Did any Navy ever consider have an alternate lighter powder load for their guns so that the guns could intact plunging fire on other ships when otherwise (with the main load) they would be in the immune zone of the ship?
Drachism of the Day: 6:49 "These abortions are the result of a psychological maladjustment." (this is a quote, not a Drachism). 8:11 "By this point it was clear that battleships, along with common sense and an appreciation of reality, had long since left the realms of sensibility and established a FIRM hold in fantasy-land." I now understand why these videos should be done with the human-voice. No CG-voiced video is capable of conveying the snark (both subtle and overt) in Drach's voice.
It is more the cost of the Crew, not the Ship that is Prohibitive! Using modern Automation Technology, and consideration of just how many Sailors are required to maneuver, fight, and do Damage Control, it is possible to design a Practical Battleship. Considering the cost of Tomahawks, Harpoons, etc , and the effectiveness of 16" Naval Rifles ("Battleship cannons"), which are far more Cost Effective for the Explosive Payload delivered. Perhaps a Range of 50-60 Miles (~100km) seems limited, compared to Cruise Missiles? A vast number of Critical Targets are less than 30 miles/50km inland (keeping a Battleship in International Waters). Many targets that the USA or Great Britain would wish to Target, would be In Range! Even from East of the Straight of Hormuz (Outside the Arabian Gulf).
Paladin Six The cost of the munition itself is only a fraction of the cost of a weapons platform. Yes a missile costs more than a shell, but a missile destroyer costs less than a battleship overall. And range is another big problem.
@@DidMyGrandfatherMakeThis (US here) Topped off is when they're getting their rum kegs refilled/replaced!!! Of course, I feel that some of what happened with the (HMS) Lion design (and a few other RN designs, as well as other countries design) is what has happened with several US Navy designs, Politicians (whose total knowledge of ships seems to be: "Pointy end at the front is the bow, Port is left, Starboard is right, back is the stern, and water is wet). Don't give enough money to build a good ship, then a committee decides what they want on the ship, and the poor designers are trying to do the best they can to satisfy both!!! Hence, the drinking!
@@timengineman2nd714 the language is the same, and I agree fully with you. They just kept plying the designer until he finally, drunkenly decides "that's it" hands over to their lordships at the admiralty and passes out from too much rum ingestion. The Royal Naval mic drop :)
If you tell an engineer you want x design, they will give you that regardless of what it is and the more insane your request is the louder the giggles of eximent will be :D
They get paid the same, regardless of whether a design is produced or not. All they need to do is make sure it fits the specifications, then they can have a giggle.
@@Drachinifel not relevant to this comment but in your description list, SMS emden is both at the upper and lower part of the list, aka 2x in there(unless we're talking two ships with the same name, but thought I'd mention it)
Reality: Battlecarriers don't work and never will! Game designers and writers: Sorry I didn't hear that. *Montage of various Battlecarriers from the Galactica to the Icemaiden* Reality: Am I a joke to you?
There is a point, though. A shell is an infinitely better weapon than an aeroplane when both can hit the target. No-one goes into harms way with the shell, it can be deployed from far away. Once it is on its way, it cannot be stopped. There is no defense against it save to dig ever-deeper and pour ever-more ferrocrete. Such cannot be done quickly nor with a thing one man can carry around like a FIM-92... Battleship guns are truly terrifying weapons; men have surrendered to their spotting drones when they were recognized as such. While air strikes are fearsome, there are measures anyone can take if they have a machine gun of some sort at least. The battleship can still complement the aircraft carrier; the carrier air group can protect the battleship against a fearsome air assault if need be, and strike out at distant targets and in very precise ways, or with napalm, or other diverse weapons, but everything that falls under the battleship's guns must be counted as lost as long as the battleship exists and the carrier's air group remains unbroken. It would exist as a "fleet-in-being" in and of itself, as its attacks cannot be countered, it would have to be dealt with, and together the battleship and carrier form an immense wedge for the enemy to break his strength upon.
@@ParabolicBox Of any ship in any fleet it would be best prepared to receive it, and the missile is as much a threat to any other ship so that question doesn't become "is the battleship still useful?" but rather "is a ship useful?" The missile can be stopped and the means to do so will be amongst any naval fleet that wants to remain on the floaty side of things as opposed to the sea-bed. And if we're making a case for the ridiculous 1,000-ton battleship the size of a nuclear fleet carrier, may as well size the reactor to accommodate a laser for missile defense beyond the missiles and guns it would doubtless carry for this as well.
So if the Admiralty came to Drach and said "We need a ship that can fight the Yamato AND the Iowa, while sailing through nuclear fallout and dodging active torpedoes and guided missiles (and please mind the budget)" what would you design for them?
Looks like the large design Lion. 100,000 tons displacement! But they would need to go with four turrets; two twin 18” and 2 triple 18” guns. 18” armour belt.
This is why some people should not be left unsupervised. They get all giddy and start doing silly things. That's when the adults have to take their crayons off them.
Big Blue Or, alternately, you just put them in a room, give them a big stack of paper and crayons and pencils, and let them doodle to their hearts' content. All the while making it perfectly clear to everyone else that they're to politely and discreetly disregard the design material coming out of Bedlam.
@@Assassinus2 That sounds like a waste of money,really.Assuming the people with the crayons are paid.But it's cheaper than medicating them,I suppose.Like a wise man said once..."there are no solutions,only trade offs".
Flamu Why not? A 100k ton, 32kt, supposedly invulnerable BB sounds like something that would fit right in with the semi-functional, unrealistic game known as WoWS.
Kairistiona Clark In reality it would be impossible to fight a carrier without a carrier of your own (or by having a pre-positioned sub). See my point about the game being unrealistic?
They will probably do another conqueror maybe by fitting the minotaur guns in place of the 5.25s along with triple 457mm and a reload booster you know something not too overpowered!😁
Ahhhhhh what could have been. Not to mention this class would have likely had the best names for an entire class since the Orions. And the classes would have shared names for two ships, Conqueror and Thunderer. Fantastic video as always Drach. I LOVE the what could have been videos.
I recognise your voice and this youtube name from world of tanks Drachinifel. years ago we were in a clan together, possibly British Marauders. hello you. Great content, thank you.
As silly as the speculative designs got (I've come up with an amusing 107,000T, 12 x 16" design in Springsharp) how awesome would it have been to have such a Super Battleship of Doom that could have been saved as a museum ship? Would have loved to have seen such a thing but sadly in reality I doubt there was anywhere that could have built such a ship, or that could have afforded to run it.
Crazy Train Idea #27: The US Navy did similar design studies in 1946 on the Iowas, and intended to test them on the almost completed Kentucky. One idea was to mount missile launchers on the stern in place of the rear turret. An idea that was carried out and tested, was to use the 16in guns to fire nuclear shells, and storage was built in the forward magazine. Some say that the New Jersey carried some of these shells while it was deployed off Vietnam in 1968. While it was possible, no provable evidence has surfaced.
I hope we get a bigger version of the Lion in Warships if we ever get a battlecruiser line. Especially if said version carries the 16in autoloading guns.
oh, something to lighten up the miserable humid temps today. Thanks so much, Drach, the vid being one of a very few things I get to look forward to today. B) 27c and rising, and 80% humidity today, blah. I think the heat is also on a crazy train today, lol.
18 inches of belt armor. I don't think there was a single steel plant in the world back then that could fabricate such a thick sheet of steel as a single piece, and even today companies that make nuclear reactor containment vessels would struggle with it.
Been looking for the human voice version, thanks. Can I suggest two videos for the future. Hawkins class heavy cruiser, and the O-Class destroyer please.
I would disagree with you on that. HMS habakkuk was just a floating Airfield effectively. These monstrosities were not a realistic copy of anything they were just made of pure insanity
@@USS_ESSEX_CV-9 On the other hand, Habakkuk would have displaced 2,000,000 tons, likely making her larger than every capital ship (carriers included) ever actually built combined.
So basically the Lion class is Britain's version of the H-class variants. Also, didn't the US Navy's designers also flirt with battleship-carrier hybrids? If you know anything about that I'd love to hear it.
1Korlash IIRC the NorCals were nearly built as battlecarriers (Roosevelt thankfully averted that mess). Why not just make them full carrier’s at that point...?
I know they studied the possibilities of converting one or more battleships to amphibious assault ships in the 1960s. A conversion of North Carolina would have included a large helicopter deck and hangar aft, with room for 28 helicopters and 1800 troops; turrets #2 and #3 would have been removed. Another study looked at a similar Iowa-conversion, with facilities for 20 helicopters, 14 landing craft and 1800 troops. The latter project would have retained #1 and #2 turrets, plus the two forward 5" turrets.
Slightly crazy Video Suggestion: Class and development video on the Arleigh Burke-class destroyer. Love everything about old ships, but curious to see what you make of something a bit more modern
Thomas Gray Even if they had actually built that invulnerable battleship she wouldn’t be able to do anything other ships couldn’t do more cost-effectively. It’s a good thing she was cancelled.
The ASW suite seems somewhat lacking. Maybe create a shell for the 16 inch guns that is a depth charge (like a big-ass Hedgehog) And she needs a Shimikaze level of Torpedo spam.
@@TheAsh274 One would imagine it would have to do with the sorry state of being out of gin. Though that'll be nothing compared to what happens when you tell them that they're also out of tea and biscuits.
Me: laughs at the ridiculousness of the last design specifications Also me: designs BBs with bigger guns, more armor and speed in Ultimate Admiral Dreadnoughts.
That last one the Nimitz SuperCarrier sized 1,000 foot 100,000 tone absolute alpha ship needs to be added to world of warships with the new super battleships that are being added
Fabulous and hilarious episode. I laughed out loud. Thank you!
5 років тому+7
For the Dry Dock: If you could chose one destroyer, one light- and one heavy cruiser, one battle ship and one aircraft carrier from WW2 to save as a museum ship. Royal Navy. Which ones would you chose, short why and where would they be placed? Cheers, have a good day sir!
HMS Jervis - 13 Battle Honours, without losing a single crew member in action. HMS Sheffield - Has to be. HMS Norfolk - Probably the County with the best war record. HMS Warspite - Absolutely no contest. HMS Furious - Virtually created British Naval Aviation, and was still pounding the Tirpitz in 1944. I assume you mean ships which survived, by the way, otherwise I might change the carrier to Ark Royal.
doveton sturdee I’d go for Duke of York for the BB category. One of the only two WWII-era new-build battleships to semi-justify her existence (by killing a peer opponent in a situation carriers couldn’t operate).
5 років тому
@@bkjeong4302 Good argument I just.. See that list of the things Warspite did, in front of me and... ^^
Dave Schilling She never killed a peer opponent, though. Everything she did in WWII were things they could and should have done with things other than battleships. Having an active career isn’t the same as actually living up to your costs and reputation in that career.
4:34 Amd that gun, the 16"/45 Mk IV, was to use a brand new 1152 kg AP Shell instead of the Mk II/III’s 1080 kg AP Shell. Something that Wargaming did wrong, claiming Lion’s guns are the Mk IV while having all the statistics of the Mk II/III.
Love your scripting. Today you may not be popular with neighbours south A few comments may generate return fire.I am however very happy.Thanks. Keep up the good work .
Drachinifel, could you please do a short on the U.S.S. Washington (sister ship to the North Carolina) and maybe a longer one on all 3 ships called the U.S.S. Aaron Ward, especially how the first one fired the first shot at Pearl Harbor and the last one refused to sink and can be the poster child of damage control, plus a true fighting ship....
Oh no, they should have built their wundership, it would have been one hell of a sight to see as no other vessel could then be kept as museum ships and they'd have this beast instead as a proud thing, a museum and warning to all of future humanity... I've often wondered why they just didn't build huge barges with guns and maybe an runway down the middle with elevators at either end to launch aircraft even while firing big 18-20in guns, and with a 4-6 post and like 6-10 stories high platform where the bridge and important facilities were all crammed together in a nearly impossible to hit island cluster, and have big deluxe elevators that can go up and down at relatively high speeds being the main method of getting to and from the CnC to the rest of the ship...
4:45 That would’ve been more interesting for its appearance in World of Warships. The British Battleships of T7 and higher have too much 5.25” guns. Shame those 4.5” guns are only on Neptune, Albemarle, Cheshire, Drake, and Goliath.
Really respect your work, but an Iowa is 270m and a Nimitz 330m and that perspective... rather exaggerates that comparison. Minor nit-picking, really appreciate this channel.
Well you really can't be surprised when you tell engineers to design you something that can withstand all known threats with no limits. You'd get more restraint from a gold digger with a blank check at Harrod's or Saks 5th Avenue
About the 4.5 inch DP guns, I've seen it noted several times that they were "actually 4.45 inch". I wonder if they were 4.45 inch Lands (the rifling) and 4.5 inch Grove diameters..... Drachinifel do you know anything about this???
That last design sounded like something that would make the "Tillmans" crawl home with their tales between their legs!!! That is hilarious!!! Good thing someone showed some intelligence!!!
I want to know why make it so long with only 9 16inch guns. It just makes it a bigger target for aircraft to bomb. I mean 80 feet longer than a Montana with far less AA armament and 25% less AA.
Read a book by Eric l Harry called invasion. The USA come up with a ship titled an arsenal ship. A huge warship with thousands of vl missiles a truly exceptional idea maybe.
No different than the German H42-44 H-class proposals, the USA Tillman Maximum battleship and the Japanese A-150 designs with nine 20.1inch guns. All of which need to come to World of Warships at tier 11 for the LOL'S if nothing else.
Moe Kamal Because it would never be able to do anything non-battleships couldn’t do more cost-effectively? Though that thing would definitely rival Montana as the ultimate battleship design.
World of Warships should change the Lion tbh. Make it be the 1944 design like it claims to be. Interesting for how they had Lion have the Mk IV 16-inch guns which were only in the 1944 design, but instead of having the 12x2 4.5-inch/45 Mk V secondary guns, they gave her the 8x2 QF 5.25-inch/50 Mark I guns which were only on the 1938 design and the 1942 design. What bugs me even more than that is that the 1942 and 1944 designs for Lion had the more dynamic bow seen on Vanguard, but WG decided to go for the KGV-style bow. What Lion should look like: images-wixmp-ed30a86b8c4ca887773594c2.wixmp.com/f/08aa4d77-0718-40f2-bb4a-c61352d22946/dd4tryw-57f292eb-0932-4ad4-9349-0db87a466c96.png?token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJzdWIiOiJ1cm46YXBwOiIsImlzcyI6InVybjphcHA6Iiwib2JqIjpbW3sicGF0aCI6IlwvZlwvMDhhYTRkNzctMDcxOC00MGYyLWJiNGEtYzYxMzUyZDIyOTQ2XC9kZDR0cnl3LTU3ZjI5MmViLTA5MzItNGFkNC05MzQ5LTBkYjg3YTQ2NmM5Ni5wbmcifV1dLCJhdWQiOlsidXJuOnNlcnZpY2U6ZmlsZS5kb3dubG9hZCJdfQ.qGGPN-lC-eVelcEvfkIQujHE6yTz3KZGDNIcb5nnxDQ What WG decided to do: i.imgur.com/0MPTWW6.jpg
Hey - whoever says the Z-Plan would have been madness (I personally do not think so with regards to the H-battleship design) should have a look at the late Lion designs ……. Oh my Dear!! If anybody can go more crazy than a Kraut ….. it must be a Brit 😂 - thanks a lot for this tiny, but interesting piece of naval history!
what is the ship with the triple turrets at 1:38?!?! i dont recall any British battleships having triple turrets besides the nelsons and those had all three in front
im very confused because its the exact same picture as this: i.pinimg.com/originals/8c/04/7b/8c047bdbf7678159bdb7731374202df9.jpg except its triple turrets. it would have to either be a lion or photoshop i guess
Hey Drach ever play the online game Navyfield.. the first one .? If so what was your game name. ? I was gilroygun in F.A.W.K. fleet had a lot of fun played for quite a few years. Made many friends.
I do find the 1940's to be such an interesting time in terms of development for battleships. It was well established by that point that they were pretty much obsolete in and for the roles they battleship was initially designed and planned for. Yet there was this idea among leaderships of the naval powers to continue developing battleships and trying to evolve them for roles they would never really be able to do as well as something more dedicated. It's also interesting to see the direct competition with development of more sensible and effective classes. I would argue the USN probably got it "MOST" right but still really wasted a lot of resources and time developing and building obsolete giant armored gun platforms, eventually deciding to make them fast, moderately protected, and turn them into massive AAA barges that could escort fleet carriers would who would ultimately decide the outcome of the Pacific war. Even at this floating AAA barge concept, they were arguably not as effective as a cruiser.
jamesngotts Agreed, though I’d expand the time interval to the late 1930s as most of the battleships of the 1940s were designed and/or laid down in the 1930s. Also, to add on to your last point about the USN wasting money on battleships, the Iowas were definitely very ineffective compared to cruisers and destroyers in terms of AA: two CLAAs would have offered as much AA firepower as one Iowa, at a much lower price and manpower needs, while also providing far more operational flexibility and utility. A lot of people forget that this class was never planned as an escort for carriers from the start (online and written misinformation doesn’t help), but were intended to pursue the fastest enemy capital units and possibly drive them towards slower fleet elements, and were thus anti-ship weapons platforms, rendering them obsolete upon launch. The Iowas really had no more business existing than, say, the Yamatos (not saying the Yamatos made sense either; these two classes and their British, German, French and Italian contemporaries qualify as the worst naval procurement failure in history) Making expensive superweapons that are obsolete and pointless from the start never works out well.
I'm going to disagree with that. By 1944/45 with radar controlled AA guns nearly ready for combat with double the rate of fire and traverse/elevation rate or better of in-service AA guns up to 6inch calibre flying piston engine-ed planes against these guns would have been near suicide. While jet engine attack aircraft were suffering the same fate as pre-WW2 piston aircraft breaking speed records while not capable of carrying the bomb load to be useful against such well armoured designs.
@@Ushio01 That still fails to bring the equation back in favour of the battleship. Better AA just means you're harder to sink, it does nothing to change the fact carriers vastly outrange battleships. Meaning that while carriers found it increasingly harder to attack battleships, battleships (regardless of nationality) couldn't attack carriers *at all.* (Don't use Glorious as a counterexample, her loss was caused by human stupidity and she would have easily escaped if not for that)
@@bkjeong4302 Not really relevant as the Japanese showed. Having carriers is rather meaningless when all the pilots are killed trying to attack a target. Basically the carriers are mission kills, still in one piece but who's offence strength is either removed or rendered ineffective. Training carrier pilots is hard and time consuming. The British empire could keep up because it was a huge empire even when involved on a 4 front war and the USA could do it because it was never directly attacked. But Japan showed that it's hard and needing carriers to return to base to restock planes and pilots means ambushes are easy. Apart from the USA and UK (until the 70's) no other country since 1945 has really had a carrier force worth a damn. You send 1 or 2 carriers anywhere near wear land based aircraft can reach them they are fucked. The US is the only country that maybe can do it and until they get in a peer war again it's still a maybe.
Ushio01 But even a carrier that COMPLETELY lacks any planes or pilots can evade a battleship due to superior mobility and the fact carrier doctrine relies on never being close to the enemy. Ambushes are NOT easy to do on a carrier.
Yes. Iowa sacrificed a lot of armor and substantial amounts of internal volume for increased speed, and the class was essentially a hurriedly redesigned South Dakota-class made 5 knots faster due to the percieved need for having battleships capable of carrier speeds (although the 27/28 knot North Carolina's and South Dakota's managed just fine). Comparing with the Lion-class the firepower would have been about equal, but with Lion better protected and 10 000 tons lighter, and only ~4 knots slower. In essence a battleships made to fight other battleships, and not serving as a glorified escort. In my opinion there are some similarities between the Iowa and the Alaska-class "large cruisers": they couldn't _really_ do anything special and they weren't really needed, but the Americans could afford them so why not?
solbergsindre The Iowas were also made to fight other battleships (their speed was intended to chase down fleeing opponents that would be too fast for the North Carolina’s or Montanas). They only ended up being repurposed as gigantic, very expensive AA cruisers because they ended up becoming obsolete before they were commissioned. I do agree the Iowas were pointless and couldn’t do anything other ships couldn’t have done more cost-effectively. That has more to do with the entire battleship concept being obsolete when they were launched, though, than to do with their speed.
@@bkjeong4302 As a kid I toured the Missouri in Bremerton.I fell in love with battleships.But I have to agree,if they hadn't already been under construction they would have been cancelled,and those recourses invested elsewhere.
In the realm of let's waste lots of money, build something really neat, and then blow it up: What would happen had one of the latter Tillman battleships (I think the 90K tonnes variants with 18x16 since that always struck me as maximum crazy - quad turrets were hard enough, who is going to make hex turrets work?) and the Lion "large" 100K tonnes variant were to slug it out in a winner takes-all sort of thing?
I’d bet on the Large Lion. Being newer, that ship would have better armour layout, and be much faster (the Tillman design you’re thinking of could only do 25 knots, this one goes 32 knots). That said, the Tillman packs a much more horrendous punch, arguably has a greater chance of landing hits, and it’s not going to be an easy battle for either side.
Pinned post for Q&A :)
Last crazy train lion vs yamato and mondernised g3 vs lion
Did any Navy ever consider have an alternate lighter powder load for their guns so that the guns could intact plunging fire on other ships when otherwise (with the main load) they would be in the immune zone of the ship?
Can you do a special on the development and use of acoustic torpedos in WW 2?
What's your favorite warship in terms of appearance?
@@Macca17 not a good idea Nelson class turrets were heavily underbuild when build, and then patched over more than decade...
Drachism of the Day:
6:49 "These abortions are the result of a psychological maladjustment." (this is a quote, not a Drachism).
8:11 "By this point it was clear that battleships, along with common sense and an appreciation of reality, had long since left the realms of sensibility and established a FIRM hold in fantasy-land."
I now understand why these videos should be done with the human-voice.
No CG-voiced video is capable of conveying the snark (both subtle and overt) in Drach's voice.
Kevin Kennelly let’s create a religion call Drachnism
No voice is able to do snark as well as an English voice!
@@sarjim4381 I agree.
It is more the cost of the Crew, not the Ship that is Prohibitive!
Using modern Automation Technology, and consideration of just how many Sailors are required to maneuver, fight, and do Damage Control, it is possible to design a Practical Battleship.
Considering the cost of Tomahawks, Harpoons, etc , and the effectiveness of 16" Naval Rifles ("Battleship cannons"), which are far more Cost Effective for the Explosive Payload delivered.
Perhaps a Range of 50-60 Miles (~100km) seems limited, compared to Cruise Missiles?
A vast number of Critical Targets are less than 30 miles/50km inland (keeping a Battleship in International Waters).
Many targets that the USA or Great Britain would wish to Target, would be In Range! Even from East of the Straight of Hormuz (Outside the Arabian Gulf).
Paladin Six
The cost of the munition itself is only a fraction of the cost of a weapons platform. Yes a missile costs more than a shell, but a missile destroyer costs less than a battleship overall.
And range is another big problem.
"These abortions are the result of a psychological maladjustment" I love when the Brits use the Queens English
Hilarious
I'm surprised that there wasn't a statement about the designer's rum ration being constantly used up!
@@timengineman2nd714 or do you mean topped up? Lol
@@DidMyGrandfatherMakeThis (US here) Topped off is when they're getting their rum kegs refilled/replaced!!!
Of course, I feel that some of what happened with the (HMS) Lion design (and a few other RN designs, as well as other countries design) is what has happened with several US Navy designs, Politicians (whose total knowledge of ships seems to be: "Pointy end at the front is the bow, Port is left, Starboard is right, back is the stern, and water is wet). Don't give enough money to build a good ship, then a committee decides what they want on the ship, and the poor designers are trying to do the best they can to satisfy both!!!
Hence, the drinking!
@@timengineman2nd714 the language is the same, and I agree fully with you. They just kept plying the designer until he finally, drunkenly decides "that's it" hands over to their lordships at the admiralty and passes out from too much rum ingestion. The Royal Naval mic drop :)
If you tell an engineer you want x design, they will give you that regardless of what it is and the more insane your request is the louder the giggles of eximent will be :D
They get paid the same, regardless of whether a design is produced or not. All they need to do is make sure it fits the specifications, then they can have a giggle.
Didn’t go that way HMS Swift
6:24 Did a British admiral really say that? If so, who? Because that was an awesome and succinct examination of all the "battlecarrier" designs.
Director of Naval Gunnery Alex C. Chapman as far as I can tell
@@Drachinifel Thank you.
So why the picture of Jellicoe? I was hoping he was the author. Was he even living at that point?
@@Drachinifel not relevant to this comment but in your description list, SMS emden is both at the upper and lower part of the list, aka 2x in there(unless we're talking two ships with the same name, but thought I'd mention it)
Reality: Battlecarriers don't work and never will!
Game designers and writers: Sorry I didn't hear that.
*Montage of various Battlecarriers from the Galactica to the Icemaiden*
Reality: Am I a joke to you?
I can honestly understand them. Big guns are really, really cool. Much cooler than those stupid flying contraptions anyway *mumble mumble*
Like the Kriegsmarine with their H-class Battlehships. Big is beautiful! :)
There is a point, though. A shell is an infinitely better weapon than an aeroplane when both can hit the target. No-one goes into harms way with the shell, it can be deployed from far away. Once it is on its way, it cannot be stopped. There is no defense against it save to dig ever-deeper and pour ever-more ferrocrete. Such cannot be done quickly nor with a thing one man can carry around like a FIM-92... Battleship guns are truly terrifying weapons; men have surrendered to their spotting drones when they were recognized as such. While air strikes are fearsome, there are measures anyone can take if they have a machine gun of some sort at least. The battleship can still complement the aircraft carrier; the carrier air group can protect the battleship against a fearsome air assault if need be, and strike out at distant targets and in very precise ways, or with napalm, or other diverse weapons, but everything that falls under the battleship's guns must be counted as lost as long as the battleship exists and the carrier's air group remains unbroken. It would exist as a "fleet-in-being" in and of itself, as its attacks cannot be countered, it would have to be dealt with, and together the battleship and carrier form an immense wedge for the enemy to break his strength upon.
@@Lazarus7000 Until a hypersonic missile from 20x the BB's gun range smashes through its deck and detonates the magazines.
@@IsKor06 Lest we forget Tillman battleships.Heavy is good, heavy is reliable.
@@ParabolicBox Of any ship in any fleet it would be best prepared to receive it, and the missile is as much a threat to any other ship so that question doesn't become "is the battleship still useful?" but rather "is a ship useful?" The missile can be stopped and the means to do so will be amongst any naval fleet that wants to remain on the floaty side of things as opposed to the sea-bed. And if we're making a case for the ridiculous 1,000-ton battleship the size of a nuclear fleet carrier, may as well size the reactor to accommodate a laser for missile defense beyond the missiles and guns it would doubtless carry for this as well.
So if the Admiralty came to Drach and said "We need a ship that can fight the Yamato AND the Iowa, while sailing through nuclear fallout and dodging active torpedoes and guided missiles (and please mind the budget)" what would you design for them?
Nuclear sub.
Unmanned swarm of hypersonic missiles
Launched by a ship very far away from the battle
Oh... That's easy... The USS Enterprise... NCC 1701
A boot to the head
Looks like the large design Lion.
100,000 tons displacement!
But they would need to go with four turrets; two twin 18” and 2 triple 18” guns. 18” armour belt.
4 uploads in a day??
Papa Drach, you spoil us
This is why some people should not be left unsupervised. They get all giddy and start doing silly things. That's when the adults have to take their crayons off them.
Big Blue Or, alternately, you just put them in a room, give them a big stack of paper and crayons and pencils, and let them doodle to their hearts' content.
All the while making it perfectly clear to everyone else that they're to politely and discreetly disregard the design material coming out of Bedlam.
@@Assassinus2 That sounds like a waste of money,really.Assuming the people with the crayons are paid.But it's cheaper than medicating them,I suppose.Like a wise man said once..."there are no solutions,only trade offs".
Pls never let Wargaming see this video
Flamu
Why not? A 100k ton, 32kt, supposedly invulnerable BB sounds like something that would fit right in with the semi-functional, unrealistic game known as WoWS.
Hey, come on. We need to fight the carrier's somehow.
Kairistiona Clark
In reality it would be impossible to fight a carrier without a carrier of your own (or by having a pre-positioned sub). See my point about the game being unrealistic?
@@bkjeong4302 Except it would be a Russian premium, because WoWs.
They will probably do another conqueror maybe by fitting the minotaur guns in place of the 5.25s along with triple 457mm and a reload booster you know something not too overpowered!😁
Ahhhhhh what could have been. Not to mention this class would have likely had the best names for an entire class since the Orions. And the classes would have shared names for two ships, Conqueror and Thunderer.
Fantastic video as always Drach. I LOVE the what could have been videos.
I'm surprised the Brits didn't actually produce an HMS Crazy Train.
It would have been an Epic ship to produce
Well they did Boaty McBoatface. Didn't they? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boaty_McBoatface
I was that admiral's monocle. It was a trying day. I fell into the teacup.
Not sure if it's made the list, probably has... But non the less, may I request a special on the SMS Emden?
Mucke der Emden is a great story
I recognise your voice and this youtube name from world of tanks Drachinifel. years ago we were in a clan together, possibly British Marauders. hello you. Great content, thank you.
Yep, I was in British Marauders for several years, hello!
As silly as the speculative designs got (I've come up with an amusing 107,000T, 12 x 16" design in Springsharp) how awesome would it have been to have such a Super Battleship of Doom that could have been saved as a museum ship? Would have loved to have seen such a thing but sadly in reality I doubt there was anywhere that could have built such a ship, or that could have afforded to run it.
Crazy Train Idea #27: The US Navy did similar design studies in 1946 on the Iowas, and intended to test them on the almost completed Kentucky. One idea was to mount missile launchers on the stern in place of the rear turret. An idea that was carried out and tested, was to use the 16in guns to fire nuclear shells, and storage was built in the forward magazine. Some say that the New Jersey carried some of these shells while it was deployed off Vietnam in 1968. While it was possible, no provable evidence has surfaced.
Rule Britania but someone put opium in the tea, and the water... and then everyone just got drunk and listened to the song "crazy train" after that.
It was great fun riding on “the Crazy Train” (😀) this evening- Thank you for your hard work on this video.👍
Thank you for what you’re doing. Naval history is incredibly important and interesting. Would love to see CL Trenton USN
Four videos in a row so far, it's a good day!
I hope we get a bigger version of the Lion in Warships if we ever get a battlecruiser line. Especially if said version carries the 16in autoloading guns.
Six barrel Bofors tubs? America salutes you!
They even contemplated a sixteen (!!!) barrel mount right after the war. Never materialised, for some silly reason!
The 3"/50 rapidly replaced Bofors guns following the war.
What a better way to end the day with a video from Drach. Tq very much sir
Someone WoWS on the horn. That last ship design has "Premium ship" written all over it.
Or a Tier 10 British monster.
It might be an answer to fun police.
Both the last setup of the Lion (1k feet) and the half-carrier Lion are both easily accomplished in From the Depths. :P
oh, something to lighten up the miserable humid temps today. Thanks so much, Drach, the vid being one of a very few things I get to look forward to today. B)
27c and rising, and 80% humidity today, blah. I think the heat is also on a crazy train today, lol.
18 inches of belt armor. I don't think there was a single steel plant in the world back then that could fabricate such a thick sheet of steel as a single piece, and even today companies that make nuclear reactor containment vessels would struggle with it.
Been looking for the human voice version, thanks. Can I suggest two videos for the future. Hawkins class heavy cruiser, and the O-Class destroyer please.
I love this channel. I always get a good laugh out of these videos.
Let's face it. That would have looked awesome.
As crazy as some of these proposals are, they don't hold a candle to HMS Habakkuk!
I would disagree with you on that. HMS habakkuk was just a floating Airfield effectively. These monstrosities were not a realistic copy of anything they were just made of pure insanity
@@USS_ESSEX_CV-9
On the other hand, Habakkuk would have displaced 2,000,000 tons, likely making her larger than every capital ship (carriers included) ever actually built combined.
You've been a busy boy today Drach'.
So basically the Lion class is Britain's version of the H-class variants.
Also, didn't the US Navy's designers also flirt with battleship-carrier hybrids? If you know anything about that I'd love to hear it.
1Korlash
IIRC the NorCals were nearly built as battlecarriers (Roosevelt thankfully averted that mess). Why not just make them full carrier’s at that point...?
I know they studied the possibilities of converting one or more battleships to amphibious assault ships in the 1960s. A conversion of North Carolina would have included a large helicopter deck and hangar aft, with room for 28 helicopters and 1800 troops; turrets #2 and #3 would have been removed. Another study looked at a similar Iowa-conversion, with facilities for 20 helicopters, 14 landing craft and 1800 troops. The latter project would have retained #1 and #2 turrets, plus the two forward 5" turrets.
Slightly crazy Video Suggestion: Class and development video on the Arleigh Burke-class destroyer.
Love everything about old ships, but curious to see what you make of something a bit more modern
I want that absolute behemoth of a suggestion at the end as an option in WoWs for a Christmas event or something because that's just freaking mad
A 100,000 ton fast battleship.....
Started sounding like a Tilman at the end.
cp1cupcake
Except even bigger.
Keep them coming.
Brilliant, interesting and fun. Ty
What role should this ship fulfill?
British naval architects: gOoD QUeStiOn.
Thomas Gray
Even if they had actually built that invulnerable battleship she wouldn’t be able to do anything other ships couldn’t do more cost-effectively. It’s a good thing she was cancelled.
The ASW suite seems somewhat lacking. Maybe create a shell for the 16 inch guns that is a depth charge (like a big-ass Hedgehog)
And she needs a Shimikaze level of Torpedo spam.
Question: What role should this ship fulfill?
Answer: Yes.
Response to answer: o_O;
British naval architects: ALL OF THEM... AND I'M OUT OF GIN. WHY AM I SHOUTING?
@@TheAsh274 One would imagine it would have to do with the sorry state of being out of gin.
Though that'll be nothing compared to what happens when you tell them that they're also out of tea and biscuits.
Really good review. Thanks.
Me: laughs at the ridiculousness of the last design specifications
Also me: designs BBs with bigger guns, more armor and speed in Ultimate Admiral Dreadnoughts.
Yeah, designing something in ultimate admiral with 20 inches of belt armour and 10 inches of deck armour is basically the standard for 1940s tech.
@@5000mahmud until we have to start paying for them in a campaign
@@logion567 Haha, definitely. Probably just going to end up sacrificing older ww1 battleships while the carriers do the actual ship sinking.
That last one the Nimitz SuperCarrier sized 1,000 foot 100,000 tone absolute alpha ship needs to be added to world of warships with the new super battleships that are being added
Fabulous and hilarious episode. I laughed out loud. Thank you!
For the Dry Dock:
If you could chose one destroyer, one light- and one heavy cruiser, one battle ship and one aircraft carrier from WW2 to save as a museum ship. Royal Navy. Which ones would you chose, short why and where would they be placed?
Cheers, have a good day sir!
HMS Jervis - 13 Battle Honours, without losing a single crew member in action.
HMS Sheffield - Has to be.
HMS Norfolk - Probably the County with the best war record.
HMS Warspite - Absolutely no contest.
HMS Furious - Virtually created British Naval Aviation, and was still pounding the Tirpitz in 1944.
I assume you mean ships which survived, by the way, otherwise I might change the carrier to Ark Royal.
Do they have to have survived the war?
doveton sturdee
I’d go for Duke of York for the BB category. One of the only two WWII-era new-build battleships to semi-justify her existence (by killing a peer opponent in a situation carriers couldn’t operate).
@@bkjeong4302 Good argument I just.. See that list of the things Warspite did, in front of me and... ^^
Dave Schilling
She never killed a peer opponent, though. Everything she did in WWII were things they could and should have done with things other than battleships.
Having an active career isn’t the same as actually living up to your costs and reputation in that career.
4:34 Amd that gun, the 16"/45 Mk IV, was to use a brand new 1152 kg AP Shell instead of the Mk II/III’s 1080 kg AP Shell. Something that Wargaming did wrong, claiming Lion’s guns are the Mk IV while having all the statistics of the Mk II/III.
Nicely done! Doesn't seem like the sanest of minds were around when this crazy train of ideas left the station...lol.
Three in one day. Perfect!
Love your scripting. Today you may not be popular with neighbours south A few comments may generate return fire.I am however very happy.Thanks. Keep up the good work .
Please review ****HMS Canopus (1897)**** and the battle of the Falklands.
Love the quotes. Love it!
8:10 - That's not insanity. That's _awesome._
Well, now I know the next power creep ship that WG will add to the British BB line .... thanks Drach.
Wray Day
To be honest I’d rather see the 100k supership in the game (and other actual paper designs) rather than a lot of the made-up crap.
Thank you.
Been waiting for this one
I like the cheeky Walrus at 5:09
Seems like somebody from the H-Class design team fled to the UK to work on another set of absolutely huge designs...
More like somebody in the admiralty discovered a certain Senator's battleship plans lol
4 videos in one day?
*BEST BIRTHDAY PRESENT EVER*
.
.
.
.
.
(My birthday was yesterday)
anything on HMS DECOY DARING CLASS DESTROYER ??
Drachinifel, could you please do a short on the U.S.S. Washington (sister ship to the North Carolina) and maybe a longer one on all 3 ships called the U.S.S. Aaron Ward, especially how the first one fired the first shot at Pearl Harbor and the last one refused to sink and can be the poster child of damage control, plus a true fighting ship....
I saw HMS Lion, though of Beattys flag ship from the Grand fleet, silly me.
Oh no, they should have built their wundership, it would have been one hell of a sight to see as no other vessel could then be kept as museum ships and they'd have this beast instead as a proud thing, a museum and warning to all of future humanity... I've often wondered why they just didn't build huge barges with guns and maybe an runway down the middle with elevators at either end to launch aircraft even while firing big 18-20in guns, and with a 4-6 post and like 6-10 stories high platform where the bridge and important facilities were all crammed together in a nearly impossible to hit island cluster, and have big deluxe elevators that can go up and down at relatively high speeds being the main method of getting to and from the CnC to the rest of the ship...
The final design sounds like a British Tillman.
It’s basically if a Nimitz and a Tillman had a baby and it had the Nelson design
Do the Admiral Scheer!
4:45 That would’ve been more interesting for its appearance in World of Warships. The British Battleships of T7 and higher have too much 5.25” guns. Shame those 4.5” guns are only on Neptune, Albemarle, Cheshire, Drake, and Goliath.
Really respect your work, but an Iowa is 270m and a Nimitz 330m and that perspective... rather exaggerates that comparison.
Minor nit-picking, really appreciate this channel.
It looks like the designers were channeling George Lucas and designed a seafaring Star Destroyer.
Do a video on CL- 144 USS Worcester. The last "traditional" US light cruiser class built
Now I want to see a Nimitz fitted with 24 20 inch guns...
Knowing the craziness of the design here I’m sure they were probably gonna plan that next LoL
Well you really can't be surprised when you tell engineers to design you something that can withstand all known threats with no limits. You'd get more restraint from a gold digger with a blank check at Harrod's or Saks 5th Avenue
About the 4.5 inch DP guns, I've seen it noted several times that they were "actually 4.45 inch".
I wonder if they were 4.45 inch Lands (the rifling) and 4.5 inch Grove diameters..... Drachinifel do you know anything about this???
I know you have a long long list but how can you have (s0 far) missed HMS Welshman and HMS Manxman? Love the show!!
That last design sounded like something that would make the "Tillmans" crawl home with their tales between their legs!!! That is hilarious!!! Good thing someone showed some intelligence!!!
You know I really sorta wanna of seen that last 1000ft Nimitz size Battleship..... just because...... 😂🤣😳🤤🤤😳
#LetsRideThisCrazyTrainTogether
I want to know why make it so long with only 9 16inch guns. It just makes it a bigger target for aircraft to bomb. I mean 80 feet longer than a Montana with far less AA armament and 25% less AA.
Ushio01 now you're just trying to be reasonable!!!! Don't bring down the Crazy Train!! 😂😂🙈
Read a book by Eric l Harry called invasion. The USA come up with a ship titled an arsenal ship. A huge warship with thousands of vl missiles a truly exceptional idea maybe.
Simon Monk That’s i’m now looking for immediately! lol 😜
No different than the German H42-44 H-class proposals, the USA Tillman Maximum battleship and the Japanese A-150 designs with nine 20.1inch guns.
All of which need to come to World of Warships at tier 11 for the LOL'S if nothing else.
"They canceled a battleship the size of the Nimitz... NO NO... Why God Why!!!!"
Moe Kamal
Because it would never be able to do anything non-battleships couldn’t do more cost-effectively?
Though that thing would definitely rival Montana as the ultimate battleship design.
Any chance of a video on the 1000 battlecruiser idea from ww1 possibly Fisher himself
eatthisvr6 Incomparable?
@@bkjeong4302 aye thats the 1, forgot the name.
im not sure if theres enough info for a full vid but id love to see 1
1:38 Photo of a King George V class Battleship alongside another similar ship but with two triple turrets in the A and B position? Is that real?
Its photoshop. I think its the same (KGV class) ship but with photoshoped 16inch guns in triple gun turrets.
@@jayvee8502 the other ship in the image is HMS Vanguard, which was heavily based off of lion
the last version sounds like a G3 and HMS Incomparable had a super sized love child..
The Soviets picked up on the hybrid aircraft carrier capital ship idea when they rolled out the Moskva Class. Those were weird ships!
World of Warships should change the Lion tbh. Make it be the 1944 design like it claims to be.
Interesting for how they had Lion have the Mk IV 16-inch guns which were only in the 1944 design, but instead of having the 12x2 4.5-inch/45 Mk V secondary guns, they gave her the 8x2 QF 5.25-inch/50 Mark I guns which were only on the 1938 design and the 1942 design. What bugs me even more than that is that the 1942 and 1944 designs for Lion had the more dynamic bow seen on Vanguard, but WG decided to go for the KGV-style bow.
What Lion should look like:
images-wixmp-ed30a86b8c4ca887773594c2.wixmp.com/f/08aa4d77-0718-40f2-bb4a-c61352d22946/dd4tryw-57f292eb-0932-4ad4-9349-0db87a466c96.png?token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJzdWIiOiJ1cm46YXBwOiIsImlzcyI6InVybjphcHA6Iiwib2JqIjpbW3sicGF0aCI6IlwvZlwvMDhhYTRkNzctMDcxOC00MGYyLWJiNGEtYzYxMzUyZDIyOTQ2XC9kZDR0cnl3LTU3ZjI5MmViLTA5MzItNGFkNC05MzQ5LTBkYjg3YTQ2NmM5Ni5wbmcifV1dLCJhdWQiOlsidXJuOnNlcnZpY2U6ZmlsZS5kb3dubG9hZCJdfQ.qGGPN-lC-eVelcEvfkIQujHE6yTz3KZGDNIcb5nnxDQ
What WG decided to do:
i.imgur.com/0MPTWW6.jpg
And I thought the H Class was ridiculous
Hey - whoever says the Z-Plan would have been madness (I personally do not think so with regards to the H-battleship design) should have a look at the late Lion designs ……. Oh my Dear!! If anybody can go more crazy than a Kraut ….. it must be a Brit 😂 - thanks a lot for this tiny, but interesting piece of naval history!
WW1 British Admiral (Jellicoe?) @ 6:24 . . . ?
what is the ship with the triple turrets at 1:38?!?! i dont recall any British battleships having triple turrets besides the nelsons and those had all three in front
im very confused because its the exact same picture as this: i.pinimg.com/originals/8c/04/7b/8c047bdbf7678159bdb7731374202df9.jpg
except its triple turrets. it would have to either be a lion or photoshop i guess
It's a Photoshop designed to show roughly what a Lion would look like next to KGV
Ah that make sense thanks drach! I had watched it and I kept saying well that’s not the Vanguard now is it!
4:45 Wargaming needs to make this as a T9 premium.
The image at 1:31 was originally HM Ships Howe and Anson while in reserve post-war before editing, wasn't it? I'm pretty sure I've seen it before.
Howe and Vanguard I believe
They are both KGVs, but as you say the left hand ship has been 'doctored' to give an idea of what a Lion would have looked like.
The best navy in the world over 500 years of experience
talk about the USS DEPERM degaussing ship please
Hey Drach ever play the online game Navyfield.. the first one .?
If so what was your game name. ? I was gilroygun in F.A.W.K. fleet had a lot of fun played for quite a few years.
Made many friends.
I do find the 1940's to be such an interesting time in terms of development for battleships. It was well established by that point that they were pretty much obsolete in and for the roles they battleship was initially designed and planned for. Yet there was this idea among leaderships of the naval powers to continue developing battleships and trying to evolve them for roles they would never really be able to do as well as something more dedicated. It's also interesting to see the direct competition with development of more sensible and effective classes.
I would argue the USN probably got it "MOST" right but still really wasted a lot of resources and time developing and building obsolete giant armored gun platforms, eventually deciding to make them fast, moderately protected, and turn them into massive AAA barges that could escort fleet carriers would who would ultimately decide the outcome of the Pacific war. Even at this floating AAA barge concept, they were arguably not as effective as a cruiser.
jamesngotts
Agreed, though I’d expand the time interval to the late 1930s as most of the battleships of the 1940s were designed and/or laid down in the 1930s.
Also, to add on to your last point about the USN wasting money on battleships, the Iowas were definitely very ineffective compared to cruisers and destroyers in terms of AA: two CLAAs would have offered as much AA firepower as one Iowa, at a much lower price and manpower needs, while also providing far more operational flexibility and utility.
A lot of people forget that this class was never planned as an escort for carriers from the start (online and written misinformation doesn’t help), but were intended to pursue the fastest enemy capital units and possibly drive them towards slower fleet elements, and were thus anti-ship weapons platforms, rendering them obsolete upon launch. The Iowas really had no more business existing than, say, the Yamatos (not saying the Yamatos made sense either; these two classes and their British, German, French and Italian contemporaries qualify as the worst naval procurement failure in history)
Making expensive superweapons that are obsolete and pointless from the start never works out well.
I'm going to disagree with that. By 1944/45 with radar controlled AA guns nearly ready for combat with double the rate of fire and traverse/elevation rate or better of in-service AA guns up to 6inch calibre flying piston engine-ed planes against these guns would have been near suicide.
While jet engine attack aircraft were suffering the same fate as pre-WW2 piston aircraft breaking speed records while not capable of carrying the bomb load to be useful against such well armoured designs.
@@Ushio01 That still fails to bring the equation back in favour of the battleship. Better AA just means you're harder to sink, it does nothing to change the fact carriers vastly outrange battleships. Meaning that while carriers found it increasingly harder to attack battleships, battleships (regardless of nationality) couldn't attack carriers *at all.*
(Don't use Glorious as a counterexample, her loss was caused by human stupidity and she would have easily escaped if not for that)
@@bkjeong4302 Not really relevant as the Japanese showed. Having carriers is rather meaningless when all the pilots are killed trying to attack a target.
Basically the carriers are mission kills, still in one piece but who's offence strength is either removed or rendered ineffective.
Training carrier pilots is hard and time consuming. The British empire could keep up because it was a huge empire even when involved on a 4 front war and the USA could do it because it was never directly attacked.
But Japan showed that it's hard and needing carriers to return to base to restock planes and pilots means ambushes are easy.
Apart from the USA and UK (until the 70's) no other country since 1945 has really had a carrier force worth a damn.
You send 1 or 2 carriers anywhere near wear land based aircraft can reach them they are fucked.
The US is the only country that maybe can do it and until they get in a peer war again it's still a maybe.
Ushio01
But even a carrier that COMPLETELY lacks any planes or pilots can evade a battleship due to superior mobility and the fact carrier doctrine relies on never being close to the enemy. Ambushes are NOT easy to do on a carrier.
Can you add the frigate HMS Glatton for review?
Italian Torpedo boats, Spica class perhaps?
If built would this be a more balanced ship in term of protection speed and firepower compared to Iowa's?
Yes. Iowa sacrificed a lot of armor and substantial amounts of internal volume for increased speed, and the class was essentially a hurriedly redesigned South Dakota-class made 5 knots faster due to the percieved need for having battleships capable of carrier speeds (although the 27/28 knot North Carolina's and South Dakota's managed just fine).
Comparing with the Lion-class the firepower would have been about equal, but with Lion better protected and 10 000 tons lighter, and only ~4 knots slower. In essence a battleships made to fight other battleships, and not serving as a glorified escort.
In my opinion there are some similarities between the Iowa and the Alaska-class "large cruisers": they couldn't _really_ do anything special and they weren't really needed, but the Americans could afford them so why not?
solbergsindre
The Iowas were also made to fight other battleships (their speed was intended to chase down fleeing opponents that would be too fast for the North Carolina’s or Montanas). They only ended up being repurposed as gigantic, very expensive AA cruisers because they ended up becoming obsolete before they were commissioned.
I do agree the Iowas were pointless and couldn’t do anything other ships couldn’t have done more cost-effectively. That has more to do with the entire battleship concept being obsolete when they were launched, though, than to do with their speed.
@@bkjeong4302 As a kid I toured the Missouri in Bremerton.I fell in love with battleships.But I have to agree,if they hadn't already been under construction they would have been cancelled,and those recourses invested elsewhere.
James Hope
There was still enough time to cancel the Iowas. I have no idea why they were finished.
In the realm of let's waste lots of money, build something really neat, and then blow it up: What would happen had one of the latter Tillman battleships (I think the 90K tonnes variants with 18x16 since that always struck me as maximum crazy - quad turrets were hard enough, who is going to make hex turrets work?) and the Lion "large" 100K tonnes variant were to slug it out in a winner takes-all sort of thing?
I’d bet on the Large Lion. Being newer, that ship would have better armour layout, and be much faster (the Tillman design you’re thinking of could only do 25 knots, this one goes 32 knots). That said, the Tillman packs a much more horrendous punch, arguably has a greater chance of landing hits, and it’s not going to be an easy battle for either side.
May I request the IJN destroyer Yukikaze ?
i wonder can you do vid about h class battleship h44 for kriegsmarine
Robin van Rossum
He already did
@@bkjeong4302 thx
PLS PLS PLS do a video about the "battlecarrier" version of the ISE
Crazy train? No we left that WAAAAAAY behind
Real shame the didn't build something like this. Though I would've named it HMS Tremendous.
HMS Invulnerable, since that was the design intent for that last 1000ft one. Though I doubt it would live up to its name.
@@bkjeong4302 Well, the battlecruiser Invincible certainly didn't.
4 ships:1 day
Is the real life?..
Edit:Also just realized Drach uses Tzoli’s models
They are sometimes the only decent drawings of certain concept ships