Here's a fun Warspite fact I just discovered, while reading the Osprey book _Walcheren 1944: Storming Hitler's island fortress (Campaign, 235)_ by Richard Brooks. Walcheren was part of the defense system protecting the Scheldt Estuary - and preventing the Allies from using the newly captured port of Antwerp. A combination of multiple land and amphibious assaults were used to defeat the German defenses in the area. The whole area had massive coastal defenses as a critical element of the Atlantic Wall. According to the author, cruisers could not be used to destroy these defenses because a) they couldn't get close enough due to shallow water and sand bars, and b) their guns were not big enough. On the other hand, the 15 inch guns on Warspite and a few RN monitors could both a) reach the coastal defenses from outside the shallow water and sand bars, and b) were also powerful enough to damage even the strongest coastal defenses. Support from these ships played a key role in the campaign, supplemented by close range fire from shallow draft gun and rocket armed LCTs (LCG and LCR variants). This should be of interest to people who think that cruisers can replace battleships for coastal bombardment: it's a real world example of a situation where cruisers could not do the job. Another good book on this little-known but very important campaign is _Cinderella operation: The battle for Walcheren 1944_ by Gerald Rawling.
Its often a red flag when people say everything with a great degree of confidence even on difficult topics or things completely outside of their qualifications. Though I was amused when Drach prefaced talking about an onboard electronics system with something to the effect of: "Im not an electrical engineer, but I have studied electrical engineering..."
As a former US submariner, what I’ve always been told as for the reason we call them boats is this. Ships list away from their turns, and boats list with their turns. Submarines when taking any kind of extreme rudder bearing will generally list into their turn, similar to how planes will roll using ailerons, but us its the sail planes. But with ships, their top weight causes them to list opposite of their rudder bearing.
Worth noting that a lot of those Americans who went to war before December 7, 1941 were "officially" Canadian. That is, they crossed the border to Canada and "lied" about the heir citizenship in order to enlist. "Where are you from?" "Cleveland, Ohio." "Lovely place, Ontario." *Stamping papers*
Thanks for answering my question! That last question certainly emphasizes the importance of airpower (vs. AA) against air attack, especially kamikaze attack.
The Henderson field question spirals into a lot of other issues. On one hand it was the scene for many lopsided battles one way or the other, will the IJN have as many chances to sink ships in close night combat without that theatre? On the other hand the IJN does indeed sink some CVs at the cost of a CVL. It drew both sides into a close range knife fight. If Japan holds the airfield, it potentially buys time to start pumping oil from the Dutch fields, expanding the number of pilots it can train, and has two fleet carriers freed for other operations. For japan they buy Time, the time to exploit their gains which is what they planned on the whole time. However for the American side fighting in New Guinea and for Port Morseby also becomes the central focus. Instead of Shoukaku and Zuikaku hunting CVs east of the Solomons, they would be doing so closer to Rabaul and hunting them south of there. With the Solomons also helping to scout the IJN CVs would be more protected while extending the transport lines for where the USN CVs would need to operate to support MacArthur and New Guinea. Once Henderson field is up, its just "another" island chain airbase. Without Henderson, Rabaul is in danger and the perimeter cannot be closed and the precious time to rebuild the oil fields and the Sea Eagles cannot be had. AAAAAAAAAAAALSO the pilots from Midway were retrieved. Sinking the Kidou Butai didn't mean no one was rescued. However the few experienced pilots Japan had were worn down to dust in the daily raids on Henderson. No matter how skilled a pilot is, if you fly them for half the day just to be shot at by ground based AA, then cannot retrieve them you will suffer untold wear on the cadre of pilots. More pilots. More Oil. Safer CV operations. Midway was important, but Guadalcanal is where the war was lost for the Japanese.
Great thoughts on your post. I'll add that other than Java, nearly all of the oil was unrefined and cause enormous maintenance issues in boilers. Dutch Shell employees trashed nearly every major refinery prior to the invasions. The crude was transported back to Japan...Not an efficient system, and not what they had hoped for. The destruction of those refineries and facilities may not have been on a level that the Nazis did to French ports in 1944, but they also scuttled ships in the harbor, dumped irreplaceable cracking towers and pumps in the bay until it was time to bug out. By time Salemaea was invaded, the logistical strategy was trashed, and tankers, not warships, were the priority for the few functioning torpedoes fired by our brave submarines. It's not sexy history, but impaired every aspect of the Pacific War. In 1942, we had rubber and steel shortages... Boo hoo. No Alaska Class Battleship formations, but Essex, Iowas, Independence, Cleveland, Fletcher class warships were being fitted out mid year. So what were they thinking? Logistical input had to be ignored and glossed over. The IJA focused more on how to fight China. Those islands and the Pacific campaign was secondary to Army Commanders, just like Britain had US consent on a Germany First pledge. By 1938, before the US embargos, Japan had little fuel to begin with to start a massive naval war with All the Allies. And then, things got worse
@@richardbennett1856 Japan also created their own paratroopers for the express purpose of capturing those fields before they were destroyed, which never comes up too often. Palembang or something. Japan DID have enough time to get those fields up and running again, but by the time Japan could ship the US could operate submarines close enough to force japan to use what was left of its strength to escort. And you bring up the key point. Japan went to war with the US as an aside to the war against China. Most of the Army was in China, or dedicated to that goal. Getting America to sue for peace was just a stepping stone to force Chiang to sue for peace later. It is comparable to Nazi Germany invading Russia so it could gain the resources to fight the "real" war against the UK/US. Launching a new war to maybe change the conditions to win the old war usually doesn't work out!!
Excellent points, well made. The IJN sought attritional battles to enable The Decisive Battle. What they didn’t realize was that the attritional battles in the Solomons WERE the decisive battle. They started out with a bit of a numerical advantage, but couldn’t replace their losses. The USN were improvising on a shoestring, but would ultimately be able to replace each ship they lost with four (or more ships).
“Pumping oil” was not the critical issue. Transporting that oil to a refinery, converting it into its many militarily useful forms, and then transporting it to final consumers was the critical issue. US submarines were already starting to impinge upon IJ petro-logistics by mid-1942, and would not have been greatly hampered if IJ had controlled Guadalcanal than they were historically.
@dougjb7848 Java crude was light, but gunked up boilers. But the above posts mentioned it. The plans for taking them intact was foiled and replacing it was attempted, but never realized.
@Trek001 Ah, assumed someone might have given you the link. Anyway, doesn't hurt to talk it up a bit - the normies will be here tomorrow and reading this, after all.
46:50: There are still a (vanishingly small) number of politicians who were active in some political (as opposed to a purely military) role during World War II and its immediate aftermath and are still alive. For example, from my China-centric point of knowledge, I know that Ma Shitu, Zhang Lixiong, and Shi Ping (figures of relative prominence in the Second Sino-Japanese War and the Second Phase of the Chinese Civil War) were alive until this year. Additionally, Song Ping (who, among other positions, was the political secretary of Zhou Enlai in the mid-1940s) is still alive today at 107. It's a bit of a technicality and doesn't change your overall point but it's still interesting to think about.
About the question concerning Greek fire, I once read somewhere that a french scientist from the 17th or 18th century (or the equivalent at the time) managed to recreate greek fire and showed a demonstration to the king. His majesty was less than enthusiastic about the discovery, and was so horrified by the weapon that he confined the scientist to his home under guard for the remainder of his days.
00:53:53 Fun fact. The Japanese Model kit company Tamiya had a celebration of their successful operation in 2011 and to mark the occasion released a new version of the Yamato as a premium 1/350 scale kit. (of which I'm fortunate to own one) Since they wanted this model to be as accurate to reality as possible and with so few documentation available to accurately design the new kit they went to the effort and expense of going to visit the actual Yamato wreck. This was partly to settle some disputes over the ships design as little evidence was found to prove one way or the other. That's like a fan club of Apollo 11 going to the moon to take photos of the lunar lander.
Its great when the company still holds the same values as their customers, and spends their profits on the sort of cool stuff everyone else in the community likes. Get rich and stay eccentric!
I think you could argue that HMS Prince of Wales' career was fairly fitting to her namesake (Edward VIII), though not necessarily *honoring* him. -Renamed after Edward VIII's abdication of the throne -Significantly damaged by German bombers while fitting out -Significantly damaged and had various teething issues during the Battle of the Denmark Strait, though she did manage to score two crucial hits on Bismarck -Infamously sunk by Japanese bombers after being in commission for less than a year, the only KGV to be sunk Really the only bright spots for her were those hits on Bismarck, the Atlantic Charter, and her brief time in the Mediterranean where nothing bad happened to her.
On the probability of torpedoes hitting, there is a fourth major variable - how oblivious is your enemy? As demonstrated at Tassafaronga, where cruisers in the back end of the line maintained course and speed after seeing cruisers up front playing torpedo-mon. On the subject of anti-aircraft fire, I seem to recall that Germany was working on a proximity fuse, but method was either sound intensity (for rockets) and capacitance (for guns), neither of which had any real success.
Both the nazis and hungary developed working acoustic fuzes on the axis side, but neither was feasable for use in guns. Germany deployed them in torpedoes I believe and hungary had a working air to air rocket with one, but it was never operationally fielded.
Not really, because contrary to popular belief, a prince is only really valuable alive and it is unlikely one will capture a prince alive off a hostile warship in a 20th-century naval battle. A dead prince is just a martyr for the war effort, proof the aristocracy can pay the ultimate price of war same as the commoners. Also mind, if there was serious fear of a succession crisis if a given prince was killed in war, said prince was usually not risked in war to start with. The blunt reality is that Phillip was expendable at the time.
Wah-dee-dah-dee first you playing Wah-dee-dah-dee then you saying That queer melody, oh-wah-dee-dah-dee Wah-dee-dah-dee then you singing Wah-dee-dah-dee then you swinging That funny old tune will drive me to ruin It came along and made me its slave Now I'm craving things that I shouldn't crave Wah-dee-dah-dee deep-bok-doody Wah-dee-dah-dee scat-da-daddy That funny old tune, oh-wah-dee-dah-dee
Have thought about taking some courses that would bring you up to speed on the newer engineering used in naval warfare. The reason I suggest this that I admire what you do and the veracity that you do it with and the lack of same on many of the channels and programs that I have listened to.
At 46:48, you mention that all the politicians from WW2 are dead now. Technically, that's not true - two WW2-era national leaders are still alive today, and have even been relevant national leaders in the 21st century as well. (But neither Tibet nor Bulgaria is a big naval power, so you're probably fine.)
Simeon is a superb trivia item, he is also the only person who has been hereditary sovereign and elected head of state of the same country, as well as the last person styled Czar (or Tsar).
@nikolaideianov5092 They were both very young, obviously. (The war ended 79 years ago, and they're still alive.) Both were child monarchs, not people actually running governments. But the Bulgarian one (Simeon Saxe-Coburg-Gotha) was elected Prime Minister of Bulgaria in 2001, and the Tibetan one (Tenzin Gyatso, better known as the Dalai Lama) is obviously still an important leader of his people, even in exile.
For a modern take on the "wing engine" concept, apparently the newish QE class carriers have gas turbine generators installed in the sponsons. Apparently the thinking was that this saved quite a lot of volume in ducting a prodigious amount of air in and out of the machine rooms in the bottom of the ship, as gas turbines tend to need. And since the ship is powered by electric motors, no prop shafts to worry about either.
Regarcing the cone shaped round question, the original sabot rounds devised by the British army were pretty accurate to 1,000 yars. And VIRGINIA and MONITOR never fired nowhere neR that far. They even collided a couple of times as I recall.
Speaking of Ships that could steam faster than her hull could handle the Enterprize(CVN-65) had to set a speed limit because her keel was warping under the strain. in her final cruise under power they opened her up, the Rooster tail was as high as the Flight Deck, supposedly old Navy heads claimed they took her up to 43 Knots, but mentioned it was pretty rough sledding, mostly from the propellers cavitating.
Regarding your interviewing experts, have you ever considered interviewing Jingles? I know he's only had a small slice of the Gulf War, but it might be interesting.
"Has there ever been a ship built that ended up being able to steam faster than her hull could physically handle?" You can make an argument with (WW2) Scharnhorst and Gneisenau. Both used hull design of the Mackensen class but instead of the WW1 90,000 hp powerplant the Germans crammed in a 150,000+ hp powerplant. Both ships wanted to submarine at full speed (when they were completed with their original WW1 style bow) and it would have been a disaster had they sortied out in the Atlantic with that configuration. The problem was somewhat mitigated with the installation of an Atlantic clipper style bow but that didn't fully fix the problem.
23:29 The derivation that I originally heard comes from an allusion to the living conditions aboard submarines, calling them "pig boats"; another, from before the introduction of periscopes, required the submarine to surface so the captain could scan the water around the vessel, where the hull shape made them look like surfaced porpoises or dolphins, referred to as sea-pigs, which carried across to the submarine as 'pig boat'; a third, from the appearance of several submarines tied up to their tender like piglets around a sow.
I recently read Cornelius Ryan's, a bridge too far. In it he briefly mentions the efforts to save gliders that had ditched in the sea from the air armada. Could you provide some more information on this? Perhaps how it was organised and who was involved?
I think the channel could cover the Forrest Shermans, Tangs, the GUPPY program and equivalent post 1950 vessels because they are not substantially different from pre-1950 ships.
While the passing of the WWII generation has seen a steady release of documentation, I look towards the century mark to see a large increase. There appears to be something special about the century mark that families realize that their cherished stash of paper and artifacts have historical value beyond family history. In 2014 there was a major increase in families making their personal treasures available to historians, giving us a much more personal insight into WWI. I look for the same to occur when WWII hits the century mark.
@@richardanderson2742 That, and many of the countries involved in the war classified much of the documentation for 75 - 100 years, so there should be more stuff coming out in the next few years.
Probably every WW2 destroyer could go faster than the hull could handle in rough weather. Banging into even moderately large waves at high speed was not good for the hull. A ship capable of 30+ knots in calm seas might very well have to slow down to ~18 knots to avoid damage in rough seas. This is one of the reasons it's not wise to assume - as some people do - that you can simply can replace larger ships with smaller/shorter ships without paying a price for doing so in terms of capability. Operations in certain seasons and certain parts of the world can suffer from the limitations of smaller/shorter vessels in rough weather. I think of all the world's navies, the Royal Navy had the best handle on bad weather operations during the period covered by the channel, due to Britain's proximity to the North Sea and North Atlantic, both of which have reputations for notoriously bad weather.
The last one caught my attention as 304 is the main area code for my home WV, we have a second number now with cells expanding the need for more. The number also has a less then favorable slang meaning but so does the shape of WV. In grade school we were taught to draw WV with our hand giving a middle finger with the panhandles as the offending finger and a thumb broken back as if it was broken in a fight. Hope this gives a laugh and not offense but just a funny connection.
Ship or boat : the version I've heard is whether the ship/boat leans inward or outward when turning. I suspect that ammunition technology plateaued at the end of WW1. It would be difficult to improve on them.
The shells that were used in WW2 for ships were in some cases substantially improved over the WW1 versions. There were lots of small things that added up, reflecting improvements in chemistry/metallurgy/heat treatment etc. Basically things we think of today as mostly being in the realm of 'materials science'. Armor piercing shells in general were much better than anything used in WW1. Some shells were optimized to help them detonate underwater, in the hope of doing damage under the armor belt of a warship. Improving the shells was an ongoing process. The 16" shells made available to US Fast Battleships in 1944 were a significant improvement to the shells previously carried. Of course, there was also an attempt to use up existing ammunition stocks, so it wasn't all new shells. This sometimes caused problems as the old ammunition wasn't (in some cases) stored properly and some shells would fail to detonate. If I recall correctly, USS Massachusetts had problems with this during Operation Torch.
502K and counting! And the USN definition of a ship Vs a boat is that "a boat can be carried on a ship". Circa 1944 Bluejacket's manual. Cheers! The origin of sub tenders was a ship that could use cranes (on the original tiny subs) to take the subs on board. I think the idea that a submarine could go to sea by itself, sink itself, then rise again, was so foreign to normal Navy men, whose job was to keep things afloat, caused them to test and adjust early subs either in very enclosed waters (like NY Harbor) and could only be tested at sea if it had a real ship with it. I guess like we teach children to swim in a pool, where they can grasp the edge if they get in trouble...lol.
@@ph89787 possibly. I think the biggest problem is they didn't have a ship that could tow it or a way to tow it. It might have been listing too much. Maybe too much water on board. Who knows. They ended up using Long Lance torpedoes to finally sink it.
As for Hampton Roads there was a gun and ammunition combo that could have beaten the armour of either Monitor or Virginia but neither party had access to them that being the 68 pounder used by the RN
Which version of the "68 pounder" are you referring to? The smooth bore? or after conversion to the RML 80 pounder? I ask because the 2 x 7 inch Brooke rifles aboard CSS Virginia had a higher muzzle velocity (approximately 1800ft/s for the Brooke 7" vs 1200ft/s for the 68 pounder) and a heavier solid shot (104 pounds). Higher MV + greater weight of shot = greater penetration (over simplifying it, but generally the case). The only problem was that the confederates hadn't loaded any solid shot aboard because they weren't expecting an armored opponent and wanted more shells for use against wooden ships. (A very short sighted decision in hindsight. They should have carried at least a few just in case). Edit: the 11 inch Dahlgren guns aboard USS Monitor had very similar muzzle velocity to the 68 pounder smooth bore, and its solid shot were fairly easily withstood by CSS Virginia's armor.
@@erichammond9308 The Dahlgren guns on Monitor had been rated and proofed very conservatively. Later, the approved load was increased nearly 100%. Whether that load would have defeated Virginia’s armor is unknown.
@@tomhalla426 agreed, the Monitor might have won had they been using the larger service charge, but maybe not, since round solid shot aren't great at penetrating armor, especially sloped like that aboard the CSS Virginia. That would make a great experiment given the time and unlimited cash.
@@erichammond9308 either would have done the job .Both guns used on Virginia and monitor were tested against the Warrior target and failed to penetrate while the 68 pounder could comfortably pierce the armour of either American ironclad
@@davidmcintyre8145 The Dahlgren guns I agree, but the 7" Brooke rifles aboard CSS Virginia absolutely would have penetrated HMS Warriors armor, there are even pictures of 4.5" armor plate with a 7" rifle hole clean through, in side by side comparison to Dalgren guns of various sizes with various powder charges. Also, the 8" Parrot rifle was widely available for use at the time of Hampton Roads, and the penetration capacity of the 8" Parrott rifle exceeded 6" of iron armor backed by 18" of wood. So, saying that the only available gun capable of penetration of USS Monitor's and CSS Virginia's armor was the 68 pounder British gun is incorrect.
Submariners probably continue to call their vessel a boat for the same reason many aviators used to call their airplane a ship: esprit de corps. Go Navy!
@drachinifel You missed both in the description and the chapters in the video a question asked at about 5:55. The question is "How would the pacific theater have changed if the Japanese had been able to throw the US off of Guadalcanal
Concerning Henderson Field, besides the well thought-out comments already expressed, securing the Japanese east flank would allow massively more effort, troops, supplies and support to be applied to their New Guinea campaign. Historically, they had to split their attention and forces between the two. With the carrier support now available, Port Moresby will likely fall. This would force the Allies to give MacArthur much higher priority and politically, he'd never let go of that. This could completely change the strategic direction of the Pacific war.
Oh yeah. I remember that Operations Room video of India and Pakistan War. (Well, any video involving those two countries turned into a hateful comment section) They also got criticism for their USS Liberty video. Cause they only used Biased Israeli sources
Regarding the definition of ship vs boat vis a vis submarine, I've heard it argued that a boat has its centre of gravity below the waterline, whereas a ship has it above the waterline (or any of various discussions of how a vessel sways in the wind or the like that would imply such a positioning. Submarines, being underwater when most active, very definitely have their centre of gravity below the waterline, therefore they must always be boats, regardless of their size. (This also works rather nicely with the fact that every spaceship, regardless of scale, is a spaceship, not a spaceboat, because, being quite some distance above the waterline...etc) Whether or not this is remotely valid for surface vessels....that is not a question I can answer, but I've heard some express that at least might be a problem with the concept.
It was my understanding that a “Boat” was small enough to be lifted aboard a “Ship,” which was probably true for the early subs and destroyers. Probably tradition in the sub service keeps referring to nuclear subs as “Boats,” even though they have far surpassed the 2-3K tons of the WWI-WWII subs. 😉
I think “not doing the raid” would have had a greater effect on Coral Sea. The USN would have had four carriers available, not two. _Lexington_ might have survived and _Yorktown_ might not have been damaged, allowing USN to field four carriers for Midway, not three. USN could have had 100% more carrier strength for Coral Sea /vs/ 33% more for Midway.
A little surprised you didn't mention just how bad the Japanese 25mm Triple-mount actually was. OK, 25mm isn't sufficient to deal with a Kamikaze anyway, but that's assuming you even hit - and I would think that's an assumption too far.
Sorry, not sure what you are on about. Almost all nations’ focus was submarines whose primary armament was torpedoes, with mine laying as a secondary function.
Yes but a nunber of submarines were built as minelayers including ones that had no torpedoes. In fact one of the oldest still surviving British built submarines was a mine layer. See The ELM Lembit
Why weren't S-Boats used during the Guadalcanal campaign to harass the Tokyo Express and at least serve as a tripwire when the heavies paid a visit down the Slot?
@@bluelemming5296 Yes I do and no, I didn't know of that one. The Slot was a target rich environment, I would have had a sub stationed north of Savo throughout the campaign.
Why does Drachinifel dispute that the US Navy "won" the War of 1812 in the same way that North Vietnam "won" the Vietnam War? I don't think anyone disputes the fact that the British Navy was the superior fighting force. However, it is possible to win, nay, dominate the battlefield and still lose the war.
49:00 That's one of the things that makes the news so annoying. News readers covering any technical topic are just reading off words someone told them how to pronounce, without any understanding of what they mean. Like having me teach Latin, I can make the noises, but don't ask me what they mean.
Both were mission kills. Not much difference there Another superweapon that wasn't utilized in quanity... but the scary potential of early cruise missiles was realized. Now, the RN had to countermeasure the threat.
A boat has only one continuous deck at the water line. A ship has more than one. Go look at how submarines sit in the water. Where that leaves bulk tankers I don't know. And ferries are often called boats too. I have always thought the idea that a ship is a vessel that can carry other smaller vessels just daft.
Enterprise never had any reason to fight other ships with her guns. Her aircraft did that job done well enough without the enemy ever being able to even open fire.
So what? Warspite was an aged Super Dreadnaught while Enterprise was one of the first three modern Yorktown class carriers built as carriers. Big E was clearly the most significant ship in the Pacific. No comparison.
I'm not sure I entirely agree on the light AA side of things. The question isn't so much about lead down range and it's more about can you make a wall of lead of sufficient depth to do the equivalent destruction. I don't think the technology of the time can. If you can just mag dump that many guns into that particular thing? Don't be that thing. Just don't. Pain, misery and disintegration. I don't think there was any equipment in period, in any combination that could, would create that effect. Less disagreement and perhaps more context dependent. How ahistorical I'm allowed to be in designing solutions. And perhaps how much I can compromise ship stability to achieve it.
Here's a fun Warspite fact I just discovered, while reading the Osprey book _Walcheren 1944: Storming Hitler's island fortress (Campaign, 235)_ by Richard Brooks.
Walcheren was part of the defense system protecting the Scheldt Estuary - and preventing the Allies from using the newly captured port of Antwerp.
A combination of multiple land and amphibious assaults were used to defeat the German defenses in the area.
The whole area had massive coastal defenses as a critical element of the Atlantic Wall.
According to the author, cruisers could not be used to destroy these defenses because a) they couldn't get close enough due to shallow water and sand bars, and b) their guns were not big enough.
On the other hand, the 15 inch guns on Warspite and a few RN monitors could both a) reach the coastal defenses from outside the shallow water and sand bars, and b) were also powerful enough to damage even the strongest coastal defenses. Support from these ships played a key role in the campaign, supplemented by close range fire from shallow draft gun and rocket armed LCTs (LCG and LCR variants).
This should be of interest to people who think that cruisers can replace battleships for coastal bombardment: it's a real world example of a situation where cruisers could not do the job.
Another good book on this little-known but very important campaign is _Cinderella operation: The battle for Walcheren 1944_ by Gerald Rawling.
I really respect your integrity, not a lot of people on this site are willing to admit if they are not well knowledged in certain areas.
Its often a red flag when people say everything with a great degree of confidence even on difficult topics or things completely outside of their qualifications.
Though I was amused when Drach prefaced talking about an onboard electronics system with something to the effect of: "Im not an electrical engineer, but I have studied electrical engineering..."
As a former US submariner, what I’ve always been told as for the reason we call them boats is this. Ships list away from their turns, and boats list with their turns. Submarines when taking any kind of extreme rudder bearing will generally list into their turn, similar to how planes will roll using ailerons, but us its the sail planes. But with ships, their top weight causes them to list opposite of their rudder bearing.
With Drachs definition a ~35ft private sailing vessel carrying a small dinghy would be a ship.
@@hernerweisenberg7052 hence why I stick with this definition. Eases the anger of boaters when you refer to a sub as a ship, or a ship as a boat.
For more modern history, the Sub Brief channel is a good source.
Worth noting that a lot of those Americans who went to war before December 7, 1941 were "officially" Canadian. That is, they crossed the border to Canada and "lied" about the heir citizenship in order to enlist.
"Where are you from?"
"Cleveland, Ohio."
"Lovely place, Ontario." *Stamping papers*
Clevelontaribeq
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Blame Canada...?
May be the only instance where "Worst case Ontario" actually paid off a dividend.
Thanks for answering my question!
That last question certainly emphasizes the importance of airpower (vs. AA) against air attack, especially kamikaze attack.
MORE BOFORS!!!
The Henderson field question spirals into a lot of other issues. On one hand it was the scene for many lopsided battles one way or the other, will the IJN have as many chances to sink ships in close night combat without that theatre? On the other hand the IJN does indeed sink some CVs at the cost of a CVL. It drew both sides into a close range knife fight.
If Japan holds the airfield, it potentially buys time to start pumping oil from the Dutch fields, expanding the number of pilots it can train, and has two fleet carriers freed for other operations. For japan they buy Time, the time to exploit their gains which is what they planned on the whole time.
However for the American side fighting in New Guinea and for Port Morseby also becomes the central focus. Instead of Shoukaku and Zuikaku hunting CVs east of the Solomons, they would be doing so closer to Rabaul and hunting them south of there. With the Solomons also helping to scout the IJN CVs would be more protected while extending the transport lines for where the USN CVs would need to operate to support MacArthur and New Guinea.
Once Henderson field is up, its just "another" island chain airbase. Without Henderson, Rabaul is in danger and the perimeter cannot be closed and the precious time to rebuild the oil fields and the Sea Eagles cannot be had.
AAAAAAAAAAAALSO the pilots from Midway were retrieved. Sinking the Kidou Butai didn't mean no one was rescued. However the few experienced pilots Japan had were worn down to dust in the daily raids on Henderson. No matter how skilled a pilot is, if you fly them for half the day just to be shot at by ground based AA, then cannot retrieve them you will suffer untold wear on the cadre of pilots.
More pilots. More Oil. Safer CV operations. Midway was important, but Guadalcanal is where the war was lost for the Japanese.
Great thoughts on your post.
I'll add that other than Java, nearly all of the oil was unrefined and cause enormous maintenance issues in boilers.
Dutch Shell employees trashed nearly every major refinery prior to the invasions. The crude was transported back to Japan...Not an efficient system, and not what they had hoped for.
The destruction of those refineries and facilities may not have been on a level that the Nazis did to French ports in 1944, but they also scuttled ships in the harbor, dumped irreplaceable cracking towers and pumps in the bay until it was time to bug out.
By time Salemaea was invaded, the logistical strategy was trashed, and tankers, not warships, were the priority for the few functioning torpedoes fired by our brave submarines.
It's not sexy history, but impaired every aspect of the Pacific War.
In 1942, we had rubber and steel shortages... Boo hoo. No Alaska Class Battleship formations, but Essex, Iowas, Independence, Cleveland, Fletcher class warships were being fitted out mid year.
So what were they thinking? Logistical input had to be ignored and glossed over. The IJA focused more on how to fight China. Those islands and the Pacific campaign was secondary to Army Commanders, just like Britain had US consent on a Germany First pledge.
By 1938, before the US embargos,
Japan had little fuel to begin with to start a massive naval war with All the Allies. And then, things got worse
@@richardbennett1856 Japan also created their own paratroopers for the express purpose of capturing those fields before they were destroyed, which never comes up too often. Palembang or something. Japan DID have enough time to get those fields up and running again, but by the time Japan could ship the US could operate submarines close enough to force japan to use what was left of its strength to escort.
And you bring up the key point. Japan went to war with the US as an aside to the war against China. Most of the Army was in China, or dedicated to that goal. Getting America to sue for peace was just a stepping stone to force Chiang to sue for peace later. It is comparable to Nazi Germany invading Russia so it could gain the resources to fight the "real" war against the UK/US. Launching a new war to maybe change the conditions to win the old war usually doesn't work out!!
Excellent points, well made. The IJN sought attritional battles to enable The Decisive Battle. What they didn’t realize was that the attritional battles in the Solomons WERE the decisive battle. They started out with a bit of a numerical advantage, but couldn’t replace their losses. The USN were improvising on a shoestring, but would ultimately be able to replace each ship they lost with four (or more ships).
“Pumping oil” was not the critical issue.
Transporting that oil to a refinery, converting it into its many militarily useful forms, and then transporting it to final consumers was the critical issue.
US submarines were already starting to impinge upon IJ petro-logistics by mid-1942, and would not have been greatly hampered if IJ had controlled Guadalcanal than they were historically.
@dougjb7848 Java crude was light, but gunked up boilers. But the above posts mentioned it. The plans for taking them intact was foiled and replacing it was attempted, but never realized.
Early release of Drydock on Saturday and England on the TV for footy
WHAT A TIME TO BE ALIVE
They're all released on Saturday if you're a Patreon supporter ;)
@@Alsadius I know... I'm a supporter for a while now - just commenting on the perfect day
@Trek001 Ah, assumed someone might have given you the link.
Anyway, doesn't hurt to talk it up a bit - the normies will be here tomorrow and reading this, after all.
@Alsadius True...
Sit by the fire of my local pub, down a few ales and listen to Grand Admiral Drach waxing lyrical about the naval things
Pity about the football though
The best part of sunday mornings here in the USA.
Down here in Australia, it's a feature of my Sunday evenings.
And here in Canada
Drach Perun double whammy
46:50: There are still a (vanishingly small) number of politicians who were active in some political (as opposed to a purely military) role during World War II and its immediate aftermath and are still alive. For example, from my China-centric point of knowledge, I know that Ma Shitu, Zhang Lixiong, and Shi Ping (figures of relative prominence in the Second Sino-Japanese War and the Second Phase of the Chinese Civil War) were alive until this year. Additionally, Song Ping (who, among other positions, was the political secretary of Zhou Enlai in the mid-1940s) is still alive today at 107. It's a bit of a technicality and doesn't change your overall point but it's still interesting to think about.
About the question concerning Greek fire, I once read somewhere that a french scientist from the 17th or 18th century (or the equivalent at the time) managed to recreate greek fire and showed a demonstration to the king.
His majesty was less than enthusiastic about the discovery, and was so horrified by the weapon that he confined the scientist to his home under guard for the remainder of his days.
Soleil Royal going up in flames and kaboom does seem somewhat appropriate when you think about it. Proper royal firecracker ;-)
00:53:53 Fun fact. The Japanese Model kit company Tamiya had a celebration of their successful operation in 2011 and to mark the occasion released a new version of the Yamato as a premium 1/350 scale kit. (of which I'm fortunate to own one) Since they wanted this model to be as accurate to reality as possible and with so few documentation available to accurately design the new kit they went to the effort and expense of going to visit the actual Yamato wreck. This was partly to settle some disputes over the ships design as little evidence was found to prove one way or the other. That's like a fan club of Apollo 11 going to the moon to take photos of the lunar lander.
Its great when the company still holds the same values as their customers, and spends their profits on the sort of cool stuff everyone else in the community likes. Get rich and stay eccentric!
Thanks for answering my question.
Also, I think in terms of plot armor. I think it would be closer to compare Enterprise with Illustrious.
I think you could argue that HMS Prince of Wales' career was fairly fitting to her namesake (Edward VIII), though not necessarily *honoring* him.
-Renamed after Edward VIII's abdication of the throne
-Significantly damaged by German bombers while fitting out
-Significantly damaged and had various teething issues during the Battle of the Denmark Strait, though she did manage to score two crucial hits on Bismarck
-Infamously sunk by Japanese bombers after being in commission for less than a year, the only KGV to be sunk
Really the only bright spots for her were those hits on Bismarck, the Atlantic Charter, and her brief time in the Mediterranean where nothing bad happened to her.
On the probability of torpedoes hitting, there is a fourth major variable - how oblivious is your enemy? As demonstrated at Tassafaronga, where cruisers in the back end of the line maintained course and speed after seeing cruisers up front playing torpedo-mon.
On the subject of anti-aircraft fire, I seem to recall that Germany was working on a proximity fuse, but method was either sound intensity (for rockets) and capacitance (for guns), neither of which had any real success.
Both the nazis and hungary developed working acoustic fuzes on the axis side, but neither was feasable for use in guns. Germany deployed them in torpedoes I believe and hungary had a working air to air rocket with one, but it was never operationally fielded.
Wouldn't Prine Philip flying a royal ensign be the same as announcing which ship contained a very high value target?
I mean yeah, why would you do that?
He became a british Prince in 1947.....meaning in ww2 he wasnt part of the royal family....
@@01Bouwhuis he was a member of the greek royal family you bloody doughnut
Not really, because contrary to popular belief, a prince is only really valuable alive and it is unlikely one will capture a prince alive off a hostile warship in a 20th-century naval battle. A dead prince is just a martyr for the war effort, proof the aristocracy can pay the ultimate price of war same as the commoners.
Also mind, if there was serious fear of a succession crisis if a given prince was killed in war, said prince was usually not risked in war to start with. The blunt reality is that Phillip was expendable at the time.
@@01Bouwhuis iffffff u paid attention youd know he was 2nd in line to the throne of GREECE.
Thanks again for an interesting Sunday morning whilst I make breakfast for the gang!
Great as always thanks Drach.
Best opening tune on RUclips…
Wah-dee-dah-dee first you playing
Wah-dee-dah-dee then you saying
That queer melody, oh-wah-dee-dah-dee
Wah-dee-dah-dee then you singing
Wah-dee-dah-dee then you swinging
That funny old tune will drive me to ruin
It came along and made me its slave
Now I'm craving things that I shouldn't crave
Wah-dee-dah-dee deep-bok-doody
Wah-dee-dah-dee scat-da-daddy
That funny old tune, oh-wah-dee-dah-dee
@@nmccw3245 cab calloway was the jam. Pretty sure Drach added the hammers and steam horns
Have thought about taking some courses that would bring you up to speed on the newer engineering used in naval warfare. The reason I suggest this that I admire what you do and the veracity that you do it with and the lack of same on many of the channels and programs that I have listened to.
At 46:48, you mention that all the politicians from WW2 are dead now. Technically, that's not true - two WW2-era national leaders are still alive today, and have even been relevant national leaders in the 21st century as well. (But neither Tibet nor Bulgaria is a big naval power, so you're probably fine.)
Was the bulgarian one litteraly 6 ?
I remeber that it was on the news that he was vissiting bulgaria again
Simeon is a superb trivia item, he is also the only person who has been hereditary sovereign and elected head of state of the same country, as well as the last person styled Czar (or Tsar).
@@williammorris584 hes also alive which is becomeing rarer and rarer for ww2 survivars
@nikolaideianov5092 They were both very young, obviously. (The war ended 79 years ago, and they're still alive.) Both were child monarchs, not people actually running governments.
But the Bulgarian one (Simeon Saxe-Coburg-Gotha) was elected Prime Minister of Bulgaria in 2001, and the Tibetan one (Tenzin Gyatso, better known as the Dalai Lama) is obviously still an important leader of his people, even in exile.
@@Alsadius Solid gold piece of historical trivia. Well done.
Once again, brilliant, honest, and earnest. But it's actually a duet rather than a one man band as we are including Mrs. Drach, aren't we?
Wait until Little Drach becomes an expert on tanks and mechanized vehicles. Might break him.
Thanks Drach.
For a modern take on the "wing engine" concept, apparently the newish QE class carriers have gas turbine generators installed in the sponsons. Apparently the thinking was that this saved quite a lot of volume in ducting a prodigious amount of air in and out of the machine rooms in the bottom of the ship, as gas turbines tend to need. And since the ship is powered by electric motors, no prop shafts to worry about either.
Thanks Drach
Thanks!
Regarcing the cone shaped round question, the original sabot rounds devised by the British army were pretty accurate to 1,000 yars. And VIRGINIA and MONITOR never fired nowhere neR that far. They even collided a couple of times as I recall.
Speaking of Ships that could steam faster than her hull could handle the Enterprize(CVN-65) had to set a speed limit because her keel was warping under the strain. in her final cruise under power they opened her up, the Rooster tail was as high as the Flight Deck, supposedly old Navy heads claimed they took her up to 43 Knots, but mentioned it was pretty rough sledding, mostly from the propellers cavitating.
Regarding your interviewing experts, have you ever considered interviewing Jingles? I know he's only had a small slice of the Gulf War, but it might be interesting.
Hope you're doing well after the election Drach. It was interesting to read about from a distance.
?
Not much actual excitement around British election. Very little violence.
Submarines are considered boats for a very simple reason, "Traditiiionnn, TRADITION!".
"Has there ever been a ship built that ended up being able to steam faster than her hull could physically handle?"
You can make an argument with (WW2) Scharnhorst and Gneisenau. Both used hull design of the Mackensen class but instead of the WW1 90,000 hp powerplant the Germans crammed in a 150,000+ hp powerplant. Both ships wanted to submarine at full speed (when they were completed with their original WW1 style bow) and it would have been a disaster had they sortied out in the Atlantic with that configuration. The problem was somewhat mitigated with the installation of an Atlantic clipper style bow but that didn't fully fix the problem.
23:29 The derivation that I originally heard comes from an allusion to the living conditions aboard submarines, calling them "pig boats"; another, from before the introduction of periscopes, required the submarine to surface so the captain could scan the water around the vessel, where the hull shape made them look like surfaced porpoises or dolphins, referred to as sea-pigs, which carried across to the submarine as 'pig boat'; a third, from the appearance of several submarines tied up to their tender like piglets around a sow.
hey Drach would it be possible to get Wed segments on the WW2 Baltic and black sea naval actions in the future?
I recently read Cornelius Ryan's, a bridge too far. In it he briefly mentions the efforts to save gliders that had ditched in the sea from the air armada. Could you provide some more information on this? Perhaps how it was organised and who was involved?
Saturday night and Drach's alright!
I think the channel could cover the Forrest Shermans, Tangs, the GUPPY program and equivalent post 1950 vessels because they are not substantially different from pre-1950 ships.
Makes you wonder how much attic history is floating around.
While the passing of the WWII generation has seen a steady release of documentation, I look towards the century mark to see a large increase. There appears to be something special about the century mark that families realize that their cherished stash of paper and artifacts have historical value beyond family history. In 2014 there was a major increase in families making their personal treasures available to historians, giving us a much more personal insight into WWI. I look for the same to occur when WWII hits the century mark.
@@richardanderson2742 That, and many of the countries involved in the war classified much of the documentation for 75 - 100 years, so there should be more stuff coming out in the next few years.
Probably every WW2 destroyer could go faster than the hull could handle in rough weather. Banging into even moderately large waves at high speed was not good for the hull. A ship capable of 30+ knots in calm seas might very well have to slow down to ~18 knots to avoid damage in rough seas.
This is one of the reasons it's not wise to assume - as some people do - that you can simply can replace larger ships with smaller/shorter ships without paying a price for doing so in terms of capability. Operations in certain seasons and certain parts of the world can suffer from the limitations of smaller/shorter vessels in rough weather.
I think of all the world's navies, the Royal Navy had the best handle on bad weather operations during the period covered by the channel, due to Britain's proximity to the North Sea and North Atlantic, both of which have reputations for notoriously bad weather.
Boat or ship? I liked your "which way does it lean in a turn?" Which you brought up previously.
The last one caught my attention as 304 is the main area code for my home WV, we have a second number now with cells expanding the need for more. The number also has a less then favorable slang meaning but so does the shape of WV. In grade school we were taught to draw WV with our hand giving a middle finger with the panhandles as the offending finger and a thumb broken back as if it was broken in a fight. Hope this gives a laugh and not offense but just a funny connection.
Ship or boat : the version I've heard is whether the ship/boat leans inward or outward when turning.
I suspect that ammunition technology plateaued at the end of WW1. It would be difficult to improve on them.
The shells that were used in WW2 for ships were in some cases substantially improved over the WW1 versions.
There were lots of small things that added up, reflecting improvements in chemistry/metallurgy/heat treatment etc. Basically things we think of today as mostly being in the realm of 'materials science'.
Armor piercing shells in general were much better than anything used in WW1.
Some shells were optimized to help them detonate underwater, in the hope of doing damage under the armor belt of a warship.
Improving the shells was an ongoing process. The 16" shells made available to US Fast Battleships in 1944 were a significant improvement to the shells previously carried.
Of course, there was also an attempt to use up existing ammunition stocks, so it wasn't all new shells. This sometimes caused problems as the old ammunition wasn't (in some cases) stored properly and some shells would fail to detonate. If I recall correctly, USS Massachusetts had problems with this during Operation Torch.
502K and counting! And the USN definition of a ship Vs a boat is that "a boat can be carried on a ship". Circa 1944 Bluejacket's manual. Cheers! The origin of sub tenders was a ship that could use cranes (on the original tiny subs) to take the subs on board. I think the idea that a submarine could go to sea by itself, sink itself, then rise again, was so foreign to normal Navy men, whose job was to keep things afloat, caused them to test and adjust early subs either in very enclosed waters (like NY Harbor) and could only be tested at sea if it had a real ship with it. I guess like we teach children to swim in a pool, where they can grasp the edge if they get in trouble...lol.
Considering how many sets of crews the Hunley took down with it, I think those were valid precautions.
Don't forget, the Japanese tried to tow the Hornet as well.
Assuming they don’t get detected and attacked on the way back to Truk or Rabaul.
@@ph89787 possibly. I think the biggest problem is they didn't have a ship that could tow it or a way to tow it. It might have been listing too much. Maybe too much water on board. Who knows. They ended up using Long Lance torpedoes to finally sink it.
@@michaelpiatkowskijr1045 Heh! Imagine the Hornet occupying a drydock in Japan!
@@marckyle5895 why not? Yamoto was larger. Maybe Akagi and Kaga.
As for Hampton Roads there was a gun and ammunition combo that could have beaten the armour of either Monitor or Virginia but neither party had access to them that being the 68 pounder used by the RN
Which version of the "68 pounder" are you referring to? The smooth bore? or after conversion to the RML 80 pounder? I ask because the 2 x 7 inch Brooke rifles aboard CSS Virginia had a higher muzzle velocity (approximately 1800ft/s for the Brooke 7" vs 1200ft/s for the 68 pounder) and a heavier solid shot (104 pounds). Higher MV + greater weight of shot = greater penetration (over simplifying it, but generally the case). The only problem was that the confederates hadn't loaded any solid shot aboard because they weren't expecting an armored opponent and wanted more shells for use against wooden ships. (A very short sighted decision in hindsight. They should have carried at least a few just in case).
Edit: the 11 inch Dahlgren guns aboard USS Monitor had very similar muzzle velocity to the 68 pounder smooth bore, and its solid shot were fairly easily withstood by CSS Virginia's armor.
@@erichammond9308 The Dahlgren guns on Monitor had been rated and proofed very conservatively. Later, the approved load was increased nearly 100%. Whether that load would have defeated Virginia’s armor is unknown.
@@tomhalla426 agreed, the Monitor might have won had they been using the larger service charge, but maybe not, since round solid shot aren't great at penetrating armor, especially sloped like that aboard the CSS Virginia. That would make a great experiment given the time and unlimited cash.
@@erichammond9308 either would have done the job .Both guns used on Virginia and monitor were tested against the Warrior target and failed to penetrate while the 68 pounder could comfortably pierce the armour of either American ironclad
@@davidmcintyre8145 The Dahlgren guns I agree, but the 7" Brooke rifles aboard CSS Virginia absolutely would have penetrated HMS Warriors armor, there are even pictures of 4.5" armor plate with a 7" rifle hole clean through, in side by side comparison to Dalgren guns of various sizes with various powder charges. Also, the 8" Parrot rifle was widely available for use at the time of Hampton Roads, and the penetration capacity of the 8" Parrott rifle exceeded 6" of iron armor backed by 18" of wood. So, saying that the only available gun capable of penetration of USS Monitor's and CSS Virginia's armor was the 68 pounder British gun is incorrect.
Submariners probably continue to call their vessel a boat for the same reason many aviators used to call their airplane a ship: esprit de corps. Go Navy!
@drachinifel You missed both in the description and the chapters in the video a question asked at about 5:55. The question is "How would the pacific theater have changed if the Japanese had been able to throw the US off of Guadalcanal
Concerning Henderson Field, besides the well thought-out comments already expressed, securing the Japanese east flank would allow massively more effort, troops, supplies and support to be applied to their New Guinea campaign. Historically, they had to split their attention and forces between the two. With the carrier support now available, Port Moresby will likely fall. This would force the Allies to give MacArthur much higher priority and politically, he'd never let go of that. This could completely change the strategic direction of the Pacific war.
Captain! They are shooting vanilla ice cream cones at us!!!!!
Please do an episode with a doctor and talk about the Falklands and how that can make you unable to sweat. Margaret was my Oma’s name.
Oh yeah. I remember that Operations Room video of India and Pakistan War.
(Well, any video involving those two countries turned into a hateful comment section)
They also got criticism for their USS Liberty video. Cause they only used Biased Israeli sources
Regarding the definition of ship vs boat vis a vis submarine, I've heard it argued that a boat has its centre of gravity below the waterline, whereas a ship has it above the waterline (or any of various discussions of how a vessel sways in the wind or the like that would imply such a positioning. Submarines, being underwater when most active, very definitely have their centre of gravity below the waterline, therefore they must always be boats, regardless of their size. (This also works rather nicely with the fact that every spaceship, regardless of scale, is a spaceship, not a spaceboat, because, being quite some distance above the waterline...etc)
Whether or not this is remotely valid for surface vessels....that is not a question I can answer, but I've heard some express that at least might be a problem with the concept.
Regarding ships with too much power; tug boats can pull themselves under if they are not careful.
It was my understanding that a “Boat” was small enough to be lifted aboard a “Ship,” which was probably true for the early subs and destroyers.
Probably tradition in the sub service keeps referring to nuclear subs as “Boats,” even though they have far surpassed the 2-3K tons of the WWI-WWII subs. 😉
How about having the engine to the side and using the gearing to offset the shaft? (assuming geared tuebine is available)
No wonder Her Majesty QE II fell hard for Prince Phillip the guy was a very handsome man, and of course a bit of a swashbuckler to boot !
If the Doolittle raid had not happened and the Hornet had spent time on island raids, would she have been better prepared for the Battle of Midway?
I think “not doing the raid” would have had a greater effect on Coral Sea. The USN would have had four carriers available, not two.
_Lexington_ might have survived and _Yorktown_ might not have been damaged, allowing USN to field four carriers for Midway, not three.
USN could have had 100% more carrier strength for Coral Sea /vs/ 33% more for Midway.
A little surprised you didn't mention just how bad the Japanese 25mm Triple-mount actually was. OK, 25mm isn't sufficient to deal with a Kamikaze anyway, but that's assuming you even hit - and I would think that's an assumption too far.
I think its come up before, anyways when he makes a comment that "covering a ship with 25mm" felt like it was criticizing that gun type.
Still better than the German 37mm.
@@Pangora2 I've no problem with 25mm. Just that particular pairing of gun and mount.
Hes talked adnauseam about how shite ijn 25mm is.
Och, Drach! Leave the poor, wee Bearn alone.
And the Auld Alliance raises its head again.
57:15
Having _Bearn_ would somehow make “being the target of a kamikaze attack” even worse.
There’s an excellent, LEGO USS Olympia over on Beyond the Brick, for anyone interested. Same young man who completed the Warrior a few years back.
Anyone who wants to know more about the story “the lore lodge” did a great video on this subject and how the government covered it up
16:32 "Queen Elizabeth" not mentioned??? "Warspite" feels left out.
💯 agree about QE.
But _Warspite_ was not named for a monarch, so, is ineligible. 😢
Duly noted. I was referring to indomitable HMS Warspite as a QE class battleship.
Given how many nations possessed mine laying submarines pre WW2, would a more conventional Torpedo armed submarine been a better investment.
Sorry, not sure what you are on about. Almost all nations’ focus was submarines whose primary armament was torpedoes, with mine laying as a secondary function.
Yes but a nunber of submarines were built as minelayers including ones that had no torpedoes. In fact one of the oldest still surviving British built submarines was a mine layer. See The ELM Lembit
Think we where talking about the hornet not the yorktown
Bearn always the punchline by Drach. :)
Wait you were in our country? I should have been paying better attention to updates, hope you had a good time though.
Why weren't S-Boats used during the Guadalcanal campaign to harass the Tokyo Express and at least serve as a tripwire when the heavies paid a visit down the Slot?
By S-Boats do you mean S-Class US Submarines? One of these, S-44, sank a Japanese Heavy Cruiser returning from the battle of Savo Island.
@@bluelemming5296 Yes I do and no, I didn't know of that one. The Slot was a target rich environment, I would have had a sub stationed north of Savo throughout the campaign.
Would a minié style shot work with the rifling of the American civil war era?
🎉😂❤ 7:18
😢 7:34
10:55 There are no ceilings aboard naval vessels; just the overhead, or deckhead in RN parlance.
Thank you, Drachinifel.
I couldn't understand from video which navy had the good rapid fire 37mm to defend against kamikazes?
Italy.
Never fear, this comment has been "approved." (by me).
Why does Drachinifel dispute that the US Navy "won" the War of 1812 in the same way that North Vietnam "won" the Vietnam War?
I don't think anyone disputes the fact that the British Navy was the superior fighting force.
However, it is possible to win, nay, dominate the battlefield and still lose the war.
@@JimBatka well, what were the USN's objectives and which ones did they fulfil?
Turbinia.....nice pic but no mention.
49:00 That's one of the things that makes the news so annoying.
News readers covering any technical topic are just reading off words someone told them how to pronounce, without any understanding of what they mean.
Like having me teach Latin, I can make the noises, but don't ask me what they mean.
Sorry Tom, but due to changes in the pronounciation rules, you probably can't even do that.
I mean, who ever heard of Julius Kaiser?
USS Savannah smaller than Warspite but survived the FritzX:
😐
Both were mission kills. Not much difference there
Another superweapon that wasn't utilized in quanity... but the scary potential of early cruise missiles was realized. Now, the RN had to countermeasure the threat.
Warspite survived it too.
Episode 305. Or episode 12, if you're an American.
A boat has only one continuous deck at the water line. A ship has more than one. Go look at how submarines sit in the water.
Where that leaves bulk tankers I don't know. And ferries are often called boats too.
I have always thought the idea that a ship is a vessel that can carry other smaller vessels just daft.
36th, 7 July 2024
Warspite sunk a ship with her planes, Enterprise never sunk a ship with her guns.
Formidable tried to sink ships with her guns and one of Taffy 3’s escort carriers damaged Chokai with a 5-inch gun.
Enterprise never needed to even try to sink an enemy vessel with her guns.
Enterprise never had any reason to fight other ships with her guns. Her aircraft did that job done well enough without the enemy ever being able to even open fire.
So what? Warspite was an aged Super Dreadnaught while Enterprise was one of the first three modern Yorktown class carriers built as carriers. Big E was clearly the most significant ship in the Pacific. No comparison.
Silly
:)
I'm not sure I entirely agree on the light AA side of things.
The question isn't so much about lead down range and it's more about can you make a wall of lead of sufficient depth to do the equivalent destruction.
I don't think the technology of the time can. If you can just mag dump that many guns into that particular thing? Don't be that thing. Just don't. Pain, misery and disintegration.
I don't think there was any equipment in period, in any combination that could, would create that effect.
Less disagreement and perhaps more context dependent. How ahistorical I'm allowed to be in designing solutions.
And perhaps how much I can compromise ship stability to achieve it.