Getting fresh water was still an issue into the '80's. On the Henry B Wilson, we had an evap go down which meant all water went to the engine or cooking- no water for the crew. So, the captain had the lookouts keep an eye out for squalls- small microbursts- and would have us steam into it. The the call came out, 'Soap on deck!' We all grabbed our soap, went topside, stripped down and showered in the rain. It was late spring so it was a warm shower.
Even when you have a ship that normally makes well in excess of it's needs, and could get by on a single evaporator, fresh water could still become a problem. We had a self-inflicted fresh water shortage aboard the Virginia in the 90s because certain parties misunderstood the XOs instruction for a fresh water washdown of the exterior of our ship while passing through the Panama Canal - and they used the pot water stores for swabbing down the weather decks. Even though we could produce 150% of rated distilled water daily, it would take time to refill our tanks after that bit of idiocy. And the steam & reactor plants had first priority for all fresh water production, had to keep a reserve for emergency use first; then cooking, and limited water hours.
I was on USS Sacramento (AOE-1). We deployed with USS Henry B. Wilson on a WestPac (Dec'88 to Jun '89) and transferred potable water because her evaps had trouble making enough water.
I was on the USS James Madison in the 80s and we lost our 8k evaporator early in a patrol and had go several weeks on our 2k still…basically enough for the reactor, steam plant, and mess decks. We finished the patrol without showers or laundry.
I was on America in the late 80's and supplied fresh water to several of our escorts while we were in the IO. We usually would transfer fuel at the same time while waiting for our supply ships to catch up during a high-speed run across the IO.
Drach, for the entire time you were discussing those heeling tests being done by moving the crew from beam to beam, I had visions of CAPTAIN Jack Sparrow and company capsizing the Black Pearl.
Captain Scott may have been a capable though not stellar naval officer who's career wasn't proceeding as well as he'd hoped which played a part in his decision to mount an Antarctic expedition I believe. At the risk of being called a heretic, I'll say he wasn't very good at Antarctic exploration. He didn't understand the demands of the environment and his man management in a small expedition wasn't good. In contrast, Ernest Shackleton who was a deck officer in the Merchant Navy had a much better feel for the environment and proved to be wonderful at looking after the people on the expeditions he led - never lost a man and led solidly from the front and got within ninety miles of the south pole but turned back to save his men's lives. Whilst "Shackleton's Boat Journey" from Elephant Island to South Georgia through mountainous seas and wild weather is much lauded Shackleton himself said that without his New Zealander navigator Frank Worsley the journey would not have been possible. It was a phenominal feat of navigation given the conditions and lack of equipment - Worsley was a truly superb navigator. In truth both Scott and Shackleton were eclipsed by Roald Amunsen, the Norwegian who was first to reach the South Pole. Compared to him Scott and Shackleton were amateurs. Amundsen talked to fellow arctic explorer Nansen, learnt to handle an ice strengthed ship in pack ice, lived with the Inuit to see how their clothing worked and learnt how to use sledge dogs effectively. Taking all that onboard his team went to Antarctica, found their own route to the south pole and returned without breaking sweat or losing a life - not even a dog as I remember, and they even took rest days. A far cry from Scott and Shackleton's daily battles to survive. Amundsen was puzzled why the British had found the conditions so difficult but he did later say he admired Shackleton's man management and leadership which he considered was second to none.
Even as a Brit I would agree with you about Amundsen. His expedition was undoubtedly better prepared and better organised than either of the two British expeditions. However Shackleton’s leadership was absolutely second to none.
Amundsen was likely also the first to actually reach the North Pole as well since Peary’s claim (and the man himself) has been discredited. He conquered both poles in his lifetime. Incidentally, while no human in Amundsen’s Antarctic exploration died, many of the dogs did; this was actually accounted for in his planning as he’d set aside a certain number of dogs to be butchered as additional food stores for the humans and other dogs. This was one of the things the British used to discredit his achievement.
@@bkjeong4302 Yes you're right, I was forgetting Amundsen's plan of feeding dog to dog, whhich was scientifically planned. The British expeditions tend to overshadow that, feeding horse meat to dogs and people although in truth the same principle applied. The Norwegians were just so much better at travelling and living in an arctic environment and very well prepared..
On records surviving, my Mom was the one who wrote programs for the US Government, and she let me know that a portion of the records she digitized was George Washington's Army medical reports from 1780's. True, fires a few other things may have hampered record keeping storage up until the 70's, but if anything is a good bet is that most governments keep good records on what they spend. For the US, the General Services Administration (GSA) would be the office that tracks and records all of the non payroll money the US Government spends.
@ 02:53:45 The Pittsburgh region, including the Monongahela Valley and the northern panhandle of West Virginia, produced more steel during the years 1942-1945 than the entire Third Reich. The comparison is a bit distorted because the Third Reich ceased to exist in May 1945, and no bombs fell on Pittsburgh during the war. It's still an impressive achievement - a single city outproduced the entire Third Reich.
Regarding that final question about the Bismarck/Tirpitz trials, I have read quite a bit about Tirpitz: she was commissioned ahead of schedule and without sea trials due to bombing danger in February 1941 and already in early March left Wilhelmshaven for the Baltic through the Kiel Canal. She would never return to her birthplace, since she stayed in the Baltic until January 1942, when she was briefly moved to Germany's North Sea ports in preparation for her deployment to Norway. In the Baltic, the ship could move pretty much without danger, although in the Western Baltic, she was still escorted by minesweepers and Sperrbrecher. The only inconvenience caused by the invasion of the USSR was that the ship could no longer anchor at sea overnight, as she had done previously - she was either kept on the move if she was out for several days, or was anchored at the Seebahnhof in Gotenhafen. (Although apparently water depth and dredging in Gotenhafen was insufficient to allow both Bismarck-class battleships to be tied up at the Seebahnhof simultaneously. For example, during the painter's inspection on May 5th, Tirpitz and the aviso Hela were tied up at the Seebahnhof while Bismarck had anchored on the roadsted. After inspecting Tirpitz, the moustache guy was ferried to Bismarck by Hela) So basically, trials for the Bismarck-class were apparently pretty chill.
GDYNiA not Gotenhafen... If you are shy on mentioning moustache guy's name, why would you use name given by the Nazi regime to the occupied Polsih city after expelling or murdering its inhabitants?
Observation Squadron 7 (VOS-7) (or VCS-7) was a United States Navy artillery observer aircraft squadron based in England during Operation Overlord. The squadron was assembled expressly to provide aerial spotting for naval gunfire support during the invasion of Normandy. Personnel and aircraft were assembled on 1 June 1944 and began flying missions on 6 June 1944. The squadron was disbanded when Allied capture of the town of Cherbourg ended naval bombardment responsibilities on 26 June 1944 Seventeen aviators were assigned from the VOS squadron detachments aboard the battleships USS Arkansas, Texas and Nevada and the heavy cruisers USS Augusta, Tuscaloosa and Quincy. These naval aviators, commanded by the senior aviator from Quincy, were trained by the United States Army Air Forces 67th Reconnaissance Group to fly Supermarine Spitfire Mk V fighter aircraft. VOS-7 is thought to be the only United States Navy Squadron flying Spitfires. VOS-7 was part of the air spotting pool for the Normandy invasion (the 34th Reconnaissance Wing of the RAF Second Tactical Air Force) commanded by Royal Navy Commodore E.C. Thornton. Use of drop tanks allowed missions of two hours with about 30 minutes transit time to the combat area, 45 minutes on station, and 30 minutes to return to base. Spotting missions flew in pairs. The spotter piloted the lead aircraft while his wingman watched for enemy fighters. Preferred altitude was 6,000 feet (1,800 m), but overcast skies often limited visibility above 1,500 feet (460 m).[
Drach, I know its apples and oranges, but you might be interested. In US railroad practice prior to widespread adoption of air brakes (prior to 100 more or less) the standard to stop quickly was for the Engineer to close the throttle, open the cylender drain cocks, unlatch the 3-4 foot long reverse lever known colloqueally as a "Johnson Bar" pull it from the FORWARD position across the quadrant all the way back to the tender, make SURE its latched then CAREFULLY open the throttle to give back-pressure, all the while giving the "down brakes" whistle signal for the brakeman and condutor to go across the trin setting handbrakes from the roofwalk across the top of the train, and the brakeman widing up the handbrake on the tender. Of course Hollywood doesnt do ANYTHING correctly which is why you invariably see wildly reverse-spinning drivers on a steam loco, which you DONT WANT TO DO...I've seen pics of a loco shedding her side-rods if this entire manuver did not go right, and the engineer was usually over/behind said rods which means survivability was a bit...suboptimal.
The Titanic bit doesn't quite sound right. When you cut steam pressure to the engines the steam.... well is still steam. This will raise the pressure in the boilers a lot (which are still boiling away happily) so closing the dampers will kill the draft and cool down the fire under the boilers. Then as soon as you start opening the valve again a huge amount of steam pressure hits the pistons, then you open the dampers to maintain the pressure (as it will drop quickly now that the steam has somewhere to go and your closed dampers have prevented steam from being generated as much) Holding steam pressure constant is a somewhat complex task.
Re: 2.03.15 - Several points if I may... In 1914, Canada was a comparatively under-populated nation with a large agrarian population. The tax-base was just not there to purchase, man and maintain large and probably unneeded naval vessels. Canada's interests lay then and still do so, in maintaining sea routes to Europe and more recently keeping tabs on the Russians in the Arctic - which a quick glance at a map reveals is a gargantuan area and very sparsely populated. Add to that that Canadians, as a rule, are not particularly interested in things military (until desperately needed) most of the time. Even today, expenditures to upgrade Canada's existing air, ground and naval assets are controversial, with none of the interest expressed by Americans and I presume, Brits. Since the early 1960's Canada's devotion to military preparedness has been a varied proposition. However, during the first and second war and during the 1950's to early 60"s, Canada punched way above its weight class, and has continued to do so in recent contributions to the various anti-terrorism wars. In summation a large Navy, comprised of capital ships and all their supporting elements was never a defence need for Canada and might not have been supported or financed if it was.
Excuses, excuses + living in the past. Since 1973 Canada has spent less than 2% of its GDP on the military annually with the exception of five years in the '80s ('83 thru '87) when it was at or just above 2%. That's nearly five decades of under investment; it began to reap the peace dividend nearly two decades before the Cold War ended. During the Cold War period many other Nato states were at 3+ per cent, and for many years above 4%. The UK never went below 4% until 1989, and for much of the '60s and '70s it was 5% and higher. Let's contrast Canada with Australia, also an under-populated nation with a large agrarian population though without the USSR at its doorstep. During the Cold War its defence spending ranged from 3.84% to 2.05% of GDP, not once dipping below 2% until 1996. Faces facts, presently Canada is sponger state that lived off the largesse of the UK until '45 and the US since then. It wants to be in the mix and have a seat at the table, but on the cheap though it is a G7 economy.
Canada might be labeled a “sponger”. But for the reasons I stated. I’m in agreement with you in fact, if not in sentiment. Canada had a robust armed forces from about 1943 u til the end of the war and arguably during the early to late 1950’s. Admittedly much less so since then. There are two vast oceans to the east and west and the United States to the south, so we might be forgiven for not focusing as much on the military versus: universal healthcare, public education, extensive social-support etc. Maybe one of the reasons we are a destination of choice for immigrants from around the world. Having said that, we are a very wealthy nation and can afford to field a robust military and meet our various obligations. The failure to do so, is because for a long time we have elected left of centre governments that do not think very hard about things military and in some cases absolutely loath the idea.
4:51 I had to go find a clip, but from what I know as an auto mechanic...... sounds like that should worry you on a car or truck sized engine. An engine that size and I'm not sticking around 😂😂😂
Ship production - ships were built in New England and Canada to transport lumber one-way, the ship being disassembled on arrival for the timber (in addition to the load). This tended to distort the numbers,
01:28:47 Ile de France had a lot of its important interior decoration spread out throughout the USA it took a while to locate and return them to France.
I just noticed this when looking at the painting of Captain Scott, why in dress uniform is the sword hanging so long? I have a delightful 'HMS Pinafore' book with drawn charactatures of the oprah's players, and Captain Cochrane is drawn with the sword hanging very low as well.
In reference to the USS Indianapolis the surviving crew that had abandoned ship after 3 Japanese torpedoes slammed into her side, it was estimated that around 900 or a little more survived the ship being sank. However, because they were in the water so long many succumbed to exposure & shark attacks with only 316 of the crew FINALLY being rescued. It is actually in the Guiness Book of World Records for the largest & longest known shark attacks. Coincidentally, also during WW2, somewhere in or near Burma, I think, a large number of Japanese troops were retreating from a certain area. I forget exactly the numbers, 1,000 to 1,500 respectively, I think, were cornered in a Mangrove Swamp that was INFESTED with crocodiles. At least 20 to 30 large saltwater crocs lived there with thousands of smaller crocs. The Brits that had them cornered pleaded with them to surrender. Night after night they could hear the screaming of those being attacked, and subsequently eaten. And they continued to ask for them to surrender. I forget the number that finally surrendered. But I think that close to 500 or more Japanese soldiers died & were eaten by crocs before the ordeal was over. I do believe that also made the Guiness Book of World Records.
35:02 "elitism spiral", other commentors have characterized this as "the invincibility of a sufficiently refined technique". For example, Musashi supposedly defeating dozens of enemies at a time because he's just that good.
1- Dubuque, Iowa is pronounced Dew-Bewk. 2 - USN vs Bismarcll - ) In 1941, the North Carolina's crew would have been mainly regulars and long service reservists - men with experience - few would have been conscripts as the first inductees weren't drafted until November 1940. So they may well have been farther along in learning their new ship than the totally green crews later in CV7 USS Wasp was part of the Atlantic Fleet in 1941 and carried 100 aircraft and was commissioned in April 1940. By May 1941, she would had over a year in service - longer than Bismarck - and would have been well worked up. Even if she didn't carry any TBD's , she could have carried two squadrons of fighters (40 aircraft) and three of dive bombers (60) and along with CV4 Ranger's single fighter squadron and three dive bomber squadrons, giving the USN Atlantic Fleet 120 strike aircraft against two ships (Prinz Eugen being the other KM vessel). The planes would have been a mixture of monoplane SB2U's and biplane SBC's - both carrying 1,000 pound AP or HE bombs. US doctrine called for the deck load strike - hurling all your aircraft in one mighty blow against the enemy. So the Bismarck could face up to 60 attackers at one time - 120 if the two US carriers managed to coordinate (doctrine said US carriers should operate in separate task forces) The bridge and fire control systems of both ships would almost assuredly be damaged or destroyed under that sort of attack, leaving them vulnerable to the North Carolina and any or all of the CA31 USS Augusta, CA37 USS Tuscaloosa and CA45 USS Wichita. 3. The most important product from Chile in 1917 were nitrates for use in explosives and as fertilizer. For many years - and maybe still today - the principal supplier of beef to the UK was Argentina - absolutely vital in war time. Don't forget all those gauchos riding the pampas!. 4. 2-41 the Radars are CXAM long range air search (bed spring at the fore top, the first USN radar set) and Mark 4 5 inch fire control on the front of the Mark 33 director aboard CV4 USS Ranger early WW2 5. All the German 15cm guns were actually 14.94 cm 6.Drach ignores the primary route to becoming a ship's carpenter. Completing an apprenticeship in a Royal Dockyard and applying for a warrant from the Navy Board. "Although it was possible to serve an apprenticeship afloat as Carpenter's Crew and Carpenter's Mate, the majority qualified as shipwrights in the dockyards before going to sea, and some of the Master Shipwrights and their Assistants were former Carpenters who had returned to the yards." 7. Don't forget the Cinque Ports - "By 1135, the term Cinque Ports had come into use; and in 1155 a royal charter established the ports to maintain ships ready for the Crown in case of need. " Reply
My take on the right ship at the wrong time was the USS Des Moines! Those 8" auto loaders were a beast! But they were finished just in time for the war to be over!! Talking about any ship being a "Cruiser Killer?" I think that even battleships would have been hard pressed against these ships! A battleship would have to stay out of range of those 8" guns & try to hurt it from far away. But any ship that a Des Moines engaged within range of those 8" guns would have had a very serious problem on their hands. And their quickest way of getting out of range will probably be towards the ocean floor! The right ship just too late for WW2.
1:52:41 There was also USS Wisconsin BB-64 doing a Barn Door Stop. It was when both of her rudders were turned inwards. It was able to stop her within her length doing 33 knots. It however made her rudders loose. (I wonder why.) Only Wisconsin was the only American ship that did this test. The USN just stuck with a crash stop. Aka going at flank ahead to full reverse.
On the subject of caustic soda engines in submarines, it sounds very similar (though lower-tech) to the concept of high-test peroxide as power source. And both seem to have failed for somewhat similar reasons.
On the steel production records, someone would probably have to go into the National Archives and go through the records of the War Production Board and its subsidiary agencies. Steel and other materials were allocated on a need basis during the war, and there are likely records of who got what. It would be quite an undertaking to go through, I am sure.
I wonder what would be said about Commodore Decker assuming command of Enterprise in "Doomsday Machine" when Kirk was in the derelict Essex (Decker's lost ship) - in original Star Trek series.
Your answer at 00:13:23 about writing a book resembles a lot the career of Richard Bolitho from the book series by Alexander Kent (aka Douglas Reeman) 🙂
For the ideal rise of a naval officer, one of the other important mid-career steps seems to be assignment on some sort of semi-independent detached service, usually as a lieutenant. That played an important role in the fictional careers of both Alan Lewrie and Horatio Hornblower. Lewrie ended up commanding a captured French frigate during the evacuation from Toulon and successfully capturing another ship trying to chase him down, while Hornblower played a major role in a landing operation to seize a Spanish fort and eventually helped force the entire island's garrison to surrender. In both cases, the detached service was entirely natural for a lieutenant, offered a perfect opportunity for the character to distinguish themselves, and led directly to the character in question getting their promotion to commander.
For the Washington treaty, Australia tried to have its battlecruiser counted separately, so it would not be seen as part of the British fleet. But the other powers would not accept that. So (I think) the Australians sank it in a gunnery exercise. There is no reason why a Canadian capital ship would be treated differently to the Australian one.
Firing torpedoes: In a submarine, the command is given, and off the torpedo goes. Any delay waiting for the sub to come on bearing etc. is dealt with by the folks giving the order. On a surface ship the order is to shoot as soon when ready, when the bearing is on etc. The delays are part of the torpedoing organization, so there's an intrinsic delay.
All launch systems have some delay, since simultaneity is impossible outside quantum mechanics. The delay depends on the ship and the circumstances. Historically, surface ships had two forms of torpedo launch control: bridge and local. In bridge control systems, I believe the torpedoes can be launched "immediately" (subject to electrical and mechanical delays) from the bridge if they are already on the desired bearing. Otherwise they need to be moved (the launcher rotated), which might be done automatically or might require somebody turning a crank to match a desired dial setting which is automatically communicated to the torpedo crew. In local control the torpedo organization takes care of everything.
@@bluelemming5296The captain orders the shot which starts the aiming folks in motion. They may set-up for a shot when the ship comes to a bearing or assuming the ship will continue its current course (lots of variations on these). Under either local or bridge control there's the solution delay, the traversing delay and possibly a delay for maneuver after the order.
@@skeltonpg What you are talking about is how the setup is done in special circumstances such as for long range fire or when a ship is caught by surprise (meaning torpedoes facing fore-and-aft or even facing out but in the wrong direction for some reason). Long range firing required a much more careful setup. Sensible officers rarely attempted long range fire with torpedoes, it was generally a waste of resources. Very much unlike what you see in games like World of Warships, where long range fire is common due to magic reloads. Surprise meant the ship was not ready for battle or was facing the wrong way, and had to get the torpedoes pointing the right direction and all that. If memory serves, Australian author JE MacDonnell - author and former WW2 destroyer officer - has stated that some destroyer captains routinely pointed their tubes to one side when expecting combat but before the enemy was sighted - always the same side and always the same angle. This meant they always knew which way to turn the ship to get the torpedoes on line - this gave them a much faster response if they were in a surprise encounter such as in fog or rain or at night. Hence, when an enemy suddenly appeared at an appropriate range, they always turned the same way and they could just gave the order to start firing when the turn came far enough around (which wouldn't take long at all for a destroyer). The torpedoes would be fired one at a time at a fixed interval, with the turn of the ship being used in combination with the interval to create the salvo spread. No traverse of the weapon independent of the ship was required, no delay for calculations, nothing fancy - which meant there was less to go wrong and the launch could take place very quickly. It was a very clever way to deal with the possibility of surprise, but of course meant a greater delay if they actually needed to switch the orientation of the torpedo launchers to the other side due to some special circumstance. With bridge control systems, my understanding is that the solution is computed automatically using the torpedo director. All the things that take significant amounts of time are typically done as the ship closes by keeping the director pointed appropriately, so there's typically no need to wait for a solution delay, a traverse delay, or extra maneuvering. In this situation, firing the first torpedo can commence as soon as the order is given and again short fixed delays are used to create an interval between launches of individual fish to generate the salvo spread, without further moving the launcher. Only if the ship is not ready to fire in a particular direction do traverse or calculation delays start to come into play.
28:30 Would a bow ruder have saved the Bismark? :D I'm just joking everyone, no need to answer. Drak's answer made it pretty clear it wouldn't have helped a ship that large.
In civilian riverine shipping, bow rudders, although no longer very common, now that all ships/barges have thrusters, were quite valued. At least that's what my coworkers tell me, who had worked on a two-part barge convoy with a retractable bow rudder (in addition to thruster). Great for going around corners on the Rhine without burning diesel on the thrusters.
I hate to say it, Drach, but you got the first question about Titanic rather badly wrong. First of all, you wouldn't shut off steam to the engines from each boiler individually. Not only would that end up shutting down a lot of auxiliary steam powered equipment, it's much simpler and less manpower intensive to simply shut off steam with a single throttle valve on the engine itself. Second, Damper is not a colloquial term to refer to steam valves. It's an airflow regulation device, a boiler's equivalent to a ICE motor's choke, and it wasn't unique to ships as many steam locomotives had them as well (not all, but many). If you are shutting the dampers, you are trying to choke the fire in the furnace out to at least reduce how hot the fire is burning, and it's about the only way you can control how hot a coal fire is on the fly (otherwise, coal firing doesn't really react well to sudden changes in steam, or heat, demand). The fact that the stokers are closing the fire doors after the order is shouted before they pull the damper chains should have been a dead giveaway as to what they were trying to do there. As cool a scene as it is in the movie, I do think there are some problems with it. For one, Titanic's engines likely weren't put into reverse to begin with, instead I think it's more likely (based on the testimony of one of the lead stokers, Fred Barrett), that the engines were simply ordered to "All Stop" on the telegraph. In the context of the scene itself, the order was obviously given as "Full Astern" for the purpose of ratcheting up the tension, but it also wouldn't really make sense to close the damper's if that order was actually given. While the Titanic's engines would have taken some time to go into reverse given their size, and likely had only barely stopped turning on the night in question by the time she impacted the ice, it wouldn't take more than a minute and a half for the engines to spool up to full astern (I may be overestimating the time it would take, in fact, VTE's were known for being able to stop and reverse pretty quickly, hence why they were used on some smaller ships up until the 50's for the purposes of maneuverability). That simply isn't enough time for the steam pressure in the boilers to rise all that much now that there wasn't an outlet for it, and if that order for full astern had actually been given, the boiler room crews probably wouldn't have noticed a change, s there would be no need to change the power level of the boilers. TL;DR: Dampers are airflow chokes to the boiler furnaces, and while closing them to reduce the power of the boilers made sense on the night in question because of the "All Stop" order that was likely actually given, closing the dampers wouldn't make much sense in the movie scene itself as the engines would be ramping back up to full power (just in the other direction) rather quickly anyway.
1:36:10 Officers' quarters aft: "In the days of square-rigged sailing ships the wind usually came from astern and therefore the officers got all the fresh air at the back, while the smelly bits were 'before the mast'. Once powered ships started creating their own wind, all the smells were blown backwards and the officers moved forward to avoid them". 1:56:24 Forcing a ship to list - usually to clean/repair waterline areas but sometimes to refloat from aground - is called 'careening' it.
00:43:36 I have book on Tirpitz somewhere, which I haven't read for a while so forgive me for being vague and/or slightly wrong. It says that on one of her few operational sorties she was under fairly heavy air attack when the admiral on board countermanded one of the captain's helm orders. The helmsman, aware that this was inappropriate, hesitated. The captain informed the admiral that "I command this ship - not you" and repeated his own order which the helmsman obeyed. Also thinking of San Francisco at Guadalcanal, where the most senior officer ordered a more junior one to retain command because he himself was too busy with damage control.
THANKS for answering my ocean liner question Drach! While waiting, another problem occurred to me; the troops that sailed on these liners were not always the.... KINDEST to their environments. Carving their names into the railing is just the gentle stuff. I'd like to think they ALWAYS could make it to a restroom when the need came but... and don't even get me started on that roudy bunch of hooligans from Australia! Another factor is that while Atlantic Liners always liked to TALK about being fast, once they set a record, they usually didn't actually go that fast. (to conserve fuel). In wartime of course, it's peddle to the metal and the taxpayer will pay.
Rather touchingly, when Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth were returned to service, Cunard didn't replace the handrails on the grounds that a lot of the men who left their initials on the ship didn't live to make the return journey. Not sure if they did the same with the Mauretania and Aquitania.
@@notshapedforsportivetricks2912 Another factor in the aging of troopship liners- having SO many more people aboard than the ship was designed for means that the facilities are pushed beyond their limits constantly. The kitchens are being asked to make several times more food each day. And stay open constantly. The floors are taking 2 or 3 times the pounding. The bathrooms... the plumbing....
The question about uniforms and the painting of the officer in a tri-corner hat set me to wondering... why didn't navies provide hats with visors sooner? Officers hats seem to acquire visors in the mid-1800s. But with the prototypical sailors hat, it still had no visor in WWII. Seems like a no-brainer to have a visor given that the sun shines on land and sea alike and shading your face from it is a near universal thing when you're trying to see. Most soldiers had hats with visors by the time of the Napoleonic war. What am I missing?
You have to take a shot of strong spirits whenever the square cube law is mentioned but we’ll be wrecked if we did it every “ect”. Only way to understand “left canter right”
2:37:05 Paddle wheels on Great Eastern (or most any other side-wheeler) cannot rotate independently; they are on a single shaft so that when one or the other wheel rolls out of the water the other wheel is deeper, and thus prevents runaways.
She was modified in the 1860s with independent working of the paddle wheels as part of the refits for her cable laying role. Since use as blocks blockship would be at the end of her career, she would have this capability at the time.
@@Drachinifel Very good of you to take the time to reply. Thank you for the correction! I will fact-check more thoroughly before I contradict you in future. I appreciate your excellent videos.
Someone has probably already commented on this, but that type of translucent paper with high cellulose content is referred to in publishing as "onionskin".
Why didn't the British send Dreadnought to the Falklands instead of the 2 battlecruisers? Without a doubt, Dreadnought was very fast, very well armed and Sturdee could have used it the same way in the battle.
US war plans War Plan Black[9] A plan for war with Germany. The best-known version of Black was conceived as a contingency plan during World War I in case France fell and the Germans attempted to seize French possessions in the Caribbean Sea or launch an attack on the eastern seaboard. War Plan Gray[10] There were two War Plans named Gray. The first dealt with Central America[10] and the Caribbean, and the second dealt with invading the Portuguese Azores.[11] War Plan Brown[12] Dealt with an uprising in the Philippines. War Plan Tan[13] Intervention in Cuba. War Plan Red[14] Plan for Great Britain (with sub variants Crimson, Scarlet, Ruby, Garnet, and Emerald for British dominions) War Plan Orange[15] Plan for Japan. War Plan Red-Orange[16] Considered a two-front war with the United States (Blue) opposing Japan (Orange) and the British Empire (Red) simultaneously. Ultimately this analysis led to the understanding that the United States didn't have the resources to fight a two front war, and it would make sense to focus on one front, probably in the Atlantic. Ultimately this was the decision made in the Plan Dog memo. War Plan Yellow[17] Dealt with war in China - specifically, the defense of Beijing and relief of Shanghai during the Second Sino-Japanese War. War Plan Gold[citation needed] Involved war with France, and/or France's Caribbean colonies. War Plan Green[18] Involved war with Mexico or what was known as "Mexican Domestic Intervention" in order to defeat rebel forces and establish a pro-American government. War Plan Green was officially canceled in 1946. War Plan Indigo[19] Involved an occupation of Iceland. In 1941, while Denmark was under German occupation, the US actually did occupy Iceland, relieving British units during the Battle of the Atlantic. War Plan Purple[20] Dealt with invading a South American republic. War Plan Violet[21] Covered Latin America. War Plan White[22] Dealt with a domestic uprising in the US, and later evolved to Operation Garden Plot, the general US military plan for civil disturbances and peaceful protests. Parts of War Plan White were used to deal with the Bonus Expeditionary Force in 1932. Communist insurgents were considered the most likely threat by the authors of War Plan White. War Plan Blue[23] Covered defensive plans and preparations that the United States should take in times of peace. Rainbow 1 was a plan for a defensive war to protect the United States and the Western Hemisphere north of ten degrees [south] latitude. In such a war, the United States was assumed to be without major allies. Rainbow 2 was identical to Rainbow 1, except for assuming that the United States would be allied with France and the United Kingdom. Rainbow 3 was a repetition of the Orange plan, with the provision that the hemisphere defense would first be secured, as provided in Rainbow 1. Rainbow 4 was based on the same assumptions as Rainbow 1 but extended the American mission to include defense of the entire Western hemisphere. Rainbow 5, destined to be the basis for American strategy in World War II, assumed that the United States was allied with Britain and France and provided for offensive operations by American forces in Europe, Africa, or both.
As far as ships being committed by the Japanese, didn’t fuel availability have an effect. My understanding is the Japanese often didn’t have the fuel to use /send all the ships they may have wanted to while the US had the fuel to send lots of ships long distances just in case they might be needed.
Quickly rising? How about being named Horatio Hornblower? I haven't read the books in decades, but that's my memory of them. Doesn't hurt to be brave, handsome, white, British, intelligent, etc.
Your friend Dr. Clark has a different take on Japanese pilot training. It started out such a small service, requiring such high standards made sense. As time went on, they kept standards but increased training cadres, etc.. They never came to grip with actual wartime attrition and requirements once they faced the US and Britain.
Every carrier air Corps started out small, the capacity of Hosho, Akagi and Kaga was not dissimilar to Langley, Saratoga and Lexington. The IJN had a degree of attrition before the RN and USN thanks to the Sino-Japanese War, and the fundamental changes needed to gear up for a war need to be implemented or at least prepared before war breaks out. Making changes after late 1941 is too late.
Right ship in the wrong time: I agree, HOOD. Fucking Hood. The greatest capital ship in the world up until the advent of aircraft carriers, didn’t see war until said carriers were taking over. Even then she made far more sense than all the below-mentioned ships, but then yeah…. Wrong ship in the right time; all 29 WWII-era fast battleships and the Alaskas. Entered service right as the entire battleship paradigm became strategically obsolete.
Tell that to the USS South Dakota, and USS Washington off Guadalcanal. 7th Fleet's battlewagons at Surigao Strait, HMS Duke of York at North Cape, The Med Fleet's battleline at Cape Matapan -0 all at night, or night and heavy weather in which carrier aircraft could not operate.
@@ROBERTNABORNEY South Dakota did absolutely nothing at Second Guadalcanal other than get shot at and steal the credit. Washington did actually achieve results in that battle, but that was an exception to the rule (the only battle where an American fast battleship did her job and the only battle in the Guadalcanal campaign where a battleship decided the battle, and then only at the tactical level as the Japanese landing operation went ahead anyways and was only stopped by air attacks the next morning) Surigao Strait and Matapan only involved old battleships and thus never justified the construction of a single new battleship in the leadup to WWII (because none of the battleships built in the 30s-40s were involved during those night actions). Duke of York was the other exception to the rule. The problem is that even at night or bad weather, a battleship can’t deal with an enemy carrier force (just because a carrier can’t launch aircraft doesn’t mean it suddenly comes within shelling distance), and is overkill for dealing with subcapital units, so you only really needed one to stop an enemy battleship in poor visibility, which is far too situational to justify the investment.
@@bkjeong4302 Whether or not South Dakota hit enemy ships - there is some uncertainty about that given the nature of night actions - it is indisputable South Dakota played a critical role in distracting the enemy - thus allowing Washington to make a successful ambush. Had South Dakota not been present, all the fire that was directed at her would instead have been directed at Washington. It may not have been the design role or the intended role, but that ultimately doesn't matter: what matters is results. The Japanese, despite their undeniable skill at night operations, were distracted into focusing on the target they could see and failed to realize there was an even more dangerous threat out there: a problem known as 'tunnel vision' that affects many military operations. More broadly, you are clearly thinking about these matters from the perspective of somebody with both very limited sea experience and very limited flying experience. At sea, the bad weather always comes eventually - and during that era it often comes as a surprise. Even today with all the wonders of modern technology we often have trouble predicting weather in certain parts of the world during certain seasons, things were much worse back then. As a result, there were a great many incidents in those days where warships wandered into storms or bad weather without expecting to do so. The carrier USS Enterprise, for example, would be caught in at least two Atlantic hurricanes - one before the war, and one after the war (and Halsey was not involved on either occasion). For that matter, Japanese Admiral Koga would die when his seaplane ran into a typhoon. But hurricanes and typhoons are not the only weather problem: there are many varieties of bad weather. There are parts of Northern Europe (including Northern Britain) where the weather is bad on average 3 days out of 4 in certain seasons. In these conditions, flight operations with WW2 era technology were frequently impractical. That's hardly something that can be disregarded as being 'far too situational' to justify an investment. Strategic imperatives don't magically disappear simply because the weather isn't convenient for carrier operations. When there is bad weather, ships that can fight without the need to launch aircraft become critical to tactical and strategic success: they need to be present in sufficient numbers to accomplish all the missions that need to be accomplished. As smaller ships are far more adversely affected by rough weather than bigger ships in a whole bunch of ways, this places a premium on having bigger ships nearby (or not too distant) such that they can support the smaller ships, or replace them when they are unable to operate effectively due to the weather. For example, destroyers had to frequently leave North Atlantic convoys as they started running out of fuel in rough weather, but larger warships didn't have this problem - and could even refuel the destroyers if the weather wasn't too bad. Further, pilot fatigue is a critical issue that limits carrier operations - and one far too frequently overlooked by those who have no experience with the impact of high stress situations on the human body, and also no flying experience. Had the Japanese Combined Fleet been present at Truk in 1944 during operation Hailstone, pilot fatigue alone would have forced the use of surface warships to complete the job if the USN wanted to achieve a decisive victory. In other words, surface warships by themselves could not do the job, but neither could the carriers. Even with the assistance of drugs, there were very real limits on flight operations created by fatigue. No sane carrier commander wants pilots trying to land on his ship when they are so tired they shouldn't be flying in the first place - that places the carrier at enormous risk. Only teamwork could have completed the mission without extraordinary luck. World War 2 was very much an era where 'combined operations' were the key to success both on land and on the sea. Each major type of ship had a valuable role to play. It would not really be until the 1960s that aircraft _started_ to become good enough to reliably handle bad weather, and even today we tend to be really careful with flight operations in certain weather conditions, such as when ice can form on the wings of an aircraft, causing it to lose the ability to fly. This can happen not only to aircraft on the ground (or the deck of a carrier), but also to those in the air.
00:43:36 Listen to "Unauthorized History of the Pacific War Podcast Uncommon Valor, The Invasion of Iwo Jima Part 2 with Jon Parshall Episode 410." Where a private Marine (not even a PFC) became a company commander and then got killed.
Ok i fell behind...lordy. 3 hours and apparently 2 hours more , just today...drach! Study some poetry...condense condense condense!...poetry..the big answer to the big problem. Tis poetry!
Why did the Kriegsmarine in 1941 not wait until Bismarck was ready before planning the sortie of Scharnhorst and Gneisenau? Because the target of the operation was no UK trade, it was Hitler and the budget. The nazis were about to invade the USSR and the KM NEEDED a win BEFORE Barbarossa in order to prevent the loss of funding, otherwise the operation would have been delayed since it originally intended to encompass almost all operation KM vessels instead of just 2. SO those sailors died for budgetary reasons.
Sources? the Aim of the KM was always to split the british forces as far as possible. so to start a breakout with ALL ships at the same time would have meant, that the RN would have had the possibilty to concentrate and to end them all at once. to have Scharnhorst and Gneisenau already in France would have enabled a Sortie from there to keep parts of the RN occupied. but as we know in history there was also the RAF.
@@marting1056 Any non UK book that looks at KM decision making instead ob focusing on saint Winnie would do... but I doubt you would even look up any. If you dont know THAT, you clearly have only read propaganda filled books
PoW would probably be overkill. If I were you, I'd settle for Duke of Clarence. You still wind up as Lord High Admiral. Not sure how you're going to arrange this, though.
Right now the Princess of Asturias (the Spanish equivalent of the Prince of Wales) is working her way through naval college and being promoted at a very fast rate.
I don't think the officers tried to reverse Titanic... The turbine turning the central propeller would have move forward regardless because it couldnt be reversed.
Getting fresh water was still an issue into the '80's. On the Henry B Wilson, we had an evap go down which meant all water went to the engine or cooking- no water for the crew. So, the captain had the lookouts keep an eye out for squalls- small microbursts- and would have us steam into it. The the call came out, 'Soap on deck!' We all grabbed our soap, went topside, stripped down and showered in the rain. It was late spring so it was a warm shower.
Even when you have a ship that normally makes well in excess of it's needs, and could get by on a single evaporator, fresh water could still become a problem. We had a self-inflicted fresh water shortage aboard the Virginia in the 90s because certain parties misunderstood the XOs instruction for a fresh water washdown of the exterior of our ship while passing through the Panama Canal - and they used the pot water stores for swabbing down the weather decks. Even though we could produce 150% of rated distilled water daily, it would take time to refill our tanks after that bit of idiocy. And the steam & reactor plants had first priority for all fresh water production, had to keep a reserve for emergency use first; then cooking, and limited water hours.
I was on USS Sacramento (AOE-1). We deployed with USS Henry B. Wilson on a WestPac (Dec'88 to Jun '89) and transferred potable water because her evaps had trouble making enough water.
@@StevenPalmer-cs5ix Yup. that was the deployment. I recall unreping with you.
I was on the USS James Madison in the 80s and we lost our 8k evaporator early in a patrol and had go several weeks on our 2k still…basically enough for the reactor, steam plant, and mess decks. We finished the patrol without showers or laundry.
I was on America in the late 80's and supplied fresh water to several of our escorts while we were in the IO. We usually would transfer fuel at the same time while waiting for our supply ships to catch up during a high-speed run across the IO.
Drach, for the entire time you were discussing those heeling tests being done by moving the crew from beam to beam, I had visions of CAPTAIN Jack Sparrow and company capsizing the Black Pearl.
Now I want a special on the naval war in the Indian Ocean in WWII.
Captain Scott may have been a capable though not stellar naval officer who's career wasn't proceeding as well as he'd hoped which played a part in his decision to mount an Antarctic expedition I believe. At the risk of being called a heretic, I'll say he wasn't very good at Antarctic exploration. He didn't understand the demands of the environment and his man management in a small expedition wasn't good. In contrast, Ernest Shackleton who was a deck officer in the Merchant Navy had a much better feel for the environment and proved to be wonderful at looking after the people on the expeditions he led - never lost a man and led solidly from the front and got within ninety miles of the south pole but turned back to save his men's lives. Whilst "Shackleton's Boat Journey" from Elephant Island to South Georgia through mountainous seas and wild weather is much lauded Shackleton himself said that without his New Zealander navigator Frank Worsley the journey would not have been possible. It was a phenominal feat of navigation given the conditions and lack of equipment - Worsley was a truly superb navigator.
In truth both Scott and Shackleton were eclipsed by Roald Amunsen, the Norwegian who was first to reach the South Pole. Compared to him Scott and Shackleton were amateurs. Amundsen talked to fellow arctic explorer Nansen, learnt to handle an ice strengthed ship in pack ice, lived with the Inuit to see how their clothing worked and learnt how to use sledge dogs effectively. Taking all that onboard his team went to Antarctica, found their own route to the south pole and returned without breaking sweat or losing a life - not even a dog as I remember, and they even took rest days. A far cry from Scott and Shackleton's daily battles to survive. Amundsen was puzzled why the British had found the conditions so difficult but he did later say he admired Shackleton's man management and leadership which he considered was second to none.
Even as a Brit I would agree with you about Amundsen. His expedition was undoubtedly better prepared and better organised than either of the two British expeditions. However Shackleton’s leadership was absolutely second to none.
Amundsen was likely also the first to actually reach the North Pole as well since Peary’s claim (and the man himself) has been discredited.
He conquered both poles in his lifetime.
Incidentally, while no human in Amundsen’s Antarctic exploration died, many of the dogs did; this was actually accounted for in his planning as he’d set aside a certain number of dogs to be butchered as additional food stores for the humans and other dogs. This was one of the things the British used to discredit his achievement.
@@bkjeong4302 Yes you're right, I was forgetting Amundsen's plan of feeding dog to dog, whhich was scientifically planned. The British expeditions tend to overshadow that, feeding horse meat to dogs and people although in truth the same principle applied. The Norwegians were just so much better at travelling and living in an arctic environment and very well prepared..
Great I'm not even 5 minutes and now I've got to go rewatch Titanic😊
The Bofors 24 cm guns and 57 mm coast defence cupolas can still be seen today in their originally installed location at fort Oscar II in Gothenburg
On records surviving, my Mom was the one who wrote programs for the US Government, and she let me know that a portion of the records she digitized was George Washington's Army medical reports from 1780's. True, fires a few other things may have hampered record keeping storage up until the 70's, but if anything is a good bet is that most governments keep good records on what they spend. For the US, the General Services Administration (GSA) would be the office that tracks and records all of the non payroll money the US Government spends.
@ 02:53:45 The Pittsburgh region, including the Monongahela Valley and the northern panhandle of West Virginia, produced more steel during the years 1942-1945 than the entire Third Reich. The comparison is a bit distorted because the Third Reich ceased to exist in May 1945, and no bombs fell on Pittsburgh during the war. It's still an impressive achievement - a single city outproduced the entire Third Reich.
Dampers are flaps controlling airflow into a steam engine's firebox.
Close them to reduce combustion.
Regarding that final question about the Bismarck/Tirpitz trials, I have read quite a bit about Tirpitz: she was commissioned ahead of schedule and without sea trials due to bombing danger in February 1941 and already in early March left Wilhelmshaven for the Baltic through the Kiel Canal. She would never return to her birthplace, since she stayed in the Baltic until January 1942, when she was briefly moved to Germany's North Sea ports in preparation for her deployment to Norway.
In the Baltic, the ship could move pretty much without danger, although in the Western Baltic, she was still escorted by minesweepers and Sperrbrecher. The only inconvenience caused by the invasion of the USSR was that the ship could no longer anchor at sea overnight, as she had done previously - she was either kept on the move if she was out for several days, or was anchored at the Seebahnhof in Gotenhafen. (Although apparently water depth and dredging in Gotenhafen was insufficient to allow both Bismarck-class battleships to be tied up at the Seebahnhof simultaneously. For example, during the painter's inspection on May 5th, Tirpitz and the aviso Hela were tied up at the Seebahnhof while Bismarck had anchored on the roadsted. After inspecting Tirpitz, the moustache guy was ferried to Bismarck by Hela)
So basically, trials for the Bismarck-class were apparently pretty chill.
GDYNiA not Gotenhafen... If you are shy on mentioning moustache guy's name, why would you use name given by the Nazi regime to the occupied Polsih city after expelling or murdering its inhabitants?
Observation Squadron 7 (VOS-7) (or VCS-7) was a United States Navy artillery observer aircraft squadron based in England during Operation Overlord. The squadron was assembled expressly to provide aerial spotting for naval gunfire support during the invasion of Normandy. Personnel and aircraft were assembled on 1 June 1944 and began flying missions on 6 June 1944. The squadron was disbanded when Allied capture of the town of Cherbourg ended naval bombardment responsibilities on 26 June 1944
Seventeen aviators were assigned from the VOS squadron detachments aboard the battleships USS Arkansas, Texas and Nevada and the heavy cruisers USS Augusta, Tuscaloosa and Quincy. These naval aviators, commanded by the senior aviator from Quincy, were trained by the United States Army Air Forces 67th Reconnaissance Group to fly Supermarine Spitfire Mk V fighter aircraft. VOS-7 is thought to be the only United States Navy Squadron flying Spitfires.
VOS-7 was part of the air spotting pool for the Normandy invasion (the 34th Reconnaissance Wing of the RAF Second Tactical Air Force) commanded by Royal Navy Commodore E.C. Thornton. Use of drop tanks allowed missions of two hours with about 30 minutes transit time to the combat area, 45 minutes on station, and 30 minutes to return to base. Spotting missions flew in pairs. The spotter piloted the lead aircraft while his wingman watched for enemy fighters. Preferred altitude was 6,000 feet (1,800 m), but overcast skies often limited visibility above 1,500 feet (460 m).[
Thank you for putting out such consistently wonderful content!
Drach, I know its apples and oranges, but you might be interested. In US railroad practice prior to widespread adoption of air brakes (prior to 100 more or less) the standard to stop quickly was for the Engineer to close the throttle, open the cylender drain cocks, unlatch the 3-4 foot long reverse lever known colloqueally as a "Johnson Bar" pull it from the FORWARD position across the quadrant all the way back to the tender, make SURE its latched then CAREFULLY open the throttle to give back-pressure, all the while giving the "down brakes" whistle signal for the brakeman and condutor to go across the trin setting handbrakes from the roofwalk across the top of the train, and the brakeman widing up the handbrake on the tender. Of course Hollywood doesnt do ANYTHING correctly which is why you invariably see wildly reverse-spinning drivers on a steam loco, which you DONT WANT TO DO...I've seen pics of a loco shedding her side-rods if this entire manuver did not go right, and the engineer was usually over/behind said rods which means survivability was a bit...suboptimal.
The Titanic bit doesn't quite sound right. When you cut steam pressure to the engines the steam.... well is still steam. This will raise the pressure in the boilers a lot (which are still boiling away happily) so closing the dampers will kill the draft and cool down the fire under the boilers.
Then as soon as you start opening the valve again a huge amount of steam pressure hits the pistons, then you open the dampers to maintain the pressure (as it will drop quickly now that the steam has somewhere to go and your closed dampers have prevented steam from being generated as much)
Holding steam pressure constant is a somewhat complex task.
Saturday night and Drach's alright!!! 😁
I look forward to this monthly all day entertainment.
Re: 2.03.15 - Several points if I may... In 1914, Canada was a comparatively under-populated nation with a large agrarian population. The tax-base was just not there to purchase, man and maintain large and probably unneeded naval vessels. Canada's interests lay then and still do so, in maintaining sea routes to Europe and more recently keeping tabs on the Russians in the Arctic - which a quick glance at a map reveals is a gargantuan area and very sparsely populated. Add to that that Canadians, as a rule, are not particularly interested in things military (until desperately needed) most of the time. Even today, expenditures to upgrade Canada's existing air, ground and naval assets are controversial, with none of the interest expressed by Americans and I presume, Brits. Since the early 1960's Canada's devotion to military preparedness has been a varied proposition. However, during the first and second war and during the 1950's to early 60"s, Canada punched way above its weight class, and has continued to do so in recent contributions to the various anti-terrorism wars. In summation a large Navy, comprised of capital ships and all their supporting elements was never a defence need for Canada and might not have been supported or financed if it was.
Excuses, excuses + living in the past.
Since 1973 Canada has spent less than 2% of its GDP on the military annually with the exception of five years in the '80s ('83 thru '87) when it was at or just above 2%. That's nearly five decades of under investment; it began to reap the peace dividend nearly two decades before the Cold War ended. During the Cold War period many other Nato states were at 3+ per cent, and for many years above 4%. The UK never went below 4% until 1989, and for much of the '60s and '70s it was 5% and higher.
Let's contrast Canada with Australia, also an under-populated nation with a large agrarian population though without the USSR at its doorstep. During the Cold War its defence spending ranged from 3.84% to 2.05% of GDP, not once dipping below 2% until 1996.
Faces facts, presently Canada is sponger state that lived off the largesse of the UK until '45 and the US since then. It wants to be in the mix and have a seat at the table, but on the cheap though it is a G7 economy.
Canada might be labeled a “sponger”. But for the reasons I stated. I’m in agreement with you in fact, if not in sentiment. Canada had a robust armed forces from about 1943 u til the end of the war and arguably during the early to late 1950’s. Admittedly much less so since then. There are two vast oceans to the east and west and the United States to the south, so we might be forgiven for not focusing as much on the military versus: universal healthcare, public education, extensive social-support etc. Maybe one of the reasons we are a destination of choice for immigrants from around the world. Having said that, we are a very wealthy nation and can afford to field a robust military and meet our various obligations. The failure to do so, is because for a long time we have elected left of centre governments that do not think very hard about things military and in some cases absolutely loath the idea.
Thank you for another great Drachinifel video.
4:51 I had to go find a clip, but from what I know as an auto mechanic...... sounds like that should worry you on a car or truck sized engine. An engine that size and I'm not sticking around 😂😂😂
Ship production - ships were built in New England and Canada to transport lumber one-way, the ship being disassembled on arrival for the timber (in addition to the load). This tended to distort the numbers,
01:28:47 Ile de France had a lot of its important interior decoration spread out throughout the USA it took a while to locate and return them to France.
I just noticed this when looking at the painting of Captain Scott, why in dress uniform is the sword hanging so long? I have a delightful 'HMS Pinafore' book with drawn charactatures of the oprah's players, and Captain Cochrane is drawn with the sword hanging very low as well.
"Oprah! OpRaH!!!!"
In reference to the USS Indianapolis the surviving crew that had abandoned ship after 3 Japanese torpedoes slammed into her side, it was estimated that around 900 or a little more survived the ship being sank. However, because they were in the water so long many succumbed to exposure & shark attacks with only 316 of the crew FINALLY being rescued. It is actually in the Guiness Book of World Records for the largest & longest known shark attacks.
Coincidentally, also during WW2, somewhere in or near Burma, I think, a large number of Japanese troops were retreating from a certain area. I forget exactly the numbers, 1,000 to 1,500 respectively, I think, were cornered in a Mangrove Swamp that was INFESTED with crocodiles. At least 20 to 30 large saltwater crocs lived there with thousands of smaller crocs. The Brits that had them cornered pleaded with them to surrender. Night after night they could hear the screaming of those being attacked, and subsequently eaten. And they continued to ask for them to surrender. I forget the number that finally surrendered. But I think that close to 500 or more Japanese soldiers died & were eaten by crocs before the ordeal was over. I do believe that also made the Guiness Book of World Records.
35:02 "elitism spiral", other commentors have characterized this as "the invincibility of a sufficiently refined technique". For example, Musashi supposedly defeating dozens of enemies at a time because he's just that good.
1- Dubuque, Iowa is pronounced Dew-Bewk.
2 - USN vs Bismarcll -
) In 1941, the North Carolina's crew would have been mainly regulars and long service reservists - men with experience - few would have been conscripts as the first inductees weren't drafted until November 1940. So they may well have been farther along in learning their new ship than the totally green crews later in
CV7 USS Wasp was part of the Atlantic Fleet in 1941 and carried 100 aircraft and was commissioned in April 1940. By May 1941, she would had over a year in service - longer than Bismarck - and would have been well worked up. Even if she didn't carry any TBD's , she could have carried two squadrons of fighters (40 aircraft) and three of dive bombers (60) and along with CV4 Ranger's single fighter squadron and three dive bomber squadrons, giving the USN Atlantic Fleet 120 strike aircraft against two ships (Prinz Eugen being the other KM vessel). The planes would have been a mixture of monoplane SB2U's and biplane SBC's - both carrying 1,000 pound AP or HE bombs. US doctrine called for the deck load strike - hurling all your aircraft in one mighty blow against the enemy. So the Bismarck could face up to 60 attackers at one time - 120 if the two US carriers managed to coordinate (doctrine said US carriers should operate in separate task forces) The bridge and fire control systems of both ships would almost assuredly be damaged or destroyed under that sort of attack, leaving them vulnerable to the North Carolina and any or all of the CA31 USS Augusta, CA37 USS Tuscaloosa and CA45 USS Wichita.
3. The most important product from Chile in 1917 were nitrates for use in explosives and as fertilizer. For many years - and maybe still today - the principal supplier of beef to the UK was Argentina - absolutely vital in war time. Don't forget all those gauchos riding the pampas!.
4. 2-41 the Radars are CXAM long range air search (bed spring at the fore top, the first USN radar set) and Mark 4 5 inch fire control on the front of the Mark 33 director aboard CV4 USS Ranger early WW2
5. All the German 15cm guns were actually 14.94 cm
6.Drach ignores the primary route to becoming a ship's carpenter. Completing an apprenticeship in a Royal Dockyard and applying for a warrant from the Navy Board. "Although it was possible to serve an apprenticeship afloat as Carpenter's Crew and Carpenter's Mate, the majority qualified as shipwrights in the dockyards before going to sea, and some of the Master Shipwrights and their Assistants were former Carpenters who had returned to the yards."
7. Don't forget the Cinque Ports - "By 1135, the term Cinque Ports had come into use; and in 1155 a royal charter established the ports to maintain ships ready for the Crown in case of need. "
Reply
My take on the right ship at the wrong time was the USS Des Moines! Those 8" auto loaders were a beast! But they were finished just in time for the war to be over!!
Talking about any ship being a "Cruiser Killer?" I think that even battleships would have been hard pressed against these ships! A battleship would have to stay out of range of those 8" guns & try to hurt it from far away. But any ship that a Des Moines engaged within range of those 8" guns would have had a very serious problem on their hands. And their quickest way of getting out of range will probably be towards the ocean floor! The right ship just too late for WW2.
1:52:41 There was also USS Wisconsin BB-64 doing a Barn Door Stop. It was when both of her rudders were turned inwards. It was able to stop her within her length doing 33 knots. It however made her rudders loose. (I wonder why.) Only Wisconsin was the only American ship that did this test.
The USN just stuck with a crash stop. Aka going at flank ahead to full reverse.
What is the date of the Bofors catalogue photographed for the video? Seeing more of the Bofors catalogues would be great!
On the subject of caustic soda engines in submarines, it sounds very similar (though lower-tech) to the concept of high-test peroxide as power source. And both seem to have failed for somewhat similar reasons.
Price of metal scrap rose to double from 1945-1948. Your old passenger ship was worth more scrapped.
On the steel production records, someone would probably have to go into the National Archives and go through the records of the War Production Board and its subsidiary agencies. Steel and other materials were allocated on a need basis during the war, and there are likely records of who got what. It would be quite an undertaking to go through, I am sure.
Making sure UA-cam knows this is popular and should be recommended.
I wonder what would be said about Commodore Decker assuming command of Enterprise in "Doomsday Machine" when Kirk was in the derelict Essex (Decker's lost ship) - in original Star Trek series.
Your answer at 00:13:23 about writing a book resembles a lot the career of Richard Bolitho from the book series by Alexander Kent (aka Douglas Reeman) 🙂
For the ideal rise of a naval officer, one of the other important mid-career steps seems to be assignment on some sort of semi-independent detached service, usually as a lieutenant. That played an important role in the fictional careers of both Alan Lewrie and Horatio Hornblower. Lewrie ended up commanding a captured French frigate during the evacuation from Toulon and successfully capturing another ship trying to chase him down, while Hornblower played a major role in a landing operation to seize a Spanish fort and eventually helped force the entire island's garrison to surrender. In both cases, the detached service was entirely natural for a lieutenant, offered a perfect opportunity for the character to distinguish themselves, and led directly to the character in question getting their promotion to commander.
That Canadian Fleet unit if it survives Washington would be a very useful force not only in WW1 but also afterwards.
For the Washington treaty, Australia tried to have its battlecruiser counted separately, so it would not be seen as part of the British fleet. But the other powers would not accept that. So (I think) the Australians sank it in a gunnery exercise. There is no reason why a Canadian capital ship would be treated differently to the Australian one.
Firing torpedoes: In a submarine, the command is given, and off the torpedo goes. Any delay waiting for the sub to come on bearing etc. is dealt with by the folks giving the order. On a surface ship the order is to shoot as soon when ready, when the bearing is on etc. The delays are part of the torpedoing organization, so there's an intrinsic delay.
All launch systems have some delay, since simultaneity is impossible outside quantum mechanics.
The delay depends on the ship and the circumstances.
Historically, surface ships had two forms of torpedo launch control: bridge and local. In bridge control systems, I believe the torpedoes can be launched "immediately" (subject to electrical and mechanical delays) from the bridge if they are already on the desired bearing. Otherwise they need to be moved (the launcher rotated), which might be done automatically or might require somebody turning a crank to match a desired dial setting which is automatically communicated to the torpedo crew. In local control the torpedo organization takes care of everything.
@@bluelemming5296The captain orders the shot which starts the aiming folks in motion. They may set-up for a shot when the ship comes to a bearing or assuming the ship will continue its current course (lots of variations on these). Under either local or bridge control there's the solution delay, the traversing delay and possibly a delay for maneuver after the order.
@@skeltonpg What you are talking about is how the setup is done in special circumstances such as for long range fire or when a ship is caught by surprise (meaning torpedoes facing fore-and-aft or even facing out but in the wrong direction for some reason).
Long range firing required a much more careful setup.
Sensible officers rarely attempted long range fire with torpedoes, it was generally a waste of resources. Very much unlike what you see in games like World of Warships, where long range fire is common due to magic reloads.
Surprise meant the ship was not ready for battle or was facing the wrong way, and had to get the torpedoes pointing the right direction and all that.
If memory serves, Australian author JE MacDonnell - author and former WW2 destroyer officer - has stated that some destroyer captains routinely pointed their tubes to one side when expecting combat but before the enemy was sighted - always the same side and always the same angle. This meant they always knew which way to turn the ship to get the torpedoes on line - this gave them a much faster response if they were in a surprise encounter such as in fog or rain or at night.
Hence, when an enemy suddenly appeared at an appropriate range, they always turned the same way and they could just gave the order to start firing when the turn came far enough around (which wouldn't take long at all for a destroyer). The torpedoes would be fired one at a time at a fixed interval, with the turn of the ship being used in combination with the interval to create the salvo spread. No traverse of the weapon independent of the ship was required, no delay for calculations, nothing fancy - which meant there was less to go wrong and the launch could take place very quickly. It was a very clever way to deal with the possibility of surprise, but of course meant a greater delay if they actually needed to switch the orientation of the torpedo launchers to the other side due to some special circumstance.
With bridge control systems, my understanding is that the solution is computed automatically using the torpedo director. All the things that take significant amounts of time are typically done as the ship closes by keeping the director pointed appropriately, so there's typically no need to wait for a solution delay, a traverse delay, or extra maneuvering. In this situation, firing the first torpedo can commence as soon as the order is given and again short fixed delays are used to create an interval between launches of individual fish to generate the salvo spread, without further moving the launcher. Only if the ship is not ready to fire in a particular direction do traverse or calculation delays start to come into play.
28:30 Would a bow ruder have saved the Bismark? :D
I'm just joking everyone, no need to answer. Drak's answer made it pretty clear it wouldn't have helped a ship that large.
The mirroring of the photos in the Bofors catalogue is pretty neat! Also, curious if there are any requirements for storing some of these older books?
In civilian riverine shipping, bow rudders, although no longer very common, now that all ships/barges have thrusters, were quite valued. At least that's what my coworkers tell me, who had worked on a two-part barge convoy with a retractable bow rudder (in addition to thruster). Great for going around corners on the Rhine without burning diesel on the thrusters.
I hate to say it, Drach, but you got the first question about Titanic rather badly wrong.
First of all, you wouldn't shut off steam to the engines from each boiler individually. Not only would that end up shutting down a lot of auxiliary steam powered equipment, it's much simpler and less manpower intensive to simply shut off steam with a single throttle valve on the engine itself.
Second, Damper is not a colloquial term to refer to steam valves. It's an airflow regulation device, a boiler's equivalent to a ICE motor's choke, and it wasn't unique to ships as many steam locomotives had them as well (not all, but many). If you are shutting the dampers, you are trying to choke the fire in the furnace out to at least reduce how hot the fire is burning, and it's about the only way you can control how hot a coal fire is on the fly (otherwise, coal firing doesn't really react well to sudden changes in steam, or heat, demand). The fact that the stokers are closing the fire doors after the order is shouted before they pull the damper chains should have been a dead giveaway as to what they were trying to do there.
As cool a scene as it is in the movie, I do think there are some problems with it. For one, Titanic's engines likely weren't put into reverse to begin with, instead I think it's more likely (based on the testimony of one of the lead stokers, Fred Barrett), that the engines were simply ordered to "All Stop" on the telegraph. In the context of the scene itself, the order was obviously given as "Full Astern" for the purpose of ratcheting up the tension, but it also wouldn't really make sense to close the damper's if that order was actually given.
While the Titanic's engines would have taken some time to go into reverse given their size, and likely had only barely stopped turning on the night in question by the time she impacted the ice, it wouldn't take more than a minute and a half for the engines to spool up to full astern (I may be overestimating the time it would take, in fact, VTE's were known for being able to stop and reverse pretty quickly, hence why they were used on some smaller ships up until the 50's for the purposes of maneuverability). That simply isn't enough time for the steam pressure in the boilers to rise all that much now that there wasn't an outlet for it, and if that order for full astern had actually been given, the boiler room crews probably wouldn't have noticed a change, s there would be no need to change the power level of the boilers.
TL;DR: Dampers are airflow chokes to the boiler furnaces, and while closing them to reduce the power of the boilers made sense on the night in question because of the "All Stop" order that was likely actually given, closing the dampers wouldn't make much sense in the movie scene itself as the engines would be ramping back up to full power (just in the other direction) rather quickly anyway.
1:36:10 Officers' quarters aft: "In the days of square-rigged sailing ships the wind usually came from astern and therefore the officers got all the fresh air at the back, while the smelly bits were 'before the mast'. Once powered ships started creating their own wind, all the smells were blown backwards and the officers moved forward to avoid them".
1:56:24 Forcing a ship to list - usually to clean/repair waterline areas but sometimes to refloat from aground - is called 'careening' it.
"What classes of ship were the right ship in the WRONG time"
Iowa Class for one.
I’d argue those were a case of wrong ship for the right time as defined by Drach.
🙋🏾♂️ Did you catch the German Navy Corvette Visit to London? And their Musical Trolling? 🎶🎶🎶🎶🎶
Thanks!
00:43:36 I have book on Tirpitz somewhere, which I haven't read for a while so forgive me for being vague and/or slightly wrong. It says that on one of her few operational sorties she was under fairly heavy air attack when the admiral on board countermanded one of the captain's helm orders. The helmsman, aware that this was inappropriate, hesitated. The captain informed the admiral that "I command this ship - not you" and repeated his own order which the helmsman obeyed.
Also thinking of San Francisco at Guadalcanal, where the most senior officer ordered a more junior one to retain command because he himself was too busy with damage control.
Thank you.
@1:55:55 - USS Texas: "Hold mu beer while I gangster lean to increase my range."
Great DD thanks Drach
THANKS for answering my ocean liner question Drach! While waiting, another problem occurred to me; the troops that sailed on these liners were not always the.... KINDEST to their environments. Carving their names into the railing is just the gentle stuff. I'd like to think they ALWAYS could make it to a restroom when the need came but... and don't even get me started on that roudy bunch of hooligans from Australia! Another factor is that while Atlantic Liners always liked to TALK about being fast, once they set a record, they usually didn't actually go that fast. (to conserve fuel). In wartime of course, it's peddle to the metal and the taxpayer will pay.
BTW bonus points for that lovely pic of Ile De France and Aquitania!
Rather touchingly, when Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth were returned to service, Cunard didn't replace the handrails on the grounds that a lot of the men who left their initials on the ship didn't live to make the return journey. Not sure if they did the same with the Mauretania and Aquitania.
@@notshapedforsportivetricks2912 Another factor in the aging of troopship liners- having SO many more people aboard than the ship was designed for means that the facilities are pushed beyond their limits constantly. The kitchens are being asked to make several times more food each day. And stay open constantly. The floors are taking 2 or 3 times the pounding. The bathrooms... the plumbing....
@@notshapedforsportivetricks2912 Also Aquitania being scrapped soon after the war I seriously doubt they bothered replacing her railing.
The question about uniforms and the painting of the officer in a tri-corner hat set me to wondering... why didn't navies provide hats with visors sooner? Officers hats seem to acquire visors in the mid-1800s. But with the prototypical sailors hat, it still had no visor in WWII. Seems like a no-brainer to have a visor given that the sun shines on land and sea alike and shading your face from it is a near universal thing when you're trying to see. Most soldiers had hats with visors by the time of the Napoleonic war. What am I missing?
You have to take a shot of strong spirits whenever the square cube law is mentioned but we’ll be wrecked if we did it every “ect”. Only way to understand “left canter right”
A good comparison is when in the TOS the characters are aging too quickly so the desk guy takes over...sort of..and then heads to the neutral zone.
Of the French Battlecruiser designs, who had the better designs, Durand-Viel's or Gille's?
Thanks Drach.
2:37:05 Paddle wheels on Great Eastern (or most any other side-wheeler) cannot rotate independently; they are on a single shaft so that when one or the other wheel rolls out of the water the other wheel is deeper, and thus prevents runaways.
She was modified in the 1860s with independent working of the paddle wheels as part of the refits for her cable laying role. Since use as blocks blockship would be at the end of her career, she would have this capability at the time.
@@Drachinifel Very good of you to take the time to reply. Thank you for the correction! I will fact-check more thoroughly before I contradict you in future. I appreciate your excellent videos.
Someone has probably already commented on this, but that type of translucent paper with high cellulose content is referred to in publishing as "onionskin".
Ohio class Submarine @ Ahead FULL or FLANK changing to All Back Emergency, is quite the violent affair. The entire Boat starts shaking and rattling.
26:09 Drach will not be getting a Christmas Card from Vickers this year…… .
Why didn't the British send Dreadnought to the Falklands instead of the 2 battlecruisers? Without a doubt, Dreadnought was very fast, very well armed and Sturdee could have used it the same way in the battle.
US war plans
War Plan Black[9]
A plan for war with Germany. The best-known version of Black was conceived as a contingency plan during World War I in case France fell and the Germans attempted to seize French possessions in the Caribbean Sea or launch an attack on the eastern seaboard.
War Plan Gray[10]
There were two War Plans named Gray. The first dealt with Central America[10] and the Caribbean, and the second dealt with invading the Portuguese Azores.[11]
War Plan Brown[12]
Dealt with an uprising in the Philippines.
War Plan Tan[13]
Intervention in Cuba.
War Plan Red[14]
Plan for Great Britain (with sub variants Crimson, Scarlet, Ruby, Garnet, and Emerald for British dominions)
War Plan Orange[15]
Plan for Japan.
War Plan Red-Orange[16]
Considered a two-front war with the United States (Blue) opposing Japan (Orange) and the British Empire (Red) simultaneously. Ultimately this analysis led to the understanding that the United States didn't have the resources to fight a two front war, and it would make sense to focus on one front, probably in the Atlantic. Ultimately this was the decision made in the Plan Dog memo.
War Plan Yellow[17]
Dealt with war in China - specifically, the defense of Beijing and relief of Shanghai during the Second Sino-Japanese War.
War Plan Gold[citation needed]
Involved war with France, and/or France's Caribbean colonies.
War Plan Green[18]
Involved war with Mexico or what was known as "Mexican Domestic Intervention" in order to defeat rebel forces and establish a pro-American government. War Plan Green was officially canceled in 1946.
War Plan Indigo[19]
Involved an occupation of Iceland. In 1941, while Denmark was under German occupation, the US actually did occupy Iceland, relieving British units during the Battle of the Atlantic.
War Plan Purple[20]
Dealt with invading a South American republic.
War Plan Violet[21]
Covered Latin America.
War Plan White[22]
Dealt with a domestic uprising in the US, and later evolved to Operation Garden Plot, the general US military plan for civil disturbances and peaceful protests. Parts of War Plan White were used to deal with the Bonus Expeditionary Force in 1932. Communist insurgents were considered the most likely threat by the authors of War Plan White.
War Plan Blue[23]
Covered defensive plans and preparations that the United States should take in times of peace.
Rainbow 1 was a plan for a defensive war to protect the United States and the Western Hemisphere north of ten degrees [south] latitude. In such a war, the United States was assumed to be without major allies.
Rainbow 2 was identical to Rainbow 1, except for assuming that the United States would be allied with France and the United Kingdom.
Rainbow 3 was a repetition of the Orange plan, with the provision that the hemisphere defense would first be secured, as provided in Rainbow 1.
Rainbow 4 was based on the same assumptions as Rainbow 1 but extended the American mission to include defense of the entire Western hemisphere.
Rainbow 5, destined to be the basis for American strategy in World War II, assumed that the United States was allied with Britain and France and provided for offensive operations by American forces in Europe, Africa, or both.
As far as ships being committed by the Japanese, didn’t fuel availability have an effect. My understanding is the Japanese often didn’t have the fuel to use /send all the ships they may have wanted to while the US had the fuel to send lots of ships long distances just in case they might be needed.
LST-325 has a hole that was highlighted from WW2.
Right ship wrong time: the Alaskas. They would have been incredible assets if they were in the fleet in 1941.
Quickly rising? How about being named Horatio Hornblower? I haven't read the books in decades, but that's my memory of them. Doesn't hurt to be brave, handsome, white, British, intelligent, etc.
Your friend Dr. Clark has a different take on Japanese pilot training. It started out such a small service, requiring such high standards made sense. As time went on, they kept standards but increased training cadres, etc.. They never came to grip with actual wartime attrition and requirements once they faced the US and Britain.
Every carrier air Corps started out small, the capacity of Hosho, Akagi and Kaga was not dissimilar to Langley, Saratoga and Lexington.
The IJN had a degree of attrition before the RN and USN thanks to the Sino-Japanese War, and the fundamental changes needed to gear up for a war need to be implemented or at least prepared before war breaks out. Making changes after late 1941 is too late.
Clark is an idiot that knws a lot less than he thinks
If you were to make a sub like the Popovs could you make one that can spin around underwater like some sort of mad torpedo turret?
The Great Eastern as a “block ship” for an enemy harbor. They might see her from a long way off, but how are they going to stop her?
Did warships use tuned mass dampers to make them more stable gunnery platforms? Or is the mass requirement too high to make it worth it?
There’s crumbs by yer bofors book. Dammit Drach… mind the kitten. And the ghosts. Specters and such.
Right ship in the wrong time: I agree, HOOD. Fucking Hood. The greatest capital ship in the world up until the advent of aircraft carriers, didn’t see war until said carriers were taking over. Even then she made far more sense than all the below-mentioned ships, but then yeah….
Wrong ship in the right time; all 29 WWII-era fast battleships and the Alaskas. Entered service right as the entire battleship paradigm became strategically obsolete.
Tell that to the USS South Dakota, and USS Washington off Guadalcanal. 7th Fleet's battlewagons at Surigao Strait, HMS Duke of York at North Cape, The Med Fleet's battleline at Cape Matapan -0 all at night, or night and heavy weather in which carrier aircraft could not operate.
@@ROBERTNABORNEY
South Dakota did absolutely nothing at Second Guadalcanal other than get shot at and steal the credit.
Washington did actually achieve results in that battle, but that was an exception to the rule (the only battle where an American fast battleship did her job and the only battle in the Guadalcanal campaign where a battleship decided the battle, and then only at the tactical level as the Japanese landing operation went ahead anyways and was only stopped by air attacks the next morning)
Surigao Strait and Matapan only involved old battleships and thus never justified the construction of a single new battleship in the leadup to WWII (because none of the battleships built in the 30s-40s were involved during those night actions).
Duke of York was the other exception to the rule.
The problem is that even at night or bad weather, a battleship can’t deal with an enemy carrier force (just because a carrier can’t launch aircraft doesn’t mean it suddenly comes within shelling distance), and is overkill for dealing with subcapital units, so you only really needed one to stop an enemy battleship in poor visibility, which is far too situational to justify the investment.
@@bkjeong4302 Whether or not South Dakota hit enemy ships - there is some uncertainty about that given the nature of night actions - it is indisputable South Dakota played a critical role in distracting the enemy - thus allowing Washington to make a successful ambush. Had South Dakota not been present, all the fire that was directed at her would instead have been directed at Washington. It may not have been the design role or the intended role, but that ultimately doesn't matter: what matters is results. The Japanese, despite their undeniable skill at night operations, were distracted into focusing on the target they could see and failed to realize there was an even more dangerous threat out there: a problem known as 'tunnel vision' that affects many military operations.
More broadly, you are clearly thinking about these matters from the perspective of somebody with both very limited sea experience and very limited flying experience. At sea, the bad weather always comes eventually - and during that era it often comes as a surprise.
Even today with all the wonders of modern technology we often have trouble predicting weather in certain parts of the world during certain seasons, things were much worse back then. As a result, there were a great many incidents in those days where warships wandered into storms or bad weather without expecting to do so. The carrier USS Enterprise, for example, would be caught in at least two Atlantic hurricanes - one before the war, and one after the war (and Halsey was not involved on either occasion). For that matter, Japanese Admiral Koga would die when his seaplane ran into a typhoon.
But hurricanes and typhoons are not the only weather problem: there are many varieties of bad weather. There are parts of Northern Europe (including Northern Britain) where the weather is bad on average 3 days out of 4 in certain seasons. In these conditions, flight operations with WW2 era technology were frequently impractical.
That's hardly something that can be disregarded as being 'far too situational' to justify an investment. Strategic imperatives don't magically disappear simply because the weather isn't convenient for carrier operations.
When there is bad weather, ships that can fight without the need to launch aircraft become critical to tactical and strategic success: they need to be present in sufficient numbers to accomplish all the missions that need to be accomplished. As smaller ships are far more adversely affected by rough weather than bigger ships in a whole bunch of ways, this places a premium on having bigger ships nearby (or not too distant) such that they can support the smaller ships, or replace them when they are unable to operate effectively due to the weather. For example, destroyers had to frequently leave North Atlantic convoys as they started running out of fuel in rough weather, but larger warships didn't have this problem - and could even refuel the destroyers if the weather wasn't too bad.
Further, pilot fatigue is a critical issue that limits carrier operations - and one far too frequently overlooked by those who have no experience with the impact of high stress situations on the human body, and also no flying experience. Had the Japanese Combined Fleet been present at Truk in 1944 during operation Hailstone, pilot fatigue alone would have forced the use of surface warships to complete the job if the USN wanted to achieve a decisive victory. In other words, surface warships by themselves could not do the job, but neither could the carriers. Even with the assistance of drugs, there were very real limits on flight operations created by fatigue. No sane carrier commander wants pilots trying to land on his ship when they are so tired they shouldn't be flying in the first place - that places the carrier at enormous risk. Only teamwork could have completed the mission without extraordinary luck.
World War 2 was very much an era where 'combined operations' were the key to success both on land and on the sea. Each major type of ship had a valuable role to play.
It would not really be until the 1960s that aircraft _started_ to become good enough to reliably handle bad weather, and even today we tend to be really careful with flight operations in certain weather conditions, such as when ice can form on the wings of an aircraft, causing it to lose the ability to fly. This can happen not only to aircraft on the ground (or the deck of a carrier), but also to those in the air.
I’d ve thought that the Essex class carriers would have had a high reverse speed. Weren’t them designed to be able to land planes over the bow?
00:43:36 Listen to "Unauthorized History of the Pacific War Podcast Uncommon Valor, The Invasion of Iwo Jima Part 2 with Jon Parshall Episode 410."
Where a private Marine (not even a PFC) became a company commander and then got killed.
⚓
Ok i fell behind...lordy. 3 hours and apparently 2 hours more , just today...drach! Study some poetry...condense condense condense!...poetry..the big answer to the big problem. Tis poetry!
00:13:23 and if your character does stay in frigates don't get smacked in the head by a trio of deserters you were going to have to hang anyway.
Why did the Kriegsmarine in 1941 not wait until Bismarck was ready before planning the sortie of Scharnhorst and Gneisenau?
Because the target of the operation was no UK trade, it was Hitler and the budget. The nazis were about to invade the USSR and the KM NEEDED a win BEFORE Barbarossa in order to prevent the loss of funding, otherwise the operation would have been delayed since it originally intended to encompass almost all operation KM vessels instead of just 2.
SO those sailors died for budgetary reasons.
Sources?
the Aim of the KM was always to split the british forces as far as possible. so to start a breakout with ALL ships at the same time would have meant, that the RN would have had the possibilty to concentrate and to end them all at once. to have Scharnhorst and Gneisenau already in France would have enabled a Sortie from there to keep parts of the RN occupied. but as we know in history there was also the RAF.
@@marting1056 Any non UK book that looks at KM decision making instead ob focusing on saint Winnie would do... but I doubt you would even look up any.
If you dont know THAT, you clearly have only read propaganda filled books
Logistically, all those ships use a ton of fuel. And you don't have supporting Oilers to go with them.
@@WALTERBROADDUS Yes, they did, read a book, the KM invented the AOE.
War is politics by extension, politics is economics by extension.
Patronage: Would being the Prince of Wales be enough?
PoW would probably be overkill.
If I were you, I'd settle for Duke of Clarence. You still wind up as Lord High Admiral.
Not sure how you're going to arrange this, though.
Right now the Princess of Asturias (the Spanish equivalent of the Prince of Wales) is working her way through naval college and being promoted at a very fast rate.
Like pbs or nat geo....this is a national treasure...and must be defended as such ...flee heretics!
Politics just ruins everything, even Japanese army-navy relations!
I don't think the officers tried to reverse Titanic... The turbine turning the central propeller would have move forward regardless because it couldnt be reversed.
13th, 25 August 2024
:)