Marine Ecologist here. When looking at the body plan of many of those fast fish, especially things like the Marlins and Swordfish, IGNORE THE SPIKE. They are NOT, I repeat NOT part of the animals hydrodynamics. If you remove the 'sword' of a swordfish for example and take a look at the cross section of the animal without the 'beakiness', you will notice its a more or less oval shaped. The entire cross section is, with the thickest part usually being a little behind the head near the gills and the frontal and dorsal fins, which you could see quite well in the picture Drach put up. The beak or sword is how these fish catch their prey, it is nothing to do with increasing hydrodynamics. In fact if you actually look at the cross section of all the fastest fish in the world, INCLUDING the Mako, the 'point' referred to is never due to locomotion. In the case of the Mako its where the majority of its Ampullae of Lorenzini are located. These are the organelles that detect the electromagnetic field put out by other living organisms. Just to put this into perspective, the sharks with the most Ampullae of Lorenzini are the Hammerheads, which are generally bottom feeders and hunt prey usually covered partially or completely by sand or mud. The very REASON their heads are that hammer shape is to stuff as many of these organelles as possible as far forward as possible because all sharks use these to a greater or lesser extent in their final attack. So thats why the Mako has a pointy nose, and its NOTHING to do with hydrodynamics. Again if you look at the cross section f the Mako without the forward part of its nose (where most of the Ampullae of Lorenzini are), its again roughly oval shape, again with the thickest part being just around where the gills and pectoral fins are located. I could literally go on for hours.... But I think I made the point well enough.
As a quick aside. Q: Why do Sharks have Ampullae of Lorenzini? A: Eye placement. Look at the eyes of a shark, they are located on the side of the head, they are not looking forward. They do have a decent field of view forward, but in the late strike they lose sight of their prey literally because it falls out of the field of vision. This is where the electromagnetic sense comes in, and why the Ampullae of Lorenzini are always located as far forward as possible. They take over detecting the prey in that final strike allowing the shark to make any adjustments to trajectory it may need. Q: Why oval shaped and not circular? A: Surface area. A circular cross section is very efficient for a submarine, with a propeller, but its less efficient for fast fish because it limits the muscle and muscle attachment size. Those muscles are important, they are what makes the fish move. The more surface area you give them, the more power those muscles can generate. The slight loss in hydrodynamic efficiency is more than made up for in power generation. Thus an oval shape.
Regarding preserving Yorktown, as BB62 was about to go into dry dock, I pondered asking just how much a nightmare it would be for our friend Ryan if he woke up to learn that he had been appointed by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to be curator of the newly raised battleship Pennsylvania, BB38, which now occupied the dock at the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard. Given how much trouble it is to keep an 80-year-old ship in good shape on museum budgets, I cannot fathom doing the same for a large wreck which has spent that amount of time under water. And then could it be restored to the point that visitors would be allowed to enter it? If so could they explore it in a way that was meaningful? I expect it would be cheaper, easier, and result in a better museum if you called up Newport News and asked for a new Yorktown class carrier.
See the efforts at The Mariners' Museum at Newport News to conserve USS Monitor's turret and engine components for the challenges of conserving metal artifacts that have been submergerged for a long period of time.
@@SaskatoonMonsoon , with enough money, I suppose anything is possible. You might have to settle for a welded hull replica as I’m not sure a modern yard could find enough folks to do riveting on that scale. It wouldn’t be easy - only in comparison to raising CV-5 do I think it looks easier.
@@richardcutts196 And then some. Yorktown is 3 miles (approx 5km) deep. Very few people can comprehend how difficult and expensive it would be to raise a ship from that depth. You cannot use human divers, way, way too deep, so you have to use submersibles rated for that depth and specifically designed for salvage work (of which there are literally a handful), and specially designed marine drones. Thats to get the lift apparatus in place, which would likely be some kind of frame, with inflatable buoyancy bags for the actual lift. Then when you DO manage to actually start the lift you have to take into account weather up top, various currents and water movements as the lift progresses (all that water is not still). Pressure changes as you break various thermoclines and so on. And you only get ONE chance. Screw it up and it fails say 1 mile into the lift, and that ship is going to break up even further by the time it hits the bottom again, and that final impact will likely smash up any structural integrity remaining. Getting to the fecking moon was easier than lifting Yorktown would be..... Hell its probably easier to get to Mars. A manned Mars trip is not so much about the tech, but building a vehicle large enough to carry a decent sized crew the distance and back while keeping said crew physically and mentally healthy. All easier to solve than lifting a 26,000 long ton ship from 3 miles down.....
On grain one risk you failed to mention (More so with wood hauls) if that grain is rice ships have been sunk due to the rice getting damp and expanding thus splitting seams.
Regarding NCOs and trying to explain how things really work - your example of "no one really knows why that works," reminded me that chicken bones are necessary for the safe, and effective operation of nuclear powered warship. We kept chicken bones in the RPCP. The new leadership found out and wanted them cleaned out before a traveling Nuc training team visit. The day after they were removed, the plant had scrammed 3 times. The last time it brought down #1 plant as well, because the breaker cross-connecting the electrical plants chose to close while the electrical plants were out of phase. And when the safety interlocks tripped the breaker, it would attempt to close again, as soon as the safety interlocks reset! The chicken bones were replaced within 24 hours. Listen to your NCOs when they say something is important. Perhaps particularly when they warn you that no one really knows why something may be necessary.
I have spent way too much time listening to Drach. He's now become the default youtuber I listen to when I'm going to sleep, doing chores around the house, or when I'm playing Ultimate Admirals Dreadnaughts.
wrt the question about Delaware's turret sighting hoods. Initially, the USN had the sighting hoods on the roof of the turret. When the USN adopted superfiring turrets, the sights were moved to a position low on the sides of the turrets, to move them away from the muzzle blast. The sight hoods are clearly visible on the pic Drac shows of the forward turrets at 21:13. They are exactly at the same level as the guns themselves, on the forward part of the turret. This change had a second benefit. The top mounted sights were connected to the guns via a complex linkage. No matter how precisely the components of the linkage were made, there was always a small amount of slop, which became more important as ranges increased. When the sights were moved to the sides of the turret, they were rigidly bracketed to the trunnions of the guns, so there was no lost motion between gun and sight. re the engines in Delaware's sister, North Dakota. ND was originally build with Curtis turbines. Besides being very inefficient, the Curtis turbines broke down, often. There was considerable discussion, reported in the newspapers in 1917, about whether ND should be scrapped, or reengined. When the US entered the war, the decision was made that it would be faster to reengine ND, than to build a replacement, so new, geared, turbines, were installed. When ND was scrapped, the new turbines were removed, and installed in Nevada, when that ship was modernized.
For question 25:51 I will also expand on that about certain cargoes having risks (Drach already pretty well covered coal and grain). Different types of cargoes also carry different variations of risk when it comes to shifting. For instance, many different types of ore (likewise, salt and sugar), when reaching a certain moisture content in the cargo, can cause that cargo to partially liquify, which is when the free surface effect pokes its head out to greet a ship into the depths of the ocean (more often than not). Especially dense ore cargo, this can be very deadly, such as iron ore, or nickel ore. To not be overloaded, there would be significant space left over in the hold, and when part of the cargo liquifies as vibrations and rolling influence water trapped in the cargo to move to the surface (creating a slurry in the holds), you very quickly can roll over and sink (sometimes in just one minute, case in point, Nur Allya in 2019, crew never even got off a distress call). It should also be noted that different conditions of ore can change its risk of shifting, such as iron ore *fines* as opposed to iron ore *pellets*. Also, cargoes of scrap. Obviously scrap comes in many shapes and sizes, and more clumpy/blocky scrap (engine blocks, steel beams or plates, etc) can puncture your hull if they shift (Antacus 1984, Murree 1989). Scrap can also lead to serious fire, such as scrap turnings (when not properly treated with chemicals prior to loading, Agios Giorgis 1979). And of course when it comes to coal and dense ore cargo, they can wear a ship out pretty well, which is why maintenance is paramount on the part of the shipowners.
When I heard grain mentioned I shivered slightly. One day a foreman lifted a piece of the narrow steel plate able to support a heavy lorry. Underneath was a long channel which I had thought was for drainage. It was not. Inside was a continuously moving stainless steel chain gradually drawing crushed, de-oiled and toasted vegetable seeds. There was more sources of ignition than I had realised.
@@HEDGE1011 The latter hazard of fire is, admittedly, a rarity from what I've found in bulk carriers (can't speak for general cargo ships). The incident mentioned as example, the Agios Giorgis, was the result of incompetence/complacency on the part of the charterers who did not chemically treat the turnings even though it was contractually stipulated. So you have to really screw up for a casualty of that kind from scrap.
Regarding US officers in the lead-up to WWII you have to realize that peacetime breads administrators. Conservative and cautious officers that stay out of trouble ascend in rank. When war starts where boldness and willingness to take aggressive risks is required, it takes a while shuffle the deck while letting the new stars rise. This also reminds me of an article in which they, tongue in cheek, described the traits and skills of officers like this: brilliant and lazy = strategist brilliant and energetic = tactician stupid and lazy = harmless stupid and energetic = dangerous
A real problem for the US Navy; with respect to the preparedness of the officers who were in command early in WWII; was that the sort of officer who advances in rank during peacetime isn’t often the sort of officer who performs well in active combat. In peacetime, a lack of demerits or black marks was sufficient to see officers promoted, of whom the best could be said of them would be “They didn’t break anything, or screw anything up.” Officers who were aggressive or pushed the envelope in maneuvers or exercises were practicing more realistically would occasionally break things and; without a record in combat to fall back on; be passed over for promotion. So too many senior officers at the outbreak of WWII were in their positions solely by virtue of never having done anything wrong, and needed to be replaced by officers who’d practiced eating fire and passing smoke-as-flatus. There’s just no other way to measure an officer’s performance, absent a shooting war. There was just no way to accumulate combat commendations on their record, so they guys with the fewest black marks rose to the top. And not everyone is convinced that the US Navy is that different in the present day.
Ugh. Turret 4. What madness is this! I enjoyed the breakdown on a hypothetical V-1 attack on the Normandy invasion force and the question of the hydrodynamics of fish vs. torpedo. Drach and the people on this channel are top notch.
That dry, powdery, shifting cargo can also build up a huge amount of static electricity, just waiting for a chance to discharge amid all that flammable dust.
Question: Bilge and emergency pumps. How were the intakes kept clear of debris to allow the pumps to function? One would assume that if a ship was damaged to the point of needing these pumps there would be a lot of debris that would block the intake up. Also, were there independently powered pumps (diesel & gas) that did not need the ships main power to operate them? Were there mobile “emergency” pumps that could be moved to areas where they are needed? Keep up the good work Drach, your channel is great. 👍
1. There is a strainer or cage at the suction of both installed and portable pumps and eductors to keep out larger pieces of debris. 2. Yes - portable gasoline or diesel pumps are part of the damage control loadout. In the US Navy during the Cold War, the most common portable damage control pump was the gasoline-powered P-250 (rated at 250 gallons per minute), later converted to run on JP-5. This was fairly heavy, difficult to prime, and started and ran like crap on JP-5. It was replaced in the 1990s by the P-100, which was a lighter pump that started and primed easily. Additionally, there are also small electrically powered submersible pumps that can be lowered into flooded compartments; these have an integral strainer as it's not just damage that produces debris (think of a flooded berthing compartment with its contents).
Wasn’t the fast battleship of the pre-Dreadnought era, Dreadnought? I mean, wasn’t that why she was so revolutionary, combining heavy firepower, decent protection and substantially higher speed than her contemporaries?
Agreed. Prior to Dreadnought the standard max speed was 18 kts and, with triple expansion engines, the sustained was around 14-15kts. Thanks to turbines Dreadnought could maintain 21kts indefinitely, or at least until it ran out of fuel.
Actually, "for the period the channel covers" it was still cusom to build hoppers on top/ into the hatches of ship's carrying grain, so that when the grain shakes around and fills every nook and cranny. 'new' grain is added to the hold as to not create voids where grain can move around in. nowadays that is not done anymore, as due to advances in technology the ability of calculating the risk and looking ahead at the weather has made it redundant.
(1) Coal has impurities that form corrosive biproducts when wet. In the long term it can weaken the hull causing the ship to brake up under stress (2) You could build a new Yorktown for less money than the cost of salvage, preservation and restoration.
Liquid cargoes are actually more prone to shifting than granular cargoes like grain. The free surface effect (as the load shifting phenomenon is known) is mitigated by subdividing the tank athwartships into port and starboard or port, center, and starboard tanks. Granular cargoes in the period the channel covers could actually be filled right up into the corners of the hold. The process of doing so was called trimming the cargo and was accomplished by small hatches near the side of the ship called trimming hatches.
31:16 This isn’t actually a slipway, it’s a separate piece of infrastructure called a marine railway. A slipway has ways that a ship sits directly on and slides down and is only ever used for new construction. A marine railway has a permanent cradle that rides on rails and is used effectively the same way as a drydock is. You set up keel blocks and put the ship on them before lifting the whole assembly out of the water. They are more typically used for repair and overhaul and are pulled up and lowered down by large winches that are permanently affixed in place. Their method of operation means that the amount of space required grows rapidly as the ship gets bigger because the cradle needs to travel further at the same slope to gain the additional elevation to handle deeper draft vessels. And the winches required grow too. These two issues generally limit them to smaller craft. There are two abandoned examples in the Philly Navy Yard to the east of the lift bridge over the basin entrance. When operational, they lowered down into the basin. They were last used in to overhaul a pair of diesel subs that were intended for the shah of Iran. This order was cancelled when the Iranian revolution occurred, and since modern US submarines are too big to be used by those marine railways, they’ve been abandoned ever since.
Not like fast battleship doesn’t sacrifice protection and firepower either. If KGV were 23 knots it'd probably have 14-16 guns instead of 10. Every design choice is a compromise. It just that in 1935 engine technology had develop enough compared to 1910 that ships could go a lot faster on the same displacement.
wrt basing battleships in the Philippines, at one time, the Mississippi and Idaho, the two undersized ships that were sold to Greece, could have been based in the Philippines, as they were small enough to be accommodated in the Dewey drydock. That would also solve the problem of those two ships lacking the speed and range to steam with the Connecticuts, as they would be steaming by themselves. Realistically, as Drac said, anything sent to the Philippines in 41, would be going to it's doom. The US could not forward deploy enough force to really be a deterrent. Drac reviewed USN pre-war battle plans some time ago. The plans seemingly imply that the Philippines would be written off if they were attacked. To get to the Philippines, from Hawaii, would have required steaming through thousands of miles of ocean, populated with islands the Japanese had held since 1918.
@@stevevalley7835 by 1941, there was a entire reinforcing program. Defenses were being changed on the ground, Sea and air. It just was a matter of timing. America was looking for a war in 1942.
@@WALTERBROADDUS The Philippines were virtually unreinforceable once the war started. The former German colonies of the Marianas, Carolines, and Marshalls, were all handed to Japan by the League of Nations after WWI. To evade Japanese bases, any US reinforcement would need to go around the south side of New Guinea, because Japanese bases were sitting astride the direct route from Hawaii. My nightmare scenario has the Japanese not attacking the fleet in Pearl, but only attacking the Philippines, in hopes political pressure would force FDR to send the fleet out into deep water, to attempt relief of the garrison, and run the gauntlet of Japanese forces.
@@stevevalley7835 at the time the war started, reinforcement was in progress. The 4th Marines have been withdrawn from China. Both b-17s and p-40s were being sent. Even the rest of the PT boats were in Pearl Harbor waiting to go to the Philippines on the 7th of December.
@@WALTERBROADDUS how would the US resupply the garrison after the war started? I remember reading that wags were saying the army could hold out in the Philippines as long as the 26th Cavalry had horses. We are seeing in Ukraine, now, how fast a full-on war burns through ammo and equipment.
@@stevevalley7835 the islands held out for 4 months. Largely supported by submarine. But in general, expecting large shipments is not likely. But you could say the same thing to Outposts in Guam, Wake Island or Midway....
22:35 Billfish heads have at least as much if not more to do with slashing at agile prey to kill or cripple them than streamlining. Also, note that records of various fishes or marine mammals swimming faster than 30mph are questionable due to methodology (or are based on cases of them getting a speed boost by riding bow waves); beyond that point cavitation damage acts as a soft cap on marine animal speeds, at least nearer to the surface.
Fish unlike torpedos and porpoises have a water intake in front to supply their gills with water. Porpoises and whales have blowholes on their dorsal sides and more rounded noses.
@@richardschaffer5588 So you’re saying the fastest marine mammals are faster than the fastest fishes? Because that’s not true; they also hit the 30mph soft speed limit.
Regarding the V-1s, they were only first used on June 13th, a week after D-Day, when the Allies were already firmly ashore. They were fired from the Pas-de-Calais area, which is just northeast of Normandy, but they were mostly launched from fixed launchers that were built to aim at London, and they were guided by crude time-and-distance calculations to when their engine cut out and they plunged to earth. So new launchers would have to be built to aim at Normandy, and new forms of guidance developed to improve the dismal accuracy they were getting in hitting a huge target like London. Once Calais was overrun, they were fired from ramps in Holland and Germany, both of which are too far away from Normandy, and air-launched from bombers, which were vulnerable to interception over France and thus often flew very low over the North Sea, again out of range of Normandy.
Their accuracy was not helped by relying on agents in England to report on fall-of-shot. Because all the agents had been captured and were working for MI5.
Petty officers knowing how things really work. I'm reminded of the novel "Down the Hatch" where only one man on the submarine can operate the oily bilge pump. "Too much bliddy wackem!"
I agree with a previous comment that it would be far cheaper to build a 100% replica of Yorktown vice raising her. And when you consider the damage she took at Midway, implosion damage as she sank, plus the inevitable impact damage with the bottom I seriously doubt it’s possible to raise a ship of that size from the depth she is at.
Drach, You need to visit the Hunley submarine which is in process of leaching out submerged in a tank of chemicals. It's been several decades so far. Also, if you raise the earlier Yorktown what do we call the existing Yorktown CV10?
59:13 In Mansfield Park, Jane Austen had Fanny Price's little brother made a third lieutenant on a 16 gun ship rigged sloop. Those things don't usually get second lieutenants. I always figured the joke was he had the worst commissioned officer berth in the entire Royal Navy.
In the US Army at least, you NEVER give a 2nd Lt a map AND a compass. One or the other but NEVER, EVER both at the same time...And for God's sake NOT at night!!!
Why not? That seems like the kind of equipment literally everyone should be carrying. Though its understandable if only some maps have the objective marked for security
@@russianbear0027 Because 2nd Lts are guaranteed swamp finders, n the last thing a tired (n my case 82nd Abn Inf NCO) wants is swamp at 3am. Oh, n one a couple of miles away from your 4am Phase Line or Objective .
Re 14:09, Flying Bombs against Normandy beaches - I remember reading that the launch sites had ramps aligned on London, with De-Mag buildings (to benefit compass 'autopilot') similarly orientated. They were bombed by USAAF. Any aligned on Normandy would soon be spotted.
Yes, and due to the nature of the V1 (being a small aeroplane) needing to be accelerated to flying speed up the ramps you mentioned, ramps (even prefabricated ones) would have to be built in advance. Careful deception and control of information kept the Nazi's from guessing where the invasion was actually going to happen so such preparation could not be made. It's fortunate that D-Day happened before the V2 was in service as this could have been used tactically from it's portable launchers. Xx.
I recall the prefabricated ramps could be spotted, particularly from the damage by launch pistons landing, possibly too a launch failure blasting leaves off any tree cover.
Some V1s were fired against Antwerp once the invasion forces took the port, which might kinda-sorta count. I doubt they did anything significant, though.
From RV Jones - "Antwerp was target for 1610 rockets and 8,696 flying bombs, with Liege a target for 3,141 bombs". Antwerp hit by more than London. Neither an accurate aimed weapon.
Slipways are used for smaller craft like fishing boats (at least in Scotland). The paddle steamer Maid of the Loch was recently slipped as well. There are videos of it not going to plan on RUclips
I may be preaching to the choir here, but it is certainly well known among on-the-scene, active-duty combatants that war is an everyday thing. However, this becomes less obvious to later generations, since we who look back on those years tend to focus on the so-called major battles, overall strategies, primary leaders, etc., because when we delve into the confounded misery and carnage that went on daily it is just too dreadful. For an example of this constancy of danger, see “The Pacific War 1941-1945,” by John Costello (1981). WWII is studied in terms of a series of big events, yet there was danger on every day of that conflict. An example of this is the kamikaze attack on USS Randolph CV-15, March 11, 1945, while she was at anchor in Ulithi Atoll after a month of almost continuous air attacks and patrols. Onboard that day was my father, a signalman, who had decided to skip a movie being shown in the aft hangar deck, having already seen the film. It was an effective attack, hitting aft and starboard, penetrating through the flight deck, hangar deck and further. A subsequent massive at-sea repair effort enabled Randolph to continue her offensive capabilities with both Fifth and Third Fleets through the end of the war and another 25 or so years of active service after that. My father did return home, thanks to that rerun. This particular event, available for confirmation today through various internet sites, is but only a footnote - if that - in the larger scheme of WWII. It was not part of a headline battle, except for the 27 killed and 105 wounded that day it was war nonetheless.
Gas explosions in coal mines are made worse by coal dust ans there can be dust explosions without gas. It's standard to damp down the coal to reduce the risk of explosion.
wrt the question about early fast battleships, during his first stint as First Sea Lord, Jackie Fisher was developing concepts for new battleships and new armored cruisers, which evolved into the "Dreadnought armed cruiser", aka battlecruiser. The design process apparently yielded a fast battleship concept, in 1905, known as "HMS Fusion", which combined armament of 10-12" guns, 45,000hp turbines for a speed of 24kts, an 11" armor belt, a length of about 620 feet, and displacement of 22,500 tons. There are a couple mentions of Fusion on line, along with the battleship and armored cruiser concepts,
you would need to raise it in pieces, you would need a strong back the length of the ship and all the winches and barges in the Pacific to raise it in one piece
31:30 seen slipways been used to get fishing boats out of water, far to heavy to lift with an crane like you do with smaller boats but you can get it on an slipway and pull it out of water.
Regarding the V1 question, HMS Warspite, in the extremely unlikely instance that she actually took a hit, would probably just say ouch, not again, there were some tanks that you wanted to go away?
Re, the question at 41:31… The same question could be asked about the Chinese Navy of today. They have a LOT of brand-new ships - untested in actual combat. A LOT of officers and crew who are equally untested. No maritime tradition to build upon and lean on and a compliment of sailors and some officers who may not have the same focus and motives as their opposites in western navies - especially the USN. I suspect that in any shooting-war with the west, the Chinese would repeat the same mistakes and show the same lack of competence as their opposites in 1941.
What if they are playing War Thunder and other video games to aquaint themselves with their own tactics and others in order to produce a simulation of possible battle cases. They could be hard at work with various known and potential strategies.
@@myparceltape1169 Video games and actual combat are two VERY different things. It may all be push-buttons these days but strategy, tactics and experience and above all, motivation, make the difference. Just look at the Ukrainian Army vs. the Russian army.
@@ronhudson3730 I am well aware of that but what they will see is the type of input used by foreigners. The information needed by the Chinese navy is how these foreigners react. I expect they have the ability to know exactly who they see on screen. They can wait until someone who knows what their country would do appears. It is a form of spying and like most others it depends on a slight mistake. Like a chief going online and doing something he knows. I don't play video games but I doubt it is easy to continue to be someone else.
The bill of a billfish is key for speed and manoeuvring. The bill cavitates and moves the rotational axis where the mouth is and extends leverage of the tail. I fish and freedive with those highly intelligent monsters. As for forced oiling and drip oiling…slow rotating babbitbearings and slow steam expansion cylinders are fine with drip. Deflagration of a diesel cylinder puts a lot more pressure on a shaft bearing - pressurized bearing races can handle the shock much better for longer. Oilcoolers keep bearing temp down, a closed oil circuit can be filtered much better. Tight bearings make an engine much quiter.
Are you sure about the cavitation? If it happens on the bill, it would also happen on the leading edge of fins and tail, and cavitation can be very destructive.
Ive always wondered, Drach. Every Brooklyn class light cruiser was sold abroad postwar, with the exception of Savannah and Honolulu. Did the amount of damage they recieved during the war make them......... unattractive to potential buyers? Savannah was given a significant upgrade after eating a german guided bomb off Italy, interestingly enough.
52:00 The ship pictured has it's hull number on the forward deck. Is that a quick reference for the bridge crew ? They are in the best position to read it. LOL
Video Suggestion: Do a video on the past, present, and future of the torpedo boats and automated jet ski bombs. Peter Zehin (Zehin on Geopolitics) has a recent video out predicting how automated jet ski bombs are the future (at least for smaller nations) of naval warfare. I think it would be good (if you haven't already done so) to put out a video that puts these "new" weapons into historical context and uses real, rational, informed analysis to predict their future. (I.e., something that Peter DOES NOT do!)
51:00 I think another point is that countries name and categorize ships for their own needs, not to benefit historians. For example, the Royal Navy's Town Class destroyers of WWII. There is no real benefit for the Royal Navy to differentiate the Wickes and Clemson class vessels from each other, they all have about the same capabilities and utility along with the same big caveats (particularly their being American will have implications on maintenance and crew training). Similarly the Germans dont care what a "Fletcher" is, they care about classifying the Zerstorers for their own purposes. I think the same is also a big part of the same class vs subclass vs separate class debate, its all about what makes sense for the navy managing its fleet.
I would very much like to hear a more extensive video on the South Dakota class U.S. battleships. Growing up in Alabama, the U.S.S. Alabama has always been a source of pride, and since I've heard you mentioned in the past that the South Dakota class was commissionedv in part to fix issues with the North Carolina class and ended up being more protected and more maneuverable, I've always seen that as technically meaning the South Dakota class were the second most powerful American warships ever built, only eclipsed by the Iowa's. Is that wrong? I never have heard anyone put it that way, but would love to hear your opinion on the under-mentioned penultimate class of battleships. Hey, that could even be an interesting future video, going through and sharing your thoughts on each major nations' second most powerful battleships or heavy cruisers or whatever. Most people know about the famous ships, the big girls, but the silver medals deserve some love!
QUESTION: Had Hitler, Raeder, and Lütjens waited until Tirpitz was commissioned to begin surface operations, is it possible the Kriegsmarine could have benefitted from a fleet battle compared to the number of individual actions which actually occured historically. With the RN spread so thin, and had the Home Fleet split up, like what happened in operation Rheinburg, I believe its possible they could have defeated the Home Fleet in detail, if the RN tries to cover all avenues of ingress into the Atlantic and egress from the North Sea as they did. That would be suicide though, I doubt anyone could have justified splitting the captial ships up at which point can Bismark, Tirpitz, Scharnhorst, Gneisenau, the Deutschlands and the Hippers stand against King George V, Nelson, Rodney, Hood, Repulse and 2nd, 10th, 15th, and 18th Cruiser Squadrons (14 Cruisers) and the Glorious, Argus and Furious? No but there is nowhere near enough overmatch to avoid severe losses and if the Kreigsmarine can draw the Home Fleet into range of land based Luftwaffe aircraft it could be enough to even the odds.
By the time the Tirpitz would be ready the two North Carolinas, Wasp and Ranger would have been available. That's not a good look for the Kriegsmarine.
Hi Drach I recently when to leigh on sea where I saw HMS Wilton. It appears to have been turned into a sailing club. Do you know anything about these ships or are the past the period the channel covers ?
Regarding your design for the HMS Thunderchild, is it really that accurate to have casemates in the hull? Asking because i am interested in making a design inspired on it and I can't tell if it should have casemates in the hull that close to the waterline
It is my opinion, for the nothing that's worth, that fast battleships (27+kts on roughly 35k tons) would not have come about without the naval treaties of the 20's and 30's. I believe that the 10k ton cruiser was what lead to the engineering innovations that made it possible.
49:16 Would the fact that all the labels, manual's, and logs are in different languages matter in the ships class ? Would original English language remain a Fletcher class, German language becomes Z-1 class, etc ?
There was. It was called Galiipoli. Unfortunately the Admirals didn't consider the pre-Dreadnoughts as expendable as Churchill did, when he ordered the old ships to damn the guns and minefields and push on to bombard Constantinople/Istanbul. The shipboard Royal Marines made a good try at the combat engineer role of attacking the Ottoman forts, but there weren't enough of them so the Admirals sent for the Anzacs. That took over a month, and the Turks' able German advisers prepared them a warm reception.
Did anyone else have trouble hearing him clearly? Ive got the volume on max but it's like he's whispering some of the time. Otherwise thanks for another great job
WRT the NCO/petty officer question, any young officer who does not listen and learn from his subordinates is a moron headed for a quick end. As a career Army officer, I can state, without doubt, NCOs will teach you what you need to know, keep you reasonably safe, and make you look good if you give them the respect they deserve.
Every thing I see about pacific war touts the Japanese being more experienced with carriers because of the war in China. Aside from logistical experience like co-coordinating a launch, recovery and arming which are critical steps no doubt but what combat experience if any did carrier pilots get around China. Would seem like a David and Goliath thing air power wise/ no contest. Basically what did they Japanese carriers contribute to the China campaigns, how often and how effective they were as well.
Two or three carriers directly provided air support to the IJA at the battles for Shanghai and Canton in 1937 and Wuhan (Chiang's last major industrial center) in 1938, and in patrols and some of the fighting along the coast in between. Attack and fighter squadrons were also sent ashore in support of the IJA, notably Kaga's landbased airgroup at Nanking which had requested confirmation from the Army HQ of their orders to attack All shipping on the Yangtze anywhere near. That included the well-marked gunboat USS Panay and the Esso tankers crammed with refugees it was escorting.. The carrier Akagi had been under reconstruction during this time, and celebrated her completion in 1939 with two or three weeks of combat operations. There were then 5 IJN air bases with about 450 aircraft in Central China, about equal to the IJA AF north of the Yellow River. In 1938 the IJN AF with the Mitsubishi A5M kept the lead in anti-air and long-range bombing, while the IJA AF was mainly ground support until getting the Ki-27. The fall of Wuhan and Canton in October 1938 ended the need for the carriers. In 15 months the IJN had accounted for most of China's 202 aircraft admitted lost, while claiming 600 kills in the air and as many on the ground. The truth was probably rather closer to the Chinese admission. Ray Wagner's "Prelude to Pearl Harbor: The Air War in China 1937-1941" (1991) says the summer of 1939 was relatively quiet in China while the IJA AF concentrated on supporting the Kwantung Army over Nomonhan, and the land-based IJN was most active September until winter. (as the Soviet Volunteer Group began withdrawal after the Non-Aggression Pact with Germany). Japan's top pilot was probably the IJA Ace Hiromichi Shinohara, who got his wings in 1934 after riding into Manchuria in 1932 as an 18-year old cavalryman. By the time fighting began over Nomonhan in May 1939 he was a Warrant Officer flying a Ki-27 with six years experience, but no combat time. That changed when he shot down four I-16s on his first combat sortie, followed by five I-15s and a recon Polikarpov R-Z within 24 hours. He topped that June 27 when he scored 11 victories. No one else got credit for as many kills in a day, and his tally stood at 58 Soviet aircraft when he was shot down in flames August 27 after scoring a final three I-16s on an escort mission. However, the Japanese in China flew 14,138 bombing sorties, killing or injuring 60,000 Chinese (notably in Chungking) and destroying 138,171 houses by Chinese count, for a loss of 17 aircraft in combat by the end of 1939. About 60 IJN pilots became Aces in the Pacific after first scoring kills over China. Despite getting his wings in 1937, the celebrated Saburo Sakae didn't score his 2 kills until entrusted with one of the first Mitsubishi A6M2 Zeros sent to fight in China in mid-1940. The Zeros shot down under 60 aircraft, claiming another 100 on the ground although the Chinese used Chennault's early warning system to try to save their remaining fighters to defend against Un-escorted bomber raids. The Soviet Volunteer Group had been making it a bit less of a pushover in China by flying over 200 of the 1200 Polikarpov I-15 and I-16 fighters and bombers Stalin supplied China after the fall of Shanghai in early November 1937. Claire Chennault, air adviser to China, first reported the Soviet Volunteer Group's use of the "Boom and Zoom" tactics he later made famous with his Flying Tigers during the battle for Nanking in late 1937. General Zhukov is credited with the first use of "Blitzkrieg" tactics at Khalkin Gol in Manchuria, to destroy the Japanese 29th Infantry Division of 24,000 men with a double envelopment by some 70,000 Soviet troops, 900 tanks and 400 armored cars, but it was only possible after the Soviet AF had worn down the IJA Air Force with incessant attacks on their airbases. The announcement of the Molotov-von Ribbentrop Pact the same day undermined the Anti-Comintern Pact and brought the resignation of the current Japanese Government, while the Soviet Volunteer Group began withdrawal and Soviet aid to China wound down in 1940. Unfortunately Stalin had most of the senior Soviet AF veterans of Spain and China arrested in June 1941 as "wreckers" for losing too many recruits and their tricky-handling new planes in training, and about 30 veteran AF generals were shot a few months later for doing their best to make the Red Air Force combat-ready. Getting back to your post, I think that the IJN pilots and carrier operations did gain an edge over the US and Allies in the first year of the war, but it wasn't insurmountable once the "Boom and Zoom" tactics Chennault had observed the SVG employ over Nanking in 1937 were taught to our pilots. A few months before Pearl Harbor Chennault had given a standing room only presentation on tactics to use against the Japanese to an eager audience of Army aviators at the Hickam Field Officers Club, on the way to a Washington meeting. It's a pity that it seemed obvious that Japan would concentrate its carriers on supporting its invasion force headed for SE Asia, when for lack of a better plan for ultimate Victory it would actually risk its entire force of Fleet Carriers on an attack that required total surprise for success, using weapons that had only become usable in the past three months.
hydrocarbons and carbohydrates are composed largely of hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon; possibly with bits of sulpher or nitrogen mixed in. Iirc my high school chemistry - hydrocarbons tend to be flammable, and carbohydrates tend to be explosive.
Carbohydrates can be explosive in powders, but are flammable in bulk. Sugar is a carbohydrate, for example. As is bread. Nitrates, on the other hand .....
Regarding the V-1s, wouldn't their accuracy be somewhat better with them being used as direct-fire weapons at close range, as compared to their historical use as long-range area-bombardment weapons?
Actually no. V1s fly at set compass heading for azimuth and a timer for range. They had real problems hitting greater London we’re talking multiple miles off target not yards.
@@richardschaffer5588 ...and a given azimuth error will produce a range/crosstrack error at target that is directly proportional to the range from the launch site to the target. An azimuth error that produces an error of several miles over the distance from the launch sites to London will produce a much-smaller error over the much-shorter distances involved in launching V-1s from the Normandy countryside at ships just offshore.
There were plans along those lines, essentially using the V1 as a stand-off missile. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Arado_Ar_234_Blitz_mit_V1_pic1.JPG. But there were an awful lot of plans in Nazi Germany by that point in time, and many of them were dubious at best.
If you could cube a corn cob or corn casually can cost contain and if competent officers called colliers call coal cool could corn compete coal as coal cones in not corn way? Casting c in such coalescence calls for corn more than coal. Can you dig?
In the US Navy (veteran, 55 years ago), we (officers and enlisted0 always said Chiefs (E7 - E9) ran the Navy. Nowadays not sure which pronoun runs the Navy.
41:43 Another way of looking at some of the "racist" attitudes can be attributed to differences in historical development. Western military thinking is even today, largely influenced by Napoleonic thought, Jomini, Von Clausewitz, etc. Asia in general, and Japan in particular didn't care. They had a completely different view of attacking your enemies will to war, rather than strictly attacking his armies. The ideas of Sun Tzu. If a British soldier switches to thinking like a German he's still going to be wrong, because as a European the German is just a reflection of himself.
@@WALTERBROADDUS By that logic there were never any fast battleships, since even the WWII-era fast battleships were almost always outmatched by cruisers or destroyers in speed and usually also by carriers.
@@WALTERBROADDUS 33 knots is unusually fast as WWII-era fast battleships go, and even then the Iowas were slower than a lot of contemporary destroyers and cruisers and some carriers.
Marine Ecologist here. When looking at the body plan of many of those fast fish, especially things like the Marlins and Swordfish, IGNORE THE SPIKE. They are NOT, I repeat NOT part of the animals hydrodynamics.
If you remove the 'sword' of a swordfish for example and take a look at the cross section of the animal without the 'beakiness', you will notice its a more or less oval shaped. The entire cross section is, with the thickest part usually being a little behind the head near the gills and the frontal and dorsal fins, which you could see quite well in the picture Drach put up.
The beak or sword is how these fish catch their prey, it is nothing to do with increasing hydrodynamics.
In fact if you actually look at the cross section of all the fastest fish in the world, INCLUDING the Mako, the 'point' referred to is never due to locomotion. In the case of the Mako its where the majority of its Ampullae of Lorenzini are located. These are the organelles that detect the electromagnetic field put out by other living organisms. Just to put this into perspective, the sharks with the most Ampullae of Lorenzini are the Hammerheads, which are generally bottom feeders and hunt prey usually covered partially or completely by sand or mud. The very REASON their heads are that hammer shape is to stuff as many of these organelles as possible as far forward as possible because all sharks use these to a greater or lesser extent in their final attack. So thats why the Mako has a pointy nose, and its NOTHING to do with hydrodynamics.
Again if you look at the cross section f the Mako without the forward part of its nose (where most of the Ampullae of Lorenzini are), its again roughly oval shape, again with the thickest part being just around where the gills and pectoral fins are located.
I could literally go on for hours.... But I think I made the point well enough.
As a quick aside.
Q: Why do Sharks have Ampullae of Lorenzini?
A: Eye placement. Look at the eyes of a shark, they are located on the side of the head, they are not looking forward. They do have a decent field of view forward, but in the late strike they lose sight of their prey literally because it falls out of the field of vision. This is where the electromagnetic sense comes in, and why the Ampullae of Lorenzini are always located as far forward as possible. They take over detecting the prey in that final strike allowing the shark to make any adjustments to trajectory it may need.
Q: Why oval shaped and not circular?
A: Surface area. A circular cross section is very efficient for a submarine, with a propeller, but its less efficient for fast fish because it limits the muscle and muscle attachment size. Those muscles are important, they are what makes the fish move. The more surface area you give them, the more power those muscles can generate. The slight loss in hydrodynamic efficiency is more than made up for in power generation. Thus an oval shape.
Fascinating, thanks for sharing
Regarding preserving Yorktown, as BB62 was about to go into dry dock, I pondered asking just how much a nightmare it would be for our friend Ryan if he woke up to learn that he had been appointed by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to be curator of the newly raised battleship Pennsylvania, BB38, which now occupied the dock at the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard. Given how much trouble it is to keep an 80-year-old ship in good shape on museum budgets, I cannot fathom doing the same for a large wreck which has spent that amount of time under water. And then could it be restored to the point that visitors would be allowed to enter it? If so could they explore it in a way that was meaningful? I expect it would be cheaper, easier, and result in a better museum if you called up Newport News and asked for a new Yorktown class carrier.
See the efforts at The Mariners' Museum at Newport News to conserve USS Monitor's turret and engine components for the challenges of conserving metal artifacts that have been submergerged for a long period of time.
I suspect you are probably correct in that the cost of raising Yorktown would likely exceed the cost of building a new one.
Is that an option? And do they offer financing?
@@SaskatoonMonsoon , with enough money, I suppose anything is possible. You might have to settle for a welded hull replica as I’m not sure a modern yard could find enough folks to do riveting on that scale. It wouldn’t be easy - only in comparison to raising CV-5 do I think it looks easier.
@@richardcutts196 And then some. Yorktown is 3 miles (approx 5km) deep. Very few people can comprehend how difficult and expensive it would be to raise a ship from that depth.
You cannot use human divers, way, way too deep, so you have to use submersibles rated for that depth and specifically designed for salvage work (of which there are literally a handful), and specially designed marine drones. Thats to get the lift apparatus in place, which would likely be some kind of frame, with inflatable buoyancy bags for the actual lift.
Then when you DO manage to actually start the lift you have to take into account weather up top, various currents and water movements as the lift progresses (all that water is not still). Pressure changes as you break various thermoclines and so on.
And you only get ONE chance. Screw it up and it fails say 1 mile into the lift, and that ship is going to break up even further by the time it hits the bottom again, and that final impact will likely smash up any structural integrity remaining.
Getting to the fecking moon was easier than lifting Yorktown would be..... Hell its probably easier to get to Mars. A manned Mars trip is not so much about the tech, but building a vehicle large enough to carry a decent sized crew the distance and back while keeping said crew physically and mentally healthy. All easier to solve than lifting a 26,000 long ton ship from 3 miles down.....
On grain one risk you failed to mention (More so with wood hauls) if that grain is rice ships have been sunk due to the rice getting damp and expanding thus splitting seams.
Yes, I did read something about a ship that suffered this fate It's a scary thought part of what motivated me to ask
Horatio Hornblower would agree.
Regarding NCOs and trying to explain how things really work - your example of "no one really knows why that works," reminded me that chicken bones are necessary for the safe, and effective operation of nuclear powered warship. We kept chicken bones in the RPCP. The new leadership found out and wanted them cleaned out before a traveling Nuc training team visit.
The day after they were removed, the plant had scrammed 3 times. The last time it brought down #1 plant as well, because the breaker cross-connecting the electrical plants chose to close while the electrical plants were out of phase. And when the safety interlocks tripped the breaker, it would attempt to close again, as soon as the safety interlocks reset!
The chicken bones were replaced within 24 hours.
Listen to your NCOs when they say something is important. Perhaps particularly when they warn you that no one really knows why something may be necessary.
NCO's are definitely the backbone of any branch of service. Of course I'm biased as a retired NCO. 😉
I have spent way too much time listening to Drach. He's now become the default youtuber I listen to when I'm going to sleep, doing chores around the house, or when I'm playing Ultimate Admirals Dreadnaughts.
He is my default youtuber for doing chores, going to sleep, and , (dangerously, considering the last one) long roadtrips.
wrt the question about Delaware's turret sighting hoods. Initially, the USN had the sighting hoods on the roof of the turret. When the USN adopted superfiring turrets, the sights were moved to a position low on the sides of the turrets, to move them away from the muzzle blast. The sight hoods are clearly visible on the pic Drac shows of the forward turrets at 21:13. They are exactly at the same level as the guns themselves, on the forward part of the turret. This change had a second benefit. The top mounted sights were connected to the guns via a complex linkage. No matter how precisely the components of the linkage were made, there was always a small amount of slop, which became more important as ranges increased. When the sights were moved to the sides of the turret, they were rigidly bracketed to the trunnions of the guns, so there was no lost motion between gun and sight.
re the engines in Delaware's sister, North Dakota. ND was originally build with Curtis turbines. Besides being very inefficient, the Curtis turbines broke down, often. There was considerable discussion, reported in the newspapers in 1917, about whether ND should be scrapped, or reengined. When the US entered the war, the decision was made that it would be faster to reengine ND, than to build a replacement, so new, geared, turbines, were installed. When ND was scrapped, the new turbines were removed, and installed in Nevada, when that ship was modernized.
For question 25:51 I will also expand on that about certain cargoes having risks (Drach already pretty well covered coal and grain). Different types of cargoes also carry different variations of risk when it comes to shifting. For instance, many different types of ore (likewise, salt and sugar), when reaching a certain moisture content in the cargo, can cause that cargo to partially liquify, which is when the free surface effect pokes its head out to greet a ship into the depths of the ocean (more often than not). Especially dense ore cargo, this can be very deadly, such as iron ore, or nickel ore. To not be overloaded, there would be significant space left over in the hold, and when part of the cargo liquifies as vibrations and rolling influence water trapped in the cargo to move to the surface (creating a slurry in the holds), you very quickly can roll over and sink (sometimes in just one minute, case in point, Nur Allya in 2019, crew never even got off a distress call). It should also be noted that different conditions of ore can change its risk of shifting, such as iron ore *fines* as opposed to iron ore *pellets*. Also, cargoes of scrap. Obviously scrap comes in many shapes and sizes, and more clumpy/blocky scrap (engine blocks, steel beams or plates, etc) can puncture your hull if they shift (Antacus 1984, Murree 1989). Scrap can also lead to serious fire, such as scrap turnings (when not properly treated with chemicals prior to loading, Agios Giorgis 1979). And of course when it comes to coal and dense ore cargo, they can wear a ship out pretty well, which is why maintenance is paramount on the part of the shipowners.
Even fish holds exhibit the free surface effect. It's not all about liquid bunkers or cargo!
When I heard grain mentioned I shivered slightly.
One day a foreman lifted a piece of the narrow steel plate able to support a heavy lorry. Underneath was a long channel which I had thought was for drainage. It was not.
Inside was a continuously moving stainless steel chain gradually drawing crushed, de-oiled and toasted vegetable seeds.
There was more sources of ignition than I had realised.
Thank you so much Drach I appreciate the extra detail on this and to everyone else who has added even more detail
Thank you so much for this outstanding reply. I was aware of the hazards of ore and grain, but had never considered the hazards associated with scrap.
@@HEDGE1011 The latter hazard of fire is, admittedly, a rarity from what I've found in bulk carriers (can't speak for general cargo ships). The incident mentioned as example, the Agios Giorgis, was the result of incompetence/complacency on the part of the charterers who did not chemically treat the turnings even though it was contractually stipulated. So you have to really screw up for a casualty of that kind from scrap.
Regarding US officers in the lead-up to WWII you have to realize that peacetime breads administrators. Conservative and cautious officers that stay out of trouble ascend in rank. When war starts where boldness and willingness to take aggressive risks is required, it takes a while shuffle the deck while letting the new stars rise. This also reminds me of an article in which they, tongue in cheek, described the traits and skills of officers like this:
brilliant and lazy = strategist
brilliant and energetic = tactician
stupid and lazy = harmless
stupid and energetic = dangerous
Not all Heroes wear capes, some talk Ship. Thank you for all that time you have shared with us recently. Always a pleasure.
To paraphrase Lew Grade during the making of Raise The Titanic: "It would be cheaper to lower the Pacific." 😅
Coffee and The Drydock is how I like to relax on a Sunday afternoon. Cheers Drach.
Or Sunday Mornings.
A real problem for the US Navy; with respect to the preparedness of the officers who were in command early in WWII; was that the sort of officer who advances in rank during peacetime isn’t often the sort of officer who performs well in active combat. In peacetime, a lack of demerits or black marks was sufficient to see officers promoted, of whom the best could be said of them would be “They didn’t break anything, or screw anything up.” Officers who were aggressive or pushed the envelope in maneuvers or exercises were practicing more realistically would occasionally break things and; without a record in combat to fall back on; be passed over for promotion. So too many senior officers at the outbreak of WWII were in their positions solely by virtue of never having done anything wrong, and needed to be replaced by officers who’d practiced eating fire and passing smoke-as-flatus. There’s just no other way to measure an officer’s performance, absent a shooting war. There was just no way to accumulate combat commendations on their record, so they guys with the fewest black marks rose to the top. And not everyone is convinced that the US Navy is that different in the present day.
How many hours of Drach have dropped this week!!
OMG!!!
Not all heroes wear capes
Ugh. Turret 4. What madness is this! I enjoyed the breakdown on a hypothetical V-1 attack on the Normandy invasion force and the question of the hydrodynamics of fish vs. torpedo. Drach and the people on this channel are top notch.
Definitely a fan of you giving these histories of naval development, individual warships, warship classes, and battles.
Thanks Drach.
That dry, powdery, shifting cargo can also build up a huge amount of static electricity, just waiting for a chance to discharge amid all that flammable dust.
Question: Bilge and emergency pumps. How were the intakes kept clear of debris to allow the pumps to function? One would assume that if a ship was damaged to the point of needing these pumps there would be a lot of debris that would block the intake up. Also, were there independently powered pumps (diesel & gas) that did not need the ships main power to operate them? Were there mobile “emergency” pumps that could be moved to areas where they are needed? Keep up the good work Drach, your channel is great. 👍
1. There is a strainer or cage at the suction of both installed and portable pumps and eductors to keep out larger pieces of debris. 2. Yes - portable gasoline or diesel pumps are part of the damage control loadout. In the US Navy during the Cold War, the most common portable damage control pump was the gasoline-powered P-250 (rated at 250 gallons per minute), later converted to run on JP-5. This was fairly heavy, difficult to prime, and started and ran like crap on JP-5. It was replaced in the 1990s by the P-100, which was a lighter pump that started and primed easily. Additionally, there are also small electrically powered submersible pumps that can be lowered into flooded compartments; these have an integral strainer as it's not just damage that produces debris (think of a flooded berthing compartment with its contents).
On land it is possible for a centrifugal pump to put small stones through along with dirty water. Then you stop it and pull it out of the way.
Wasn’t the fast battleship of the pre-Dreadnought era, Dreadnought? I mean, wasn’t that why she was so revolutionary, combining heavy firepower, decent protection and substantially higher speed than her contemporaries?
I would say she began the Dreadnought era. So she was too late to be considered for the pre Dreadnought era.
yes she was
Agreed. Prior to Dreadnought the standard max speed was 18 kts and, with triple expansion engines, the sustained was around 14-15kts. Thanks to turbines Dreadnought could maintain 21kts indefinitely, or at least until it ran out of fuel.
Actually, "for the period the channel covers" it was still cusom to build hoppers on top/ into the hatches of ship's carrying grain, so that when the grain shakes around and fills every nook and cranny. 'new' grain is added to the hold as to not create voids where grain can move around in.
nowadays that is not done anymore, as due to advances in technology the ability of calculating the risk and looking ahead at the weather has made it redundant.
that's interesting thank you
(1) Coal has impurities that form corrosive biproducts when wet. In the long term it can weaken the hull causing the ship to brake up under stress
(2) You could build a new Yorktown for less money than the cost of salvage, preservation and restoration.
Liquid cargoes are actually more prone to shifting than granular cargoes like grain. The free surface effect (as the load shifting phenomenon is known) is mitigated by subdividing the tank athwartships into port and starboard or port, center, and starboard tanks.
Granular cargoes in the period the channel covers could actually be filled right up into the corners of the hold. The process of doing so was called trimming the cargo and was accomplished by small hatches near the side of the ship called trimming hatches.
31:16 This isn’t actually a slipway, it’s a separate piece of infrastructure called a marine railway. A slipway has ways that a ship sits directly on and slides down and is only ever used for new construction. A marine railway has a permanent cradle that rides on rails and is used effectively the same way as a drydock is. You set up keel blocks and put the ship on them before lifting the whole assembly out of the water. They are more typically used for repair and overhaul and are pulled up and lowered down by large winches that are permanently affixed in place.
Their method of operation means that the amount of space required grows rapidly as the ship gets bigger because the cradle needs to travel further at the same slope to gain the additional elevation to handle deeper draft vessels. And the winches required grow too. These two issues generally limit them to smaller craft.
There are two abandoned examples in the Philly Navy Yard to the east of the lift bridge over the basin entrance. When operational, they lowered down into the basin. They were last used in to overhaul a pair of diesel subs that were intended for the shah of Iran. This order was cancelled when the Iranian revolution occurred, and since modern US submarines are too big to be used by those marine railways, they’ve been abandoned ever since.
Not like fast battleship doesn’t sacrifice protection and firepower either. If KGV were 23 knots it'd probably have 14-16 guns instead of 10. Every design choice is a compromise. It just that in 1935 engine technology had develop enough compared to 1910 that ships could go a lot faster on the same displacement.
wrt basing battleships in the Philippines, at one time, the Mississippi and Idaho, the two undersized ships that were sold to Greece, could have been based in the Philippines, as they were small enough to be accommodated in the Dewey drydock. That would also solve the problem of those two ships lacking the speed and range to steam with the Connecticuts, as they would be steaming by themselves.
Realistically, as Drac said, anything sent to the Philippines in 41, would be going to it's doom. The US could not forward deploy enough force to really be a deterrent. Drac reviewed USN pre-war battle plans some time ago. The plans seemingly imply that the Philippines would be written off if they were attacked. To get to the Philippines, from Hawaii, would have required steaming through thousands of miles of ocean, populated with islands the Japanese had held since 1918.
@@stevevalley7835 by 1941, there was a entire reinforcing program. Defenses were being changed on the ground, Sea and air. It just was a matter of timing. America was looking for a war in 1942.
@@WALTERBROADDUS The Philippines were virtually unreinforceable once the war started. The former German colonies of the Marianas, Carolines, and Marshalls, were all handed to Japan by the League of Nations after WWI. To evade Japanese bases, any US reinforcement would need to go around the south side of New Guinea, because Japanese bases were sitting astride the direct route from Hawaii. My nightmare scenario has the Japanese not attacking the fleet in Pearl, but only attacking the Philippines, in hopes political pressure would force FDR to send the fleet out into deep water, to attempt relief of the garrison, and run the gauntlet of Japanese forces.
@@stevevalley7835 at the time the war started, reinforcement was in progress. The 4th Marines have been withdrawn from China. Both b-17s and p-40s were being sent. Even the rest of the PT boats were in Pearl Harbor waiting to go to the Philippines on the 7th of December.
@@WALTERBROADDUS how would the US resupply the garrison after the war started? I remember reading that wags were saying the army could hold out in the Philippines as long as the 26th Cavalry had horses. We are seeing in Ukraine, now, how fast a full-on war burns through ammo and equipment.
@@stevevalley7835 the islands held out for 4 months. Largely supported by submarine. But in general, expecting large shipments is not likely. But you could say the same thing to Outposts in Guam, Wake Island or Midway....
Very Good.
About cargo shifting in the hold - i believe it is called "free surface effect". No small aamount of bulk carriers and RoRo were done in by that.
Another great DD Thanks Drach
22:35
Billfish heads have at least as much if not more to do with slashing at agile prey to kill or cripple them than streamlining.
Also, note that records of various fishes or marine mammals swimming faster than 30mph are questionable due to methodology (or are based on cases of them getting a speed boost by riding bow waves); beyond that point cavitation damage acts as a soft cap on marine animal speeds, at least nearer to the surface.
👍👍👍
Fish unlike torpedos and porpoises have a water intake in front to supply their gills with water. Porpoises and whales have blowholes on their dorsal sides and more rounded noses.
@@richardschaffer5588
So you’re saying the fastest marine mammals are faster than the fastest fishes? Because that’s not true; they also hit the 30mph soft speed limit.
Thank you Drach for Indulging my curiosity
Regarding the V-1s, they were only first used on June 13th, a week after D-Day, when the Allies were already firmly ashore. They were fired from the Pas-de-Calais area, which is just northeast of Normandy, but they were mostly launched from fixed launchers that were built to aim at London, and they were guided by crude time-and-distance calculations to when their engine cut out and they plunged to earth. So new launchers would have to be built to aim at Normandy, and new forms of guidance developed to improve the dismal accuracy they were getting in hitting a huge target like London. Once Calais was overrun, they were fired from ramps in Holland and Germany, both of which are too far away from Normandy, and air-launched from bombers, which were vulnerable to interception over France and thus often flew very low over the North Sea, again out of range of Normandy.
Their accuracy was not helped by relying on agents in England to report on fall-of-shot. Because all the agents had been captured and were working for MI5.
Petty officers knowing how things really work. I'm reminded of the novel "Down the Hatch" where only one man on the submarine can operate the oily bilge pump. "Too much bliddy wackem!"
More from the Warship-ful Master!
I agree with a previous comment that it would be far cheaper to build a 100% replica of Yorktown vice raising her.
And when you consider the damage she took at Midway, implosion damage as she sank, plus the inevitable impact damage with the bottom I seriously doubt it’s possible to raise a ship of that size from the depth she is at.
Drach,
You need to visit the Hunley submarine which is in process of leaching out submerged in a tank of chemicals. It's been several decades so far.
Also, if you raise the earlier Yorktown what do we call the existing Yorktown CV10?
59:13 In Mansfield Park, Jane Austen had Fanny Price's little brother made a third lieutenant on a 16 gun ship rigged sloop. Those things don't usually get second lieutenants. I always figured the joke was he had the worst commissioned officer berth in the entire Royal Navy.
In the US Army at least, you NEVER give a 2nd Lt a map AND a compass. One or the other but NEVER, EVER both at the same time...And for God's sake NOT at night!!!
Why not? That seems like the kind of equipment literally everyone should be carrying. Though its understandable if only some maps have the objective marked for security
@@russianbear0027 Because 2nd Lts are guaranteed swamp finders, n the last thing a tired (n my case 82nd Abn Inf NCO) wants is swamp at 3am. Oh, n one a couple of miles away from your 4am Phase Line or Objective
.
Wouldn't it be easier to build a recreation of a Yorktown class carrier (And cheaper?)
Re 14:09, Flying Bombs against Normandy beaches - I remember reading that the launch sites had ramps aligned on London, with De-Mag buildings (to benefit compass 'autopilot') similarly orientated. They were bombed by USAAF. Any aligned on Normandy would soon be spotted.
Yes, and due to the nature of the V1 (being a small aeroplane) needing to be accelerated to flying speed up the ramps you mentioned, ramps (even prefabricated ones) would have to be built in advance. Careful deception and control of information kept the Nazi's from guessing where the invasion was actually going to happen so such preparation could not be made.
It's fortunate that D-Day happened before the V2 was in service as this could have been used tactically from it's portable launchers. Xx.
I recall the prefabricated ramps could be spotted, particularly from the damage by launch pistons landing, possibly too a launch failure blasting leaves off any tree cover.
Some V1s were fired against Antwerp once the invasion forces took the port, which might kinda-sorta count. I doubt they did anything significant, though.
From RV Jones - "Antwerp was target for 1610 rockets and 8,696 flying bombs, with Liege a target for 3,141 bombs". Antwerp hit by more than London.
Neither an accurate aimed weapon.
Slipways are used for smaller craft like fishing boats (at least in Scotland). The paddle steamer Maid of the Loch was recently slipped as well. There are videos of it not going to plan on RUclips
Gee, that Baltimore class looks like a fine class of cruisers to present in a guide...
lol @60 min. You forgot to mention the luxury of warm beer in the tropics.
I may be preaching to the choir here, but it is certainly well known among on-the-scene, active-duty combatants that war is an everyday thing. However, this becomes less obvious to later generations, since we who look back on those years tend to focus on the so-called major battles, overall strategies, primary leaders, etc., because when we delve into the confounded misery and carnage that went on daily it is just too dreadful. For an example of this constancy of danger, see “The Pacific War 1941-1945,” by John Costello (1981).
WWII is studied in terms of a series of big events, yet there was danger on every day of that conflict. An example of this is the kamikaze attack on USS Randolph CV-15, March 11, 1945, while she was at anchor in Ulithi Atoll after a month of almost continuous air attacks and patrols. Onboard that day was my father, a signalman, who had decided to skip a movie being shown in the aft hangar deck, having already seen the film. It was an effective attack, hitting aft and starboard, penetrating through the flight deck, hangar deck and further. A subsequent massive at-sea repair effort enabled Randolph to continue her offensive capabilities with both Fifth and Third Fleets through the end of the war and another 25 or so years of active service after that. My father did return home, thanks to that rerun. This particular event, available for confirmation today through various internet sites, is but only a footnote - if that - in the larger scheme of WWII. It was not part of a headline battle, except for the 27 killed and 105 wounded that day it was war nonetheless.
Gas explosions in coal mines are made worse by coal dust ans there can be dust explosions without gas. It's standard to damp down the coal to reduce the risk of explosion.
wrt the question about early fast battleships, during his first stint as First Sea Lord, Jackie Fisher was developing concepts for new battleships and new armored cruisers, which evolved into the "Dreadnought armed cruiser", aka battlecruiser. The design process apparently yielded a fast battleship concept, in 1905, known as "HMS Fusion", which combined armament of 10-12" guns, 45,000hp turbines for a speed of 24kts, an 11" armor belt, a length of about 620 feet, and displacement of 22,500 tons. There are a couple mentions of Fusion on line, along with the battleship and armored cruiser concepts,
you would need to raise it in pieces, you would need a strong back the length of the ship and all the winches and barges in the Pacific to raise it in one piece
31:30 seen slipways been used to get fishing boats out of water, far to heavy to lift with an crane like you do with smaller boats but you can get it on an slipway and pull it out of water.
I thought when you read the question about the V1, I thought the questioner meant the staging points in England as they prepare to launch.
Regarding the V1 question, HMS Warspite, in the extremely unlikely instance that she actually took a hit, would probably just say ouch, not again, there were some tanks that you wanted to go away?
Wooo!
Re, the question at 41:31… The same question could be asked about the Chinese Navy of today. They have a LOT of brand-new ships - untested in actual combat. A LOT of officers and crew who are equally untested. No maritime tradition to build upon and lean on and a compliment of sailors and some officers who may not have the same focus and motives as their opposites in western navies - especially the USN. I suspect that in any shooting-war with the west, the Chinese would repeat the same mistakes and show the same lack of competence as their opposites in 1941.
What if they are playing War Thunder and other video games to aquaint themselves with their own tactics and others in order to produce a simulation of possible battle cases.
They could be hard at work with various known and potential strategies.
@@myparceltape1169 Video games and actual combat are two VERY different things. It may all be push-buttons these days but strategy, tactics and experience and above all, motivation, make the difference. Just look at the Ukrainian Army vs. the Russian army.
@@ronhudson3730 I am well aware of that but what they will see is the type of input used by foreigners.
The information needed by the Chinese navy is how these foreigners react. I expect they have the ability to know exactly who they see on screen. They can wait until someone who knows what their country would do appears.
It is a form of spying and like most others it depends on a slight mistake. Like a chief going online and doing something he knows.
I don't play video games but I doubt it is easy to continue to be someone else.
Raise the Yorktown?😏💉💊 Just Say no to drugs...
Well said. Its not a goer...
@@keefymckeefface8330 Some questions just.... Well.... Raise a 80 year old wreck, 3 miles deep? Makes about much sense as, Olympic Break dancing...
@@WALTERBROADDUS I wouldn't be caught there but I would watch from a distance
Regarding forward basing in the Philippines, Look at Port Arthur.
They would have done the same thing, but thrown in aircraft.
The bill of a billfish is key for speed and manoeuvring. The bill cavitates and moves the rotational axis where the mouth is and extends leverage of the tail. I fish and freedive with those highly intelligent monsters. As for forced oiling and drip oiling…slow rotating babbitbearings and slow steam expansion cylinders are fine with drip. Deflagration of a diesel cylinder puts a lot more pressure on a shaft bearing - pressurized bearing races can handle the shock much better for longer. Oilcoolers keep bearing temp down, a closed oil circuit can be filtered much better. Tight bearings make an engine much quiter.
Are you sure about the cavitation? If it happens on the bill, it would also happen on the leading edge of fins and tail, and cavitation can be very destructive.
Ive always wondered, Drach. Every Brooklyn class light cruiser was sold abroad postwar, with the exception of Savannah and Honolulu. Did the amount of damage they recieved during the war make them......... unattractive to potential buyers? Savannah was given a significant upgrade after eating a german guided bomb off Italy, interestingly enough.
52:00 The ship pictured has it's hull number on the forward deck.
Is that a quick reference for the bridge crew ?
They are in the best position to read it. LOL
Video Suggestion: Do a video on the past, present, and future of the torpedo boats and automated jet ski bombs. Peter Zehin (Zehin on Geopolitics) has a recent video out predicting how automated jet ski bombs are the future (at least for smaller nations) of naval warfare. I think it would be good (if you haven't already done so) to put out a video that puts these "new" weapons into historical context and uses real, rational, informed analysis to predict their future. (I.e., something that Peter DOES NOT do!)
51:00 I think another point is that countries name and categorize ships for their own needs, not to benefit historians.
For example, the Royal Navy's Town Class destroyers of WWII. There is no real benefit for the Royal Navy to differentiate the Wickes and Clemson class vessels from each other, they all have about the same capabilities and utility along with the same big caveats (particularly their being American will have implications on maintenance and crew training).
Similarly the Germans dont care what a "Fletcher" is, they care about classifying the Zerstorers for their own purposes.
I think the same is also a big part of the same class vs subclass vs separate class debate, its all about what makes sense for the navy managing its fleet.
I would very much like to hear a more extensive video on the South Dakota class U.S. battleships. Growing up in Alabama, the U.S.S. Alabama has always been a source of pride, and since I've heard you mentioned in the past that the South Dakota class was commissionedv in part to fix issues with the North Carolina class and ended up being more protected and more maneuverable, I've always seen that as technically meaning the South Dakota class were the second most powerful American warships ever built, only eclipsed by the Iowa's. Is that wrong? I never have heard anyone put it that way, but would love to hear your opinion on the under-mentioned penultimate class of battleships.
Hey, that could even be an interesting future video, going through and sharing your thoughts on each major nations' second most powerful battleships or heavy cruisers or whatever. Most people know about the famous ships, the big girls, but the silver medals deserve some love!
QUESTION: Had Hitler, Raeder, and Lütjens waited until Tirpitz was commissioned to begin surface operations, is it possible the Kriegsmarine could have benefitted from a fleet battle compared to the number of individual actions which actually occured historically.
With the RN spread so thin, and had the Home Fleet split up, like what happened in operation Rheinburg, I believe its possible they could have defeated the Home Fleet in detail, if the RN tries to cover all avenues of ingress into the Atlantic and egress from the North Sea as they did.
That would be suicide though, I doubt anyone could have justified splitting the captial ships up at which point can Bismark, Tirpitz, Scharnhorst, Gneisenau, the Deutschlands and the Hippers stand against King George V, Nelson, Rodney, Hood, Repulse and 2nd, 10th, 15th, and 18th Cruiser Squadrons (14 Cruisers) and the Glorious, Argus and Furious?
No but there is nowhere near enough overmatch to avoid severe losses and if the Kreigsmarine can draw the Home Fleet into range of land based Luftwaffe aircraft it could be enough to even the odds.
Speed would be the problem for the RN. Rodney and Nelson, any QE or R would hold the KGs and the battlecruisers back.
By the time the Tirpitz would be ready the two North Carolinas, Wasp and Ranger would have been available. That's not a good look for the Kriegsmarine.
@johnshepherd9676 Tirpitz was ready in February 41, before the US joins the war.
@@fightforaglobalfirstamendm5617 Tirpitz spent 1941 doing shakedown and working up in the Baltic. She was not ready for action until 1942.
Hi Drach I recently when to leigh on sea where I saw HMS Wilton. It appears to have been turned into a sailing club. Do you know anything about these ships or are the past the period the channel covers ?
Isn't Zerstorer just German for Destroyer? That particular renaming seems to not be a renaming at all.
Regarding your design for the HMS Thunderchild, is it really that accurate to have casemates in the hull? Asking because i am interested in making a design inspired on it and I can't tell if it should have casemates in the hull that close to the waterline
It is my opinion, for the nothing that's worth, that fast battleships (27+kts on roughly 35k tons) would not have come about without the naval treaties of the 20's and 30's. I believe that the 10k ton cruiser was what lead to the engineering innovations that made it possible.
Sort of like the US Army types got angry with Patton when he did not follow the playbook during "warm games" in the US before the war!
49:16 Would the fact that all the labels, manual's, and logs are in different languages matter in the ships class ?
Would original English language remain a Fletcher class, German language becomes Z-1 class, etc ?
Question for drach: why was there not an amphibious major landing(s) in europe during WW1?
There was. It was called Galiipoli. Unfortunately the Admirals didn't consider the pre-Dreadnoughts as expendable as Churchill did, when he ordered the old ships to damn the guns and minefields and push on to bombard Constantinople/Istanbul. The shipboard Royal Marines made a good try at the combat engineer role of attacking the Ottoman forts, but there weren't enough of them so the Admirals sent for the Anzacs. That took over a month, and the Turks' able German advisers prepared them a warm reception.
32:31
*Type II
The VII had four bow tubes.
44:00 Could you check for anyone who is a foreigner who had served in another navy during a war and has good advice to give?
52:25 In the USN the Chiefs make the Navy work.
Did anyone else have trouble hearing him clearly? Ive got the volume on max but it's like he's whispering some of the time. Otherwise thanks for another great job
WRT the NCO/petty officer question, any young officer who does not listen and learn from his subordinates is a moron headed for a quick end. As a career Army officer, I can state, without doubt, NCOs will teach you what you need to know, keep you reasonably safe, and make you look good if you give them the respect they deserve.
Every thing I see about pacific war touts the Japanese being more experienced with carriers because of the war in China. Aside from logistical experience like co-coordinating a launch, recovery and arming which are critical steps no doubt but what combat experience if any did carrier pilots get around China. Would seem like a David and Goliath thing air power wise/ no contest. Basically what did they Japanese carriers contribute to the China campaigns, how often and how effective they were as well.
Two or three carriers directly provided air support to the IJA at the battles for Shanghai and Canton in 1937 and Wuhan (Chiang's last major industrial center) in 1938, and in patrols and some of the fighting along the coast in between.
Attack and fighter squadrons were also sent ashore in support of the IJA, notably Kaga's landbased airgroup at Nanking which had requested confirmation from the Army HQ of their orders to attack All shipping on the Yangtze anywhere near. That included the well-marked gunboat USS Panay and the Esso tankers crammed with refugees it was escorting..
The carrier Akagi had been under reconstruction during this time, and celebrated her completion in 1939 with two or three weeks of combat operations. There were then 5 IJN air bases with about 450 aircraft in Central China, about equal to the IJA AF north of the Yellow River. In 1938 the IJN AF with the Mitsubishi A5M kept the lead in anti-air and long-range bombing, while the IJA AF was mainly ground support until getting the Ki-27. The fall of Wuhan and Canton in October 1938 ended the need for the carriers.
In 15 months the IJN had accounted for most of China's 202 aircraft admitted lost, while claiming 600 kills in the air and as many on the ground. The truth was probably rather closer to the Chinese admission.
Ray Wagner's "Prelude to Pearl Harbor: The Air War in China 1937-1941" (1991) says the summer of 1939 was relatively quiet in China while the IJA AF concentrated on supporting the Kwantung Army over Nomonhan, and the land-based IJN was most active September until winter. (as the Soviet Volunteer Group began withdrawal after the Non-Aggression Pact with Germany).
Japan's top pilot was probably the IJA Ace Hiromichi Shinohara, who got his wings in 1934 after riding into Manchuria in 1932 as an 18-year old cavalryman. By the time fighting began over Nomonhan in May 1939 he was a Warrant Officer flying a Ki-27 with six years experience, but no combat time.
That changed when he shot down four I-16s on his first combat sortie, followed by five I-15s and a recon Polikarpov R-Z within 24 hours. He topped that June 27 when he scored 11 victories. No one else got credit for as many kills in a day, and his tally stood at 58 Soviet aircraft when he was shot down in flames August 27 after scoring a final three I-16s on an escort mission.
However, the Japanese in China flew 14,138 bombing sorties, killing or injuring 60,000 Chinese (notably in Chungking) and destroying 138,171 houses by Chinese count, for a loss of 17 aircraft in combat by the end of 1939.
About 60 IJN pilots became Aces in the Pacific after first scoring kills over China. Despite getting his wings in 1937, the celebrated Saburo Sakae didn't score his 2 kills until entrusted with one of the first Mitsubishi A6M2 Zeros sent to fight in China in mid-1940. The Zeros shot down under 60 aircraft, claiming another 100 on the ground although the Chinese used Chennault's early warning system to try to save their remaining fighters to defend against Un-escorted bomber raids.
The Soviet Volunteer Group had been making it a bit less of a pushover in China by flying over 200 of the 1200 Polikarpov I-15 and I-16 fighters and bombers Stalin supplied China after the fall of Shanghai in early November 1937.
Claire Chennault, air adviser to China, first reported the Soviet Volunteer Group's use of the "Boom and Zoom" tactics he later made famous with his Flying Tigers during the battle for Nanking in late 1937.
General Zhukov is credited with the first use of "Blitzkrieg" tactics at Khalkin Gol in Manchuria, to destroy the Japanese 29th Infantry Division of 24,000 men with a double envelopment by some 70,000 Soviet troops, 900 tanks and 400 armored cars, but it was only possible after the Soviet AF had worn down the IJA Air Force with incessant attacks on their airbases.
The announcement of the Molotov-von Ribbentrop Pact the same day undermined the Anti-Comintern Pact and brought the resignation of the current Japanese Government, while the Soviet Volunteer Group began withdrawal and Soviet aid to China wound down in 1940.
Unfortunately Stalin had most of the senior Soviet AF veterans of Spain and China arrested in June 1941 as "wreckers" for losing too many recruits and their tricky-handling new planes in training, and about 30 veteran AF generals were shot a few months later for doing their best to make the Red Air Force combat-ready.
Getting back to your post, I think that the IJN pilots and carrier operations did gain an edge over the US and Allies in the first year of the war, but it wasn't insurmountable once the "Boom and Zoom" tactics Chennault had observed the SVG employ over Nanking in 1937 were taught to our pilots.
A few months before Pearl Harbor Chennault had given a standing room only presentation on tactics to use against the Japanese to an eager audience of Army aviators at the Hickam Field Officers Club, on the way to a Washington meeting.
It's a pity that it seemed obvious that Japan would concentrate its carriers on supporting its invasion force headed for SE Asia, when for lack of a better plan for ultimate Victory it would actually risk its entire force of Fleet Carriers on an attack that required total surprise for success, using weapons that had only become usable in the past three months.
hydrocarbons and carbohydrates are composed largely of hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon; possibly with bits of sulpher or nitrogen mixed in. Iirc my high school chemistry - hydrocarbons tend to be flammable, and carbohydrates tend to be explosive.
Carbohydrates can be explosive in powders, but are flammable in bulk. Sugar is a carbohydrate, for example. As is bread. Nitrates, on the other hand .....
Regarding the V-1s, wouldn't their accuracy be somewhat better with them being used as direct-fire weapons at close range, as compared to their historical use as long-range area-bombardment weapons?
Actually no. V1s fly at set compass heading for azimuth and a timer for range. They had real problems hitting greater London we’re talking multiple miles off target not yards.
@@richardschaffer5588 ...and a given azimuth error will produce a range/crosstrack error at target that is directly proportional to the range from the launch site to the target. An azimuth error that produces an error of several miles over the distance from the launch sites to London will produce a much-smaller error over the much-shorter distances involved in launching V-1s from the Normandy countryside at ships just offshore.
There were plans along those lines, essentially using the V1 as a stand-off missile. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Arado_Ar_234_Blitz_mit_V1_pic1.JPG. But there were an awful lot of plans in Nazi Germany by that point in time, and many of them were dubious at best.
@@richardschaffer5588 There were some plans to use V1s in Mistel configuration. But the whole Mistel concept was dubious at best.
V1, just how much armour could it have penetrated?
It was high explosive warhead, not an armor piercing design.
Penetration is hard to define. But you don't necessarily have to get *through* the armour to make what's *behind* the armour non-functional.
30th, 18 August 2024
47:00 A group of people wargaming? Hopefully, you will pick out the tactic that your enemy will use among the possibilities.
If you could cube a corn cob or corn casually can cost contain and if competent officers called colliers call coal cool could corn compete coal as coal cones in not corn way? Casting c in such coalescence calls for corn more than coal. Can you dig?
In the US Navy (veteran, 55 years ago), we (officers and enlisted0 always said Chiefs (E7 - E9) ran the Navy. Nowadays not sure which pronoun runs the Navy.
41:43 Another way of looking at some of the "racist" attitudes can be attributed to differences in historical development.
Western military thinking is even today, largely influenced by Napoleonic thought, Jomini, Von Clausewitz, etc.
Asia in general, and Japan in particular didn't care.
They had a completely different view of attacking your enemies will to war, rather than strictly attacking his armies.
The ideas of Sun Tzu.
If a British soldier switches to thinking like a German he's still going to be wrong, because as a European the German is just a reflection of himself.
So it would seem that fast battleships only really became viable by mid-late WWI.
I think you have to put speed in the context of the time. They are already faster than most seagoing vessels in most of History.
@@WALTERBROADDUS
By that logic there were never any fast battleships, since even the WWII-era fast battleships were almost always outmatched by cruisers or destroyers in speed and usually also by carriers.
@@bkjeong4302 they were faster than the standards.... even today, how many ocean-going vessels do you see capable of 33 knots?
@@WALTERBROADDUS
33 knots is unusually fast as WWII-era fast battleships go, and even then the Iowas were slower than a lot of contemporary destroyers and cruisers and some carriers.
@@bkjeong4302 destroyers and cruisers are not 45,000 tons Plus.... speaking of carriers..... anyone see a cause for the fire on the former Minsk yet?
If I get Musk money, it's a toss up between a new Iowa and a Hood
You've got Musk money. Build both.