0001-2000. Of course, there are replacements in storage for damage or lost items and that became the case, the replacement would take on the number of the item it replaces. Prior to the 1920s, floatation devices weren't required for sailors onboard ship, so numbering jackets was crucial for identification, especially if a body was in the water for more than a few days (decay sets in quickly in salt water), which was one of the reasons why numbering was needed. For sure, if one sailor went overboard and/or was unidentifiable due to injury, it could be deduced that the one person not counted in muster was the the identified sailor. However, if there were multiple sailors involved, their crews would want every avenue of identification they could available to them. Sorry for the rambling. I can get carried away sometimes. 🙃
wrt the question about the portability of floating drydocks, USS Dewey, YFD-1 was built in Maryland in 1905. In December, 05, her tow began, across the Atlantic, through the Med, through Suez and the Indian Ocean, arriving in the Philippines in July 1906. At the time, that was the longest tow every successfully completed.
00:10:34 - Smaller ships of the South American Dreadnought race?
ARGENTINA
- Battleships: 2 vessels acquired (28,000t and 12x305mm+12x152mm); and 1 approved-cancelled vessel (356mm).
- Cruisers: No vessel orders (only improvements to existing ones).
- Destroyers: 4 vessels acquired (1,000t and 4x102mm+4x533mm); 4 vessels ordered-sold (1,000t and 4x102mm+4x533mm); 4 vessels ordered-requisitioned (1,000t and 4x102mm+4x533mm); and 4 vessel ordered-requisitioned (1,200t and 4x102mm+8x533mm).
- Submarines: No vessels orders (only design studies).
BRAZIL
- Battleships: 2 vessels acquired (19,000t and 12x305mm+20x120mm); 1 vessel ordered-sold (28,000t and 14x305mm+20x152mm, redesigned from 32,000t and 12x356mm+16x152mm); and 1 vessel ordered-cancelled (31,000t and 8x381mm+14x152mm).
- Cruisers: 2 vessels acquired (3,100t and 10x120mm+4x457mm); and 1 vessel approved-cancelled (3,200t and 10x120mm+4x457mm).
- Destroyers: 10 vessels acquired (500t and 2x102mm+2x457mm); and 5 vessels approved-cancelled (500t and 2x102mm+2x457mm).
- Submarines: 3 vessels acquired (200t and 2x457mm).
CHILI
- Battleships: 2 vessels ordered-cancelled (28,000t and 14x356mm+16x152mm).
- Cruise ships: No vessel orders (only canceled modernization projects on existing ones).
- Destroyers: 2 vessels acquired (1,400t and 6x102mm+3x457mm); 4 vessels ordered-requisitioned (1,500t and 6x102mm+3x533mm).
- Submarines: 2 vessels ordered-requisitioned/stoled (300t and 4x457mm).
I hope I don't forget anyone else. I am omitting gunboats and other small or non-oceanic vessels.
Regarding the one about resonance and vibration, my wife is a noise and vibration engineer for an airplane manufacturer. Even to this day, their usual way of finding out if something will have vibration issues in the real world is to go put it on a shaker table for hours at a time, varying the frequency, direction, etc. of the movement over and over again. No model is good enough to ensure that it's actually safe - you need to physically shake it and see what happens.
If that's what you do for a new headphone jack on the in-flight entertainment system, makes sense that it's much worse for whole ships.
Drydocks:
There is the iconic photo of USS Iowa in ABSD-2. There were several of these docks built that had ten pontoon sections when fully assembled (around 1000ft). For ocean transport the dock was disassembled the wing walls folded down inward to reduce windage so each pontoon could be easily towed individually. The sections could be arranged in any combination, and today the Vigor yard in Portland OR operates a dock with four sections. It is common to see pontoons from ABSD's now used as ramps for unloading car carriers.
Ah it wouldn't be Sunday afternoon without a drydock episode.
Oh. Okay I'll stop watching and wait for the afternoon......in 6 hours!
Or 2. Or hours of droning about cool watery floaty things
Having had the opportunity to sail on various sailing vessels over the years, I'm thinking particularly of a Top-sail Schooner and 6th rate frigate, I'd make the following observations.
The Schooler had restrictive views. You constantly had to change side of the ship because the sails were in the way.
The Frigate was a pain in full sail to get any kind of view ahead from the quarter deck because the sails were in the way. If you did furl the mainsails, you could actually see ahead from the quarterdeck.
It doesn't matter how long this is, it never gets boring
The prop guards on GATO/BALAO class subs were usually removed (COs discretion) before going out on a combat patrol. WAHOO removed hers before leaving Mare Island from overhaul. If you look at the guards, they are constructed in a way that they can be tacked onto the hull while the boat was in dockyard hands and removed when heading out.
Apropos of nothing: In German, "Drachinfels" means Dragon's Rock
I have been wondering this for quite some time, couldn't find the meaning lol, thank you !
Re: Beatty doing things better… history is replete with people who were promoted beyond their optimum competence. Beatty being a shining example… The combination of personality, native-intelligence, training, experience, status, Edwardian-era, birthright etc. made him who he was. He would have eventually hit his competence ceiling - unfortunately that happened when it could be least afforded. Halsey might be cited as another apt example.
I love it. Even talks about Reardon Steel here.
Flotilla, squadron, ... usn Details everything. .. you two ships go that way!
Cochrane of course provided the basis for not only the Hornblower series of novels but also the Aubrey novels
"Modern armour": Apparently some turbine blades are grown as single crystals. -- Imagine the front plate of a gun turret as a single crystal. ...And not even one of steel, but grown from molten nickel, with some extra elements.
THAT would be a piece of engineering...
(Could I join in the process? -- Please? ! )
While I know that most modern explosives are fairly stable without their detonators get them initiated, and the hull of an iron, or steel hulled ship makes a fairly decent Faraday cage, the sort of explosive bolt ideas for detachable armor you were mentioning has me imagining an absolutely terrifying/hilarious scenario where a lightning strike might cause a section of armor to pop off.
Unlikely in the extreme, I know.
Always great to hear an answer to one's question! :D
It wouldn't be "Band of Brothers" style but I would love to see both a miniseries on the Naval Battle of Guadalcanal, and a 2 hour movie on the Battle off Samar.
You know what would actually make a good ship for a "Band of Brotherrs" series? The USS Pensacola. It was never a major key combatant that stole headlines, but the damned ship was *everywhere*. An overgunned and elderly light cruiser forced to pretend to be a heavy cruiser because of the treaty definitions, she was headed into the Phillipenes during Pearl Harbor and was part of that confused mess in Brisbane, escorted the Lexington (TF11) during the early island raids and got some fo the first American AA kills of the war.
At Midway when Yorktown was dead in the water, she shot down four (!) torpedo bombers and probably saved the ship (for a little while). She fought in a ton of actions around Guadalcanal, was alongside Hornet when she was sunk, survived the debacle at Savo Island (although taking a Long Lance and losing over a hundred men) and rolled into Tulagi under her own power while still burning brightly. She escaped Tulagi by camouflaging herself as a freakin' *island* (no joke!) and was back in the fight in less than a year. and fought everywhere from Alaskan waters down to the Phillipenes again. She did shore bombardment on too many islands to list (including the big ones like Iwo Jima and Okinawa. She did everything, her scout plane even scored an aerial kill!
After surviving absolutely every thing and earning a ridiculous 13 battle stars, she was *nuked* twice in Operation Crossroads in 1946. The ship was a witness to history, and a show that follows her would cover a great deal of the most interesting parts of the Pacific War.
Regarding the "quick release armor", another major reason it is a bad idea is the effect of several thousands of tons of armor plate falling off to the ship's stability. Even as a counter to the weight of flooding it would remove the stabilizing force that would otherwise be a partial or substantial counter to the free-surface effect of the flooding.
Regarding the bouncing Dauntless: carrier-based versions used a solid rubber tailwheel tire with the usual hydraulic shock system. I imagine that might have contributed to the skipping.
Imagine the computer modelling for the Millennium Bridge.
There are some pedestrian bridges across the R. Clyde. The old one with chains bounces well.
For the flotilla/squadron/fleet question, I suppose one might approach it from the other direction and just look at what rank of officer is in command of it.
Regarding the "super armour". The changes to the armour deck and how the superstructure is protected could be a bigger deal than the main belt. That's a lot of weight removed from on high. Or, a massive amount of protection for a similar weight.
Regarding the coats at 1:14:23, foul weather gear is not a uniform item owned by individual sailors. They are what's known as organizational clothing. Owned and issued by the ship or command, and inventoried as such. So each one has the organization's name and a number spray painted on them. That does mean that multiple people have used a coat over the life of the ship.
At least that is how it is in the modern USN, I suspect it was the same in the RN.
a Band of Brothers series but based on unsinkable Sam and his (mis)adventures , but he also goes down to S Africa and meets Just Nuisance where they drink beer and play hooky on the Trains without paying. Also they can have Simon the cat from HMS Amethyst
Get Aardman to make it , and Gromit's Great Grandad can make an appearance. Timelines might be a bit off
A TV series about Warspite would, I think, benefit from distinguished narration, in which we find out in the end, Warspite was herself the narrator.
17:10 - Just drill a small hole _into_ the bolt and fill it with explosive (like the explosive bolts they use in spacecraft nowadays). Hey presto, now you can shear the bolt with negligible danger of hull damage!
Best theme song on UA-cam
I think the fact Prince of Wales with at most 5 guns able to fire and a lot of the time less was still the most accurate ship there means once the turn is complete and it has 4 more guns, that yes will degrade over time, however will hit quickly. I don't see how Bismarck is going to do well. Espcially when the Cruisers get involved.
What should Beatty have done NUMBER ONE. Act like he's in charge of the recce screen for the Grand Fleet and tell Jellicoe what is going on! But for some inspired guess work by Jellicoe, Beatty almost led the Grand Fleet into an unintentional German trap! (PS I wrote this thinking you'd used up your allocated changes before you mentioned this as the last item; I still think this is the number onbe though)
Another possibility if a navy developed a 'super armor' as described would be to *say* it's got 4" of armor, but build it with 5", and watch it shrug off anything smaller than battleship guns. So long as you could keep the secret, having your enemies expect to be fighting a ship with 4" of protection but having it have effectively 10" of protection would be a very rude surprise.
Alternately, depending on priorities and doctrine, they could leave the armor at 4", weighing the same as 2", and let the weight savings translate to greater speed, though that might be less of an advantage
You must be watching too much Captain America? Vibranium shields are not real. 🛡️
@@WALTERBROADDUS I never said it did. I was replying to a question asked for this vid. Specifically the one at 4:25 where Drach mentioned the options a navy might have if it developed an armor that offered much better protection than an equal thickness of what everyone else was using. Using the figures he gave for his theoretical 'super armor' in the question. That, by the way, is why I said 'as described'; I was literally referring to what he said.
With reference to your comment about the number of Oberons preserved, did they become available at the moment that interest in preservation was starting. I was delighted to see Ocelot in Chatham as I saw her launched, in fact I believe she was the one that missed the the entrance to Whitewall Creek and got her stern stuck on the mud on the other side of the river. I actually saw Oberon, Ocelot, Onslaught. Objibwe launched, from our boat which was anchored by the Royal Engineers hard. Okenagan I saw from the shed as dad had complimentary tickets to the launch. Chatham claimed to have built a submarine for every year that the Navy had submarines.
I also remember seeing a very well-worn submarine come up the river, possibly early '50s. The story that I heard this was Finwhale, which in company Porpoise had been doing under-ice trials during which they put the wind up USS Skate and a Soviet boat
Lurking in the same area. They had been fitted with experimental casings made of fibreglass, unfortunately when they came up through the ice the springiness of the Grp carried away the fixings, the casings then floating away.
Geoff Stevens.
Naval Band of Brothers. Arguably it was done seventy years ago with the Cruel Sea. If you want a destroyer rather than a corvette, it was done eighty years ago in In Which We Serve. Other possibilities, "Johnnie" Walker and his escort group or Max Horton and his sub in the Baltic.
I will say that in the sinking of the Titanic, Collapsible A did actually float off the deck loaded as the Titanic’s final plunge began.
It was a pretty close run thing as the crew had to cut its ropes free because they had been trying to launch it normally. And then it’s described that the wave created by the 1st funnel collapsing pushed it clear of the ship.
Insofar as Naval Technology vs Military Tech. I believe you must look at the continued development of (propeller) screw design. Much of this was the off shoot of regular or civillian industrial design to eliminate cavitation.
The idea of special lightweight but strong metal to be used in armor would naturally be developed for commercial cargo ship frame construction.
Unless or until some inspired folks put it togeather. It is more likely that armor development would come from military technology.
Thus a situation on a cruiser that the modern strong, lightweight frame would carry on it heavy old fasioned armor.
Time to start writing two good script pages per day, Drach. in your spare time, of course. There was a British author who wrote two good pages a day on his daily train commute, and after a year, had around 700 pages in hand for his first book.
Numbers on coats. The numbers being on the left or right of the seam could have another function. Assuming they are hung up either on both sides of a passageway. The number would be shown when hung up with 115 being hung on the right side, number out. 2-- would be on the left wall, number out.
As regards a BoB-type series: love the idea of HMS Warspite. Due to my specific interests, I'd be looking at basing something on 'MGB 658' by Len Reynolds looking at the small boat war in the Med. And maybe stretching the source material into the Atlantic too ;-)
Also, yay for Saturday night!!
Cue the Bay City Rollers !
While the heavy Armor might not improve that much, the anispalling armor and thinnerarmor would be much improved, the use of Kevlar for shrapnel, Lithium-aliminum.instead of Duralumin, and Fiberglass for small boat hulls would have made a difference.
Thanks Drach.
Early-model B24s were regarded with suspicion by their crews because the Davis wing flexed rather more in-flight that your average crew was used to. Additionally, some early models were inexplicably lost without any chance to radio out an emergency. The latter (if I recall correctly) was eventually traced to a badly designed hydraulic system. Nevertheless, it was nicknamed 'The Whore', because 'it lacks any form of visible support'.
Note: It is possible that I have conflated that nickname with the B26, which was also regarded with suspicion because of the tiny (for the time) wing.
For the destroyer men question, it was a night action in a harbor and one of the destroyers was set to pull a cambledown and the amagi was sunk by a mine as it was retreating.
Brazil mentioned?? Let's gooooooooooo!
1:43:22 If one of those destroyers was named USS John Wicks, then forget about sinking a single ship, the IJN is doomed.
Honestly, focusing on a cruiser like Boise or Helena could be fun. Boise because she was part of ABDA and of guadalcanal fame. Helena because her active career was very active until when she got sunk
A show based on the story of the crew of the Zuikaku or the Shigure would also make a great series.
Perhaps William Randolph Hearst could tell us what caused the explosion of the Jaime I?
Fleet. Flotilla's and Squadrons, reminds me of the old diddy " The North Atlantic Squadron". 🤣
About improving the metallurgy of armor using face harden steel, I don't think the improvements would necessarily that great from alloying, heat treatment, etc. I think we would be more consistent in the composition and hardening techniques because of better control. This would mean the margin required to account for quality differences is less and thus the plate could theoretically be made thinner. But the problem would be are you maybe gaining a 2 or 3% reduction in thickness or a 10 or 15% reduction. I tend to think 2 or 3% is more accurate.
On a naval Band of Brothers style show, I think your mistake is looking for people. A focus on a ship would be an obvious choice for me and I would ideally look for a ship that was present and involved in various events of differing scales and such.
For a ship like HMS Norfolk, you ahve the crew on the ship and coming home to Britain as the drums of war start beating.
Then move into her hunting for the Scharnhorst, Gneisenau, etc.
Then the story of the Bismarck.
Moving on to the Arctic and finally getting to sink its teeth into the Scharnhorst.
Closing out with operations off Norway, including rhe return of the Royal family.
I am sure there are much better options as well. But I believe a ship focussed series would flow much better than one focussed on individuals. Although I would probably prefer a smaller ship what wws present at lots of events to a capital ship.
Your core cast would be a selection of ratings and warrant officers who stayed with the ship for the vast majority of the period.
Re the numbers on the back of coats?? When I wirked the rigs, coveralls were laundered and the cabin number was the identifier? So if these jackets need to be dried on a rack its done numerically?..
Bit of a supplement to the Lucitania sinking in May 1915. The U Boat captain was Walther Schweiger (which Ironically means 'Silent' in English). Much argument ensued about the legitimacy of that but Luscitania was carrying 170+ tons of munitions .
He had a bad rep for 'shoot first ask questions later'. This was deserved. 2 months earlier he torpedoed a Hospital ship which would have sunk had the crew not grounded her.
He sadly perished in Sept 1917, probably a result of running into a mine.
The most important drydock question is what does texas and La Shock mean?
An-la-shok is the Minbari word for ranger in Babylon 5, so it is a double nerdy joke…
Since you mentioned it, while not a naval subject, would you consider doing perhaps a fun Friday episode on the Tacoma Narrows Bridge? As a competent engineer who csn also explain things, which is something of a rarity, I'd enjoy hearing your thoughts.
The voyage of the Emden, WW1, to the surviors making it back to Germany might make a good naval band of Brothers show.
Goodness, I would LOVE, a dramatised TV series, a la BoBs, on HMS Warspite!
How many peeps here thought the picture for drydock showed a ram ship? Took me ages to realise that this was a stern view? Also why was it shaped thus?
Philip Vian would make a great focus for a series.
Maybe it'd be possible to apply progress with modern composite tank armor on a battleship scale and thickness. But... But someone eventually would fire bigger missiles at it anyway so why would anyone run their fleet into bankruptcy over doing this?
I lovva good broad-roll ! Beena while.
On Hood and Prince of Wales vs Bismarck, the British do have one big advantage. They can afford their ships to be battle damaged. The Germans, being a long way from the nearest friendly ports, the way to them patrolled by more British ships and aircraft, can't. The damage Bismarck had sustained before the fatal hit on Hood was already critical. She was going to be lucky to get either to Norway or to St Nazaire. Any more damage to Bismarck would have most likely been fatal even if the Germans did pull some sort of pyrrhic victory out of the battle.
TACOMA NARROWS BRIDGE is always the best example when explaining resonance….also, WASHINGTON MENTIONED LETS GOOOOOOOO
@Drachinifel At 1 hr 5 min, your comments Drach on seaworthiness of floating drydocks sparked a thought- awareness, knowledge and understanding of rogue waves and ship design features to protect against rogue wave encounters didn't arise until after WW2. In hindsight, in reviewing primary and auxiliary warship losses since the emergence of iron hulls, are any now known to be lost to rogue waves either because the hull design was poor or because the ship was unprepared (poorly loaded or overloaded) to encounter and survive a rogue wave? Just how much awareness of unusually huge waves was there given centuries of sea travel in the age of sail, and what if anything was do e with ship design to make ships survivable against what must have seemed like a thing of folklore or legend in those times?
24:06 I wonder about the Royal Navy's doctrine at the time of Jutland about putting the Invincibles in line of battle when their belt protection was so weak.
Concerning the MacArthur question: While it is often spoken about as an Army/Navy issue but the Army never wanted MacArthur. He was retired and everyone was happy about that. Politics kept him in command, which he was never prepared to command. Many other options were available and would have been a better choice.
Re moving floating dry docks, could you not weld some sort of triangular structues to the bow & stern at the waterline to make it a bit more ship-like and improve towing performance?
Ships refueling at sea became a regular action during WWII. Was re-coaling at sea ever standardized or was it just too much of a hassle.
You had to put into a harbor to do recoaling. There is no practical way to transfer coal underway.
YES! Coaling was a major problem. When I say coaling I am referring to coaling at a naval base. The Brits (as well as other major powers) were forced to do some MAJOR international negotiation as well as purchasing land from other countries, so as to have a coaling base located within normal "safe" steaming distances, that their ships would be able to travel to w/o them worrying if they were going to run out of fuel. I think 12 Knots was the average war ships cruising speed, as they traveled from nation to nation (gun boat diplomacy). Yet, they had to buy the land, build the base and coal storage facilities, as well as the inlets, harbors, ports and such. They then need to be able to transport the coal from the warehouses (outer harbor vs. inner harbor was sometime done). After bring the oldest coal from the farthest location (something to do w/ keeping it in good use). They then had the actual sailors who's main job was only to deal w/ coal, used wheelbarrow's to carry the coal from the large dump, to 1 of like 50 coal shoots. They were just pipes that lead down into the furnace rooms. Coaling took anywhere from 18-30 hours to reach full capacity (I am NOT positive on the numbers, yet I know it's at least a half a day, b/c a UK combat unit was topping off the coal bins, b/c they had been chasing an enemy, and the captain was worried he would run out it they found the enemy. So, after 12 or hours of coaling, they saw smoke over the horizon, and the captain had his men keep coaling while he had the boilers sparked up, so as to bring them up to temp (that also took 8-10 or more hours, b/c you have bring a LOT of cold water up to furnace temp and pressure (anywheres from 500-1100 degree F, and get the water to pressures levels of similarly crazy levels. The higher and hotter the more speed. But the UK had "beaucoup coal stations all over the world.
Side Note: Sorry for my off the wall rambling, to answer your actual question, I believe that they did try doing coaling at sea, w/ some of the first coaling practice was added by the fact that they had put the coal in 50 or 100 bag, to make it easier and faster to coal the ships. This had a significant impact on the speed at which the ships could be coaled, as the sailors didn't have to worry about loose coal falling of the wheelbarrows, (causing possible hazards if they ran into the chunks of coal on the ships deck). Yet since the coal was bagged, it meant that the lumps were relatively the same size, making it easier and faster to tear the bag open and dump it down the pipe. No shoveling, or sweeping up what feel loose, plus no blockages in the actual pipe b/c the size was nearly the same, unlike when it was all loose coal rocks. This also had a positive affect on the lungs of the men, as there was MUCH less coal dust floating around, since it was bagged. BUT, THEy DID NOT do it at sea, like what we do now. They still had to find a sheltered area. (coral reef, atoll, natural harbor, or anyplace that would protect the ships from the enviroment as well as possible enemies. They found a shallow area, drop anchor, and begin the transfer. Or at least that what I remembered from my studies.....3 decades ago....now I feel as old as a coal power ship....hehheh at least I don't feel as old as a sailing ship...EHEHHE take it light --KB
@@kevinobrien3930 Thank you for the detailed reply - so besides having more energy per unit volume, switching to oil meant other improvements in efficiency. Greater range of action (refueling at sea become practical), quicker response time, and ? fewer people needed to do the task (guys connecting the fuel hose versus a lot of guys with wheelbarrows hefting loose coal and bags.)
I believe that it was occasionally done during the Great War; for example when a german hilfskreuser recoaled from a prize or from a support vessel.
You're correct though, it was time-consuming and involved a lot of faffing about.
Regarding detachable armor, were there any attempts to design ships fitted-for-but-not-with thicker armor to cheat the WNT, like the Countys and their superstructure, or the Mogamis with their guns? If not, why not?
Maybe this is just a generational thing? But what is the obsession with Cheating? There seems to be huge portion of the audience who just want to spend time trying to cheat, find loopholes or do something other than actually doing what you are supposed to do?
Numbers on the coats: my guess is they were loan clothing on the supply officer's slop chit. If you needed one you were issued one on loan,but had to give it back when you left the ship.
...mind you, I kept mine :-)
The obvious choice for a naval Band of Brothers is "Tin Can Titans" the story of DESRON 21. They fought from Guadalcanal to the end of the war. Halsey chose them to be the first ships into Tokyo Bay for the surrender. You could take USS Fletcher as the point of focus.
McCales Navy is a band of brothers show!!!
Re: modern tech battleship armour. Would equivalent or significantly better protection come from composite armour?
Was wondering the same. Like Chobham armor or whatever is used on modern tanks. Might be very expensive though.
Also, I guess in the modern era we wouldn't use WWII style AP projectiles. Maybe something like the BROACH warhead used on the Storm Shadow missile, with a shaped charge designed to blow a hole in the armor so the rest of the projectile with the secondary HE warhead can explode inside?
I am just musing. Useful question: what is the effect of 450kg high explosives on the *unarmored* parts of a ship? (That’s the payload’s of a Tomahawk cruise missile.)
An Iowa 16” HE shell contains “only” 70kg HE, by comparison. So a Tomahawk is equivalent to 6+ 16” shells. That could cause significant damage, even if the citadel is intact, enough to put a battleship out of action for many months.
The Soviet Granit missile had a 750 kg payload. I don’t think that even needs to penetrate the armor, it would just blow it thru the hull as a projectile 😢.
I think that post WW2, firepower (including air power) simply overwhelms protection.
I just liked 👍 part 2. Too
I disagree with the detachable armour plate being at risk of being able to be lost. One way would be to have the bolts on the outside, and a hull pentration near the bolt, into which explosives can be sent out... So the explosives are only placed outside when its time to destroy the bolt at that explosives. But yeah it would be problematic to detach armour plate in the damaged area.
Britains Hannibal was really Napoleon. The Royal Navy is like Scipios Spanish armies going about dismantaling Hannibal/Napoleons empire and alliances whilst he is unable to face them personally. Difference is Scipio got to beat Hannibal at his Waterloo (Zama) whilst the Royal navy only got to watch Napoleons defeat.
Drach, do you consider USS Massachusetts fight against Jean Bart as a battleship duel, even though Jean Bart is incomplete?
It's three-quarters of a battleship duel.
2:55:00 USS Enterprise was the subject of a 2000s History Channel ( take of that what you will) series called Battle 360. Sort of fits the idea but not so much on the personal level. Other than that I can’t think of anything similar to it featuring the Enterprise.
if I may say, the BoB age of sail series exists already,
in the form of the excellent Hornblower series from the late 1980s.
2:51:17
For a 'Band of Brothers' style TV show, covering Captain Walker & the crew of HMS Starling would fit the bill.
I thought lateen sails were mounted off the mizzen mast? the fore mounted triangular sails are Jib sails.
A laneen is supported from a spar. A jib is simply raised on sheets.
Follow up question about the gun swaps. Are there any surviving guns that participated in famous actions?
For example: Rodney's or King George V's guns that destroyed Bismark, Warspite's guns from Jutland or Matapan, or Washington's guns that sank Kirishima.
Submarine in the Pacific you would be able to cover the entire crew in the series USS barb would be a good one
Something like a Tallboy might have had useful effects on Iwo Jima. I would guess that something like a B29 could carry one with some modifications. I suppose it would depend on how tough the local volcanic rock type was, and how much load-bearing material was left between galleries.
A novel concept. As most of Mount Suribachi was mostly Softer Pumice, it was fairly easy to mine, absorbed the explosions nearly as good as mud.
Possibly, a few would collapse part of the caves.
Shuri Castle would be a better candidate for Tallboys.
I'm not sure what you think you're going to accomplish? You a're not destroying a mountain. 🌋
@@WALTERBROADDUS The question was whether (assuming the USN knew what was coming) armour-piercing would have had more effect on the dug-in fortifications at Iwo Jima than the High-Explosive used. The answer given was 'a bit, but not much', because AP is designed to go through inches of steel and detonate, not metres of rock. My response was along the lines of 'well, if the USN knows what they are facing, what might they have found in the inventory that would get it done'. The Tallboy (Grand Slam, Cloudmaker) were specifically designed to bore through large amounts of ground and create an underground cavity into which structures above would collapse. They don't have to destroy the mountain, just collapse the tunnels inside it. Tallboys were used for a similar purpose, to collapse a critical railway tunnel under a mountain just after D-Day.
@@onenote6619 that's kind of taking the whole "what if?" thing to its 10th degree.
@@WALTERBROADDUS Agreed. But then again, Britain got Barnes Wallis to design a specific type of bomb to destroy a bunch of dams, then specially rebuilt aircraft and trained crews for that very mission. If, by some odd chance, the USN had got wind of the Iwo Jima fortifications while they were being built, I have to wonder if they would have either a) Asked industry or their allies for a solution, or b) Ignored it and thrown a bunch of marines onto the beach. Bear in mind that the USA developed the rocket-boosted 'Disney' bomb around that time, for destroying hardened U-boat shelters. They also developed some very weird and wonderful weapons that were showing promise in 1945 (pigeon-guided anti-ship weapons and bat-borne incendiary devices for Japan).
LOL - If Drach mentions Jutland, Jelico, or Beatty, get a cup of coffee and get comfortable and ready to learn.
The turret explosion was on the Iowa, not the Missouri….
On your question on nation's and armour , you show a plate of armour with shots. Do th number next to them show the year of manufacture of the shell ? Eg sv 1814 ?thanks