I seem to recall in a previous drydock you answered a question about how most/all ironclads had only either a turreted armament (like USS Monitor) or casemate guns (like CSA Virginia) because by the time anyone had thought about using both Harvey steel was right around the corner. However ever since the video on the false dawn of the ironclads I've been wondering, had the "false dawn" not been the stumbling block it was but the actual beginning of the Ironclad era, assuming that these advances don't lead to Harvey steel being invented earlier, would this result in us seeing more ironclads with both turrets/barbets and castmates?
Have you yet covered the most extreme cases of using a Historic and Grand ship name on a piddling small and inappropriate vessel? Think of Hood or Enterprise being used on a harbor patrol cutter as an example of the idea. (Please don't let either happen)
@scottgiles7546 in a reverse of that, the aircraft carriers Midway and Coral Sea were first given to CVE's. The renamed CVEs were with the Taffies at Samar, one was the St. Lo and was lost to kamakazies.
What's with the turret layout on the planned G3 class battlecruisers and N3 class battleships? Why did they chose 2 front turrets and 1 middle turret as opposed to 2 in the front and 1 in the back, or some other layout?
Just to add a little bit more information... HMS Hood was indeed scuttled and lies between two breakwater arms at Portland Harbour. This was done by the Admiralty as they realised the harbour was susceptible to torpedo attack during times of conflict. You can still make out the upturned hull of HMS Hood from the air. Up until recent times you were allowed to dive down to the Hood, but this is no longer the case and due to its poor condition.
Sometimes at very low tide, you could see parts of the hull just beneath the water. (Half my family is from Weymouth and my Late Grandfather was a Logistical Officer at Portland)
Can confirm that the hood is no longer diveable by recreational divers - although the port authority still allow dive teams on the wreck every so often in order to survey two potential hotspots for subsea cable damage. Additionally, the Hood was mainly taken off the menu for divers primarily due to dive boats hanging around the low hanging power lines that overly the water next to the wreck. It is only in recent years (last 20) that the wrecksite has been deemed unstable. Its a cracking wreck though, even if she has been utterly gashed open by storms.
imagine yourself a seaman on a ship like the royal hood. you finish a hard day of holystoning the deck or painting the side with the strong smell of creosote in your nose, and suddenly you hear a faint yet learned flourish of trumpets and brass and then a learned 6-minute lecture about the entire class of ships you were serving on. "what be that voice in my head?" you would ask, yet all you could hear , once the lecture was completed, was the endless rising and falling of the waves....
They do look splendid - but why? Why not trunk the boilers into one larger funnel? The interior space used by trunking won't be that much, and the deck space would be welcome. Redundancy maybe? Or just cool?
@@Julius_Hardware Good question - maybe this was deemed to be sticking two fingers up to the enemy! If I'm not mistaken _Victoria_ and her sister ship were the first British battleships to feature side-by-side funnels so maybe there's a clue to be found there.
Boiler design was pretty basic, for one thing. And your boiler rooms tend to be spread out more to accommodate the necessary space for stokers, storing ready coal, collecting the ash, and breaking the larger lumps from the bunkers into smaller bits that burn more efficiently. For another, coal firing puts out a greater volume of exhaust than oil firing.
Its not a simple answer, if it was it wouldn't have been built. The reduced water plane are reduces the vessel Stability. The reduction in the amount of steel reduces the weight of steel at deck level and just below deck level increasing stability. The reduction in weight makes the vessel freeboard higher increasing stability
Love the fact that HMS Revenge was purposely listed over to increase the range of her guns. I’m sure I read somewhere that her guns were relined as well.
I always liked the Pre-Dreadnought designs in general and the Royal Sovereigns in particular because of their gilded steampunk appearence. HMS Revenge serving as a coast bombardment ship during WWI while the high seas were dominated by dreadnoughts and super-dreadnoughts is a fascinating anacronym.
The best birthday gift, a video from Drach. And one of my favorite class of ships. I really like the look of these, and hopefully one day I'll find a good scale model of her to build.
Just watched your appearance on History Undone. Awesome cowlick and congratulations on making it. A long way since the electronic voice and videos on the Ugg Log.
I'm sitting here, literally next to a book about Royal Sovereign...what are the odds... (Peter C Smith's, Battleships at War - HMS Royal Sovereign and her sister ships)
You should do a video on the french destroyer Aconit (flower class) from ww2 (and it's encounter with U-432 and HMS Harvester) My history teacher would tell me that the survivors from both sides would get together every few years for a reunion (his parents being family friends of one of the canadian survivors so got a lot of details growing up)
Not being too critical, I still think Drach doesn't like the poor pre-dreads very much. This class (not the Majestics which are an iteration) is literally the foundation of every battleship to come after, and deserves more attention. Also I might be wrong, but they are more based on the Admirals than the Trafalgar branch, the latter essentially are a much more conservative derivative of early Monitor design. Also I'd like more about the backstory, like the outcome of the vicious Reed-Barnaby affair and the design considerations leading from the Agamemnon/Victoria debacles to the Admirals (which were mostly crippled by extrinsic size restriction).
I really wish World of Warships covered these pre-dreadnoughts more thoroughly instead of focusing so heavily on WWII and 1950's ships so much. These early designs are really amazing and it would be neat to see them in more detail.
I tried to post a polite question about the flag flying from the foremast at 5:00, but Y**Tube decided to censor it so I'll keep it short and ask if anyone knows what variant of the ensign that is?
@@mikeholton3914 I'm wondering if it's the Japanese flag that's represented in the quadrant in question. The two navies had quite close ties in that era so perhaps it pertains to that? The dot is slightly on the small side, however.
Had the RN gone with single 16.5" guns, do you think it would have impacted future developments or would the superdreadnoughts always gone 13.5" then 15"?
You should copy your comment and put it under the Q&A pinned post. There's a much better chance Drach will see it there rather than here. I don't want your question to be missed.
How about the Roger B Tanney? From WW2. My father in law was the master gunnery Sgt. It was torpedoed by a German U boat while exiting the Panama canal.
Out of curiosity those battleships seems to be quite similar to the Italian battleship seen from an angle but shouldn't be surprising as it was a Dreadnought as well...
Dying from toxic fumes is worse. When they set up gun-houses for barbette mounted guns next turns (i.e. creating modern turret design), they had huge problems getting the fumes from the breech out. Not to mention, rain ain't your problem when the bow throws literally tons of water on you.
What happened to the armament of the Royal Sovereigns and similarly obsolete ships that were sent to be broken up? The British army sure could have used some of them repurposed into a land role from 1914 as the BEF had a very real shortage of long range artillery and heavy artillery.
They were just too big, even mounted on very heavy railway wagons, it would be difficult to move them with a restricted loading gauge. Perhaps they could be moved to coastal defence forts?
6 inch and lower guns are more mobile than the big guns. The army might have been able to use those. The US Marines used 5 inch guns taken from USS Texas in ww2.
Anything below the 9.2 inch should have been possible to convert to field mountings. For 9.2 inch and above railway artillery would have been the way to go. The French even successfully converted 12 and 13.5 inch naval weapons into super heavy howitzers by making a new larger bore calibre and shortening the barrel.
@@Vonstab From what I can tell, railway artillery was pretty much a waste of time and money except in very unusual circumstances. Even the 8 inch guns used on land were only occasionally useful (against unusually strong fortifications). This is why 6 inch guns (~155mm) tend to be the largest guns deployed to most military units on land. From naval history we know that the basic concept behind Dreadnaught (1906) was that you needed large salvos of coordinated fire for big guns to be accurate and hence useful for anything other than a terror weapon - and this was hard to achieve with railway guns. I'm going to argue that a terror weapon targeted against civilians is something no military has any business operating. The Germans in WW2 tried to use some of their big guns against the Remagen Bridge across the Rhine, and every single shot missed. A lot of steel and chemicals went into building and operating the big guns, and huge crews were required to operate them - all resources that could have been better used in other ways. Plus these weapons consumed logistics resources that could have been used to transport other resources. You have to move the guns, the shells, the lubricants, and everything else associated with firing the guns, and reline the guns so the logistics requirements are considerable - so even though they can be met by rail that's all rail capacity and loading/unloading time that could be better spent on something else. Yes, big railway guns were used in WW2 at Sevastopol and Anzio, but I'm not convinced they were a good use of resources in either case. I don't know of any use of land-based big guns in WW1 that was clearly justified and served a legitimate military role except the initial attacks on the forts in Belgium. Hence, for the most part these big guns were impressive engineering feats, but poorly chosen. Maybe putting big guns in the forts would have help defend those particular forts. Given the relatively poor performance of WW1/WW2 coastal defenses, I'd also argue that repurposing the weapons for coastal defense wasn't a great use of resources either. Even in Norway where the terrain favored the coastal defenses, they couldn't man all the defenses they had, from what I'm seeing as I read _The German Invasion of Norway, April 1940_ [Haarr, 2011] which means they spent too much on guns and not enough on manpower (and definitely not enough on pre-war planning/training).
Japanese pre-dreads were all British built and thus pretty much the same. French ones had significntly less displacement (12000-13000 vs. 15000 ts) so were also less capable. US ones - no idea...
Not really. This was an era of rapid innovation so ships became outdated very quickly, no matter who built them. Britain tended to be on the cutting edge, but that also meant they made the mistakes for other nations to learn from. But the British navy was huge compared to that of every other navy, and always had at least some of the most modern ships available.
@@jrd33 I had said probably yes due to the relative effectiveness of most fo the american predreadnaughts and the issued with a lot of the french ones (see Drachinifel's video on french predreadnaughts). For the usn predreadnaughts, ~half had issues between the issues with the pressure waves causing damage to the ship of the 2nd class battleships Maine & Texas, massive overweight issues with the Indiana class, the weird guns in the Kearsarge class, the poor fuel efficiency of the second USS Maine, the repeat of the weird guns with the Virginia class ( that where actually worse that the kearsarge in one way. Due to the faster rate of fire of the 12 inch guns, the 8 inch superfiring guns spend more time as dead weight.), and finally the very slow Mississippi class at the very dawn of the dreadnaught era.
Hey everyone!! Let’s get Drach to a million subs!! Like 👍, save to a playlist, comment and download for those who have Premium. The world needs more Drach! 🙏 🌊
It's still astounding to consider the amount of resources dedicated to construct a floating killing machine. Nation against nation competing to bankrupt each other? Sad and amusing at the same time? Go Navy 🇺🇲
![SahBabii - Viking [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/D37cL92JX0I/mqdefault.jpg)
Pinned post for Q&A :)
I seem to recall in a previous drydock you answered a question about how most/all ironclads had only either a turreted armament (like USS Monitor) or casemate guns (like CSA Virginia) because by the time anyone had thought about using both Harvey steel was right around the corner. However ever since the video on the false dawn of the ironclads I've been wondering, had the "false dawn" not been the stumbling block it was but the actual beginning of the Ironclad era, assuming that these advances don't lead to Harvey steel being invented earlier, would this result in us seeing more ironclads with both turrets/barbets and castmates?
Have you yet covered the most extreme cases of using a Historic and Grand ship name on a piddling small and inappropriate vessel? Think of Hood or Enterprise being used on a harbor patrol cutter as an example of the idea. (Please don't let either happen)
@scottgiles7546 in a reverse of that, the aircraft carriers Midway and Coral Sea were first given to CVE's. The renamed CVEs were with the Taffies at Samar, one was the St. Lo and was lost to kamakazies.
@scottgiles7546 IRT your actual question, every LCS in the USN named after a CA makes this writer sad. E.g. Houston, Indianapolis ...
What's with the turret layout on the planned G3 class battlecruisers and N3 class battleships? Why did they chose 2 front turrets and 1 middle turret as opposed to 2 in the front and 1 in the back, or some other layout?
Just to add a little bit more information... HMS Hood was indeed scuttled and lies between two breakwater arms at Portland Harbour. This was done by the Admiralty as they realised the harbour was susceptible to torpedo attack during times of conflict. You can still make out the upturned hull of HMS Hood from the air. Up until recent times you were allowed to dive down to the Hood, but this is no longer the case and due to its poor condition.
The older one right?
Sometimes at very low tide, you could see parts of the hull just beneath the water. (Half my family is from Weymouth and my Late Grandfather was a Logistical Officer at Portland)
Can confirm that the hood is no longer diveable by recreational divers - although the port authority still allow dive teams on the wreck every so often in order to survey two potential hotspots for subsea cable damage. Additionally, the Hood was mainly taken off the menu for divers primarily due to dive boats hanging around the low hanging power lines that overly the water next to the wreck. It is only in recent years (last 20) that the wrecksite has been deemed unstable.
Its a cracking wreck though, even if she has been utterly gashed open by storms.
@@shinjiikari1021 The newer one is a war grave so you can't actually go there, not that it stops some from going.
I've been craving more information on these detailed ship history videos for while too!
imagine yourself a seaman on a ship like the royal hood. you finish a hard day of holystoning the deck or painting the side with the strong smell of creosote in your nose, and suddenly you hear a faint yet learned flourish of trumpets and brass and then a learned 6-minute lecture about the entire class of ships you were serving on. "what be that voice in my head?" you would ask, yet all you could hear , once the lecture was completed, was the endless rising and falling of the waves....
Drach, I've been waiting for YEARS for you to get to this ship. It's always been iconic in my mind thanks to the books I read when I was younger.
YPPEEEEE
MORE PRE-DREADNOUGHTS
THAT MAKES ME SO HAPPY
The ship, the icon, the standard british pre-dreadnought stereotype! HMS Royal Sovereign!
The Majestic was the standard pre dreadnought type, not just for the UK but for everyone.
@F40PH-2CAT Oh.
I love those pre-Dreads with the funnels stacked side by side, Navarin notwithstanding that is.
They do look splendid - but why? Why not trunk the boilers into one larger funnel? The interior space used by trunking won't be that much, and the deck space would be welcome. Redundancy maybe? Or just cool?
@@Julius_Hardware Good question - maybe this was deemed to be sticking two fingers up to the enemy!
If I'm not mistaken _Victoria_ and her sister ship were the first British battleships to feature side-by-side funnels so maybe there's a clue to be found there.
@@Rdeboer they look like river boats with this abreast arrangement!
Maybe it'll mess with the gunners that are shooting at it 🤔
Boiler design was pretty basic, for one thing. And your boiler rooms tend to be spread out more to accommodate the necessary space for stokers, storing ready coal, collecting the ash, and breaking the larger lumps from the bunkers into smaller bits that burn more efficiently. For another, coal firing puts out a greater volume of exhaust than oil firing.
Tumblehome hulls, the stability feature that makes ships less stable! Brilliant
Its not a simple answer, if it was it wouldn't have been built. The reduced water plane are reduces the vessel Stability. The reduction in the amount of steel reduces the weight of steel at deck level and just below deck level increasing stability. The reduction in weight makes the vessel freeboard higher increasing stability
A horrorshow design perpetuated in the failed USN DD1000 Zumwalt design. They never seem to learn. 😮
@@lancerevell5979 Diddn't help that the bow shape for the Zumwalt is also questionable.
Love the fact that HMS Revenge was purposely listed over to increase the range of her guns. I’m sure I read somewhere that her guns were relined as well.
Yep - down from 13.5" to 12". I assume it was because there wouldn't have been any suitable ammo for her otherwise.
During D-day, the dreadnought USS Texas was similarly flooded to give her 14" guns greater range.
I always liked the Pre-Dreadnought designs in general and the Royal Sovereigns in particular because of their gilded steampunk appearence. HMS Revenge serving as a coast bombardment ship during WWI while the high seas were dominated by dreadnoughts and super-dreadnoughts is a fascinating anacronym.
My Great Grandfather served in HMS Hood (this one, not the 1920 one!).
The best birthday gift, a video from Drach.
And one of my favorite class of ships. I really like the look of these, and hopefully one day I'll find a good scale model of her to build.
Just watched your appearance on History Undone. Awesome cowlick and congratulations on making it. A long way since the electronic voice and videos on the Ugg Log.
Can never get over Side by side funnels on warships.
I'm sitting here, literally next to a book about Royal Sovereign...what are the odds... (Peter C Smith's, Battleships at War - HMS Royal Sovereign and her sister ships)
Nice more pre dreadnoughts!!!
@ 1:30, love the cut away illustrations
I love the fighting tops.
As a dutchman I'm always a bit jealous on the British navy. The dutch massively neglected their navy after the 17th century.
Almost looks like the HMS Thunderchild from jeff Wayne war of the worlds but i think that design is based on the canopus class battleship
my favourite era of ships
Thanks drach
And a B.R. class 87 a.c. electric locomotive from the 70's was named Royal Sovereign (87002).
You think the HMS Lord Nelson ever got a little nervous when the HMS Redoubtable was around?
You should do a video on the french destroyer Aconit (flower class) from ww2 (and it's encounter with U-432 and HMS Harvester) My history teacher would tell me that the survivors from both sides would get together every few years for a reunion (his parents being family friends of one of the canadian survivors so got a lot of details growing up)
Those line abreast rather than astern funnels are rather unusual looking
Not being too critical, I still think Drach doesn't like the poor pre-dreads very much. This class (not the Majestics which are an iteration) is literally the foundation of every battleship to come after, and deserves more attention. Also I might be wrong, but they are more based on the Admirals than the Trafalgar branch, the latter essentially are a much more conservative derivative of early Monitor design.
Also I'd like more about the backstory, like the outcome of the vicious Reed-Barnaby affair and the design considerations leading from the Agamemnon/Victoria debacles to the Admirals (which were mostly crippled by extrinsic size restriction).
Thank you.
Interesting ships.
Thanks!
I really wish World of Warships covered these pre-dreadnoughts more thoroughly instead of focusing so heavily on WWII and 1950's ships so much. These early designs are really amazing and it would be neat to see them in more detail.
I tried to post a polite question about the flag flying from the foremast at 5:00, but Y**Tube decided to censor it so I'll keep it short and ask if anyone knows what variant of the ensign that is?
curious myself, nice catch i missed it first time through
@@mikeholton3914 I'm wondering if it's the Japanese flag that's represented in the quadrant in question. The two navies had quite close ties in that era so perhaps it pertains to that?
The dot is slightly on the small side, however.
That is the vice-admiral´s flag. Two dots would have been rear-admiral, no dots full admial etc.
Either a Commodore or Voce Admiral flag, probably the latter, seems to have some personal armourial bottom right
@@Drachinifel Thanks Drach.
Had the RN gone with single 16.5" guns, do you think it would have impacted future developments or would the superdreadnoughts always gone 13.5" then 15"?
You should copy your comment and put it under the Q&A pinned post. There's a much better chance Drach will see it there rather than here. I don't want your question to be missed.
How about the Roger B Tanney? From WW2. My father in law was the master gunnery Sgt. It was torpedoed by a German U boat while exiting the Panama canal.
Oh the joys of being caught in a time of transition ...
.
5:09 Does anyone know what the building is to the far right of the scene at this time stamp?
4:02 we need more flags!!!!
Since naught is 0, the Dreadnaught would be Dread 0. So would that make pre-dreadnaught's negative numbers?
How many knots can a dreadnaught knot if a dreadnaught could naught dread? 😄
@@MarchHare59 Nice! I can actually say that fairly fast, and it should not be so.
Out of curiosity those battleships seems to be quite similar to the Italian battleship seen from an angle but shouldn't be surprising as it was a Dreadnought as well...
Every day we drift further from the light of the Two Power Standard.
Alas, that these days are ours.
Feeding the algorithm
The Royal Navy getting serious after half a century of playing around.
Cabriolet turret 😮
Not so good idea for raining weather ☁️
Dying from toxic fumes is worse. When they set up gun-houses for barbette mounted guns next turns (i.e. creating modern turret design), they had huge problems getting the fumes from the breech out.
Not to mention, rain ain't your problem when the bow throws literally tons of water on you.
4:51 - What protection is on the turrets? A tent. 🤭
Gotta keep the rain off. It's difficult to work the guns while holding an umbrella.
Revenge was struck by two 8' inch shells from German batteries whilst bombarding the Belgium coast.
64th, 14 December 2024
What happened to the armament of the Royal Sovereigns and similarly obsolete ships that were sent to be broken up? The British army sure could have used some of them repurposed into a land role from 1914 as the BEF had a very real shortage of long range artillery and heavy artillery.
They were just too big, even mounted on very heavy railway wagons, it would be difficult to move them with a restricted loading gauge. Perhaps they could be moved to coastal defence forts?
6 inch and lower guns are more mobile than the big guns. The army might have been able to use those. The US Marines used 5 inch guns taken from USS Texas in ww2.
Anything below the 9.2 inch should have been possible to convert to field mountings. For 9.2 inch and above railway artillery would have been the way to go. The French even successfully converted 12 and 13.5 inch naval weapons into super heavy howitzers by making a new larger bore calibre and shortening the barrel.
@@jacobdill4499the Marines at Midway had four 7" guns from the Connecticut class battleships for coastal defense if it came to that.
@@Vonstab From what I can tell, railway artillery was pretty much a waste of time and money except in very unusual circumstances.
Even the 8 inch guns used on land were only occasionally useful (against unusually strong fortifications). This is why 6 inch guns (~155mm) tend to be the largest guns deployed to most military units on land.
From naval history we know that the basic concept behind Dreadnaught (1906) was that you needed large salvos of coordinated fire for big guns to be accurate and hence useful for anything other than a terror weapon - and this was hard to achieve with railway guns. I'm going to argue that a terror weapon targeted against civilians is something no military has any business operating.
The Germans in WW2 tried to use some of their big guns against the Remagen Bridge across the Rhine, and every single shot missed.
A lot of steel and chemicals went into building and operating the big guns, and huge crews were required to operate them - all resources that could have been better used in other ways. Plus these weapons consumed logistics resources that could have been used to transport other resources. You have to move the guns, the shells, the lubricants, and everything else associated with firing the guns, and reline the guns so the logistics requirements are considerable - so even though they can be met by rail that's all rail capacity and loading/unloading time that could be better spent on something else.
Yes, big railway guns were used in WW2 at Sevastopol and Anzio, but I'm not convinced they were a good use of resources in either case. I don't know of any use of land-based big guns in WW1 that was clearly justified and served a legitimate military role except the initial attacks on the forts in Belgium. Hence, for the most part these big guns were impressive engineering feats, but poorly chosen. Maybe putting big guns in the forts would have help defend those particular forts.
Given the relatively poor performance of WW1/WW2 coastal defenses, I'd also argue that repurposing the weapons for coastal defense wasn't a great use of resources either. Even in Norway where the terrain favored the coastal defenses, they couldn't man all the defenses they had, from what I'm seeing as I read _The German Invasion of Norway, April 1940_ [Haarr, 2011] which means they spent too much on guns and not enough on manpower (and definitely not enough on pre-war planning/training).
Were British pre-dreadnaughts better than US, Japanese and French ones?
Probably yes.
Japanese pre-dreads were all British built and thus pretty much the same. French ones had significntly less displacement (12000-13000 vs. 15000 ts) so were also less capable. US ones - no idea...
Not really. This was an era of rapid innovation so ships became outdated very quickly, no matter who built them. Britain tended to be on the cutting edge, but that also meant they made the mistakes for other nations to learn from. But the British navy was huge compared to that of every other navy, and always had at least some of the most modern ships available.
@@jrd33 I had said probably yes due to the relative effectiveness of most fo the american predreadnaughts and the issued with a lot of the french ones (see Drachinifel's video on french predreadnaughts). For the usn predreadnaughts, ~half had issues between the issues with the pressure waves causing damage to the ship of the 2nd class battleships Maine & Texas, massive overweight issues with the Indiana class, the weird guns in the Kearsarge class, the poor fuel efficiency of the second USS Maine, the repeat of the weird guns with the Virginia class ( that where actually worse that the kearsarge in one way. Due to the faster rate of fire of the 12 inch guns, the 8 inch superfiring guns spend more time as dead weight.), and finally the very slow Mississippi class at the very dawn of the dreadnaught era.
Pre-Pre-Dreadnought
Ante-pre-Dreadnought?
Given twas mentioned in this episode, please may you do a guide about HMS Captain?
Drach has done that already.
@@YuriXEstelle Thank you, I have found it (guide 079)
Hey everyone!! Let’s get Drach to a million subs!! Like 👍, save to a playlist, comment and download for those who have Premium. The world needs more Drach! 🙏 🌊
Too bad 'Revenge' didn't survive to be a museum ship 😅
⚓️
It's still astounding to consider the amount of resources dedicated to construct a floating killing machine. Nation against nation competing to bankrupt each other? Sad and amusing at the same time? Go Navy 🇺🇲
I thought that was a type of coin?
And if you have enough coins, you can change them for a ship.
The British experience is that the Sovereigns often have problems with the Royals.
Hello!
yay!
🚢 ⚓️
How far they have fallen. Now they can’t fight any navy
Your videos always bring so much positivity and good mood. Thank you for your humorous talent and bright energy!💟🤘☝️
Drach: imagine you are Mr Adolf in 1940. How would you invade the Uk?
Carefully!
1st to post
1ST