Drach's Top 5 Best Engineered Ships - Durability, Viability, Excellence
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 чер 2024
- Head to www.squarespace.com/drachinifel to save 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain using code DRACHINIFEL
Today we look at my personal choices for the top 5 best engineered naval vessels, courtesy of the fine folks over on Patreon.
00:00:00 - Intro
00:04:11 - SS Great Eastern
00:12:57 - SMS Seydlitz
00:18:16 - MN Algerie
00:27:44 - HMS Victory
00:36:22 - USS Fletcher
Free naval photos and more - www.drachinifel.co.uk
Want to support the channel? - / drachinifel
Want a shirt/mug/hoodie - shop.spreadshirt.com/drachini...
Want a poster? - www.etsy.com/uk/shop/Drachinifel
Want to talk about ships? / discord
Want to get some books? www.amazon.co.uk/shop/drachinifelDrydock
Episodes in podcast format - / user-21912004
Pinned post for Q&A :)
Q&A As a naval historian and engineer. What is your guilty pleasure ship? As in a ship that has some noticeable and possible infamous flaws. But for some reason, you still love it anyway.
Alternate naval bombardment weapons/naval rocket artillery?
No more Fan design competitions?
where would you rank USS Constitution? Would she have been included if this list was top 10?
There was a Q&A a while back where it was discussed about how Mahan’s book effectively killed the idea of decisive battle, as the strategic mindset behind seeking a decisive battle to gain control of the sea hampered operational risk and allowed defeat-in-detail of smaller elements as navies were unwilling to send their bigger hammer to engage in a chance of losing them before the battle.
Question is: are there similar events in naval doctrine and tactics where once a book was published it became a victim of its own success?
Many forgot when the SS Great Eastern hit a rock. After taking massive damage, the rock did not survive the incident.
A bit like the iceberg that the Titanic hit. It sank shortly after the Titanic.
Just like no bullet could ever survive being shot at Chuck Norris
Unlike that floating hotel, Costa Concordia. Were it not for the loss of life, I'd put that in the Guinness book of really dumb/most embarrassing things to do.
@@neiloflongbeck5705 There's a comic song, "Have You Got Any News Of The Iceberg?", about a polar bear turning up at the offices of the White star Line, inquiring about his family.
"I say, Captain, we seem to have a struck a rock."
"Really, #2? Perhaps that was the slight tremor I felt. Damage report, please."
"Yes sir. The rock is quite destroyed."
"Pity."
A plankowner on THE USS Fletcher, my father came aboard a radioman and left a CPO at the end of the war, earning every one of the fifteen battle stars Fletcher received during that time. In 1969, the same day he ended his 30+ year naval career and was "piped over", there also at 32nd Street Naval Base was FLETCHER, ending her career as well. The two old salts went out together. I shall not look upon their like again.
Drach, thank you for giving the Fletchers their well earned due.
Bud if I was to go to sea on a destroyer it'd be a Fletcher class..... As a younger guy at 27 those things were awesome. My favorite is still the 4 stackers tho.....
And I'm a fan of the Fletchers in no small part to the USS Johnston, for what is probably an obvious reason.
Wow is all I can say.
Wow. Thirty years on the same vessel? Almost unheard of! And what a ship. I remember very well operating with a number of Fletchers. In the '60s there were still many in service. A lot of them still plane guarding the carriers, riding shotgun up north in the Tonkin Gulf with SAR DLGs like ours that didn't have real guns and duked it out with enemy shore batteries. Great ships.
Praise the Fletchers, both well engineered and spammable
That's awesome🤣🤣
Its honestly terrifying, just the prewar fleet was more than enough to fight with Japan, and then they just double their size in the span of three years, and they could still triple that size based on all the canceled essex, Fargo, Oregon city and all other vessels that arrive to late to serve, the naval equivalent of fighting a regenerator enemy in a shonen anime.
And still not big enough to carry some of their crews balls.
@@d.olivergutierrez8690 Ah, so that was the inspiration for Majin Buu.
I wonder if that massive power could be spawned again today. Looks like it might be needed.
I really hope Drach does a "Darwin Awards" for warships involved in absolutely idiotic situations. Of course we know the Kamchatka would take the cake for stupidity so I guess we'd need to limit it to idiotic situations that led to the ships destruction in Darwin Award tradition.
That would be a tough category HMS Captain would give Kamchatka a run for its money.
U-1206 would be a definite contender for one, being the oft-mentioned submarine sunk by a toilet.
I think at this stage it should be called the "Kamchatka Awards"?
@@benoitbvg2888 or the binocular awards^^
@@benoitbvg2888 Kamchatka Awards does have a certain ring to it.
That moment when you realise it's a good job Brunel didn't design the Death Star.
"Did we just have a main reactor blow up?"
"According to the power output readings, it appears that we did. Something, perhaps a smallish asteroid, struck a primary thermal exhaust port. Make a note of that. We'll deal with it later, when we get back from Yavin. Right now, we have a Rebel base on Yavin's fourth moon to obliterate."
It would be like if the Imperium of Man built a Death Star with the same manufacturer as the Colossal 20km Gloriana class Battleships.
Imagine a Proto-steampunk Death Star with sails, paddles and screws being attacked by steampunky flying bicycles being furiously peddled by the R2 unit, that itself a mechanical analog of steam, springs, a mechanical abacus and impotent droidish attitude. Of Course Darth Vader wears a black topcoat and a tophat and a faceshield with Imortan Joe piping all over it.
@@cnlbenmc building something as technologically advanced as the death star would probably be tech heresy by the Imperiums standards
To be fair to the Death Star, it was delibrately designed that way, so that it could be destroyed. The designer was forced to make the Death Star, so he diliberately gave it a weakness. Rogue One covers that story.
Some channels do a top 10 list in 5 minutes, Drach does a top 5 list in 45 minutes. And that's why we keep coming back.
Your little digression about Victory's speed just made me imagine a naval history horror movie with Victory as the killer, chasing down scared frigates 😂😂
You need to go listen to Barrett’s Priveteers.
Don’t worry! The frigate is Indefatigable! Captain Pellew orders a boarding party of two gigs and a jolly boat and in no time Hornblower boards the Victory and gallantly accepts the sword of her captain
More or less like Jack Aubrey fleeing Waakzamheid with hms Leopard, the novel was Desolation island, if I remember correctly. Great novels, btw..
@@holdfast453 Then its a tot for the cabin boys!Lol
Kinda the plot of master and commander.
I was getting worried the Fletcher class was not going to be mentioned. “Never underestimate the power of a swarm of angry Fletchers!”
USS Johnston was a Fletcher class. Scientifically speaking, the Johnston has The record for the largest balls on any man-made object ever. lol
Who needs a "Swarm" when you have the U.S.S. Johnston?
Here's the second half of your quote: "Especially when they haven't had their ice cream!" ;) =^x^=
@@masterskrain2630 lets not forget the Johnston was not alone.
🤣Probably my favorite Drachism of all time.
USS Johnston was a Fletcher class. Enough said.
Here, here! But, let’s not forget Laffey, a Sumner class. The ship that would not die.
@@pitsnipe5559the Sumners were very closely related to the Fletchers
When he mentikned Ducane i imagined her charging in
and USS Kidd...
@@Losingsince Yes they were. Basically an upgrade, more like Fletcher 2.0. I was able to visit the after fireroom on the Kidd. Everything was almost identical to the after fireroom of the three Gearings I served in. Was even able to walk through the light off procedure with the docent.
"And then you look in the back ground and then silhouetted against the stormy skies by lightening flash you notice the monstrous shape of a first rate and it's closing you down..." Super nice vid sir - love it.
* lightning. Lightening is the opposite of darkening.
@@himoffthequakeroatbox4320 lightning will indeed lighten the sky
Wow could you imagine the SS Great Eastern lasting long enough to get into the aircraft era and becoming the UKs first aircraft carrier?
She would have replaced HMS Hermes then. Would be funny to see Japanese Dive Bombers delivering hit's on her and she simply steams on.
I can imagine the Great Eastern being a seaplane carrier in WW1 with the HMS By Jove as smokescreen and escort!
@@country_flyboy very steampunk
Begs the question how fast would that hull go with updated steam plants and modern propellers. Better still turbines too. You do need some air moving across the deck to launch aircraft.
I look forward to Drach's alternative history showing the refit the HMS Great Eastern got for the Falklands War.
I was imagining the Royal Navy looking at the newly launched Great Eastern and thinking "How big of a broadside can she carry?"
Imagine how many Sea Harriers she could host
She would've been coverted to an aircraft carrier by then.
@@SportyMabamba with her displacement, with the right refits she could have served all the way into the cold war era, and she would be bigger (albeit slightly) than EVERY OTHER carrier fielded by the UK with the sole exceptions of the Audacious class and the Implacable class. she was an absolute monster; shame that Brunel wasn't born 100 years later so he could ensure british naval dominance through the cold war into the modern day with carriers and battleships so tough that they were next to physically impossible to take apart.
Breaking news Bismarck rammed and sunk by the Great Eastern
This made me so sad that SS Great Eastern was not preserved
Mmm
If the SS great eastern was persevered Britain would still rule the ocean
Ships we should have preserved, given Scrooge McDuck levels of funding and a few miracles:
- SS Great Eastern, for being the SS Great Eastern
- RMS Olympic, for representing the height of the Ocean Liner era
- HMS Dreadnought, for revolutionising 19th century naval warfare
- HMS Warspite, for legendary service history and epitomising the Dreadnought Era
- HMS Rodney, for her role in avenging HMS Hood, and for ceaseless service during WW2
- HMS Vanguard, for closing out the Battleship Era - the whole era, from the Anglo-Dutch Wars to Surigao Strait
@@jacobtrowbridge7223 USS Enterprise CV-6
@@jacobtrowbridge7223 I'll say, add RMS Aquitania to the list because she was the last remaining four stacker in the world, served in both World Wars (was the only liner to ever do so) and outlasted a majority of her fleetmates to 1950.
She definitely was worthy of being kept around, but by the time Aquitania was scrapped, she'd been worked until she couldn't move anymore.
Aerospace engineer here, Great Eastern is one of my favourite examples of engineering ever, Brunel was undoubtably one of, if not the, greatest engineers of all time.
Also an aerospace engineer, never really heard of the Great Eastern but after some research holy shit it’s beautiful!
Also an aerospace engineer and would agree! Though *technically* Brunel was a terrible engineer because everything he made was extremely over engineered. But hey if it wasn't for sales and needing to sell more units (plus weight issues in our industry) I'd love to over-engineer to the same degree xD. But yeah he really does make use of the phrase "if its worth engineering is worth over-engineering" lol
@@__-fm5qv overengineering is so fun, for planes not so much, who knew weight was an issue
Great Eastern: Hits Iceberg
Iceberg: Sinks
Great Eastern: traces iceberg's path and rams ice floe
Arctic: sinks
After reading “Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors” I’m glad the Fletchers made the list. Those ships withstood a pounding from battleships and cruisers and kept fighting longer than they had any right to.
Those particular ships had a case of ‘too angry to die’ syndrome.
@@Isolder74 also had a case of having on board the densest objects known to man, aka Commander Ernest E Evans' balls
Sung to ‘Go Go Joseph.’
GO GO Johnston you know what they say,
GO GO Johnston you’ll carry the day!
GO Go Johnston you’ll show us the way,
GO GO Johnston you’ll blow them away.
GO GO Johnston you know we can’t fail,
GO GO Johnston as long as you sail!
they kept my dad alive that day. he was in the landing-force. without them I wouldn’t be here and neither would my kids.
@@paulprovenzano3755 You would probably be fine, because the landings were actually almost over by then.
The idea Taffy 3 saved the entire landing operations is the result of bad historiography. The landings had started days earlier (on Oct 20) and most of the troops and supplies were already ashore by the time Samar began.
Top 1.) Kamchatka
Not even torpedo boats can change my mind.
*screams in hurled binoculars*
The Essex class perhaps. They had long lives. And could take the punishment. With the Franklin and Bunker Hill as the most extreme.
As ASW ships.
I’d put Enterprise above then but yes they were sturdy
@@gdrriley420 combat performance =/= engineering performance
@@highmolecularweightRDX last I checked it received and insane level of battle damaged repeatedly and was repaired just fine. I’d argue the yorktowns were the best pre war carriers in terms of engineering.
@@gdrriley420 Or was that due to damage control procedures? Repeated damage and repairs are less dependent on engineering than the acute damage that Seydlitz and Great Eastern took.
The Great Eastern is possibly the most steampunk ship. Also yeah, it's good to remember how impossibly huge she would have been to people at the time. When complete, she was twice the length and like 5-6 times the tonnage of the previous largest ship.
Good to see Seydlitz on the list. The sheer pummeling she endured would have been a lot for most battleships, let alone a battlecruiser.
You mentioned that the Caledonia class were based largely on the HMS Victory.... weirdly, they were still in service when the Great Eastern started service.
Great Eastern. Because overkill is an often underrated accomplishment.
Hey, even as an aerospace engineer I can totally apprechiate the Great Eastern as a marvel of engineering. I like behemoths, especially if they have been designed to perfection by an evil genius. ^^
Just imagine the designer if the Great Eastern designing HMS Captain instead of Coles.
@@Isolder74 he probably would have taped the turrets to the keel and called it a day.
@@44WarmocK77 Or we would have ended up with HMS Dreadnaught somehow.
@@Isolder74 She'd be at least the size of Dreadnaught, have multiple forms of propulsion, a profusion of Coles turrets, and if Brunel was feeling especially inspired would also be fully submersible -- because who wouldn't need the world's largest turret ship; which was also a submarine :D
@@jonathansmith6050 Someone has been reading too much steam punk.
I would definitely put the Yorktown class on the list. Despite being unarmored treaty carriers they proved very difficult to sink, even after multiple airstrikes and even attempted scuttling.
Not to mention that for the most part. The Essex-Class was “Yorktown on steroids.”
USS Enterprise took a near perfect kamikaze hit without sinking, so I think you're right about that.
The Yorktowns werent unarmoured
@@larshenrik8900 they had an unarmoured flight deck.
@@larshenrik8900 I meant that they weren't armored carriers like the Illustrious class or Taihou.
For anyone who doubts the effectiveness and durability of a Fletcher Class destroyer may I introduce USS Johnston. Almost single handed took on the Japanese battle fleet at Sumar. Charged down a line of Japanese capital ships. Managing to torpedo a heavy cruiser and shot up the Yamato before a half dozen heavy cruisers and four battleships put her down. Bravo Zulu brothers may you rest in peace.
“Almost single-handedly”
Sure, if you ignore around 400 aircraft, which were (especially later in the battle) not only restricted to ground attack or ASW weapons as commonly assumed.
The last stand of the tin cans was brave, but it wasn’t what decided the battle, and it is far from the most heroic last stand an American destroyer pulled off in WWII (Edsall has my vote there).
Also, while Johnston shot up plenty of heavy cruisers at Samar, she never really did much to the battleships.
@@bkjeong4302 those 400 aircraft, I believe an over count, but we'll go with it, didn't have many anti-ship weapons. The of the mission of the Taffy's was landing support and ASW. Their magazines were loaded for ground support and ASW. Maybe some armor piercing and and torpedoes. Probably the best weapons they had were rockets. I do wonder if they had napalm. That would ruin the paint job! One of the best things that the Taffy's aircraft did was sweep the decks of the Japanese ships crews. They also tended to strafe the bridges of the ships also distracting them from the mission at hand. Unfortunately most of their sorties ended up being a distraction rather than putting ships on the bottom. Those air crew fought like lions that day. The Hoel, Roberts and the mighty Johnston father like the Spartans at Thermopylae.
@@JohnRodriguesPhotographer
This is something of a myth. Taffy 1,2 and 3 (all three of them were involved in air attacks) DID have anti-shipping weapons: they just didn’t have them loaded onto the aircraft at the start of the battle (and even this is only for Taffies 1 and 3). As a result the first air attacks took off with whatever they had, but later air attacks (and air attacks by Taffy 2) often went in with aerial torpedoes.
The idea the American air attacks were COMPLETELY ineffective against Japanese ships and were mere bluffs or distractions due to the CVEs not having any anti-shipping weapons is the result of poor historiography, caused by historians parroting Morison’s account instead of actually looking at American primary sources showing that yes, the CVEs also made plenty of actual torpedo strikes during the battle.
Not only that, the air attacks actually ended up doing far more material damage than the surface action did, including sinking Suzuya (bomb fell onto oxygen torpedo, which exploded) and likely sinking Chokai (now that we know her torpedoes never went off from looking at her wreck, meaning White Plains never made that 5” hit that set off the torpedoes and giving far more credence to Japanese records of air attacks).
@@bkjeong4302 obviously you didn't read what I said. I'll repeat myself just for you they probably had armor-piercing bombs and torpedoes but they would not have had many of them. The reason they wouldn't have many of them as their primary mission was to support the landing. They did not have large magazines were talking about ten thousand ton escort carriers. I'll bet on those ships I had a place for their torpedoes but it wasn't a magazine.
@@JohnRodriguesPhotographerignore them.
They've got a hate boner against anything related to ww2 battleships for reasons of not knowing what hindsight means.
The Great Eastern was the definition of "ahead of its time" - so advanced that there wasn't even an economic niche for it.
I can hear it now. The Fletcher class laughing at the Sumner and Gearing classes and saying (Were better than you are) 🤣
At the very end, the slightly bigger and newer Gearing FRAMs held out a bit longer than Fletchers, though Fletchers had the sheer numbers.
@@petesheppard1709
Yeah. If I recall. The Mexican navy had a Sumner in its fleet till the early 2000s?? I also wonder how the Gearings would have done if the mid ship extension was a little bit longer and the ship a bit wider so they could have a 4th twin 5in 38 dp turret added??
@@animal16365 According to that Wiki-thing Fletchers made it to 2001 in Mexico, as well.
If you do the great eastern "what if" for april fools, please hire an artist to draw some concept sketches of what each refit along the way would look like. It'd be amazing.
- Fletcher class DD (simply the best DD design of WW2)
- Queen Elizabeth BB (good armour that really took a beating at Jutland, accurate guns that scored one of the longest hits in naval gunnery, was still a formidable ship in WW2, even the slower cousin aka R-class in a convoy would ensure that the Kriegsmarine surface vessel would disengage)
- Essex CV (large air group, tough, modifiable to launch jet planes, long service life)
- Liberty ships come to mind too, although plagued with reliability issues and has short service life, how many of them built in such a short span is in itself an engineering feat
- Nelsol and Rodnol always have a place in my heart, a funky all forward turrets, 16" guns that is plagued with problems but if it works perfectly it can penetrate Bismarck's turret Bruno, blows up the back plate and disabling turret Anton as well.
Rodnol and Nelsol basically had one role and did it extremely well. They may not have been perfect but they were the epitome of rugged and practical
I would say the Yorktowns but Essex is a close second
Like all your choices. The thing that has always fascinated me is that Henry Kaiser who ran the Liberty ship program, had absolutely no experience in ship building! He was very savvy about manufacturing very large projects( like very large dams, for example ), but had never built a rowboat...
If the epitome of design is to fulfil the needs put forward -- then the liberty ship was the best of all. dirt cheap and made in incredible haste. Just like the Sherman tank, built not to win a battle or other action, but built to win a war.
Well said. I could not agree more. An examination of the liberty ship program leads to utter amazement at the accomplishments of the shipyards....never done before, will likely never be repeated.
“Steam punk ballistic missile” has to be one of your best lines yet! Agree about the FLETCHERS, they were the best destroyer around for most of the war, a natural upgrade from the BENSON/LIVERMORE/GLEAVES classes. Handy and capable.
I'm fairly certain some of the scap metal of the great eastern found it's way into Warspite when she was build. That would explain quite a lot.
A couple of comments:
1) In normal times it’s quite interesting to compare and contrast Tribal & Fletcher class destroyers by visiting HMCS Haida in Hamilton and the USS The Sullivan’s in Buffalo
2) Great job drawing word pictures when describing HMS Victory chasing down the hapless frigate. Throw in some plum duff and a cello and you could give the Patrick O’Brien series a run for its money.
Hearing that the SS Great Eastern is the first mentioned ship of this list makes me very happy. 😊
Salutes for the SS Great Eastern!
Good picks. Honorable mentions to the Yorktown class on getting the absolute snot beat out of them and being relatively resilient AS A CLASS, vs almost every ship on this list being a one-off. Also, the QEs: very relevant very threatening, very tough front liners for about 30 years in rapidly advancing technological climate, again AS A CLASS, proving the design, I second someone's suggestion of the Gato class as well.
Warspite gonna do what Warspite gonna do
31:57 another great example is the revolutionary designs in the six frigates of the USA. One year later were already outclassed in most aspects by HMS Endymion. When Chessapeake and President were captured only around 2 decades after they were built, all the info about them was how outdated they were, excessive stern overhang, how surprisingly slow the vessels were and that's 2 decades after these revolutionary ships were launched although they did say they had strong hulls, even the rebuild of HMS President after the original had to be replaced was stated as being done as a propaganda tool rather than any testament to the design. Whereas HMS Victory's lines were being used to build a new class of 1st rate ships of the line almost half a century later. When the new HMS President was built they had only launched 2 of the nine Caledonia class. The class that was made from HMS Endymion, the ship that actually captured President, had it's lines taken to create the Severn class, due to it's great charactistics (being the fastest sailing ship in the Royal Navy) and they had all been broken up or sold before the Caledonia class had all been built. That is how impressive Victory was.
❓🤔 I would've expected the Brooklyn/St Louis class light cruisers to be included on any list of best engineered warships. That's because they were a huge improvement over the previous class(Omaha class), but more importantly, the Brooklyn hull design was so good that every subsequent class of American gun cruiser were designed with Brooklyn hulls, including light and heavy cruisers!
That's not to mention the Brooklyn class had five fast-firing triple 6" turrets(15 main guns) that fired 3x as many shells per minute as most other 6" gun cruisers from the same era.
I didn't understand half of it, but it sure sounded cool 😁
Drach, with respect to Mr Brunel, we in the South West of England have immense respect for the gentleman and his father. Not only did he show that if you are going to do something, do it properly, and both SS Great Britain and SS Great Eastern were excellent ships he designed and engineered Gods Wonderful Railway, the absolute best railway company ever. His father built the block machinery that powered tha Royal Navy in the age of sail, both gentleman were absolute geniuses.
There's the wrong way, and then there's the Great Western way.
And well past the age of sail. The block-making line was decommissioned in 1965.
I would have personally included USS Oregon. Despite the limited technology of the time, and not being designed for open-ocean use, Oregon was able to travel 14,000 nautical miles in the worst conditions and not suffer any changes whatsoever to her internal mechanisms. Not a single rivet of her engines were loose, earning her praise as a marvel of technology.
And as a reward for being the primary contributor to the need for a Panama Canal, she was given the honor of being the first ship to traverse the Canal.
For newer subscribers, last year Drach did a Worst 5 naval engineering disasters video which is a good companion to this one!
Well done, now one of my favorite episodes. As a boy, I practically lived at the Philadelphia Naval shipyard, crawling all over the standards as they came in just after the war. My other favorites were Fletchers, when I got a bit older I used to be able to hitch a ride when one deployed for local ops. For many decades, an X Fletcher was kept in the reserve basin, so that people could study the hull lines, so magnificently where those ships crafted.
"Crawling all over the standards" & eating a butterscotch Krimpet, I suppose ?....
Sounds like you were a lucky kid with a fun childhood !! I grew up in the Delaware Valley as well. In fact, this weekend I'm rolling thru there to go to Lakehurst, NJ to do the NAS Lakehurst tour and learn more about airships & Zeppelins....looking forward to it & probably gonna stop at McMillan's Bakery in Westmont for some vanilla cream doughnuts on the way to Lakehurst.
Did you board USS INTREPID while she was in Philly ? Me & my family did....around 1978-1980 ? Sometime around then she stopped in Philly Navy Yard on her way to NYC to be made into a museum.
🚬😎
Hi Joseph, I'm Mark Redgrave. My grandad was c.o. of the Philadelphia Navy Yard at the end of W.W.2. He was Capt.D C.Redgrave Jr. His son, my dad, was Capt. D.C.Redgrave 3rd. The first was Commadore D.C. Redgrave, my great grandfather.
@@craigfazekas3923: I had the pleasure of going aboard Intrepid in 1976. She was the bicentennial ship at the Philadelphia Navy Yard. Growing up in South Philly, I visited the yard every chance I had. My late father was a shipwright at the yard during WW 2 and Korea.
@@markredgrave1665 I sense a rather deep well of tradition in your family's choice of occupation.
Am i crazy to think the liberty ships should be on this list? They were obviously bare bones, but when you design something like that which can be built three a day, you've created something incredibly special.
Yes, you are crazy to think that. I would liken them to the CVE escort carriers: combustible, vulnerable, expendable.
No, you are not crazy. Expensive Wunderwaffen did not win WWII (though if it had continued for another year or two, atomic wepaons would have become relevant). To the limited extent that machines were responsible, victory went to simple, reliable gear that could be produced and operated in great numbers. Examples include T-34 tanks, sten guns, various unglamorous trucks and most of all liberty ships. All of those were cheap not by accident, but because the engineers who designed them cared more about saving the world than about technological ambition.
With the exception of Great Eastern, the ships listed here are not Wunderwaffen. They are commonsense designs making the right compromises. For example the Fletchers were the most produced class of destroyers in history. They were mass producible and rugged. Their reliable 600 psi boilers and turbines were only a slight stretch of design as opposed to German high pressure design which were unreliable.
I'd never heard of the Great Eastern, I have now and I'm definitely a fan. Her hull shape was a glimpse into the future. I'm definitely saddened by her fate, considering what's about to happen to my first ship USS Kitty Hawk I'm probably a bit sensitive on that particular matter currently.
The BBC did a great series called "Seven Wonders of the Industrial World" and one episode was on the Great Eastern. Extremely well done and gives some good background to the whole endeavour.
Cheers Hawkeye
Sadly, preserving the massive carriers of the the last couple decades is a task few people would want to do
@@josephshreeves8192 The biggest problem with preserving any of the Nimitz class or the CVN’s in general is the nuclear plants can’t just be cleaned up and put on display. That have to be outright removed ant that would result in destroying the hull.
Probably the safest way to handle a CVN is make it a moored electric plant for the port it is residing in.
kittyhawk was no nuke. she was a conventional cv. @@Isolder74
Seydlitz and Algerie?
A surprise to be sure but a welcome one.
"Great Video !!! - My Dad served on a Fletcher "DD-446"; in the video Fletcher and Radford are sitting next to each other, my Dad was there at the launching, he was a Plank-Owner at the age of 16 when he joined the Navy. "Semper-Fi"
12:25 a video on fictional modifications for the Great Eastern. YES, PLEASE
Hey Drach, is it possible you could do a guide or a video on the Ocean Class 1st rate ships of the line ? Beautiful ships they are, and a large number were actually built. ♥️
Drach: "A particularly aggressive destroyer commander could probably have taken a Duquesne apart in particularly short order."
USS Johnston: *appears as the Doom Eternal soundtrack starts playing from the ether*
"WARNING, THE SLAYER HAS ENTERED THE SEA"
USS Johnston wouldn't have deigned to sink something so meager as a Duquesne. She leaves that kind of prey for the destroyer-escorts.
@@davidhansen5067you have to let the little ones eat so they grow up into big strong fleet destroyers
This video is worth it just for Drach's cinematic description of HMS Victory running down an enemy frigate. I could feel the breeze and hear the creak of wood.
I served 30 years in the US Navy which included quite a few legendary ships including Missouri and Midway. I served in Long Beach and Independence, both of which served for more than 40 and Belknap which served twice. My vote for most mighty and most legendary in my time is Enterprise. She was the mightiest warship of the modern era for more than forty years of the late 20th century.
And the most powerful naval vessel I ever saw. Ever.
I am much happier seeing your positive list than a “worst” list. Thank you. For a follow up, please develop a 6-10 list of well engineered ships.
I absolutely love the Fletchers especially. Such a right ship. Basically the WW2 Burke class.
Yay, my favourite is in there, Seydlitz needs more recognition! Imho she's the epitome of german BC doctrine and propably the most beautiful of all WW1 capital ships.
Given that we're getting a replica of the Great Western in Bristol, imagine how a preserved Great Eastern would have looked alongside the other two...
Add a flight deck and Great Eastern probably could have pulled off being the first angle deck jet aircraft equipped carrier. It would have found Franklin and the Northwest Passage.
It is pretty crazy that so much Victorian technology has outlived more modern construction.
Very glad to see the SS Great Eastern on here, the sheer scale of the ship for the 1850s was awesome. I'm very lucky to have been on the SS Great Britain many times, and its exciting now to hear that a replica of the Great Western is on it's was too
Having watched Drach praise it highly more than once before this, was absolutely expecting to see it here, and by God, hearing what it went through, deserves a mention.
Have no issues with any of these, enjoy the variety of types chosen.
my 5 in no particular order;
SMS Seydlitz (has always been my favorite German capital ship)
USS Essex Class CV for their capabilities as well as their ease (thus speed) of manufacture, probably the single biggest naval asset in the war in the pacific was the Navy's ability to put up massive clouds of air power. this doesn't happen without the Essex design.
HMS Victory, possibly the world's first true fast battleship (term borrowed from the 5 minute guide, Drach is correct on this) glad she's still with us.
USS Constitution her construction made her far more capable than a typical ship of her size. in a straight fight with an equally armed ship she was practically unbeatable.
THE "Viking Long Ship" pretty much overlooked, the design of these ships enabled them to cross open oceans whilst still able to work their way up rivers and even be shipped past rapids by a relatively small crew. considering the technology of the time these things were as terrifying then as looking out your window seeing an Iowa class BB swinging her guns your way from offshore.
I really like your inclusion of the viking long ship!
@@Beaguins it was the Battlecruiser of its era
Constitution's claim to fame was simply having thicker wooden armor than most other ships of the day.
@@marhawkman303 I recommend watching Drach's video on the USS Constitution. There was more innovation in her construction than just thick armor.
@@marhawkman303 In my previous reply I should have specified Drach's FIRST video on the USS Constitution. Lots of info on her design there.
The Great Eastern is one ship I wish someone had just bought and kept through to the modern day because she was a one of a kind ship that should be around today appreciated as the engineering marvel it truely was
Well, part of her IS still around.... turns out that when they beached her for breaking... they didn't actually haul off all of the pieces, and part of her is still embedded in that beach. Oh and that funnel that got blown off? Still in use by the people who salvaged it.
So wait the Kamchatka didn't make the list? THIS IS CLEARLY A PLOT MADE BY JAPANESE TORPEDO BOAT MANUFACTURERS!
Ahoy!
Surprised that I recently learned about the secret radio wave proximity fuses developed during the second world war even though I was a powder man on a Gearing class 5" 38 cal. which turned those guns into the awesome antiaircraft weapon of their time. After they allowed their use on land they provided devastating shrapnel air bursts against personal.
Two Suggestions: Liberty class cargo ships and Essex class aircraft carriers.
Not only were Liberty ships a marvel of engineering being able to be constructed and launched within a few weeks, but they also served not only to supply and ferry war material across both Atlantic and Pacific oceans in victorious campaigns, but also serve as the backbone of civilian cargo ship fleets post-war and play a key role in getting the world economy back on track.
Essex class carriers proved to be robust and decisive weapons during the Pacific campaign. Not only did they carry the US Navy to victory over Japan, but through modernizations also saw combat in Korea and Vietnam launching jets and helicopters. They were also instrumental with the American space program, recovering NASA's capsules and astronauts, and one served as a training platform for US Navy pilots until 1991.
But the Libertys had that unfortunate tendency to simply break in half and vanish. Not sure you would blame that on engineering, or just the shoddy wartime manufacturing that scuttled many a craft on land, sea, and in the air, but it's pretty much the opposite of the qualities of the rest of the list.
I always had a spot in my heart for ALGERIE.
Combrig made a great little 1:700 resin kit of her. And Profile Morskie kicked out an edition on her as well. The two together ? Model building magic !! I had a blast with that kit.... 🚬😎
I would add U.S.S. Constitution “Old Ironsides” to the list. She was fast, incredibly well constructed and well armed for a frigate. Undoubtedly she benefited from the availability of large, old growth oak trees readily available in New England.
Constitution also had an innovative hull structure that contributed to her strength.
I think the Iowas deserve honorable mention for their longevity of service and adaptability.
@in desperate need of a scotch there is a method I see!
Longevity? As prestige projects, not actual warships. Adaptability? When it would have been a similar cost to build and cheaper to man a new-built vessel that would have been more useful to the Navy's mission rather than refit the arguably obsolete when commissioned ships?
In other words, the 'adaptability' was a smokescreen to their re-upping their job as prestige projects, and their ability to serve in that capacity isn't an indication of great engineering, just basic competence.
@@boobah5643The USMC thought enough of their ability to insist they keep a few mothballed until the Zumwalts came on line. So how are those Zumwalts working out now? Those Buck Rodger's rail guns hurling their million dollar shells 120 Nautical Miles as promised?
@@boobah5643 not actual warships?Lol, the japanese, n koreans,vietnamese,and the iraqis may have a different opinion, I think that you are outnumbered and under qualified
@@boobah5643
Thank you.
The Iowas were good battleship designs, but their strategic value was….no.
Man Seydlitz was an absolute warrior of a ship. I imagine her crew were committed to the cause too much like how the USS Samuel B Robert's crew was. In the case of the latter that DE should have not stayed afloat that long fighting against what it came up against, but the book based on the crew and ship goes into extent talking about the extensive (over) training the crew went through.
Calling it now: MN Brennas, MN Danton, MN Carnot, MN Charles Martel and HMS Polyphemus
@Ol Rusty’s Gameplay lounge nah, either the K-class subs or HMS captain
No turtle ships? American frigates of 1812?
You forgot MN Masséna, the best of all
@@andrewcipriano2890 Vasa lol
@Ol Rusty’s Gameplay lounge Bismarck was badly engineered and very inefficient with her displacement. That being said many of her issues were with Kreigsmarine doctrine and the fact she was built by a shipbuilding industry that hadn’t built a capital ship in decades.
That being said the class was extremely fast and tough so despite the inefficient design she did come out of it with some solid numbers
My father served on the USS O’Bannon, DD-450, a Fletcher class destroyer. As a youngster, my brothers and I visited countless times. They were (and still are to my memories) the most beautiful destroyer ever built.
All good choices. I think the Essex class deserves an honorable mention.
essex and Midway, considering Midway didnt enter service untill right after WW2 ended, and still then took part in the first gulf war.
Agreed. I was wondering about some of the WW2 US carriers. They successfully transitioned from propeller to jet aircraft. That's gotta account for something.
If we are going there what of the Shōkaku-class carriers? Very good ships and could take a pounding. Just maybe not sub attacks...
As a fellow-engineer, I find it interesting that the key characteristic upon which you focussed in your Top-5 was, durability. In my view, and I presume in yours, the fastest, prettiest, best armed or armoured, longest ranged….whatever, ship is no damned good if it cannot stay afloat. Well done Drach, I cannot disagree with your choices, although I might have included the Flower Class Corvette and/or the Tribal Class Destroyer in that group as well.
HMS Captain: Please sir, might I join in?
Drachinifel: Manic Laughter
HMS Captain: Runs off to cry on Cowles' shoulder.
Fletcher, my favorite ww2 era DD
"Chapeau bas", Sir !
Going through your youtube videos, Irarely found a subject new to me treated with such brillant intelligence (I am 70).
Merci Monsieur !
Encore please !
worth noting the paddle wheels on great eastern were included for manoeuvrability in ports far from home. i suspect that would still have been an issue in most ports even in the 1880s
I think the USS Midway should have been on this list. Commissioned at the end of 1945, she just barley makes it into the timeframe, but was an excellent ship. She was extremely durable, and could carry an obscene amount of aircraft (133 as designed) she was extremely long lived, serving until 1992 and reviving several refits and modernizations to keep her extremely competitive with modern carriers.
Dr. Drach, The last photo you included, is, I believe, one of several taken of USS Yorktown (CVS 10) and her ASW Hunter Killer (HUK) Group, ca: 1966. I served in Yorktown 1966-1967 as a sonar tech, then much later as an officer, in USS Goldsborough (DDG 20), shown in the van of this close formation. I also briefly cross-decked to the small escort, USS Bronstein (FF 1037) during our 1966 cruise to SE Asia. That was nice, as she was fully air conditioned, and Yorktown was most certainly not. Great video as usual, BTW.
I'm not gonna argue ship engineering with Drachinifel, but the history lesson on HMS Victory alone made this worth watching. Thanks again for another great and educational video.
A honourable mention I would make would be for the Design 1942 Light Fleet Carriers of the Colossus-and Majestic-classes. Designed at the height of World War 2 to act as a small fleet carrier to provide protection for convoys as well as participate in fleet actions if necessary, the Light Fleet Carriers were designed with a three-year lifespan. Eventually, all ships of the class exceeded by a huge margin, ranging from a relatively short service life of 9-11 years (for Perseus, Theseus, Pioneer, and Glory), to an intermediate service span of 25-30 years (for Colossus, Warrior, Majestic, and Terrible), and all the way up to exceptionally long service lives for 40-50 years (for Venerable, Vengeance, and Hercules).
The ships were extremely reliable, not too maintenance heavy, and were large enough to act as a starting point for carrier experience for many smaller navies while not being large enough to be a logistical challenge for said navies. Combined with their service spans (which crossed half a century of active service in some cases), I would posit the Design 1942 Light Fleet Carriers to be one of the most influential (from a strategic perspective) ship designs ever conceived.
While I never served in a Fletcher, I would venture to say that the Gearings were superior hulls. While the engineering plant was essentially the same their longer hull gave them greater range. They were very long lasting as well, the three I served in lasted until the late 1970’s.
but they had serious weight (and speed, especially in rough seas) issues due to the two forward twin turrets, so yes while better hulls, NOT better warships
@@grandadmiralraeder9608 I have heard that. When I was in them they had gone through FRAM rehabilitation. The upper forward mount was removed.
One comment on the 40 year old flagship. That would be like the flagship of a modern navy being a Nimitz class carrier from 1975..... Oh wait.
@Uncle Joe Actually his argument is consistent between the Fletchers, Victory and also the Nimitz Class. Good basic ships that can accept upgrades. Victory was able to take carronades and heavier guns. Fletchers were able to take upgraded AA, radar and sonar to keep them current. The Nimitz class went from Phantoms, to Tomcats, to Super Hornets and finally to F-35s. The difference between great and good is being able to stay good over the long term.
@@GOPGonzo Nimitz is a "100-year ship class" Lead ship CVN68 designed in 1960, tenth ship USS Bush (CVN77) will be decommissioned in 2060.
It is out of your wheelhouse, but the USS Nimitz was designed in the 1960 and commissioned in 1975, which makes for an interesting comparison with HMS Victory. Both ships seem to have gotten it right. To be fair, Nimitz has never engaged peer or near peer opponents, something which Victory did regularly. Great episode Drach, looking forward to maybe 6-10 on your list.
Do an extensive video on the finding of the uss johnston. That was very exciting when they found it.
IIRC, the hole in Great Eastern from the rock was *much* larger than the one that sank Titanic. The latter was something like 1.1 square meters, the former was more like 65-70.
In Titanics defense, it Is not only a question of being hit, but Where.
@@augustosolari7721 Exactly. An Olympic-class (and many other ships) could have taken an enormous hole in any number of places but not burst seams for such a long distance.
My father served on a Fletcher class during WWll and nothing but praise for them.DD643 USS Sigourney
Isambard Kingdom Brunel was one who also had a hand in building the SS GREAT BRITAIN which returned to Bristol in the early 1970's. I saw her come back Home. From the Falklands Islands. At 8 or 9 years of age! The Great Eastern was - at least - the same size as the Yamato of almost a hundred years later!
Interesting choices, glad you included Seydlitz here. Especially unusual to see such a non military ship in the shape of the Great Eastern. I would take out the GE (sorry Drach) and would slot in the Gato class, the first real fleet sub, a kind of sub-surface Fletcher with the length of their service too. A practical, workable and compared to the opposition comfortable design. I would cut out Algerie and replace her with the British Town class cruiser on the basis of their wonderfully balanced design, capable of being trimmed back to make a still useful Crown Colony or stretched to Belfast/Edinburgh. Sorry Algerie :-)
Especially since one of the classes based on it, the Balao class, still has a few members in service today - one I know of is in the Taiwanese navy, if I remember correctly
Nah. The Great Eastern is a much more impressive feat.
@@samwecerinvictus Far more impressive - she was more than 3 times larger than the largest planned surface combatants of the day, which would have been the equivalent of a 1920s battleship being built and displacing 150,000 tons or an ocean liner in the same era of 190,000 tons. It's still never been done!
hmmm. yeah but the Gato class wasn't hugely technologically advanced for its time, it fulfills the same tickbox list as Fletcher- it does everything it is meant to and a bit more.
Great Eastern was the most advanced piece of engineering (not just shipping) in the entire world upon her construction, I would argue (feel free to dispute this :)
@@grandadmiralraeder9608 true, but The Great Eastern was only in service for, what, maybe 20 years? On the other hand, the Gato and it's immediate successor classes served through the 80's, and a few, as I said earlier, still serve to this day
Great list, Drach! Your engineering background led to some choices that surprised me, but you make a great case for all. Very happy to see the Fletchers on the list. I've loved those ships since I read Theodore Roscoe's "United States destroyer operations in WWII" at the age of 12, and that was a good many years ago. It wouldn't be an exaggeration to say that they influenced my choice to serve in the navy rather than a land or air service. I always knew the Victory was a pounder but didn't realize she was so innovative as well. This leads me to a couple of questions, but if you don't have time to answer, that's readily understandable.
First, any opinions on the US frigates of the Constitution class? A between-class similar to the pocket battleships and built of Georgia live-oak, an ironlike wood, a few were lost to poor seamanship, but those that were well-captained had stellar careers, and one still occasionally sails in the open ocean today, roughly 200 years after her construction.
Second, same question about Prinz Eugen and her sisters? Eugen specifically served the Kriegsmarine from beginning to end, was taken as a war prize, and shrugged off not one, but TWO A-bomb blasts at 1100 m. with only minor damage. Was she not on the list because of an engineering shortcoming, or because she openly cheated on the treaty provisions? 'Cause that sounds like pretty spectacular engineering to me! In any case, thank you for all you do. Some sites are educational, others are entertaining; it's rare to find both qualities in the same place. Superb work!
The Eugen had notoriously finicky engineering plant. Plus, like the Bismarck, she did on 16,000 tons what others cruisers were doing on 10,000 tons - and with more armor belt.
@@gregorywright4918, I see, legit engineering problems, then. AND cheating on the treaty. Well, that I knew, but, live and learn!
He actually did a video on USS Constitution: ua-cam.com/video/KBGxpRvAkfA/v-deo.html
@@jacktyler2880
Not only that, the Hippers didn’t even benefit at all from cheating the treaty. The Japanese and Italians built 12,000 ton cruisers that were better-protected, faster, and MUCH better-armed than their Kriegsmarine equivalents (in fact, in the Japanese case the cruisers were so heavily armed that they were among the most heavily armed cruisers for their displacement in spite of them breaking treaty limits). The Germans built even larger cruisers that were outright inferior to those vessels in all three of these areas. If you’re going to ignore treaty limits your ship actually has to have the capabilities to justify the size, and while the Japanese and Italian ships did, the Germans definitely didn’t.
Absolutely no argument with your choices sir, but I would like to add a group of ships in the "runner up" position, If I may. The more or less standardized freighters operated on the US Great lakes.
These vessels typically had very long, and very profitable, careers carrying vast amounts of goods and raw materials over what remains a very short operating season. They quite often saw major upgrades in their machinery, going from triple expansion engines to steam turbine or diesel power, and all the modern navigational and electronics upgrades. They operated in conditions that could go from a mill pond to a harrowing storm in very short order owing to the sometimes volatile weather on North America's inland seas.
Yes, America, we might have some material advantages. But it is our progenitors, our England, who`s spirit, and wisdom has carried her and her allies through victory in both world wars. To me a retired Merchant Marine sailor, to hear the illustrious names of the ships in the Royal Navy all most brings tears to my eyes. America has incredible love and pride for the UK and her people.
Taking the faster technological change of the 20th century, the Queen Elizabeths are kind of comparable to Victory, but Victory didn't need upgraded engines to serve creditably for forty years.
I'm sure Victory had its sails replaced a few times throughout its service life, with any improvements in material , stitching etc included
I agree with the choice of Fletcher class destroyers, witness the Battle of Samar.
SS Great Estern. The definition of Big Bertha. Beautiful ship and a magnificent work of science.
I cannot argue with your choices, They are all good ones. I think another class that should be considered are the U.S. Iowa class battleships. They were a design basically created just before WW2 in anticipation of the escalator clause of the naval treaties being invoked. They lasted in and out of commission into the 1990s, half a century of service, undergoing many upgrades, and were the last battleships in front line service.
Hi Drach,
Good selection and the Great Eastern was an amazing ship of its time. I think I would have exchanged the SMS Seydlitz for the QE's (particularly Warspite) due to the longevity and massive damage (survived) on Warspite in particular as well as the accuracy of her guns.
I do like the next top 5 (ie 6-10) idea as well.
Cheers Hawkeye
I can't think of any ship more amazing in it's time than Great Eastern, for instance she was designed to float even if split in two.
Largest ship in the world for 40 some-odd years, during a period when ships could become obsolete while still on the stocks.
Maybe the Syracusa of the Ptolemaic period can compare, to a lesser extent Henry V's Grace Dieu of 1420, but those are about as close as I can think of.
I‘m not an engineer, but I‘m not sure if Seydlitz was really better engineered than the Derfflingers. The latter had an all-centerline main battery (12 vs. 11“) and basically the same armour scheme. I think Seydlitz had just better luck than Lützow - or am even better crew.
100% agree on the Fletchers, the German Bundesmarine had six of those, four even until the early 80s.
US Navy: “Wow, we have one of Drach‘s top-5 ships! Let‘s build 175 of them!“
Marine Nationale:“Parbleu, we have one of Drach‘s top-5 ships! Lets build … um … *one* of them!“
i think that is a pretty good list. 1) Brunel's Great Eastern was so far ahead and so well built that it belonged more to the 1880's than when it was built. 2) Seydlitz, I might have said Derflinger but you convinced me that Seydlitz was a better choice. 3) I knew that France had built 3 classes of heavy cruiser in the interwar and the first 2 classes were at best marginal and the 3rd were good 10000 ton cruisers. Myself I might have chosen Wichita (I grew up there) but you do present a good case for Algerie (and its good to have the French vessel there to honor the French engineers who had been responsible for generations of ships that were trash but really that was the fault of waffling politicians and strategic ideas that were not really up to snuff. 4) Victory - well of course victory, disregarding all of its success in battle it was still good enough to be the template for ships of the line for another 25 years. 5) Fletchers, a ship that did everything well. The battles were good ships but the Fletchers had everything. I have always lumped the Gearings and Sumners in as Fletchers group 2 and Fletcher group 3 (basically extended range versions). After what the US Navy managed to do with the Zumwalt's maybe we would have been better off with the Fletchers.
Go for it Drach, wouldn't mind seeing Great Eastern being refitted through the years. But I do wonder if the Four-stackers are well made for their time throughout their service history.
It depends which ones, I guess. definately at least the Cunard's trio of four-stackers were really solid for their role. You can't hold against civilian ship that it can't survive torpedo hit.
@@mancubwwa Olympic even sunk a submarine. Under better circumstances, Britannic would have survived the mine damage.
Great Eastern actually had five funnels.
I wonder what Brunel would be able to create if he had access to modern computer engineering packages. 🤩 sm
A spacecraft larger than SpaceX’s Starship.
Orbital Elevator? SHIELD Helicarrier? Walking tanks? A bridge across the English Channel?
Heck, just complete Babbage's analytical engine and give Brunel access to it. Boom! Steampunk becomes a reality.
The Fletchers served as the basis for the Sumner / Gearings which lineally served as the basis for the USN Destroyers of the 50s, and 60's like the Forrest Sherman Class and the Charles F. Adams class. An excellent choice sir!
I remember the Fletcher in Norfolk at the end of it's career,I was 12yrs old.
Probably missed a bet here by not including the Essex class. I’d substitute it for the Great Eastern because it’s a large stretch to call that one a warship. The Essexes were some of the most durable ships ever built (c.f. the Franklin and Bunker Hill, which absorbed levels of damage that sank a bunch of IJN carriers and two of the Yorktowns) and had considerable upgradability (see the SCB-127 conversions that made a number of them front-line fleet carriers on into the Vietnam War). And like the Victory at Trafalgar and after, the design has enduring value. The Wasp- and American-class assault ships owe a lot to the Essexes, as do the ships similar to them in the JMSDF and various other of the world’s navies. And in a pinch you could still take an Essex, reinforce the flight deck, replace the guns with AA missiles and a couple of CIWS mounts, and give it an air group of F35s, Ospreys and helicopters, and you’d still have a ship that most and maybe all navies in the world could use as a front-line unit. And it wouldn’t matter if that Essex was an SCB-127 or an OG straight-deck, were any of the latter still to exist. You could do worse (and the Russians have) than take the original blueprints, substitute diesels or gas turbines for the originally specified steam plant, and build one fresh.
its a shame the Algerie was scuttled. Would of been interesting to see what she would of looked like, had she say joined the Free French and was refitted in the US.
Be interesting to see an analysis of the weight groups compared between Algerie and the other legitimate Treat cruisersd to see how the French succeeded so well.
So happy to hear you mention my baby Seydlitz. My favorite warship of all time.