I know that after WW2 alot of the freighters and tanker ships used by the allies were sold to private hands. Do you have any details on this and how long they where in service? (and if Former USS Chiwawa now MV Lee R Tregurtha has any compatriots still in service)?
Can we see a YouTUBE short of Drachinifel doing the Dr. Livesey Walk? Background, location, companions, and attire to your discretion. Smile for maximum effect 😁
When it comes to sinking ships, I've always enjoyed Drach's statement on using torpedos vs using guns- you sink ships by letting water in the bottom, not air in the top.
I’d argue this is another factor in why carriers ended up rendering battleships obsolete once end-1930s strike aircraft came along; battleship gunnery was historically incredibly inefficient at sinking stuff barring magazine detonations, as Tsushima proves. Torpedo bombers can cause more damage with fewer hits.
What you say is certainly true to a point but there is a need in battle at sea to disable your enemies ability to deliver damaging ordnance and those inconvenient contrivances are generally located on the top of the offending vessels.
@@rohanthandi4903 By the late war there weren't very many targets left that torpedoes were useful against. Besides, the big change in air groups during the war was mostly increased numbers of fighters and fighter-bombers to combat kamikazes and support ground forces with reduced numbers of both dive and torpedo bombers. USS Essex went from 32 VB, 35 VF, and 21 VT 1943 to 15 VB, 38 VF, 15 VT, and 36 VBF when the war ended. And if the US believed they were obsolete in 1943, when would they have them in use even after the war ended?
Also, for the record, HMHS Britannic, Titanic's sister ship, was completed using bulkheads all the way to the top. Ironically, it sank in less than an hour because the nurses on board had left the portholes open for ventilation.
Well, that's incredibly stupid. First they shouldn't have portholes that can be opened. And two, if the ship was sinking you'd think they'd have sense enough to close them. Cuz you don't get "ventilation" when water is flowing in.
On the question of sinking vs sunk, this reminded me of an incident our local chapter of Sea-Tow (marine rescue for hire) had with a customer. When the Sea-Tow boat arrived at the location, they declared the customer's boat "sunk" and wanted him to sign the salvage claim form. He, in turn, argued that since the top part was sticking out of the water, his boat was merely "run aground", and just needed the basic tow package.
Yeah, what was the dude trying to take his ship by doing that? Cuz that's what it sounds like. I guess you can't blame a guy for trying. Both of them, I mean. My Dad made the mistake of launching his boat with the plug not in & we had a half foot of water in the boat when we went to get in it. He put the plug in. Went & got the trailer & pulled it back out of the water, pulled the plug & it took about 5 minutes to drain it. Then, almost launched it AGAIN without the plug. I said "Dad, shouldn't we put the plug back in first?" He was so upset! It took him a while to calm down from it. I loved my Dad but he wasn't the brightest sometimes! He chopped his own wrist trying to split kindling when we were going to camp. Ruined that camping trip!
A few more points on the question about bow-mounted propellers. The propwash is an energized stream of water intended to push the ship in the opposite direction. If the prop is at the front, the propwash flows over the bottom of the hull, "giving back" some of the thrust as drag, so you lose efficiency and speed. Propellers in the stern also provide propwash over the rudders, giving better control at slow speeds.
I doubt the sailors will consider the new Arizona unlucky. Rather than considering it unlucky to give a new ship a particular name because a previous holder met a bad end, I think we Americans view it as honoring the memory of the fallen ship to bestow its name on a new one. Just look at CV-10 Yorktown, CV-12 Hornet, CV-16 Lexington, and CV-18 Wasp. All of those ships (among others) were renamed pre-commissioning in honor of their very-recently sunken predecessors.
The expansion joints are from the main deck up, and are to keep the flex of the of the hull from destroying the more lightly built upper works. Fletcher Class destroyers did not have expansion joints as such, but they had two gaps in the deck house that were connected by catwalks that had an overlapping plat that would move as the hull flexed. In a heavy swell. Standing at the stern looking forward it was easy to see the hull twist and flex, the long narrow hull of the Fletcher's was almost like a floppy fishing pole. On the other hand the Knox Class DE/FF had a hull that was on deck higher than the Fletcher's giving it greater stiffer. The O-1 Level was full length about 2/3 of the ships length, and had a expansion joint at the boat decks where there was a gap in the O-2 level. Holding a tape measure at the top of the joint while running head on to a heavy swell I was able to observe about half an inch of motion as the ship went from crest to trough. The joint was sealed with a rubber accordion fold, that on the O-1 level was covered by a hinged metal flap. Sweeping out the joint was a daily requirement to make sure there wasn't anything that could block it's motion. I submit that a more accurate term would be, "flex joint" since it deals mainly with the flex of the hull, and having little to do with thermal expansion. As I am getting older keeping joints flexible is a Daily-1 on the PMS schedule!
As always, thanks for the great content. Regarding "sinking", It could depend on water depth. In deep water, its obvious. In shallow water, a ship that settles on the bottom with some hull still visible at high tide may be considered "aground" until determined too damaged to salvage. If it was also capsized then maybe "wrecked" is the best term. Which is what happens to power boaters who foolishly drink too much ;)
My personal definition of "sunk" for a surface vessel would be either: 1) The ship is completely underwater. 2) Settled on the bottom with the main deck under water.
2:00 How did the maximum effective engagement range change over time? the question reminds me of "The Battle of Medina Ridge" (1991) and how the weather visibility drastically affected targeting range for some engagements, while in other areas of the front, the allies were able to sit on a ridge and pick off t-72s from outside the range of the Iraqi forces. Fog and sand storms can have a drastic limiting factor on identifying what it is on your radar screen if the sea state also isn't horrendous making the radar equally as limiting.
When it comes to the question about the Scharnhorst's belt thickness, I do think there's an additional argument for the 350mm value: During the design phase of the Bismarck class, engineers understood pretty quickly that armor protection would have to be reduced in some areas to keep the displacement from ballooning too much - mostly due to draft considerations, since the ships would have to use the existing German coastal infrastructure, and dredging the canals was apparently impractical or not deemed worthwile. Something that comes up somewhat frequently is the demand of Raeder for a 350mm belt, while engineers made studies which featured a reduction in belt thickness down to 290mm and even further to 260mm when it was decided to use the 380mm guns instead of the 350mm guns envisioned earlier. Given that the Scharnhorst's hull was quite a bit smaller than the Bismarck's, draft considerations would not have been as severe and Raeder would probably have prevailed in his demand for a very heavy belt. Also, the original drafts for a 350mm gunned Bismarck also have the 350mm belt, which would fit in nicely with a 350mm belt on the Scharnhorst-class. But overall, I do think that the effective difference in protection would have been not too spectacular. A 320mm belt backed by a 110mm turtleback was calculated by German engineers to be as effective as a 500mm belt, so penetrations through the side protection were certainly not the biggest issue. The decision for a 300mm belt on the H-class coupled with a major increase in deck protection clearly shows that German engineers understood their ship's vulnerability to plunging fire and made considerable efforts to rectify this issue.
@@baalzeebub4230 Once upon a time we had computers that didn't have keyboards. They had sticks that you held in your hand to change sites. Some of these sites had rewarding programs about history. They had names like The Discovery Channel or History Channel. Then the internet happened and they all switched to Ice Road Trucking. -_-
Glad that so far no one (Turks or otherwise) is trying to prevent Drach from using the Drydock theme music. I love that music!! Very 1920s Paul Whiteman-ish...
A hilarious part about the Yamato vs. Iowa matchup is that both ships are designed to fight at ranges they literally can’t fight at, because it turned out no WWII-era fire control system could reliably land hits at 30,000+ yards (even if you bring radar into play). They’d have to be slugging things out at 25,000+ yards.
I recently toured Nao Trinidad, which is a replica of Magellan's flagship, according to the company that runs it in St Pete Florida. It was good experience.
Along with the Arizona, they are planning to name a sub the Oklahoma as well, and as far as I can remember, vets who served on both those ships endorse it
The maneuver counter for long range gunfire is only practical for a couple of ships. If you have a large formation maneuvering can break up your formation or even cause collisions as ships maneuver all over the place. That is the reason that both US and Japanese Navies developed a doctrine for starting engagements at very long ranges. They assumed a duel of battlelines that can't maneuver independently.
22:50 I have never heard of that but it was still LONG after the very first submarine the USS Turtle the Very First Submarine made and in service during the American Revolutionary War
The questiong regarding 12 guns on the vangaurd got me really hyped for a interesting discussion of potential different layouts for the ship... all the way up until the question focussed on 6 twin turrets. Biggest tease and letdown of the century.
@@MrTScolaro Reuben James was sunk before we were at war. Jacob Jones was sunk in February 1942. My dad (USNA'42) had graduated in December 41, and his roommate was assigned to the Jones. No officers survived the sinking.
@@mikemullen5563 Well, certainly the Reuben James was sunk in WWII while on a war patrol (convoy escort), and to discount that is a disservice to her crew (on Memorial Day no less), she purposely put herself between an ammunition ship and know location of a wolf pack . But even if you ignore that sinking, Jacob Jones was still clearly not the first US DD sunk in WWII. Truxton, Peary and Stewart were all sunk before the Jacob Jones. Jacob Jones was not even the first US DD sunk in the European Theater (ETO) after the declaration of war, however, she was the first sunk in the ETO by enemy action.
@@MrTScolaro I'll grant you Peary. sunk a week before Jones. But Truxton ran aground, and Stewart was captured in drydock, and recommissioned into the Japanese navy. Lost, yes, but not sunk. Can I say the Jones was the first US DD sunk in the Atlantic while the us was officially at war?
Narcis Monturiol submarine looks like the Danish submarine (built, not tested) in the 1632 series "1634 The Baltic War" by David Weber. I guess David Weber had done really good research...
Gutting the superstructure rangefinders will render a ship somewhat combat innefective so some well timed airbursts from relitively small guns might work on Yamamoto.
I believe the hull of Titanic II has essentially been abandoned in a Chinese drydock. The picture I saw shows no upper works completed and no work going on. When Leo is asked how Titanics steerage is He says "Better Rats".
I think that Titanic II was all smoke and mirrors. in 2020 I had some engagement with the organisation that was mooting construction of the Titanic II. they had a set of hull plans and cross-sections on display, and it appeared that the proposed Titanic II was intended to include such features as coal bunkers, and combustion air ducts and ash hoppers. it seemed that the original Harland and Wolff design blueprints had simply been changed from "Titanic I" to "Titanic II", so I am not sure if there was any intention to actually build the "Titanic II". Apart from the Embley River Class Bauxite carriers (auto coal feeders, chain-gate grate boilers, Mitsubishi steam turbine drives etc), that transport bauxite from Wiepa (on the Embley River,) to Gladstone, in Northern Australia, I am not aware of any coaled fired vessels being constructed in the last thirty years?
@@thatsme9875 Large vessels switched to oil over 100 years ago. I had some contact with the "owners" of SS United States. They are full of BS up to their eyeballs. Its a dream world.
I’ve noticed recently that the bigger a ship gets, the less practical it seems to become (Two R-class could probably beat a Yamato, and be in two separate locations at once, while being half the displacement) I wonder when the cutoff point is for diminishing returns? I’d say personally say 35-45,000 tons, Iowa and Bismarck don’t really seem to be too much of an improvement for all that displacement, much less Yamato I also wonder if it’s worth having Richelieu and Littorios as they also only offer a slight improvement (better than the jump from 45,00-55,000, but still) I’m curious if overall it’s just better having easier to build, more practical designs, and numbers, (Dunkerque, King George V, Hood, Scharnhorst, Richelieu, Littorio, North Carolina/South Dakota all seem rather fine, latter three are, eh) Compared to having Iowa, Montana, Alsace, Unnamed Littorio successor, H-39-44, Yamato (and every design variant) Although I feel like crew might be an issues, and money (well, only if you’re the Axis), but still, I wonder if the benefits outweigh the costs If it were up to me, I’d say Littorio, Richelieu and North Carolina/South Dakota are the cutoff point, maybe Alsace, maybe Bismarck’s just overweight, and the worst offender for basically being a Richelieu but heavier (Yamato would be too, but she’s pretty much used lots of her weight already, and shrinking her down into a previous design is just...)
I’d suggest that it’s generally an axiom of conflict that military systems tend to be built as more efficiently constructed platforms for the previous war.
I really don’t think two Rclass, even of they were at 100% fighting condition (not the malnourished wagon-oxen they actually were in 1940), could defeat a Yamato. Those 15” guns were good but unable to penetrate either belt at lower ranges or deck at longer.
@@ThatZenoGuy fair enough, Although I’d still choose two Yamato’s over a H-44, I feel like a cutoff point is at around 26,000-33,000 tons? I guess two Nelsons/KGVs for a Yamato? It’s a much more noticeable thing when you use the fictional Füher (H-45, 700,000 tons, Gustav sized main guns) At some point, it’s just not reasonable to build ships like that
Next time you come back to America, do you have plans to check out the Civil War replica monitor CSS Nuese, the recovered the ship from the river and and have it on display and built a exact replica of the ship
Shells that guide themselves to the Target? M982 Excalibur round built to a 16 inch battleship round size sounds rather scary and intriguing at the same time. Plus the multi purpose shell technology could also be fitted into such a large shell. Giving the ability for burst, impact and delay fusing with self guiding all in one projectile.
MJ Whitney certainly agreed, It's not uncommon for secondary sources to disagree, it quite unusual for one to explicitly the state the figure quoted in other works in wrong. the GKDos 100 for the class has 320 mm in the diagrams to show it's immune zone too.
there are still swedish and finnish icebreakers that use pulling propellers at the bow of the ship. they are only meant to be use for fresh ice and not multi year ice
1:17:29 - _Almirante Latorre,_ ex _Canada,_ ex _Almirante Latorre,_ used the Elswick 14", not the Vickers 14" (as used on the Japanese 14" ships). 1:32:10 - "a little-known collision between a Royal Mail Steamship and an iceberg many years ago" 🤣
Nice to know that January 6th was an easy calculation for a naval barrage to miss most of the buildings and stick to that mile stretch of the lawn were they were all at. What is best for lawn and roads? H.E. or incendiary?
Might not be your thing .. but just saw the uncharted movie and they like slam an old wooden pirate ship up and down... wondering if you thought that would be realistic... they did bud them to make it across the ocean ... but I'm not sure if they're that tough
Sadly the popular understanding of the Bismarck's voyage is understood from the film Sink the Bismarck where they for dramatic purposes play the "uber National Socialism" as the driver of the German strategy, which as you explain was not the case.
If I am ever on a ship in the condition of that in the video at around 1:58 or so, and the Captain still believes we can remedy the situation........lol Not too sure sir. The British "serious vs. desperate" mental attitude. 🙂
the reference to "listening" to the Ancient Mariner (a poem by S T Coleridge and therefore from the early 19th century. ie before recording was a thing) does not bode well for the future of the printed word. just an observation. not a criticism. poetry was originally a spoken word medium. and still is.
Engineers. Ten minutes and way too much information to explain that underweight ships ride high making them top heavy. Add waves and watch ship capsize. Only an engineer needs to do the main to explain that ships shouldn't act like a Weeble. 😇
Pinned post for Q&A :)
I know that after WW2 alot of the freighters and tanker ships used by the allies were sold to private hands. Do you have any details on this and how long they where in service? (and if Former USS Chiwawa now MV Lee R Tregurtha has any compatriots still in service)?
Drydock meta question: what are your favorite usernames of people who ask questions for Drydocks?
hey Drachinifel what are your thoughts on the HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse are being illegally salvaged
Can we see a YouTUBE short of Drachinifel doing the Dr. Livesey Walk?
Background, location, companions, and attire to your discretion.
Smile for maximum effect 😁
What do you think was the cause of the second explosion on the RMS Lusitania? What do you consider the best book about the loss of the RMS Lusitania?
When it comes to sinking ships, I've always enjoyed Drach's statement on using torpedos vs using guns- you sink ships by letting water in the bottom, not air in the top.
I’d argue this is another factor in why carriers ended up rendering battleships obsolete once end-1930s strike aircraft came along; battleship gunnery was historically incredibly inefficient at sinking stuff barring magazine detonations, as Tsushima proves. Torpedo bombers can cause more damage with fewer hits.
What you say is certainly true to a point but there is a need in battle at sea to disable your enemies ability to deliver damaging ordnance and those inconvenient contrivances are generally located on the top of the offending vessels.
Totally agree.🙂
And you would not believe the size of the internet hordes that shout "mission kill" when you point this to them.
Regards
@@rohanthandi4903 it didn't take long for the horde to arrive 😁
@@rohanthandi4903 By the late war there weren't very many targets left that torpedoes were useful against.
Besides, the big change in air groups during the war was mostly increased numbers of fighters and fighter-bombers to combat kamikazes and support ground forces with reduced numbers of both dive and torpedo bombers.
USS Essex went from 32 VB, 35 VF, and 21 VT 1943 to 15 VB, 38 VF, 15 VT, and 36 VBF when the war ended.
And if the US believed they were obsolete in 1943, when would they have them in use even after the war ended?
Also, for the record, HMHS Britannic, Titanic's sister ship, was completed using bulkheads all the way to the top.
Ironically, it sank in less than an hour because the nurses on board had left the portholes open for ventilation.
Well, that's incredibly stupid. First they shouldn't have portholes that can be opened. And two, if the ship was sinking you'd think they'd have sense enough to close them. Cuz you don't get "ventilation" when water is flowing in.
On the question of sinking vs sunk, this reminded me of an incident our local chapter of Sea-Tow (marine rescue for hire) had with a customer. When the Sea-Tow boat arrived at the location, they declared the customer's boat "sunk" and wanted him to sign the salvage claim form. He, in turn, argued that since the top part was sticking out of the water, his boat was merely "run aground", and just needed the basic tow package.
I love the marine law trials where they nitpick things like this. 😁
Yeah, what was the dude trying to take his ship by doing that? Cuz that's what it sounds like. I guess you can't blame a guy for trying. Both of them, I mean.
My Dad made the mistake of launching his boat with the plug not in & we had a half foot of water in the boat when we went to get in it. He put the plug in. Went & got the trailer & pulled it back out of the water, pulled the plug & it took about 5 minutes to drain it. Then, almost launched it AGAIN without the plug. I said "Dad, shouldn't we put the plug back in first?" He was so upset! It took him a while to calm down from it. I loved my Dad but he wasn't the brightest sometimes! He chopped his own wrist trying to split kindling when we were going to camp. Ruined that camping trip!
A few more points on the question about bow-mounted propellers. The propwash is an energized stream of water intended to push the ship in the opposite direction. If the prop is at the front, the propwash flows over the bottom of the hull, "giving back" some of the thrust as drag, so you lose efficiency and speed. Propellers in the stern also provide propwash over the rudders, giving better control at slow speeds.
I doubt the sailors will consider the new Arizona unlucky. Rather than considering it unlucky to give a new ship a particular name because a previous holder met a bad end, I think we Americans view it as honoring the memory of the fallen ship to bestow its name on a new one. Just look at CV-10 Yorktown, CV-12 Hornet, CV-16 Lexington, and CV-18 Wasp. All of those ships (among others) were renamed pre-commissioning in honor of their very-recently sunken predecessors.
Was just checking if someone already pointed this out
On a smaller scale, USS _Chicago_ (CA-29) was sunk at Rennell Island in 1943, and USS _Chicago_ (CA-136) was commissioned in 1945.
Yep. USN vet here. look at the Yorktown CV5 sank and they renamed the hull of CV10 in her honor very soon after she went to Davy Jones locker.
The expansion joints are from the main deck up, and are to keep the flex of the of the hull from destroying the more lightly built upper works. Fletcher Class destroyers did not have expansion joints as such, but they had two gaps in the deck house that were connected by catwalks that had an overlapping plat that would move as the hull flexed. In a heavy swell. Standing at the stern looking forward it was easy to see the hull twist and flex, the long narrow hull of the Fletcher's was almost like a floppy fishing pole. On the other hand the Knox Class DE/FF had a hull that was on deck higher than the Fletcher's giving it greater stiffer. The O-1 Level was full length about 2/3 of the ships length, and had a expansion joint at the boat decks where there was a gap in the O-2 level. Holding a tape measure at the top of the joint while running head on to a heavy swell I was able to observe about half an inch of motion as the ship went from crest to trough. The joint was sealed with a rubber accordion fold, that on the O-1 level was covered by a hinged metal flap. Sweeping out the joint was a daily requirement to make sure there wasn't anything that could block it's motion. I submit that a more accurate term would be, "flex joint" since it deals mainly with the flex of the hull, and having little to do with thermal expansion.
As I am getting older keeping joints flexible is a Daily-1 on the PMS schedule!
As always, thanks for the great content. Regarding "sinking", It could depend on water depth. In deep water, its obvious. In shallow water, a ship that settles on the bottom with some hull still visible at high tide may be considered "aground" until determined too damaged to salvage. If it was also capsized then maybe "wrecked" is the best term. Which is what happens to power boaters who foolishly drink too much ;)
I've read that the Royal Navy refused to acknowledge that Tirpitz had been "sunk" by the RAF, as the bottom was still above water.
My personal definition of "sunk" for a surface vessel would be either:
1) The ship is completely underwater.
2) Settled on the bottom with the main deck under water.
"Sinking? Hell! We just have buoyancy in a different direction!"
Sinking: my feet are getting increasingly wet.
Sunk: I’m swimming
2:00 How did the maximum effective engagement range change over time? the question reminds me of "The Battle of Medina Ridge" (1991) and how the weather visibility drastically affected targeting range for some engagements, while in other areas of the front, the allies were able to sit on a ridge and pick off t-72s from outside the range of the Iraqi forces. Fog and sand storms can have a drastic limiting factor on identifying what it is on your radar screen if the sea state also isn't horrendous making the radar equally as limiting.
Reminder CV-10 (Yorktown) was named after CV-5 mere months after its sinking.
There is also a US cruiser names after a horrendous loss in Korea.
that Spanish sub was absolutely brilliant. But did no one at the time think that it would have made an absolutely brilliant research vessel.
When it comes to the question about the Scharnhorst's belt thickness, I do think there's an additional argument for the 350mm value:
During the design phase of the Bismarck class, engineers understood pretty quickly that armor protection would have to be reduced in some areas to keep the displacement from ballooning too much - mostly due to draft considerations, since the ships would have to use the existing German coastal infrastructure, and dredging the canals was apparently impractical or not deemed worthwile. Something that comes up somewhat frequently is the demand of Raeder for a 350mm belt, while engineers made studies which featured a reduction in belt thickness down to 290mm and even further to 260mm when it was decided to use the 380mm guns instead of the 350mm guns envisioned earlier.
Given that the Scharnhorst's hull was quite a bit smaller than the Bismarck's, draft considerations would not have been as severe and Raeder would probably have prevailed in his demand for a very heavy belt. Also, the original drafts for a 350mm gunned Bismarck also have the 350mm belt, which would fit in nicely with a 350mm belt on the Scharnhorst-class.
But overall, I do think that the effective difference in protection would have been not too spectacular. A 320mm belt backed by a 110mm turtleback was calculated by German engineers to be as effective as a 500mm belt, so penetrations through the side protection were certainly not the biggest issue. The decision for a 300mm belt on the H-class coupled with a major increase in deck protection clearly shows that German engineers understood their ship's vulnerability to plunging fire and made considerable efforts to rectify this issue.
On the kilt question: Worth noting ladders are much, much more common in the Navy compared to the Army.
No kilts allowed at the Crow's nest, please. 😆😁😆
Drachism of the day " if your spread is Italian"
Ironically, the Italian dispersion issue thing is mostly a fabrication by Iachiano.
If television was still around I can imagine the History Channel (90s edition) having a Drachinifel marathon on Memorial day in the U.S.
No, they'd remake his stuff to entirely feature 'Murican ships and they'd redub it with an All American accent.
@@Dave_Sisson Nowadays they'd need more UFOs and ghost-botherers.
What is television? Some primitive early attempt at RUclips?
@@baalzeebub4230 Once upon a time we had computers that didn't have keyboards. They had sticks that you held in your hand to change sites. Some of these sites had rewarding programs about history. They had names like The Discovery Channel or History Channel. Then the internet happened and they all switched to Ice Road Trucking. -_-
Glad that so far no one (Turks or otherwise) is trying to prevent Drach from using the Drydock theme music. I love that music!! Very 1920s Paul Whiteman-ish...
4:00 the naval interpretation of “reach exceeding grasp.”
A hilarious part about the Yamato vs. Iowa matchup is that both ships are designed to fight at ranges they literally can’t fight at, because it turned out no WWII-era fire control system could reliably land hits at 30,000+ yards (even if you bring radar into play). They’d have to be slugging things out at 25,000+ yards.
"The Blücher..."
*nervous whinnying intensifies*
I recently toured Nao Trinidad, which is a replica of Magellan's flagship, according to the company that runs it in St Pete Florida. It was good experience.
Along with the Arizona, they are planning to name a sub the Oklahoma as well, and as far as I can remember, vets who served on both those ships endorse it
Now I know if I go back in time, never board a boat with Kantora Shimoda…
The maneuver counter for long range gunfire is only practical for a couple of ships. If you have a large formation maneuvering can break up your formation or even cause collisions as ships maneuver all over the place. That is the reason that both US and Japanese Navies developed a doctrine for starting engagements at very long ranges. They assumed a duel of battlelines that can't maneuver independently.
Where can one find the Australia trip itinerary? Shipshape does not have dates or times just a general guide. I need to put in for a day off at work.
I'll be updating my website in the next 48 hours
A wild Japanese Torpedo CRUISER appears!
Komchatka: Faints
Best Definition I have ever heard - A boat can be carried by a ship
The Jauréguiberry of the French navy would make an interesting 'lazurus'/rebuild for a cruise ship. Lots of nice windows.
22:50 I have never heard of that but it was still LONG after the very first submarine the USS Turtle the Very First Submarine made and in service during the American Revolutionary War
I guess "Arizona" hasn't reached metaphor status like Hindenburg or Titanic. Which is appreciated since I live in Arizona.
When Arizona goes it’s not gonna be death by water. It’s gonna be cause y’all cook to death…😁
@@grahamstrouse1165 If something happens out at Palo Verde Nuclear Plant it could resemble a magazine explosion!
The questiong regarding 12 guns on the vangaurd got me really hyped for a interesting discussion of potential different layouts for the ship... all the way up until the question focussed on 6 twin turrets. Biggest tease and letdown of the century.
Reusing ship names: I understand he DD Jacob Jones was the first US destroyer sunk in both world wars. DD61 in WWI and DD130 in WWII.
Might as well call it the Davey Jones I guess.
You are confusing USS Jacob Jones (first sunk in WWI) with the USS Reuben James (first sunk in WWII).
@@MrTScolaro Reuben James was sunk before we were at war. Jacob Jones was sunk in February 1942. My dad (USNA'42) had graduated in December 41, and his roommate was assigned to the Jones. No officers survived the sinking.
@@mikemullen5563 Well, certainly the Reuben James was sunk in WWII while on a war patrol (convoy escort), and to discount that is a disservice to her crew (on Memorial Day no less), she purposely put herself between an ammunition ship and know location of a wolf pack . But even if you ignore that sinking, Jacob Jones was still clearly not the first US DD sunk in WWII. Truxton, Peary and Stewart were all sunk before the Jacob Jones. Jacob Jones was not even the first US DD sunk in the European Theater (ETO) after the declaration of war, however, she was the first sunk in the ETO by enemy action.
@@MrTScolaro I'll grant you Peary. sunk a week before Jones. But Truxton ran aground, and Stewart was captured in drydock, and recommissioned into the Japanese navy. Lost, yes, but not sunk. Can I say the Jones was the first US DD sunk in the Atlantic while the us was officially at war?
Narcis Monturiol submarine looks like the Danish submarine (built, not tested) in the 1632 series "1634 The Baltic War" by David Weber. I guess David Weber had done really good research...
Gutting the superstructure rangefinders will render a ship somewhat combat innefective so some well timed airbursts from relitively small guns might work on Yamamoto.
I believe the hull of Titanic II has essentially been abandoned in a Chinese drydock. The picture I saw shows no upper works completed and no work going on. When Leo is asked how Titanics steerage is He says "Better Rats".
I think that Titanic II was all smoke and mirrors.
in 2020 I had some engagement with the organisation that was mooting construction of the Titanic II.
they had a set of hull plans and cross-sections on display, and it appeared that the proposed Titanic II was intended to include such features as coal bunkers, and combustion air ducts and ash hoppers.
it seemed that the original Harland and Wolff design blueprints had simply been changed from "Titanic I" to "Titanic II", so I am not sure if there was any intention to actually build the "Titanic II".
Apart from the Embley River Class Bauxite carriers (auto coal feeders, chain-gate grate boilers, Mitsubishi steam turbine drives etc), that transport bauxite from Wiepa (on the Embley River,) to Gladstone, in Northern Australia, I am not aware of any coaled fired vessels being constructed in the last thirty years?
@@thatsme9875 Large vessels switched to oil over 100 years ago. I had some contact with the "owners" of SS United States. They are full of BS up to their eyeballs. Its a dream world.
Note on lite ships, CSS Virginia when launched was 2 foot too shallow and the 2 inch thick under eves was exposed so they had to add ballast
I’ve noticed recently that the bigger a ship gets, the less practical it seems to become
(Two R-class could probably beat a Yamato, and be in two separate locations at once, while being half the displacement)
I wonder when the cutoff point is for diminishing returns?
I’d say personally say 35-45,000 tons,
Iowa and Bismarck don’t really seem to be too much of an improvement for all that displacement, much less Yamato
I also wonder if it’s worth having Richelieu and Littorios as they also only offer a slight improvement (better than the jump from 45,00-55,000, but still)
I’m curious if overall it’s just better having easier to build, more practical designs, and numbers, (Dunkerque, King George V, Hood, Scharnhorst, Richelieu, Littorio, North Carolina/South Dakota all seem rather fine, latter three are, eh)
Compared to having Iowa, Montana, Alsace, Unnamed Littorio successor, H-39-44, Yamato (and every design variant)
Although I feel like crew might be an issues, and money (well, only if you’re the Axis), but still, I wonder if the benefits outweigh the costs
If it were up to me, I’d say Littorio, Richelieu and North Carolina/South Dakota are the cutoff point, maybe Alsace, maybe
Bismarck’s just overweight, and the worst offender for basically being a Richelieu but heavier
(Yamato would be too, but she’s pretty much used lots of her weight already, and shrinking her down into a previous design is just...)
You ironically have it backwards, ships become proportionally more efficient the larger they get. Square cube law.
Littorio successor might be Marco Polo?
I’d suggest that it’s generally an axiom of conflict that military systems tend to be built as more efficiently constructed platforms for the previous war.
I really don’t think two Rclass, even of they were at 100% fighting condition (not the malnourished wagon-oxen they actually were in 1940), could defeat a Yamato. Those 15” guns were good but unable to penetrate either belt at lower ranges or deck at longer.
@@ThatZenoGuy fair enough,
Although I’d still choose two Yamato’s over a H-44,
I feel like a cutoff point is at around 26,000-33,000 tons? I guess two Nelsons/KGVs for a Yamato?
It’s a much more noticeable thing when you use the fictional Füher (H-45, 700,000 tons, Gustav sized main guns)
At some point, it’s just not reasonable to build ships like that
Generally speaking, you can put a boat on a ship, not the other way around. Heavy lift an exception
The "lean of the turning ship" answer: Why not just say, "centrifugal force"? Works for me.
@@jackgee3200 Jack, my comment merely referred to centrifugal force. Been there done that.
Next time you come back to America, do you have plans to check out the Civil War replica monitor CSS Nuese, the recovered the ship from the river and and have it on display and built a exact replica of the ship
thanks Drach!
Shells that guide themselves to the Target? M982 Excalibur round built to a 16 inch battleship round size sounds rather scary and intriguing at the same time. Plus the multi purpose shell technology could also be fitted into such a large shell. Giving the ability for burst, impact and delay fusing with self guiding all in one projectile.
12:00
The first couple of US Treaty Heavy cruiser classes hit the water way lighter than intended.
Scharnhorst's belt was 320 mm. Her armour belt arrangement is digitized on invenio.
MJ Whitney certainly agreed, It's not uncommon for secondary sources to disagree, it quite unusual for one to explicitly the state the figure quoted in other works in wrong. the GKDos 100 for the class has 320 mm in the diagrams to show it's immune zone too.
The wake can be useful if the following ship is on fire! See USS Smith at the Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands.
there are still swedish and finnish icebreakers that use pulling propellers at the bow of the ship. they are only meant to be use for fresh ice and not multi year ice
Suffolk's report after Denmark Strait suggests that Bismarck opened with 30 seconds to a minute of Hood.
Asking the "replica" question of a guy who replicates armored knights was kind of amusing.
That Unryu looks a LOT like Hiryu
For what it's worth, modern nuclear subs lean INTO turns when submerged.
42:47 The novelty would wear off pretty quickly.
1:17:29 - _Almirante Latorre,_ ex _Canada,_ ex _Almirante Latorre,_ used the Elswick 14", not the Vickers 14" (as used on the Japanese 14" ships).
1:32:10 - "a little-known collision between a Royal Mail Steamship and an iceberg many years ago" 🤣
I feel like the titanic thing is more of a Larp experience
How would have operation Rheinübung have gone if the Prince of Wales and Prinz Eugen were replaced with H-44 and Montana.
Re: Titanic bulkheads: Weren't her sisters' bulkheads extended to the decks above and sealed after the accident?
HMAS Sydney was lost with all hands during WW2.
Nice to know that January 6th was an easy calculation for a naval barrage to miss most of the buildings and stick to that mile stretch of the lawn were they were all at.
What is best for lawn and roads? H.E. or incendiary?
RAP Excalibur... adjust via GPS
Might not be your thing .. but just saw the uncharted movie and they like slam an old wooden pirate ship up and down... wondering if you thought that would be realistic... they did bud them to make it across the ocean ... but I'm not sure if they're that tough
Sadly the popular understanding of the Bismarck's voyage is understood from the film Sink the Bismarck where they for dramatic purposes play the "uber National Socialism" as the driver of the German strategy, which as you explain was not the case.
If I am ever on a ship in the condition of that in the video at around 1:58 or so, and the Captain still believes we can remedy the situation........lol Not too sure sir. The British "serious vs. desperate" mental attitude. 🙂
the reference to "listening" to the Ancient Mariner (a poem by S T Coleridge and therefore from the early 19th century. ie before recording was a thing) does not bode well for the future of the printed word.
just an observation. not a criticism.
poetry was originally a spoken word medium.
and still is.
and as a sidenote. this is the 1st time I have gotten through a *whole* patreon drydock in the week in which it was released. yay me.
"Effective" = ? as much as 10%?
Swear I heard a baby coo at 1:28:09 🤫🕴️
Oh of all the moronic things. The whatever is "floating to the bottom/down". NO. It's sinking!
166th, 6 June 2023
Engineers. Ten minutes and way too much information to explain that underweight ships ride high making them top heavy. Add waves and watch ship capsize.
Only an engineer needs to do the main to explain that ships shouldn't act like a Weeble.
😇