@Drachinifel - just a heads up that, in his latest video (on gun stabilization), The Chieftain grudgingly credits (gasp) the Navy in leading the way on the development of gun stabilization. Just in case you’d like to tease him a bit.
48:07 reminds me of how in WW2 US first aid kits included chewing gum for injured personal as a way to distract and calm them down, whereas British first aid kits included cigarettes
Elevators in the center of your landing area was a weak area of your flight deck. Deck edge elevators, if damaged (up or down position), the deck edge does not interfere with your launching/landing cycle. Multi-elevators are used so that some can bring up and some can strike down aircraft. This keeps your flight deck in business and your ship in the fight.
Yeah, I imagine moving planes from above to below & vise versa was a must & the quicker the better in both respects and in a way that causes no interruptions to what is being accomplished but rather almost like an assembly line extension of planes landing & taking off. Which is exactly how you want an air group to operate! And requires a lot more than just pilots too.
Yeah, I imagine moving planes from above to below & vise versa was a must & the quicker the better in both respects and in a way that causes no interruptions to what is being accomplished but rather almost like an assembly line extension of planes landing & taking off. Which is exactly how you want an air group to operate! And requires a lot more than just pilots too.
wrt the question about secondary armament mounted on top of the main turrets, I have seen a cutaway drawing of a two level turret on a Kearsarge class. The drawing shows internal ammo hoists serving the upper 8" mount, along side the hoists for the 13" on the lower level. The superimposed turrets were the brainchild of Joseph Strauss, during his earlier stint at BuOrd. The problem was the glacial reload times of the 13". The idea was to use the greater rate of fire of the 8" on the upper level to keep up fire while the 13" were reloaded. After Strauss had his way with the Kearsarge and Virginia classes, someone else figured out that, if the navy worked on the ergonomics of the 13" mount, and trained the crews a bit, rate of fire could be improved dramatically, rendering the superimposed 8" mount redundant.
1:01:00 I've wondered about having something similar to a 'shrapnel shell' but would be better described as a 'cluster shell'. A battleship calibre shell, but it is designed as a delivery system for a multitude of secondary-battery sized shells. Or, to think of it another way: a delayed-release sabot. Or ultra-heavy grapeshot. Lets say that within a 14" shell, the payload is 6 (2 offset layers of 3) 5" shells (or similar purpose-made sub munitions), for example. The large shell gets fired, and after a certain delay (perhaps 80% of the flight time) the sabot portion breaks away and the 6 smaller shells descend on the target individually. They spread out over an area, but would be clustered closely near what a unitary shell would land. While not ideal for taking out other battleships, it would increase the odds of a hit against smaller targets & could be devastating for shore bombardments. The effect of such a round feels very useful, but I don't recall ever hearing of such a thing ever existing. Which either means that I am a genius who is more creative/clever than countless weapons designers; OR I'm an idiot who is utterly ignorant of at least one (maybe several) key elements of high-calibre ballistics.
But, in a scenario where the belt armour and hanger deck armour were replaced with an armoured flight deck, that probably isn't significantly impacting production time or quantity. Separately, there is no evidence that Stalin said that. The earliest known usage dates to the 1970s.
But, in a scenario where the belt armour and hanger deck armour were replaced with an armoured flight deck, that probably isn't significantly impacting production time or quantity. Separately, there is no evidence that Stalin said that. The earliest known usage dates to the 1970s.
When I was in Basic, we were given Base details to help evaluate the qualities of our previous life knowledge, skills and teamwork. Unfortunately, I got stuck on pots and pans clean up during Kitchen Patrol duty (KP). Unlike your carpenter example, I was thoroughly pissed off after a miserable time at something I failed at, to learn that there was someone in my flight two meters away from me cleaning glasses during this detail that had over a year experience in a professional kitchen before they had enlisted. They didn't bother to tell me - or help me - because they hated cleaning pots and pans through prior job experience. 😠😅
In regards to proximity shells. I remember reading something in Neptune's Inferno that during the 2nd naval battle of Guadalcanal, Kirishima had shrapnel or something similar loaded for shore bombardment. If I remember correctly when fired on Washington or South Dakota it did little if any damage. I can't remember correctly but if I find it in the book I'll update here.
At 1:35 you commented that a ship with a pair of superfiring turrets would be able to fire forward without the extra weight of wing turrets. Wouldn't this cause problems (at least in the RN) due to sighting hoods? If I recall the overpressure diagram and various ship layouts correctly, RN superfiring arrangements put at least one hood of the lower turret pretty close to the point of maximum overpressure from at least one superfiring gun at broader firing arcs than the wing turrets would be able to fire at without blast effects causing trouble.
Because the carriers didn't work out, would it have been effective for Germany to disregard the V-1 and V-2 projects and instead hasten development of guided anti- shipping munitions like the Fritz X to add a long- range air component to their submarine blockades? This could also improve strikes on tricky targets like British radar post-France. It seems like that compensates for their lack of aircraft carriers for long- range naval strikes and had a greater impact than the high-tech fires development they focused on IRL.
Kinda hard to jump from cruise missiles and ballistic missiles. And they already had Maritime strike aircraft in the Fw200 that could deliver bombs. They had success early in the war.
@@WALTERBROADDUS What do you mean "kinda hard to jump"? Hard to develop? I'm talking about simply increasing resources for their existing guided bomb programs. I'm also aware that they had the Fw200 and am speculating about how they could increase its role and capability by having guided munitions far earlier rather than the inaccurate, ineffective V1 and V2.
NAZI Germany was not led by the best and the brightest. In the spring of 1943 they held a meeting in which they decided that any project to be used for the defence of Germany and would not be completed in 12 months was to be halted as they were winning the war. Amongst projects which were stopped were those surface-to-air missiles they tried to rush into service later on. Even more shortsighted was the fact that many of the scientists and engineers on those cancelled project rather than being used on other projects were sent to the Eastern Front. Then in mid 1944 when they discovered that Lancaster bombers where being fitted with radar to improve bomb aiming they decided to reenstat many of those projects , including the surface-to-air missiles; and bring back those scientists and engineers who were still alive from the Eastern Front. All too late
@@bigblue6917 I'm aware. That wasn't really what I was asking though: I'm talking about effect if the Germans, hypothetically not being run by idiots, had put the kind of resources into standoff precision bombs they had into the V1 and used them to hit things like ships and radar en masse.
@@randomwarehouse4702 the precision guidance required to hit a ship; is a lot different than hitting an area Target the size of a city. And by the time you are talking about; Maritime strike aircraft have already been countered by aircraft at sea. FW 200 is no longer a convoy threat. You are not getting in range to shoot anything.
For the channel, IF and WHEN you profile each and every ship class in your channel time period, what will you do for the 5min guides? Will you profile specific ships that were missed? Go back and expand your coverage of that class/specific ship? I mean with 175 Fletchers in the class, that would give you 3+ years of 5min guides
I’m probably missing something. But wouldn’t you be able to use a third middle elevator in recovery? Aircraft lands, roll it forward to the middle elevator, cycle the elevator, and it’s ready for the next aircraft.
You could, but it's very risky. Mechanical/electrical systems on ships in general are somewhat prone to failure, and that's especially true of the complex systems on warships. The salt in the ocean air can be corrosive. Vibrations of the vessel and wind/wave effects can also be a problem. Finally, human-induced failures are also a real concern, meaning accidents happen when people are exhausted and maybe overheated (heat exhaustion impairs judgement) and highly stressed and low on sleep - all of which are common in war. If you have a temporary failure or delay of the elevator, then you have just lost a lot of the flight deck that could be used to help a damaged plane land (assuming the front isn't cluttered with aircraft in a 'deck park'). Notice the position of the crash barriers - they are well past the middle of the ship. Maybe a plane on the elevator was damaged, and the jolt when the elevator comes to a stop causes the landing gear to collapse. Now you have a delay because it will take time to move that plane off the elevator. Or maybe something was sparking inside the aircraft, and bringing it down to the hanger gives enough time for a fire to start - so now it has to be dealt with before people can get close enough to move the aircraft off the elevator. Damaged planes may need a lot more space to land than normal, due to loss of function of control surfaces - and potential loss of function by the pilot due to wounds. Heavier planes also need more space to land, even if undamaged, so that's another reason not to want a middle elevator that could potentially become delayed. When aircraft are low on fuel (due to long flights or battle damage) you don't want any delays in landing. You also don't want delays in getting wounded pilots into the ship's hospital for treatment. The pilots are generally far more important than the planes, because experience takes a long time to acquire and makes a huge difference in performance. Finally, damage to the center elevator that locks it in the 'down position' for an extended period of time means you have a big problem. Note that elevators are not armored, and the flight deck armor thins out near the elevator. Elevators are quite vulnerable to combat damage. If you put the 3rd elevator a little more forward, then you limit the space in which aircraft can take off, which is also risky. They need a certain amount of speed to take off, especially if there isn't enough wind (think fighters scrambling in defense, where getting them off as quickly as possible is desirable). If memory serves, the USS Enterprise went into battle with one of it's end elevators damaged and unrepaired in the 'up position'. They didn't dare lower it in case they couldn't bring it back to the 'up position'. This illustrates the seriousness of the concerns: they literally could not take the time to repair the elevator because the ship was needed so badly, and they accepted the slower rate of operations as being preferable to even a chance of losing that section of the flight deck.
I think it's funny that you say "those ones" like I used to. My grandpa used to correct me when I said it. It's redundant. In any situation when you say those?Ones is always implied. What other ones would you be referring to? 😋
@ 00:03:53 The R class batleships were questionable. Did nothing in WWI (two of them saw action at the Battle of Jutland with no measurable effect) and were obsolete even at the very start of WWII. Building two or three QEs instead of five Rs would be a much more valuable choice for the RN.
Drach - RE: 4" guns for Capital ships and destroyers- you've said the Kriegsmarine should have had more 105mm flak guns instead of 150mm on their capital ships. Would they have done better if they had replaced their 150mm AND single use 128mm destroyer guns with their twin 105mm flak mounts? The guns appear more powerful than the British 4"/45 but would tri-axial complexity and weight count against them?
@garethjones3334 that's a really.good question, my instinct is the 150mm definitely but the 128mm was reasonably good, and honestly they dropped the ball not getting a naval DP version until almost the end of the war.
Has anybody seen the information about the fund raiser for HMS zZ UNICORN, and how the people across the great pond like myself can chip in to keep this fantastic piece of history afloat😮😮
6:50 Shimakaze definitely, given she was one of the worst warships ever (in terms of usefulness) as it turned out, but the Akizukis? Those I think had more merit to them, especially since there WERE times they saw use in their intended role.
The skills of a ship's carpenter were not the same as those of a land based carpenter, and those of a naval carpenter were specialized within that category. It would surprise me greatly if land based skills, outside those of shipbuilding, would get one rated as carpenter's mate. Incidentally carpenters were heavily engaged in damage control and so not necessarily in a place of relative safety in battle.
You can't underestimate the amount of time it takes to effectively use the tools of the trade, let alone knowing what the tools are and what they are used for. Someone with carpentry experience is going to have a huge leg up on someone without.
@@keith6706 The question was where ship's carpenters came from. The answer offered included land based carpenters. The actual answer involved a *lot* of specific on the job training leading to becoming a carpenter's mate, then more to becoming rated carpenter. I stand by what I said, it is the truth. I did not say land-based experience would not help, I said it would not lead to a warrant as a carpenter.
Thanks for your thoughts on the twin DP 4". On a Facebook group, recently, I proposed doing a mass "austere" update on all of the QEs and Rs, replacing all the casemate 6", with twin 4"., rather than spending so many resources on the more expensive rebuilds if QE, and Valiant, leaving the other ships unable to mount a credible AA defense. I credit their lack of AA as the primary reason Repulse, and, later, all of the Revenges, were banished to the Indian Ocean.
Let’s say that the Germans managed the same sort of golden BB hit they achieved with Hood against every capital ship they hit at Jutland. How does that change the war? Does it make the Germans bolder in engaging the Grand Fleet?
Expecting every large ship in the British Navy to just explode? Not very practical. And still doesn't really change the basic problems for German surface ships. Access to the Open Sea. Lack of bases. Access to fuel. Or the situation on land.
38:05 What is the difference between "strike" and "move" or "send" for moving aircraft below the flight deck on an aircraft carrier? I had not heard of "strike aircraft down" in relation to moving them down the elevator on an aircraft carrier before. It seems there is a specific meaning or timing related to saying that.
During the joint investigarion into the loss of USS Frank E Evans after the Evans managed to get herself t-boned by HMAS Melbourne, an Australian offi er was giving evidence about what he was doing on Melborne's flight deck at the time of the collision. He explained that it was part of his job to strike down US aircraft. The americans were horrified at this until it was explained to them that inn this case, US meant unserviceable and that strike down meant to remove fo the hangar.
@0:00:36. What was the effect of the ships who (Supposedly) could fire their "in echelon" turrets across the centerline, actually fired across the centerline? (It seems like by that time they would have realized that they needed 1.5 to 2 inches of armor on everything near the arcs of fire to protect against the muzzle blast of their own guns.... (And I'm pretty sure that they've already figured out that you could put sand in paint for a somewhat non-skid deck paint .vs. using wood to further limit muzzle blast damage. Or did the Fleets ever talk to the Ship Builders about this?)
48:07 reminds me of how in WW2 US first aid kits included chewing gum for injured personal as a way to distract and calm them down, whereas British first aid kits included cigarettes
@Drachinifel - just a heads up that, in his latest video (on gun stabilization), The Chieftain grudgingly credits (gasp) the Navy in leading the way on the development of gun stabilization. Just in case you’d like to tease him a bit.
I very much enjoyed his constant use of "floaty things". xD
He did have to caught a bit
Any system that makes ring muscle cramping less and save lives will be begrudgingly honoured. 🥃
@@benvandermerwe4934 lol
... ... (' the cheiftonne wears pink undies ' )
Another masterpiece Drach. Thanks for all the hard work involved.
48:07 reminds me of how in WW2 US first aid kits included chewing gum for injured personal as a way to distract and calm them down, whereas British first aid kits included cigarettes
Englisch kits. Scotish kits included bagpipes, Irish ones Spirits ;)
Americans got their cigs in the rations, which also has gum
Americans got their cigs in the rations, which also has gum
Englisch kits. Scotish kits included bagpipes, Irish ones Spirits ;)
@@АртурМилкович
Elevators in the center of your landing area was a weak area of your flight deck.
Deck edge elevators, if damaged (up or down position), the deck edge does not interfere with your launching/landing cycle.
Multi-elevators are used so that some can bring up and some can strike down aircraft. This keeps your flight deck in business and your ship in the fight.
Yeah, I imagine moving planes from above to below & vise versa was a must & the quicker the better in both respects and in a way that causes no interruptions to what is being accomplished but rather almost like an assembly line extension of planes landing & taking off. Which is exactly how you want an air group to operate! And requires a lot more than just pilots too.
Yeah, I imagine moving planes from above to below & vise versa was a must & the quicker the better in both respects and in a way that causes no interruptions to what is being accomplished but rather almost like an assembly line extension of planes landing & taking off. Which is exactly how you want an air group to operate! And requires a lot more than just pilots too.
I love this channel so much.
Thank you Drach!
I always learn something new in your videos!
wrt the question about secondary armament mounted on top of the main turrets, I have seen a cutaway drawing of a two level turret on a Kearsarge class. The drawing shows internal ammo hoists serving the upper 8" mount, along side the hoists for the 13" on the lower level. The superimposed turrets were the brainchild of Joseph Strauss, during his earlier stint at BuOrd. The problem was the glacial reload times of the 13". The idea was to use the greater rate of fire of the 8" on the upper level to keep up fire while the 13" were reloaded. After Strauss had his way with the Kearsarge and Virginia classes, someone else figured out that, if the navy worked on the ergonomics of the 13" mount, and trained the crews a bit, rate of fire could be improved dramatically, rendering the superimposed 8" mount redundant.
I do love the idea, put a third turret ~5 inch on top of the second.
I do love the idea, put a third turret ~5 inch on top of the second.
And a 40mm mount (Bofors or pom-pom) a'top that.❤
48:38 carrier captain: why’s the rum gone?
Aye. It must be Saturday night. And Drydock 335 heaves into view!
1:01:00 I've wondered about having something similar to a 'shrapnel shell' but would be better described as a 'cluster shell'. A battleship calibre shell, but it is designed as a delivery system for a multitude of secondary-battery sized shells. Or, to think of it another way: a delayed-release sabot. Or ultra-heavy grapeshot.
Lets say that within a 14" shell, the payload is 6 (2 offset layers of 3) 5" shells (or similar purpose-made sub munitions), for example. The large shell gets fired, and after a certain delay (perhaps 80% of the flight time) the sabot portion breaks away and the 6 smaller shells descend on the target individually. They spread out over an area, but would be clustered closely near what a unitary shell would land. While not ideal for taking out other battleships, it would increase the odds of a hit against smaller targets & could be devastating for shore bombardments.
The effect of such a round feels very useful, but I don't recall ever hearing of such a thing ever existing. Which either means that I am a genius who is more creative/clever than countless weapons designers; OR I'm an idiot who is utterly ignorant of at least one (maybe several) key elements of high-calibre ballistics.
You want a naval shell with cluster munitions?
You want a naval shell with cluster munitions?
In terms of the.Essex class armored flight decks I always think of that famous Stalin quote ' Quantity has a quality all its own'
But, in a scenario where the belt armour and hanger deck armour were replaced with an armoured flight deck, that probably isn't significantly impacting production time or quantity.
Separately, there is no evidence that Stalin said that. The earliest known usage dates to the 1970s.
But, in a scenario where the belt armour and hanger deck armour were replaced with an armoured flight deck, that probably isn't significantly impacting production time or quantity.
Separately, there is no evidence that Stalin said that. The earliest known usage dates to the 1970s.
@@АртурМилкович Interesting. I've always heard it attributed to Napoleon Bonaparte.
@@notshapedforsportivetricks2912 once a conquering emperor, now a prisoner.
Anyone seeking Bonus Drach he just appeared on HISTORY UNDONE channel covering Operation Weserübing! Awesome listening! Tally ho!
I recently discovered a series of videos with Drach and Venom Geek Media discussing Star Trek ships. It was awesome.
When I was in Basic, we were given Base details to help evaluate the qualities of our previous life knowledge, skills and teamwork. Unfortunately, I got stuck on pots and pans clean up during Kitchen Patrol duty (KP).
Unlike your carpenter example, I was thoroughly pissed off after a miserable time at something I failed at, to learn that there was someone in my flight two meters away from me cleaning glasses during this detail that had over a year experience in a professional kitchen before they had enlisted. They didn't bother to tell me - or help me - because they hated cleaning pots and pans through prior job experience. 😠😅
Thanks Drach.
In regards to proximity shells. I remember reading something in Neptune's Inferno that during the 2nd naval battle of Guadalcanal, Kirishima had shrapnel or something similar loaded for shore bombardment. If I remember correctly when fired on Washington or South Dakota it did little if any damage. I can't remember correctly but if I find it in the book I'll update here.
*Sips coffee, clicks like*
Thanks for answering my question drach, the technological level of the late 1800s can be a bit confusing
I have a weirdly soft spot for Nelson and Rodney,
but I agree that the F3 would have been more useful in WW2.
16:20 now this is going for maximum utilization of space 😎.
At 1:35 you commented that a ship with a pair of superfiring turrets would be able to fire forward without the extra weight of wing turrets. Wouldn't this cause problems (at least in the RN) due to sighting hoods? If I recall the overpressure diagram and various ship layouts correctly, RN superfiring arrangements put at least one hood of the lower turret pretty close to the point of maximum overpressure from at least one superfiring gun at broader firing arcs than the wing turrets would be able to fire at without blast effects causing trouble.
Because the carriers didn't work out, would it have been effective for Germany to disregard the V-1 and V-2 projects and instead hasten development of guided anti- shipping munitions like the Fritz X to add a long- range air component to their submarine blockades? This could also improve strikes on tricky targets like British radar post-France. It seems like that compensates for their lack of aircraft carriers for long- range naval strikes and had a greater impact than the high-tech fires development they focused on IRL.
Kinda hard to jump from cruise missiles and ballistic missiles. And they already had Maritime strike aircraft in the Fw200 that could deliver bombs. They had success early in the war.
@@WALTERBROADDUS What do you mean "kinda hard to jump"? Hard to develop? I'm talking about simply increasing resources for their existing guided bomb programs. I'm also aware that they had the Fw200 and am speculating about how they could increase its role and capability by having guided munitions far earlier rather than the inaccurate, ineffective V1 and V2.
NAZI Germany was not led by the best and the brightest. In the spring of 1943 they held a meeting in which they decided that any project to be used for the defence of Germany and would not be completed in 12 months was to be halted as they were winning the war. Amongst projects which were stopped were those surface-to-air missiles they tried to rush into service later on. Even more shortsighted was the fact that many of the scientists and engineers on those cancelled project rather than being used on other projects were sent to the Eastern Front.
Then in mid 1944 when they discovered that Lancaster bombers where being fitted with radar to improve bomb aiming they decided to reenstat many of those projects , including the surface-to-air missiles; and bring back those scientists and engineers who were still alive from the Eastern Front. All too late
@@bigblue6917 I'm aware. That wasn't really what I was asking though: I'm talking about effect if the Germans, hypothetically not being run by idiots, had put the kind of resources into standoff precision bombs they had into the V1 and used them to hit things like ships and radar en masse.
@@randomwarehouse4702 the precision guidance required to hit a ship; is a lot different than hitting an area Target the size of a city. And by the time you are talking about; Maritime strike aircraft have already been countered by aircraft at sea. FW 200 is no longer a convoy threat. You are not getting in range to shoot anything.
For the channel, IF and WHEN you profile each and every ship class in your channel time period, what will you do for the 5min guides? Will you profile specific ships that were missed? Go back and expand your coverage of that class/specific ship? I mean with 175 Fletchers in the class, that would give you 3+ years of 5min guides
I’m probably missing something. But wouldn’t you be able to use a third middle elevator in recovery? Aircraft lands, roll it forward to the middle elevator, cycle the elevator, and it’s ready for the next aircraft.
You could, but it's very risky. Mechanical/electrical systems on ships in general are somewhat prone to failure, and that's especially true of the complex systems on warships. The salt in the ocean air can be corrosive. Vibrations of the vessel and wind/wave effects can also be a problem. Finally, human-induced failures are also a real concern, meaning accidents happen when people are exhausted and maybe overheated (heat exhaustion impairs judgement) and highly stressed and low on sleep - all of which are common in war.
If you have a temporary failure or delay of the elevator, then you have just lost a lot of the flight deck that could be used to help a damaged plane land (assuming the front isn't cluttered with aircraft in a 'deck park'). Notice the position of the crash barriers - they are well past the middle of the ship.
Maybe a plane on the elevator was damaged, and the jolt when the elevator comes to a stop causes the landing gear to collapse. Now you have a delay because it will take time to move that plane off the elevator. Or maybe something was sparking inside the aircraft, and bringing it down to the hanger gives enough time for a fire to start - so now it has to be dealt with before people can get close enough to move the aircraft off the elevator.
Damaged planes may need a lot more space to land than normal, due to loss of function of control surfaces - and potential loss of function by the pilot due to wounds.
Heavier planes also need more space to land, even if undamaged, so that's another reason not to want a middle elevator that could potentially become delayed.
When aircraft are low on fuel (due to long flights or battle damage) you don't want any delays in landing. You also don't want delays in getting wounded pilots into the ship's hospital for treatment. The pilots are generally far more important than the planes, because experience takes a long time to acquire and makes a huge difference in performance.
Finally, damage to the center elevator that locks it in the 'down position' for an extended period of time means you have a big problem. Note that elevators are not armored, and the flight deck armor thins out near the elevator. Elevators are quite vulnerable to combat damage.
If you put the 3rd elevator a little more forward, then you limit the space in which aircraft can take off, which is also risky. They need a certain amount of speed to take off, especially if there isn't enough wind (think fighters scrambling in defense, where getting them off as quickly as possible is desirable).
If memory serves, the USS Enterprise went into battle with one of it's end elevators damaged and unrepaired in the 'up position'. They didn't dare lower it in case they couldn't bring it back to the 'up position'. This illustrates the seriousness of the concerns: they literally could not take the time to repair the elevator because the ship was needed so badly, and they accepted the slower rate of operations as being preferable to even a chance of losing that section of the flight deck.
I think it's funny that you say "those ones" like I used to. My grandpa used to correct me when I said it. It's redundant. In any situation when you say those?Ones is always implied. What other ones would you be referring to? 😋
Truly is an impossible task for you to mention carriers without extolling armored flight decks despite their failure.
@@Guardias the USN disagrees with you
Odd question, Did any of the Iron Duke class battleships ever fire their 3inch 20cwt anti-aircraft guns at enemy aircraft?
@ 00:03:53 The R class batleships were questionable. Did nothing in WWI (two of them saw action at the Battle of Jutland with no measurable effect) and were obsolete even at the very start of WWII. Building two or three QEs instead of five Rs would be a much more valuable choice for the RN.
Drach - RE: 4" guns for Capital ships and destroyers- you've said the Kriegsmarine should have had more 105mm flak guns instead of 150mm on their capital ships. Would they have done better if they had replaced their 150mm AND single use 128mm destroyer guns with their twin 105mm flak mounts? The guns appear more powerful than the British 4"/45 but would tri-axial complexity and weight count against them?
@garethjones3334 that's a really.good question, my instinct is the 150mm definitely but the 128mm was reasonably good, and honestly they dropped the ball not getting a naval DP version until almost the end of the war.
Has anybody seen the information about the fund raiser for HMS zZ UNICORN, and how the people across the great pond like myself can chip in to keep this fantastic piece of history afloat😮😮
Last time I was this early, Akagi was going through her 3rd refit.
6:50 Shimakaze definitely, given she was one of the worst warships ever (in terms of usefulness) as it turned out, but the Akizukis? Those I think had more merit to them, especially since there WERE times they saw use in their intended role.
⚓️
The skills of a ship's carpenter were not the same as those of a land based carpenter, and those of a naval carpenter were specialized within that category. It would surprise me greatly if land based skills, outside those of shipbuilding, would get one rated as carpenter's mate. Incidentally carpenters were heavily engaged in damage control and so not necessarily in a place of relative safety in battle.
You can't underestimate the amount of time it takes to effectively use the tools of the trade, let alone knowing what the tools are and what they are used for. Someone with carpentry experience is going to have a huge leg up on someone without.
@@keith6706 The question was where ship's carpenters came from. The answer offered included land based carpenters. The actual answer involved a *lot* of specific on the job training leading to becoming a carpenter's mate, then more to becoming rated carpenter. I stand by what I said, it is the truth. I did not say land-based experience would not help, I said it would not lead to a warrant as a carpenter.
Thanks for your thoughts on the twin DP 4". On a Facebook group, recently, I proposed doing a mass "austere" update on all of the QEs and Rs, replacing all the casemate 6", with twin 4"., rather than spending so many resources on the more expensive rebuilds if QE, and Valiant, leaving the other ships unable to mount a credible AA defense. I credit their lack of AA as the primary reason Repulse, and, later, all of the Revenges, were banished to the Indian Ocean.
Let’s say that the Germans managed the same sort of golden BB hit they achieved with Hood against every capital ship they hit at Jutland. How does that change the war? Does it make the Germans bolder in engaging the Grand Fleet?
Expecting every large ship in the British Navy to just explode? Not very practical. And still doesn't really change the basic problems for German surface ships. Access to the Open Sea. Lack of bases. Access to fuel. Or the situation on land.
38:05 What is the difference between "strike" and "move" or "send" for moving aircraft below the flight deck on an aircraft carrier? I had not heard of "strike aircraft down" in relation to moving them down the elevator on an aircraft carrier before. It seems there is a specific meaning or timing related to saying that.
The term "strike down" or "strike below" for the act of moving something below deck goes back to the days of sail.
Striking your colours meant taking them down - surrendering
During the joint investigarion into the loss of USS Frank E Evans after the Evans managed to get herself t-boned by HMAS Melbourne, an Australian offi er was giving evidence about what he was doing on Melborne's flight deck at the time of the collision. He explained that it was part of his job to strike down US aircraft.
The americans were horrified at this until it was explained to them that inn this case, US meant unserviceable and that strike down meant to remove fo the hangar.
Only 20 hours late 😂 RUclips notifications
19th, 2 February 2025
@0:00:36. What was the effect of the ships who (Supposedly) could fire their "in echelon" turrets across the centerline, actually fired across the centerline? (It seems like by that time they would have realized that they needed 1.5 to 2 inches of armor on everything near the arcs of fire to protect against the muzzle blast of their own guns....
(And I'm pretty sure that they've already figured out that you could put sand in paint for a somewhat non-skid deck paint .vs. using wood to further limit muzzle blast damage. Or did the Fleets ever talk to the Ship Builders about this?)
Where's episode 333?
ruclips.net/video/yOKArI2T-tE/видео.html
Thank you for your hard work and diligence. Your videos are true art.🎩🧲🌳
Another masterpiece Drach. Thanks for all the hard work involved.
48:07 reminds me of how in WW2 US first aid kits included chewing gum for injured personal as a way to distract and calm them down, whereas British first aid kits included cigarettes
48:38 carrier captain: why’s the rum gone?