Warships seem to be the first "weapon category" to be controlled by an Arms Control Treaty - Washington Treaty - like nuclear weapons later on. Do you think this assessment is correct? Why might the "winners" of WW1 have it seen that way? Because they saw the Naval Race as a major cause for the war? Or because the signatory powers of Washington didn't really share any landborders and a new naval race was seen as the biggest threat for world peace?
Would it have been better for the Japanese to build more heavy cruisers instead of Yamato and Musashi, tactically and resources wise ? I know cruisers armed with 8 inch guns would have a hard time going toe to toe with american battleships, but perhaps the "long lances" torpedoes could have given them an edge. Likewise, would it have been interesting for the Japanese to try to build super-cruisers armed with 10 inch guns or something akin to the Deutschlands "pocket battleships" ? Less powerfull than their 18 inch battleships but they could have more of them, and use them more frequently.
We know the Alaska class were the only Large Cruisers built, but did the other waring powers had plans for a Large cruiser design similar to the Alaskas?
Why Tosa, Kii and Amagi designs have their three turrets in the back, when they can just scale up the Myoko and Takao style of three at the bow? It'd give them more forward firepower and clear up space for additional engines and boilers in the back. Possibly allowing more speed, no?
Japanese cruisers from the Myokos onwards ended up being overarmed for their displacement, *even with* being 2000 tons above treaty limits. The biggest issue with them was they being so heavily armed to the point of having structural issues (which is part of why they ended up above treaty limits: they tried to fit everything WITHIN limits, found it didn’t work, and decided to just add another 2000 tons).
at the end of the day they played themselfs, even if they include extra modifications they where still using a treaty desing so they ended up with ships that where very unstable and cramped, japan never actually build a non treaty restricted desing like the americans with the alaskas and des moines
Or just make up your minds and stick to a great hull, whicj thos certainly was. Be like the Cleveland class CAs doubling as Independence class light carriers. Kick out 8, instead of 4 types, ready to modify and sail
To be fair the admiral who thought torpedoes would be dangerous was proved correct. How many Japanese cruisers were damaged by their own torpedoes detonating?
@@AWMJoeyjoejoe Ships only reflect your naval doctrine. Having the same doctrine while taking out your main offensive capability related to that doctrine looks silly to me.
In saying that The allied powers as the underwriters of said treaties did write them with class weights dimensions etc in mind to deliberately hamstring the japanese and to a lesser extent das germans. It was really all about penny pinching the u.k and to a lesser extent the u.s were still reeling from ww1 and the politico's couldn't muster the money for expensive toys the public wouldn't stand for it especially the American public hence being ten years late to the ww2 party. @@johnfisher9692
Yuzuru Hiraga was a key figure in Japan's Navy, and something of a genius and visionary. He was deeply involved in Japan's naval architecture, and his designs were modern and powerful. The innovations we see in later IJN heavy cruisers and destroyers that made them such a nasty handful started with the light cruiser Yubari in 1923. While she was lightly armed and on the small side, she was head and shoulder above the old four-stack Nagaras and other light cruisers in their inventory. If you look at all the IJNs destroyers and cruisers, you can easily see the influence of the humble Yubari and the Hiraga's mind.
My memories of the Myoko class cruisers were of sadness that there were only four 1/700 waterline series models to build. Such amazingly beautiful ships.
Such work horses for the IJN, they were every where and in every campaign while the Yamato class swung around their anchor chains at Truck. Ashigara visited Portsmouth in 1937.
@@hashteraksgage3281 until the us pumped up their non treaty restricted ones, yes, the ijn was just devouring the competition both British and Americans, which ironically end up making the whole force overstretched and overworked in the end since they where the spine of the ijn surface fleet.
Fun fact: During Ashigara's visit, British observer described her as a "hungry wolf" due to her having heavy firepower while being lightly built and having poor living condition. The Japanese didn't fully understand what the name meant though, and decided to take it as a compliment.
Only slightly related but the scene with Takao in Godzilla Minus One was super cool. I would very much love to see more of that in movies. In fact if you ever wanted to do a movie highlight on this channel I’m willing to bet THIS is the audience for it.
I just love my Nachi. Won her in the very first event for ARP-Ships, and she is the Myoko-Class with the most games on my account. I just have to finish her RC model now 😅
Man, now I want to rewatch it again, such an incredible film. Wow, turns out it's _still_ _playing_ at my local theatre, time to go actually do that I guess! :O
Subjective is subjective, but Japan had among the most beautiful warships, along with Italy. Japanese destroyers (Fubukis and onward), later light cruisers (Aganos and Ooyodo), and heavy cruisers (all) especially.
Your British accent adds authenticity to the Naval historical topics and your incredible knowledge,seems apropo considering England's rich naval history.
Interesting thing about Kumano, the last surving Mogami - she had left Manilla early that morning with Aoba on the day Nachi was sunk. Those airstrikes missed her by a matter of hours.
Loved the view of Yokosuka dry docks at 2:06, reminds me a lot of when I step aboard USS Midway and later USS Independence as they where both in dry dock 6 at Yokosuka.
The last picture of this video is Ashigara visiting Kiel in Germany in 1937 btw. She went there after the 1937 Spithead coronation review for King George V.
How did navies verify other navies were following the treaty tonnage limitations? Seems like it was on the honor system. Were there any cases where one navy called “bs” on another navy’s tonnage claim, it was proved right, and there were consequences?
There was no enforcement clause in the treaty. The government civilians who wrote it and agreed to it assumed that public exposure would shame governments into compliance. There were several suggestions of cheating from different naval officers, but no government followed up on it. The Escalator Clause was not an enforcement mechanism, rather it was a clause for when a party (Japan) left the system and built something bigger with bigger guns. It was invoked based on the rumors of the Yamato class, after which war began and the treaty rules were ignored (though some existing designs were treaty-compliant, like the Essexes).
@@John.0zThe Essexes were designed while the US was still following the Treaty, and the first was ordered in 1940, laid down in 1941. The Treaty stipulated a maximum carrier size of 27,000 tons. During construction they did a lot of minor improvements that goosed them up a bit, but the basics of size, engines and armor had all been settled. The first "clean sheet" carrier was the Midway (which also was the first armored deck US carrier).
To me the weirdest thing about the Washington Naval Treaty is that it lasted as long as it did. It had supposedly good intentions ( we all agree to limit what kind of navies we can develop so another arms race doesn't kick off another shit show like WW1 ) but damned near everyone was already plotting how to munchkin the details and take advantage of every loophole before they even signed the damned thing.
The WNT was signed just a few years after the end of WW1, when many people blamed the naval arms race for the start of the war and civilian governments had reasserted themselves over their militaries and cut the forces for a "peace dividend". There was a difference in attitude in the armies and navies because they knew they would be the first to bleed when the other side started things again, and they looked for every advantage they could find. Nobody goes into military service thinking "if we all just disarm and sign treaties, we can all just live in peaceful kumbaya". In most cases the WNT was imposed on the navies by the civilians (read a book or two on the meetings and who proposed what), which worked a little better in the democracies but almost led to a revolt in the militaristic IJN. Designs were drafted by naval officers, but then had to be funded by governments, so there was often some pushing of the limits hidden in the designs that the governments may or may not have been aware of. Later on during the Depression, cost was an important factor in getting approvals, although some like the US pitched shipbuilding as a job assistance program.
Seeing as how the general populace doesn't get much in the way of history lessons, to say nothing of a very sidelined military, keeping it would have been a major boon.
@@gregorywright4918 Gonna start off by saying I completely understand the Allies wanting to scrap every Axis ship left and making no effort to preserve them. Museum ships don't have to be a celebration of the country the ship was used by in my opinion. Some compartments could be used to discuss Japanese ships machine gunning sailors in the water, for instance. Like, I don't wish she was preserved to celebrate Imperial Japan, I wish she was preserved because she would be another way of looking back at the war. Like, "this is one of the actual ships used to conquer the Pacific," if that makes sense. Make it more alive for future generations than just photographs and descriptions in books.
@@gregorywright4918 I mean... I _get_ that, but it's precisely that attitude that's lost us so many valuable pieces of history which should have been preserved over time. Not only the "this is my hated enemy's thing", but also the general disregard for things in the "present" being "worthy" of preserving. We, collectively, would do better to treat the present with the same care and reverence with which we treat the past.
One has to wonder what was going through the minds of the Japanese admiralty when they saw their fleet dwindling month after month as more and more ships were stricken from the roles of ships available.
Please discuss the Treasury-class United States Coast Guard Cutters, one of which, the Taney is the only surviving United States warship that was involved in the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
No RN WW2 ships were good looking, not even the Hood. Some of them couldn't half fight though which, of course, was more important. ( The Hood was overlong for my taste, almost as if it had been stretched like an elastic band to the point that I keep thinking the middle would collapse in on itself ). The only possible exceptions to the overall ugliness of Britain's warships were the County and town class cruisers.
For me it's the Queen Elizabeth class battleships. And in particular Warspite as after she was modernised with the Queen Ann's mansion Tower block she still retained her forward secondarys. All British ships are good looking we lead the way in ship design non more so than during the two world wars.
Ashigara visited Germany and UK in 1937. I wonder if the naval people at the time had anything to say about the "10,000ton" cruiser when the ship visited their countries.
The only reason Myoko was not sunk was the ship was damaged and had to stay in port. That [ort also happened to be in a location that was not high on the list for of targets for the USAAF. or US Navy.
A ships weight is expressed as displacement in tons. They calculate the volume of the ship that is below the waterline and then determine the weight of the seawater that would fill that volume. A cubic yard of seawater weighs close to 1728 pounds.
I still don't get the triple turret grouping. Why not just have two super-firing fore and two aft? Wouldn't that give better arcs of fire? Even the Nelson class didn't seem to add up. Why not move the superstructure forward have two turrets up front and one in the back? Is it just for balance?
On this ship, they wanted more than 8 guns, or 4 turrets with 2 each. To get high speed you need to keep the width down, so putting a third gun in each turret would force a wider beam. They also wanted a space for floatplanes, as that added greater scouting range, long-range gunfire control, and night flare tactics. Hence the original plan for three turrets up front and only one astern. The second astern was the late addition. As to Nelson, that is all about optimizing the armor layout. With the three turrets grouped together you decrease the length of the armor belt. Plus, you get all the heavy firepower up front so it can be used as you attack, instead of having to turn sideways to unmask your rear turrets.
@gregorywright4918 Another reason is that the more turrets you have the more targets you can fire at at the same time. The thing works better in theory than practice, but...
To my knowledge no capital ship ever actually sank another vessel in combat using torpedoes. When you think about it, it makes sense. With those big guns, no enemy vessels ever dared to duke it out at close range, so the torpedoes never had the opportunity to be used since combat was happening at long distances.
I mean, if I know anything about the Japanese, and I think I do, they're a population made up entire of ninjas who only sleep high up in the rafters. So a lot of space for them would be pointless.
@@arthurfisher1857 When humans are necessary for the machine to function sleeping concerns for the crew impact how well the ship fights. Ergonomics do matter.
@@readhistory2023That was not how the IJN thought at that time. Ergonomics was a design issue much later, when the poor accommodations were shown to hurt crew performance, morale and fatigue.
likely apocryphal quote an old admiral in RN ship design looking at a brainstorming sketch by a junior officer of a cruiser to responded to the Myokos "The first requirement of a British warship is that it float, right side up"
How exactly did the people who wrote the washington naval treaty plan to enforce it? It seems to be a treaty on paper only, no teeth or real world consequences for not following it or follow through.
Hey Drach, With classic lines, why not buold 8 Shokaku 7:01 and claim theu are Japanese air tours Cruise Ships? It worked for China recently . Treaty issues satisfied Mike drop.
The IJN had a "shadow carrier" plan where they built a couple "seaplane cruisers" and financed a couple cruise ships that were all designed for fast conversion to aircraft carriers when war got close. Unfortunately for them, the cruise ship engines chosen were not up to the demands put on them and suffered frequent breakdowns.
good content. just watched ah "WW1 rail mounted guns"video."first steam powered rail...1804..."-&15min later-"that brings us to WW2 rail mounted guns...".- almost free of information. keep up the good work,sir . G.Davis sr,WW1 guy
Part of the cruisers job was finding the enemy fleet, and aircraft were much better at that than ships. Aircraft also could spot the fall of shot for long-range firing, and they could be used at night to find and illuminate the enemy with parachute flares (at least in IJN fleet tactics). Float planes allowed them to spread the aircraft around rather than having them concentrated in just a few aircraft carriers, though this petered out after WW2 as aircraft got bigger and faster. The IJN did experiment with what you proposed with the Tone class, although that was planned to be used in conjunction with the real carriers as they did not have their own recon assets. The USN used "scout" bombers, which were just regular dive bombers given a lighter load and a bit more scouting training. As to the first question, yes, removing the plane equipment would free up some tons and deck space for guns or armor, but not a whole lot. Plus it would handicap the ships in their roles as scouts and decrease the capabilities for long-range and night-time fighting, both of which were very important to the IJN for countering the expected USN numerical advantage. Recommended reading: Kaigun by Evans & Peattie.
Many ships would lose their float planes as the war went on, with the planes being replaced by other stuff. The gasoline supply, wood frame, and munitions were a liability in the event the ship was hit in the wrong spot (e.g. US heavy cruisers at Savo Island). But the float planes and their supporting equipment were not heavy enough to make a significant difference in main guns or armor if replaced. The float planes did consume a lot of deck space, so more likely you would end up with extra anti-aircraft guns - every navy in the world massively underestimated the need for anti-aircraft guns in the years leading up to WW2 so this was a very popular refit. I imagine a hanger could be converted to extra living quarters or some such (badly needed on some ships!). There were a lot of 'float plane tenders' (aka 'seaplane tenders') - ships customized to carry and support float planes. But as far as I know, none of these were able to keep up with a modern (by WW2 standards) cruiser. Speed for ships is determined in large part by hull length (the 'natural speed' of the hull): you need to use a lot of space on a ship for engines for shorter vessels to be able to keep up with longer ones. It was not that easy to design an economical float plane ship that could keep up with a cruiser. The hull itself would be more expensive, and the large (and likely more complex/specialized) engines would tend to come with a large crew and fuel requirement. Hence, it becomes quite expensive to build and operate a ship like that, compared to the typical tender which would have been closer to a specialized freighter (and freighters were designed for economy). Basically, rather than paying for an expensive dedicated auxiliary that could keep up with a cruiser, every navy preferred to just build another cruiser and distribute the float places across the cruisers. Cruisers were designed to be able to operate independently, so having each cruiser have it's own float plane(s) made sense in some situations. It's a lot like modern ships that have a helicopter capability. In fact, just like helicopters today, the float planes were probably valuable far more often for rescue missions than anything else - finding people lost at sea (such as pilots whose aircraft went down) and pulling them from the water or guiding ships to them for pick-up. Raiding ships like the Graf Spee would have benefited from having a float plane tender nearby and able to keep up with the raider if needed, so having a faster float plane tender would have been very useful in some situations. Since they couldn't keep up with the fleet, the tenders were used to establish 'instant bases', especially in places where no airstrip existed (yet) or provide support for amphibious landings (where there were lots of slow ships so the tenders didn't stand out).
Lots of unarmored and underarmored target areas that go boom. High risk strategy. When ever my old naval gaming club simulated IJN vs USN or RN major actions, IJN BBs and BCs were ignored until their cruisers and destroyers were massacred by every caliber that could bear, 16" common or HE, 14" commom or HE, 8" AP, HE or common, 6" AP or common, 5" AP or Common.
@@gregorywright4918 and gun turrets with negligible protection. Just lay a few hits early, with any size shells, on them and be rewarded with multiple secondary explosions. The side and horizontal protection were just OK as well, and would be defeated by the USN's 8"/55s at many ranges. The type 93 (long lance) installations was even more vulnerable than the previous 24", becaue of the oxygen equipment
One thing I noticed on the deep water wrecks Paul Allen uncovered in the Pacific; Japanese wrecks are corroded faster then American wrecks (in unfiredamaged areas). So I don't think IJN used the very best steel.
Unless you have corrosion resistance as one of your primary considerations, this doesn't mean much - corrosion resistance is not a measure of a steel alloy's utility as armour, for example.
I I watch your videos on about the different scenarios of what if the British Eastern fleet goes up against the Japanese keto bataye during the Indian Ocean raid at least we know one thing the British torpedoes actually explode on the job unlike the yanks torpedo who leave giant dense leaving the Japanese Dockyard workers bemuse.. If Admiral Somerville manages to give the Japanese Imperial fleet a thrashing I guarantee you there will be Britannia ruled the waves..
Last month I built a model of the HMS Exeter, 6 x 8" guns. Myoko isn't a heavy cruiser, it was a super cruiser and even outgunned the later Baltimore class.
@@d.olivergutierrez8690 ... that 5,000 tons went to armor, crew quarters, radar systems, power generation, communications, ice-cream makers, anti-aircraft, and fuel storage. The Myoko had an extra 8" gun, long Lance torpedoes, and sailors living like bees in a hive to serve the Imperial emperor. Note, a "super cruiser" still isn't a "Battle Cruiser".
@@Easy-EightA bit of it went to the automation of the ammo handling, leading to the fastest firing 8 inch guns ever. They could pump more rounds out in a minute than Myoko could with an extra barrel.
@@gregorywright4918 Imperial sailors do not need such soft things as tolerable living conditions, armor, communications, good mess areas, ice cream machines, anti-aircraft guns, and radar. The Imperial sailor can make do with the samurai spirit.
The Myokos only outgunned the Baltimores if you assume that aircraft or destroyers are not going to be a threat. The Baltimores had 12 x 5 inch 38 caliber heavy and a considerable number of 40 mm Bofors, with appropriate directors, which did make a difference in their combat power.
Exposing myself to massive ridicule and derision : When you look at it from 90 years on it occurred to me that the Japanese could have created essentially schnell ships. Go all in on speed and minimize armor. That massive powerplant made me think to design ships for much larger caliber guns but fit them with treaty level guns, whilst having the real guns in a warehouse and cut armor protection down to shrapnel and small arms fire. Maybe straffing protection. From what I've seen ultimately a ship with full armor didn't do well in a gun engagement. Hit the turret once with a 15" shell and that turret is almost always disabled. I'm applying the DeHavilland Mosquito approach to warships. Get in fast, hit hard and get out.
So... the Kongou class battlecruisers, as of their last remodel. Hiei's guns literally were stored when she was temporarily converted into a training ship while the WNT was in force, and reequipped after Japan left the treaty. Yeah... battlecruisers were good, if used as cruiser killers, as they outran other cruisers and hit harder. Unfortunately, their guns led them to go up against battleships or even other battlecruisers, and battlecruisers couldn't take the hits of their own guns.
Essentially that was a core principle of IJN strategy - minimize defensive features, maximize hitting power, speed and range. The Zero fighter and Betty bomber had the same ideas behind them. It worked well at the beginning when they had surprise advantage, but once Allies figured out their weaknesses they exploited them ruthlessly. Didn't help that IJN leaders pushed their ships and planes beyond their limits, leading to breakdowns and failures.
Nachi actually managed to sink (or at least cause the sinking of) a ship during the Battle of Surigao Strait. Unfortunately it was Mogami, which she rammed. That caused the damage which led to her sinking in Manila Bay.
I love Drach, but sometimes I feel like he goes into a lot of detail over the various design specifications and then skims over the ship’s careers. Haguro and Nachi served in the battle of the Java sea, during which Haguro crippled the heavy cruiser Exeter via gunfire and arguably scored the longest ranged torpedo hit at 22,000 yards, sinking the destroyer Kortenaer. Six hours later, at midnight at 14,000 yards, Nachi and Haguro launched their torpedo battery again, Nachi sinking the light cruiser Java and Haguro sinking the allied flagship the light cruiser De Ruyter. Finally, joined by Myoko and Ashigara, all four ships tracked down the crippled Exteter, sinking her alongside the destroyer Encounter. After that, Nachi served in the battle of the Komandorski Islands, crippling the heavy cruiser Salt Lake City alongside the heavy cruiser Maya, before turning away due to alleged air attacks. Myoko and Haguro served in the battle of Empress Augusta Bay, during which they failed to stop the sinking of the light cruiser Sendai, Haguro was damaged by 6-inch cruiser shells, while damaging the light cruiser Denver. At Leyte Gulf, Nachi was forced to retire after a collision with the unlucky heavy cruiser Mogami, while Ashigara saw action at the battleship duel at Surigao Strait, during which she fired off her guns to no avail while dashing off undamaged. Myoko was crippled by an airdropped torpedo from USS Lexington in the Subuyan Sea and later torpedoes but a submarine, while Haguro fought against Taffy 3, helping the cripple the escort carrier Kalinin Bay, before helping to sink the destroyer Hoel. In November, the crippled Nachi came under air attacks, again from Lexington and was sunk to 7 torpedoes. Haguro was sunk in the last surface action in March of 1945, where she was attacked by five destroyers at all directions, damaging one of them but being hit and sunk by five torpedoes. Ashigara was sunk in July by a submarine, while Myoko survived the war and was transferred to the Royal navy, and sunk in target practice in 1946. The ships, particularly Haguro saw excellent careers. Haguro basically single-handedly changed the tide of the battle of the Java sea, I fell like she’s a ship worthy of her own video, and is definitely a very underrated warship.
Drach tends to save the individual ship histories for the ships themselves. He will do a class of ships, then detail the individual ships, as often there were variations between the individual ships themselves. Many of the IJN CA ships deserve their own videos. They worked hard for the Empire! Also my favorite Sakura waifus for Azur Lane, but that's another story.
@@observationsfromthebunker9639 Well, fair enough. They're my favorite cruiser class of all time (though the Brooklyn/Saint Louis's and Takaos come pretty close)
Nice the Royal Navy got two of them and third surrendered to them after damage by Royal Navy midgets I think. Haguros fate always felt like some revenge for the Royal Navy loss of HMS Exeter to her 2.5 years earlier.
The RN midgets ( XE craft ) irreparably damaged the Takao at Singapore, an Atago class cruiser which were the successors to the Nachi class. They attempted to strike the Myoko which was at or near Singapore during the same operation but couldn't find her, and so both the submersibles concentrated their efforts on the unfortunate Takao. IIRC the crew of the midget XE3 were awarded the Victoria Cross for their bravery in pressing home the attack.
Back when, I was questioned by my jealous ex-wife. See, all of us guys are under suspicion of being creeps/perverts/overtly sexual beings/ect. at some point, I suppose.... So, I was duly questioned about my internet search activities by her, weirdo that she was.... I was asked, "So who is SUZUYA, and what is it about her you like ?".... Yup, laughed my azz off, then as now- the gift that keeps on giving !!....lol. 🚬😎👍
Pinned post for Q&A :)
Warships seem to be the first "weapon category" to be controlled by an Arms Control Treaty - Washington Treaty - like nuclear weapons later on. Do you think this assessment is correct? Why might the "winners" of WW1 have it seen that way? Because they saw the Naval Race as a major cause for the war? Or because the signatory powers of Washington didn't really share any landborders and a new naval race was seen as the biggest threat for world peace?
Would it have been better for the Japanese to build more heavy cruisers instead of Yamato and Musashi, tactically and resources wise ?
I know cruisers armed with 8 inch guns would have a hard time going toe to toe with american battleships, but perhaps the "long lances" torpedoes could have given them an edge.
Likewise, would it have been interesting for the Japanese to try to build super-cruisers armed with 10 inch guns or something akin to the Deutschlands "pocket battleships" ?
Less powerfull than their 18 inch battleships but they could have more of them, and use them more frequently.
We know the Alaska class were the only Large Cruisers built, but did the other waring powers had plans for a Large cruiser design similar to the Alaskas?
With modern technology and techniques, could the larger carriers of WWII operate effectively more than the 100 aircraft estimated by experience
Why Tosa, Kii and Amagi designs have their three turrets in the back, when they can just scale up the Myoko and Takao style of three at the bow? It'd give them more forward firepower and clear up space for additional engines and boilers in the back. Possibly allowing more speed, no?
Why compromise between firepower, defense, and speed when you can just do all 3 and ignore weight limits?
Nono you see they were exactly at the right weight or do you have a ship size scale to prove they are overweight?
Japanese cruisers from the Myokos onwards ended up being overarmed for their displacement, *even with* being 2000 tons above treaty limits. The biggest issue with them was they being so heavily armed to the point of having structural issues (which is part of why they ended up above treaty limits: they tried to fit everything WITHIN limits, found it didn’t work, and decided to just add another 2000 tons).
Actually, calculating weights is relatively simple, especially if you have views of the ship below water line. Drach has a video on that.
at the end of the day they played themselfs, even if they include extra modifications they where still using a treaty desing so they ended up with ships that where very unstable and cramped, japan never actually build a non treaty restricted desing like the americans with the alaskas and des moines
Or just make up your minds and stick to a great hull, whicj thos certainly was.
Be like the Cleveland class CAs doubling as Independence class light carriers. Kick out 8, instead of 4 types, ready to modify and sail
A Japanese cruiser without torpedo launchers is an idea that borders on the perverse.
@@じゃがいも-n8j I think he knows that. He's referring to the original design.
To be fair the admiral who thought torpedoes would be dangerous was proved correct. How many Japanese cruisers were damaged by their own torpedoes detonating?
@@AWMJoeyjoejoe Ships only reflect your naval doctrine. Having the same doctrine while taking out your main offensive capability related to that doctrine looks silly to me.
@@augustosolari7721True, but he was right about them being dangerous. That was my point.
yeah... what next... remove the bayonet-lug?... i'm quiet sure all japanese warships got on
All that on 10,000 tons? The Royal Navy’s Director of Naval Construction had doubts: “They must be building their ships out of cardboard or lying.”
They were using LieBoard .. Hard as armor Lite as the truth
I agree. People praise the Japanese and German ships while very conveniently ignoring just how massively they violated the treaties they signed.
Well actually... quite a bit of both!
A one inch thick turret "armour" IS practically cardboard but hey it keeps the rain off the hoist and loading machinery...
In saying that The allied powers as the underwriters of said treaties did write them with class weights dimensions etc in mind to deliberately hamstring the japanese and to a lesser extent das germans. It was really all about penny pinching the u.k and to a lesser extent the u.s were still reeling from ww1 and the politico's couldn't muster the money for expensive toys the public wouldn't stand for it especially the American public hence being ten years late to the ww2 party. @@johnfisher9692
Yuzuru Hiraga was a key figure in Japan's Navy, and something of a genius and visionary. He was deeply involved in Japan's naval architecture, and his designs were modern and powerful. The innovations we see in later IJN heavy cruisers and destroyers that made them such a nasty handful started with the light cruiser Yubari in 1923. While she was lightly armed and on the small side, she was head and shoulder above the old four-stack Nagaras and other light cruisers in their inventory. If you look at all the IJNs destroyers and cruisers, you can easily see the influence of the humble Yubari and the Hiraga's mind.
My memories of the Myoko class cruisers were of sadness that there were only four 1/700 waterline series models to build. Such amazingly beautiful ships.
It's such a shame that the last survivor of this class was scuttled, and the Takao got Godzilla'd.
If they both appeared at the movie I'd die nerdgasming at the cinema!!
Now I'm looking for a Takao model kit (1/700 or 1/350) like crazy.
@@mogaman28 just happy I got to see Yukikaze doing her thing.
Wow episode 370 ..! Now I got to start all over with Guide #1 .. just to get my bearings…
Drach will be running out of ships at this rate...🤪
@@davidbrennan660 Not even close :D
@@Drachinifel where's the guide on mysterious Japanese torpedeboats that Kamchatka kept seeing????
@@AelxiThat might be a cool April Fools episode for Drach to make - I'd certainly watch it! 🙂👍
@@davidbrennan660not even...he may have covered most of the modern classes, but there are still about 170 fletchers awaiting their video
Such work horses for the IJN, they were every where and in every campaign while the Yamato class swung around their anchor chains at Truck. Ashigara visited Portsmouth in 1937.
that is more a result of the IJN high command's decisions then any specific capabilities.
Japan had the most powerful cruisers in the war.
@@hashteraksgage3281 until the us pumped up their non treaty restricted ones, yes, the ijn was just devouring the competition both British and Americans, which ironically end up making the whole force overstretched and overworked in the end since they where the spine of the ijn surface fleet.
Fun fact: During Ashigara's visit, British observer described her as a "hungry wolf" due to her having heavy firepower while being lightly built and having poor living condition. The Japanese didn't fully understand what the name meant though, and decided to take it as a compliment.
Yep, for the Coronation fleet review for King George VI. She also plays a brief, but important part in my first book, ‘Texas at the Coronation’.
What a beautiful hull.
As with emerging naval technology in mid 20s, radical armament layout changes in initial design yields smaller fleets.
About time the Myoko sisters got their video. All that's left is the Furutakas for IJN CAs I think.
Older ships certainly look a lot more aesthetic than the modern ones
stupid radar signature, ruining aesthetic ship design.
Modern ships are designed to reduce their radar signature by removing 90 degree angles.That can make them look odd.
(Cough) Zumwalt! (Cough, cough, wheeze)
Arleigh Burkes being the exception IMO.
@@RCAvhstapetrue
a myoko running away isn't reatreting... it's preparing for an attack. TORPS AWAY!
Indeed 🙂
*UNLEASH THE DANGER-PYLONS!!!*
*Free Fish Delivery!*
Man. Hiraga was a god damn genius.
Beautiful ships.
Only slightly related but the scene with Takao in Godzilla Minus One was super cool. I would very much love to see more of that in movies. In fact if you ever wanted to do a movie highlight on this channel I’m willing to bet THIS is the audience for it.
Great movie
I'm working towards unlocking this ship in World of Warships so it's nice to learn about the ship's history
It's a fun ship just make sure you're kiting away while shooting
its awesome just had a 145k damage round
@@hardcore476
Yep, and launching those long range hard hitting torps as you appear to be retreating :-)
I just love my Nachi. Won her in the very first event for ARP-Ships, and she is the Myoko-Class with the most games on my account.
I just have to finish her RC model now 😅
Myoko has plenty to look forward to. In the meantime, have fun with Furutaka and Aoba. I love using Aoba or Myoko for ops.
You left out the action against Godzilla!
That was Takao, not Myoukou.
Takao put up a spirited but doomed fight against Godzilla at least.
Man, now I want to rewatch it again, such an incredible film.
Wow, turns out it's _still_ _playing_ at my local theatre, time to go actually do that I guess! :O
@@BleedingUranium Yeah, I saw it twice. I rarely see movies twice but that one was worth it.
oooo
Excellent video, as always.
one of my favourite ships, its just very beautiful
No Japanese warships were beautiful aesthetically. Some were certainly impressive yes, but not beautiful.
@@simonpitt8145beauty is subjective. nagato wat quite regal in appearance.
Subjective is subjective, but Japan had among the most beautiful warships, along with Italy. Japanese destroyers (Fubukis and onward), later light cruisers (Aganos and Ooyodo), and heavy cruisers (all) especially.
oooo
Your British accent adds authenticity to the Naval historical topics and your incredible knowledge,seems apropo considering England's rich naval history.
I love how he says “hosepowah” 😂
Interesting thing about Kumano, the last surving Mogami - she had left Manilla early that morning with Aoba on the day Nachi was sunk. Those airstrikes missed her by a matter of hours.
Thanks Drach.
These ships remind me of the old gag: A camel is a horse designed by a committee.
Hey, Drach! Love the new theme music. And I still thoroughly enjoy your videos. Thanks!
Thank you.
can you do a video on what IJN ships survived the war?? would love that
Thanks Drach
Ive been waiting for this guide for years, and loved every single second of it!!!
Loved the view of Yokosuka dry docks at 2:06, reminds me a lot of when I step aboard USS Midway and later USS Independence as they where both in dry dock 6 at Yokosuka.
The last picture of this video is Ashigara visiting Kiel in Germany in 1937 btw. She went there after the 1937 Spithead coronation review for King George V.
The joke of long and Short Tons comes to mind
How did navies verify other navies were following the treaty tonnage limitations? Seems like it was on the honor system. Were there any cases where one navy called “bs” on another navy’s tonnage claim, it was proved right, and there were consequences?
Sure. Do a search for the “Escalator Clause” and what it did to American battleship design.
There was no enforcement clause in the treaty. The government civilians who wrote it and agreed to it assumed that public exposure would shame governments into compliance. There were several suggestions of cheating from different naval officers, but no government followed up on it. The Escalator Clause was not an enforcement mechanism, rather it was a clause for when a party (Japan) left the system and built something bigger with bigger guns. It was invoked based on the rumors of the Yamato class, after which war began and the treaty rules were ignored (though some existing designs were treaty-compliant, like the Essexes).
@@gregorywright4918 I thought the Essex class was more "treaty-influenced", than "Treaty compliant", which the Yorktowns were.
oooo
@@John.0zThe Essexes were designed while the US was still following the Treaty, and the first was ordered in 1940, laid down in 1941. The Treaty stipulated a maximum carrier size of 27,000 tons. During construction they did a lot of minor improvements that goosed them up a bit, but the basics of size, engines and armor had all been settled. The first "clean sheet" carrier was the Midway (which also was the first armored deck US carrier).
Thanks again 👍
To me the weirdest thing about the Washington Naval Treaty is that it lasted as long as it did. It had supposedly good intentions ( we all agree to limit what kind of navies we can develop so another arms race doesn't kick off another shit show like WW1 ) but damned near everyone was already plotting how to munchkin the details and take advantage of every loophole before they even signed the damned thing.
The WNT was signed just a few years after the end of WW1, when many people blamed the naval arms race for the start of the war and civilian governments had reasserted themselves over their militaries and cut the forces for a "peace dividend". There was a difference in attitude in the armies and navies because they knew they would be the first to bleed when the other side started things again, and they looked for every advantage they could find. Nobody goes into military service thinking "if we all just disarm and sign treaties, we can all just live in peaceful kumbaya". In most cases the WNT was imposed on the navies by the civilians (read a book or two on the meetings and who proposed what), which worked a little better in the democracies but almost led to a revolt in the militaristic IJN. Designs were drafted by naval officers, but then had to be funded by governments, so there was often some pushing of the limits hidden in the designs that the governments may or may not have been aware of. Later on during the Depression, cost was an important factor in getting approvals, although some like the US pitched shipbuilding as a job assistance program.
oooo
They look so good
Shame Myoko wasn't preserved. Like so many other Japanese ships, she would have made a nice museum.
Seeing as how the general populace doesn't get much in the way of history lessons, to say nothing of a very sidelined military, keeping it would have been a major boon.
In Singapore maybe.
No one wanted to celebrate the IJN in 1945...
@@gregorywright4918 Gonna start off by saying I completely understand the Allies wanting to scrap every Axis ship left and making no effort to preserve them.
Museum ships don't have to be a celebration of the country the ship was used by in my opinion. Some compartments could be used to discuss Japanese ships machine gunning sailors in the water, for instance.
Like, I don't wish she was preserved to celebrate Imperial Japan, I wish she was preserved because she would be another way of looking back at the war. Like, "this is one of the actual ships used to conquer the Pacific," if that makes sense. Make it more alive for future generations than just photographs and descriptions in books.
@@gregorywright4918 I mean... I _get_ that, but it's precisely that attitude that's lost us so many valuable pieces of history which should have been preserved over time. Not only the "this is my hated enemy's thing", but also the general disregard for things in the "present" being "worthy" of preserving. We, collectively, would do better to treat the present with the same care and reverence with which we treat the past.
Very handsome ships :)
The Myokos are my favorite Japanese heavy cruiser design.
gonna be honest i like how the og furutaka looks with those single turrets
Not a bad ship for tier 6. Hard hitting high explosive with sneaky torps. Great video! 😂
How about a four in one ship history ? The ships of the Battle of Lake Tanganikga
5:52 - Myoko hit the USS Bergall in return with an 8in shell that failed to detonate but forced the Bergall to limp back to Pearl Harbor for repairs.
Indeed, no wonder they sent that admiral out to pasture.
The bergall vs myoko is one of the best story of the pacific theater in wwii
One has to wonder what was going through the minds of the Japanese admiralty when they saw their fleet dwindling month after month as more and more ships were stricken from the roles of ships available.
Please discuss the Treasury-class United States Coast Guard Cutters, one of which, the Taney is the only surviving United States warship that was involved in the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
Do a video on the Royal Italian Navy upgrading from 305mm to 320mm guns
Last week's guide was 370. This one should be guide 371, Drach.
Beautiful ships some of the best looking ever created except for the royal navy ships. HMS Warspite being the best of course ❤
No RN WW2 ships were good looking, not even the Hood. Some of them couldn't half fight though which, of course, was more important. ( The Hood was overlong for my taste, almost as if it had been stretched like an elastic band to the point that I keep thinking the middle would collapse in on itself ). The only possible exceptions to the overall ugliness of Britain's warships were the County and town class cruisers.
Hood was beautiful. She looked more like a motor yacht than a warship. Such elegant lines.
@@simonpitt8145 while beauty is subjective, i must say the tribals, fletchers and hood looked better than any of the county class.
For me it's the Queen Elizabeth class battleships. And in particular Warspite as after she was modernised with the Queen Ann's mansion Tower block she still retained her forward secondarys. All British ships are good looking we lead the way in ship design non more so than during the two world wars.
Ashigara visited Germany and UK in 1937. I wonder if the naval people at the time had anything to say about the "10,000ton" cruiser when the ship visited their countries.
Treaties are made to be broken
The only reason Myoko was not sunk was the ship was damaged and had to stay in port. That [ort also happened to be in a location that was not high on the list for of targets for the USAAF. or US Navy.
The fact that the Myoko always had 3 turrets forward seems so cursed to me
Nice introduction of Washington naval treated...after WW1...
How did they weight the ships for treaty compliance?
A ships weight is expressed as displacement in tons. They calculate the volume of the ship that is below the waterline and then determine the weight of the seawater that would fill that volume. A cubic yard of seawater weighs close to 1728 pounds.
There was no enforcement mechanism in the treaty, each nation declared their own ships tonnage. No one was ever punished for lying.
Hey, D-man, looks like you used Guide #370 two weeks in a row.
They still do that sequential "four to a class" thing....
Being a relatively early adopter of Wows i have 5 versions of the Myoko. The techline and 4 ARB ships. Overkill. Yup
I still don't get the triple turret grouping. Why not just have two super-firing fore and two aft? Wouldn't that give better arcs of fire? Even the Nelson class didn't seem to add up. Why not move the superstructure forward have two turrets up front and one in the back? Is it just for balance?
On this ship, they wanted more than 8 guns, or 4 turrets with 2 each. To get high speed you need to keep the width down, so putting a third gun in each turret would force a wider beam. They also wanted a space for floatplanes, as that added greater scouting range, long-range gunfire control, and night flare tactics. Hence the original plan for three turrets up front and only one astern. The second astern was the late addition.
As to Nelson, that is all about optimizing the armor layout. With the three turrets grouped together you decrease the length of the armor belt. Plus, you get all the heavy firepower up front so it can be used as you attack, instead of having to turn sideways to unmask your rear turrets.
@gregorywright4918
Another reason is that the more turrets you have the more targets you can fire at at the same time. The thing works better in theory than practice, but...
oooo
To my knowledge no capital ship ever actually sank another vessel in combat using torpedoes. When you think about it, it makes sense. With those big guns, no enemy vessels ever dared to duke it out at close range, so the torpedoes never had the opportunity to be used since combat was happening at long distances.
But remember the Japanese Long Lance torpedoes had a range well in excess of 10 miles, which was about the same as her main guns
If you count Japanese heavy cruisers as capital ships, they had plenty of kills (particularly Haguro of this class)
They removed crew area abd the Japanese weren't exactly known for going overboard on the crew quarters.
I mean, if I know anything about the Japanese, and I think I do, they're a population made up entire of ninjas who only sleep high up in the rafters. So a lot of space for them would be pointless.
@@arthurfisher1857 When humans are necessary for the machine to function sleeping concerns for the crew impact how well the ship fights. Ergonomics do matter.
@@readhistory2023 It was a joke... I thought that was VERY clear. I don't ACTUALLY think all Japanese people are Ninjas...
@@readhistory2023That was not how the IJN thought at that time. Ergonomics was a design issue much later, when the poor accommodations were shown to hurt crew performance, morale and fatigue.
ooooo
Pity it wasnt kept for a museum
Feeding the algorithm
likely apocryphal quote an old admiral in RN ship design looking at a brainstorming sketch by a junior officer of a cruiser to responded to the Myokos
"The first requirement of a British warship is that it float, right side up"
How exactly did the people who wrote the washington naval treaty plan to enforce it?
It seems to be a treaty on paper only, no teeth or real world consequences for not following it or follow through.
Have you ever done an episode on a frigates of world war two.
We have two Guide 370 this month. DeJaVu
HaHa
Hey Drach,
With classic lines, why not buold 8 Shokaku 7:01 and claim theu are Japanese air tours Cruise Ships?
It worked for China recently .
Treaty issues satisfied
Mike drop.
The IJN had a "shadow carrier" plan where they built a couple "seaplane cruisers" and financed a couple cruise ships that were all designed for fast conversion to aircraft carriers when war got close. Unfortunately for them, the cruise ship engines chosen were not up to the demands put on them and suffered frequent breakdowns.
oooooo
At least they got to fight Godzilla!
That was the Takao.
ooooooo
I would say that old intro song was better.
How often was she near Kirishima?
good content. just watched ah "WW1 rail mounted guns"video."first steam powered rail...1804..."-&15min
later-"that brings us to WW2 rail mounted guns...".-
almost free of information. keep up the good work,sir
. G.Davis sr,WW1 guy
Might be an ignorant question here >_
Part of the cruisers job was finding the enemy fleet, and aircraft were much better at that than ships. Aircraft also could spot the fall of shot for long-range firing, and they could be used at night to find and illuminate the enemy with parachute flares (at least in IJN fleet tactics). Float planes allowed them to spread the aircraft around rather than having them concentrated in just a few aircraft carriers, though this petered out after WW2 as aircraft got bigger and faster. The IJN did experiment with what you proposed with the Tone class, although that was planned to be used in conjunction with the real carriers as they did not have their own recon assets. The USN used "scout" bombers, which were just regular dive bombers given a lighter load and a bit more scouting training.
As to the first question, yes, removing the plane equipment would free up some tons and deck space for guns or armor, but not a whole lot. Plus it would handicap the ships in their roles as scouts and decrease the capabilities for long-range and night-time fighting, both of which were very important to the IJN for countering the expected USN numerical advantage.
Recommended reading: Kaigun by Evans & Peattie.
oooooo
Many ships would lose their float planes as the war went on, with the planes being replaced by other stuff. The gasoline supply, wood frame, and munitions were a liability in the event the ship was hit in the wrong spot (e.g. US heavy cruisers at Savo Island). But the float planes and their supporting equipment were not heavy enough to make a significant difference in main guns or armor if replaced. The float planes did consume a lot of deck space, so more likely you would end up with extra anti-aircraft guns - every navy in the world massively underestimated the need for anti-aircraft guns in the years leading up to WW2 so this was a very popular refit. I imagine a hanger could be converted to extra living quarters or some such (badly needed on some ships!).
There were a lot of 'float plane tenders' (aka 'seaplane tenders') - ships customized to carry and support float planes. But as far as I know, none of these were able to keep up with a modern (by WW2 standards) cruiser. Speed for ships is determined in large part by hull length (the 'natural speed' of the hull): you need to use a lot of space on a ship for engines for shorter vessels to be able to keep up with longer ones. It was not that easy to design an economical float plane ship that could keep up with a cruiser. The hull itself would be more expensive, and the large (and likely more complex/specialized) engines would tend to come with a large crew and fuel requirement. Hence, it becomes quite expensive to build and operate a ship like that, compared to the typical tender which would have been closer to a specialized freighter (and freighters were designed for economy).
Basically, rather than paying for an expensive dedicated auxiliary that could keep up with a cruiser, every navy preferred to just build another cruiser and distribute the float places across the cruisers.
Cruisers were designed to be able to operate independently, so having each cruiser have it's own float plane(s) made sense in some situations. It's a lot like modern ships that have a helicopter capability. In fact, just like helicopters today, the float planes were probably valuable far more often for rescue missions than anything else - finding people lost at sea (such as pilots whose aircraft went down) and pulling them from the water or guiding ships to them for pick-up.
Raiding ships like the Graf Spee would have benefited from having a float plane tender nearby and able to keep up with the raider if needed, so having a faster float plane tender would have been very useful in some situations.
Since they couldn't keep up with the fleet, the tenders were used to establish 'instant bases', especially in places where no airstrip existed (yet) or provide support for amphibious landings (where there were lots of slow ships so the tenders didn't stand out).
It's a shame at least one could of been preserved.
IJN: "We swear it only weighs 10000 tons."
USA: "Uh huh, and what do you call it?"
IJN: "Yamato"😇
Lots of unarmored and underarmored target areas that go boom. High risk strategy. When ever my old naval gaming club simulated IJN vs USN or RN major actions, IJN BBs and BCs were ignored until their cruisers and destroyers were massacred by every caliber that could bear, 16" common or HE, 14" commom or HE, 8" AP, HE or common, 6" AP or common, 5" AP or Common.
Because of he Long Lances?
@@gregorywright4918 and gun turrets with negligible protection. Just lay a few hits early, with any size shells, on them and be rewarded with multiple secondary explosions. The side and horizontal protection were just OK as well, and would be defeated by the USN's 8"/55s at many ranges. The type 93 (long lance) installations was even more vulnerable than the previous 24", becaue of the oxygen equipment
oooooooooooo
Well everyone knows that speed negates weight....
It's the relativistic/ quantum effect
One thing I noticed on the deep water wrecks Paul Allen uncovered in the Pacific; Japanese wrecks are corroded faster then American wrecks (in unfiredamaged areas). So I don't think IJN used the very best steel.
Unless you have corrosion resistance as one of your primary considerations, this doesn't mean much - corrosion resistance is not a measure of a steel alloy's utility as armour, for example.
oooo
I I watch your videos on about the different scenarios of what if the British Eastern fleet goes up against the Japanese keto bataye during the Indian Ocean raid at least we know one thing the British torpedoes actually explode on the job unlike the yanks torpedo who leave giant dense leaving the Japanese Dockyard workers bemuse..
If Admiral Somerville manages to give the Japanese Imperial fleet a thrashing I guarantee you there will be Britannia ruled the waves..
Kido Butai, the combined IJN fast carrier fleet (1st Air Fleet).
ooooooooo
Japanese heavy cruiser’s must have not been the ship of choice to serve on when they all started to be sunk
✌✌
Captain look meme
Myoko collides destroyer
The good old "furry taco." That joke makes me giggle like a school girl.
*Azur Crap game* you talking about
@@ChloeKruegerSenpai hey more respect here, like half of drach viewers are compromised of us degenerates 😤.
@chloekrueger3003 you live a sad, lonely life, don't you?
@@d.olivergutierrez8690 Nah kid
oooo
Isn't this also the ship that was lost to Godzilla?
That was Takao, of the class which directly followed this one.
ooooooooooooooo
Last month I built a model of the HMS Exeter, 6 x 8" guns. Myoko isn't a heavy cruiser, it was a super cruiser and even outgunned the later Baltimore class.
Ehh…no, the Des Moines where almost 5000 tons heavier and even then, they weren’t considered “super cruisers”
@@d.olivergutierrez8690 ... that 5,000 tons went to armor, crew quarters, radar systems, power generation, communications, ice-cream makers, anti-aircraft, and fuel storage. The Myoko had an extra 8" gun, long Lance torpedoes, and sailors living like bees in a hive to serve the Imperial emperor. Note, a "super cruiser" still isn't a "Battle Cruiser".
@@Easy-EightA bit of it went to the automation of the ammo handling, leading to the fastest firing 8 inch guns ever. They could pump more rounds out in a minute than Myoko could with an extra barrel.
@@gregorywright4918 Imperial sailors do not need such soft things as tolerable living conditions, armor, communications, good mess areas, ice cream machines, anti-aircraft guns, and radar. The Imperial sailor can make do with the samurai spirit.
The Myokos only outgunned the Baltimores if you assume that aircraft or destroyers are not going to be a threat. The Baltimores had 12 x 5 inch 38 caliber heavy and a considerable number of 40 mm Bofors, with appropriate directors, which did make a difference in their combat power.
Exposing myself to massive ridicule and derision : When you look at it from 90 years on it occurred to me that the Japanese could have created essentially schnell ships. Go all in on speed and minimize armor. That massive powerplant made me think to design ships for much larger caliber guns but fit them with treaty level guns, whilst having the real guns in a warehouse and cut armor protection down to shrapnel and small arms fire. Maybe straffing protection. From what I've seen ultimately a ship with full armor didn't do well in a gun engagement. Hit the turret once with a 15" shell and that turret is almost always disabled.
I'm applying the DeHavilland Mosquito approach to warships. Get in fast, hit hard and get out.
So... the Kongou class battlecruisers, as of their last remodel. Hiei's guns literally were stored when she was temporarily converted into a training ship while the WNT was in force, and reequipped after Japan left the treaty.
Yeah... battlecruisers were good, if used as cruiser killers, as they outran other cruisers and hit harder. Unfortunately, their guns led them to go up against battleships or even other battlecruisers, and battlecruisers couldn't take the hits of their own guns.
Essentially a glass cannon. A ship SO fragile that firing her Main armament damages her.
Essentially that was a core principle of IJN strategy - minimize defensive features, maximize hitting power, speed and range. The Zero fighter and Betty bomber had the same ideas behind them. It worked well at the beginning when they had surprise advantage, but once Allies figured out their weaknesses they exploited them ruthlessly. Didn't help that IJN leaders pushed their ships and planes beyond their limits, leading to breakdowns and failures.
oooooooooooooooo
You can only really do that with aircraft carriers where your massive attack range acts as protection all in its own.
I'm glad he didn't have to say Chikuma. Because he destroys the pronunciation of that name. :)
A very successful and underrated class, often ignored in favour of the Takaos and Mogamis who achieved a lot less.
Eh, those did a fair amount as well early in the war.
Nachi actually managed to sink (or at least cause the sinking of) a ship during the Battle of Surigao Strait. Unfortunately it was Mogami, which she rammed. That caused the damage which led to her sinking in Manila Bay.
Mogami doing her friendly fire thing as per usual.
@@VersusARCH
She was the target not the attacker in this case.
I love Drach, but sometimes I feel like he goes into a lot of detail over the various design specifications and then skims over the ship’s careers.
Haguro and Nachi served in the battle of the Java sea, during which Haguro crippled the heavy cruiser Exeter via gunfire and arguably scored the longest ranged torpedo hit at 22,000 yards, sinking the destroyer Kortenaer. Six hours later, at midnight at 14,000 yards, Nachi and Haguro launched their torpedo battery again, Nachi sinking the light cruiser Java and Haguro sinking the allied flagship the light cruiser De Ruyter. Finally, joined by Myoko and Ashigara, all four ships tracked down the crippled Exteter, sinking her alongside the destroyer Encounter.
After that, Nachi served in the battle of the Komandorski Islands, crippling the heavy cruiser Salt Lake City alongside the heavy cruiser Maya, before turning away due to alleged air attacks. Myoko and Haguro served in the battle of Empress Augusta Bay, during which they failed to stop the sinking of the light cruiser Sendai, Haguro was damaged by 6-inch cruiser shells, while damaging the light cruiser Denver.
At Leyte Gulf, Nachi was forced to retire after a collision with the unlucky heavy cruiser Mogami, while Ashigara saw action at the battleship duel at Surigao Strait, during which she fired off her guns to no avail while dashing off undamaged. Myoko was crippled by an airdropped torpedo from USS Lexington in the Subuyan Sea and later torpedoes but a submarine, while Haguro fought against Taffy 3, helping the cripple the escort carrier Kalinin Bay, before helping to sink the destroyer Hoel.
In November, the crippled Nachi came under air attacks, again from Lexington and was sunk to 7 torpedoes. Haguro was sunk in the last surface action in March of 1945, where she was attacked by five destroyers at all directions, damaging one of them but being hit and sunk by five torpedoes. Ashigara was sunk in July by a submarine, while Myoko survived the war and was transferred to the Royal navy, and sunk in target practice in 1946.
The ships, particularly Haguro saw excellent careers. Haguro basically single-handedly changed the tide of the battle of the Java sea, I fell like she’s a ship worthy of her own video, and is definitely a very underrated warship.
Drach tends to save the individual ship histories for the ships themselves. He will do a class of ships, then detail the individual ships, as often there were variations between the individual ships themselves. Many of the IJN CA ships deserve their own videos. They worked hard for the Empire! Also my favorite Sakura waifus for Azur Lane, but that's another story.
@@observationsfromthebunker9639 Well, fair enough. They're my favorite cruiser class of all time (though the Brooklyn/Saint Louis's and Takaos come pretty close)
Drach is an engineer, after all...
oooooooooooooo
Ber Gall
obligatory comment for the algorithm
Nice the Royal Navy got two of them and third surrendered to them after damage by Royal Navy midgets I think. Haguros fate always felt like some revenge for the Royal Navy loss of HMS Exeter to her 2.5 years earlier.
The RN midgets ( XE craft ) irreparably damaged the Takao at Singapore, an Atago class cruiser which were the successors to the Nachi class. They attempted to strike the Myoko which was at or near Singapore during the same operation but couldn't find her, and so both the submersibles concentrated their efforts on the unfortunate Takao. IIRC the crew of the midget XE3 were awarded the Victoria Cross for their bravery in pressing home the attack.
oooooooo
Weirdo
Holy cow I'm early
banzai
Bonsai
ooooooooo
74th, 20 January 2024
If you add their former surface ships, the Japanese built more submarines than Germany.
😂
Russia is catching up.
ooooooooooo
Back when, I was questioned by my jealous ex-wife. See, all of us guys are under suspicion of being creeps/perverts/overtly sexual beings/ect. at some point, I suppose....
So, I was duly questioned about my internet search activities by her, weirdo that she was....
I was asked, "So who is SUZUYA, and what is it about her you like ?"....
Yup, laughed my azz off, then as now- the gift that keeps on giving !!....lol.
🚬😎👍