US Navy Fleet Problems - Now its time to play with carriers (VIII-XII)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 тра 2024
- Head to www.squarespace.com/drachinifel to save 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain using code DRACHINIFEL
Today we take a look at the background and thinking behind the inter-war USN Fleet Problems, with summaries of Fleet Problems 8 through 12
Fleet Problems I through VII - • US Navy Fleet Problems...
Sources:
To Train the Fleet For War: The U.S. Navy Fleet Problems, 1923-1940 - Albert A. Nofi
www.amazon.co.uk/Testing-Amer...
www.amazon.co.uk/Learning-War...
www.usni.org/press/books/lear...
US National Archive Videos:
428-NPC-16729
428-NPC-782
428-NPC-35846
428-NPC-3361
428-NPC-16213
428-NPC-2947
428-NPC-1984
428-NPC-20349
428-NPC-15549
00:00:00 - Intro
00:02:15 - Fleet Problem 8
00:08:01 - Fleet Problem 9
00:17:57 - Fleet Problem 10
00:25:05 - Fleet Problem 11
00:33:12 - Fleet Problem 12
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/drachinifel
Drydock Episodes in podcast format - / user-21912004
Music - / ncmepicmusic
Pinned post for Q&A :)
Q&A What conditions were given for foreign navy observers in watching the Fleet Problems?
Why would the United States Navy think that the English the British would be the enemy after WW1 it makes no sense the British or our allies the mother nation our English cousins
How did they simulate it and misses and without lasers and radar what do they do shoot paintballs at each other like giant paintballs out to the 8-in guns and the 16 inch guns I mean that would work giant paintballs even the aircraft could drop paint bombs paint bombs
I don't understand the Royal Navy why the Royal Navy after world war I mean have the British and the Americans not gotten to be all best friends yet I mean what about world war I when we fought shoulder to shoulder against the Kaiser American and British side by side shoulder to shoulder against them spiky helmeted weirdos with their better rifles that we copied in as Americans
Two questions. At one point in the video the ground crew is seen vigorously shaking the wings of aircraft up and down before the aircraft taxi forward. What is the purpose of this?. Second. When landing there were lines of upright devices on the deck. When aircraft landed a number of these devices fell down. What were these devices and how did they work?. I assume they worked in conjunction with arrester cables. Cheers
US Navy in 1929: "Wow! A fast aircraft carrier attack from an unexpected direction sure can be devastating!"
US Navy in 1941: "No way they'd ever try to hit Pearl Harbor from the north."
*Admiral Harry Yarnell yells in frustration*
to be fair, the Japanese didn't really take this lesson to heart, either.
@@bradymenting5120 nobody really did, at least not in time to cancel all the new battleships they were building.
"Yeah, aircraft carrier launched planes are effective I guess, but battleships are way cooler!" - basically every navy until part way through WWII.
@@SnakebitSTIBattleship Task Force Commander Adm. "Ching" Lee didn't fall for that. He was for more carriers being built instead of BBs even before the war. He was the USN's expert on naval gunnery.
So the USN had money to wage war in miniature on a yearly basis but not enough left over to properly test torpedoes
Weapons R&D was B.Ord's job at the time and navy command had no control over it (think of DARPA today).
It's america, its full of Americans. Did you think they would do something sensible😂
We tested them and they're fine. - - B. ORD
Well, technically they were B. ORD's torps, and notice how none were actually used in exercises. Navy Subs that had MK.14s had a Marine contingent round the clock just to make sure no sailors even looked at the MK.14 till the war kicked off
Plus, wasn't the guy in charge of the overall submarine force (or was it B. Ord?) one of the guys that invented the proximity detonator for the Mk14? So he was already invested in it being said to be working.
I love the idea of HMS Nelson just showing up and the crew just breaking out popcorn to watch the US navy spectacle.
And taking notes. Lots of notes. I wonder just how often a lone merchant man on her way to her destination just blindly found herself in the middle of one of these fleet problems.
@@mpetersen6 I can't help but ask: blindly or 'blindly?' Interesting in either case.
@@boobah5643
I'd figure it'd be more an accident than not most of the time. Now if it's a British Merchantman it'd be a 50/50.
1988-- Operation Praying Mantis US Navy vs Iran -- USSR Destroyer comes steaming into the largest naval battle since WW II. US Navy radios, "What are your intentions?" Soviet captain responds, AND I QUOTE, "I'm just here to take pictures... For history." Watch The Fat Electrician for more.
"Wonder if the yanks are fighting us or Japan today? Think they would let us join?"
You don't hear the navy problems being talked about often so this series is really interesting.
It's a big problem here on UA-cam, thankfully Drachinifel knows the solution to this
@@patchouliknowledge4455 historical problems require modern solutions
I am amazed on how little emphasys was placed on trade interdiction, convoy protection and ASW. You would think the lessons of WW1 would be fresh in their minds.
Now everything is done via computer simulation
Yeah Drach is a one-stop naval encyclopedia,, with interaction feature since he does drydock,, theory and history etc of navies as whole units,, he's a Frankenstein monster of naval stuff,, you know,, without being a shambling monster lol...
Ah! The good ol' USS _Notlangley_ (CV-0). A great ship!
And her escort. USS Second Amendment.
It's a terrible shame that Notlangley was sent to the breakers after her years of dutiful service. The world needs more museum ships from that era.
Who was the Admiral that choose to tweak the rules and tow the slower ships? He is a man after my own heart.
When I heard the problem my solution was to leave the slow ships behind and get in front of the other team to attack them from behind, thus saving the slower ships.
Towing them is much more elegant (ie keeps the fleet intact). Mine's a bit more 'throw of the dice'. Very me.
Drachinifel: *mentions Ernest King*
Me: This is where the fun begins.
-Detroit's captain reported Saratoga's location to his previous team after switching sides
Multiplayer matches be like:
Detroit's captain is a true gamer. Ahead of his time
He must've been the dream Italian captain
Players on both sides were given the freedom to think creatively during the Fleet Problems. Drach mentioned in the previous video how one side sent a "spy" to sneak on board a battleship while passing through one of the Panama Canal locks. He "pretended" to inspect their powder magazines before starting a virtual time bomb. He then reported to the umpire aboard the ship to relay his actions, which were ruled as disabling the ship and the locks.
Military exercises are great training. And just like real life nothing ever goes to plan. Things break, weather doesn’t cooperate, people get turned around or misinterpret orders. That’s the true value of the whole operation. Without the discrepancies the whole thing could be done on a game board. The mistakes show where you need extra preparations and additional contingencies. And don’t forget that the officers and sailors on both sides are USN so they all benefit from the training regardless of who they’re representing in the game. In the end, everybody wins.
it's a Lot of good experience that wouldn't have costed the highest price it could've had, one in Blood, as most lessons in Aviation Safety has been
@CipiRipi00 it's also a part military culture and attitudes that decides if lessons are actually learned, Japan had a Terrible track record of being able to learn and being flexible in things, it's entire premise of naval warfare was flawed from the start,
Russia also has had a Terrible track record in that, due to a similar mindset of top to bottom warfare, in contrast to the American bottom to top approach that gave a lot more initiative and flexibility
One wonders how many are taking place now.
I remember in one of the vids there was a British admiral that sent a memo out the night before a exercise that if the order puts a ship in immediate damage IE on a collision course then the captains best judgment is to be used, in the exercise he ordered a shit to turn onto a collision course and they did it. Admiral died.
@CipiRipi00 One of the (many) ironies of the Second World War is that both Pearl Harbor and Midway were gamed out by the side that was trounced... and in both cases the lessons of the war game never made it into practice.
I often wonder how many other battles were prophesized by the militaries that eventually conducted them.
It's less of a mystery that they put 8 inch guns on Lexington and Saratoga (and kept trying to add them to later carriers) when they kept on getting to actually use them in contemporary exercises.
It wasn't until the full carrier escort was added, alluded to later in the video, that the idea for keeping the guns was buried.
Every early fleet carrier had large guns on it, whether British, American, or Japanese. It took years to disabuse the notion that carriers needed to have surface warfare capability.
In the era of biplanes and no radar it actually wasn't unreasonable that a carrier could have ended up in a gunfight.
@@MalfosRanger and even then, the Germans never got the memo lol
Still makes more sense than Beatty's genius idea of putting a Torpedo battery on Hermes.
Although often regarded as silly and useless by the time of WWII, the 8 inch guns on Saratoga and Lexington proved to be rather useful when the ships were first launched.
People tend to forget how much aircraft performance improved in the late 1930s.
Even between 1940 and 1942, carrier aicraft improved dramatically.
The big factor in improved performance was the engines. More power and improved reliability. I often wonder just why the RN used a mix of radial and inline liquid cooled engines up through WWll. Radials without enough power for home grown fighters? The Bristol Hercules should have been sufficient. But the Fleet Air Arm being hamstrung by the RAF likely did not help.
For US Navy fighters the R-2800 was a godsend. Used in both the Hellcat, later Bearcat and Corsair.
"People tend to forget how much aircraft performance improved in the late 1930s."
People can't believe how much aircraft performance improved in the late 1930s.
@@scottgiles7546,
People even at the time couldn't believe how much aircraft performance improved in the late 1930s.
I remember hearing from some history UA-camr or other that at least one nation's early-to-mid interwar doctrine assumed that a single-engine airplane's useful payload (excl. fuel and guns carried internally) would never exceed 250 kg.
This is partially what fucked up the French Airforce. They saw all these amazing increases in speed and range and kept pushing for the next best fighter rather than just doubling down on what they had to get a functional air force built up. And then likewise when the Phoney War began they said oh look, the MS. 406 is way better than the BF109, we're fine. Until the BF109 was improved and became superior to the 406 in every way, except agility perhaps
After listening all the problems with spoting enemies, and preventing air attacks, all I could thing of was:
"A radar! A radar! My kingdom for a radar!"
What a diference that would make...
Eventually it would make a huge difference but we won’t see it until The 1940’s.
@@FlameDarkfire yeah, but for now we have these massive fleets of giant ships still stuck with the same "mk 1 eyeball" of trirreme fleets...
You know, if you didn't know old hand held movie cameras ran their film slow (so when played back, it was faster than actual), people would be very confused as to when airships weren't a bigger part of wars. I mean, the L.A. was practically streaking across the sky in that one bit of film. I kept shouting for it to "do a barrel roll!" Lol.
For “barrel rolls”, the Messerschmitt Me 210 was far superior... albeit only in one direction...
Man, it's too bad the Saratoga was used as a nuke target, watching all of the videos of the Lexingtons charging around really makes me wish I could go and see her in person (not as a diver), and I love how the Lexingtons really got to put their 8" guns to use in these scenarios, also makes me wish in WoWs we got Saratoga as an American version of both Kaga (lots of weak planes) and Graf Zeppelin (useable/memeable secondaries)
30:14 I hope that pilot was safely rescued, got to say, he had one heck of a ride there
Hearing how ships being miraculously refloated during these fleet problems brings to mind the Japanese doing the same during war gaming for Midway. It's usually included with a wink and a nod in books, but now I see that it's not just a practice of "victory disease".
The difference is whether you record the sinking or whether you're save scumming.
it should be noted that if this is done properly, it is in fact beneficial to "cheat" since war games are not actually games, but exercises - the objective is not to "win" but to learn as much as possible. You cannot do that with half your fleet sunk. This is in fact one of the very few gripes I have with Shattered Sword since the reflotation of Kaga was clearly done in order to facilitate further training (the Midway wargames were still bad, but not AS bad as common wisdom has it)
@@stanislavkamenicky8694 I think whether it is good or bad depends on the purpose of the particular war games and reasoning for refloating a ship. If you're gaming out an operation you're going to run, refloating ships might not be beneficial, as you don't get to work out "what do we do to try keeping things on progress" though by the same token, if too many ships got sunk, it might be beneficial to refloat them for the remainder of that particular game before giving a break for people to work out how to prevent that for the next game. If you're just doing training type war games, like these Fleet Problems, then refloating some ships becomes more acceptable because it's for the training and learning, rather than testing plans and contingencies.
But things like Red Team basically pulling what the US actually did getting ruled as "impossible," with the damage reverted and the Red Team forced to follow the "expected" response instead? I think the differences between the Operation MI war games and what we hear about the fleet problems can be summed up with this line from Shattered Sword: "There had been no intellectual discourse, no learning; the entire affair had been a mockery of professional staff work."
@@stanislavkamenicky8694 I believe Parshall himself has stated he would rewrite that section if he were reissuing the book
@@stanislavkamenicky8694 Would that still apply to paper exercises though? I can definitely see the point if you have ships out and about but if it is just all done in a meeting room it is not as if you have sailors hanging around doing nothing.
The Battleship Admirals died hard. These exercises show the immense impact of just one or two aircraft carriers with the limited aircraft of the time. Almost ten years before Taranto yet it took Pearl Harbor to break the reliance on obsolete battleships.
After listening to this episode and also Drach's report about Captain King (later CNO Admiral King, aka Drach's episode *Semper Iratus* ) and King's surprise "Attack" on Pearl Harbor, one can wonder if the US Navy, like so many corporate IT Security Departments, just filed away the results and promptly forgot them, until the bombs started falling for real.
I always recommend Drach's webcast on the Mark 14 XIIII: "Failure is like Onions" to my peers in IT Security; this was a long-term failure analogous to an information breach/failure of IT Security--it's a combination of "The Emperor has no clothes" and that the problem is never *just one* damn thing!
😬🥵😵 is the usual progression. 😉
I've often come across mentions of the US Fleet Problems teaching valuable lessons, but not what those lessons were. Thanks Drac for going into so much detail. I look forward to the next installment.
Lesson number one. What can go wrong. Will go wrong.
Lesson number 2. See lesson #1.
One thing that the fleet exercises should have hammered home is that even if your carrier survives an enemy strike if your flight deck is serious damaged you can write off any of your air group that is currently in the air. If you have all of your aircraft sent out on a strike mission less a small number of fighters. And an enemy slips in a strike of dive bombers. That strike group even if they all survive th he strike portion of the misdion will have no place to land. They will have to ditch. Your carrier is now worthless as an offensive weapon.
This provided you have only one flight deck. Damage control would prove to be a critical skill the USN learned the hard way.
Fleet Problem 8. Having done enemy force in the Canadian military I can testify it's always both annoying and gratifying when the blue force completely out thinks you. Annoying because you were out thought but gratifying knowing the blue force would be less likely to lose soldiers when they deployed.
yeah, I remember some military strategy training exercises where the trainees learned the hard way that "superiority" does not guarantee victory. One case saw a trainee lose his main airfield in a surprise attack. He let his guard down because he was complacent due to having "superiority". A much smaller air asset hit his airfield and crippled his air combat capability. He ended up winning in the end... but that was because he(Bluefor) outnumbered RedFor 2-1.
Fleet Problem 9 is so insane, so fascinating, it deserves a movie or a graphical depiction or similar!
As aircraft performance increased exponentially throughout the 30s, so did the power of the carrier. I love how your video shows the admirals beginning to realize this.
One thing I'm really noticing is how much these Fleet Problems sharpened the USN's signals intelligence experience that they would take into WW2 and that they would exploit ruthlessly throughout the Pacific Campaign.
I am REALLY enjoying this series - what amazing footage!!
(The line of 4-stackers laying smoke is marvelous.)
Very, very well done.😎👍
Also Uncle Drach I really enjoy the Fleet Problems videos, and following along while reading Albert A. Nofi's To Train the Fleet for War: The U.S. Navy Fleet Problems, 1923-1940. A good companion to your videos! I am currently reading about FP XVI. Finally, I spotted what looks like Oklahoma in some of the video footage, if that is her, that makes me very very happy.
As an FYI, the video footage for this video is from the US National Archives, video ID's listed in the description :)
@@Drachinifel thanks, for some reason I skipped right over it. I am too tired, its 4am. I finally sleeply used the search function and got the videos...
That footage of the Los Angeles maneuvering above the surface fleet is really cool, first I've seen it.
@Drachinifel I can't wait until you get to Fleet Problem XIV with Oklahoma popping out of a fog bank and opening fire on Lexington, and Texas joining in to help with the sinking. Reminds me of the later sinking of HMS Glorious by KMS Scharnhorst and Gneisenau.
Really enjoying this series on the Fleet Problems. Would love to see something similar on what the Royal Navy was doing in the Med in the period in terms of exercises. Thank you
In short the problems point to the need for better aircraft, antiaircraft defense and command, control and situational awareness. A problem with exercise is that you are simulating hits and damage, so situations like the Mark 14 torpedo can be missed.
Well Congress and the public at large will tend to get a little bit mad once the We regret to inform you telegrams start going out. And just what were the Standards shooting at. Towed targets?
@@mpetersen6 Not saying they should use live ammo in exercises, but that they need to do more to insure that the assumptions used are valid.
@@MartinCHorowitz I think I get what you mean, maybe their should of been daily gun tests to see what the crew are capable of doing this day on to make assumption of, whilst also testing out the ordinance they are using on static or moving targets.
Fleet Problem VIII makes me laugh. The Blue Admiral has used really clever thinking to out-think his opponent and achieve his stated objective with minimal risk, and does give me Midway vibes of USN fleets turning up in unexpected positions that give them a major advantage, but as a fleet exercise to test multiple facets and capabilities of the US navy, it fails because Blue just sail to a location via a long route, which they could do any time.
The genius was in towing the slow ships.
Minor slip up: Fleet Problem 12 was 1931, not 1921. Kinda did a double take there.
caught Drac inna slip-up ? Woodwork, sleuth !
I heard it too
Thank you for the videos with the _Omaha_ class cruiser, when I was a kid I could only ever find a couple of stills. The pic of the _Lexington_ class with the airship, islands in the background, looks very WoW to me.
As always, thanks for sharing your knowledge, Uncle Drach.
That footage of the old aircraft launching and recovering is so cool
It would be interesting to know, particularly for the Problems in the mid to late 30s, how the "adjudicated" accuracy of Blue and Orange, lined up with the realities of 1942.
Personally, I'd like to hear the second part of the US WW2 submarine scandal
If the Navy had managed to work out a way to test live torpedoes against targets st sea the Mk14 and it cousins problems might have surfaced sooner.
@@mpetersen6 Maybe Drachinifel will address that very topic, should the day ever dawn. But when he released episode one, the buzzards had already returned to Hinckley, Ohio, and were fully occupied with hatchlings, so it has been a good long while.
Following this series is really interesting. Makes me curious about British and Japanese fleet exercises during the same period.
The book "Kaigun" by Evans and peattie, Naval Institute Press 1997, goes into this, but not as deeply as Drach in this video. Page 473 says that the first Japanese "table top war games" took place in autumn 1927. While the Japanese had no direct insights into the American lessons learnt. Neither did the Americans much insight into the Japanese Navy, and neither did the common Japanese citizen either. It was easy to spot existing ships "floating around", and see ships being built and launched, but not what exactly they did in action out there on the high seas.
@@jangelbrich7056 Fred Jane reported that the Chinese wargamed Yalu in 1884, but assumed the Japanese would do what the Beiyang command wanted them to.
@@iansadler4309 Yes, but in 1884 the status of Japans Navy etc was much different. Japan was still a Local Nobody and the main threat of the era was Tsarist Russia, which was defeated in 1904 by the Japanese, who had an alliance with the UK ...
Fantastic video as always Drach.
Thank you for what you do, videos like these shed light on topics that just aren't covered enough.
Another outstanding video. It's fascinating to follow the changes in the US Fleet's doctrine and tactics, and the script and visual resources used in the video gave a very clear explanation for these. Terrific work Drach, thank you.
Thank you for all the wonderful footage. Undoubtedly a lot of work and worth every bit.
Thanks, that was a great video. You have some amazing archival images.
Great video! Thank you. I’m fascinated that the Navy actually did so many fleet problems of such complexity.
I would be very interested to hear more about how they made rulings on aircraft being shot down and surface gunnery. Those seem very hard to fairly simulate without being unsafe
Well done, and most informative. Thank you!
This is AWESOME! I have been looking for info on these Exercises with the goal of understanding how Admiral Kimmel would have fought had the Dec 7th raid not changed everything. Looking forward to the remaining chapters.
Thank you, the fleet problems wer a huge part of what the USN became in WWII and so few talk about them or even know of them.
I love these videos on the Fleet Problems, keep them coming!
I don’t know if any other navies had fleet exercises of this magnitude during this time period, but if so would you consider some videos covering them after you finish the US Fleet problems?
Really a great series, can't wait for the next part.
Wonderful footage of some fabulous aircraft and those things that float on water........ In all seriousness, many thanks for an enthralling series on a fascinating period of naval and aviation development.
All this old footage is great, awesome video
These squarespace tutorials are grêt! Not sure about the advert for aircraft carriers after it though. I've never been particularly interested in them in the past and I've no idea where I could moor one but that chap has such a nice voice I'm seriously thinking about spashing out on one now.
It seems to me that the main lesson the fleet problems taught on carrier use was, "Don't let them be alone. Ever."
i get the intense feeling thats a bot
Very interesting! Did HMS Nelson take any part in the proceedings or did she wander off again after coming across the US fleet?
Thank you, Drachinifel.
Amazing good work and presentation.
I'd be interested to know the logistics of running these fleet problems. Such as, how was the scoring system devised? How was damage reported and tracked? Which tasks were simulated in reality and which were paper only? etc.
It seems like an interesting problem in itself.
Some of this (the scoring system and damage tracked) was mentioned in the first USN Fleet Exercises video.
@@NellaCuriosity Thanks, I'll take a look.
Fantastic footage.
Love this series
Interesting to see the old Standards in action. I miss the Napoleonic Commodore hats on the officers though. Thought I saw a NY class.
If the Army can bring back the Pinks and Green there's always hope. 😀 the idea of the Navy employing camouflage uniform patterns strikes me as slightly silly though. Although camo in a dazzle pattern might be interesting.
Can't wait for the next one.
Thanks. That was very interesting and the footage of all those old ships and planes was great. I've been looking at video footage of ships and planes for over 60 years and it is pretty rare for me to see something I haven't seen before.
One thing here - was that it showed that the 8" guns on CV-2 and -3 were not a stupid idea. Given the range of the aircraft they actually had - their chances of running into enemy surface craft were very real. By WWII - things had changed and removing the 8" guns from CV-3 to be replaced by dual DP 5.38" guns was warranted.
.
thank you for this!
These fleet problems really do drive home just how much US fleet doctrine was developed by them before WWII.
I been hoping for this one
2022-08-12 ... Absolutely amazing documentaries Mark Felton !!! One can see preludes to WW2's Coral Sea and Midway ... At least the USN leadership was trying to figure things out ... Clearly "radar" and PBYs would have a pivotal impact in the 1940s ... As the USN and Royal Navy navigate the 2020s we can only hope today's Fleet Problems enable us to decisively defeat the combined Sino-Soviet navies in the 2029 Pacfic War ...
Erm Mark Felton? Are you on the right channel?
Great film clips!
Really enjoy these historical films 👍🏻👍🏻
Ironically, I had emailed Drachinifel about 2 weeks ago about Fleet Problem XIII, which I am sure bears no impact on these worls. I am also sure I was not the first to ask about Fleet Problem XIII and its potential for study having been used in latter years by Admiral Yamamoto for the Pearl Harbor attack plan. Especially with noting incredible details such as attacking on a Sunday morning. Thanks Drachinifel. I'll definitely be watching!
Thanks Drach, these highlight that training and even more training is needed to iron out any problems, especially with new things like carriers.
I did have one 'strange' thought. These fleet problems must have been very expensive to run, with the Great Depression occurring. It struck me to wonder what the general public thought of what they probably considered a "waste" of money to allow the military to play games while people starved?
Thank you and thumbs up.
33:10 - Lex or Sara through the Galliard Cut is some cool footage.
That is the Lexington. Her funnel was black below the cap, whereas the Saratoga was the standard light grey. Her identifying feature was the black stripe running down the middle of her funnel.
@@Karle94
Demonstrating just why the Canal existed. And it also demonstrates the overall ship dimension the US limited itself to.
super interesting - great vid
My fleet got 99 problems, but a beach ain't one. Unless a ship runs aground.
I think there could be an interesting video on how these simulated engagements were conducted. Bunch of umpires around a table, with stats, numbers, and a set of dice? Battleship casts salvo, take 3 points of blunt force damage!
Drach's US Navy's Fleet Problems. There's too many bloody fleet problems.
Rust is always an issue. I always heard Congress shut the Navy down during the depression.
Outstanding! Bravo Zulu Drach! Have you given any thoughts to doing a video on our fleet "Problems" involving Roosevelt Roads and Veiques ? I served as a Flag LT on the staff of the COMNAVFORCARIB in the early 80's and was also on the ground in GTMO during defense exercises (TDY). What the civilians never have been told about our "activities" down there is worth at least a short story. I think at least.
Crushed to find that Part 3 isn't out yet! 🙂
I'm torn... I need to finish a book for book club by tonight, but Drach dropped another super awesome video. Well, it's a short one (as Rum Rations go) so lets dive in shall we?
Really interesting set of vids. And so things evolved. But not as fast as trial by fire. BTW. 29:38, reminds me of Kenneth More, who played Group Captain Douglas Bader in Reach for the Sky.
Fascinating stuff... In retrospect it seems like there's a fair amount of bumbling around. Of course without radar, and nothing be Mk1 eyeballs doing the work, that'd be normal. I'd love to see the modern Navy actually put in this kind of training, practice, and learning!!!
The development of armored and aerial warfare from the Great War to WW2 really comes down to engine development. Power to weight is the most important thing to look at regardless of the nation or the service.
It will be interesting on your take on fleet problems XXIII-XXVIII once information becomes known
Another VERY interesting presentation. Only on the Drachinifel Channel!
Thanks!
Anyone else playing “Highway to the Danger Zone” in their heads while watching the carrier takeoffs and landings…or is it just me?
You likely. Me it's the score from 633 Squadron. Yes I know its RAF but the tune is just livelier
It's just you. My inner jukebox has "Makin' whoopee" on high rotation.
Now I'm envisioning some weird alternate history where aircraft never really improved, and so airships' range and payload capacity kept them in service as naval scouts long enough to start mounting early (heavy and bulky) airborne surface search radar to improve their scouting efforts. 😆
Or, if fighters still had trouble climbing high enough to intercept them, imagine an airship lumbering overhead with the equivalent of half a dozen or more Fritz-X guided bombs aboard! Hope your heavy AA guns (and jammers) are up to keeping you safe!! 😁
Even better what if they become more protected? What if the fabric became nearly impossible to damage even with close range gun fire and protected heavy AA fire?
@@historytank5673 That seems far less plausible than aircraft engine technology failing to advance.
Short of magic I don't know how you could build a lighter than air ship with effectively splinter-proof armor. Even modern Kevlar fabric skin thick enough to resist heavy AA fire or armor piercing machinegun fire would weigh ludicrous amounts spread over the skin of an airship. Even a vest designed to protect a few square feet against only pistol fire weighs 5+ pounds.
I mean in a fantasy or steampunk setting airships that need anti-ship cannon to stop would be pretty cool. But can't see it happening outside of that kind of setting.
The cruiser with the big masts looked really old, like 19th century. Like what it had auxillary sails? The Brits must be shaking in their boots.
The metric shit ton of fleet exercises the enemy was always one of 4 names Orange country or Green country, they seemed to be replaced more and more with either Northland or Southland.
When Drach said this was probably going to turn into a three, maybe four part series, I swear I felt it move a little
Hold on. That’s some damn fast towing. What a creative move.
Your fleet is limited to under 10 knots, just tow the slow ships at 14 knots.
This was great. Nice (although out of date) footage of USS Macon. :)
Hi Drach, I’m a longtime viewer of your channel. I love your work and hope uku keep up the great work! My question iscan create the channel in podcast form for people who want to listen to your show while driving?
I do a lot of Drach listening while driving... You miss some visuals but its the only way I can catch up/keep up!!!
Carrier vs Carrier Slapfest with 8 inch guns love it
As you progress in this series and get to the battle plans in place for 1941 I hope you will discuss Admiral Nimitz’s statements regarding the tragedy at Pearl Harbor but also the “what if” from his biography. “It had become clear to him (Nimitz) that the “Pearl Harbor disaster” was not nearly so disastrous as it might have been. The damage could, in his words, “very easily have been devastatingly greater.” Had Admiral Kimmel received timely warning of the enemy’s approach, he would “by all the rules” have had the fleet at sea to intercept the attacking force. With luck he might have joined Vice Admiral William F. Halsey’s Enterprise force, which was approaching Oahu after delivering a marine fighter squadron to Wake. But the Japanese striking force included six carriers and it had at least a 2-knot speed advantage. Hence, had Kimmel put to sea and met the enemy, his whole fleet would almost certainly have been sunk-in deep water beyond salvage, with a loss of 20,000 men.”
- Nimitz by E.B. Potter
a.co/8b5pyOO
I’ve never seen this discussed anywhere and would enjoy listening to your experienced opinion.
When I was in the Army I was always OpFor/Red team because of my increased skill in tactics, camouflage, ambush, and field craft, despite being a PFC and later a Specialist. I was allowed to pick my team and plan my ops based on the training scenario provided by the Company or Battalion training NCO.
With the exception of the last training exercise where the Battalion SMG found out I was behind all the insulting shenanigans and tagged me on his side to keep me from using my skills to embarrass the Blue Team.
ProTip: The Enemy always cheats.
I'd like to hear comments from surviving sailors regarding theses fleet exercises. They sound like they were a more intense leaning-curve than some of the actual battles.
This is cool. 👌
Problem 8 presages the difficulty of stopping Japanese reinforcements to Guadalcanal.
very interesting - THANK YOU! .. but would it be possible to add some maps for future versions?
“Friendly fire”: The ultimate example of FUBAR.
I always thought that in the Second World War the Americans were guilty of freindly fire because they were not well trained and didn't recognise British ships, planes and other equipment. But it seems the problem dated from a decade earlier, even with their own ships.
HMS Nelson casually showing up for the exercise, "Hey guys, what's going on?" LOL
Negative results in pretests is better for learning purposes so one can see what weaknesses exist and what corrections can be made prior to the actual test. Fortunate mistakes in a pretest leaves the weakness in place.