Drach, sir, you have often said that major gun hits tended to gravitate towards in front of the bridge? Why was this? Aiming points? Averages of gun spread? Magic!,???
For the anti-torpedo gun, what if you used a shell that was a small depth charge? Fire a barrage in the approximate direction of the incoming torpedo and have them set to donate as they sink to common torpedo depth. Like AA, but underwater. Or is a depth charge that would fit into a 5" shell too small to be effective? Or is a torpedo too small to be effectively targeted by a depth charge?
We all know of the poisonous feelings of many armed forces towards each other? Can you please investigate the relationships of navies that take in large numbers of volunteer reserves? How were the Wavey Navy recruits seen by long timers? And did the relationships change?
@@hughgordon6435 kind of. Four rounds from each barrel from a ship like an Iowa is 40 depth charges in the water. Modified propellant charges could allow high angle firing and thus entry angle. And these would only take up space in the magazines and shell rooms, instead of deck space like a hedgehog launcher.
I am aways astounded that i see a 3 hour video and end up engrossed through to the end. Hell, I was Army and usually don't think too much of ships (a blind spot i admit) but these talks are a great and entertaining learning experience.
Same here! And I even listen to these multiple times ones as ASMR 😂 and then for real. Drach is a great presenter he should make a podcast or something similar. Greetings from Bulgaria brother!
It is an amazing thing that the British actually made a decision to end the era of slavery by actual military force, regardless of the basic reasons behind this decision. The effect was one of an honorable use of their power for the advancement of human civilization. Bravo!
@@richardschaffer5588 sure sure but, and I know people hate this in the 21st century, that also involved "states rights". Still a huge effort but it wasn't purely focused on slavery like the British chose to tackle, without being forced by succession.
well thats an interesting comment and I'm going to have to think a little more on it maybe do some more reaserach by watching the rest of this video 😝😝
These can get you thru a bunch of layover time but my favorite is downloading them for the flights as well. Although is usually pass out within about 20 minutes of take off lol
The US Navy "splinter-proof plating" WAS FULL-STRNGTH ARMOR being made of BuC&R/BuSHIPS STS. The US had a very tight control on the use of the term "armor" and only BuORD could use that term, here for its equivalent Class "B" armor. The highest-strength construction steel, BuC&R/BuSHIPS High-Tensile Steel (HTS) was allowed to be used against explosion blast pressure, as in anti-torpedo bulkheads in large warships, but NEVER for protection against any kind of impact, shell or fragment. This was always only required to be STS or Class "B" armor, depending on the part of the ship being protected. The thick armored decks of US WWII battleships and cruisers was always STS, not Class "B" armor, due to this "rice-bowl" thing, but the protection was identical in either case. STS was made only by Carnegie, while Class "B" armor was made by Carnegie (to a different but identical spec to STS), Bethlehem Steel, and The Midvale Company. US Navy politics turns out to be complex.
The implications of the battle of the Virginia Capes (aka battle of the Chesapeake) going the other way cannot be underestimated. The exhaustion of the 3rd Continental Army in the South was at a critical level (similar to the UK and France in 1918) and if Cornwallis had been reinforced and supplied indefinitely, a negotiated peace would be the likely outcome with the US remaining a colony. If that was the result it would receive the continued suppression of non-British immigration and interference with attempts to industrialize, similar to Canada, Australia and New Zealand in the 19th Century. Insofar that the primary thing that the US brought to the 20th Century was its large population, wealth and massive industrial capacity, its role in winning two world wars and rebuilding war ravaged Europe would be a complete impossibility. One could readily argue that all three participants at the battles of the Chesapeake and subsequently Yorktown were ultimately winners…..it just took a little over a century for them to realize it.
That carrier conversion question at 2:13:34 has me thinking with all the popular hype over the Yorktown and Essex class carriers, how did the design authorization and building funding for the escort carriers ever happen at all (rhetorical question). some of the lesser-known ships are almost like plot contrivances that appear out of nowhere for the story and then just vanish when they're no longer needed for the story arch, or so-called quantum “virtual particles” that constantly wink into and out of existence, "quantum-virtual escort-carriers", lol. I know Drach had at least one good vid on the escort carriers (USS Sangamon - Guide 279), I've simply been a tad busy of late, so probably missed a lot of videos. good stuff Drach and crew. B)
FDR ordered eight Clevelands convererted. Not sure who ordered the Sangamons etc. I know that once CVEs came into play their value was seen so well that America built seventy or so of them. Great for resupplying 3rd/5th Fleet carrier planes, great for hunter-killer groups in he Atlantic. It was a desperate time which called for the sweep of a hand.
I think Henry J Kaiser personally met with FDR and convinced him to build the escort carriers. There was a large gap in coverage where the u boats had a feeding frenzy and we needed to have planes. Also with land based planes they could not stay on station very long at all due to fuel limits. Kaiser knew he could build the pocket carriers quickly and cheaply and fix the Uboat problem.
While it’s not the same thing as black powder by any means, from my handloading experience, very small changes can lead to changes in bullet velocity, accuracy, point of impact, etc. it seems completely logical that slight differences in powder composition might very well lead to different performance characteristics. But better QC could absolutely explain it too, like you said. 42:10
With the old black powder muzzle loaded guns how well the powder was processed was as important as the quality of ingredients. What Drach did not point out was that British Powder was far finer milled than French and especially Spanish powder (as was American Powder I might add), at least during the Napoleonic period. The finer powder gave a cleaner burn, so better muzzle velocity, and better accuracy, though the accuracy is relative. Muzzle loaded guns with significant windage are never going to win any accuracy competitions!
2:00:00 That last comment on the human factor of the Mark 38 FIre Control System reminds me a lot of the famed Norden bombsight (which was built around a fire control computer). In theory it was so accurate that it was considered a critical secret and expanded the capabilities of US bombers significantly. But, in practice, it wasn't any better than the systems others were using because they were all limited by the quality of input data in a combat situation.
The Norden bomb sight gets a bad rap. It was accurate enough we used a totally different accuracy standard than other nations and still even with the higher standard made more hits on target.
RE: AP bomb penetration… Flying an F6F-5, my Dad put a 500 lb. S.A.P bomb through the flight deck of the Japanese light carrier Zuiho on the morning of 25 October, 1944, that did serious enough damage in the engineering spaces to slow the carrier noticeably, and bulged the flight deck enough that flight operations were thereafter impossible - not that the Japanese had a lot of aircraft with which to conduct such operations by that stage of the conflict. Zuiho was sunk by an afternoon attack by other planes from USS Lexington and others, so below-decks damage assessment is not possible. One of the ongoing weaknesses of both Japanese and U.S. carriers during WW 2 was their unarmored, typically wooden, flight decks. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Foresman_Schoch).
Re: which non-major power’s navy had the greatest impact on WWII, wouldn’t that have to be the Royal Australian Navy? Larger than any of the free European fleets it was able to take on whole duties, like responsibility for the sea lanes between Australia and the Mediterranean in the first 2+ years of the war, freeing up Royal Navy vessels to concentrate on priorities in Europe/Atlantic, while also contributing ships to the RN’s head-to-head struggle against Italy in the Mediterranean, a critical theater but decidedly undecided from 1939-41. RAN ships were part of the “Scrap Iron Flotilla” at Malta, took part in Cape Mattapan and evacuation of Greece, took leading roles escorting 138 badly-needed convoys to Tobruk, while still having ships to spare to sink the German merchant raider Kormorant in the Indian Ocean. Most of this before the bulk of the RAN relocated post-Dec. 1941 to face the Japanese, protecting >1000 convoys, taking part in major battles like Savo Island Leyte and Surigao Strait. Surely all that outdistances the Dutch.
Actually I would say the Royal Canadian Navy, but the question was specifically about the 'Free' Navies, so the Navies of countries that had fallen to Germany or Japan (or both in the case of the Dutch) but continued fighting. The RAN and RCN did superbly during the war, but they were not 'Free' Navies, as neither nation fell.
Question was asked about both the “minor power” and “free” navies. I’d definitely consider the Royal Australian Navy a “minor power” in the naval sphere as they had zero battleships or carriers and were overall numerically much smaller than eg USN or RN.
KIRISHIMA DID NOT hit the face plate of SOUTH DAKOTA!!. It hit the 1.5" STS weather deck just short of the turret -- aft turret #3 -- and then bent that down in a groove until it hit the 17.3" Class "A" (face-hardened) barbette armor just below the weather deck level at a horizontal angle of about 45 degrees and downward angle of maybe 10 degrees. It then tried to ricochet off the barbette, but the deck armor held it like a wedge on both sides of the shell, so it could not deflect sideways. It then ricocheted downward so it ended up standing vertically on its nose with its blower body slamming against the barbette a short distance above the deck level. The sensitive Type 91 Explosive filler (trinitroanisol) detonated high order due to the shock of the body on the super-hard barbette surface, causing the body to turn into many small fragments moving in a fan parallel to the deck and the thick, hard, heavy shell nose, which was sticking down slightly below the deck, being broken into many somewhat larger chunks that ricocheted around in the the area between the weather and heavy ~6" STS armor 2nd deck and a few of those large chunks were able to punch through several thin bulkheads to some distance from the barbette, though most pieces could only penetrate one light bulkhead. The windscreen was torn off on the deck hit, as was the removable "discus-shaped" Cap Head, which also skipped off the deck, ricocheted off the barbette, and tore through a hatch combing before exiting the ship area. This hit was one of the most bizarre AP shell hits on an enemy target ever made. WASHINGTON destroyed KIRISHIMA before it could get another hit.
I was just re-reading Lundgren's analysis of the hit on the navweaps website. How confident are you that the damage to hatch cover 122 is from the cap head ricocheting off the barbette? I don't remember seeing anything in the discussion about the hatch after he made the argument that the timing and angles are entirely wrong for the shell to have passed through the hatch en route to the barbette. Is this conclusion of a ricochet primarily a question of "Well, nothing else really happened in the area so what other possibilities are there?"
About color film: Kodachrome 8 and 16mm color movie film was made available to the public in the US by 1938. However it wasn't cheap and needed good lighting to get a decent image. There are a lot of daytime baseball games filmed in color in the late 30's. However, I believe the US military mainly used B&W film in WWII and when the used color, the films were often printed in B&W for mass distribution to save costs. Many of the film originally shot in color only exist in B&W in the archives. Also, very little color footage exists of actual ship-to-ship combat, which would show the Japanese use of dye packs during T he Battle off Samar. I think I remember reading that the explosion of the USS Arizona was shot with color film, but no existing color copies are still extant.
Great video man 👍👍 I appreciate the party about the human remains. My heart goes out to the families. We are all just curious and wondering the same thing. I'm ashamed but it's fascinating at the same time.
Actium was first battle that came to my (eurocentric) mind, but there's one more candidate: the battle of Tzushima. Had the Russians won they would gain control of sea comunications and Japanese army in Korea and Manjuria would be left without supplies, which would lead to their defeat in the end. Russia winning the war would deliver a hard blow to Japan's empirial tendencies, and it is possible that it would never even think of entering WWII. On the other hand, in Russia there would be much less unsatisfaction with the regime, so it is possible the Russia would avoid October, if not February revolution.
Good comment. Tsushima gets the attention, but the IJA faced a much tougher slog on land. It was depleting as it moved on Mukden and exhausted by its victory there. There was no more juice in the squeeze. The Russians moved north and prepared to fight on - leaders expected to be reinforced. 'We'll fight a war of attrition.' Tsar Nicholas II had many more troops he could have sent to Manchuria, but he lacked the finances. France refused to extend any more loans. Germany, which had been delighted to see the Russians fighting in the east and was content to let the Russians wage war there on and on, became very worried after the 1905 Revolution. Would it cascade? It began messaging Russia to seek peace. Japan secretly asked Roosevelt to call for peace talks. They asked for and received his assurance that he wouldn't reveal it came from Tokyo's initiative. Tokyo feared that if Russia knew Japan sought a negotiated settlement, it would deduce Japan was in a weakened state. Roosevelt, who was a keen supporter of Japan in the conflict, kept Tokyo's confidence, and he then was knifed in the back after Japan's expectations (all of Manchuria, reparations, all of Sakhalin Island) came be to much less. Everyone told Tokyo that it if wanted those peace terms the IJA would have to 'capture Moscow'. Japan's military (and much of the public) nursed an unwarranted grudge through the following decades.
Some Germans had a suspicion that after some U-Boat losses in 1941 the british had a full set of Enigma M3 Codes. They didn't knew where they have got them, but Vizeadmiral Dönitz had the suspicion and he was confirmed when the Kriegsmarine switched to the Enigma M4 the U-Boat losses of the Kriegsmarine dropped. But he had the wrong conclusion, he thought that the Key (Rotor interconnections ) was out, not that the Chiffre was broken. So with a new key, the bleshley park only had to regain the Key for Enigma. And as a German myself, they guy which connected Rotor 1 for the M3 should be shot, severals times over. Or get the Anti-Nazi Service Cross for Sabotage.
During the Colorado class question around the 2hr 25 mark, the photo shows a converted yacht in the foreground. She had multiple names all of which escape me, but when was originally a magnates super yacht, then a mass tourist pleasure craft taking sightseers round New York, but also saw service in US navy during both word wars- including service as the US nays first scientific research ship.. And she still exists! As a rusting wreck in a creek off a river somewhere real random in the inland US. YT channel Part Time Explorer did a good video detailing her history- WELL worth checking out. (he has decent maritime strand to his stuff - mainly shipwrecks, but its better than most shipwreck/disaster porn on YT...)
In early part of WW2 the US had a fuel supply problem. Battle ships as big fuel consumers were deployed sparingly. Until the fuel problem was solved and the exception of Solomon campaign, battle ships were rarely used in a prime attack role.
Limerick time: There once was a man named Drach, Who took his audience to Dry Dock, He answered some questions, gave some honorable mentions, and not once took a look at the clock.
For some exploration of the historic effects of some battles going a different way, see Harry Turtledove's short story "Counting Potsherds" (the long-term effects of a Persian conquest of Greece) and his novel "Ruled Britannia" (set 10 years after the success of the Armada). Somewhere in my library (still boxed for a time) is another short story (I cannot remember the title or author) where the obstreperous Captain John Paul Jr. joined the Royal Navy instead of going to America and threw together a scratch squadron to keep DeGrasse out of Chesapeake Bay in 1781 until Hood's ships could arrive from New York.
The Standards were typically used for shore bombardment and apparently were much better at it than the fast ships. They usually did'nt carry much in the way of AP shells. Not what you would want in a fleet confrontation.
When you are an idiot with sliding breech blocks. That's why we love you Drach. Understand sometimes it has to be done but please stop spending so much time on rebuttals for morons in the comments section. Been with you since robo voice.
Another advantage of the midships catapult system, as found by the RN in the late war - once you've tossed the aircraft because you've got carriers doing all the aviation the hangers make excellent cinemas for crew entertainment.
As Drac said, wrt the 14" armed Tennessees vs 16" armed Colorados, the question came down to USN expectations of engagement range. Head of BuOrd Strauss insisted that engagements would always be fought at 12,000 yards, or less. The 14" could penetrate well enough at that range, and, being smaller and lighter, more could be carried. Jutland drove the final nail in that theory. In the summer of 1916, the General Board, and SecNav Daniels, agreed 16" was the way to go, and overrode Strauss' recommendation. In his annual report that year, Daniels discussed the switch to 16", and said the change was made over the objections of "some officers". Strauss was very proud of the 14"/50, ordering it into production off the drawing board, with no testing. Can't help but wonder, if testing had been done, and the dispersion problems these guns experienced been discovered, would the 16" been selected for the Tennessees, by virtue of the fact the 16" can actually hit what it is aimed at?
1:22:00 There was a destructive device, intended for use destroying files to prevent capture, used in WWII and after, that was basically a thermite charge that sat on top of a file cabinet with an igniting tab on the top; pulling the tab ignited a fuse to light the thermite charge, which would burn its way down through the file cabinet, destroying all the papers it touched. This was, however, only useful when the documents were stored in a manner that allowed the destruction charge to be fixed atop the storage unit, and was not useful for destroying documents in the cramped environment of a submarine, which didn't have the space to have things like file cabinets. And even in environments where the charges would have been useful, they were not always deployed.
Im gonna name Pearl Harbor as the single most impactful naval battle. Mostly because a lot of other battles were largely foregone conclusions, at least on the campaign scale, but Pearl Harbor brought the US into the war. I think the US would have joined EVENTUALLY, but whether it would have joined in time to help in North Africa, Indonesia, or before the Battle of Stalingrad is up in the air. Worst case scenario, Japan overtakes much of East Asia and the Pacific while Germany seizes the Suez Canal. But even the BEST case scenario leaves the Red Army liberating Paris before the British can even cross the channel. Which would obviously have serious repercussions for the Cold War.
Pearl harbiur changed nothing in terms of large scale outcome. Meanwhile you have engagements like Actium and Ecnomus that could well have given a completely different ethnic group dominion ower half of human history, or Lepanto and Trafalgar, which would have seen the imperial hegemon in the modern era be someone else. Or as mentioned above, Tsushima, which could well have prevented the russian revolution, culled japanese imperial ambition, and drastically changed how the world wars played out. Meanwhile pearl harbour was merely the inevitable culmination of the aforementioned japanese imperialism, and ultimately had no effect on the outcome of ww2 or the makeup of the following peace.
The Battle of Lepanto strikes me as a potential history-changing battle. Had the Ottomans routed the Holy League, they might well take much more of Europe before their eastward expansion ends.
Just a comment in regards Napier. The crew on the "Miguelite" fleet were not necessarily hopeless or inexperienced... it was the leadership that had no idea of what they were doing , with many of them having very limited or none experience in regards war at sea. They were also over confident given their advantage but forgot that many on the crew were somewhat sympathetic to the liberal cause and therefore rarelly gave their best. Napier was later appointed as admiral of the portuguese navy and even Count of the Cape of Saint Vincent and wrote a book about his participation i the war. Additionally his endeavours and sucess while well regarded in the Royal Navy actually annoyed William IV, that was never fancy of Dom Pedro and to an extent also of Napier
Drach, for your explanation of the Battle of the Chesapeake in "... most historically significant naval engagement/campaign?" you said "Suffren" instead of "(Comte) de Grasse".
1:38:00 I imagine that the ones looking at the shell splashed got an even better view as they was looking trough rangefinders and other better optic than 1920 film cameras tended to use.
At 31:10 you are asked about the success of the design of the Essex's, the Fletcher's & the Iowa's. And one thing that you didn't think about was the fact that the USA also incorporated CIC's. And that way all the ships involved in an action know more about everything that is going on and can act accordingly better with all ships involved!
Not sure about the Trafalgar answer regarding British naval dominance. Comparatively, the US still didn't utterly dominate after 1943. They still had the occasional issue I think the Annus Mirabilis might be a better answer. Britain might still lose the occasional skirmish or have an admiral make a bad decision, but after 1759 they were done losing pitched naval battles.
True, but navally the RN was somewhat on the back foot during a lot of the war surrounding the US War of Independence, they pulled it back at the last minute, but they were considerably more on the ropes that you'd expect for an utterly dominant power. And they were scared of the combination of the Franco-Spanish fleets until after 1805, as compared to the Two-Power Standard later on :)
@@Drachinifel That was my caveat about admirals making bad decisions. I think if Graves or Rodney had been replaced by Jarvie or Nelson for an afternoon, those couple of not-quite-battles would have gone much differently. I also think Mahan and American historians in general may overemphasize those battles compared to their actual importance. But I'm a contrarian. On the other hand, I see your point too. Andrew Lambert said something about the US maintaining a 10 to 1 standard in the 90s. That is indeed dominant, but it didn't help the US win Korea or Vietnam.
@ 2:47:34 There is a sort of "alternate history" divine wind that might have occurred on October 9, 1945, when Typhoon Louise hit Okinawa. 12 ships were sunk, 222 were stranded, and 32 were wrecked on Okinawa. If the invasion of Kyushu had been needed, and the planning date of November 1 was accurate in this alternate timeline, then many more ships would've been at Okinawa and casualties would have been higher. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typhoon_Louise_(1945) @ 2:53:20 The Battle of Salamis could have resulted in the Persian Empire wiping out Greek civilization, with a massive impact on history. The very idea that Europe is a separate entity, more than just a western protrusion of Asia, is a consequence of the defeat of the Persians.
The USS Monitor took hits in the turret face during Hampton Roads, but that was far before the dreadnought era, and USS New Jersey took a faceplate hit from shore based 8" that damaged a ladder during Korea. But I think the real reason that faceplate armor was so thick is that it's the only part of the ship that was almost guaranteed to take a perpendicular hit if it was struck - every other part of the armor would at least have some angle to increase the apparent thickness. And even if the turret is knocked out, preventing penetration means that you don't risk an explosion that endangers the ship by propellent in the turret itself detonating, the danger of which is easily demonstrated by the USS Iowa turret 2 explosion.
I regarding battles that could have changed history: Trafalgar is also an option. Not only would the Royal Navy have lost a part of their fleet alongside probably their best admiral at the time (I doubt Nelson would survive a loss considering he died when he won), the French and Spanish would have had most of their fleet, probably strengthened by British ships, allowing for further weakening of the Royal Navy an a possible invasion
Another interesting one is the Spanish-American War, especially given it was basically outraged into existence by US newspaper media. If the war hadn't happened the US wouldn't have ended up in possession of the Philippines. Without the Americans having a possession in that region half a century later, the Japanese wouldn't have needed to drag them into WWII (at least yet) with a strike at Pearl. Without being forcibly brought into a war which they were (like WWI) officially sitting out of (and especially without the very specific public outrage about a "dastardly surprise attack on American soil"), Japan would have run even more freely though all of southeast Asia (not a chance the American public would support a war for some far-off European colonies). On top of this, the US likely would have continued to sit out the war until (maybe) Britain was especially desperate, or until a counterattack and invasion of France could be planned and executed (likely later in history than Overlord/D-Day), similar to sitting out WWI until it was basically already decided. This means no Americans in North Africa, and assuming the Brits are still victorious there, no Americans invading Italy. Both of these together making the actual Italian invasion less likely to succeed, if it even happens in the first place. Without an Italian invasion (or with a far less successful one), Italy might have remained in the war for much longer, leaving Germany another ally and preventing another front from opening up, which means more pressure on the Russians. And the Russians may also be getting far less in the way of support/supplies/vehicles/weapons from the Americans if they aren't officially in the war. And so on.
@@BleedingUranium That was a big deal for the United States (and a tragedy for Spain), but it didn't have much effect beyond those countries and their colonies. But the other naval battles cited were, to some extent, world changing.
00:19:10 - Did the USN have doctrine worked out how the standards, fast battleships, and very fast battleships would engage the enemy if all three types of battleships were present in a Jutland-style engagement with the enemy line of battle? Part of the problem here is that the US Navy was getting its first fast battleships only well into 1941, just two of them, so the battleship doctrine didn't really need revision because it would be a couple of more years before there was a significant number of fast battleships sailing and it would be nearly the end of the 1940s before most of the 21-knot ships were actually completely off the line themselves. From what I can tell, the US Navy's solution in the meantime was the same as the Royal Navy in the 1910s when it had the notably-quicker Queen Elizabeths introduced. The QEs simply served as their own force between the main Line of Battle composed of the 21-knot vessels and the Battlecruiser force which operated around 25 knots. When their speed let them catch up to the battlecruisers, they helped the battlecruisers. When the main action was joined, they would slug it out alongside the slower ships while using their speed to exploit opportunities to cut off enemy retreat or such.
@ 1:29:40 I would think that with the Japanese ships often having sloped belts (I.I.R.C.), this would still let in a lot of water, not necessarily to the vitals (except where seams got split or piping damaged by the explosion (which is why you have valves inside of the Citadel)), but would cause a list that would make the ship on that side more exposed to above the Armored (Armoured) Deck hits. And if the list is big enough (depending on the sea state) you now have chances of getting hits below the Belt on the other side for waves to enter the hull!
The concept of skip bombing: the bomb hits a ships side then sinks alongside the ship and explodes (after a time delay) underwater damaging the target’s hull. As an RN admiral commented “better to let water in from the bottom (torpedo )than air in from the top (bomb)”
If Nation A calls a ship BB, but uses it like BC and we call it BC because of that, then we would have to apply the same ruling for the ships of nation B and C. therefor... wouldnt that count for all BBs of the WW2 period that saw significant service that coincides closer a BC missionprofile?
Not really. Even with fast battleships the key is resistance to like guns. Kongo's armor is going to stop 8" at medium-long ranges, but even a 14" shell will happily sail right through it. Even North Carolina has a degree of protection against 16" guns.
@@Maty83. thats all mute and beides the Point. The Point is, that If we Accept the usage based Determination that ship A is used for Missions closer to bc role and is therefore pushed towards bc classification, then If ship B ist used for Missions that closer fit bc, then it to is pushed towards a bc classification as per usage. Regardless what nations the ships are from. As far as the konogs are concearned. Is IS true that they Lack protective freatures that seem prerequisite for being classed as bb. But If the usage Determination counts for the konogs as pushing towards bc, then the Same must hold true for other artillerie based fast capital units. Otherwhise the usage based Determination is a mute Point eitherway and does not hold any water other than coincidentially
@@GARfearfak I'd say the likely anomaly all those ships have together is the speed. The higher the speed, the more likely a ship was going to be goven more missions simply because their operational freedom was greater. Look at the R-class vs. QEs vs. Renowns and Hood. All have similar-ish capabilities except the Renowns (which have the extra speed, but less protection and firepower), but they get used the more simply because they have higher flexibility than the Rs and QEs.
@@Maty83. I completely agree with the characterization of the ships you listed. - my issue mit the service live usage based determination of the classifications of BB/BC is that it cant be applied outsid edescribing the Kongos as a general rule for classifications, therefor it can not be an consideration that to determin the classification. One cant very well describe Iowa as an BC, even when it is used for missions that greatly rely on its operational freedom. Likewhise, we wouldnt call a King Gorge V class a BC, no matter how important its operational flexibillity was used to contain comerce raiders. Therefor either the service live based post fact determination of BC/BB is bunk and does not apply to the Kongos, other than by pure coincidence. or the rule is not bunk and we can post fact dertermin Iowa and KGV ships to be pushed towards a BC classification, when on missions that rely on their operational flexibillity and freedom.
For the "historically significant naval engagement", I'd nominate the Glorious First of June. While the Royal Navy did score a significant tactical victory, it failed to intercept the massive food convoy heading to France. Food that saved Paris and part of France from starvation and the political upheaval this would cause, which might very well have ended the revolution then and there.
re: Mount Hood explosion. The USN had a massive ammunition plant just east of Hastings, NE thatwas a major source of ammunition filling during WW2 one source mentions that 40% of USN's ordnance was handled through there). There were four explosive accidents at the depot in 1944. One of the biggest left a huge crater and was felt for quite a distance across Nebraska. One of my wife's uncles worked there and he mentioned that rockets (no mention of type) on the loading dock were seen to be smoking, leading to an immediate evacuation. Your mention of "broken rocket bodies" on the Mount Hood caused me to remember this story. Do you think that the USN might have had a bad rocket design, or perhaps a badly manufactured batch?
RE, russian involvement in us civil war. The us ambassador to russia at the time was a very agressive abolitionist who supposedly convinced russia to threaten war against Britain and france should they side with the Confederacy. While the brits would certainly not have been afraid of battlefield defeat against russia, the at home political implications of such a war were much more worrisome to the British political class, in addition to the split view the British population already had towards the US Civil war Drach already described. The russian frigates may have been in part proof of this to both the union and the Europeans.
I think, maybe, the reason why IJN called Kongo battleships was because a lot of people today which must have been more back then view battlecruisers as "inferior" to battleships. The 5 minutes guide to the Scharnhorst back in 2018 called them battlecruisers for example. Not because they were faster than all other battleships and not because they had less armor. And IJN had 4 battlecruisers and 6 battleships while USN had 15 battleships. It was probably easier to tell the people when you're about to go to war that we now have 10 battleships versus 15. Rather than explaining that those battlecruisers are going to be used as screen breaker so lighter ships can launch torpedoes on enemies battle lines which is more useful than fighting 10 v 15 and lose.
Most of the reason for these silly term semantics is because by post-WWI "battlecruiser" was an obsolete term... but no one wanted to call their faster, lighter armoured capital ships "Light Battleships". This is even more directly why we get the incredibly goofy "Fast Battleship" term. All that, in combination with people seemingly obsessing over classifying and sub-classifying battleships based on the smallest of differences (which feels in the same category as the Bismarck sunk/scuttled debate), despite not doing so for non-battleships, is why we always end up with these eye-rolling debates. Destroyer classes have *far* more variety in size, armament, armour (or lack of it), speed, etc than battleships do, yet they're all simply "Destroyer". We don't call the Fletcher-class "Heavy Destroyers" due to their splinter protection, nor the Le Fantasque-class "Fast Destroyers" due to their speed, and so on.
RE: Theoretical interwar conversions - Italians didn't have battlecruisers but they did have partially built Francesco Caracciolo class fast battleships. Max speed of 28kts and the Italians allegedly did look at a carrier conversion...
Dear Drach, I have commented on interrupted screw versus the sliding breech block types before, but, since you mention them again, I hope that the gentle readers will forgive repetition. I feel that the sliding type must have been easier to produce, quicker to open and close and not that much heavier in the overall scheme of things. Is it not horses for courses? If your navy is only going to get one or zero combat missions from your heavier ships why not user the simpler option?
@@jackgee3200 I appreciate that you have read my initial comment. It is not that easy to find dimensioned drawing of such guns, lengths and weights aplenty but not drawings of breech mechanisms or even useful photos for Bismark/Tirpitz. Using very basic maths to get a Bismark shell up to speed over the barrel length and then guessing (based on smallarm pressure charts) that peak pressure would not exceed five times average I came to a guesstimate 73M Newtons equating to 51 Kg/mm2. I then assumed that the breech end would have a diameter of at least 5 foot based on ancient memory of a visit to the museum in London. From that I reckoned that a sufficient sliding breech could be made from mild steel adding no more than three foot length from the cartridge base, perhaps the equivalent of the screw (interrupted thread) type once you have added the hinging mechanisms. I would imagine that the block would drop, let us say that it needs two foot of travel, so there is no additional problem with the gun house height or width. At 30 degrees elevation I really do not see the the lower part of the breechblock guide interfering with the turret or barbette interior. The sliding breech would most likely be heavier but all that means is that the balance point for the trunnions moves rearwards so you actually get some of that space back. I then found the navweaps.com site. This gives a Bismark pressure of 32Kg/mm2. Sadly no clear illustrations of the breeches but if you transfer to the UK 15" there is a photo at the Coventry factory which suggests a 5~6 ft diameter and one of the full assembly at VSEL which, unless they were deliberately using a short guy, suggests an extra ring round the breech equating to perhaps 8ft diameter and at least 4ft length of hinge mechanism. The partial cartridge case is a given, and disposing of the cases is an extra task. I had imagined that the germans would have been sufficiently inventive to have made a lift that could cope with bagged and cased charges (one after the other). If that was not so then I concede that the extra space for the additional lift is a major concern. I maintain that the size of the breech itself need not be wider than the screw type. I note that Des Moines (admittedly only an 8") reverted to a sliding breech for simplicity and reliability. I note that despite the design and manufacturing skill the proposed 15" Elswick breech failed in test (it does not say in what manner, I'm guessing the hinging and locking action, one presumes a catastrophic failure would have been mentioned) so the Wellin breech was retained. The Wellin breech apparently suffered from slam though it is not mentioned as to what was affected. Perhaps the allied countries did not want to invest in the machinery for a sliding breech if they were tooled up for Wellin, plus a bit of NIH bias? I hear what you say about using up barrels in training. Would the relining aspect have been effected by the breech or just the temperature shrink versus wirewound methods? Going back to the Coventry photo I will concede that the screw breech has good symmetry and thus could be easier to handle and check the relined barrel.
The Australian and US air force used skip bombing using b25s b17s etc. against transports in the south pacific theater. Hipohysterical history on the air war goes into it with more depth. 1:40:49
Named after the same person, 25:00 : There were also the French battleship Charlemagne and SMS Kaiser Karl der Große eta: I am somewhat surprised how few South American ships are called Bolívar. Still, there is a Colombian barque Simón Bolívar and a USS Simon Bolivar I guess you could be more fanciful: Do different Santa MarÍas count? Does a ship named »Nuestra Señora de las Mercedes« count as named after her? How about USS Los Angeles, named after the city, named after Nuestra Señora la Reina de los Ángeles?
All we need to know was that there were very few places in the world that were distant from a British naval base. So an appropriate song would be "Britannia rules the waves", or at least they did 110 years ago.
Hi Drach. A quick "What If". If the USA has suffered similar levels of bombing to its ship yards, like the UK. Would the USN have been able to eclipse the RN during the War. Or would in be more into the 50s?
Even with bombing the US yards would have out built the British yards. Without a doubt. I will freely state that as a Brit. The US Industrial capacity during WWII was truly stupendous. If you think about it in some ways the US yards output was already dropped by bombing, indirectly. Many damaged British ships were repaired and refit in US yards literally because they were safe from bombing. Yet despite the fact that US yards were refitting or repairing British ships they still managed to build 14 Essex Class Carriers that were able to take part in the war. And yes, I know 24 were completed, but only 14 were completed early enough to have fitted out, and undergone shakedown cruises early enough to take an active role in the war..... Consider that for a moment, *only* 14....... I think Drach would have no issues with agreeing with me, the USN overtaking the Royal Navy was more or less an question of when rather than if. The War did not slow that down, it sped it up. The only way I can see where the USN did not overtake the RN until some time in the 50's is if WWII did not happen. In that case the issue would not have been industrial capacity, but trying to prise the funding out of Congress!
Conditions of US yards is not going to matter. The economy of Great Britain was stunted for like the next 20 years. They are not out producing the United States in any industry.
@ 55:48, I think it isn't so much as the Radio, but the Radio AND the Airplane was the major difference between WW 1 & WW 2.... After all, it could takes day(s) for a warship to respond, and hours for an airplane.
When talking of AP bombs we must not forget that the RN had a 2000lb AP bomb more than capable of piercing any armoured deck then afloat(1945); it also had the B bomb from the 1930's and Highball
@30:00 That sounds like we need a song for those bases (similar to the song in order to learn the capitals of the US states by Wakko of the Animaniacs)
Prior to Salamis, a significant portion of the Persian fleet was reportedly wrecked in a storm, which fits in with the preceding question (though some modern historians have cast doubts on the Greek accounts of this incident).
Yep, it's in Victoria on Vancouver Island. Pronounced more like es-qwai-malt. Years and years ago USS Abraham Lincoln showed up there for a bit, and they let people onboard for tours. I drew a smiley face in the condensation on the little green-windowed "bunker" thing near the forward catapults (I was seven). :D
@1:41:35 Carriers as Capital Ships ... I had the pleasure of serving on The Mighty Ark R09 (Twice) ... She was & probably is still The Most Powerfull Warship to ever serve in the Royal Navy ... I even suspect more powerfull than the new supercarriers that we have in service today, which maybe kinda awesome but not as downwrite absolutly destructeive as the Ark R09 ... She was a Force to be reckoned with being as described as having a Nuclear Stockpile onboard ... That Would and Could be used ... at any time whatsoever. And before anyone says ... Yeah Ok Nuclear stockpile ... it was the Cold War ... apart from that when we were on our last commision we spent 1 whole month expending Rockets Missile & Bombs during a NATO excerise (without rearming) ... and then it took 3 whole days (that 24/7) doing a ship to ship RAS tranferring all missiles Bombs etc from the ship before we could enter harbour for the last time ... with that in mind ... We could bring Hell on Earth to Anyone who pissed us off at anytime anywhere while we were in commision... if the Mighty Ark not been scrapped when She was The Falklands War would have Never happened
The importation of slaves was banned by the US 1815, and it was as a matter of fact de facto illegal to import them as whilst the trade was technically legal as of the signing of the Constitution, it was almost immediately made illegal for slave trade ships to operate in US waters and ports, which meant as a corollary the slave trade was a practical impossibility.
For the second question I wonder if the reason for every navy who had them, did seem to get more use out of battlecruisers because they saw them as a little more "expendable" ? To argue this point even though they have a lot fewer BattleCruisers than Battle Ships the Royal navy lost almost half its Battlecruisers at Jutland and yet while it was a stunning loss in the press and from a moral point of view I'm certain it did nothing to make the actual Naval command worry they were losing the war. Had they lost a 3 or 4 actual Battleships I'm sure they would have been a lot more worried.
Probably not. They were faster, basically. It was the speed that was the attractive thing about the Battlecruisers. The speed is why Navy's moved from Battlecruisers to Fast Battleships after all, they just needed the propulsion technology to make that work. Did not really exist in WWI, did by WWII.
Just as an aside, in WWI radios were not added to ships because of surface raiders, but because of submarines, believe it or not because of unrestricted submarine warfare. Prior to WWI virtually no merchant ships had radios. They were expensive, and in addition the operator had to be skilled not only in operating the radio, but in maintaining and repairing it. I don't know how much many of you know about WWI radios, but lets just say they were... temperamental. That means the radioman was a very expensive member of crew! Thus with cruiser rules in WWI even if the crew took to the boats because a Sub surfaced and enacted cruiser rules, they would know the submarine would radio their position in so those lifeboats could be picked up. When it moved to unrestricted submarine warfare however, well the only chance some of those crews might have is one last desperate Morse code message by their radio operator before they abandoned ship after being torpedoed. So yes, odd fact for the day, merchant ships in WWI started equipping radios because of unrestricted submarine warfare, not because of Surface Raiders or Cruiser rule submarine warfare. Obviously by WWII this had changed, radios were ubiquitous in ships by then. EDIT: The other thing about Highball, is they worked on the same principle as the bouncing bombs that hit the dams. So if they did not penetrate the reverse spin would drop them down to explode somewhere at or under the keel of the targeted ship. Which would arguably have even MORE devastating effects than the thing actually penetrating!! If I recall correctly testing did prove the concept, but the rush into missile technology in the 50's and 60's just killed that concept off... though it did work its way into torpedo design. Thing like the Mk 48 MADCAp for example are designed to blow under the ship, they are not actually designed to HIT it.....
Yeah for that first question it really does have to be Trafalgar doesn't it ? Since the 18th Century saw a lot of back and forth between RN, the French and Spain as a frequent spoiler. I can't recall off the top of my head what the role of Russia Denmark Portugal Sweden the Ottoman's ? would be but after Trafalgar can anyone doubt the Royal Navy is the Big Dog ?
Re ;aircraft carriers? Would the USN carriers be where they are today ,without " copying" FAA developments? Or would convergent development have given same results?
Without the heavy armor of the face plate a round would go right in and explode inside and detonate the entire mag maybe? So mostly it is for crew safety and to avoid getting - ammo racked. - I am guessing.
Russia's loose support of the Union in the Civil War was largely because of a man named Cassius Clay, who knew Lincoln personally from before he became president and was a considerably influential figure in the anti-slave movement. He was given a post as ambassador to Russia and it is said he got on well enough with the Czar and company that they were willing to step in and make noise that if the other European powers got involved with the Confederacy, then Russia would declare war against whoever did so. This being the case, it makes sense they would send 'observers' to keep an eye on things.
You neglected the Russian fleet that was on the west coast at San Francisco. There was a massive fire in the city at the time and several sailors were killed in the blaze. There is a memorial to them.
the Kongos were very busy in 1942 with mixed success. the bombardment of Henderson field being the most successful usage of IJN capital ships. The Hiei and Kirishima engaged the USS Edsall in a farce of an action notable for the ineffectiveness of the capital ships shooting and the former was lost after the first naval battle of Guadalcanal (arguably an IJN victory that was incomplete) and the latter in the second naval battle of Guadalcanal which again highlighted the poor gunnery on IJN capital ships. At least the Kongo and Haruna could hit an island.
@Drachinifel .... when you post a picture of a ship ... say @1:08:14 ... would you also put the name of the ship with the image ... I have no idea what that thing is ???????????? Even though you said the name at the end You do not always do that
On the problem of active torpedo defense, would a system like hedgehog work to destroy torpedoes? If so then why not deploy them on your capital ships since they'd allow effective defense against one of the most potent killers of capital ships as well as allow some amount of self-defense against submarines.
With regards to the Fast battleship/slow battleship doctrine you are right about what actually happened but do you know how they were envisioned to be used together before the outbreak of the war? Had war not broken out until 1945 or so (Plan Z has been mostly implemented the IJN now has 4 Yamato's and perhaps a follow on?) At this point would the standards now be regulated to being scrapped (I assume everything pre standard would have been like Arkansas, New York and Texas) I would say it's even likely that everything up to the New Mexico's would have been scrapped as the Montana's came online. So probably it wouldn't have been an issue since by that time the US battle line would have been composed of all fast battleships (and between 4 and 6 Iowa class) with the New Mexico's and the big 5 being regulated to convoy escort but what about in the interim say 42 to 45 before enough fast battleships came online for a full battle line (But the CV has yet to replace them as THE arbiter of naval power)
I always have a problem with people saying things like 'the Z plan has happened' in counterfactuals, because it ignores one very important point. The UK would NOT have just sat back and done nothing while Germany built up a Navy the size the Z plan called for. They simply would not have done it. Had Plan Z been actually implemented (ignoring the fact Germany did not have the Yards or slipways for it), then Britain would have no choice but to hit the Escalator Clause and bow out of the Treaties.... and then start THEIR own building plan. And unlike the Germans, the British could have done it. While by the thirties US shipbuilding had overtaken British shipbuilding for quantity and capability, British shipbuilding was still the second largest capacity in the world......
Don’t you think the predominance of carriers as WWII progressed made them capital ships self evident since most offensive military formations were centered on carriers?
2h47m40s: the divine wind segment. Doesn’t Typhoon Cobra deserve at least an honorable mention? Made a very credible effort at mauling the US Fleet, if it hadn’t been at the very end of the war it probably would have really put the US on their back foot at a time when the Japanese might have been able to capitalize on it. As an observation, I know you are doing quick segments, but as I slowly but steadily chew through them all (at work keeping track by hand) there have been instances where I have noted you might consider using an extra slide or two to help illustrate your point. the very occasional times you do it have really helped, such as at 2h13m and passing 2h19m. it would be nice if it was slightly more common across the great span content that is your drydock series.
Its a Hollywood thing. Most of them have never been on a ship using Sonar, let alone a submarine, let alone being a Sonar Operator. So just a Hollywood thing. I have been informed by a former Sonar Operator (my Uncle) that you can indeed identify the Sonar set a ship is using when it goes active if you know what you are doing.
2:35:06 dude. Duder. Can a cigarette really set off gunpowder or explosives or am I thinking of how they just extinguish in a puddle of gasoline? I know there’s slow matches. So yea. I love tobacco
@@hughgordon6435 "Elegance" d: scientific precision, neatness, and simplicity. EXAMPLE "the elegance of a mathematical proof." Well.....🤔 🚢 Can you judge a ship that way?
Pinned post for Q&A :)
Drach, sir, you have often said that major gun hits tended to gravitate towards in front of the bridge? Why was this? Aiming points? Averages of gun spread? Magic!,???
For the anti-torpedo gun, what if you used a shell that was a small depth charge? Fire a barrage in the approximate direction of the incoming torpedo and have them set to donate as they sink to common torpedo depth. Like AA, but underwater. Or is a depth charge that would fit into a 5" shell too small to be effective? Or is a torpedo too small to be effectively targeted by a depth charge?
We all know of the poisonous feelings of many armed forces towards each other? Can you please investigate the relationships of navies that take in large numbers of volunteer reserves? How were the Wavey Navy recruits seen by long timers? And did the relationships change?
@@briancox2721 sounds like mini hedgehog? Disrupty the gyros of torpedo and maybe damage the casings?
@@hughgordon6435 kind of. Four rounds from each barrel from a ship like an Iowa is 40 depth charges in the water. Modified propellant charges could allow high angle firing and thus entry angle. And these would only take up space in the magazines and shell rooms, instead of deck space like a hedgehog launcher.
I am aways astounded that i see a 3 hour video and end up engrossed through to the end. Hell, I was Army and usually don't think too much of ships (a blind spot i admit) but these talks are a great and entertaining learning experience.
My father was Army for 36 years, his view on the Royal Navy is 'transport'!
It's not a 3 hour talk about ships. It's a 3 hour video by Drachinifel
@@dogefort8410in which he talks about boats
Same here! And I even listen to these multiple times ones as ASMR 😂 and then for real. Drach is a great presenter he should make a podcast or something similar.
Greetings from Bulgaria brother!
@@alganhar1😂
It is an amazing thing that the British actually made a decision to end the era of slavery by actual military force, regardless of the basic reasons behind this decision. The effect was one of an honorable use of their power for the advancement of human civilization. Bravo!
Hard to find too many other parallels in history, truly an honorable effort from the Brits.
Well there was the American Civil War
@@richardschaffer5588 sure sure but, and I know people hate this in the 21st century, that also involved "states rights".
Still a huge effort but it wasn't purely focused on slavery like the British chose to tackle, without being forced by succession.
@@richardschaffer5588they literally tacked slavery on to the american civil war.
@@annadalassena5460 among others, sure.
The idea it was only about slavery is a modern fabrication.
When Drach thinks your question is "interesting" and can't think of an answer... Great way to start the weekend
well thats an interesting comment and I'm going to have to think a little more on it maybe do some more reaserach by watching the rest of this video 😝😝
@Internet Explorer Maybe they work Saturdays.
Patreon members get Drydocks one day early.
😂 yep! Or a drawn out “in theeeeeeeory” Drach never disappoints!
Thanks Drach, perfect timing. I have 6 hours left of my layover and just finished my prepared media.
These can get you thru a bunch of layover time but my favorite is downloading them for the flights as well. Although is usually pass out within about 20 minutes of take off lol
A really enjoyable cruise. On Millennium on the 12th October around Japan and your film has really increased the sense of anticipation. 👍🏻
The US Navy "splinter-proof plating" WAS FULL-STRNGTH ARMOR being made of BuC&R/BuSHIPS STS. The US had a very tight control on the use of the term "armor" and only BuORD could use that term, here for its equivalent Class "B" armor. The highest-strength construction steel, BuC&R/BuSHIPS High-Tensile Steel (HTS) was allowed to be used against explosion blast pressure, as in anti-torpedo bulkheads in large warships, but NEVER for protection against any kind of impact, shell or fragment. This was always only required to be STS or Class "B" armor, depending on the part of the ship being protected. The thick armored decks of US WWII battleships and cruisers was always STS, not Class "B" armor, due to this "rice-bowl" thing, but the protection was identical in either case. STS was made only by Carnegie, while Class "B" armor was made by Carnegie (to a different but identical spec to STS), Bethlehem Steel, and The Midvale Company. US Navy politics turns out to be complex.
25:25 Unless you are Neptune. If you are Neptune, there will be three sides and three and a half ships named after you at Trafalgar.
There was also an awful lot of ships named "Saint George" across ages and navies.
"God blew and they were scattered." Literally a "divine wind"! I like that.
HMS. Spendid.
The implications of the battle of the Virginia Capes (aka battle of the Chesapeake) going the other way cannot be underestimated. The exhaustion of the 3rd Continental Army in the South was at a critical level (similar to the UK and France in 1918) and if Cornwallis had been reinforced and supplied indefinitely, a negotiated peace would be the likely outcome with the US remaining a colony. If that was the result it would receive the continued suppression of non-British immigration and interference with attempts to industrialize, similar to Canada, Australia and New Zealand in the 19th Century. Insofar that the primary thing that the US brought to the 20th Century was its large population, wealth and massive industrial capacity, its role in winning two world wars and rebuilding war ravaged Europe would be a complete impossibility. One could readily argue that all three participants at the battles of the Chesapeake and subsequently Yorktown were ultimately winners…..it just took a little over a century for them to realize it.
That carrier conversion question at 2:13:34 has me thinking with all the popular hype over the Yorktown and Essex class carriers, how did the design authorization and building funding for the escort carriers ever happen at all (rhetorical question). some of the lesser-known ships are almost like plot contrivances that appear out of nowhere for the story and then just vanish when they're no longer needed for the story arch, or so-called quantum “virtual particles” that constantly wink into and out of existence, "quantum-virtual escort-carriers", lol. I know Drach had at least one good vid on the escort carriers (USS Sangamon - Guide 279), I've simply been a tad busy of late, so probably missed a lot of videos. good stuff Drach and crew. B)
FDR ordered eight Clevelands convererted. Not sure who ordered the Sangamons etc. I know that once CVEs came into play their value was seen so well that America built seventy or so of them. Great for resupplying 3rd/5th Fleet carrier planes, great for hunter-killer groups in he Atlantic. It was a desperate time which called for the sweep of a hand.
I think Henry J Kaiser personally met with FDR and convinced him to build the escort carriers. There was a large gap in coverage where the u boats had a feeding frenzy and we needed to have planes. Also with land based planes they could not stay on station very long at all due to fuel limits. Kaiser knew he could build the pocket carriers quickly and cheaply and fix the Uboat problem.
While it’s not the same thing as black powder by any means, from my handloading experience, very small changes can lead to changes in bullet velocity, accuracy, point of impact, etc.
it seems completely logical that slight differences in powder composition might very well lead to different performance characteristics. But better QC could absolutely explain it too, like you said.
42:10
With the old black powder muzzle loaded guns how well the powder was processed was as important as the quality of ingredients. What Drach did not point out was that British Powder was far finer milled than French and especially Spanish powder (as was American Powder I might add), at least during the Napoleonic period. The finer powder gave a cleaner burn, so better muzzle velocity, and better accuracy, though the accuracy is relative. Muzzle loaded guns with significant windage are never going to win any accuracy competitions!
2:00:00 That last comment on the human factor of the Mark 38 FIre Control System reminds me a lot of the famed Norden bombsight (which was built around a fire control computer). In theory it was so accurate that it was considered a critical secret and expanded the capabilities of US bombers significantly.
But, in practice, it wasn't any better than the systems others were using because they were all limited by the quality of input data in a combat situation.
The Norden bomb sight gets a bad rap. It was accurate enough we used a totally different accuracy standard than other nations and still even with the higher standard made more hits on target.
The problem with Indefatigable (and Australia) is that they were fitted for, but not with, magic armor.
The issue was corrected for New Zealand.
RE: AP bomb penetration… Flying an F6F-5, my Dad put a 500 lb. S.A.P bomb through the flight deck of the Japanese light carrier Zuiho on the morning of 25 October, 1944, that did serious enough damage in the engineering spaces to slow the carrier noticeably, and bulged the flight deck enough that flight operations were thereafter impossible - not that the Japanese had a lot of aircraft with which to conduct such operations by that stage of the conflict. Zuiho was sunk by an afternoon attack by other planes from USS Lexington and others, so below-decks damage assessment is not possible. One of the ongoing weaknesses of both Japanese and U.S. carriers during WW 2 was their unarmored, typically wooden, flight decks. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Foresman_Schoch).
Re: which non-major power’s navy had the greatest impact on WWII, wouldn’t that have to be the Royal Australian Navy? Larger than any of the free European fleets it was able to take on whole duties, like responsibility for the sea lanes between Australia and the Mediterranean in the first 2+ years of the war, freeing up Royal Navy vessels to concentrate on priorities in Europe/Atlantic, while also contributing ships to the RN’s head-to-head struggle against Italy in the Mediterranean, a critical theater but decidedly undecided from 1939-41. RAN ships were part of the “Scrap Iron Flotilla” at Malta, took part in Cape Mattapan and evacuation of Greece, took leading roles escorting 138 badly-needed convoys to Tobruk, while still having ships to spare to sink the German merchant raider Kormorant in the Indian Ocean. Most of this before the bulk of the RAN relocated post-Dec. 1941 to face the Japanese, protecting >1000 convoys, taking part in major battles like Savo Island Leyte and Surigao Strait. Surely all that outdistances the Dutch.
Actually I would say the Royal Canadian Navy, but the question was specifically about the 'Free' Navies, so the Navies of countries that had fallen to Germany or Japan (or both in the case of the Dutch) but continued fighting.
The RAN and RCN did superbly during the war, but they were not 'Free' Navies, as neither nation fell.
Question was asked about both the “minor power” and “free” navies. I’d definitely consider the Royal Australian Navy a “minor power” in the naval sphere as they had zero battleships or carriers and were overall numerically much smaller than eg USN or RN.
KIRISHIMA DID NOT hit the face plate of SOUTH DAKOTA!!. It hit the 1.5" STS weather deck just short of the turret -- aft turret #3 -- and then bent that down in a groove until it hit the 17.3" Class "A" (face-hardened) barbette armor just below the weather deck level at a horizontal angle of about 45 degrees and downward angle of maybe 10 degrees. It then tried to ricochet off the barbette, but the deck armor held it like a wedge on both sides of the shell, so it could not deflect sideways. It then ricocheted downward so it ended up standing vertically on its nose with its blower body slamming against the barbette a short distance above the deck level. The sensitive Type 91 Explosive filler (trinitroanisol) detonated high order due to the shock of the body on the super-hard barbette surface, causing the body to turn into many small fragments moving in a fan parallel to the deck and the thick, hard, heavy shell nose, which was sticking down slightly below the deck, being broken into many somewhat larger chunks that ricocheted around in the the area between the weather and heavy ~6" STS armor 2nd deck and a few of those large chunks were able to punch through several thin bulkheads to some distance from the barbette, though most pieces could only penetrate one light bulkhead. The windscreen was torn off on the deck hit, as was the removable "discus-shaped" Cap Head, which also skipped off the deck, ricocheted off the barbette, and tore through a hatch combing before exiting the ship area. This hit was one of the most bizarre AP shell hits on an enemy target ever made. WASHINGTON destroyed KIRISHIMA before it could get another hit.
Thanks for the details!
I was just re-reading Lundgren's analysis of the hit on the navweaps website. How confident are you that the damage to hatch cover 122 is from the cap head ricocheting off the barbette? I don't remember seeing anything in the discussion about the hatch after he made the argument that the timing and angles are entirely wrong for the shell to have passed through the hatch en route to the barbette. Is this conclusion of a ricochet primarily a question of "Well, nothing else really happened in the area so what other possibilities are there?"
the naval gun anti torpedo section is superior content
About color film: Kodachrome 8 and 16mm color movie film was made available to the public in the US by 1938. However it wasn't cheap and needed good lighting to get a decent image. There are a lot of daytime baseball games filmed in color in the late 30's. However, I believe the US military mainly used B&W film in WWII and when the used color, the films were often printed in B&W for mass distribution to save costs. Many of the film originally shot in color only exist in B&W in the archives. Also, very little color footage exists of actual ship-to-ship combat, which would show the Japanese use of dye packs during T he Battle off Samar.
I think I remember reading that the explosion of the USS Arizona was shot with color film, but no existing color copies are still extant.
Great video man 👍👍 I appreciate the party about the human remains. My heart goes out to the families. We are all just curious and wondering the same thing. I'm ashamed but it's fascinating at the same time.
Actium was first battle that came to my (eurocentric) mind, but there's one more candidate: the battle of Tzushima. Had the Russians won they would gain control of sea comunications and Japanese army in Korea and Manjuria would be left without supplies, which would lead to their defeat in the end. Russia winning the war would deliver a hard blow to Japan's empirial tendencies, and it is possible that it would never even think of entering WWII. On the other hand, in Russia there would be much less unsatisfaction with the regime, so it is possible the Russia would avoid October, if not February revolution.
Good comment.
Tsushima gets the attention, but the IJA faced a much tougher slog on land. It was depleting as it moved on Mukden and exhausted by its victory there. There was no more juice in the squeeze. The Russians moved north and prepared to fight on - leaders expected to be reinforced. 'We'll fight a war of attrition.'
Tsar Nicholas II had many more troops he could have sent to Manchuria, but he lacked the finances. France refused to extend any more loans. Germany, which had been delighted to see the Russians fighting in the east and was content to let the Russians wage war there on and on, became very worried after the 1905 Revolution. Would it cascade? It began messaging Russia to seek peace.
Japan secretly asked Roosevelt to call for peace talks. They asked for and received his assurance that he wouldn't reveal it came from Tokyo's initiative. Tokyo feared that if Russia knew Japan sought a negotiated settlement, it would deduce Japan was in a weakened state.
Roosevelt, who was a keen supporter of Japan in the conflict, kept Tokyo's confidence, and he then was knifed in the back after Japan's expectations (all of Manchuria, reparations, all of Sakhalin Island) came be to much less. Everyone told Tokyo that it if wanted those peace terms the IJA would have to 'capture Moscow'.
Japan's military (and much of the public) nursed an unwarranted grudge through the following decades.
Some Germans had a suspicion that after some U-Boat losses in 1941 the british had a full set of Enigma M3 Codes. They didn't knew where they have got them, but Vizeadmiral Dönitz had the suspicion and he was confirmed when the Kriegsmarine switched to the Enigma M4 the U-Boat losses of the Kriegsmarine dropped.
But he had the wrong conclusion, he thought that the Key (Rotor interconnections ) was out, not that the Chiffre was broken.
So with a new key, the bleshley park only had to regain the Key for Enigma.
And as a German myself, they guy which connected Rotor 1 for the M3 should be shot, severals times over. Or get the Anti-Nazi Service Cross for Sabotage.
That naval base list reminded me of a sausage factory in Zanzibar, for some reason.
Absolute top comment (presuming it is a call-back to 'Blackadder goes forth'). Lisäksi, torille!
During the Colorado class question around the 2hr 25 mark, the photo shows a converted yacht in the foreground. She had multiple names all of which escape me, but when was originally a magnates super yacht, then a mass tourist pleasure craft taking sightseers round New York, but also saw service in US navy during both word wars- including service as the US nays first scientific research ship..
And she still exists! As a rusting wreck in a creek off a river somewhere real random in the inland US.
YT channel Part Time Explorer did a good video detailing her history- WELL worth checking out. (he has decent maritime strand to his stuff - mainly shipwrecks, but its better than most shipwreck/disaster porn on YT...)
In early part of WW2 the US had a fuel supply problem. Battle ships as big fuel consumers were deployed sparingly. Until the fuel problem was solved and the exception of Solomon campaign, battle ships were rarely used in a prime attack role.
Limerick time:
There once was a man named Drach,
Who took his audience to Dry Dock,
He answered some questions, gave some honorable mentions, and not once took a look at the clock.
For some exploration of the historic effects of some battles going a different way, see Harry Turtledove's short story "Counting Potsherds" (the long-term effects of a Persian conquest of Greece) and his novel "Ruled Britannia" (set 10 years after the success of the Armada). Somewhere in my library (still boxed for a time) is another short story (I cannot remember the title or author) where the obstreperous Captain John Paul Jr. joined the Royal Navy instead of going to America and threw together a scratch squadron to keep DeGrasse out of Chesapeake Bay in 1781 until Hood's ships could arrive from New York.
The Standards were typically used for shore bombardment and apparently were much better at it than the fast ships. They usually did'nt carry much in the way of AP shells. Not what you would want in a fleet confrontation.
When you are an idiot with sliding breech blocks. That's why we love you Drach. Understand sometimes it has to be done but please stop spending so much time on rebuttals for morons in the comments section. Been with you since robo voice.
Another advantage of the midships catapult system, as found by the RN in the late war - once you've tossed the aircraft because you've got carriers doing all the aviation the hangers make excellent cinemas for crew entertainment.
As Drac said, wrt the 14" armed Tennessees vs 16" armed Colorados, the question came down to USN expectations of engagement range. Head of BuOrd Strauss insisted that engagements would always be fought at 12,000 yards, or less. The 14" could penetrate well enough at that range, and, being smaller and lighter, more could be carried. Jutland drove the final nail in that theory. In the summer of 1916, the General Board, and SecNav Daniels, agreed 16" was the way to go, and overrode Strauss' recommendation. In his annual report that year, Daniels discussed the switch to 16", and said the change was made over the objections of "some officers". Strauss was very proud of the 14"/50, ordering it into production off the drawing board, with no testing. Can't help but wonder, if testing had been done, and the dispersion problems these guns experienced been discovered, would the 16" been selected for the Tennessees, by virtue of the fact the 16" can actually hit what it is aimed at?
@44.30. I hope they turn the shell around before shoving it into the gun.
1:22:00 There was a destructive device, intended for use destroying files to prevent capture, used in WWII and after, that was basically a thermite charge that sat on top of a file cabinet with an igniting tab on the top; pulling the tab ignited a fuse to light the thermite charge, which would burn its way down through the file cabinet, destroying all the papers it touched. This was, however, only useful when the documents were stored in a manner that allowed the destruction charge to be fixed atop the storage unit, and was not useful for destroying documents in the cramped environment of a submarine, which didn't have the space to have things like file cabinets. And even in environments where the charges would have been useful, they were not always deployed.
Im gonna name Pearl Harbor as the single most impactful naval battle. Mostly because a lot of other battles were largely foregone conclusions, at least on the campaign scale, but Pearl Harbor brought the US into the war.
I think the US would have joined EVENTUALLY, but whether it would have joined in time to help in North Africa, Indonesia, or before the Battle of Stalingrad is up in the air.
Worst case scenario, Japan overtakes much of East Asia and the Pacific while Germany seizes the Suez Canal. But even the BEST case scenario leaves the Red Army liberating Paris before the British can even cross the channel. Which would obviously have serious repercussions for the Cold War.
Pearl harbiur changed nothing in terms of large scale outcome. Meanwhile you have engagements like Actium and Ecnomus that could well have given a completely different ethnic group dominion ower half of human history, or Lepanto and Trafalgar, which would have seen the imperial hegemon in the modern era be someone else. Or as mentioned above, Tsushima, which could well have prevented the russian revolution, culled japanese imperial ambition, and drastically changed how the world wars played out.
Meanwhile pearl harbour was merely the inevitable culmination of the aforementioned japanese imperialism, and ultimately had no effect on the outcome of ww2 or the makeup of the following peace.
The Battle of Lepanto strikes me as a potential history-changing battle. Had the Ottomans routed the Holy League, they might well take much more of Europe before their eastward expansion ends.
Just a comment in regards Napier. The crew on the "Miguelite" fleet were not necessarily hopeless or inexperienced... it was the leadership that had no idea of what they were doing , with many of them having very limited or none experience in regards war at sea. They were also over confident given their advantage but forgot that many on the crew were somewhat sympathetic to the liberal cause and therefore rarelly gave their best. Napier was later appointed as admiral of the portuguese navy and even Count of the Cape of Saint Vincent and wrote a book about his participation i the war. Additionally his endeavours and sucess while well regarded in the Royal Navy actually annoyed William IV, that was never fancy of Dom Pedro and to an extent also of Napier
Drach, for your explanation of the Battle of the Chesapeake in "... most historically significant naval engagement/campaign?" you said "Suffren" instead of "(Comte) de Grasse".
1:38:00 I imagine that the ones looking at the shell splashed got an even better view as they was looking trough rangefinders and other better optic than 1920 film cameras tended to use.
At 31:10 you are asked about the success of the design of the Essex's, the Fletcher's & the Iowa's. And one thing that you didn't think about was the fact that the USA also incorporated CIC's. And that way all the ships involved in an action know more about everything that is going on and can act accordingly better with all ships involved!
Not sure about the Trafalgar answer regarding British naval dominance. Comparatively, the US still didn't utterly dominate after 1943. They still had the occasional issue
I think the Annus Mirabilis might be a better answer. Britain might still lose the occasional skirmish or have an admiral make a bad decision, but after 1759 they were done losing pitched naval battles.
True, but navally the RN was somewhat on the back foot during a lot of the war surrounding the US War of Independence, they pulled it back at the last minute, but they were considerably more on the ropes that you'd expect for an utterly dominant power. And they were scared of the combination of the Franco-Spanish fleets until after 1805, as compared to the Two-Power Standard later on :)
@@Drachinifel That was my caveat about admirals making bad decisions. I think if Graves or Rodney had been replaced by Jarvie or Nelson for an afternoon, those couple of not-quite-battles would have gone much differently. I also think Mahan and American historians in general may overemphasize those battles compared to their actual importance. But I'm a contrarian.
On the other hand, I see your point too. Andrew Lambert said something about the US maintaining a 10 to 1 standard in the 90s. That is indeed dominant, but it didn't help the US win Korea or Vietnam.
@ 2:47:34 There is a sort of "alternate history" divine wind that might have occurred on October 9, 1945, when Typhoon Louise hit Okinawa. 12 ships were sunk, 222 were stranded, and 32 were wrecked on Okinawa. If the invasion of Kyushu had been needed, and the planning date of November 1 was accurate in this alternate timeline, then many more ships would've been at Okinawa and casualties would have been higher.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typhoon_Louise_(1945)
@ 2:53:20 The Battle of Salamis could have resulted in the Persian Empire wiping out Greek civilization, with a massive impact on history. The very idea that Europe is a separate entity, more than just a western protrusion of Asia, is a consequence of the defeat of the Persians.
56:56 Unannounced submarine warfare, wasn't that why they started hunting Capt. Nemo? If I recall, he was ramming and sinking ships without warning.
At least according to the only witness, Mr Verne.
The USS Monitor took hits in the turret face during Hampton Roads, but that was far before the dreadnought era, and USS New Jersey took a faceplate hit from shore based 8" that damaged a ladder during Korea. But I think the real reason that faceplate armor was so thick is that it's the only part of the ship that was almost guaranteed to take a perpendicular hit if it was struck - every other part of the armor would at least have some angle to increase the apparent thickness. And even if the turret is knocked out, preventing penetration means that you don't risk an explosion that endangers the ship by propellent in the turret itself detonating, the danger of which is easily demonstrated by the USS Iowa turret 2 explosion.
I regarding battles that could have changed history: Trafalgar is also an option. Not only would the Royal Navy have lost a part of their fleet alongside probably their best admiral at the time (I doubt Nelson would survive a loss considering he died when he won), the French and Spanish would have had most of their fleet, probably strengthened by British ships, allowing for further weakening of the Royal Navy an a possible invasion
Another interesting one is the Spanish-American War, especially given it was basically outraged into existence by US newspaper media. If the war hadn't happened the US wouldn't have ended up in possession of the Philippines.
Without the Americans having a possession in that region half a century later, the Japanese wouldn't have needed to drag them into WWII (at least yet) with a strike at Pearl.
Without being forcibly brought into a war which they were (like WWI) officially sitting out of (and especially without the very specific public outrage about a "dastardly surprise attack on American soil"), Japan would have run even more freely though all of southeast Asia (not a chance the American public would support a war for some far-off European colonies).
On top of this, the US likely would have continued to sit out the war until (maybe) Britain was especially desperate, or until a counterattack and invasion of France could be planned and executed (likely later in history than Overlord/D-Day), similar to sitting out WWI until it was basically already decided.
This means no Americans in North Africa, and assuming the Brits are still victorious there, no Americans invading Italy. Both of these together making the actual Italian invasion less likely to succeed, if it even happens in the first place.
Without an Italian invasion (or with a far less successful one), Italy might have remained in the war for much longer, leaving Germany another ally and preventing another front from opening up, which means more pressure on the Russians. And the Russians may also be getting far less in the way of support/supplies/vehicles/weapons from the Americans if they aren't officially in the war.
And so on.
@@BleedingUranium That was a big deal for the United States (and a tragedy for Spain), but it didn't have much effect beyond those countries and their colonies. But the other naval battles cited were, to some extent, world changing.
00:19:10 - Did the USN have doctrine worked out how the standards, fast battleships, and very fast battleships would engage the enemy if all three types of battleships were present in a Jutland-style engagement with the enemy line of battle?
Part of the problem here is that the US Navy was getting its first fast battleships only well into 1941, just two of them, so the battleship doctrine didn't really need revision because it would be a couple of more years before there was a significant number of fast battleships sailing and it would be nearly the end of the 1940s before most of the 21-knot ships were actually completely off the line themselves.
From what I can tell, the US Navy's solution in the meantime was the same as the Royal Navy in the 1910s when it had the notably-quicker Queen Elizabeths introduced. The QEs simply served as their own force between the main Line of Battle composed of the 21-knot vessels and the Battlecruiser force which operated around 25 knots. When their speed let them catch up to the battlecruisers, they helped the battlecruisers. When the main action was joined, they would slug it out alongside the slower ships while using their speed to exploit opportunities to cut off enemy retreat or such.
@ 1:29:40 I would think that with the Japanese ships often having sloped belts (I.I.R.C.), this would still let in a lot of water, not necessarily to the vitals (except where seams got split or piping damaged by the explosion (which is why you have valves inside of the Citadel)), but would cause a list that would make the ship on that side more exposed to above the Armored (Armoured) Deck hits.
And if the list is big enough (depending on the sea state) you now have chances of getting hits below the Belt on the other side for waves to enter the hull!
The concept of skip bombing: the bomb hits a ships side then sinks alongside the ship and explodes (after a time delay) underwater damaging the target’s hull. As an RN admiral commented “better to let water in from the bottom (torpedo )than air in from the top (bomb)”
If Nation A calls a ship BB, but uses it like BC and we call it BC because of that, then we would have to apply the same ruling for the ships of nation B and C.
therefor... wouldnt that count for all BBs of the WW2 period that saw significant service that coincides closer a BC missionprofile?
Not really. Even with fast battleships the key is resistance to like guns.
Kongo's armor is going to stop 8" at medium-long ranges, but even a 14" shell will happily sail right through it.
Even North Carolina has a degree of protection against 16" guns.
@@Maty83. thats all mute and beides the Point.
The Point is, that If we Accept the usage based Determination that ship A is used for Missions closer to bc role and is therefore pushed towards bc classification, then If ship B ist used for Missions that closer fit bc, then it to is pushed towards a bc classification as per usage. Regardless what nations the ships are from.
As far as the konogs are concearned. Is IS true that they Lack protective freatures that seem prerequisite for being classed as bb. But If the usage Determination counts for the konogs as pushing towards bc, then the Same must hold true for other artillerie based fast capital units. Otherwhise the usage based Determination is a mute Point eitherway and does not hold any water other than coincidentially
@@GARfearfak I'd say the likely anomaly all those ships have together is the speed. The higher the speed, the more likely a ship was going to be goven more missions simply because their operational freedom was greater. Look at the R-class vs. QEs vs. Renowns and Hood.
All have similar-ish capabilities except the Renowns (which have the extra speed, but less protection and firepower), but they get used the more simply because they have higher flexibility than the Rs and QEs.
@@Maty83. I completely agree with the characterization of the ships you listed.
- my issue mit the service live usage based determination of the classifications of BB/BC is that it cant be applied outsid edescribing the Kongos as a general rule for classifications, therefor it can not be an consideration that to determin the classification.
One cant very well describe Iowa as an BC, even when it is used for missions that greatly rely on its operational freedom.
Likewhise, we wouldnt call a King Gorge V class a BC, no matter how important its operational flexibillity was used to contain comerce raiders.
Therefor either the service live based post fact determination of BC/BB is bunk and does not apply to the Kongos, other than by pure coincidence. or the rule is not bunk and we can post fact dertermin Iowa and KGV ships to be pushed towards a BC classification, when on missions that rely on their operational flexibillity and freedom.
For the "historically significant naval engagement", I'd nominate the Glorious First of June. While the Royal Navy did score a significant tactical victory, it failed to intercept the massive food convoy heading to France. Food that saved Paris and part of France from starvation and the political upheaval this would cause, which might very well have ended the revolution then and there.
re: Mount Hood explosion. The USN had a massive ammunition plant just east of Hastings, NE thatwas a major source of ammunition filling during WW2 one source mentions that 40% of USN's ordnance was handled through there). There were four explosive accidents at the depot in 1944. One of the biggest left a huge crater and was felt for quite a distance across Nebraska. One of my wife's uncles worked there and he mentioned that rockets (no mention of type) on the loading dock were seen to be smoking, leading to an immediate evacuation. Your mention of "broken rocket bodies" on the Mount Hood caused me to remember this story. Do you think that the USN might have had a bad rocket design, or perhaps a badly manufactured batch?
RE, russian involvement in us civil war. The us ambassador to russia at the time was a very agressive abolitionist who supposedly convinced russia to threaten war against Britain and france should they side with the Confederacy. While the brits would certainly not have been afraid of battlefield defeat against russia, the at home political implications of such a war were much more worrisome to the British political class, in addition to the split view the British population already had towards the US Civil war Drach already described. The russian frigates may have been in part proof of this to both the union and the Europeans.
I think, maybe, the reason why IJN called Kongo battleships was because a lot of people today which must have been more back then view battlecruisers as "inferior" to battleships.
The 5 minutes guide to the Scharnhorst back in 2018 called them battlecruisers for example. Not because they were faster than all other battleships and not because they had less armor.
And IJN had 4 battlecruisers and 6 battleships while USN had 15 battleships. It was probably easier to tell the people when you're about to go to war that we now have 10 battleships versus 15. Rather than explaining that those battlecruisers are going to be used as screen breaker so lighter ships can launch torpedoes on enemies battle lines which is more useful than fighting 10 v 15 and lose.
Most of the reason for these silly term semantics is because by post-WWI "battlecruiser" was an obsolete term... but no one wanted to call their faster, lighter armoured capital ships "Light Battleships". This is even more directly why we get the incredibly goofy "Fast Battleship" term.
All that, in combination with people seemingly obsessing over classifying and sub-classifying battleships based on the smallest of differences (which feels in the same category as the Bismarck sunk/scuttled debate), despite not doing so for non-battleships, is why we always end up with these eye-rolling debates. Destroyer classes have *far* more variety in size, armament, armour (or lack of it), speed, etc than battleships do, yet they're all simply "Destroyer". We don't call the Fletcher-class "Heavy Destroyers" due to their splinter protection, nor the Le Fantasque-class "Fast Destroyers" due to their speed, and so on.
RE: Theoretical interwar conversions - Italians didn't have battlecruisers but they did have partially built Francesco Caracciolo class fast battleships. Max speed of 28kts and the Italians allegedly did look at a carrier conversion...
The answer on Graf Spee was an interesting one
When Drach was reading out the list of RN overseas bases, was anyone else reminded of Yakko's "Counties of the World"?
Countries. Sorry.
Dear Drach, I have commented on interrupted screw versus the sliding breech block types before, but, since you mention them again, I hope that the gentle readers will forgive repetition. I feel that the sliding type must have been easier to produce, quicker to open and close and not that much heavier in the overall scheme of things. Is it not horses for courses? If your navy is only going to get one or zero combat missions from your heavier ships why not user the simpler option?
@@jackgee3200 I appreciate that you have read my initial comment.
It is not that easy to find dimensioned drawing of such guns, lengths and weights aplenty but not drawings of breech mechanisms or even useful photos for Bismark/Tirpitz. Using very basic maths to get a Bismark shell up to speed over the barrel length and then guessing (based on smallarm pressure charts) that peak pressure would not exceed five times average I came to a guesstimate 73M Newtons equating to 51 Kg/mm2. I then assumed that the breech end would have a diameter of at least 5 foot based on ancient memory of a visit to the museum in London. From that I reckoned that a sufficient sliding breech could be made from mild steel adding no more than three foot length from the cartridge base, perhaps the equivalent of the screw (interrupted thread) type once you have added the hinging mechanisms. I would imagine that the block would drop, let us say that it needs two foot of travel, so there is no additional problem with the gun house height or width. At 30 degrees elevation I really do not see the the lower part of the breechblock guide interfering with the turret or barbette interior. The sliding breech would most likely be heavier but all that means is that the balance point for the trunnions moves rearwards so you actually get some of that space back.
I then found the navweaps.com site. This gives a Bismark pressure of 32Kg/mm2. Sadly no clear illustrations of the breeches but if you transfer to the UK 15" there is a photo at the Coventry factory which suggests a 5~6 ft diameter and one of the full assembly at VSEL which, unless they were deliberately using a short guy, suggests an extra ring round the breech equating to perhaps 8ft diameter and at least 4ft length of hinge mechanism.
The partial cartridge case is a given, and disposing of the cases is an extra task. I had imagined that the germans would have been sufficiently inventive to have made a lift that could cope with bagged and cased charges (one after the other). If that was not so then I concede that the extra space for the additional lift is a major concern. I maintain that the size of the breech itself need not be wider than the screw type.
I note that Des Moines (admittedly only an 8") reverted to a sliding breech for simplicity and reliability. I note that despite the design and manufacturing skill the proposed 15" Elswick breech failed in test (it does not say in what manner, I'm guessing the hinging and locking action, one presumes a catastrophic failure would have been mentioned) so the Wellin breech was retained. The Wellin breech apparently suffered from slam though it is not mentioned as to what was affected. Perhaps the allied countries did not want to invest in the machinery for a sliding breech if they were tooled up for Wellin, plus a bit of NIH bias?
I hear what you say about using up barrels in training. Would the relining aspect have been effected by the breech or just the temperature shrink versus wirewound methods? Going back to the Coventry photo I will concede that the screw breech has good symmetry and thus could be easier to handle and check the relined barrel.
The Australian and US air force used skip bombing using b25s b17s etc. against transports in the south pacific theater. Hipohysterical history on the air war goes into it with more depth. 1:40:49
Named after the same person, 25:00 : There were also the French battleship Charlemagne and SMS Kaiser Karl der Große
eta:
I am somewhat surprised how few South American ships are called Bolívar. Still, there is a Colombian barque Simón Bolívar and a USS Simon Bolivar
I guess you could be more fanciful:
Do different Santa MarÍas count? Does a ship named »Nuestra Señora de las Mercedes« count as named after her? How about USS Los Angeles, named after the city, named after Nuestra Señora la Reina de los Ángeles?
Slightly disappointed we didn't get the full Animaniacs version of the British bases set to song.
All we need to know was that there were very few places in the world that were distant from a British naval base. So an appropriate song would be "Britannia rules the waves", or at least they did 110 years ago.
Hi Drach. A quick "What If". If the USA has suffered similar levels of bombing to its ship yards, like the UK. Would the USN have been able to eclipse the RN during the War. Or would in be more into the 50s?
Even with bombing the US yards would have out built the British yards. Without a doubt. I will freely state that as a Brit. The US Industrial capacity during WWII was truly stupendous.
If you think about it in some ways the US yards output was already dropped by bombing, indirectly. Many damaged British ships were repaired and refit in US yards literally because they were safe from bombing. Yet despite the fact that US yards were refitting or repairing British ships they still managed to build 14 Essex Class Carriers that were able to take part in the war.
And yes, I know 24 were completed, but only 14 were completed early enough to have fitted out, and undergone shakedown cruises early enough to take an active role in the war..... Consider that for a moment, *only* 14.......
I think Drach would have no issues with agreeing with me, the USN overtaking the Royal Navy was more or less an question of when rather than if. The War did not slow that down, it sped it up. The only way I can see where the USN did not overtake the RN until some time in the 50's is if WWII did not happen. In that case the issue would not have been industrial capacity, but trying to prise the funding out of Congress!
@@alganhar1 What you have said is a very valid argument.
Conditions of US yards is not going to matter. The economy of Great Britain was stunted for like the next 20 years. They are not out producing the United States in any industry.
@ 55:48, I think it isn't so much as the Radio, but the Radio AND the Airplane was the major difference between WW 1 & WW 2.... After all, it could takes day(s) for a warship to respond, and hours for an airplane.
When talking of AP bombs we must not forget that the RN had a 2000lb AP bomb more than capable of piercing any armoured deck then afloat(1945); it also had the B bomb from the 1930's and Highball
@30:00 That sounds like we need a song for those bases (similar to the song in order to learn the capitals of the US states by Wakko of the Animaniacs)
Most historically significant battle:
Salamis
And it's not even close. No Salamis, no Athenian Empire and probably no Hellenistic Empire.
Prior to Salamis, a significant portion of the Persian fleet was reportedly wrecked in a storm, which fits in with the preceding question (though some modern historians have cast doubts on the Greek accounts of this incident).
ES KI Malt = Esquimalt. It's still a RCN naval base and small drydock. :)
Yep, it's in Victoria on Vancouver Island. Pronounced more like es-qwai-malt.
Years and years ago USS Abraham Lincoln showed up there for a bit, and they let people onboard for tours. I drew a smiley face in the condensation on the little green-windowed "bunker" thing near the forward catapults (I was seven). :D
@1:41:35 Carriers as Capital Ships ... I had the pleasure of serving on The Mighty Ark R09 (Twice) ... She was & probably is still The Most Powerfull Warship to ever serve in the Royal Navy ... I even suspect more powerfull than the new supercarriers that we have in service today, which maybe kinda awesome but not as downwrite absolutly destructeive as the Ark R09 ... She was a Force to be reckoned with being as described as having a Nuclear Stockpile onboard ... That Would and Could be used ... at any time whatsoever.
And before anyone says ... Yeah Ok Nuclear stockpile ... it was the Cold War ... apart from that when we were on our last commision we spent 1 whole month expending Rockets Missile & Bombs during a NATO excerise (without rearming) ... and then it took 3 whole days (that 24/7) doing a ship to ship RAS tranferring all missiles Bombs etc from the ship before we could enter harbour for the last time ... with that in mind ... We could bring Hell on Earth to Anyone who pissed us off at anytime anywhere while we were in commision... if the Mighty Ark not been scrapped when She was The Falklands War would have Never happened
The importation of slaves was banned by the US 1815, and it was as a matter of fact de facto illegal to import them as whilst the trade was technically legal as of the signing of the Constitution, it was almost immediately made illegal for slave trade ships to operate in US waters and ports, which meant as a corollary the slave trade was a practical impossibility.
For the second question I wonder if the reason for every navy who had them, did seem to get more use out of battlecruisers because they saw them as a little more "expendable" ? To argue this point even though they have a lot fewer BattleCruisers than Battle Ships the Royal navy lost almost half its Battlecruisers at Jutland and yet while it was a stunning loss in the press and from a moral point of view I'm certain it did nothing to make the actual Naval command worry they were losing the war. Had they lost a 3 or 4 actual Battleships I'm sure they would have been a lot more worried.
Probably not. They were faster, basically. It was the speed that was the attractive thing about the Battlecruisers. The speed is why Navy's moved from Battlecruisers to Fast Battleships after all, they just needed the propulsion technology to make that work. Did not really exist in WWI, did by WWII.
Just as an aside, in WWI radios were not added to ships because of surface raiders, but because of submarines, believe it or not because of unrestricted submarine warfare.
Prior to WWI virtually no merchant ships had radios. They were expensive, and in addition the operator had to be skilled not only in operating the radio, but in maintaining and repairing it. I don't know how much many of you know about WWI radios, but lets just say they were... temperamental. That means the radioman was a very expensive member of crew!
Thus with cruiser rules in WWI even if the crew took to the boats because a Sub surfaced and enacted cruiser rules, they would know the submarine would radio their position in so those lifeboats could be picked up. When it moved to unrestricted submarine warfare however, well the only chance some of those crews might have is one last desperate Morse code message by their radio operator before they abandoned ship after being torpedoed.
So yes, odd fact for the day, merchant ships in WWI started equipping radios because of unrestricted submarine warfare, not because of Surface Raiders or Cruiser rule submarine warfare.
Obviously by WWII this had changed, radios were ubiquitous in ships by then.
EDIT: The other thing about Highball, is they worked on the same principle as the bouncing bombs that hit the dams. So if they did not penetrate the reverse spin would drop them down to explode somewhere at or under the keel of the targeted ship. Which would arguably have even MORE devastating effects than the thing actually penetrating!! If I recall correctly testing did prove the concept, but the rush into missile technology in the 50's and 60's just killed that concept off... though it did work its way into torpedo design. Thing like the Mk 48 MADCAp for example are designed to blow under the ship, they are not actually designed to HIT it.....
Yeah for that first question it really does have to be Trafalgar doesn't it ? Since the 18th Century saw a lot of back and forth between RN, the French and Spain as a frequent spoiler. I can't recall off the top of my head what the role of Russia Denmark Portugal Sweden the Ottoman's ? would be but after Trafalgar can anyone doubt the Royal Navy is the Big Dog ?
10:32
That tongue twister!!😵
Re ;aircraft carriers? Would the USN carriers be where they are today ,without " copying" FAA developments? Or would convergent development have given same results?
Except that we weren't making developments? They were.
Indefatigable was also laid down AFTER Moltke. Which means, she was pretty much dead on arrival/ outdated even under ideal circumstances.
43:25 Why is the shell facing the wrong way - nose towards muzzle?
you can do a version of yakko's world with the list of british naval bases
Without the heavy armor of the face plate a round would go right in and explode inside and detonate the entire mag maybe? So mostly it is for crew safety and to avoid getting - ammo racked. - I am guessing.
43:25 Why is the shell facing the wrong way (nose towards muzzle)?
Russia's loose support of the Union in the Civil War was largely because of a man named Cassius Clay, who knew Lincoln personally from before he became president and was a considerably influential figure in the anti-slave movement. He was given a post as ambassador to Russia and it is said he got on well enough with the Czar and company that they were willing to step in and make noise that if the other European powers got involved with the Confederacy, then Russia would declare war against whoever did so. This being the case, it makes sense they would send 'observers' to keep an eye on things.
You neglected the Russian fleet that was on the west coast at San Francisco. There was a massive fire in the city at the time and several sailors were killed in the blaze. There is a memorial to them.
the Kongos were very busy in 1942 with mixed success. the bombardment of Henderson field being the most successful usage of IJN capital ships. The Hiei and Kirishima engaged the USS Edsall in a farce of an action notable for the ineffectiveness of the capital ships shooting and the former was lost after the first naval battle of Guadalcanal (arguably an IJN victory that was incomplete) and the latter in the second naval battle of Guadalcanal which again highlighted the poor gunnery on IJN capital ships. At least the Kongo and Haruna could hit an island.
@Drachinifel .... when you post a picture of a ship ... say @1:08:14 ... would you also put the name of the ship with the image ... I have no idea what that thing is ????????????
Even though you said the name at the end You do not always do that
Face armour is still worth it. A failed turret is better than averaging the particles of your ship throughout the area.
On the problem of active torpedo defense, would a system like hedgehog work to destroy torpedoes? If so then why not deploy them on your capital ships since they'd allow effective defense against one of the most potent killers of capital ships as well as allow some amount of self-defense against submarines.
1:01:37 It took me 10 seconds to figure out why the letters are not Latin, but I understand the words better than in English.
With regards to the Fast battleship/slow battleship doctrine you are right about what actually happened but do you know how they were envisioned to be used together before the outbreak of the war? Had war not broken out until 1945 or so (Plan Z has been mostly implemented the IJN now has 4 Yamato's and perhaps a follow on?) At this point would the standards now be regulated to being scrapped (I assume everything pre standard would have been like Arkansas, New York and Texas) I would say it's even likely that everything up to the New Mexico's would have been scrapped as the Montana's came online. So probably it wouldn't have been an issue since by that time the US battle line would have been composed of all fast battleships (and between 4 and 6 Iowa class) with the New Mexico's and the big 5 being regulated to convoy escort but what about in the interim say 42 to 45 before enough fast battleships came online for a full battle line (But the CV has yet to replace them as THE arbiter of naval power)
I always have a problem with people saying things like 'the Z plan has happened' in counterfactuals, because it ignores one very important point. The UK would NOT have just sat back and done nothing while Germany built up a Navy the size the Z plan called for. They simply would not have done it. Had Plan Z been actually implemented (ignoring the fact Germany did not have the Yards or slipways for it), then Britain would have no choice but to hit the Escalator Clause and bow out of the Treaties.... and then start THEIR own building plan. And unlike the Germans, the British could have done it. While by the thirties US shipbuilding had overtaken British shipbuilding for quantity and capability, British shipbuilding was still the second largest capacity in the world......
Don’t you think the predominance of carriers as WWII progressed made them capital ships self evident since most offensive military formations were centered on carriers?
Die packet equiped shells were filmed for Congress to explain things, in 1936, but I'm not sure if Congress held on to them, or even saw them.
1:17:03 Thanks to differences between my accent and Drach's, it took me to realize he was referring to dotters instead of daughters. 😂
I'd definitely add Henry Sibley to the list. While only a Brigadier General, he was in overall command of a campaign. And he did so poorly
2h47m40s: the divine wind segment. Doesn’t Typhoon Cobra deserve at least an honorable mention? Made a very credible effort at mauling the US Fleet, if it hadn’t been at the very end of the war it probably would have really put the US on their back foot at a time when the Japanese might have been able to capitalize on it.
As an observation, I know you are doing quick segments, but as I slowly but steadily chew through them all (at work keeping track by hand) there have been instances where I have noted you might consider using an extra slide or two to help illustrate your point.
the very occasional times you do it have really helped, such as at 2h13m and passing 2h19m. it would be nice if it was slightly more common across the great span content that is your drydock series.
Anyone know, why the sonar pings in war movies are the same pitch? Cant see every country using the same frequencies?, or is it like the frogs?
Its a Hollywood thing. Most of them have never been on a ship using Sonar, let alone a submarine, let alone being a Sonar Operator.
So just a Hollywood thing. I have been informed by a former Sonar Operator (my Uncle) that you can indeed identify the Sonar set a ship is using when it goes active if you know what you are doing.
2:35:06 dude. Duder. Can a cigarette really set off gunpowder or explosives or am I thinking of how they just extinguish in a puddle of gasoline? I know there’s slow matches. So yea. I love tobacco
Re the Russians and the Union during the Civil War....thank GOD the Kamchatka didn't exist yet!!
"Torpedo boats!"
"... what's a torpedo boat?..."
Using the phsics and mathematical meaning of the word , what was the most "elegant" naval vessel?
What does that even mean?
@@WALTERBROADDUS in both physics and maths, there is a term elegant! Drach seems to like physics and mathematical questions so ?
@@hughgordon6435
"Elegance" d: scientific precision, neatness, and simplicity.
EXAMPLE "the elegance of a mathematical proof."
Well.....🤔 🚢 Can you judge a ship that way?
@@WALTERBROADDUS thats why I'm asking ?
@@hughgordon6435 there's nothing precise or simple about a warship however.
No, we're still trying to give Texas back to Mexico.
"preponderance" decent. new word
How the hell does the autoplay function keep taking me to the weirdest corners of RUclips?
You’re not dedicating secondary armament to anti torpedo work when the realistic danger was primarily anti aircraft.
✌️✌️
When an HE rounds explodes on steel it will shoot off a chunk of steel on the inside. Study tanks and what happens when they were hit.
Had the Spanish won through with the Armada, the history of modern-day America would also be entirely different. That's one big ripple.