Видео

I'd say that rather than looking at pure specifications, you look instead at the designed mission: a battleship, is a oceangoing gun-based warship with wind independent propulsion and whose guns can eliminate any enemy warship, and which is protected enough to remain mission capable long enough to complete its own mission in a battle with an enemy peer. Of course this is when it's built, not necessarily years later at the twilight of their career, but we see how even Yamashiro is able to absorb a tremendous amount of punishment despite being laid down before the first world war and the number of 16" hits landed on her.

In these comparisons of cruisers vs battleship discussions , one factor you hardly bring up (as opposed to guns and armor) is subdivision....BCs have less subdivision than battleships. Was Alaska's subdivision equivalent to Iowa?

Could Alaska be considered a Fast Dreadnaught?

8" gun Illinois..second line battleship like the British used to have with mixed dreadnought / pre-dreadnought fleet.....also would you use an 8" gun Illinois to fight another battleship? if no then not a battleship.

41:00 Oh dear, I think no one can convince Ryan that Hood is not a fast battleship

Dunkuerke had significantly lighter armor compared to her later sister Strasbourg...so the former was more battlecruisery and the latter Strasbourg more battleshippy? (9" belt on the former...11 inch belt on the latter)

34:25 Ryan, HMS Hood of the Admiral class battlecruisers, is not a fast battleship; she is a battlecruiser and has the sub-division of one. People only call Hood a fast battleship because no battleship was built at the same time as her. Hood was not designed to fight battleships, the Admiral-class battlecruisers were like the post-war G3s and the WW1 era designs of the Hawkins-class heavy cruisers, Emerald-class light cruisers and the WW1 W and V-class destroyers were never intended to fight WW1, they were all designed to combat what the Royal Navy thought was and correctly as it turns out to be the next war, a global war across the world against Japan or the USA. Hood’s price tag of £6,025,000 is not a reliable metric to judge as it is inflated by costs due to the redesign work and wartime inflation.

In a few short hours she will make her way into a new year against all odds. More power to her!!!

Never been aboard a museum carrier. But USS Wisconsin was a joy to explore and her guns were awe inspiring. The lack of people actually made it more fun and allowed me to get a better and more intimate look of the parts of the ship open to us.

Would like to know more about Carrier ops and deployment in the 50’s & 60’s. And when did US carriers start worldwide deployments and cruises as opposed to homeland security & costal operations? How are today’s carrier ops different from those that followed WWII and the decades just after? Thanks!

Hi Jack and Rick, Sorry to hear you were under the weather Jack. Hope you are feeling better. It sounds like you folks have a busy season ahead and I for one am looking forward to it ! Your podcasts are extremely well presented and researched and are some of the best out there. Drach watch out ! Hope to see you all again in the New Year, perhaps again on New Jersey. In the mean time Happy New Year to you both and may the wind be at your backs.

Happy holidays and I'll be watching in 2025!

You completely glossed over the entire and only reason the Iowa's get reactivated. The Navy has no current Naval gunfire support platform still floating, and it would take 7-8 years to build a new one, and we obviously saw how that went with Zumwalt. There are 7 or 8 white papers floating around about this huge hole in the Navy. If we went to war with China MEU's would absolutely need Gunfire support, and it would be a very real possibility that these ships would be pressed back into service in this roll.

Great content, all the best for 2025 from Germany!

Thanks for watching! I (Jack) was sick the past week - so apologies for the way I sound in this video.

The thought of pulling one of those 16" turrets makes me ill.

Perfect example of the training cycle was Dick Bong in the pacific. The Ace of Aces.

Hey, id be right there with you on that book Ryan.

I appreciate you going over the history behind PT-109. Too many reviews for 1/6 scale figures or diecast models, the reviewer isn't interested in the historical background of the product. I'm glad you did, adding some appreciation to it.

The minifig problem actually isn't a technical problem. It's just Lego being VERY protective of their only real distinguishing feature and only very different looking ones where every similarity is only because of design constraints (like putting hair or hats on the head or grabbing things) and simply the human anatomy are allowed. In their early years Cobi actually made similar minifigs, they just aren't allowed to anymore

The Tirpiz took 2 earthquake bombs to sink. Thats impressive. The Germans scuttled the Bismarck.

I bought this kit earlier in the year but haven't assembled it yet - waiting for a snowy day. Looking forward to it!

Why did we get a Greyhound movie before a Johnston movie? Tom Hanks can't play a Native American

JFK came in the limited edition version

Kennedy didn't obey his co orders. He was told not to turn off his engines and was in wrong position. He got his men killed or wounded and pt109 destroyed. He dated a nazi spy and his father was a antisemite and agreed with hitler about Jews!

Thanks for watching! Check out the affiliate link and pick one up for yourself today!

Volumetric and weight comparison: HMS Implacable (1942) vs Essex (1942). Both carriers produced about 150k SHP but Implacable's 400psi/750f steam power plant was fully equal to Essex and her 600psi/850F power plant, in that regard. Essex, primarily due to her double reduction gearing and economizers was more efficient at lower speeds, but there wasn't that much difference at higher speeds.

Hi Sir, Do you need a professional youtube thumbnail designer?

🫡

I had a friend that was on the Dewey when this happened. He told me that during the rolls that sailors were hanging from pipes and railings above him in the engineering spaces, then vice versa.

Your video was great with the scenes from the Caine Mutiny and it had me thinking about a song: of a different ship, in a different time and place, but the emotions must have been the same for the Dewey and the other ships in the typhoon: "Does anyone know where the love of God goes When the waves turn the minutes to hours?" For a topic request, how about the WW 2 LCS(L) (or LSSL) vessels? It's a fine story to think of the heavily armed craft, with small crews commanded by Navy Lieutenants standing in the line of fire on many occasions.

I've been in a few tropical storms on container ships and the wrorst rolling I've experienced was around the 30 degree mark +/- a little. That was awful. I literally cannot imagine taking multiple 60 degree rolls or even envision what a single 70 degree roll would look like.

Wow, great narration. Feels like I was right there.

Wow, great narration. Feels like I was right there.

Thanks for Watching! Let us know below if there’s a topic you’d like covered in the future.

As a fellow Baltimore Maryland native, and I'm sure Ryan would agree.... USS Maryland. Park her right there at the Navel Academy. Would've been an amazing backdrop to the football stadium.

Has a future as the cambrUataina if Florida would like to flip an make a profit of 12.4

I consider Carriers as a supply ship, they sit back and try to avoid combat, while supplying and sending aircraft into combat My favorite carrier list US and overall Lexington class (CV-1 & 2) - most carriers are just flat top freighters, but they are the prettiest carriers, with very nice lines. The 8" turrets are cool too (even if they didn't use them - but imagine if they were at Samar) and Sarah had them replaced with 5"/38 twin turrets during the war. Favorite foreign carrier, Aquila. Many disdain conversions as being inherently bad, but this isn't true. Most conversions were less effective than purpose-built carriers, but most of these were early carriers, converted by inexperienced Navies. A carrier is just a ship hull with a hanger and flight deck added above the main deck. They are very conducive to conversions and Aquila is proof. She was a conversion but very good design. The Italian Navy did their homework first and put the experience of other countries into her. Conversely, Graf Zeppelin was a purpose built carrier produced by a country with very little experience and was a very poor (though cool and interesting) design. -yes some wartime Japanese conversion carriers were not that good, but that is more of a reflection of the basic ship converted and wartime haste. My favorite museum carrier has to be Lexington, since she's the closest, so... I also like the tri-decks (Kaga, Amagi and Akagi pre rebuild) I think these are very fascinating designs, and an early attempt to allow a carrier to perform launch and recovery at the same time.

Geez I want to hear Ryan speak not get cut off half way through his reply

This is the sort of topic I love. So please do more like this. That being said and I’m truly not trying to be a keyboard warrior you really failed to make your case on this one. We have allegations of falling short on range that are not substantiated in the video. We do have excuses in terms of the vast difference between wartime operating conditions and peacetime assumptions that may have had a lot to do with this. If your range assumptions are based on cruising at 15 knots with half the boilers secured and your operational conditions require all boilers lit and operational with regular bursts beyond 15 knots those range numbers are going to be garbage. And that’s not the fault of a 600psi plant. Another issue is that just like with standard vs full load displacement range is dependent upon a host of variables. Trials will give you good baseline data for the conditions they are run in. But higher sea states, heavier ships as crew and weapons are added, increased hotel loads on the plant, hull fouling will all have an impact and those are not the fault of the plant. If you want to argue that high pressure steam doesn’t deliver on the benefits it promised show some range tables (projected vs actual) that prove that out for example. You talk about manning and maintenance but provide little to support that. Comparing the manning requirements between a British light fleet carrier and an Essex is an apples and oranges comparison to a degree. How does the KGV class compare to NC or SD? That would be a meaningful comparison. And if your the US and you have plentiful manpower resources designing for reduced manning likely isn’t a consideration like it might be with other Navies. For example the Yorktown and Essex class have very similar manning numbers and one is high pressure and one isn’t. A look at the numbers in the engineering section of those two classes could provide meaningful insight. It also might be very interesting to look at the number of watch standers in a boiler room and engine room on New Jersey in 1944 vs 1989. How many man hours of maintenance were required per hour of steaming? Without comparisons of that type between USN High Pressure and older low pressure systems it’s hard to say these were maintenance intensive systems. I’ve never read anything that indicated the 600lb 850F plants were anything but extremely reliable in service in WW2. I know for a fact that in the 90s when I was on active duty they were considered to be very very reliable plants. Unlike the 1200lb plants which were always considered temperamental even though they continued to get better with each generation. Which brings up another point. If high pressure plants were judged a failure by the USN then why did it continue to press forward with higher pressures and higher temperatures in the post war era? It just doesn’t make sense that if the navy thought the move from 300 to 600 was a mistake that it would then proceed to press forward to 1200 and stay with 1200 even when the early generations of that plant really did have serious issues. To Drach’s credit we do see the issue of power density come up. It doesn’t take much reading of Friedman to know that was a really important consideration in the WW2 generation of ships. Iowa doesn’t happen if her machinery has to be 15-20% larger because it’s operating at lower pressures. Again I’m not trying to be a keyboard warrior but if your going to call into question something like the 600lb 850F plant technology that went into the vast majority of US WWII fleet units you need to actually make that case.

Can you do a story about the U.S.S. Emmons?

Russia has built crap for ships. They had a carrier for decades that was crap and the aircraft that were copies of harriers sucked.

Great channel

I find it interesting that Tinian is being reactivated ,

Am nerding out here, but not as much as y'all! Hugely enjoyable.

enterprise's luck seems to resonate with other ships

Thanks for the Video Rick. It was was a pleasure meeting you on board New Jersey in October and enjoy your Podcasts as well as Jack's. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you both.

Thanks for Watching! Let us know below if you’d like to see something covered in the future.

It is Sad when you lose something historical BUT After seeing Pic's and Footage of the US interior...it might have been fast...but definitely not very flash...NO Beautiful wood panelling and Not even a Grand Staircase to speak of...it was just bland and lack lustre...everything an Ocean Liner is NOT Supposed to be...they're supposed to be grand and luxurious...similar to the Queen Mary etc which imo is why she is still around having All her beautiful original interior...it seems it was more sports car with no trimmings then luxurious Atlantic Limousine which Ocean Liners were/are all about...i was honestly very surprised about the US's interior and just assumed it would be high end luxury...it wasnt...i always said that after her interior was all stripped the US lost all its historical value but after seeIng it ive changed my mind