Hey Mike! Former US Navy aircraft carrier nuclear reactor operator here! In 5 years serving on the USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71), we only got to watch one movie in the movie theater (aka hangar bay 2 🤣). That was Star Wars - The Phantom Menace. That was back in 1999. I don't think that really qualifies as having a movie theater. Also, the only library I had ever heard of on board was the technical library we had for operating manuals. It's possible the top-siders (everyone else that wasn't in Reactor Department) had a library, but we didn't really mingle with them much.
Nuclear reactor operator, Cool! That's what I would want to be if I were in the Navy, only I'd want to serve aboard submarines. Your service is greatly appreciated.
Hello, fellow Nuke! I served on one of the last nuclear cruisers (USS Mississippi, CGN-40) and even that tiny thing had a library. It sucked, but it was there.
@@mikeanderson1722 Huh. I actually wasn't aware of that many nuclear-powered, non-carrier surface vessels... I knew a guy fom the Bainbridge, a guy from the SoCar (South Carolina), and one from the Long Beach. Crazy thing is that I was in the Navy when all but one was decommissioned (the Texas).
I visited the Midway which is retired in San Diego. Having grown up in a very landlocked place well away from any ocean, I was certain it was HUGE. It was big but not nearly as big as my mind had envisioned. However, it makes the idea of taking off and landind a plane yet more absurd and dangerous. But it happens.
The Aircraft Carrier being flown over at the start of the video is the CV-10 USS Yorktown, a museum ship now located in Charleston, South Carolina. Built during WW2, it inherited its name in honor of the carrier that was lost at the Battle of Midway. I have personally visited the ship and it's well worth the trip for any history, naval, or aviation buff.
An aircraft carrier, even in its earliest (pre-WWII) form was able to deliver what amounts to a naval barrage at a range of hundreds of miles from the fleet. That's an exponential upgrade in offensive capabilities not overtaken till the advent of ICBM's.
Great video again Mike. Ex CVS21 HMAS Melbourne crew member here. Surprised you didn't mention the Australian built seaplane carrier Albatross or the former HMS Majestic (later Melbourne) which had some of the first new techs incorporated into it, like the steam catapult, mirror landing system and angled deck in 1952. But still enjoyed it mate. Bravo Zulu. 🙂
Carriers never killed the battleship. Aircraft have sunk some battleships in combat, but carriers can never replace the battleship. They have totally different roles and capabilities. Battleships weren't removed from service until the 1990s. And active battleships in WW2 were scrapped until the 1960s or later, decades after WW2 had ended. Battleships were removed due to cost of production, maintenance, crew size, and lack of enemy navies post-WW2 not having battleships. Today the role of the battleship is carried out by Cruisers and very large Destroyers.
@@SoloRenegade Yeah, if we had to face British Empire-level navies we'd go back to battleships quickly. Or rather, add them back to our other production. A modern battleship could possibly be invulnerable to a carrier strike force. Just a massive ship bristling with missiles, AA, torpedoes, drones, etc. Or conversely, something that could hold it's own but also shell targets extremely far away. Shelling is much cheaper per boom than missiles and you can fit more.
@@gratefulguy4130 yes, it took numerous strikes by hundreds of aircraft to take out Musashi and Yamato, and failed to turn back the center force fleet. Only 2 battleships were lost at Pearl Harbor. And despite having Many carriers at samar the next day, they were helpless to stop the center force and had to run for their lives. Carriers failed to win Guadalcanal (3 major battles), but as soon as the US battleships were used, Guadalcanal was won and Japan pulled their forces off the island. Even Kamikazes weren't enough to stop a fleet.
I think nothing more highlights the coming of age of carriers was when the USN’s most decorated ship from World War 2 was USS Enterprise (CV-6). A Yorktown-Class Carrier that had seen every major engagement barring Coral Sea. Was responsible for the lions share of the kills at Midway. Survived damage that had disabled other carriers and kept on going both through design and a dedicated crew. Was at one point the only Allied Aircraft Carrier available for combat in the Pacific. A fact her crew highlighted by placing a sign saying “Enterprise vs Japan” on her flight deck. Finally, she introduced Night Carrier Ops for the U.S. Navy. Including night fighters, night bombers, electronic warfare aircraft and a prototype AWACS and 174 hours of non-stop ops off of Iwo Jima.
@@Mustapha1963 at least they didn't the same with Intrepid. Would be even more shameful (at least to me) to scrap her too. Hope they don't do it in the near future
@@NayuzAqua You've given me a topic for doing a bit of reading. Why were some ships preserved and others not? It seems to me from having read a bit about the unsuccessful effort to preserve Enterprise that Congress played a role in determining a ship's fate.
@@Mustapha1963 (my previous comment seems to have been deleted. At least for me. Wtf?) Money probably has a part in this. Preserving a ship is hella costly from what I've read online (so you can doubt, I sometimes doubt too). Specially when you put it in water. But then you have cases like IJN Mikasa that is preserved out of the water and is really old. And Avrora who is preserved but still in water and is also old. Some times I wonder if it's the size of the ship who mainly plais a role, specially for going to scrap because you can obtain a lot of steel (like the british with their last battleship, I think it was the Conqueror).
@@NayuzAqua I certainly sympathize with posts disappearing. Happens to me all the time. Ain't technology grand? You're right of course that preserving a ship costs a huge amount of money. In the case of the Enterprise, though, a fund was set up for donations to preserve the ship and several hundred thousand dollars were raised. Either Congress or the DoD still scrapped it. Mikasa is the only ship of what came to be called "pre-dreadnoughts" to still exist. I think Aurora might be the only cruiser of its type and vintage to still exist. Japan and Russia venerate their history.
The aircraft carrier "changed the way war was waged forever" in the 1930s when the US went on a major effort to build the Essex-class aircraft carriers. These carriers basically won the war in the Pacific in WW II. Of course the Japanese recognized this as well when they built their powerful fleet carriers at the same time. However they didn't have the industrial capacity to keep building carriers to replace their losses and were overwhelmed by the US. Battleships became relegated to escort duty and shore bombardment for amphibious invasions. I'm surprised Mike didn't discuss the Essex-class carriers. They served into the Vietnam era.
It’s just missing the significance of the cruise missile, because while battleships as a capital ship might’ve been rendered obsolete other big gun warships were still relevant well into the 50s. It was only cruise missiles allowed surface combatants to give up their monstrous main batteries that the era of the big gun warship ended completely
The ESSEX class aircraft carriers did indeed spearhead the U.S. advance across the Pacific toward the Japanese homeland, and were flexible and adaptable to be modernized to operate jet aircraft after WWII. However, the lead ship ESSEX wasn't available to the U.S. Navy until 1943. It was in 1942 that the U.S. Navy carrier forces had to fight their Japanese counterparts on roughly equal or even disadvantageous terms, at Coral Sea, Midway, and twice off Guadalcanal. These battles were fought with the YORKTOWN and LEXINGTON classes, with WASP playing its part for just over a month before she was lost. The opposing carrier forces had fought each other to exhaustion by the end of 1942, but it was the United States that could rebuild its force much more quickly with the ESSEX and INDEPENDENCE classes of carriers. While effective and decisive after 1942, these later ships never faced the odds that the earlier U.S. carriers had faced against the Japanese.
I think you might have forgotten to mention the significance of the battle of the Coral Sea. It was the first battle where the combating ships did not see each other and aircraft were used to carry out the attacks.
The battle of the Coral Sea didn't really change anything. The Japanese got the idea after the Taranto raid and the US had no choice but to rely on aircraft carriers, in the pacific theatre, after Pearl Harbour.
@@waveygravey9347It was significant in being the first fought by two fleets at sea though. Taranto and Pearl were attacks at ships anchored in harbor, no room to maneuver. But Coral Sea showed how the greater range of carrier aircraft made the pace and dimensions of fleet battles much different. While in a battle line both fleets would need to see each other to engage and be limited by the range of their guns, carriers could launch their planes in any direction and still maneuver away from the enemy. Admirals had to contend with new factors like the how long it would take strikes to arrive, wind direction for launches and landing, weather, if intelligence on the enemy fleet was accurate, how much aircraft to launch and keep in reserve, and various other problems. It was a whole new ballgame.
@@waveygravey9347 Well considering it pretty much completely changed the way fleet battles had been fought for the last 300+ years or whenever gunpowder was invented, I'd consider that pretty significant.
The idea that the battleship was obsolete was highly influenced by Halsey's near fatal failure to detach VADM Lee's TF 34 to guard the San Bernadino Strait. Had he done so the Battle of Leyte Gulf would have been decided by the battleships of 3rd and 7th Fleet. The reason battleships were mothballed and scrapped post war was cost and there were no longer adversary capital ships to fight to justify that cost. Only the US Navy could afford to keep them.
I think the era of the aircraft carrier will be coming to an end in the next 20 years, victims of their own success. They're too expensive and take too long to build in numbers, and are becoming too hard to defend with vertical launch cell technology. You don't even have to hit them to mission kill them now: you just have to be able to send enough cheap missiles at them en masse to get the escorts to expend their standard missile allotments and the whole task force has to run for a port to reload because you can't do that at sea. We can afford to build them like Essex classes anymore and if you can take out even one you've just sent 25-33% of the US' currently operating carrier forces to the sea floor. I wonder what will come next? (If the Navy can figure out lasers and rail guns, I'll probably rethink my opinion though.)
I came here to say this as well. This is the fact born out by actual history and not a trope that's been spouted time and time again. When the Soviets brought out the Kirovs did the US counter them with CVNs? No they countered them by recommissioning the Iowas. You have battleships when you expect peer opponent surface warfare or when you need to massively deny area of ocean conspicuously. If anything "obsoleted" the battleship? It was the SSBN, note that they are what got the state names... not the aircraft carriers. Even then I'd say that like the tank, the so called death of Naval surface warfare has been wrong for a long time. Sorry Mike Brady, but whomever wrote this script... should be fired. This is not good history, it's just wrong.
@@cavalierliberty6838 I used to think that too, but when you watch SINKEX video you very quickly realize that missiles aren't designed to sink ships, just take them out of action. Because of course a ship in the yard is a ship blocking where a new ship could be getting fitted out or built. Just like how during WWII the germans realized that wounding was much more productive than killing. What recent world events show if you look closely is that very few things are fully obsolete. But, the time and place to use them may no longer be present; or may not yet have rematerialized. With the growth of other navies in recent years I would not be surprised to see a return of large surface combatants. Subs can deny an area but are very vulnerable. Carriers can project force but can't really deny area.
Halsey did not screw up. He was using the battleships to hit the IJN fleet after the carrier strike, to completely sink the IJN fleet in its entirety in a surface action (something carriers have NEVER proven capable of doing). Others screwed up falsely believing he was leaving the battleships behind, and never bothered to verify what they had heard (they had overheard communications not intended for them).
The Doolittle Raid was a prime example of what the carrier could do. Yes, they had to ditch the planes, but it proved to Japan that they weren't safe in their homeland any longer.
The British raid on Toronto showed the true potential of the aircraft carriers which happened way b4 the doolittle raid which done very little damage & the Japanese based their attack on pearl harbour from the British attack on the Italian navy
The Doolittle raid, the one that resulted in essentially zero damage to Japan, all aircraft lost, multiple aircrews lost, and hundreds of thousands of Chinese killed in reprisals? You really could have cited like, any other carrier operation and made a better point haha.
Carriers never killed the battleship. Aircraft have sunk some battleships in combat, but carriers can never replace the battleship. They have totally different roles and capabilities. Battleships weren't removed from service until the 1990s. And active battleships in WW2 were scrapped until the 1960s or later, decades after WW2 had ended. Battleships were removed due to cost of production, maintenance, crew size, and lack of enemy navies post-WW2 not having battleships. Today the role of the battleship is carried out by Cruisers and very large Destroyers. Without the Battleships in WW2, the US and Japanese carriers could not operate with impunity. Only due to battleships performing their role properly, were carriers able to carry out their roles successfully.
The Bismarck tied up a ridiculous amount of the Royal navy in WWII that could have been in other theaters between trying to find it and defend against it. I believe Yamato had a similar effect.
@@gratefulguy4130 you are correct. and the moment US battleships showed up at Guadalcanal, Japan surrendered Guadalcanal. 3 prior carrier battles failed to achieve that effect. And look how much airpower it took just to sink Musashi and Yamato. Hundreds of aircraft over many hours. And despite sinking Musashi, carriers failed to turn back center force, and the next day the numerous carriers off Samar were helpless to stop center force. But US battleships decimated the entire southern force in mere minutes. Halsey took US battleships with him to sink all of the northern force, knowing aircraft alone couldn't do the job. but being forced to turn back the battleships to assist taffy3 in a battle that was already over meant that the northern force remained intact.
It wasn’t the cost or the crewing requirements. In 1945 a battleships guns could only reach 30 mile’s whereas carrier aircraft could hit targets at 300 miles. That’s a quote from a naval history book written four decades ago that I have in my collection.
Only problem is that authors of naval books written 40 years ago didn't have access to the information available today because it was classified. We now know for example that the Royal Navy had enormous manpower problems between 1944 and 1945 and struggled to crew her KGV class battleships in the Pacific. They even had to offer incentives to inmates serving time in military and civilian prions to volunteer for the navy.
I wasn’t expecting to wake up and see a picture of Hornet as the thumbnail, got really excited for a minute. She’s my favorite ship across all of history, civilian or military. A tad disappointed it’s just a general video on carriers, but always a joy for Hornet to get even a little attention.
USS Ranger is the only US Fleet Carrier that didn’t serve in the pacific. It didn’t do that because it was needed in the Atlantic, it was because as the similar CV-7 Wasp showed, the design principles Ranger was built on didn’t have enough protection. Wasp was sunk only a few months after joining the pacific fleet by a Japanese submarine, and neither Wasp nor Ranger had very well torpedo protection.
@@TracySmith-xy9tq That can be, but Ranger didn’t see any combat service in the pacific. I don’t know if it encountered any in the Atlantic, but it didn’t serve in the pacific theater as a combat vessel
Technically HMS Hermes was the first purpose built aircraft carrier - she was laid down a full two years before Hosho during WW1, but delays in her construction meant Hosho launched first as the British used the lack of pressure from the war to experiment with the design. Hosho herself was inspired by the modified HMS Furious after she received her second flight deck. Speaking of, I'm glad you mentioned Furious. A battlecruiser (sorry, 'large light cruiser' 😂) with a short flight deck at the bow, a single 18in gun at the stern and light cruiser armour has to be in the running for the weirdest warship design in history. Not sure what Admiral Fisher was smoking when he dreamed up _that_ idea, especially since her half-sisters were pretty conventional. Also, shout out to HMS Argus for her incredible history - the Hat Box was not only the first flat top carrier in the world, but also at one stage (after the sinking of Ark Royal) during WW2 the only active carrier in the Med. The 30 year old warhorse provided air cover for Force H alone for more than two months, and even after that spent months providing air cover for Eagle while the bigger carrier flew off aircraft for Gibraltar and Malta.
A great review! I didn't realize they started using balloons so early on; always learn neat things from your work. It's interesting how... well... almost delicate and simple the first carriers looked, but then, the planes back then were equally so. Thanks much for another great video Mike and team!
Things become obsolete when a more effective way to achieve the same thing is found. The purpose of battleships was to bring enough firepower to overpower other battleships. Nowadays an average destroyer or fregat is capable of carrying enough firepower to take out any battleship, achieving the same goal much cheaper.
a lot of those cruiser and battleship conversions were the result of the 1922 Washington naval treaty, which limited the number of capital ships a navy could have but did not mention carriers.
I understand the reason behind the aircraft carrier taking over the role of the battleship, but I'm just that rare breed that's on the side of the old battle wagons. It's great to know that nine still exist to present the rich history behind the battleship. 1 pre-dreadnought, 1 superdreadnought and 7 fast battleships. Great job as always, Mike. I really do love naval history.
I have to agree with this sentiment. Having been aboard the USS Missouri multiple times, there's just something to be said for the feeling of being aboard a battleship as compared to a carrier. Plus there's also that additional psychological effect that actually seeing a battleship sitting within firing range has that's simply understated.
I agree with a lot of these comments re battleships are just the bees knees etc, however the Pearl harbor 1941 devastating attack by the Japanese was achieved from aircraft carriers, no other type of ships were involved. Why didn't they send in their battleships then? We all know why, but that is a mute point, their attack succeeded in inflicting a lot of damage on the US battleships. BUT, the US aircraft carriers were not in port and therefore not damaged and still intact, these proved to be the deciding factor in future battles at Midway etc. I have a model WW2 battleship at home, because the battleship looks so damned menacing, that is probably why they copied the shape in the star wars movies. .
@@TerryHickey-xt4mf What ship is the model? I've got a few myself. Plus, I have visited the USS New Jersey back in June 2021 and the USS Massachusetts about 2 months ago. I'm planning of heading out to Pearl Harbor in the next several months to visit the USS Missouri and the remains of the USS Arizona, while also taking a much-needed vacation. The look of a battleship stirs the imagination a lot compared to an aircraft carrier. Even today's carriers don't have that imposing presence that a battleship has. Also sticking with Pear Harbor for a minute. Despite the fact that the Japanese took out the many battleships in Battleship Row and bombed the numerous airfields across the island, they failed to destroy the critical infrastructure (fuel and oil depos, drydocks, etc.) to keep the US out of the war for a long time.
I would love a series, with an episode for each nation that had or has a substantial naval force, about their carriers from conversion and concepts and how they developend upto and including WW2. The first keel up aircraft carrier for the US was USS Ranger (CV4). Langley was a first try out and a conversion from a 10 year old supply ship, the superstructure was simply cut off and the original bridge was located underneath the flightdeck just aft of the forward weldeck. CV2 and 3, the Lexington class, were conversions from the Lexington class battlecruisers under construction, but had to be cancelled because of the Washington naval treaty and converted into aircraft carriers.
@@TerryHickey-xt4mfproblem with that logic is that even cheaper and smaller ships like destroyers and frigates can carry missiles as well, making the role of the battleships redundant.
As well as the whole reason for battleship sizes has to do with the size of their guns. With studies showing 120-152 mm naval guns being the optimal size and missiles and aircraft have much greater range than even the largest guns, why do we need battleships when smaller destroyers and cruisers can fill their role more than adequately.
It took several US aircraft carriers to sink the Yamato, the same was true of the Musashi. In World War II Britain lost 5 fleet aircraft carriers and 5 battleships/battlecruisers, both proved to be highly vulnerable to both aircraft, submarines and other battleships. The British could have really done with a battleship in 1982 for knocking out Port Stanley runway and other Argentine positions.
Love the video Mike!! I was wondering since being from Philly and leaving here idk if you heard the news about the SS Unite States being sunk to become an artificial reef. It was suppose to leave pier 82 tomorrow but got delayed due to weather. It would be so cool if you made a video about the history of what we Philly ppl say “the Philadelphia Titanic”!
Hi Mike! Have you ever looked up the USS Coral Sea? My grandfather served on that ship during his time in the Navy, and from what I understand one of her anchors is in Australia! ⚓he apparently worked with the machinery, I have his notes and even a diagram of the high pressure/low pressure turbines 😊
Right!? Nearly unwatchable. I didnt even make it 10 seconds into the video before I was forced to turn it up slightly. I'm seriously considering unsubscribing.
@@jasonheckenlively1172 I mean, I think unsubscribing is a bit of a harsh reaction, this is the first time this has happened. If EVERY video started being mixed this low, then maybe. I don't control you, though.
Another interesting video, Mike. In the alt history series Southern Victory/Timeline-191 by Harry Turtledove, navel POV character Sam Carsten goes from a deck-hand to a commanding officer, and some of his experiences involve serving on early aircraft carriers after the SV/TL191's Great War/WWI into the Second Great War/WWII. Turtledove does point out that, USS Remembrance, was started as a cruiser, and was transformed partway through construction into an aircraft carrier, and that later carriers were built keel-up to be such. For an alternate history series, its pretty good IMO and worth reading (know you're from Down Under) to see a fictionalized navy use the same concepts used in our world.
Superb overview of the subject that cleverly avoids falling into the trap of being drawn into deeper technical detail and missing the big picture. It pinpoints important milestones without for example being drawn into debate about who had the best carriers or aircraft. All that stuff is covered in infinite detail elsewhere on the internet. So I think this video has been very well scripted and produced.
Excellent video Mike! It's fascinating to see how carriers went from just an idea to the thing that ultimately made battleships obsolete. My dad was an aircraft mechanic on the USS Enterprise (the legendary CVN-65) and I often wonder what it was really like to serve on board one of the mightiest warships ever built!
It’s my friend Mike Brady! From Oceanliner Designs! Oh and the USA extended the lives of its WWII battleships to actually serve during the 1991 Gulf War, launching cruise missiles into Iraq from the USS Iowa!
Wondering if you'd ever be willing to do a video on the SS Edmund Fitzgerald? Steel Mill ship that sunk 15 miles off of whitefish bay in Lake Superior in 1975, Nov 10th. Great content btw!!
18:22 my mind jumped immediately to a 4 parter documentary by name "Warship: A History of War at Sea" and specifically the 4th. part which also talks about the advent of the Aircraft carriers. And while has been some time since I've watched it, I still remember that the Officer in charge, Admiral Joseph Mason "Bull" Reeves broke of a small flotilla comprised of Lexington, CV-2, Saratoga, CV-3, and some vessels for protection/assistance and made a surprisingly successful attack run on the Panama Canal they launched the planes fairly far out at sea, after which the both Carriers made best possible speed towards the engagement zone for retrieval operations. Reason for braking them of the main force was a fuel shortage
The Yamato proved as resilient and tough as she looked. It took US aircraft actually 3 and a half hours of constant bombardment and torpedo attacks to bring her down. Yamato suffered 17 direct bomb hits and took 11 torpedoes before she capsized and during all that, she never lost power and her propellers were still turning when she went down just after that horrendous explosion that could be heard for 200 miles away. The Musashi underwent a similar torture, only not by aircraft, but the guns and torpedoes from US Navy ships. Those ships were as tough as they could be made, and the question remains today how a direct confrontation between Yamato and the Iowa class ships would go.
I would like to add in the experimental part: the first use of an aircraft carrier in combat was in 1925 during the Riff War in Morocco when the Spanish navy used their carrier ‘Dédalo’ to transport hydroplanes to the front which were then used to provide aerial support the landings at Alhucemas. Which also, in fact, was the first amphibious assault involving tanks in history. 2 naval achievements in the same battle
Battleships were heavily armored, designed to withstand relentless attacks from other ships and shore-based artillery. Their survivability and destructive power made them central to naval strategies during the early 20th century.
Hello my freind mike brady from oceanliner designs! Can you do a video on the 1952 Nor'easter that split two massive tankers in half and the rescue attemps that followed :D i know youve mentioned it briefly in another video but can you go into detail about the other T2's that where built for the war.
The statement about the Battle of Leyte Gulf is a slight oversight on an aspect of the battle as during the encompassed Battle of the Surigao Strait, only surface ships participated in this nighttime, ship to ship action, which included five U.S. battleships and two Japanese battleships. After a series of ambush torpedo attacks by PT boats and destroyers, the Japanese fleet had it's '"'T'-crossed" by several U.S. cruisers and the five battleships which decimated the enemy fleet. This battle is considered to be the last battleship on battleship conflict in world history.
The clash of the titans between New Jersey and Yamato etc. could easily have happened had Admiral Halsey not been lured away by the empty carriers of the Japanese northern group.
@@philiphumphrey1548 or had he done what he said he was going to do and leave the fleet of fast battleships, which included New Jersey, to guard the San Bernardino Strait. It was supposed to be called something like, "Task Force 73," but I could have the number designation wrong.
Surprised you didn’t mention the attempted marriage of a battleship hull and a carrier deck in Shinano. She was to be the third Yamato Class vessel and was converted to carrier following the loss of Akagi, Kaga, Soryu, and Hiryu at Midway.
14:56 Musashi and Yamato are the two ships completed according to the original plans, the 3rd ship, the Shinano, of 5 planned units of the class was already converted in the shipyard to a Fleet aircraft carrier (one of the largest of that Time) and the fourth was demolished in dry dock after the cessation of all hostilities
On the earliest carriers I see no means of aircraft storage other than on the main deck. When was the development of the elevator and below deck storage areas. It's more easily understood how planes could take off and land from the flat top when there were no other aircraft on it.
Another of the very first aircraft carriers ever built, was HMS Eagle, built from a battleship hull. That battleship was originally supposed to be sold to Chilean Navy as a Super-Dreadnought Almirante Latorre-class, "Almirante Cochrane", but the outbreak of WWI made it impossible.
Don't forget the post-WW1 naval treaties limits on total tonnage per navy. A carrier is mostly empty space, and lightly armored. And with advances in aircraft, could pack an absolute wallop. It was a natural path from the floating bricks that are battleships.
Bringing back memories of my US Navy days, though I served on a small ASW Frigate. But a sailor is a sailor, no matter the vessel. 😎👍 But you do need to revisit the correct pronunciation of some names..... Potomac, Delano, etc
I watched the Frigates from the flight deck of the Cora Sea. I agree on the pronunciation, I can't believe there isn't a random American roaming around down under that he could run the scripts by for the normal American pronunciation. Heck, he could forward them to me and I'd do it.
Thanks to their radars, the Iowa class ships could sneak up to enemy ships at night or in fog, and just finish them off without being seen. The Royal Navy had such a success with radar-guided guns in the Battle of Cape Matapan, where they decimated Italian forces. But for further ranges, airplanes were needed anyway.
Hey Mike! Former US Navy aircraft carrier nuclear reactor operator here!
In 5 years serving on the USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71), we only got to watch one movie in the movie theater (aka hangar bay 2 🤣). That was Star Wars - The Phantom Menace. That was back in 1999. I don't think that really qualifies as having a movie theater.
Also, the only library I had ever heard of on board was the technical library we had for operating manuals. It's possible the top-siders (everyone else that wasn't in Reactor Department) had a library, but we didn't really mingle with them much.
Nuclear reactor operator, Cool! That's what I would want to be if I were in the Navy, only I'd want to serve aboard submarines. Your service is greatly appreciated.
Hello, fellow Nuke! I served on one of the last nuclear cruisers (USS Mississippi, CGN-40) and even that tiny thing had a library. It sucked, but it was there.
@@mikeanderson1722 Huh. I actually wasn't aware of that many nuclear-powered, non-carrier surface vessels... I knew a guy fom the Bainbridge, a guy from the SoCar (South Carolina), and one from the Long Beach. Crazy thing is that I was in the Navy when all but one was decommissioned (the Texas).
You were in the same ship as my dad, around the same time.
@@kristophermyers8676 Trying to think... Is he a fairly tall, slender guy? Was he an ET? I *THINK* I remember an ET named Myers.
Aircraft carriers are very impressive, with an incredible history Mike . Thank you for this .
I visited the Midway which is retired in San Diego. Having grown up in a very landlocked place well away from any ocean, I was certain it was HUGE. It was big but not nearly as big as my mind had envisioned. However, it makes the idea of taking off and landind a plane yet more absurd and dangerous. But it happens.
The Aircraft Carrier being flown over at the start of the video is the CV-10 USS Yorktown, a museum ship now located in Charleston, South Carolina. Built during WW2, it inherited its name in honor of the carrier that was lost at the Battle of Midway. I have personally visited the ship and it's well worth the trip for any history, naval, or aviation buff.
An aircraft carrier, even in its earliest (pre-WWII) form was able to deliver what amounts to a naval barrage at a range of hundreds of miles from the fleet. That's an exponential upgrade in offensive capabilities not overtaken till the advent of ICBM's.
Great video again Mike. Ex CVS21 HMAS Melbourne crew member here. Surprised you didn't mention the Australian built seaplane carrier Albatross or the former HMS Majestic (later Melbourne) which had some of the first new techs incorporated into it, like the steam catapult, mirror landing system and angled deck in 1952. But still enjoyed it mate. Bravo Zulu. 🙂
"how aircraft carriers killed the battleship?". With airplanes, they used airplanes.
With bombs they used bombs
With torpedos they used rorpedos
With explosives they used explosives
😂
Carriers never killed the battleship. Aircraft have sunk some battleships in combat, but carriers can never replace the battleship. They have totally different roles and capabilities.
Battleships weren't removed from service until the 1990s. And active battleships in WW2 were scrapped until the 1960s or later, decades after WW2 had ended. Battleships were removed due to cost of production, maintenance, crew size, and lack of enemy navies post-WW2 not having battleships. Today the role of the battleship is carried out by Cruisers and very large Destroyers.
@@SoloRenegade Yeah, if we had to face British Empire-level navies we'd go back to battleships quickly. Or rather, add them back to our other production.
A modern battleship could possibly be invulnerable to a carrier strike force. Just a massive ship bristling with missiles, AA, torpedoes, drones, etc.
Or conversely, something that could hold it's own but also shell targets extremely far away. Shelling is much cheaper per boom than missiles and you can fit more.
Scharnhost and Gneisnau will beg to differ as they sank the HMS Glorious.
@@gratefulguy4130 yes, it took numerous strikes by hundreds of aircraft to take out Musashi and Yamato, and failed to turn back the center force fleet. Only 2 battleships were lost at Pearl Harbor. And despite having Many carriers at samar the next day, they were helpless to stop the center force and had to run for their lives.
Carriers failed to win Guadalcanal (3 major battles), but as soon as the US battleships were used, Guadalcanal was won and Japan pulled their forces off the island.
Even Kamikazes weren't enough to stop a fleet.
Hey! It’s our friend, Mike Brady, from Oceanliner Designs, and he’s got another warship video!
F-MAN!🫡
Hey! It's the Ferrari guy!
@@NoraidenBRITANNIC! 🫡
@@pilotlasse*Formerly 😛
Woohoo! More goodness from our friend Mike Brady!
I’m a simple man. I see a new video from our friend Mike Brady and I click
Same😁
Hmmm... collab between Oceanliner and Drachinifel?
Or/and Dr. Alex clark, which made his thesis on British CVs...
I would like to see that LOL.
I think nothing more highlights the coming of age of carriers was when the USN’s most decorated ship from World War 2 was USS Enterprise (CV-6). A Yorktown-Class Carrier that had seen every major engagement barring Coral Sea. Was responsible for the lions share of the kills at Midway. Survived damage that had disabled other carriers and kept on going both through design and a dedicated crew. Was at one point the only Allied Aircraft Carrier available for combat in the Pacific. A fact her crew highlighted by placing a sign saying “Enterprise vs Japan” on her flight deck. Finally, she introduced Night Carrier Ops for the U.S. Navy. Including night fighters, night bombers, electronic warfare aircraft and a prototype AWACS and 174 hours of non-stop ops off of Iwo Jima.
Excellent call. It was a national disgrace that she was scrapped rather than preserved as a memorial.
@@Mustapha1963 at least they didn't the same with Intrepid. Would be even more shameful (at least to me) to scrap her too. Hope they don't do it in the near future
@@NayuzAqua You've given me a topic for doing a bit of reading. Why were some ships preserved and others not? It seems to me from having read a bit about the unsuccessful effort to preserve Enterprise that Congress played a role in determining a ship's fate.
@@Mustapha1963 (my previous comment seems to have been deleted. At least for me. Wtf?)
Money probably has a part in this. Preserving a ship is hella costly from what I've read online (so you can doubt, I sometimes doubt too). Specially when you put it in water. But then you have cases like IJN Mikasa that is preserved out of the water and is really old. And Avrora who is preserved but still in water and is also old.
Some times I wonder if it's the size of the ship who mainly plais a role, specially for going to scrap because you can obtain a lot of steel (like the british with their last battleship, I think it was the Conqueror).
@@NayuzAqua I certainly sympathize with posts disappearing. Happens to me all the time. Ain't technology grand?
You're right of course that preserving a ship costs a huge amount of money. In the case of the Enterprise, though, a fund was set up for donations to preserve the ship and several hundred thousand dollars were raised. Either Congress or the DoD still scrapped it.
Mikasa is the only ship of what came to be called "pre-dreadnoughts" to still exist. I think Aurora might be the only cruiser of its type and vintage to still exist. Japan and Russia venerate their history.
The aircraft carrier "changed the way war was waged forever" in the 1930s when the US went on a major effort to build the Essex-class aircraft carriers. These carriers basically won the war in the Pacific in WW II. Of course the Japanese recognized this as well when they built their powerful fleet carriers at the same time. However they didn't have the industrial capacity to keep building carriers to replace their losses and were overwhelmed by the US. Battleships became relegated to escort duty and shore bombardment for amphibious invasions.
I'm surprised Mike didn't discuss the Essex-class carriers. They served into the Vietnam era.
They also didn't have fire suppression systems.
It’s just missing the significance of the cruise missile, because while battleships as a capital ship might’ve been rendered obsolete other big gun warships were still relevant well into the 50s. It was only cruise missiles allowed surface combatants to give up their monstrous main batteries that the era of the big gun warship ended completely
There’s also the fact that the Essex-Class Carriers were built off of the still successful if treaty restricted Yorktown-Class.
Essex class CV's were built in the 40's
The ESSEX class aircraft carriers did indeed spearhead the U.S. advance across the Pacific toward the Japanese homeland, and were flexible and adaptable to be modernized to operate jet aircraft after WWII. However, the lead ship ESSEX wasn't available to the U.S. Navy until 1943. It was in 1942 that the U.S. Navy carrier forces had to fight their Japanese counterparts on roughly equal or even disadvantageous terms, at Coral Sea, Midway, and twice off Guadalcanal. These battles were fought with the YORKTOWN and LEXINGTON classes, with WASP playing its part for just over a month before she was lost. The opposing carrier forces had fought each other to exhaustion by the end of 1942, but it was the United States that could rebuild its force much more quickly with the ESSEX and INDEPENDENCE classes of carriers. While effective and decisive after 1942, these later ships never faced the odds that the earlier U.S. carriers had faced against the Japanese.
I think you might have forgotten to mention the significance of the battle of the Coral Sea. It was the first battle where the combating ships did not see each other and aircraft were used to carry out the attacks.
The battle of the Coral Sea didn't really change anything. The Japanese got the idea after the Taranto raid and the US had no choice but to rely on aircraft carriers, in the pacific theatre, after Pearl Harbour.
No he did not forget
@@waveygravey9347It was significant in being the first fought by two fleets at sea though. Taranto and Pearl were attacks at ships anchored in harbor, no room to maneuver. But Coral Sea showed how the greater range of carrier aircraft made the pace and dimensions of fleet battles much different. While in a battle line both fleets would need to see each other to engage and be limited by the range of their guns, carriers could launch their planes in any direction and still maneuver away from the enemy. Admirals had to contend with new factors like the how long it would take strikes to arrive, wind direction for launches and landing, weather, if intelligence on the enemy fleet was accurate, how much aircraft to launch and keep in reserve, and various other problems. It was a whole new ballgame.
@@wolftamer5463 That would be notable not significant.
@@waveygravey9347 Well considering it pretty much completely changed the way fleet battles had been fought for the last 300+ years or whenever gunpowder was invented, I'd consider that pretty significant.
Sometime, look into Two carriers on the Great Lakes, U.S.S. Sable and Wolverine.
Only two paddle powered carriers ever built.
Yes please, they were converted from paddle-wheel steamers.
My dad carrier qualified on the Sable in May 1944 with eight carrier landings.
ua-cam.com/video/dbs62RLs2GY/v-deo.htmlsi=Xus7r6td_ogpP5bd
Yes please, two ships that deserve recognition.
The idea that the battleship was obsolete was highly influenced by Halsey's near fatal failure to detach VADM Lee's TF 34 to guard the San Bernadino Strait. Had he done so the Battle of Leyte Gulf would have been decided by the battleships of 3rd and 7th Fleet. The reason battleships were mothballed and scrapped post war was cost and there were no longer adversary capital ships to fight to justify that cost. Only the US Navy could afford to keep them.
I think the era of the aircraft carrier will be coming to an end in the next 20 years, victims of their own success. They're too expensive and take too long to build in numbers, and are becoming too hard to defend with vertical launch cell technology. You don't even have to hit them to mission kill them now: you just have to be able to send enough cheap missiles at them en masse to get the escorts to expend their standard missile allotments and the whole task force has to run for a port to reload because you can't do that at sea. We can afford to build them like Essex classes anymore and if you can take out even one you've just sent 25-33% of the US' currently operating carrier forces to the sea floor. I wonder what will come next? (If the Navy can figure out lasers and rail guns, I'll probably rethink my opinion though.)
I came here to say this as well. This is the fact born out by actual history and not a trope that's been spouted time and time again. When the Soviets brought out the Kirovs did the US counter them with CVNs? No they countered them by recommissioning the Iowas. You have battleships when you expect peer opponent surface warfare or when you need to massively deny area of ocean conspicuously. If anything "obsoleted" the battleship? It was the SSBN, note that they are what got the state names... not the aircraft carriers. Even then I'd say that like the tank, the so called death of Naval surface warfare has been wrong for a long time. Sorry Mike Brady, but whomever wrote this script... should be fired. This is not good history, it's just wrong.
@@NullReference119 the issue nowadays is that most forms of warfare are obsolete when damn near everyone has missiles.
@@cavalierliberty6838 I used to think that too, but when you watch SINKEX video you very quickly realize that missiles aren't designed to sink ships, just take them out of action. Because of course a ship in the yard is a ship blocking where a new ship could be getting fitted out or built. Just like how during WWII the germans realized that wounding was much more productive than killing.
What recent world events show if you look closely is that very few things are fully obsolete. But, the time and place to use them may no longer be present; or may not yet have rematerialized. With the growth of other navies in recent years I would not be surprised to see a return of large surface combatants. Subs can deny an area but are very vulnerable. Carriers can project force but can't really deny area.
Halsey did not screw up. He was using the battleships to hit the IJN fleet after the carrier strike, to completely sink the IJN fleet in its entirety in a surface action (something carriers have NEVER proven capable of doing). Others screwed up falsely believing he was leaving the battleships behind, and never bothered to verify what they had heard (they had overheard communications not intended for them).
The Doolittle Raid was a prime example of what the carrier could do. Yes, they had to ditch the planes, but it proved to Japan that they weren't safe in their homeland any longer.
Moreover it made the Japanese very angry and more prone to make mistakes. Like attacking Midway.
The British raid on Toronto showed the true potential of the aircraft carriers which happened way b4 the doolittle raid which done very little damage & the Japanese based their attack on pearl harbour from the British attack on the Italian navy
The Doolittle raid, the one that resulted in essentially zero damage to Japan, all aircraft lost, multiple aircrews lost, and hundreds of thousands of Chinese killed in reprisals?
You really could have cited like, any other carrier operation and made a better point haha.
@@philiphumphrey1548 It also made them angry in China, killing around 250,000 Chinese civilians in retaliation for the raid.
@@moodogco A collection of 'String bags' Sword Fish Bombers sunk several battleships, an impressive feat that lead to Japanese plans for Pearl Harbor.
Excellent. 10/10. Exactly the doc I wanted to see. Narration and pacing is spot on. Footage outstanding.
DO THE FRENCH SUB SURCOUF
I think they're more like Queens in chess, as they basically go where they want, when they want, and are nigh unstoppable. But that's just me.
Carriers never killed the battleship. Aircraft have sunk some battleships in combat, but carriers can never replace the battleship. They have totally different roles and capabilities.
Battleships weren't removed from service until the 1990s. And active battleships in WW2 were scrapped until the 1960s or later, decades after WW2 had ended. Battleships were removed due to cost of production, maintenance, crew size, and lack of enemy navies post-WW2 not having battleships. Today the role of the battleship is carried out by Cruisers and very large Destroyers.
Without the Battleships in WW2, the US and Japanese carriers could not operate with impunity. Only due to battleships performing their role properly, were carriers able to carry out their roles successfully.
The Bismarck tied up a ridiculous amount of the Royal navy in WWII that could have been in other theaters between trying to find it and defend against it. I believe Yamato had a similar effect.
@@gratefulguy4130 you are correct.
and the moment US battleships showed up at Guadalcanal, Japan surrendered Guadalcanal. 3 prior carrier battles failed to achieve that effect.
And look how much airpower it took just to sink Musashi and Yamato. Hundreds of aircraft over many hours.
And despite sinking Musashi, carriers failed to turn back center force, and the next day the numerous carriers off Samar were helpless to stop center force.
But US battleships decimated the entire southern force in mere minutes.
Halsey took US battleships with him to sink all of the northern force, knowing aircraft alone couldn't do the job. but being forced to turn back the battleships to assist taffy3 in a battle that was already over meant that the northern force remained intact.
Completely False - Aircarft Carriers are USELESS without the Destroyers Protecting them .. if the Destroyers leave the Aircraft Carriers get sunk ..
@BradHartliep-kn9ud I don't think anyone disputed that point?
For those wondering, the Iowa class battleship at 18:22 is BB-61, the Iowa herself in Measure 32 camouflage paint.
It wasn’t the cost or the crewing requirements. In 1945 a battleships guns could only reach 30 mile’s whereas carrier aircraft could hit targets at 300 miles. That’s a quote from a naval history book written four decades ago that I have in my collection.
Only problem is that authors of naval books written 40 years ago didn't have access to the information available today because it was classified. We now know for example that the Royal Navy had enormous manpower problems between 1944 and 1945 and struggled to crew her KGV class battleships in the Pacific. They even had to offer incentives to inmates serving time in military and civilian prions to volunteer for the navy.
I wasn’t expecting to wake up and see a picture of Hornet as the thumbnail, got really excited for a minute. She’s my favorite ship across all of history, civilian or military. A tad disappointed it’s just a general video on carriers, but always a joy for Hornet to get even a little attention.
My father served aboard the carrier, USS Ranger CV4, during WWII
USS Ranger is the only US Fleet Carrier that didn’t serve in the pacific. It didn’t do that because it was needed in the Atlantic, it was because as the similar CV-7 Wasp showed, the design principles Ranger was built on didn’t have enough protection.
Wasp was sunk only a few months after joining the pacific fleet by a Japanese submarine, and neither Wasp nor Ranger had very well torpedo protection.
@General_Dane Ranger did go through the Psnama Canal to visit San Diego though
@@TracySmith-xy9tq That can be, but Ranger didn’t see any combat service in the pacific. I don’t know if it encountered any in the Atlantic, but it didn’t serve in the pacific theater as a combat vessel
@General_Dane the Ranger participated in Operation Torch.
Please tell him thank you.
Good one Mike - thoroughly enjoyed this!
Technically HMS Hermes was the first purpose built aircraft carrier - she was laid down a full two years before Hosho during WW1, but delays in her construction meant Hosho launched first as the British used the lack of pressure from the war to experiment with the design. Hosho herself was inspired by the modified HMS Furious after she received her second flight deck.
Speaking of, I'm glad you mentioned Furious. A battlecruiser (sorry, 'large light cruiser' 😂) with a short flight deck at the bow, a single 18in gun at the stern and light cruiser armour has to be in the running for the weirdest warship design in history. Not sure what Admiral Fisher was smoking when he dreamed up _that_ idea, especially since her half-sisters were pretty conventional.
Also, shout out to HMS Argus for her incredible history - the Hat Box was not only the first flat top carrier in the world, but also at one stage (after the sinking of Ark Royal) during WW2 the only active carrier in the Med. The 30 year old warhorse provided air cover for Force H alone for more than two months, and even after that spent months providing air cover for Eagle while the bigger carrier flew off aircraft for Gibraltar and Malta.
Always great when Mike uploads 👍
A great review! I didn't realize they started using balloons so early on; always learn neat things from your work. It's interesting how... well... almost delicate and simple the first carriers looked, but then, the planes back then were equally so. Thanks much for another great video Mike and team!
Agreed, I wasn't aware balloons were used so much in the Civil War.
The history of lighter-than-air flight is fascinating… and more than a little bit mental
“Ocean liner Design” is a guaranteed top flight view. Thanks, Mike.
Great video Mike. Very interesting to learn about the history and progress of aircraft carriers. Great job 👍
your video is very much appreciated let me just say that
One of the patrons of Oceanliner Designs is listed as "Kaiser Wilhelm II" (1859-1941). Amazing!
Things become obsolete when a more effective way to achieve the same thing is found. The purpose of battleships was to bring enough firepower to overpower other battleships. Nowadays an average destroyer or fregat is capable of carrying enough firepower to take out any battleship, achieving the same goal much cheaper.
My favorite assignment in the US Navy was to be on the first crew of the aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan (CVN-76). Great video was usual Mike.
a lot of those cruiser and battleship conversions were the result of the 1922 Washington naval treaty, which limited the number of capital ships a navy could have but did not mention carriers.
"Did not mention carriers"? Oh dear.. You might want to read up on the Washington naval treaty terms. Even wikipedia has a decent explanation.
@@jbepsilon yep, looks like I got that wrong. trying to remember where i learned that.... it's been decades.
Audio volume's a little low mate
It's Mike Brady! Glad to see you again my friend! 😊
I understand the reason behind the aircraft carrier taking over the role of the battleship, but I'm just that rare breed that's on the side of the old battle wagons. It's great to know that nine still exist to present the rich history behind the battleship. 1 pre-dreadnought, 1 superdreadnought and 7 fast battleships. Great job as always, Mike. I really do love naval history.
I have to agree with this sentiment. Having been aboard the USS Missouri multiple times, there's just something to be said for the feeling of being aboard a battleship as compared to a carrier.
Plus there's also that additional psychological effect that actually seeing a battleship sitting within firing range has that's simply understated.
I agree with a lot of these comments re battleships are just the bees knees etc, however the Pearl harbor 1941 devastating attack by the Japanese was achieved from aircraft carriers, no other type of ships were involved. Why didn't they send in their battleships then? We all know why, but that is a mute point, their attack succeeded in inflicting a lot of damage on the US battleships. BUT, the US aircraft carriers were not in port and therefore not damaged and still intact, these proved to be the deciding factor in future battles at Midway etc. I have a model WW2 battleship at home, because the battleship looks so damned menacing, that is probably why they copied the shape in the star wars movies.
.
@@TerryHickey-xt4mf What ship is the model? I've got a few myself. Plus, I have visited the USS New Jersey back in June 2021 and the USS Massachusetts about 2 months ago. I'm planning of heading out to Pearl Harbor in the next several months to visit the USS Missouri and the remains of the USS Arizona, while also taking a much-needed vacation. The look of a battleship stirs the imagination a lot compared to an aircraft carrier. Even today's carriers don't have that imposing presence that a battleship has. Also sticking with Pear Harbor for a minute. Despite the fact that the Japanese took out the many battleships in Battleship Row and bombed the numerous airfields across the island, they failed to destroy the critical infrastructure (fuel and oil depos, drydocks, etc.) to keep the US out of the war for a long time.
I would love a series, with an episode for each nation that had or has a substantial naval force, about their carriers from conversion and concepts and how they developend upto and including WW2.
The first keel up aircraft carrier for the US was USS Ranger (CV4). Langley was a first try out and a conversion from a 10 year old supply ship, the superstructure was simply cut off and the original bridge was located underneath the flightdeck just aft of the forward weldeck. CV2 and 3, the Lexington class, were conversions from the Lexington class battlecruisers under construction, but had to be cancelled because of the Washington naval treaty and converted into aircraft carriers.
Ranger is my favorite WWII warship. Such a unique design, sure she had design flaws but Ranger and her crews gave good service and had history.
Another top grade presentation. Thanks!!
Great video Oceanliner Designs, thanks for covering the CVEs as well.
The Battle off Samar continues to inspire.
The biggest weakness of battleships was lack of OFFENSIVE capability compared to carriers. If you can’t hit back, you’re just a durable target.
An aircraft carrier can launch a multiple attack from over 200 miles away, something battleships cannot do unless they have cruise type missiles.
@@TerryHickey-xt4mf Yep.
@@TerryHickey-xt4mfproblem with that logic is that even cheaper and smaller ships like destroyers and frigates can carry missiles as well, making the role of the battleships redundant.
As well as the whole reason for battleship sizes has to do with the size of their guns. With studies showing 120-152 mm naval guns being the optimal size and missiles and aircraft have much greater range than even the largest guns, why do we need battleships when smaller destroyers and cruisers can fill their role more than adequately.
Great show! One of my go to channels
It took several US aircraft carriers to sink the Yamato, the same was true of the Musashi. In World War II Britain lost 5 fleet aircraft carriers and 5 battleships/battlecruisers, both proved to be highly vulnerable to both aircraft, submarines and other battleships. The British could have really done with a battleship in 1982 for knocking out Port Stanley runway and other Argentine positions.
Great video love it!
Always enjoy a new video from Mr Brady. thanks!
This is a great video on the history of aircraft carriers. You pointed out information that I never knew before. Great video!!
Good morning to our friend Mike and crew. _PS; I went aboard HMAS Melbourne before she was scrapped, even she was big ._ ⚓
Very interesting topic, would love more of these videos about ships + various companions & their impact.
Mike, this is another interesting and informative video 👍
Love the video Mike!! I was wondering since being from Philly and leaving here idk if you heard the news about the SS Unite States being sunk to become an artificial reef. It was suppose to leave pier 82 tomorrow but got delayed due to weather. It would be so cool if you made a video about the history of what we Philly ppl say “the Philadelphia Titanic”!
And suddenly the Potomac sounds like a river located somewhere deep in western australia😅
😂🤣😅
Also 10:25, I've never heard Delano pronounced like that.
There used to be a train operator on the Washington metro Orange and Blue line who would say Pot-a-mac instead the usual Poh-toh-mac
@johnshepherd9676 sounds like that could annoy some locals😅
PUH-TOE-MICK?
@Oceanliner_Designs I was hoping you were going to bring up the I-400 series, but hopefully that will be in a future video. 🙂
Small critique. Had to turn my volume up ALL the way, and could still barely hear you. Had to wait until i got to a quiet area to enjoy it.
Hi Mike! Have you ever looked up the USS Coral Sea? My grandfather served on that ship during his time in the Navy, and from what I understand one of her anchors is in Australia! ⚓he apparently worked with the machinery, I have his notes and even a diagram of the high pressure/low pressure turbines 😊
I'm more interested in how aircraft carriers float. I can probably look it up on UA-cam but Mike Brady is the best.
Glad to see you're feeling better. Start taking your vitamins so you get sick less often.
The audio on this one is mixed really low, Mike. It was a hard watch.
Right!? Nearly unwatchable. I didnt even make it 10 seconds into the video before I was forced to turn it up slightly. I'm seriously considering unsubscribing.
@@jasonheckenlively1172 I mean, I think unsubscribing is a bit of a harsh reaction, this is the first time this has happened. If EVERY video started being mixed this low, then maybe. I don't control you, though.
A fan from Las Vegas wishing a good morning to our friend Mike Brady from Oceanliner Designs
Another interesting video, Mike. In the alt history series Southern Victory/Timeline-191 by Harry Turtledove, navel POV character Sam Carsten goes from a deck-hand to a commanding officer, and some of his experiences involve serving on early aircraft carriers after the SV/TL191's Great War/WWI into the Second Great War/WWII. Turtledove does point out that, USS Remembrance, was started as a cruiser, and was transformed partway through construction into an aircraft carrier, and that later carriers were built keel-up to be such.
For an alternate history series, its pretty good IMO and worth reading (know you're from Down Under) to see a fictionalized navy use the same concepts used in our world.
Superb overview of the subject that cleverly avoids falling into the trap of being drawn into deeper technical detail and missing the big picture. It pinpoints important milestones without for example being drawn into debate about who had the best carriers or aircraft. All that stuff is covered in infinite detail elsewhere on the internet. So I think this video has been very well scripted and produced.
i truly hope youre feeling better, mike!
A video on black and white illusory camouflage on old navy vessels would be super interesting!
I know the answer but ima watch anyways cause I love BB’s and CV’s.
Another great video
You can point to WW2 as the defining conflict that proved the effectiveness of aircraft carriers.
Excellent video Mike! It's fascinating to see how carriers went from just an idea to the thing that ultimately made battleships obsolete.
My dad was an aircraft mechanic on the USS Enterprise (the legendary CVN-65) and I often wonder what it was really like to serve on board one of the mightiest warships ever built!
great video mate.
I love you mentioning hmcs furious as I was fortunate enough to serve in the cadet corps named after her number 80 furious.
I served on the USS Midway ( CVA - 41 ) and the USS Constellation ( CVA-64 ) in the V-2 division a.k.a. catapult and arresting gear .
It’s my friend Mike Brady! From
Oceanliner Designs!
Oh and the USA extended the lives of its WWII battleships to actually serve during the 1991 Gulf War, launching cruise missiles into Iraq from the USS Iowa!
I just love Love LOVE that opening graphic ending in that great tuned bass horn.
Wait.... there is no Morse code over that great low horn. Is that only for vids on the Titanic??
who was that horn taken from??
@@TerryHickey-xt4mf Are you suggesting some lighthouse no longer has a horn? Our friend would not do that. ;-)
Is it just me, or something's different in the sound mixing department?
This one's kinda low volume
Yes, definitely unusually quiet.
Okay, so I'm not crazy yet and my hearing aint failing, that's good to know
I'm surprised you didn't touch on how some aircraft carriers are nuclear powered, making them able to patrol the world's oceans virtually endlessly.
This one hits me close to home, Mike Brady. My son is a Nuclear Engineer on the Nimitz.
is that the one that went back in time to pearl harbor a day before the attack in 1941? this is one of my favorite movies.
A collaboration between Mike Brady and Ryan Szmanski of Battleship New Jersey?
Wondering if you'd ever be willing to do a video on the SS Edmund Fitzgerald? Steel Mill ship that sunk 15 miles off of whitefish bay in Lake Superior in 1975, Nov 10th. Great content btw!!
It would be better if such video came out next year on the 50th anniversary of the sinking
18:22
my mind jumped immediately to a 4 parter documentary by name "Warship: A History of War at Sea" and specifically the 4th. part which also talks about the advent of the Aircraft carriers.
And while has been some time since I've watched it, I still remember that the Officer in charge, Admiral Joseph Mason "Bull" Reeves broke of a small flotilla comprised of Lexington, CV-2, Saratoga, CV-3, and some vessels for protection/assistance and made a surprisingly successful attack run on the Panama Canal they launched the planes fairly far out at sea, after which the both Carriers made best possible speed towards the engagement zone for retrieval operations.
Reason for braking them of the main force was a fuel shortage
Lando Norris into ships before gta6 is crazy work, jokes aside i love the video. keep up the great work
I'd like to hear your take on the Mary Ann Brown Patten story.
The Yamato proved as resilient and tough as she looked. It took US aircraft actually 3 and a half hours of constant bombardment and torpedo attacks to bring her down. Yamato suffered 17 direct bomb hits and took 11 torpedoes before she capsized and during all that, she never lost power and her propellers were still turning when she went down just after that horrendous explosion that could be heard for 200 miles away. The Musashi underwent a similar torture, only not by aircraft, but the guns and torpedoes from US Navy ships. Those ships were as tough as they could be made, and the question remains today how a direct confrontation between Yamato and the Iowa class ships would go.
I would like to add in the experimental part: the first use of an aircraft carrier in combat was in 1925 during the Riff War in Morocco when the Spanish navy used their carrier ‘Dédalo’ to transport hydroplanes to the front which were then used to provide aerial support the landings at Alhucemas. Which also, in fact, was the first amphibious assault involving tanks in history. 2 naval achievements in the same battle
Hi Mike!
Should do a video about Navys on what hulls were used to converted ships
14:19 - Those don't look like normal carrier planes, are they just being ferried or is this from the Doolittle Raid?
Doolittle raid
yep
Battleships were heavily armored, designed to withstand relentless attacks from other ships and shore-based artillery. Their survivability and destructive power made them central to naval strategies during the early 20th century.
RIP to all the battleships that were killed by the aircraft carrier.
For those who want to delve deeper into the topic, I recommend: “Rise of the Aircraft Carrier - Big Bigger Biggest”.
Hello my freind mike brady from oceanliner designs! Can you do a video on the 1952 Nor'easter that split two massive tankers in half and the rescue attemps that followed :D i know youve mentioned it briefly in another video but can you go into detail about the other T2's that where built for the war.
The statement about the Battle of Leyte Gulf is a slight oversight on an aspect of the battle as during the encompassed Battle of the Surigao Strait, only surface ships participated in this nighttime, ship to ship action, which included five U.S. battleships and two Japanese battleships. After a series of ambush torpedo attacks by PT boats and destroyers, the Japanese fleet had it's '"'T'-crossed" by several U.S. cruisers and the five battleships which decimated the enemy fleet. This battle is considered to be the last battleship on battleship conflict in world history.
The clash of the titans between New Jersey and Yamato etc. could easily have happened had Admiral Halsey not been lured away by the empty carriers of the Japanese northern group.
@@philiphumphrey1548 or had he done what he said he was going to do and leave the fleet of fast battleships, which included New Jersey, to guard the San Bernardino Strait. It was supposed to be called something like, "Task Force 73," but I could have the number designation wrong.
As a former carrier sailor........... BZ!
Surprised you didn’t mention the attempted marriage of a battleship hull and a carrier deck in Shinano. She was to be the third Yamato Class vessel and was converted to carrier following the loss of Akagi, Kaga, Soryu, and Hiryu at Midway.
Highway to THE DANGER ZONE!
Chilling last words......
14:56
Musashi and Yamato are the two ships completed according to the original plans, the 3rd ship, the Shinano, of 5 planned units of the class was already converted in the shipyard to a Fleet aircraft carrier (one of the largest of that Time) and the fourth was demolished in dry dock after the cessation of all hostilities
On the earliest carriers I see no means of aircraft storage other than on the main deck. When was the development of the elevator and below deck storage areas. It's more easily understood how planes could take off and land from the flat top when there were no other aircraft on it.
Another of the very first aircraft carriers ever built, was HMS Eagle, built from a battleship hull. That battleship was originally supposed to be sold to Chilean Navy as a Super-Dreadnought Almirante Latorre-class, "Almirante Cochrane", but the outbreak of WWI made it impossible.
Don't forget the post-WW1 naval treaties limits on total tonnage per navy.
A carrier is mostly empty space, and lightly armored. And with advances in aircraft, could pack an absolute wallop.
It was a natural path from the floating bricks that are battleships.
Was triggered by the typewriter sound sounding more like a cd skipping. Great video as always
You should do a video on the ss el faro
Bringing back memories of my US Navy days, though I served on a small ASW Frigate. But a sailor is a sailor, no matter the vessel. 😎👍
But you do need to revisit the correct pronunciation of some names..... Potomac, Delano, etc
Thank you for your service!
I watched the Frigates from the flight deck of the Cora Sea.
I agree on the pronunciation, I can't believe there isn't a random American roaming around down under that he could run the scripts by for the normal American pronunciation. Heck, he could forward them to me and I'd do it.
Potomac: pah-TOE-mic. Delano: DEL-ah-noh. 😊🇺🇸
Nice video
Thanks to their radars, the Iowa class ships could sneak up to enemy ships at night or in fog, and just finish them off without being seen. The Royal Navy had such a success with radar-guided guns in the Battle of Cape Matapan, where they decimated Italian forces.
But for further ranges, airplanes were needed anyway.