I've got three questions regarding the german aircraft carrier Graf Zeppelin: 1) Were all of its design flaws a consequence of the germans having zero experience in the aircraft carrier department or were other factors involved? I've heard that at some point the germans actually asked the japanese for assistance with the carrier's development only for the japanese to refuse. 2) While i know it was clearly outclassed by american and japanese carriers how effective was it in comparison to the british carriers and the french carrier Bearn? 3) If she had been completed in 1940 or in early 1941 as originally intended could the germans have used it to launch several attacks at the british fleet at Scapa Flow much like how the british attacked the italian fleet at Taranto in 1940? Or if she was available for operation Rheinubung could it have been used to damage the british fleet in order to distract them long enough to allow Bismarck and Prinz Eugen to break into the atlantic unscathed?
Drach: 'In order to celebrate 50k subscribers, here's an incredibly informative one hour video mocking virtually every interwar destroyer design effort for trying to create ships with the displacement of light cruisers, armaments of destroyer escorts or torpedo boats, and seakeeping tendencies of a malfunctioning submarine'
@@acedogboy8421 I don't claim him. If anything I find the British sense of understatement and tendancy towards self effacement to be the opposite of arrogance. If anything it is typically the American who is known for arrogance, notwithstanding their ability (in the past at least) to justify such arrogance in action.
Joke only really works if you specify Beatty's battle cruisers pre Jutland.... The rest of the fleet was as good as RN gunnery usually is throughout history
I just got the shook of my life when watching this video. D22 as shown in this video is H.M.S. AISNE a battle class destroyer built in 1943. I serve on her in the early sixties where we sailed for the best part in the med but went many other places as well. It was one of the few ships capable of 34 knots, had two main turrets with 4.5in guns, plus sea cat missiles and twim limbos aft. It was quite amazing to see this ship in the video, but there were four of this class in the med fleet and something that i will not forget for many years to come, it was a good solid ship with i think 152 crew in all.
59:38 ...to the extent of: Use all your fuel and there's a very good chance you're returning to port upside-down." 1:00:38 ...and raise the stern deck somewhat higher than "water surface level"." 1:02:00 "These changes in design finally gave the Germans a destroyer that wasn't either trying to tear itself apart simply by moving or immediately try to join the U-boat corps at the first sign of a wave." 1:03:37 "...helped only slightly by the fact that at least the turret was fully-enclosed, so everybody else got damp socks instead of the turret crew." 1:07:37 "They were badly weighted, so the bow was always trying to head down to meet nearby submarines." 1:07:45 "Oh, and they'd also start to provide free massages to the crew in the form of whole hull vibrations when they tried to get up to top speed." 1:08:43 "...albeit at the cost of having converted a warship into the world's fastest and most expensive group therapy massage chair." 1:09:59 "...and the modifications would add weight in places it really wasn't needed when your primary interests include "not swimming in the Arctic Ocean"." 1:13:01 "Predictably, after the Leningrads, a pure Soviet design destroyer was a bit of a disaster, with added German high-pressure machinery to help along with the shenanigans." Drachinifel is on a roll today against the Germans and Soviets.
@@dragnus12 ah the side effects of neo feudalism brought about by attempted communism that predictably failed to achieve utopia and degraded the intellectual and production capacity of its host nation so badly that the effects still exist to this very day, over a hundred years later. I'm sure no one will ever try something so stupid again, right?
Although funny, the diagnosis was somewhat incorrect. Russia already had catched a really bad case of feudalism. Instead of using the rather placebo like capitalist cure (change nothing, but make the people feel better) they instead decided to go on full rampage with the chemotherapy like communist cure. With powerful fanatics on both sides, alternative cures had been overlooked to this very day.
@@ringowunderlich2241 Capitalism is the perfectly adequate cure when administered with a good dose of human rights and social security to mitigate the harmful side effects.
@@DrLoverLover Obviously their brand of capitalism is neither corraled by human rights nor milked by taxation as is done in dare I say less uncivilised parts of the first world...
dont combine . then we can be in suspense for extra 2 years :) p.s. not a nod that he is slow , just recognizing the amount of work needed for this kind of video .
Combining them would be necessary, they were intertwined in development until WWII, really. They evolved from large light cruisers, and in the treaty era they were the same displacement as light cruisers, so the main difference between, say, a Town and a County was 8 8" rather than 12 6". Covering them seperately would be like making seperate videos on the two French destroyer types, they are just too closely related to be split off from each other.
US Congress: “We need 2 more destroyers” US Navy: “Putting in an order for 20 destroyers” US Shipwrights: “Good news guys! Time to build 200 new destroyers!” US Harbors: “Hurry up and finish those new facilities to service 2000 new destroyers!”
There is a legend in the US Navy that the 31st Spruance class destroyer, USS Hayler was a data entry error in the fleet logistics system and was actually supposed to a case of peaches.
AA doesn't need to destroy aircraft, the fact that they put machine guns on tanks as an AA deterrent says a lot. Most of the time it's enough if, as the Chieftain puts it: ''You convince the enemy to go go that a way''
As per usual, Uncle Drach produces yet another informative and compelling video. I wasn't expecting the length, though. The intro summoned my eldest cat for lap time. By the time RoboDrach's voice called the outro my legs were thoroughly asleep. Still, two thumbs up!
I was just thinking about this. I started reading Samuel Eliot Morison when I was 14 in 1966 and couldn't imagine then that I would one day have Drachinifel, TIK, Military History Visualized, and The Chieftain pandering to my military history interest. Truly, it is the best and worst of times.
The Fletcher Class was the ultimate. The day will come when we want more of them. I know first hand,having served on USS Twining, DD540, during her whole action in WW2. Great ship. Many close calls, but always lucky. Brought me back in one piece.
That comment about machine spirits needing to be appeased caught me off-guard, resulting in a surprisingly wide arc of coffee being launched at my wall (fortunately, not via my nose). Thanks for giving me an actual laugh, it helped to brighten my day quite a bit. 😂
The Fletcher Class was the ultimate. The day will come when we want more of them. I know first hand,having served on USS Twining, DD540, during her whole action in WW2. Great ship. Many close calls, but always lucky. Brought me back in one piece.
@@jaddy540 Did you serve in ww2 ? How old are you ? No offence, I am just curious. I was born in 2003 and I want to know how people lived in mid 20th century.
@@GenocideWesterners if genuine would have been 92-93 at time typing.. IF. being key word. the language used dont sound right for a 90 plus yr old tbh. just.. slightly off in choice of idiom and stuff.
Drach has been quoting or referencing 40k pretty regularly as of late. This makes me very happy indeed. He also said that German destroyers like to identify as pretzels from time to time. That made me laugh more than it should have. Overall, amazing video, one of the best you've ever done. I made sure to share it on Facebook in a Naval group I'm in.
Great program. Especially welcomed by me because, although I was a surface warfare officer for the four Iowas, two carriers, and two deep draft amphibious assault ships, it was the destroyers that always held my heart and where I began.
Drac, At the 36:00 mark you're discussing the Sims class but the photo is of DD 422, the USS Mayo, a Benson Class (next in the line up). My father-inlaw was a plank owner on the Mayo as gun captain on the Number Five Mount. The Mayo has a interesting history, just missing the Bismark while on Neutrality Patrol, early convoy escorts - division mate being torpedoed, North Africa, Sicily, Salerno, and Anzio. Almost had her keel broken by a mine (father-inlaw vehemently insisted til he died that it was torpedo...) and then the longest tow back to the States for the time. RebuIlt and ended up at Tokyo Bay for the surrender. Make an interesting "five minutes" of her own.
One of my spacefleets (which one remains to be seen) now has gained a new destroyer called Pretzel, so thanks for that. And keep up the good work, your videos are really interesting and at times hilarious, so much thanks for making them!
Very informative rundown of the destroyer classes and how they compared to one another..... And thanks to your sarcastic humor describing some of their flaws, you've made the journey both interesting and amusing...... Although I kept waiting for the inevitable reference to the Italian navy's submarine class equipped with the screen doors......
Thank you, Drachinfel, for a well researched and informative documentary. You imparted a considerable amount of information in a short period of time and naturaly I found myself trying to relate what I was watching to the machinery in WoWS, which I play on two servers. Dry humour is also much appreciated, one of the reasons I subscribed some time ago.
"...and ships that truly believed that they identified as pretzels." I about lost it. You should write a book of one-liners. You'd die a very rich man.
@Big Bill O'Reilly I don't think it was meant to imply the Russia/Soviet Union got weaker, more that communism threw a wrench into EVERYTHING - including ship design and construction
@Big Bill O'Reilly And the fact every government that at least began as communist has devolved into dictatorship and repression says nothing about communism?
"Special shout-out to the Germans for the innovations in self-consuming machinery, and ships that truly believed that they identified as pretzels." LOOOOL
@@bkjeong4302 well they where built for the most part so long before ww2 they where obselete by the time they got restricted to the numbers they where at.
@@bkjeong4302 Truly baffling how Preston could put flush deckers on his list while ignoring bad and completely inconsequential German destroyer designs.
"So, what do you feel like watching tonight? Mad Max: Fury Road? Hot Fuzz? Schindler's List?" "What about 77 minutes of interwar destroyer development?" "AH NOW WE TALKING"
So great. Thank you for all your time researching and reading for these. Not to mention all the time to put the vids together and do the recordings. Great stuff. Cheers.
Very informative - especially as it helps sort out all those pesky French Destroyer classes. BTW in a couple of places you wrongly say 120mm guns are 4 inch - apparently I’m not the only one who sometimes get confused when speaking and thinking at the same time...
I only noticed it when it made sense for him to say 4 inch, or 120mm, in reference to general destroyer calibres, since it was basically 4 inch, with the RN on 4.7 for a decent while.
As destroyers increased in capabilities, increased complexity slowed production. Small ASW specialty vessels like the Flower class filled a lower end gap. Light cruisers like the USS Atlanta, covered up in AA guns filled another gap.
I know, I know - I pressed Thumbs Up before watching .. but I knew I'd enjoy the ramble, and I did. Thank you Drachinifel; may the 'subscribe' hits continue to increase. Phew! ;o)
With such an in-depth approach, fubuki subtypes could've been explored as well. Thry were as different inside as many actual classes in video. Also, generally discarding looking into interwar AA based on its inedaquacy in 1940s is cruel. 1920s, 1930s and 1940s planes are just different in too many ways.
My grandfather was in command of HMS Codrington in 1931. I knew it had an extra gun midship, but didn't know it had a stretched hull! He also commanded HMS Acasta which was smaller.
The whole German DD program just frustrates me... The Germans can't claim lack of engineering capacity. Not with all the technology they possessed and secretly developed in the 1920's. The started off bad with the Type 1934, but even before the first of those ships was in commission, the Type 1936 design was already finished and the first 1936 hulls where laid down. They must have known that the rushed Type 1934 was bad and fixed it without having any operational feedback from the commissioned ships. With the Type 1936 they where clearly on the right track. The hulls are probably a bit heavy for their firepower and crew requirements seem excessive, but there probably was a lot to win from a refined Type 1936 design. From that point onwards, Germany could have build a number of suburb, improved 1936 ships. They had all the technology for it. -Germany by the middle of the 1930's was capable of fitting out warships ships with diesel engines for propulsion. Putting at least 51,000 SHP (so at least six 8,500SHP engines) in a Type 1936 hull would have been possible. MAN already designed 10,000 SHP diesels for the D-class and would design anything the Reichmarine and later the Kriegsmarine would order. This would give the destroyers the desired range. The Germans wanted 6,000nm at 20kn and diesels can give you that, even with limited fuel capacity. -Most of Germany its shipbuilding expertise was still around. It was not like in 1919 some allied troops marched into the German naval design office and shot everybody on sight. Most of the staff probably ended up at Deutsche Werke, the major German commercial yards or ended up in the Netherlands for clandestine development of warships. The Germans did show some good level of competence in certain aspects, but it never seems to have gotten all aspects together in one ship. I suspect that the problem was not so much the designers, but the people making the (often stupid) requirements and a whole lot of typical Nazi Germany political intrigues messing with the designs. -Hazemeyer, the developer of the 40mm Bofors mounts, well the company was pretty much German. Hazemeyer was founded on invitation of the Dutch navy because of the requirements for fire-control systems for the incomplete cruisers Java and Sumatra. They wanted the latest German system, but after WW1 the Germans could not deliver. So Siemens-Halske just setup a Dutch company, staffed with Germans, to deliver the systems while also keeping development going. Only in the late 1930's would the Dutch navy try to obtain some level of control over the company. In other words, the AA mount and accompanying fire control system the Dutch navy used, the RN copied and the USN took for inspiration, could have been installed on all German ships, because it was designed by Germans. Further there are the long standing rumours and speculations that the infamous 40mm Bofors AA gun was largely based on a rejected 40mm AA gun design by Krupp. -The Germans already had quite some welding experience to keep the hull's light. Again, partly via the Netherlands. The AG Vulkan and Krupp Germaniawerf had a joint design bureau in the Netherlands, IvS, to design ships for foreign customers as well as for the Dutch navy. That is again a place where a lot of German naval architects ended up. -The Germans further had the practice of mounting their AA guns as far back on their cradles as possible and balancing the guns with counterweights. That allows for a lower overall height of the mounting without the breach smashing into the deck upon high elevation recoil. Like this you can design more compact and thus lighter dual purpose mounts for use on destroyers, cruisers and battleships. Look at for example the infamous Flak 88 and the pivoting point of the gun. It is really far back and that allowed the gun to be lower, lighter and thus also used as an AT gun. -The German 37mm AA gun for the navy was hand loaded. This while for the Heer, the Flak 18 and very soon afterwards the improved 36/37 appeared. Very underrated AA guns. They trade some muzzle velocity and a bit of explosive power for being much lighter. Either will happily shoot down most if not all single engined planes of the WW2 era with one good hit. A Type 1936A should have been something like this: -Diesel engines for the range, lower crew requirements, better low fuel stability because the engines are heavy and the added benefit of not killing everybody when the compartment takes a hit and a boiler bursts. It would even allow better redundancy because you can now introduce three separate engine rooms with transverse bulkheads separating them. -Six 128mm guns in three dual purpose turrets, one forward and two super firing aft. The turrets should not only increase RoF, but also help with reducing crew requirements somewhat. -Eight 553mm torpedo tubes. -Replacement of all the AA with five dual mounted 37mm AA guns, a naval variant of Flak 18 or 36. Preferably with a simplified Hazemeyer mount with some fire control system, because also German. -Aim to get crew requirements down to some 280 sailors and officers and displacement of some 2300t standard. Both the IJN and USN needed about a decade before they seem to have realised that their ships might be top heavy, unstable and structurally unsound. The IJN only figured it out because their ships where literally falling apart in a storm. The Germans figured it out without having commissioned the first of their rush job Type 1934's. Then they fixed it, and then they f*cked it up again with those stupid 15cm guns. 😒
I do like your points, but I think there was a serious design problem in the German Navy, with over-engineering creating tons of excess weight; and an ignorance of the merits of top-notch sea-keeping, plus growth-potential. Trying to fit too much onto displacement really limited the ships in some ways, and the over-engineering and possible design inefficiencies resulted in larger, heavier hulls as well.
@@aikishugyo Engineers don't over engineer because they like to make everything to complex. No, they over engineer out of a lack of experience and knowledge what is important and what not. A true second generation of German destroyers based on the Type 1936 hull should be simplified in terms on construction and enhanced in terms of capability. Turing the Type 1936 into a production model should accomplish this. This is what the RN did with its destroyers and to a lesser degree the USN and IJN did the same. The Germans meanwhile kept designing new destroyers like the Type 1937J, Type 1938A or the Type 1938B instead of focussing on the reasonably Type 1936 and improving this design for series production. The only real "improvement" was the switch to 15cm guns. A switch that doesn't seem to have been thought out, not universally approved. The same argument about 12,8cm vs 15cm kept returning To me that doesn't point at the German engineers being incapable, but the military leadership being unsure what they want. The Type 1934, 1934A and 1936 already reflect this. The Germans where designing just about every possible configuration of destroyer in the span of a few years. From the small torpedo boots which where more like small destroyers, all the way to ships that could outgun a French contre-torpilleur while also having both a cruising diesel and high performance turbines so they could be used as commerce raiders. The Germans had all the technology they could want to create a decent destroyer. Everything from being the leading nation when it came to radar in the 1930's, diesels, fire-control systems, excellent guns in the 37mm Flak 18/36/37, the 10,5cm SK C/33 or the 12,8cm SK C/34 or competent engineers. Neither where they short of good ideas. The problem was that the German navy as a whole failed to actually take everything they had and turn it into a good combat vessel. To me that sounds like a failure of management, not engineering which always seems to be the focus when discussing the interwar German navy.
@@DanielWW2 Sure, I just did not bother to spell it out, since I considered it pretty obvious that lack of experience was the culprit, rather than incapable. That said, the philosophy, as you pointed out, was dead wrong, leading to no savings. And that "switch", as you pointed out, a similar mistake. Whether or not there was a vision I don't know, but if there was, it seems to have kept changing, and never hit the mark in terms of what destroyers should accomplish, and what designs are actually fit for the job at hand. My conclusion was that inexperience kept them from being realistic, and actually acknowledging nature, men, seaworthiness, and effectiveness in reality rather than in fantasyland/paper. Certainly they could have built awesome destroyers if they had known how. Whether the designers had different ideas from management but were forced into unrealistic designs is not known, but obviously management was unable to define a realistic design so the buck definitely stops there.
Corrections The German torpedoboats type 1924 - called "Raubtier-class" - also had 105mm main armament - like the class before. They wanted to mount 127mm guns but were not allowed by the allies to do so. 1934 "Luchs" and "Leopard" at least got the bigger guns but the rest of the class kept the 105mm calibre.
"[and they could reach even higher speeds], albeit at the cost of turning a warship into the world's fastest, and most expensive group massage theraphy chair" I'm dying of laughter, this is too much of a burn! :DDDDD
What a fantastic breakdown, usually these type of videos are drier than a popcorn fart. You managed to add colour and some laughs! So glad I found this channel. Now I just hope that this channel hasn’t been abandoned.
Destroyers have evolved to be the teeth and the bone of any fleet and this time period is when the naval powers actually had the technology to build highly effective ones like the Fubukis and the Fletchers. My question, actually request is to do some in depth pieces on the destroyer classes that turned out to be the backbones of the fleets in WWII.
I heard a 40k reference my hobbies are colliding!!!!!!!!!!!! Also love the video you are one of the best ship historians that I have found now back to our previously scheduled worlds colliding
The lecture I wish I could have heard in school. I am very lucky to be able hear this as I travel to work. Thank you for the excellent explanation of each nation's various classes.
Great video Drach and gratz on reaching 50k subs. How jealous is Donitz? Now the next target is 100k Seeing the inevitable rise in the size of DD's brings to mind a quote from a book I read years and years ago. "As we increase the size and capability of our DD's, we gradually change them from the hunters to the hunted" Just can't remember where I read that.
When you talked about the Leningrad-class DDLs, I couldn't stop laughing when you started running off all the wonderful issues. You really do a lot of good work in making such a dry subject so interesting! Nicely done!
What a great video history! An interesting side story with USN destroyers were the experiments with mounting seaplanes. The first attempt was with the USS Charles Ausburn (DD-294) mounting a TS-1 floatplane in 1923. The fixed platform was inconveniently mounted directly in front of the bridge. This not only obstructed vision from the bridge but also greatly interfered from the field of fire from the forward 4" gun. Several successful flights were conducted, but the inadequate crane capacity, being needed to lower the plane and retrieve it, and the fragile nature of these early seaplanes, made the experiment generally a failure. The seaplane and platform were removed in early 1924 with the Ausburn being restored to the configuration of other Clemson class vessels. The next attempt was aboard the US Noa (DD-343), yet another Clemson class. I realize this is slightly outside the 1939 limit of the discussion, but the plans for the seaplane mount were started in 1938, and Noa was originally scheduled for recommissioning in 1939, so close enough. Frank Knox, then Secretary of the Navy, was a great believer in the idea of using destroyers as seaplane carriers to extend their range for fleet protection and commerce raiding. To test this concept again, the Noa was taken in hand when she was recommissioned in April, 1940. She had an XSOC-1 seaplane mounted this time on a rotating platform, displacing the aft bank of torpedoes. She also had a boom with a much greater lifting capacity, and the XSOC-1 was a much more robust aircraft than her predecessors. This time the experiment was more successful, with many flights, and the ability to retrieve the plane while underway, a difficult task for a relatively small Clemson class ship. Noa retained her seaplane until November, 1941, and the generally successful experience with Noa led to Knox mandating the construction of six Fletcher class destroyers with seaplane capability, this time with catapults (!). However, as Drach would say, that's a story for another day.
@@WALTERBROADDUS Indeed. He had some shipboard trials aboard the New York in late 1944 with R-4 that were pretty successful. The R-4 had been used in small numbers by the Coast Guard starting in late '42 and the successful shipboard trials for the R-4 cleared for full scale production starting in February, 1945. The first examples reached the Pacific fleet in June for more testing before it was scheduled for operational use by most capital ships ammo ships, hospital ships and high value transports by 1946. To its credit the Navy recognized early on the value of a helicopter for what would become vertrep and casevac.It was just a gnat's eyelash too late to see operational service during the war, but we all know what's happened with helicopters since then.
OR do an episode on corvettes or escort vessels - other than destroyers. Great videos you produce! I've never had a naval background, but your episodes are incredibly interesting. Thank you!!
WoWs : "We have no idea how to balance the Fubuki and what tier it should be at, so let's just remove one of her turrets without any historical basis at all".
Drach, you attempting those French and Italian names was genuinely hilarious, made me laugh out loud fr. Thank you tho for all the hard work, keep it up and we'll keep watching.
Good heavens. After watching the section on Soviet DD's..... I knew that WoWS was delving into fantasy quite heavily, when they introduced the Soviet cruiser line back in the day, the subsequent premium cruisers, and of late their Soviet BB line. But I was prepared to give them some leeway on DD's, since that was one class they had actually built in some numbers. But now to hear that even the ships they actually did build, far from being virtually "best in class" as portrayed in game, were little short of a hog's dinner of mistakes and failures in real life..... it does make me wonder just how much, if any, their national mindset has changed since the fall of communism 30 years ago. When they started their PR push for the release of the Soviet BB line, and I listened to one of the devs make the statement "if these ships had been built, they would have been the cream of the world's shipbuilding", I literally choked on my coffee at that farcical statement. It does make me wonder, if perhaps we should embargo the sale of potatoes to Russia, as it might cause a reduction in vodka consumption to more sane levels at WG headquarters.
@@bkjeong4302 the real shame is that there is no real good naval combat game of that style. War Thunders naval doesn't have the ship variety and then you have to deal with the fact nobody plays naval in that game too.
@@Slaktrax the history channel was one of the last channels I watched before giving up on tv altogether many moons ago. Even on RUclips it's hard to watch because of all the recapping between commercial breaks.
I am sorry, but I enjoy you're older video's, because you seemed to enjoy it yourself. Now I am finding them a little boring, and no I couldn't do better myself, that's why I watch and don't try to make them myself. I am getting older and cranky so maybe it's me. TY for your hard work.
Small quality of life request, but when you upload videos that are follow ups to other videos, could you include a link to the previous video in the description?
Being fast attack boats have made a comeback (plus suicide boats) , smaller E-type boats might need to be resurrected and greatly modified to provide a deterrent. Cheaper to maintain. Plus seven or eight carried and launched by helicopter carriers.
When you get an average of 4 hours of sleep because you get recommended you favorite genre of video, i.e. hour+ historical commentary deep dives. Greg's airplanes and automobiles and C&Rsenal are also really good.
Congratulations on 50t subs. We really like your channel. And question: Q&A What would hade happend if "Case Anton" had succeeded, and the scuttling of the French fleet at Toulon had failed and the ship would had been captured by the Germans (and Italians)?
I like to know all the possible effects the French fleet could on had on the war, joins Royal Navy in 1940, sails to internment in the US in 1940, sails to a French base in the Caribbean or indochina, captured by the axis in 1940, 1942. Is there any sign the British knew anything about the German operation at the time?
Pinned post for Q&A :)
I have red that Seymour hadn't even completed signaling-training. So how did he become Beattys Flag-Officer in the first place?
How good were the Italian submarinos??
I've got three questions regarding the german aircraft carrier Graf Zeppelin:
1) Were all of its design flaws a consequence of the germans having zero experience in the aircraft carrier department or were other factors involved? I've heard that at some point the germans actually asked the japanese for assistance with the carrier's development only for the japanese to refuse.
2) While i know it was clearly outclassed by american and japanese carriers how effective was it in comparison to the british carriers and the french carrier Bearn?
3) If she had been completed in 1940 or in early 1941 as originally intended could the germans have used it to launch several attacks at the british fleet at Scapa Flow much like how the british attacked the italian fleet at Taranto in 1940? Or if she was available for operation Rheinubung could it have been used to damage the british fleet in order to distract them long enough to allow Bismarck and Prinz Eugen to break into the atlantic unscathed?
How much would the battleships taffy 3 thought they were going to get change the battle of Samar
How useful would HMS Dreadnought have been had it fought in Jutland
Drach: 'In order to celebrate 50k subscribers, here's an incredibly informative one hour video mocking virtually every interwar destroyer design effort for trying to create ships with the displacement of light cruisers, armaments of destroyer escorts or torpedo boats, and seakeeping tendencies of a malfunctioning submarine'
@Brian Roome no he isnt. Your an american arnt u.
@@acedogboy8421 Hey, I’m a Yank and quite appreciate his wit in mocking those designs!
@@jamesharding3459 your one of the inteligent ones then hahahah
@@acedogboy8421 Maybe, sometimes I wonder about it though. Self aware, at least.
@@acedogboy8421 I don't claim him.
If anything I find the British sense of understatement and tendancy towards self effacement to be the opposite of arrogance. If anything it is typically the American who is known for arrogance, notwithstanding their ability (in the past at least) to justify such arrogance in action.
I love how this is still "more or less" 5 minutes. Precision worthy of World War I British fleet gunnery.
Joke only really works if you specify Beatty's battle cruisers pre Jutland.... The rest of the fleet was as good as RN gunnery usually is throughout history
or the kamchatka.
And significantly better than the gunnery of the Russian Second Pacific Squadron.
Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.
Paul and Sue Roberts : You must be fun at parties.
Dönitz is very jealous of your 50k subs.
I see what you did there! 😁👌
Heh
I just got the joke. Excellent!
Deep
Best comment on youtube, hands down.
I just got the shook of my life when watching this video.
D22 as shown in this video is H.M.S. AISNE a battle class destroyer built in 1943.
I serve on her in the early sixties where we sailed for the best part in the med but went many other places as well.
It was one of the few ships capable of 34 knots, had two main turrets with 4.5in guns, plus sea cat missiles and twim limbos aft.
It was quite amazing to see this ship in the video, but there were four of this class in the med fleet and something that i will not forget for many years to come, it was a good solid ship with i think 152 crew in all.
Yep. Good ship. She wasn't scrapped until 1970!
Drachism of the day: "Since remaining upright is generally seen as a good thing amongst most ships" (38:06)
and this is why we love him .
in non gay fassion :)
@@murderouskitten2577 It's not gay if we're underway.
"Self-consuming machinery".
@@murderouskitten2577 , or in a strictly platonic way for those few of us who are of the feminine persuasion!
The Upright Shipizens Brigade approves.
59:38 ...to the extent of: Use all your fuel and there's a very good chance you're returning to port upside-down."
1:00:38 ...and raise the stern deck somewhat higher than "water surface level"."
1:02:00 "These changes in design finally gave the Germans a destroyer that wasn't either trying to tear itself apart simply by moving or immediately try to join the U-boat corps at the first sign of a wave."
1:03:37 "...helped only slightly by the fact that at least the turret was fully-enclosed, so everybody else got damp socks instead of the turret crew."
1:07:37 "They were badly weighted, so the bow was always trying to head down to meet nearby submarines."
1:07:45 "Oh, and they'd also start to provide free massages to the crew in the form of whole hull vibrations when they tried to get up to top speed."
1:08:43 "...albeit at the cost of having converted a warship into the world's fastest and most expensive group therapy massage chair."
1:09:59 "...and the modifications would add weight in places it really wasn't needed when your primary interests include "not swimming in the Arctic Ocean"."
1:13:01 "Predictably, after the Leningrads, a pure Soviet design destroyer was a bit of a disaster, with added German high-pressure machinery to help along with the shenanigans."
Drachinifel is on a roll today against the Germans and Soviets.
Amazingly funny quotes
This *is* great stuff. :-)
Never forget that timeless soviet adage...
... and then it got worse.
@@dragnus12 ah the side effects of neo feudalism brought about by attempted communism that predictably failed to achieve utopia and degraded the intellectual and production capacity of its host nation so badly that the effects still exist to this very day, over a hundred years later. I'm sure no one will ever try something so stupid again, right?
@@dragnus12 kamchakta "torpedo boats?"
Timestamps
Introduction: 00:00:30
-------------------------------------------------------------------
State of destroyer development at the start of the interwar period: 00:02:12
American Clemson: 00:04:30
Washington Naval treaty: 00:06:04
Japanese Fubuki: 00:06:58
--------------------------------
------------------------------------
Italian design: 00:09:10
Curtatone & Leone class': 00:10:00
Sella, Sauro & Turbine class': 00:10:38
Navigatori class: 00:11:08
And the rest: 00:11:54
--------------------------------
-------------------------------------
French design: 00:12:07
Chacal class: 00:13:45
Guépard class: 00:14:32
Aigle & Vauquelin class': 00:15:01
Le Fantasque class: 00:15:20
La Melpomène class: 00:17:09
Mogador class: 00:17:48
Le Hardi class: 00:19:27
--------------------------------
-------------------------------------
Japanese design: 00:20:15
Hatsuharu class: 00:21:30
Shiratsuyu class: 00:22:58
Asashio class: 00:23:34
Kagerō class: 00:24:13
-------------------------------
---------------------------------------
American design: 00:24:54
Farragut class: 00:26:31
Porter class: 00:28:20
Somers class: 00:30:30
Mahan class: 00:31:13
Gridley class: 00:32:23
Bagley & Benham class': 00:34:10
Sims class: 00:34:50
Benson class: 00:36:30
Gleaves class: 00:37:06
--------------------------------
--------------------------------------
British design: 00:38:32
Shakespeare & Admiralty class': 00:39:23
Ambuscade & Amazon class': 00:40:42
A & B class': 00:41:36
C & D class': 00:43:54
E & F class': 00:44:40
G & H class': 00:45:52
I class: 00:46:52
Tribal class: 00:48:10
J, K & N class': 00:49:35
L & M class': 00:50:52
Hunt class: 00:52:23
----------------------------------
-------------------------------------
German design: 00:54:11
Torpedo boats;
Type 1923 & 1924: 00:54:52
Type 1935: 00:56:35
Type 1937: 00:57:23
Type 1939: 00:57:57
Fleet destroyers;
Type 1934: 00:58:17
Type 1934A: 01:00:14
Type 1936: 01:01:15
Type 1936A: 01:02:17
----------------------------------
-----------------------------------
Gun laying and loading mechanisms: 01:04:25
----------------------------------
----------------------------------
Soviet design: 01:05:24
Leningrad class: 01:05:44
Gremyashchiy class: 01:09:25
Storozhevoy class: 01:10:54
Ognevoy class: 01:11:28
Opytny class: 01:12:40
Tashkent class: 01:13:40
-----------------------------------
-------------------------------
Outro: 01:14:56
Minor correction - it is Fubuki.
@Tom Lemon thanks for the studious effort required to compile this...
This man is a hero, drach, give this man a free video request!
You are a hero we need, but not one we deserve. Thank you for compiling this.
Nice 👍 thanks for the effort
anyone else noticed how, one year later, the sequel/third part to this trilogy was never made? I hope it will be soon, because this was a great listen
Me too!
@@TorvakMOS I believe he said he was going to cover WW2 and post WW2 destroyer designs but I could be wrong.
+1
@@Blackreaper95 He said there would be a pre-WW1 video, interwar video, and a WW2 and post-war (I assume to 1950) video
@@jakemillar649 Sounds about right.
"they did not need, in fact, to construct additional Clemsons"
What about pylons?
You always need to construct additional pylons. Always.
Nah. We need more vespene gas though.
"catching a bad case of communism and associated civil war symptoms..." You Sir have made my day...
Although funny, the diagnosis was somewhat incorrect. Russia already had catched a really bad case of feudalism. Instead of using the rather placebo like capitalist cure (change nothing, but make the people feel better) they instead decided to go on full rampage with the chemotherapy like communist cure. With powerful fanatics on both sides, alternative cures had been overlooked to this very day.
@@ringowunderlich2241 Capitalism is the perfectly adequate cure when administered with a good dose of human rights and social security to mitigate the harmful side effects.
@@DrLoverLover Obviously their brand of capitalism is neither corraled by human rights nor milked by taxation as is done in dare I say less uncivilised parts of the first world...
Drach, after finishing with the destroyers please do a series on cruisers, seperate light and heavy, or just combine them if u can 😁😁
Nah don't combine them it's not right.
@@buster117 hurmm yeah you might probably right
dont combine . then we can be in suspense for extra 2 years :)
p.s.
not a nod that he is slow , just recognizing the amount of work needed for this kind of video .
They’ll probably have to be combined for the first parts, since the split between light and heavy didn’t happen till later.
Combining them would be necessary, they were intertwined in development until WWII, really. They evolved from large light cruisers, and in the treaty era they were the same displacement as light cruisers, so the main difference between, say, a Town and a County was 8 8" rather than 12 6". Covering them seperately would be like making seperate videos on the two French destroyer types, they are just too closely related to be split off from each other.
US Congress: “We need 2 more destroyers”
US Navy: “Putting in an order for 20 destroyers”
US Shipwrights: “Good news guys! Time to build 200 new destroyers!”
US Harbors: “Hurry up and finish those new facilities to service 2000 new destroyers!”
There is a legend in the US Navy that the 31st Spruance class destroyer, USS Hayler was a data entry error in the fleet logistics system and was actually supposed to a case of peaches.
@@JamesSavik "If one of you jokers orders an F18 or a dolphin, as in the animal..." Seriously, if it exists it's in FEDLOG.
US Naval Shipyards, You guys got space for 20,000 new Destroyers??? No well congress passed the bill!.
@@JamesSavik There is also a legend that you have 1/2 a brain, but it's not true.
@@christopherherrington8387 Is there space in the mental ward for one more delirious fool, cause Christopher is one.
"A couple AA guns thrown in for morale purposes."
Lol, too true.
Bloody billy Mitchell!!!
And also force attacker to take evasive maneuver and will put more pressure on pilot during bombing run.
AA doesn't need to destroy aircraft, the fact that they put machine guns on tanks as an AA deterrent says a lot. Most of the time it's enough if, as the Chieftain puts it: ''You convince the enemy to go go that a way''
@Mialisus or just shoot up infantry and enemy sailors in some unexpected situation: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danube_Delta_Campaign
As per usual, Uncle Drach produces yet another informative and compelling video.
I wasn't expecting the length, though. The intro summoned my eldest cat for lap time. By the time RoboDrach's voice called the outro my legs were thoroughly asleep.
Still, two thumbs up!
We’ve come a long way from the 5 minute guide txt to speech videos 🙂👍🏼 50k subs, well done mate
I was just thinking about this. I started reading Samuel Eliot Morison when I was 14 in 1966 and couldn't imagine then that I would one day have Drachinifel, TIK, Military History Visualized, and The Chieftain pandering to my military history interest. Truly, it is the best and worst of times.
@@MakeMeThinkAgain But is this really the case? :)
@@nukclear2741 not sure, I'll check the track tensioner
The Fletcher Class was the ultimate. The day will come when we want more of them. I know first hand,having served on USS Twining, DD540, during her whole action in WW2. Great ship. Many close calls, but always lucky. Brought me back in one piece.
That comment about machine spirits needing to be appeased caught me off-guard, resulting in a surprisingly wide arc of coffee being launched at my wall (fortunately, not via my nose). Thanks for giving me an actual laugh, it helped to brighten my day quite a bit. 😂
I would like to say that these videos never caused such a reaction in me. However, that would be a lie.
58:18
That Machine Spirit joke pleases the Omnissiah.
Blessed be the holy gears of the Omnissiah, sing your praise to The God of All Machines!!!!
Holy Life! Cog and Gear! Blessed be the Omnissiah!
That is why it is mandatory for all Navy vessels to have at least one official tech priest on board.
1100110100100100011101001110100100100100100100010010001111101001010010101000100101001000100100100101
I giggled mo9re than I should have.
The Fletcher Class was the ultimate. The day will come when we want more of them. I know first hand,having served on USS Twining, DD540, during her whole action in WW2. Great ship. Many close calls, but always lucky. Brought me back in one piece.
Buffalos has a Fletcher Class Destroyer the USS The Sullivans (DD-537)
@@robertyoung3992 Been there twice.She is outfitted same as the Twining.
@@jaddy540 Did you serve in ww2 ?
How old are you ?
No offence, I am just curious. I was born in 2003 and I want to know how people lived in mid 20th century.
@@GenocideWesterners if genuine would have been 92-93 at time typing..
IF. being key word.
the language used dont sound right for a 90 plus yr old tbh. just.. slightly off in choice of idiom and stuff.
The Fletcher class was the zenith of destroyer design imo,, fast heavily armed and not too big not too small...
Drach has been quoting or referencing 40k pretty regularly as of late. This makes me very happy indeed. He also said that German destroyers like to identify as pretzels from time to time. That made me laugh more than it should have. Overall, amazing video, one of the best you've ever done. I made sure to share it on Facebook in a Naval group I'm in.
Next episode is just going to be drach chanting. "Fletcher, Tribal, Fletcher, Tribal" over and over again.
In nomine Fletcher, et Tribal, et Spiritus Benson...
Yugumo, Akizuki, Hatsuharu...
@@Drachinifel -Aaaaaaaamennnnnnn!
Man that British battlecruiser mentality, now applied to Allied DDs.
Drachinifel I’m dying Drachnifel. Dying like how the Algonquin got torped
Congratulations to 50 k subs - well and truly deserved!
The Kriegsmarine would be jealous.
Oh hey Napalm! :)
It's a little more now...
Great program. Especially welcomed by me because, although I was a surface warfare officer for the four Iowas, two carriers, and two deep draft amphibious assault ships, it was the destroyers that always held my heart and where I began.
The masses want stories sir!
Drac, At the 36:00 mark you're discussing the Sims class but the photo is of DD 422, the USS Mayo, a Benson Class (next in the line up). My father-inlaw was a plank owner on the Mayo as gun captain on the Number Five Mount. The Mayo has a interesting history, just missing the Bismark while on Neutrality Patrol, early convoy escorts - division mate being torpedoed, North Africa, Sicily, Salerno, and Anzio. Almost had her keel broken by a mine (father-inlaw vehemently insisted til he died that it was torpedo...) and then the longest tow back to the States for the time. RebuIlt and ended up at Tokyo Bay for the surrender. Make an interesting "five minutes" of her own.
your descriptions of some flaws in ship design always makes me laugh, love ya work mate
The History of Naval Warfare is simply fascinating. From the Bronze Age Greek Triremes to nuclear powered Aircraft Carriers.
One of my spacefleets (which one remains to be seen) now has gained a new destroyer called Pretzel, so thanks for that. And keep up the good work, your videos are really interesting and at times hilarious, so much thanks for making them!
Still waiting for the third part. Lets’s hope that Drach hasn’t forgotten.
Your content is some of the best online.
I just noticed that this channel is really detailed and thorough. Kudos.
Very informative rundown of the destroyer classes and how they compared to one another.....
And thanks to your sarcastic humor describing some of their flaws, you've made the journey both interesting and amusing......
Although I kept waiting for the inevitable reference to the Italian navy's submarine class equipped with the screen doors......
Thank you, Drachinfel, for a well researched and informative documentary. You imparted a considerable amount of information in a short period of time and naturaly I found myself trying to relate what I was watching to the machinery in WoWS, which I play on two servers. Dry humour is also much appreciated, one of the reasons I subscribed some time ago.
"...and ships that truly believed that they identified as pretzels." I about lost it. You should write a book of one-liners. You'd die a very rich man.
Lovely, now look at the minor navies. Poland, The Netherlands, Sweden (We built a lot of DD:s for a small nation)
"Thanks to the country [Russia] catching a bad case of communism." Oh Drach never change and congrats on 50k
@Big Bill O'Reilly I don't think it was meant to imply the Russia/Soviet Union got weaker, more that communism threw a wrench into EVERYTHING - including ship design and construction
@Big Bill O'Reilly history more than a little backs up the idea that communism=dictatorship, not that I meant that in the first place, but whatever
@Big Bill O'Reilly And the fact every government that at least began as communist has devolved into dictatorship and repression says nothing about communism?
"Special shout-out to the Germans for the innovations in self-consuming machinery, and ships that truly believed that they identified as pretzels."
LOOOOL
falloutghoul1
German destroyers of WWII really were awful, generally.
@@bkjeong4302 well they where built for the most part so long before ww2 they where obselete by the time they got restricted to the numbers they where at.
@@bkjeong4302 Truly baffling how Preston could put flush deckers on his list while ignoring bad and completely inconsequential German destroyer designs.
@@Stardude78 Agreed.
@@Stardude78 "ze german magic superiority, junge". I'm biased towards flush-deckers, can't help it.
This was the longest five minutes of my life. And I mean that entirely as a compliment.
"So, what do you feel like watching tonight? Mad Max: Fury Road? Hot Fuzz? Schindler's List?"
"What about 77 minutes of interwar destroyer development?"
"AH NOW WE TALKING"
Rather odd assortment of movies you’ve got there
What Peep show episode was this? Sound hilarious...wait a minute..
Let’s be honest...”Hot Fuzz” was the only real competition due to the sea mine!
@@HEDGE1011 don't worry. It's disarmed. *smacks it* See? *sounds of mechanically triggered death emanates from the sea mine...and nothing happens.*
SEE! Disarmed.
So great. Thank you for all your time researching and reading for these. Not to mention all the time to put the vids together and do the recordings. Great stuff. Cheers.
I get giddy whenever I see the new video is an hour plus
Very informative - especially as it helps sort out all those pesky French Destroyer classes. BTW in a couple of places you wrongly say 120mm guns are 4 inch - apparently I’m not the only one who sometimes get confused when speaking and thinking at the same time...
Well, 4.7. Pretty close. Closer to 5" though.
I only noticed it when it made sense for him to say 4 inch, or 120mm, in reference to general destroyer calibres, since it was basically 4 inch, with the RN on 4.7 for a decent while.
You can't imagine how helpful these vids are for ideas when I'm designing a new DD in From the Depths. Or any class of combat ship for that matter.
Drach, I really love how you make something soooo very boring, and make it into something very funny and educational content.
Thank you :)
I love these videos that focus on the development of a certain type of warship.
As destroyers increased in capabilities, increased complexity slowed production. Small ASW specialty vessels like the Flower class filled a lower end gap. Light cruisers like the USS Atlanta, covered up in AA guns filled another gap.
I know, I know - I pressed Thumbs Up before watching .. but I knew I'd enjoy the ramble, and I did. Thank you Drachinifel; may the 'subscribe' hits continue to increase. Phew! ;o)
50k reached! Congrats brother, keep it up.
Would love to see a similar series on cruiser development.
With such an in-depth approach, fubuki subtypes could've been explored as well.
Thry were as different inside as many actual classes in video.
Also, generally discarding looking into interwar AA based on its inedaquacy in 1940s is cruel.
1920s, 1930s and 1940s planes are just different in too many ways.
My grandfather was in command of HMS Codrington in 1931. I knew it had an extra gun midship, but didn't know it had a stretched hull! He also commanded HMS Acasta which was smaller.
The whole German DD program just frustrates me...
The Germans can't claim lack of engineering capacity. Not with all the technology they possessed and secretly developed in the 1920's.
The started off bad with the Type 1934, but even before the first of those ships was in commission, the Type 1936 design was already finished and the first 1936 hulls where laid down. They must have known that the rushed Type 1934 was bad and fixed it without having any operational feedback from the commissioned ships. With the Type 1936 they where clearly on the right track. The hulls are probably a bit heavy for their firepower and crew requirements seem excessive, but there probably was a lot to win from a refined Type 1936 design.
From that point onwards, Germany could have build a number of suburb, improved 1936 ships. They had all the technology for it.
-Germany by the middle of the 1930's was capable of fitting out warships ships with diesel engines for propulsion. Putting at least 51,000 SHP (so at least six 8,500SHP engines) in a Type 1936 hull would have been possible. MAN already designed 10,000 SHP diesels for the D-class and would design anything the Reichmarine and later the Kriegsmarine would order. This would give the destroyers the desired range. The Germans wanted 6,000nm at 20kn and diesels can give you that, even with limited fuel capacity.
-Most of Germany its shipbuilding expertise was still around. It was not like in 1919 some allied troops marched into the German naval design office and shot everybody on sight. Most of the staff probably ended up at Deutsche Werke, the major German commercial yards or ended up in the Netherlands for clandestine development of warships. The Germans did show some good level of competence in certain aspects, but it never seems to have gotten all aspects together in one ship. I suspect that the problem was not so much the designers, but the people making the (often stupid) requirements and a whole lot of typical Nazi Germany political intrigues messing with the designs.
-Hazemeyer, the developer of the 40mm Bofors mounts, well the company was pretty much German. Hazemeyer was founded on invitation of the Dutch navy because of the requirements for fire-control systems for the incomplete cruisers Java and Sumatra. They wanted the latest German system, but after WW1 the Germans could not deliver. So Siemens-Halske just setup a Dutch company, staffed with Germans, to deliver the systems while also keeping development going. Only in the late 1930's would the Dutch navy try to obtain some level of control over the company. In other words, the AA mount and accompanying fire control system the Dutch navy used, the RN copied and the USN took for inspiration, could have been installed on all German ships, because it was designed by Germans. Further there are the long standing rumours and speculations that the infamous 40mm Bofors AA gun was largely based on a rejected 40mm AA gun design by Krupp.
-The Germans already had quite some welding experience to keep the hull's light. Again, partly via the Netherlands. The AG Vulkan and Krupp Germaniawerf had a joint design bureau in the Netherlands, IvS, to design ships for foreign customers as well as for the Dutch navy. That is again a place where a lot of German naval architects ended up.
-The Germans further had the practice of mounting their AA guns as far back on their cradles as possible and balancing the guns with counterweights. That allows for a lower overall height of the mounting without the breach smashing into the deck upon high elevation recoil. Like this you can design more compact and thus lighter dual purpose mounts for use on destroyers, cruisers and battleships. Look at for example the infamous Flak 88 and the pivoting point of the gun. It is really far back and that allowed the gun to be lower, lighter and thus also used as an AT gun.
-The German 37mm AA gun for the navy was hand loaded. This while for the Heer, the Flak 18 and very soon afterwards the improved 36/37 appeared. Very underrated AA guns. They trade some muzzle velocity and a bit of explosive power for being much lighter. Either will happily shoot down most if not all single engined planes of the WW2 era with one good hit.
A Type 1936A should have been something like this:
-Diesel engines for the range, lower crew requirements, better low fuel stability because the engines are heavy and the added benefit of not killing everybody when the compartment takes a hit and a boiler bursts. It would even allow better redundancy because you can now introduce three separate engine rooms with transverse bulkheads separating them.
-Six 128mm guns in three dual purpose turrets, one forward and two super firing aft. The turrets should not only increase RoF, but also help with reducing crew requirements somewhat.
-Eight 553mm torpedo tubes.
-Replacement of all the AA with five dual mounted 37mm AA guns, a naval variant of Flak 18 or 36. Preferably with a simplified Hazemeyer mount with some fire control system, because also German.
-Aim to get crew requirements down to some 280 sailors and officers and displacement of some 2300t standard.
Both the IJN and USN needed about a decade before they seem to have realised that their ships might be top heavy, unstable and structurally unsound. The IJN only figured it out because their ships where literally falling apart in a storm. The Germans figured it out without having commissioned the first of their rush job Type 1934's. Then they fixed it, and then they f*cked it up again with those stupid 15cm guns. 😒
I do like your points, but I think there was a serious design problem in the German Navy, with over-engineering creating tons of excess weight; and an ignorance of the merits of top-notch sea-keeping, plus growth-potential. Trying to fit too much onto displacement really limited the ships in some ways, and the over-engineering and possible design inefficiencies resulted in larger, heavier hulls as well.
@@aikishugyo Engineers don't over engineer because they like to make everything to complex. No, they over engineer out of a lack of experience and knowledge what is important and what not. A true second generation of German destroyers based on the Type 1936 hull should be simplified in terms on construction and enhanced in terms of capability. Turing the Type 1936 into a production model should accomplish this. This is what the RN did with its destroyers and to a lesser degree the USN and IJN did the same. The Germans meanwhile kept designing new destroyers like the Type 1937J, Type 1938A or the Type 1938B instead of focussing on the reasonably Type 1936 and improving this design for series production. The only real "improvement" was the switch to 15cm guns. A switch that doesn't seem to have been thought out, not universally approved. The same argument about 12,8cm vs 15cm kept returning
To me that doesn't point at the German engineers being incapable, but the military leadership being unsure what they want. The Type 1934, 1934A and 1936 already reflect this. The Germans where designing just about every possible configuration of destroyer in the span of a few years. From the small torpedo boots which where more like small destroyers, all the way to ships that could outgun a French contre-torpilleur while also having both a cruising diesel and high performance turbines so they could be used as commerce raiders.
The Germans had all the technology they could want to create a decent destroyer. Everything from being the leading nation when it came to radar in the 1930's, diesels, fire-control systems, excellent guns in the 37mm Flak 18/36/37, the 10,5cm SK C/33 or the 12,8cm SK C/34 or competent engineers. Neither where they short of good ideas. The problem was that the German navy as a whole failed to actually take everything they had and turn it into a good combat vessel. To me that sounds like a failure of management, not engineering which always seems to be the focus when discussing the interwar German navy.
@@DanielWW2 Sure, I just did not bother to spell it out, since I considered it pretty obvious that lack of experience was the culprit, rather than incapable. That said, the philosophy, as you pointed out, was dead wrong, leading to no savings. And that "switch", as you pointed out, a similar mistake. Whether or not there was a vision I don't know, but if there was, it seems to have kept changing, and never hit the mark in terms of what destroyers should accomplish, and what designs are actually fit for the job at hand. My conclusion was that inexperience kept them from being realistic, and actually acknowledging nature, men, seaworthiness, and effectiveness in reality rather than in fantasyland/paper. Certainly they could have built awesome destroyers if they had known how. Whether the designers had different ideas from management but were forced into unrealistic designs is not known, but obviously management was unable to define a realistic design so the buck definitely stops there.
H
Corrections
The German torpedoboats type 1924 - called "Raubtier-class" - also had 105mm main armament - like the class before. They wanted to mount 127mm guns but were not allowed by the allies to do so. 1934 "Luchs" and "Leopard" at least got the bigger guns but the rest of the class kept the 105mm calibre.
Looking forward to the next video as my Dad served as PO on HMS Rotherham. Great work,keep it up!
"[and they could reach even higher speeds], albeit at the cost of turning a warship into the world's fastest, and most expensive group massage theraphy chair"
I'm dying of laughter, this is too much of a burn! :DDDDD
What a fantastic breakdown, usually these type of videos are drier than a popcorn fart. You managed to add colour and some laughs! So glad I found this channel. Now I just hope that this channel hasn’t been abandoned.
USN during the 30's- "It's a new year, we need a couple of new destroyer classes!"😋
Excellent, much appreciate the detail and honest commentary on how everyone was trying to do too much. Looking forward to the next chapter.
Destroyers have evolved to be the teeth and the bone of any fleet and this time period is when the naval powers actually had the technology to build highly effective ones like the Fubukis and the Fletchers. My question, actually request is to do some in depth pieces on the destroyer classes that turned out to be the backbones of the fleets in WWII.
Love your work man! Thank you for all the research you do!
That said, I TRIPLE DOG DARE YOU to make a video without saying "whilst" even once.
I heard a 40k reference my hobbies are colliding!!!!!!!!!!!!
Also love the video you are one of the best ship historians that I have found
now back to our previously scheduled worlds colliding
Ave, Omnisiah! Glory to the Machine!
An outstanding historical site, long may you continue and prosper and educate us with true facts!
Then everything changed when Fubuki came into the picture.
She did again (sorta) in the 21st century.
"My special type Destroyer can't be this cute"
I mean, She is cute in Kancolle
Kongou best kancolle waifu go awai heretics.
Shimakaze for life ! :D
Terror (Azure Lane) is best girl (and creepy old)
Poi
The lecture I wish I could have heard in school. I am very lucky to be able hear this as I travel to work. Thank you for the excellent explanation of each nation's various classes.
Huge congrats 50k uboats :)
Keep up the great work and we look forward to seeing you get 500k uboats :)
Favorite channel to listen too while falling asleep.
“Two AA guns for moral purposes”
This is why I now have subscribed
That was awesome. Watched the whole thing. Subtle humor throughout keeps it interesting.
Spectacular, well researched, thorough, and full of humor. Thanks Drach!
This is epic, if you could please go back and do WWI in similar detail. there is ahuge gap between the preceding video and this one.
First time iv'e made it here this early. Love your work Drach, Keep up the good work. And I love the hour long videos.
Great video Drach and gratz on reaching 50k subs. How jealous is Donitz? Now the next target is 100k
Seeing the inevitable rise in the size of DD's brings to mind a quote from a book I read years and years ago.
"As we increase the size and capability of our DD's, we gradually change them from the hunters to the hunted"
Just can't remember where I read that.
When you talked about the Leningrad-class DDLs, I couldn't stop laughing when you started running off all the wonderful issues. You really do a lot of good work in making such a dry subject so interesting! Nicely done!
What a great video history! An interesting side story with USN destroyers were the experiments with mounting seaplanes. The first attempt was with the USS Charles Ausburn (DD-294) mounting a TS-1 floatplane in 1923. The fixed platform was inconveniently mounted directly in front of the bridge. This not only obstructed vision from the bridge but also greatly interfered from the field of fire from the forward 4" gun. Several successful flights were conducted, but the inadequate crane capacity, being needed to lower the plane and retrieve it, and the fragile nature of these early seaplanes, made the experiment generally a failure. The seaplane and platform were removed in early 1924 with the Ausburn being restored to the configuration of other Clemson class vessels.
The next attempt was aboard the US Noa (DD-343), yet another Clemson class. I realize this is slightly outside the 1939 limit of the discussion, but the plans for the seaplane mount were started in 1938, and Noa was originally scheduled for recommissioning in 1939, so close enough. Frank Knox, then Secretary of the Navy, was a great believer in the idea of using destroyers as seaplane carriers to extend their range for fleet protection and commerce raiding. To test this concept again, the Noa was taken in hand when she was recommissioned in April, 1940. She had an XSOC-1 seaplane mounted this time on a rotating platform, displacing the aft bank of torpedoes. She also had a boom with a much greater lifting capacity, and the XSOC-1 was a much more robust aircraft than her predecessors. This time the experiment was more successful, with many flights, and the ability to retrieve the plane while underway, a difficult task for a relatively small Clemson class ship. Noa retained her seaplane until November, 1941, and the generally successful experience with Noa led to Knox mandating the construction of six Fletcher class destroyers with seaplane capability, this time with catapults (!). However, as Drach would say, that's a story for another day.
Square peg, round hole......😏 Nice dream, wrong platform for scout planes. They Need Sikorsky to finish his work on a chopper.
@@WALTERBROADDUS Indeed. He had some shipboard trials aboard the New York in late 1944 with R-4 that were pretty successful. The R-4 had been used in small numbers by the Coast Guard starting in late '42 and the successful shipboard trials for the R-4 cleared for full scale production starting in February, 1945. The first examples reached the Pacific fleet in June for more testing before it was scheduled for operational use by most capital ships ammo ships, hospital ships and high value transports by 1946. To its credit the Navy recognized early on the value of a helicopter for what would become vertrep and casevac.It was just a gnat's eyelash too late to see operational service during the war, but we all know what's happened with helicopters since then.
OR do an episode on corvettes or escort vessels - other than destroyers. Great videos you produce! I've never had a naval background, but your episodes are incredibly interesting. Thank you!!
Who besides me was trying to figure out how the WoWS Tiers changed as development of the lines progressed?
< raises hand >
Me too that is so crazy I was just doing the same thing 😂
Me too that was so crazy you said that I'm doing the same thing
WoWs : "We have no idea how to balance the Fubuki and what tier it should be at, so let's just remove one of her turrets without any historical basis at all".
hi drac as soon as i hear your theme music i know i will be enjoying a master class video
“Unless the machine spirits were properly appeased”
Do I detect a fellow 40k fan?
Drach, you attempting those French and Italian names was genuinely hilarious, made me laugh out loud fr. Thank you tho for all the hard work, keep it up and we'll keep watching.
58:26 Hans, grab the sacred ungent, the engine’s making funny noises again
throw some beer in too
This is a brilliant 5 minutes guide! I love the footage!
Good heavens. After watching the section on Soviet DD's..... I knew that WoWS was delving into fantasy quite heavily, when they introduced the Soviet cruiser line back in the day, the subsequent premium cruisers, and of late their Soviet BB line. But I was prepared to give them some leeway on DD's, since that was one class they had actually built in some numbers.
But now to hear that even the ships they actually did build, far from being virtually "best in class" as portrayed in game, were little short of a hog's dinner of mistakes and failures in real life..... it does make me wonder just how much, if any, their national mindset has changed since the fall of communism 30 years ago.
When they started their PR push for the release of the Soviet BB line, and I listened to one of the devs make the statement "if these ships had been built, they would have been the cream of the world's shipbuilding", I literally choked on my coffee at that farcical statement. It does make me wonder, if perhaps we should embargo the sale of potatoes to Russia, as it might cause a reduction in vodka consumption to more sane levels at WG headquarters.
Mitchell Oates
Russian Bias isn’t even the worst problem with the game. The entire gameplay is.
@@bkjeong4302 the real shame is that there is no real good naval combat game of that style.
War Thunders naval doesn't have the ship variety and then you have to deal with the fact nobody plays naval in that game too.
Russian bias ruined all the World of... games.
Surely I'm not the only person who loves Dracs videos playing on the background while going about their daily chores or work?
Top Drachism: "With added German high pressure machinery to help along with the shenanigans."
Thanks for your great attention to detail, and for the extremely dry wit!
Your content should be on the history channel it's that good quality.
I think Drachinifel is too smart and knowledgeable, the H channel would dumb down the content and certainly would ruin the humor.
@@raygiordano1045 *insert meme about history channel and aliens here*
The History Channel is everything BUT The History Channel. That died a long time ago.
@@Slaktrax the history channel was one of the last channels I watched before giving up on tv altogether many moons ago.
Even on RUclips it's hard to watch because of all the recapping between commercial breaks.
I am sorry, but I enjoy you're older video's, because you seemed to enjoy it yourself. Now I am finding them a little boring, and no I couldn't do better myself, that's why I watch and don't try to make them myself. I am getting older and cranky so maybe it's me. TY for your hard work.
Some lovely "Quotable" quotes in the documentary !! As an ex RN "member" myself, I know the disbelief at what the Admiralty actually decided!?!
Fantastic documentary! Really informative and in-depth.
Was on a fram2 Gearing... I loved the pounding of the ole tin cans.
I can't get enough of these doc's. Thank you
Small quality of life request, but when you upload videos that are follow ups to other videos, could you include a link to the previous video in the description?
excellent work as always. Would love to see this or to deep dive for each major class of ships.
Being fast attack boats have made a comeback (plus suicide boats) , smaller E-type boats might need to be resurrected and greatly modified to provide a deterrent. Cheaper to maintain. Plus seven or eight carried and launched by helicopter carriers.
When you get an average of 4 hours of sleep because you get recommended you favorite genre of video, i.e. hour+ historical commentary deep dives.
Greg's airplanes and automobiles and C&Rsenal are also really good.
Still waiting for the wartime Destroyer video if i am not wrong^^
I was wondering about that hahaha
I had no idea about destroyers and the destroyer's armament/tonnage issues. U schooled me and got a subscriber
Congratulations on 50t subs. We really like your channel. And question: Q&A What would hade happend if "Case Anton" had succeeded, and the scuttling of the French fleet at Toulon had failed and the ship would had been captured by the Germans (and Italians)?
I like to know all the possible effects the French fleet could on had on the war, joins Royal Navy in 1940, sails to internment in the US in 1940, sails to a French base in the Caribbean or indochina, captured by the axis in 1940, 1942. Is there any sign the British knew anything about the German operation at the time?
Your sense of humor and sarcasm is priceless.
Absolutely no one:
Italian Destroyers:
*_I AM SPEED_*
Fast af boiiii
French DDs were faster still
British Destroyers: The field mouse is fast, but the owl sees at night.
Love your content, especially these type of historical background video's.