Aircraft Carriers - From Kite Carriers to Conversions (1800-1928)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 22 окт 2019
- Today we look as the first phase of carrier development, up to the conversions of the Washington Treaty that gave us the first true fleet carriers.
Want to support the channel? - / drachinifel
Want a shirt/mug/hoodie - shop.spreadshirt.com/drachini...
Want a medal? - www.etsy.com/uk/shop/Drachinifel
Want to talk about ships? / discord
Want to get some books? www.amazon.co.uk/shop/drachinifel
Drydock Episodes in podcast format - / user-21912004
Music - / ncmepicmusic
Pinned post for Q&A :)
Do I have your email correct? (fiveminuteguides@gmail.com) Excited about getting my book!
Can I ask a non carrier related question? I'll ask and if not please ignore me.
Why did RN battleships go for the giant octagon of doom style superstructure? Mist other ships seem to go for a much more visually complex system (the many platforms of Japanese pagoda superstructure or the more sloping multi balcony style the US used).
Will these videos cover any of the skewed testing of air strike capability done by the Americans? Can't wait for the Lucky "E" to make it's appearance in these videos.
You've mentioned here (and you mentioned in an early drydock) that the superstructure on most aircraft carriers was built on the starboard side of a carrier due to early experience with pilots turning left instead of right when aborting landings. Is it possible the *real* reason why pilots turned left was because this early experience was with biplanes using radial engines? As I understand it, radial engines are quite heavy relative to a biplane, and produce a strong gyroscopic effect. This is especially pronounced in takeoff and at at low speeds, where turning left has the effect of slowly raising the nose of the plane and turning right will sharply nose the plane downward. This effect is also present when changing the throttle. This effect was also present on later later single-engine propeller aircraft, although to a lesser degree.
Since you are talking Aircraft Carriers. Is there any record of an Aircraft Carrier sinking an enemy ship with its guns?
It became pretty clear by the mid-30's that the 8" guns of the Lexingtons were a lot of weight and space for something that was unlikely to have ever been used in battle. There were plans to replace them with 5"/38 guns after their outstanding trials successes in the first postwar destroyers. However, the one good thing about the 8" guns was they received the then experimental FC (Mk3) radar fire control director. The Lexington received two of these in late-1941 and participated in trials of the first radar directed surface gunfire. It turned out to be accurate enough that it was able to get a fix within 50 meters on the range and direction of a surface target. It worked particularly well on the Lexington due to less local interference by the superstructure compared to a battleship, and the operators on Lexington were able to confirm distance to target by being able to track her own shell splashes, using lobe switching. The FC (Mk3) was installed on a number of battleships in late 1941, and the lessons learned from the Lexington were used to improve accuracy with the FC (Mk3). One of the first FC (Mk3) battleship units was installed on the USS Washington, and her radar operators, trained by the Lexington operators, were able to straddle the Japanese battleship Kirishima on her first salvo during the First Naval Battle of Guadalcanal, probably saving the South Dakota by doing so. In a way, the Lexington actually did participate in surface action almost six months after she was sunk.
All navies/military branches got boosts from those intrepid moments where the stars aligned perfectly and technology, along with some out of the box thinking by someone, came up with a leap forward in design, operation or performance of some part of the system. What really mattered was that those people were taken seriously and the usual 'stick in the mud' mentality of the commanders got set aside and let the lesson or idea bloom. The US Navy, being a younger navy, tended to let those ideas bloom pretty quickly, with certain nearly catastrophic exceptions ( torpedo performance ), but they were also smart enough to watch British innovation.
Since many of the younger navies were children of the British Empire, and France it let them trust each other with deployment across their alliances much more quickly than the alliances of higher cultural disparity (Axis Powers). So ideas from the US and Australia (being direct children of the BE) and Canada, with it's rather unique dual citizenship to the BE and France, were able to get moved through those allies forces more quickly and thus benefitted their various war fighting programs much faster as well as the parent powers being able to demonstrate reliable innovation/progress to their related powers with something akin to a degree of respect given to parents.
So when you factor in the human element, sometimes the "Not invented here" or the "We've always done things this way" syndromes could be just a lethal to a military force as some technological advancement by the enemy. Carrier development just epitomized the need to keep thinking out of the box as a driving force of success.
This is excellent and thank you for sharing this. I will nitpick and point out, that South Dakota wasn't actually in danger of sinking that night. The post-battle damage report after the ship went into drydock found that while the lightly armored parts had been shot up, her all-or-nothing-style armored box resisted every hit, and the ship's watertight integrity was fully intact. This is also why she suffered relatively few casualties for a helpless BB being blasted at close range by 14" guns.
Granted, Kirishima wasn't using armor-piercing shells that night, as she'd been expecting to bombard Henderson Field and was thus armed with high-explosive ammo. So this shouldn't be taken as a wholly accurate representation of how good South Dakota's armor was. But the point remains that she wasn't in danger of sinking. I'd still call Washington's intervention a save, though, since she did stop South Dakota from taking even more damage and casualties. And who knows? Maybe South Dakota would've eaten some Long Lances had her older sister not stepped in.
Nitpicking over. :)
@@1Korlash actually, while Kirishima did use bombardment rounds initially, she also scored at least one hit with 14" AP to SoDaks #2 barbette. While the hits SoDak took were not life threatening, if Washington had not interrupted them it is extremely likely that the accompanying cruisers would have scored a number of torpedo hits that the torpedo defense system (designed for 700 lb warheads) would not have resisted well.
@@1Korlash Your nitpick is well taken. :-) South Dakota, given the circumstances of the battle, probably wouldn't have sunk. What Washington's timely intervention did was save her superstructure from getting any more shot up, so SD was able to restore power and get underway while still an effective combat unit. I can only imagine the consternaton and fear as Washington was able to straddle Kirishima with her first salvo while those aboard Kirishima had no idea where the salvo even came from. Probably the first and still best example of how beating the other guy in the war of electrons was even more important than with your big guns.
@@kemarisite Takao and Atago did launch torpedoes but apparently they missed or exploded early. According to Japanese records the Type 90(a non oxygen 61cm torpedo) was the one that damaged or sunk two of the US DDs that night. Current evidence for the first naval of Guadalcanal also has the type 90 sinking USS Atlanta and damaging USS Juneau(sinking from submarine torpedoes the next day). USS Portland was also hit by a type 90 torpedo apparently rather than a type 93. The Type 93 did not perform well in those two Guadalcanal battles. Probably due to the Gyroscope problems and a possible slight oversensitive issue which some Japanese naval historians say was seen again during Samar. The Gyroscope problem was noticed during the ABDA campaign but it takes time to fix issues even without an organization like the Bureau of Ordinance fighitg with you. Unless the torpedoes are exploding near you, the torpedoes being slightly oversensitive is not much of a problem. Better than being under-sensitive like anyway. I think I read the depth settings may been hard to use which would explain why they sometimes went under United states destroyers, though that could have also just been misidentifying a destroyer as a cruiser, or a cruiser as a battleship and setting the torpedo to run lower due to the misidentification.
With the discovery of the wrecks of Kaga and Akagi this video is especially timely.
I was wondering when someone was going to find those wrecks. Only 4 ships to go from the battle of midway.
@@LostShipMate I Know they still have to find Hiryuu, Souryuu, and Mikuma. Is the fourth one Hammann? They have found the Yorktown already.
I just want some to find the wrecks of the two best carriers of the IJN, the Crane Twins.
@@Xino6804 correct. The Hiryuu, Soryuu, Mikuam, and the USS Hammann are the remaining ships to be found. In the case of the IUSS Hammann, I doubt anyone would ever even look for her.
@@bkjeong4302 They wont be found at the same time as they sank in seperate battles
I was so disappointed when USS Lexington didn't have its 8" battery in World of Warships. Begone Destroyer! BOOM! Muhahahah!
David Kaminski “see a broadsiding BB?chunk it with AP,see a cheeki DD?choke it with AP”
Lazy software programmers . . . Or just overworked, with impossible deadlines.
WoWs Lexington is Saratoga btw...New York is Texas,Kongo is Hiei...Despite what WG claims,even with historical ships they are inaccurate as fuck
Drachinifel Starts List of Carriers from worst to best, French Carrier Bearn: Am I a joke to you? Drachinifel: Yes, yes you are, and a rather unfunny one at that.
Imagine a good French navy
@@americankid7782 Battle of the Virginia Capes. You should look up what happens when a French Fleet beats the Royal Navy.
@@luke5442p
@@americankid7782❤❤❤---❤❤❤❤❤1-1❤1😊😊1---
@@luke5442Bearn wasn't a good carrier
You know the version of furious with the single 18 inch gun and the flight deck would be a great April fools joke ship for world of warships
Only with the old style of aircraft carrier gameplay
@@jacobperry7637 so it should work out with WOWs Blitz.
@@jacobperry7637 I mean, the alternative is giving it an eighteen inch secondary gun with battleship range. Which would be absolutely hysterical.
The Punchline would be having only HE ammo, negating any armor piercing capability, and the UK not having 18 inch shells as part of their inventory, maybe part of the reason of not implementing it IRL.
@@twotone3471 Both HMS General Wolfe and HMS Lord Clive were refitted with the BL 18 inch Mk1 guns intended for the original Furious....and used them in combat. On 28 Sept 1918 General Wolfe fired 52 (of 60 carried) 18 inch shells at targets near Ostend …"the heaviest shell from the largest gun at the longest range up to that time" ..which was also the longest range EVER fired at by ANY RN warship... 36,000 yards. Not sure where you got the impression they had no shells for the 18 inchers.
I know it’s been a while since the tale of the Second Pacific Squadron, but I have an idea! A new World of Warships mission with the Kamchatka! Basically, you and your team must escort the Kamchatka, and possibly a few other ships, through waves of bots. The bots are quite easy to shred if even half your team knows what’s up, but the real threat is Kamchatka, which keeps spamming you with false sensor pings, intermittently firing at you, etc. At one point you have to escort her past a ludicrously vast and powerful neutral fleet (like dozens of maxed-out Tier 10s powerful, so if they take offense to your little mid-tier team then you’re fucked) which she will attempt to fire at, and you must prevent her from kicking off hostilities by somehow steering her away from them all while she ambushes you with various antics.
Nono,make the tier 10s trawlers
Just saying, but in these kinds of scenario friendly fire are mostly off.
WoWs is Russian, so this is somewhat unlikely, even if they moved the Headquarters to Cyprus. Russian bias for the Russian Navy has been a meme for a reason.
14:42
"This landing is gonna get pretty interesting."
"Define 'interesting'."
"Oh God, oh God, we're all gonna die."
"This is the captain. We have a little problem with our entry sequence, so we may experience some slight turbulence and then... explode."
Browncoat.
Sounds like a Jingles landing.
Shiny
The wise words of Captain Mal Reynolds
Oh, how I love dark humor
last time I was this early Beatty knew how to signal properly
did he ever ? :D
Last time I was this early, nothing was wrong with our bloody ships
I believe he knew, but his buddy, Seymore was an inept nincompoop
@@propellhatt They weren't friends. Beatty was shagging his sister.
Honestly i run on 2nd Pacific squadron time
You went all Mark Felton on us in the beginning of this with that bit of little known balloon observation/bombardment. This stuff is great.
I thought so too! Love Dr. Felton’s videos and am subscribed to both him and Drachinfel as my only strictly military channels. I never served, having mercifully been a few months too young for the Vietnam fiasco, but my Father was a Marine, so I got daily military history lessons as soon as I could ask questions! I miss that, Dad died 13 years ago. At least I had him until I was 50
I read Mark Felton and his theme song started playing in my head
@@MinutemanOutdoors Dun dun dun den dun, dun dun dun do dun. Dun dun dun dun de dun, dun dun dun dun dun!
Love these videos. My dad was on Furious from 1940 till it’s decommissioning. It amazes me he survived the war based on what happened to her sisters
I think my dad lined up for a bomb run in his Lanc against Furious when there was a flap about Jap assets (mainly huge aircraft carrying subs) in British home waters. Luckily they all thought better of it and went home for tea.
Thank you boat daddy, quite the timely video with the wrecks of the IJN's 1st CarDiv being found just recently.
It's amazing how manacing Akagi and Kaga looks with their triple flight decks. Also how modern the Lexington class CVs looked like considering their time. Advances in technology always amazes me and aircraft carriers need more love.
The Lexington/Saratoga could pass for a mid-late 1930's ship design. No canvas covers, exposed support structure, or lifeboats on davits.
Damn right
I love hearing about the early trial-and-error stages of now everyday tech like this. I’ve been listening to your series again while doing stuff around the house and I can’t wait to see what you cover next. Thanks, Drach!
Agreed! The developmental stuff is fantastic.
Almost, the Russians still cant build a flatop hehehehe.
@@johnathanblackwell9960 Russian destroyer: A flat-bow did you say I have one
Someone: ye.. Hay how did you get a flat-bow?
Russian destroyer: Heavy damage.
The French seaplane carrier which is shown at the 2:55 mark; the Foudre, was built in the early 1890's, and her original design called for her to carry torpedo boats. The Foudre was built on a cruiser hull so she would be fast enough to sail with major fleet units, she was not just a tender or supply ship. The idea was that torpedo boats could be launched at sea and sail out from the main fleet to attack to attack an enemy fleet. The most likely enemies were considered to be the Royal Navy or the Italian Regia Marina as France had very touchy relationships with both the U.K. and Italy at that time.
After the use of small torpedo boats as deep ocean weapons became discredited, the Foudre was converted first to a supply vessel, then a mine layer, and later into a seaplane tender; and she performed the first practical tests for this role a couple of years before the outbreak of WW1.
Drach says Washington naval treaty
Lexington and Saratoga: *laughs menicly in American*
Edit: thanks guys most likes I’ve ever got thank you so much
Tosa and Kaga: sweats profously in Japanese
LiveErrors hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Treaty thinking: These ships are too dangerous and could spark an arm's race Let's take this large, fast, long range, heavy hitting battlecruisers and derate them into large, fast, longer range, heavier hitting aircraft carriers.
@@L0stEngineer at that time aircraft carriers were mostly thought of as merely novelties because of pearl harbor the US used carriers and turned out they were pretty damn useful
@@L0stEngineer basically they didn't realize that a carrier is vastly more dangerous than any battleship or battlecruiser (which is why everyone ended up making battleships even after carriers rendered them pointless....though some nations built them even after they figured it out)
Benefit of living in the U.S. - a bit of Drach with morning coffee before work.
Benefit of living in socialism: Getting to listen to Drach after a day's work. ;-)
@@klobiforpresident2254 Fair enough, said the Animal Farm quorum :)
A serious question though: how do we apply the lessons demonstrated by Scandinavia, and other well-considered communitarian oriented societies, while maintaining the individualist spirit central to the American character? Somehow I feel that it is incumbent upon us to combine the best of both...
@@danielparod8874
I don't know. I'm not a smart man (for some reason the college kids I tutor beg to differ ^^).
In some instances the United States already decided to restrict certain individuals, for example when going after JP Morgan. Of course, this obviously is not an unambiguous act in support of the community as opposed to the individual (which can be seen in the antitrust laws of the USA). However, it goes to show that in certain matters it was decided to weight the community heavier than the individual.
It is on purpose I use an old example. There are many contemporary things I could point to as bad. I don't know what solutions have been proposed, implemented, or failed already. During my time in the USA I have met several different characters. From honest to God socialists, over your garden variety liberal, to undoubtedly libertarian individuals. Many voiced similar concerns. High school students, saying they will not attended university due to the cost, graduates burdened by debt, and retirees who would like to pay for their grandchildren's education, but cannot.
Whatever one's opinion on most things, whatever one's opinion on the proper price of college, it seems to be that many agree on this at least: front-loading thousands of dollars on kids is unreasonable.
I don't know the solution. Is it taxes meant for subsidising education, treating it as a right rather than a privilege? Is it an interest free (or rising with inflation) loan which the student can pay back over one's lifetime (as I understand current student loans come with higher interest than my proposal)? Is it a tax which only graduates pay, leaving those who took the offer to pay for education?
It is up to the USA to decide its future. These options I offered are nowhere near exhaustive. They all weigh the individual and society differently. Neither are likely up be sufficient on its own.
I think there is a proper step in the right direction, which can be taken already, even though at a cost and with significant delay in effect.
Introduce mandatory philosophy classes for middle or high schoolers. Don't teach them who wrote what and when. Frankly, I don't care much when exactly Al Kindi spread Hellenistic thought in the Islamic world.
What I care about is teaching students the basics, what are prominent schools of thoughts and critiques thereof, and having them debate. Let them reason for themselves.
It does help build the character. It makes it much more likely that one can meaningfully participate in a discussion. I won't ever need to know or fully grasp what Hannah Arendt thought of the nature of political power. What I will need to utilise is the thought process which allows me to critique others' ideas and offer suggestions.
Sorry for the long message, I really did not mean go ramble on.
And there it is.......politics.
Klobi, thanks for the reply! It is always nice to get a reasoned and well thought out opinion! Sorry for the politics, it is hard to ignore these days.
Being the filthy weeb that I am, here are some fun facts I learned from Kantai Collection, which is what got me into naval history in the first place.
Akagi and Kaga (whose wrecks were just found, thanks RV Petrel) didn't have the best conversion jobs. Kaga's exhaust system was never quite right, even after remodels to fix it, resulting in her being constantly hot. And not in the hot anime girl sense; her crew called her a seabird grill. Akagi, on the other hand, was rife with disease and had some crew cabins directly below her exhaust pipes, with portholes that couldn't be opened for air even when the ship wasn't underway. Fun. The double/triple flight decks were pretty damn silly and got removed in a remodel as I'm sure will be covered.
Whether or not she was truly the first purpose built aircraft carrier, Houshou was definitely as motherly as KC makes her out to be. Her former captain described her post-Midway duty as being like a kindergarten teacher. Apparently she also had the best cooks, even better than the famous Hotel Yamato. She was actually at Pearl Harbor and Midway as a support ship, her pilots doing anti-sub patrols and delivering medical supplies to ships with wounded respectively. Houshou managed to survive the war and served as a repatriation ship before being scrapped. Definitely Mama Houshou.
Drach mentioned that the battlecarrier concept would be dropped, but the IJN actually brought it back in desperation after Midway. They converted the Ise class battleships Ise and Hyuuga to have guns up front, flight decks in back, letting them launch but not recover dive bombers. This was in part because Hyuuga had suffered a detonation in her 5th turret, making it a bit of time-saving pragmatism. They actually lasted a long time too, being sunk in shallow water in the bombings of Kure harbor at the end of the war, though the lack of trained pilots and aircraft meant they never actually conducted air operations.
On a non-historical note, all the ships I've mentioned were drawn by the same artist (shibafu) who's known for kinda bland faces, so if you hear someone call one of them a potato that's why. He did turn Kaga's single exhaust funnel into a rather fetching side ponytail so that's something.
Anyway, time for Sister Sara. Her name comes from the Battle of Saratoga during the Revolutionary War, named after the nearby town of Saratoga and hence after the Mohawk hunting grounds located nearby. The name means either 'the hillside country of the quiet river' or 'where you get a blister on your heels'. Thanks Wikipedia. Unlike Lexington, Sara survived the war despite several run ins with Japanese subs and their torpedos, even managing to sink the light carrier and perennial flat chest joke Ryuujou. She was used in the Operations Crossroads nuclear tests and can be visited by scuba diving today. Her bow looks seriously freaky thanks to all the marine life and the big opening.
Ironically Saratoga looks like she developed a tumor
Azur Lane pretty much heightened my interest in Naval History in the similar fashion, also helps the designs and personalities of the ships are full of references to their historical counterparts, like Edinburgh having gold on her at all times, Tirpitz talking about only being able to watch the war from afar and do nothing about it, Victorious harassing said battleship, etc etc. The one that trips me up is Glorious seems to be narcoleptic for some reason, I can't figure out exactly why she is.
@@Frolaire What do you mean Glorious seem narcoleptic?
@@LiveErrors she falls asleep in the middle of talking in a few of her voicelines and at the end of her secretary quests she just falls asleep in the middle of the dock.
@@Frolaire Other than when she puts your mail into some tea i cant think of any lines of her falling asleep
Of note is that Akagi and Kaga did NOT have flight decks out of both hangars. The level immediately below the uppermost flight deck was obstructed by a bridge built between the hangar and the short flying-off deck between the 8" turrets. No plane could take off there. This was done during construction to both - it is a widespread myth that those ships had three flight decks. Just two. The third was eliminated before completion as above.
Kaga and Akagi were discovered a couple of days ago. Hooray for RV Petrel!
Launching aircraft from 3 stacked flight decks - for a moment I thought I was back in the April 1st video on HMS By Jove.
Launching seaplanes from an aircraft carrier by greasing up the deck! Love it
As luck would have it, I recently read the Friedman book on aircraft carriers. In 1918, with zero experience with carriers, the pro-aviation faction of the USN had decided that it wanted carriers 825' long, displacing 24,000 tons with 140,000hp. By 1920, their ambition had grown to 35,000 tons, 180,000hp and they wanted six of them, now! Sounds like they were eying the Lexington class battlecruisers for conversion before they were even laid down. Not surprisingly, when the Washington treaty resulted in the cancellation of the battlecruisers, the pro-aviation faction was ready with a proposal to convert two of them to carriers, committing nearly half of the US' allowable carrier tonnage, while the USN still had little first hand experience in building and operating carriers. The Lexingtons were horribly inefficient carriers, which particularly mattered in the post Washington Treaty environment they were built in. Yorktown and Essex each have hangar decks 200' longer than Lexington, on lower displacement. It the 2 Lexington's had never been built, that would have freed up tonnage to follow Yorktown and Enterprise with 3 carriers of near Essex size, or 4 more Yorktowns, putting the USN in a much better position at the end of 41 with a net gain of 1 or 2 fleet carriers.
Interesting comment on the Lexington / Saratoga carriers.
Enterprise & Yorktown proved to be superb carriers, partly due to design & partly extraordinary
crewing, especially after suffering battle damage - read “The Big E”, history of the Enterprise.
That she was not preserved as an historic ship (instead of Intrepid) in NY harbour (English spelling) is tragic.
What about Hornet & Wasp - I have seen little about them?
I thank you for doing this as it finally fills a hole in my logic regarding _Space Battleship Yamato._ I was really big into battleships as a teenager in the 90's and this lead me to pick up the _Space Battleship Yamato_ movie in Japanese from Suncoast, I think. After watching, I first thought it was an insult to all those that died at Okinawa, but came around and started my love of anime. However the enemy fleet has carriers with multiple decks, which I thought was interesting but unlike what I was used to when I thought of carriers. Thanks to this, I now understand why the creators and animators designed them the way they did.
I met a person who really despised Space Battleship Yamato because he thinks the design is inefficient, when space train are an even more complicated problem.
The early carriers were considered a form of cruiser in the US Navy, hence the designation 'CV', for "Cruiser" (C) "Heavier-than-air craft" (V). The actual strike power of these early ships was about the same as a gun cruiser, and they provided an option for long-range reconnaissance that was one of the missions of cruisers.
"V" came from the French voler (to fly)
Thanks! I had always assumed that the 'V' for heavier-than-air was simply because the letter wasn't used elsewhere.
This period of development of the carrier, the role of The Lord Sempill, who from 1920 began to pass secrets to the Japanese, and to quote Wikipedia, his activities were uncovered by British intelligence, he was not prosecute, and allowed to continue in public life. He was eventually forced to retire from the Royal Navy, after being discovered passing on secret material to Tokyo shortly before Japan declared war in the Pacific.
It makes interesting reading.
They thought only the Russians would face the wrath of the Japanese, that's why they were so blase them stealing naval technology, they wanted the Russian fleet to get another beat down. In hindsight that was a mistake.
MrMattumbo
Master of understatement, eh, what?
H.M.S. Furious was aptly named as the design of the funnel system likely made the Sailors in the aft hanger deck furious at the designers for making it into Hades.
Well played. Well played my lads.
I am an ex-Army guy, but have always been fascinated by Navy ships. Great video. I learned a bunch from it. For one, I was not aware that the Lexington class carriers could carry spare aircraft at the ceiling of the flight deck. Very innovative idea. It sounds like these were the queens of the seas in their day.
Last time I was this early, an island landed on a flight deck.
Underrated comment.
So would the ultimate of that be a parachutist wearing SCUBA gear, in a biplane in the blimp, on the carrier?
@@lycossurfer8851 OMG, that would make one heck of a picture.
Meanwhile, enjoy this: 🙃
ruclips.net/video/M_ILBdiil6I/видео.html
Originally thought the Lexington's 8in guns were just massive flak cannons. Like a mobile Flak Tower.
Part 2 *needs* to talk about the fresh water, paddle wheel carriers of the Great Lakes during WWII.
5peciesunkn0wn Oh I hope so! Those were remarkably interesting vessels!!!
5speciesunkknOwn: Yes! Amazing story and they were both returned to ferry service after the war!
First learned of them when read a pilot's remark about landing into coal smoke. Thought it had to be wrong, looked into it - and not only coal smoke, but paddle wheels! Badly needed, though. With our armed forces stretched thin around the globe, those Canadians were no doubt aching to invade. ;)
@@donjones4719 The Great Lakes training base was created during WW2, to serve the mid-west, which included Chicago. Not only was it for basic training but flight training as well. The ferries were converted into carriers because the Navy wanted something low to the water to make it easier for novice pilots to land on. I'm not sure if being low was really an advantage, but the Navy thought so. When the war was over the Navy restored the ships back to ferries including overhauling the engines and repainting them completely. It was this rebuild that kept them in service until the 1950s!
Fun Fact: The US Navy had aircraft carrier zeppelins during the inter-war period.
And they were frustratingly nightmarishly useless.
@@Isolder74 But awesome in idea.
Russia had the Zveno project, a heavy bomber which carried its own fighters.
I fail to understand how 70+ knots and a range of around 1,100 km would be considered useless
The big thing is that they didn't handle storm, like the ones you get out at sea, very well. This is how they were all destroyed, so while they look like a great scouts (espcially with it's scout planes) on paper, they had some serious praactical problems.
I'm looking forward to the next part going into the 1940's, especially if it will include a brief mention of the US Navy training carriers USS Wolverine & USS Sable, both notable for having been converted from Great Lakes paddle steamers.
I use this for background sound when playing games, it on its own is boring but listening whilst playing a game is fun and allows me to soak in the information
Sounds like Saargon of Akaad? I probably spelled that incorrectly, but I always enjoyed his videos. My grandfather was a LSO in WW1. He survived and lived to the ripe old age of 89, married twice, 5 daughters, 1 son (my dad), and was a farmer and entrepreneur, building and owning a restaurant and movie theater. I always looked up to him, he wasn't that tall or big but I doubt anyone alive today would want to fight him.
Fantastic. You provide a wealth of information - narration and images - far beyond any single source I've encountered. Thank you. My dad served on USS Hornet (CV-8) from a few months before the Pearl Harbor attack to its final day. Later he served on the Forrestal (CV-59) and Intrepid (CV-11.) That has left me with a lifelong fascination with the ships and their stories. Thank you for sharing your research, and for organizing the full sweep of all the nations’ race to carrier development into a coherent story. The comments from other viewers also add to the bounty of information. I’ll share a story from my father. In the months after the Japanese attack, the Hornet was tasked to carry Jimmy Doolittle’s US Army Air Corps B-25 bombers to attack the Japanese mainland. My father was one of the division who handled the ordnance & munitions
Your treatment reminds me of Thomas Wildenberg’s biography of Admiral Joseph Mason Reeves - "All the Factors of Victory". Reeves had captained the collier Jupiter early in his career, and was tasked to command the ship when it was converted to the _experimental carrier Langley._ He spent more than a decade with the crew and pilots refining carrier deck evolutions, tactics & strategies to support US Naval operations.
The last time I was this early, Admiral Nelson had binocular vision..
That's good!
BRILLIANT!
Ahh, Drach speaking of "the friction coefficient" vs. simply saying "we
As a person who loves air and naval design, this is a video iv been hoping for and am genuinely looking forward to the next part/parts. Thanks for excellent videos as always Drach.
This is one of the few pages on youtube i can watch sober, drunk, or high, and laugh with equal hysteria. If i want to learn, ir just be entertained, you never disappoint. Cheers, mate. Keep them coming.
Fascinating. Great to see this subject covered.
We never know what to expect from you, love it!!!!
This was a wonderfully informative video and totally shot enough holes in a conversation about carrier development and the Washington Treaty. Wonderfully timed as this saved a lot of energy researching what would have been a dead end.
Thank you.
THIS is the kind of content I'm subscribed for. Absolutely amazing!
This was very good. You really do your homework! I'm already impatient for the next episode. Hurry! hurry!
I love your videos. The 30+ minute ones are the best. Thanks for all you do.
Glad to be a new Patreon supporter of Drachinifel. A great channel from a great researcher and teacher.
These longer videos can seem a bit daunting at first, but I get the most out of them. This is a good one to see through to the end. Don't be daunted, be Dauntless, lol.
Thank you. Your narrative seamlessly ties the timeline of the development of aircraft carriers.
Loved the early History, never heard of kite carriers before. Keep up the good work. Enjoy your channel.
HMS Furious : Hybrid Monitor / Aircraft Carrier.
It slices! It dices! It provides shore defense and it extends the reconnaissance and attack range of any fleet squadron; and it cleans up in a jiffy!
Another brilliantly, researched, created and presented masterpIece by Drach!
Well worth the watch, informative n interesting, done in the style I've come to really appreciate.
Very informative , You filled vast holes of my knowledge of Carriers
This is the perfect mix of relaxing and interesting to fall asleep to, two thumbs up!
Just what I needed, thank you!
My dad was in the Far East between 1935 and 1941. While visiting Hong Kong circa 1937, he shot some 8mm movies that included a shot of a carrier in the harbor. The Royal Naval Museum kindly identified it as HMS Eagle.
I really admire your depth of knowledge ! I m grateful I ve learned a lot .
Great vid Drach! Thanks for sharing your insight.
Love this series!!! Thanks!
Thanks for the summary of the Carrier development. I found this video to be very informative.
As always! Great video.
Outstanding work here. thanks much. I already know a fair amount of naval hist but, I know a lot more now because of this video. excellent! highly recommended.
Great video. Looking forward to the next one.
I have no history with this material but I found it so interesting. Great stuff. Look forward to more. 😀
Looking forward to the 2nd segment on this subject, nice job
Fantastic job, thank you!!!
Thank you for this one.. My Grandfather flew off the USS Langley in the first squadron to do so.
*Amazing!!, thanks for sharing these videos!!! Liked & Subcribed!!!*
gGreat video packed with interesting information. thank you for making it
love this video, looking forward to part 2
Very educational. Thank you.
The story of HMS Furious is a very interesting one. First giving her guns that could rip her apart, then removing a gun for a flightdeck that made modern carrier landing look simple (even today the only thing that truly scares a navy pilot is landing), putting a second flightdeck aft of the superstructure with all of the fun emissions and turbulence from the funnel and finally making her an actual aircraft carrier while not really fixing all of the 'exhaust in your face while trying to land' issues
This is excellent content, keep it up.
Only a few things can get me more aroused than an Englishman talking about 130 years of aircraft carriers for 47 minutes.
this comment is oddly weird and disturbing...
I don’t think it was a sexual comment, more of an intellectual arousal as I took it, and I feel the same way whenever Dr. Felton or Drachinfel have new videos, it same day if not at once upon notification!
I was intending my comment to be strangely sexual as a joke. Though I appreciate the work of historians as much as you guys here...
Avoid being "intellectually aroused".
@suckmysilencer747
That's how I interpreted your comment.
Same
Thanks for this, mate. Very interesting.
Great video, I look fwd to see the rest.
A very nice overview. Thank you!!!
Just a general comment - I'm into week 4 of covid 19 lockdown, diabetic , general ill health but really enjoying your work. I can lose myself for hours in the well researched history. Thank you.
Thanks for all you effort and time Drach, very informative. I never knew about those very early carriers pre 1900, so I learned something today, which is always a good thing.
Where was this attitude when I was in school? ut I guess we all say that.
It's interesting that the US built the best of the first generation carriers in the Lexington class, which had enclosed bows, but later on used an open bow, which is poorer for operating in rough weather.
Very informative and interesting.
Thanks 😸
HMS Ark Royal R09 was the first Carrier to be built with an angled deck also the British invented the steam catapult system, Optical Landing System, armoured deck & this Carrier was built at Cammell Laird’s shipbuilders who also welded the world’s first sea vessel
I love the lines of the Saratoga, such a graceful lady. One does wonder what the other powers would have thought had there been a third Lexington class hull, and had the three had angled rear flight decks to begin with. I'm sure the British would have been first to call foul saying, "that's not cricket old chaps". 0_o
I'd love to meet a fellow Englishman that says "that's not cricket". He's out there somewhere. Probably has a tweed cap and smokes a pipe lol.
Come to think of it.... I don't know anyone who plays cricket. Nor do I know of any teams even vaguely local to me 🤔
You know it was the Brits that invented the angled flight deck, right? And the Mirror Landing system? The USA took carrier aviation and "made it their own" for sure (I served in the Gulf War on an Aussie FFG (HMAS SYDNEY) and we spent considerable time with 4 US carriers... watching their flight deck operations was bloody impressive!) ...but credit where it is due! HMS Warrior conducted the first "skewed deck" tests in 1948. In the early 50's both the RN and the USN put significant resources in to developing the concept, as the modern carrier jets made the old straight deck/barrier system fairly unworkable. If you've ever heard of Captain Eric "Winkle" Brown RN you won't be surprised to hear he was heavily involved with US tests while on exchange at Patuxent River. (If you haven't heard of him...look him up!! Amazing character)
@@troopertrooper8925 so true, but we've all done a bit of nicking ideas from one another from time to time. ~_^
GREAT VIDEO!
Very good video. Congrats.
Austrian Navy - underdog innovator in naval aviation and triple turreted ships!
Excellent 5 minute guide.
I love this stuff new subscriber woot!
Great video 👍
HMS Furious' 18 inch gun turret was removed five months after she was commissioned. In contrast, the USS Lexington (CV2) carried eight eight inch guns in four twin turrets from her commissioning in 1927 until their removal in 1942, shortly before her sinking at the Battle of the Coral Sea.
Drach should do a video on naval traditions, customs and hazing such as when a ship crosses the equator
I love you content but I need to tease.
"5 minute or less guide."
-48min video-
okay.
That's called evolution!
it is a sailing gag... like the Kamchatka...
@@zachsmith1676 Kamchatka isn't a gag so much as a curse.
Drach talking about interwar aircraft carriers
*Drach: We shall never speak about the Bearn..........*
BHuang92
The Bearn is a joke, and its greatest contribution to history was assisting France in losing Vietnam. Some of its adventures in WW2 are funny, like how the Americans kept pressure on the Vichy French in control of her to keep dismantling the ship and her planes on threat of sinking her. By the time the ship was turned over to the Free French after the West Indies revolted against Vichy control, she was barely a warship with teams of scrappers having devastated her and her planes. The US put her seaworthy again, but as far as I know, she was never used as a functional Carrier again.
great video
I know hindsight is everything, but whoever thought that (14:30) was a good idea, obviously wasn't drinking enough tea!
Ps That's a fantastic close up picture.
Have you seen Drach's April 1 video on HMS By Jove? He could have put this pic and views of the Japanese triple flight deck flanked by gun turrets in an April 1 vid, and then stunned us by revealing they were real.
Gee its 7:36 A.M and im in us history right now so this will pass the time great to see this history covered in length
Boy, what I would have given almost anything to be in my 1963 Am History class and being able to sneak watching a Drach video instead of listening to Mr. Blake drone on...and on.
What topic are you suppose to be learning about?
@@chrisdechristophe the us constitution
Zack Minottii well it’s not naval history, but correctly presented the US constitution is an interesting and important bit of history. I’ve seen original copies of it and the Declaration of Independence in Washington and Philadelphia. What’s really interesting is how the US copied french ideas about ideal constitutions which in turn were based on a poor miss interpretation of the UK constitution. For example the principle of separation of powers was a corruption of what happened in the UK, this ended up giving the US government too much inertia. There is a video here on you tube all about this which I though fascinating. I’ll post a link if I can find it.
@@chrisdechristophe hm interesting point
The left turning recovery of prop aircraft is not just for human reasons. There are physical reasons as well. When power is applied, the engine produces torque which creates a left turning force on the plain. That’s the mains reason for the “starboard only” island on aircraft carriers.
I hope you know you do great work!👍
I was reading a book on aircraft carriers. And in this book. The HOSHO was originally laid down as a tanker (if memory serves me correctly) but was finished as a carrier. Alot of it was due to her length to beam ratio which was more cruiser like as not tanker like. But of course I maybe wrong.
Interesting thumb-nail pick. I had forgotten the two-level flight deck had been done.
Also interesting that the US Patent Office granted a patent on this in 2011... as it had already been done.
Great timing of the video as a few days ago the wreck of I.J.N. KAGA has been found