As far as a ram. I've always thought they needed a copper or bronze condom. Or in other words, once it goes in, you can it pull right back up leaving the "covering" inside. (I'm so going to hell)
fun thought experiment. If the masts were to be used to be used for sails (lets imagine as a contingency for running out of fuel in the middle of the ocean), how large would the rigging be to get the ship somewhere in a reasonable time; i.e. before the crew starved.
Sorry for the repeat Drach, but I posted this before you got the pinned post up: Could the hull design of a modern-ish (post 1940) warship (w/ re to the bulbous/flared bow, beam/length ratio, freeboard/gunwale height, etc) have been translated practically into the Age of Sail warship design? Is there something inherent to timber and wood that required ships of that day to look like wash tubs (round and squat, when compared to modern warships)? Was there a point in time when some naval architect went, “These current warship designs are rubbish; look at this, look at what I have just drawn! This is absolutely STELLAR!”
This is my number one “issue” with these videos. They are brilliant and well written and researched and I’ve enjoyed every one. Please add the names as delayed captions for those of us land lubbers that can’t tell some ships apart...
A bulbous bow allowed, on some ships, for the crew to engage in the unofficial sport of, 'Bow Jumping'. On a Knox Class, for example, the forward supply room was in the bow. After a long voyage, the store room would be mostly empty- leaving a large space that sailors can 'chill out' in. In heavy seas when steaming through the waves, the pitch of the ship could make the deck change elevation by as much as 20 feet. So, to play the sport, you crouch ready to jump as the deck rises. When the ship crests the wave and the bow begins to go down, you jump as high as you can. Whomever stayed in the air longest wins.
There's a great story in D K Brown's Nelson to Vanguard. During trials of HMS Nelson there were complaints of muzzle blast entering the decks directly under the triple gun turrets. Some engineers were sent to investigate. Sure enough when the guns fired they could clearly see a blinding red flash in the compartment immediately below the upper deck. There were no gaps, there was no blast damage or burns, but both saw the red flash. Eventually they discovered the compartments were acting like a huge drum, the blast effect was squeezing the air out of them and this caused the eyeball to distort for a brief moment. A few holes were made to allow air out and the problem went away.
Thank you. Looks like this one will be Kindle. "www.amazon.com/Nelson-Vanguard-Development-1923-1945-Distinguished-ebook/dp/B00L1E1V3O/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2WA4CGC22WNB5&dchild=1&keywords=nelson+to+vanguard&qid=1595426572&sprefix=nelson+to+van%2Caps%2C154&sr=8-1"
So in other words: the main deck was too flexible and bent inwards... But i guess stiffening some hundred suqre meters of deck after commissioning is harder to do than putting in some holes.
@@christophpoll784 Well to put that into perspective an over-pressure of just 2 psi on the deck over the area of a compartment, say 20'x20' would be the equivalent of briefly putting a 52 tonne weight on the ceiling.
Designers: Alright, we're gonna have a bulbous bow, an angled fore deck and irregular aft deck, and a place for floatplanes and and exit chute for life boats. Wargaming 75 years later: *_goddamnit_*
Regards Iowa having straight sides, consider the ship is 108 ft wide; the docks for the Panama canal were 110 ft wide; minimal clearance. If the design continued a more usual sweep for the sides of the hull it could not fit thru the canal. Flattening the sides allows a large vessel to still fit the canal.
There was the Kiel Canal between the Baltic and North seas to consider, as it was only 107 feet wide, so Bismarck and Tirpitz couldn’t fit but Scharnhorst and Gneisenau could.
I wonder if not being able to fit in the Kiel canal was an oversight due to Nazi over-ambition or if it was deemed acceptable since being confined to the canal might leave a big valuable ship more vulnerable to air raids. When the canal was originally widened before WW1, air raids couldn’t get anywhere near the canal, and the planes weren’t very threatening to a big ship anyway. Ships were also smaller, of course, so there was less danger of a ship not fitting.
My father served on the USS Washington when she was in the Atlantic and during the 2nd Battle of Guadalcanal. (He was also a plank owner He was a very junior officer (Ens. then LtJG when he left) who's duty was to measure the clearance of the ship as it was going thru the locks of the Panama Canal. He recounts that the ship would "wobble" a bit as the water was being let out, and a lot more when (as coming in from the Caribbean Sea) the water was going in.... he told me that with the technology of the time, it was an exercise of futility since there was no room for fenders and with the only adjustments being made were numerous line handlers changing the rate that they were taking in (or letting out) their lines, and the fact that by the time the message got to the line handlers it was already too late!!
"The idea of a 45,000 ton glass battleship shattering the first time it encounters a large wave is amusing to think about, but perhaps not so amusing to be on" Gives a whole new meaning to the phrase "glass cannon" Talking about materials, R. Buckminster Fuller once used the analogy that you could have two battleships, built entirely the same, with the same design, almost exact copies, but change one thing on the second ship and it can shoot farther and more accurately: the type of steel in the gun barrels. It made his point about materials science being an important one and how simple changes can do great things.
A glass submarine does however make sense - glass fails in tension, not in compression. Glass foam is used for buoyancy in deep sea submersibles because it can’t be crushed by pressure.
What a delightful discussion about design. Many people outside of design engineering don't understand that every design is a compromise between antagonistic functional requirements.
War engineering is very serious and complicated matter. It is the ultimate test of pragmatic calculation to get the most effective/efficient design for the task of fighting a war. Yet, my mind wanders. Those machines were build by people with failings like pride. Mr. Drachnifel, I really enjoy this video, and as a contrast to it, would you be interested in making a video investigating cases where "the rule of cool", for lack of better word, took priority over other factor in the developement of a real warship at any point in history? For instance, early bronze guns were decorated by the artisans who made them, which offered no tactical advantage but made them ostentatious. Can you find more modern cases of "looks over practicality"?
Frankly having all the Ships of the Line with giant multi-deck windows was a "rule of cool" since it was a colossal weak point in the rear of the warships. Imagine if they did that in the era of the Dreadnought, with the rears just being made of windows and with little armor between the glass and the guns.
Being an ex-signals mate on a German warship, I can assure you that even in the 1990s signal flags were still our main means of communication within the squadron.
I was going to put my oar in also. Signal flags cannot be detected over the horizon. Great emphasis was put on proper training and execution of signals by the flag crew.
@@BeKindToBirds I'm not sure what you are referring to. Radio signals,even encrypted, can give directional intelligence when detected. The visual horizon from a ship is usually less than 10 miles. Flag signals can be repeated from ship to ship even when the entire task group is not in sight. Formations take this into account. As for satellites, trust me, we know where they are and if they are over our 'horizon'.
@@kevinbendall9119 .The people telling you that all the fancy shit protecting you from aircraft and else is working and not to worry do so because thats the equipment you've bloody got mate. And I'm sorry to be the one to tell you thus but death comes from above these days more often than all the other kinds of ways combined. The horizon is a lot of open sky. Every single thing a ship on the open sea is known, that's why they invented submarines after all yeah? You can't dismiss the battlefield with just a few assurances. You got told what you were told because it has its pros and cons. It is NOT infallible and you are a sucker and a romantic if you truly think the old ways are anything except not yet obsolete But your a damn fool if you think for a second that everything above your chain of command wasn't focused highly on everything above you and deadly afraid of what could pop up over the horizon.
This reminds me of a old school assignment I drew back in 5th or 6th grade that I had rediscovered recently. We were told to design a ship and work out in very basic sense the pros and cons of our designs and we would critique each others designs. I being the naval history nut I was and being told specifically to NOT design a submarine of any sort I designed a battleship. It was a trimaran hulled ship complete with 6 4 gun turrets that had 24 inch guns, more secondary guns then god, torpedo tubes where ever I could stuff them, and all powered by 9 nuclear reactors powering 15 azapods for propulsion. Needless to say it was an expensive and likely unwieldy ship but at least had a lot of firepower.
That would be a tier XII boss to get rank 1 in WoWS i guess 😅 P.S. i thougt about a katamaran-aircraft-carrier with azipods (for sidestep-movement!) and a welldeck on each hull as well lately....
@@christophpoll784 I remember specifically getting the azapods because I figured this thing would be hard pressed to pull up to a any dock otherwise not to mention I could at least claim that it could out turn anything larger than a destroyer.
Trimarans turn well, but they are not as stable as big catamarans. Have a look at the big 110 to 130 metre cat ferries built by companies like Incat. Scale them up a bit and put on guns wherever you like as stability is not an issue on a large cat. They travel at 40 to 55 knots and are powered by water jets which are not as vulnerable to being shorn off in shallow water as azapods.
I do believe the Italians insisted that their warships look "bellissima" (beautiful) in addition to all other concerns. I for one believe they succeeded.
I agree, they look as if they were built with a small degree of aesthetic in mind. However on their early dreadnought I do not like how they mix armaments in the main turrets. They have bottom turrets triple gun turrets but the superfiring turrets double! Symmetry uuggghh!
'Would roll on wet grass' I actually remember that same quote, it came from sailors on the Flower class corvettes in WW2- extremely simple and cheap escorts, with no expense spent on seakeeping
,,So you need to design a Rocket Corvette" Polish towboat makers from Remontowa shipyard: **confused screaming** *20 years later* Polish towboat makers: Ok, here you have your light patrol boat with one machine gun. Navy: But we ordered 3 corvettes full of heavy weapons Polish towboat makers: *put one light cannon on the ship* Polish towboat makers: Here you are True story - polish ,,Gawron" project and ORP Ślązak partol vessel
look at the new USN BB line that world of warships is putting out. wows-blog-storage.gcdn.co/media/81/phpBIhchc and wows-blog-storage.gcdn.co/media/81/phpBIhchc the damn things are so big you can fit entire DDs, superstructure and all under the freeboard I bet.
Your engineering background is most appreciated as it obviously enables your cogent explanations of the various design balances and the why's of these based on the physics, materials etc., etc.
Reach, you are undoubtedly the only person who could make this subject interesting and entertaining. Excellent video, just excellent. By the way, a battleship isn't alone in sea-keeping issues. I have seen an Essex class carrier take green water over her boss and completely engulf her island.
Regarding flexing, I met a captain of a container ship, that sat "when you are in heavy seas on your bridge at the back of the ship, it is an impressive sight how the waves are rolling through the container rows". Meaning, you see the gaps between the containers widening and narrowing when the hull flxes when going over the crests and troughs of the waves.
The example of stable hull vrs unstable, I worked mainly on Fast Craft ferries. The Italian built MDV1200 SuperSeaCat's are mono hull fast craft and quite high freeboard. While they do have stabilisers to somewhat reduce their motion they still tend to roll around if things get a bit choppy. They were rated up to force 6 or 7 weather. Anything more we'd just not go. Passengers found them quite comfortable though. Most of my time was served on Incat 74 and 81's. These are Fast Craft Cats and as they're catamaran hulls very stable in the water even though they are slightly smaller than SuperSeaCat. As a result those were rated in everything right up to force 9 weather. We'd head on out in weather that everyone else was battening down the hatches and heading off home. SeaCat Scotland did however pick up the nickname "the Vomit Comet" in Belfast 😂 It took more to get them bouncing but when they did move around, the pitch and roll was just weird and there were times you'd feel her roll, pause then snap back exactly as you described. Fun story, worst weather I was ever out in was part of the crew that took Seacat Scotland light ship from Belfast to Dover to hand her over. We got caught in a massive storm off the coast of Wales. All we could do was turn away from the coast, head further out and try to go round the worst of it. We ended up lashing the cpt to his chair to stop him being thrown out of it and the rest of us just lay on the deck because we'd end up on our arse anyway if we tried to stand. In the cabin heading up to the bridge when we first got into it I was walking along then the deck just dropped out from under me then came back up to smack me as I fell. Well built little ship though. There were massive container and tanker ships out that night reporting damage over the radio all through it and we came through with some bumps and bruise but not a scratch on the ship and compared to the ships that got the snot kicked out of them, we were like a coke can 🤣
Now that is fascinating, since I found when I was young that I don't get seasick and I love to travel on the water. I am moving over to the PC to look those up!
Drach gave a good explanation of BB hull forms and their advantages/disadvantages in Drydock 63 in response to my question about it. It’s at about the 32-min mark.
Using US codes for hull types isn't really appropriate, as it is hardly universal. I know the US like to go their own way, but US terminology for things is crass.
Owain Shebbeare It’s just an abbreviation which (1) is more convenient for me while typing on an iPhone, and (2) is readily understood by almost everyone who cares enough to read the comments on a naval history channel. It’s not intended to be some statement about US superiority. The USN just happened to be the service that used hull codes which are widely known. Don’t get all bent out of shape over it.
Thank you for another great one Drach!! One request that I think people would love is that each ship picture you use be labeled with a name and the year the picture was taken
It's like this: basic people make a video use one sentence to describe something, cash in on 10 minutes diarriha content (goes in and out in a minute) Drachnifel takes every word of that one sentence and makes 1+hour videos, after which you wanna build your own ship :D keep it up! really appreciate your content (and I'm not even that deep into water, ships or the technicalities)
This video is great. The information that you imparted allows me to look at ships in a far different way. To be able to look at a vessel and actually know in a few novice ways the capacities of the ship the maneuverability what it can do and what it can't do makes a huge difference. I can now look at the ships that I served on and really understand why the ship behaved in certain ways and whether those ways are in fact desirable or not desirable for what the vessel is meant to do in its service life. this is one of the videos I am definitely going to watch more than 10 times just to really hone the observational skills that a historian needs to have with particular attention to equipment in the case of naval warfare. I particularly like your way of attacking the various aspects of construction. For example the weight armament maneuverability and speed that balance also applies to tanks and armored equipment of the army and to the Air Force. This is really good thank you ever so much and keep up the good work. Thank you
I recommend adding labels to the pictures for videos like this. At least the country and name of the ship, maybe its years of service and/or the date of the picture.
You forgot the true final form of the dreadnought bow, as seen in a much later modification of the _Yamato_ : the fixed center-line forward cannon bow, favored for use in interstellar combat :-P Not the sort of wave motion you had in mind.
wow that was exactly the video i asked for, so good. at work our 3d design software has options for plugins that will calculate metacentric height, trim et al of a ship while it's being designed but back in the day it had to be done by hand, mad respect for doing all that with the tools available.
Always love your videos Drach. If you keep it up, you may get a ship named after you later in this century. Five pounds says the motto of the ship is "sail me closer, I wish to hit them with my sword"
at this point maybe we should just start a GoFundMe to get Drach a boat... maybe commission someone to build one of those ridiculous 3m long powered model ships (of Warspite of course) for him to cruise around in?
I read that the unusual lines of IJN ship decks -- especially the carriers -- was to minimize the amount of steel required. Steel being in short supply in even pre-war Japan. Some nice shots of post Pearl Harbor USN Standards.
Very nice discussion on the basics of hull mechanics. I am a small boat builder by hobby and am working on my first design. All of this is a great way to introduce my boys to what I keep jawing about.
Loved this video! As someone no where near fluent in “battleship” I would have liked labels under the names of these ships. Most I knew or at least thought I did but some..... nope. Great video nonetheless.
The two main factors of Dreadnought design today: Is it premium, and is it Russian? If yes to either, put more guns and armor on it. If both, make it from pure Stallinium.
Joseph Stalin birth name was Ioseb 'Besarionis dze Jughashvili'. He took the name Stalin, because it made him the man of steel. Russian for steel is "stali".
Everything I ever wanted to know about battleship construction, and probably a few things I didn't. Specially relevant to me as my Dad served from '39 to '47 on the battle cruiser Renown. Thank you.
Drach, as usual, another informative video. Nice assortment of pictures during construction and other dry-dockings. I saw two of the Iowa class BBs in Norfolk, VA during their final reincarnation of commissioned service. I remember quite clearly admiring their hulls and thinking these are the sleekest lines of any large naval ship, not just battleships. Now that I know about their poor sea-keeping in roughs seas I'm glad I never sailed on one. But, damn, those are some sexy curves (nautically speaking, of course ;-)
Just like being able to locally build CVs, submarines and nuclear weapons nowadays. It's the culmination of a nation's prowess in technology and heavy industry. The more numerous and more technologically-advanced they were, the more you can flaunt your nation's superiority and discourage enemy nations from getting in your way. Part of the weapon's role, as instrument of awe and war deterrent.
@@walterk1221 I like this comment lol. My grandpa used sliderules, and my dad used FORTRAN. My generation gets infinite computing power, but we really are standing in the shadows of giants
@@walterk1221 Right. I took a peek inside the main draftsman room at a Ford auto plant in 1973. 800 people with slide rules paper, & pencils. As late as 1985 we were still using slide rules as our primary calculating device for artillery fire control.
48:33 Wait, are you telling us that building a warship out of glass is a bad idea? Especially if you plan on using it mostly to ram into the enemy, breach their hulls and board from within? Anime has lied to me! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass_Fleet :)
Hi! Perhaps some day you can cover the subject of Russian dreadnoughts and battleships in the first half of the 20th century, especially since they flew below the radar and then, much like the russian tanks, they suprised everyone with some relatively modern and effective designs!
Unfortunatly russian naval personel and building quality is below average even poor . And as the japanese russo war , first worldwar and 2nd world war showed the russian navy was all but useless .
Marcus Franconium how do any of those wars show the navy was useless? The navy was effective in the 2nd world war for sure, had several effective engagements in the 1st world war, and the ruso-Japanese war’s defeat didn’t have anything to do with the fleet being ineffective
With respect to bow bulbs, they are only effective in one speed regime, so if you design it to be optimized for cruise, it will have little positive effect at any other speed, and will likely have a slight negative effect, especially at low speeds. Secondarily, bow bulbs contribute a small ammount of boyancy foreward, but the moment developed is worth considering as it may mean that you can add some more equipment forward. This is somewhat mitigated by the fact that they are heavily built so their structure weighs a considerable ammount more than that of other void spaces, but it is still worth considering. And finally, in heavy seas they are not effective either, as the sea is too heavily disturbed to make a proper wake anyway, and you will be running at reduced speed as well.
The ultimate expression of a bulbous bow is the swath design - which is basically two submarines with a bridge linking them. A Swath reduces drag by reducing the waterline length to an absolute minimum. It’s rough sea handling is limited to the height of the main hull above the water surface. Below that wave height, it is almost absolutely stable in any sea state (like semisubmersible oil rigs).
Hello Drac. I have become a 'fan' of your videos. Mostly due to the way you present the information, and the clarity of your voice and your lack of 'taking sides'. Keep up the good work... I enjoy seeing each new video as it is released, and look forwards to seeing and hearing your informational reading upon the subject given.
The amount of water that can come over a ship's surface is quite amazing. SS _Edmund Fitzgerald_ Was easily the largest Lakes ore boat when launched in 1959 at 728 feet. Her freeboard to the deck level was 35 feet while the bridge added yet another 18 feet. During the 1975 storm that sank her, the water not only topped the deck, it even topped the bridge during ~ 80 mph winds..
Fantastic video. Great coverage of this topic that I've not seen before. Very helpful for understanding why some ships looked and behaved like they did.
The bulbous bow doesn't shift the bow wave forward. Its hydrodynamic shape helps drain it away making it smaller. Remember the bow wave isn't the "curl" of water thrown up as the leading edge slices through the water. It's a large mass of water always pushed ahead of a hull in motion. By reducing its size (thus mass) the bulbous bow reduces the amount of energy required to push a hull through water. For the same power it can make a ship faster. Two big caveats. For a given hull a bulbous bow must be designed for one speed--usually cruising speed for merchants and top speed for warships. At any other speed the advantage is lost. Second, a bulbous bow is designed for relatively calm seas. When it's rough enough that water is coming over the bow the advantage is lost.
A bit off topic, but non the less slightly interesting since Wasa was mentioned as a pinacle of unstable ship: the Swedish war ship Wasa sank at it maiden voyage after a little more then a kilometres journey on 10 August 1628. Beforehand, they had made a test/demonstration of the ships stability by letting 30 men running from side to side of the ship while docked. The test had to be aborted since it was a clear danger that the thing would keel over. The watching admiral said he was glad that the king was not there. And then they pretended that the test had never took place, since the monark was breathing down their necks to get Wasa commisioned and ready for war. It all ended with a commision that found no one guilty of anything. That was basically becuase the king himself had signed off on the design, and he had pushed it to be made fast. It was political impossible to write a report that pointed towards the king being involved in anything even slightly bad. So it fizzled out. The careers of the involved was not even hampered the tiniest bit.
Makes you wonder if perhaps that ended up being a net positive - I'm sure all the engineers and everybody involved learned a lot of lessons about how not to make the same mistakes, and they actually got to use that knowledge in the future because they avoided punishment, firing, or reprimand
Actually, they did find a scapegoat - the original shipwright Henrik Hybertsson ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrik_Hybertsson ). However, he had died in the spring of 1627, just over a year before the disaster. This was convenient for everyone involved, except for the thirty sailors who drowned :(
Great video -- thanks! One teeny suggestion? As the photos went by I kept wondering, "Which one is that?" I know some here can identify most of these ships, but not all of us are that well informed.
Thanks Drachinifel. You've convinced me, I'll stop imitating Kaiser Wilhelm ll who designed BB's in his spare time. I'm hiring some professionals to design and build my Dreadnoughts. And there's no way I;m naming any of them Captain.
Does this mean we will have a follow up video, classifying which ships/ classes by these features ie where the Nelsons sat on stability, turning sea keeping etc
Another very interesting video. You covered the various considerations involved in the design of these ships, in enough detail to give a general idea, without belaboring things to the point of boredom for the average viewer; and you kept things moving along nicely. Well done !
I'd love if you captioned your videos just so we know which ship we're looking at. Maybe a 5 second delay to see if we guessed the ship correctly! Love your videos, keep up the great work!
I was an engineer and number 1 attack team leader for the ships Flying Squad when I was on the Kitty Hawk. I've been down inside the TSPS system. We actually had to make sure it was configured right. I'd be happy to answer any questions that wouldn't get me in trouble on Torpedo Side Protection Systems if you have any.
Has anyone else heard of the "X-bow" that has been developed for some of the newest seagoing support vessels for oil rigs? Smoother ride, a lot less water thrown upwards? Also, if battleships were still around, I think they would be a good candidate for the same barrel stabilizing technology that tanks use. Just thoughts that I was thinking about while listening to this...
I think tank gun stabilization evolved from battleship gun stabilization. Though the extra systems (muzzle reference sensor etc) in the fire control system would be good.
1) Hire workers to build ships 2) Pay workers 3) Workers spend money on goods and services which have goods tax 4) Companies and workers also pay taxes to the government 5) Keep building ships for free! (Hopefully)
Boat , a hole in the water that you throw money into also Brake Out Another Thousand. A ship is basically the same, and by basically the same I mean much , much bigger
Excellent introduction to the organizational and philosophical requirements that went into the pre-designing phase of Capital ship construction. In this particular instance this was regarding the 1905-1945 Dreadnought 'types' which evolved and grew over their relatively short lifespan as arbiters of global geopolitical power. Having said that, a continuation of this discussion into the topics of determining and generating "balanced designs" that are appropriate seems like the next obvious step. Whereas books and journals, both contemporary and historical are plentiful regarding this and the plethora of related topics, a contemporary discussion would be of considerable value from today's very different historical perspective. Quite interesting too, considering the apparent dryness of topics relating to metallurgical properties and those requirements as well as the logistical and budgetary issues that each major Naval power had to address. Some issues were common to all major Naval powers. Politics and imperial aspirations versus retaining security during changing times. The national and international issues were variable and changed over time via treaties, temporal economics, and geopolitical pressures from rising nations which challenged the existing world order of the first half of the twentieth century versus the older superpowers who were concerned with continued domination and command of the sea was an obvious imperative to achieve such lofty objectives. Very interesting topics related to ship design are inevitably included in such a survey of recent history. This includes an infinite number of "what if" alternative historical scenarios which the battleship and it's relatives enable the imagination to give serious thought to with numerous potential outcomes. Another excellent and thought provoking presentation by the producer and I applaud his efforts.
Our last battleship, the Vanguard was, apparently, an excellent sea boat, shipping green seas in Korea. What I remember of her in Pompey was the height of the superstructure. While not a 'hotel', I guess her armour belt kept her stable. I don't think any battleships had anything more than bilge keels.
I'll never forget the advice my dad gave me from his life, never throw stones in glass houses, and never attempt to fire a 12 inch shell off the deck of a glass battleship
The thing about your videos that has always impressed me is all the warship photos, (and where the hell you find them), But this video is just something else !
Imagine beeing in the mast lookout on one of those ships and you go into a battle, large caliber stuff flying all around you and all the smoke and shaking from the weapons of you ship, while you try to spot where they hit and talk to them through some pipes. Crazy.
I already have a flared bow on my Narrowboat, but I definitely need a bulbous bow now 🤔. Especially effective on lock gates. 🙈 Edit.... Anyone willing to teach me how to use a sextant to help me navigate ? 🙈🙈🙈😳😳😳. 😈
Hmm. Narrowboat. Top speed about 5 knots. Lock gates constructed of foot-thick seasoned oak. Why don't you just get out and open the paddles then let the gates open like everyone else? ;)
Thank you for the video. I like the deeper side of ship construktion for battleship. It alsow answers som question of designe and funktion of som ships. Thank you. Do more of this. An if you can links to books, be Nice.
In the early part of the century one of the MAJOR reasons for Masts was the handling of the ships boats. The RN did a considerable amount of experimentation of where to put the fore mast in successive classes of Dreadnoughts with some classes having the mast behind the fore funnel mostly to make boat handling easier but discovered that flue gasses from the funnels made the spotting top nearly uninhabitable at high speeds.
Thanks Drach for a great video. I really liked the pictures in the background of the commentary - is there any chance that you could put captions on them, in future videos? I can’t be the only one wishing that I knew what each ship was. Many thanks.
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
Pinned post for Q&A :)
As far as a ram. I've always thought they needed a copper or bronze condom. Or in other words, once it goes in, you can it pull right back up leaving the "covering" inside. (I'm so going to hell)
fun thought experiment. If the masts were to be used to be used for sails (lets imagine as a contingency for running out of fuel in the middle of the ocean), how large would the rigging be to get the ship somewhere in a reasonable time; i.e. before the crew starved.
Sorry for the repeat Drach, but I posted this before you got the pinned post up: Could the hull design of a modern-ish (post 1940) warship (w/ re to the bulbous/flared bow, beam/length ratio, freeboard/gunwale height, etc) have been translated practically into the Age of Sail warship design? Is there something inherent to timber and wood that required ships of that day to look like wash tubs (round and squat, when compared to modern warships)? Was there a point in time when some naval architect went, “These current warship designs are rubbish; look at this, look at what I have just drawn! This is absolutely STELLAR!”
@Ralph's Place They did. The Iowa all had 2, for example
Are there any videos on the naval arms treaties in the 1930s? Just wondering what the specifics and consequences were to everyone?
Suggestion: it would be awesome to put the name of ships somewhere on the corner of the screen when you show examples.
100% agree, but let the caption appear after the picture so we can see if we recognize the class/ship.
Don't be bimbos.
@@christopherschafer4503 thanks for your valuable contribution. :-)
Please!
CDR Hurley USN (ret)
This is my number one “issue” with these videos. They are brilliant and well written and researched and I’ve enjoyed every one. Please add the names as delayed captions for those of us land lubbers that can’t tell some ships apart...
A bulbous bow allowed, on some ships, for the crew to engage in the unofficial sport of, 'Bow Jumping'. On a Knox Class, for example, the forward supply room was in the bow. After a long voyage, the store room would be mostly empty- leaving a large space that sailors can 'chill out' in. In heavy seas when steaming through the waves, the pitch of the ship could make the deck change elevation by as much as 20 feet. So, to play the sport, you crouch ready to jump as the deck rises. When the ship crests the wave and the bow begins to go down, you jump as high as you can. Whomever stayed in the air longest wins.
I feel seasick at the very thought!
Hope they had some padding to land on! 20 feet is a long way down onto a steel deck!
@@bluemarlin8138 first guy to break a leg, loses!
Imagine the chewing-out you'd get if you managed to break a leg doing this :P.
Ability unlocked [Double Jump]
Important when constructing a bow: The front shall not fall off.
Alexander Hartmann best not use cardboard then...or paper mâché
@@shaunbrennan5281 also best not use string for structural parts. Rubber is also out.
@@aritakalo8011 They gotta have a steering wheel. Theres a minimum crew requirement.
@@FortuneZer0 One, at least.
Kriegsmarine : the bow shall not fall of, ok got that! The aft is ok though, right?
There's a great story in D K Brown's Nelson to Vanguard. During trials of HMS Nelson there were complaints of muzzle blast entering the decks directly under the triple gun turrets. Some engineers were sent to investigate. Sure enough when the guns fired they could clearly see a blinding red flash in the compartment immediately below the upper deck. There were no gaps, there was no blast damage or burns, but both saw the red flash.
Eventually they discovered the compartments were acting like a huge drum, the blast effect was squeezing the air out of them and this caused the eyeball to distort for a brief moment. A few holes were made to allow air out and the problem went away.
Thank you. Looks like this one will be Kindle.
"www.amazon.com/Nelson-Vanguard-Development-1923-1945-Distinguished-ebook/dp/B00L1E1V3O/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2WA4CGC22WNB5&dchild=1&keywords=nelson+to+vanguard&qid=1595426572&sprefix=nelson+to+van%2Caps%2C154&sr=8-1"
My great uncle Herbert Pengelly was one of the engineers that happened to!
So in other words: the main deck was too flexible and bent inwards...
But i guess stiffening some hundred suqre meters of deck after commissioning is harder to do than putting in some holes.
@@christophpoll784 Well to put that into perspective an over-pressure of just 2 psi on the deck over the area of a compartment, say 20'x20' would be the equivalent of briefly putting a 52 tonne weight on the ceiling.
@@christophpoll784 so much so it affected the air pressure of the room and caused ones eyes to have a physical reaction.
Not gonna lie, I believe the Yamato's hull shape was mostly designed to mess with future model manufacturers.
"This is a secret project. We must make it so no one can replicate it."
Nonsense. It was designed to provide greater efficiency when launching into space and engaging other spaceships.
@@grathian LOL
Designers: Alright, we're gonna have a bulbous bow, an angled fore deck and irregular aft deck, and a place for floatplanes and and exit chute for life boats.
Wargaming 75 years later: *_goddamnit_*
There was a documentary on PBS about the Yamato. It explained that the reason for the hull design.
48:27 “ Materials are very important, because ships do need to flex”
And that’s why you decorate your dreadnought with solid gold plating.
Doing it that way, it would probably be cheaper to build!
Other navies seeing golden ship: “Weird flex but okay.”
For the emperaaah!
No no no, gold is reserved for the admirals head.
@@ReclinedPhysicist you mean his head as in his cover (cap) or his head as in his bathroom? Because the later would be quite extravagant
"53 minute guide on building dreadnoughts"
Every Navy in the 1900s: *[HEAVY BREATHING]*
Not just 1900s navies...lol
Pre-release guide for UA:D
Or for Rule the waves 2
@@stallfighter RtW2 fah sho!
meanwhile WoWS devs: tWeNtY-oNe KnOtTs TiEr TeN bATtLeShIpS
Every Navy in the 1900s: [SCREW THIS GUIDE]
Regards Iowa having straight sides, consider the ship is 108 ft wide; the docks for the Panama canal were 110 ft wide; minimal clearance. If the design continued a more usual sweep for the sides of the hull it could not fit thru the canal. Flattening the sides allows a large vessel to still fit the canal.
My pop pop served on the Wisconsin. He said the panama canal was one of the biggest limiting factors in the Iowa Class design
@@hatman4818 Yamato & Bismarck were wider, I don't think they considered they would ever be going thru the canal.
There was the Kiel Canal between the Baltic and North seas to consider, as it was only 107 feet wide, so Bismarck and Tirpitz couldn’t fit but Scharnhorst and Gneisenau could.
I wonder if not being able to fit in the Kiel canal was an oversight due to Nazi over-ambition or if it was deemed acceptable since being confined to the canal might leave a big valuable ship more vulnerable to air raids.
When the canal was originally widened before WW1, air raids couldn’t get anywhere near the canal, and the planes weren’t very threatening to a big ship anyway. Ships were also smaller, of course, so there was less danger of a ship not fitting.
My father served on the USS Washington when she was in the Atlantic and during the 2nd Battle of Guadalcanal. (He was also a plank owner
He was a very junior officer (Ens. then LtJG when he left) who's duty was to measure the clearance of the ship as it was going thru the locks of the Panama Canal. He recounts that the ship would "wobble" a bit as the water was being let out, and a lot more when (as coming in from the Caribbean Sea) the water was going in.... he told me that with the technology of the time, it was an exercise of futility since there was no room for fenders and with the only adjustments being made were numerous line handlers changing the rate that they were taking in (or letting out) their lines, and the fact that by the time the message got to the line handlers it was already too late!!
"The idea of a 45,000 ton glass battleship shattering the first time it encounters a large wave is amusing to think about, but perhaps not so amusing to be on"
Gives a whole new meaning to the phrase "glass cannon"
Talking about materials, R. Buckminster Fuller once used the analogy that you could have two battleships, built entirely the same, with the same design, almost exact copies, but change one thing on the second ship and it can shoot farther and more accurately: the type of steel in the gun barrels. It made his point about materials science being an important one and how simple changes can do great things.
A glass submarine does however make sense - glass fails in tension, not in compression. Glass foam is used for buoyancy in deep sea submersibles because it can’t be crushed by pressure.
@@allangibson2408 physics disagrees. ANYTHING can be crushed with sufficient pressure.*
*may involve punching a hole in the fabric of spacetime.
This is the channel that so many people are looking for, but haven't found yet.
What a delightful discussion about design. Many people outside of design engineering don't understand that every design is a compromise between antagonistic functional requirements.
Yup. "You want A, B and C. Pick two."
War engineering is very serious and complicated matter. It is the ultimate test of pragmatic calculation to get the most effective/efficient design for the task of fighting a war. Yet, my mind wanders. Those machines were build by people with failings like pride.
Mr. Drachnifel, I really enjoy this video, and as a contrast to it, would you be interested in making a video investigating cases where "the rule of cool", for lack of better word, took priority over other factor in the developement of a real warship at any point in history? For instance, early bronze guns were decorated by the artisans who made them, which offered no tactical advantage but made them ostentatious. Can you find more modern cases of "looks over practicality"?
This please.
HMS Captain ...
@@titanscerw Truth be told anyone who looked at Captain and thought it looked cool should probably go to a doctor to have their sight checked.
@@Tass-h7t 😎
Frankly having all the Ships of the Line with giant multi-deck windows was a "rule of cool" since it was a colossal weak point in the rear of the warships. Imagine if they did that in the era of the Dreadnought, with the rears just being made of windows and with little armor between the glass and the guns.
Being an ex-signals mate on a German warship, I can assure you that even in the 1990s signal flags were still our main means of communication within the squadron.
I was going to put my oar in also. Signal flags cannot be detected over the horizon. Great emphasis was put on proper training and execution of signals by the flag crew.
Eine interessante Information!
@@kevinbendall9119 the horizon leaves a lot of open sky
@@BeKindToBirds I'm not sure what you are referring to. Radio signals,even encrypted, can give directional intelligence when detected. The visual horizon from a ship is usually less than 10 miles. Flag signals can be repeated from ship to ship even when the entire task group is not in sight. Formations take this into account. As for satellites, trust me, we know where they are and if they are over our 'horizon'.
@@kevinbendall9119 .The people telling you that all the fancy shit protecting you from aircraft and else is working and not to worry do so because thats the equipment you've bloody got mate.
And I'm sorry to be the one to tell you thus but death comes from above these days more often than all the other kinds of ways combined.
The horizon is a lot of open sky. Every single thing a ship on the open sea is known, that's why they invented submarines after all yeah?
You can't dismiss the battlefield with just a few assurances. You got told what you were told because it has its pros and cons. It is NOT infallible and you are a sucker and a romantic if you truly think the old ways are anything except not yet obsolete
But your a damn fool if you think for a second that everything above your chain of command wasn't focused highly on everything above you and deadly afraid of what could pop up over the horizon.
This reminds me of a old school assignment I drew back in 5th or 6th grade that I had rediscovered recently.
We were told to design a ship and work out in very basic sense the pros and cons of our designs and we would critique each others designs.
I being the naval history nut I was and being told specifically to NOT design a submarine of any sort I designed a battleship.
It was a trimaran hulled ship complete with 6 4 gun turrets that had 24 inch guns, more secondary guns then god, torpedo tubes where ever I could stuff them, and all powered by 9 nuclear reactors powering 15 azapods for propulsion.
Needless to say it was an expensive and likely unwieldy ship but at least had a lot of firepower.
I wish I had teachers that where that cool. That sounds like an extremely fun project
That would be a tier XII boss to get rank 1 in WoWS i guess 😅
P.S. i thougt about a katamaran-aircraft-carrier with azipods (for sidestep-movement!) and a welldeck on each hull as well lately....
@@christophpoll784 I remember specifically getting the azapods because I figured this thing would be hard pressed to pull up to a any dock otherwise not to mention I could at least claim that it could out turn anything larger than a destroyer.
Trimarans turn well, but they are not as stable as big catamarans. Have a look at the big 110 to 130 metre cat ferries built by companies like Incat. Scale them up a bit and put on guns wherever you like as stability is not an issue on a large cat. They travel at 40 to 55 knots and are powered by water jets which are not as vulnerable to being shorn off in shallow water as azapods.
I'd have named it The Tillman's Revenge
I do believe the Italians insisted that their warships look "bellissima" (beautiful) in addition to all other concerns. I for one believe they succeeded.
I agree, they look as if they were built with a small degree of aesthetic in mind. However on their early dreadnought I do not like how they mix armaments in the main turrets. They have bottom turrets triple gun turrets but the superfiring turrets double! Symmetry uuggghh!
@Tattle Boad the Italian ships look better than the Iowas, IMO.
@Tattle Boad yep, that's the story. "Just" an olivewood cup. Any gold or silver and gems would have been added long after the fact.
Every battleship is beautiful , you just need to adjust your point of view or learn how to like the ship.
@@renown6386 except for the Ganguts, those motherfuckers look like upside down clothing irons
'Would roll on wet grass'
I actually remember that same quote, it came from sailors on the Flower class corvettes in WW2- extremely simple and cheap escorts, with no expense spent on seakeeping
Only if left unattended.
"So you need to design a Dreadnought battleship"
Soviet car makers: *confused screaming*
Lol
,,So you need to design a Rocket Corvette"
Polish towboat makers from Remontowa shipyard: **confused screaming**
*20 years later*
Polish towboat makers: Ok, here you have your light patrol boat with one machine gun.
Navy: But we ordered 3 corvettes full of heavy weapons
Polish towboat makers: *put one light cannon on the ship*
Polish towboat makers: Here you are
True story - polish ,,Gawron" project and ORP Ślązak partol vessel
Ok, need to add "Dreadnought battleship with 60 feet of freeboard" to my list of things I never knew I wanted to see.
look at the new USN BB line that world of warships is putting out. wows-blog-storage.gcdn.co/media/81/phpBIhchc and wows-blog-storage.gcdn.co/media/81/phpBIhchc the damn things are so big you can fit entire DDs, superstructure and all under the freeboard I bet.
That put me in mind of that SS Normandie poster:
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/df/Normandie_poster.jpg
Although not a Battleship, HMAS Canberra must get some kind of mention. Ugh.
A battleship with 60ft of freeboard, a duck wearing pantaloons and an Elizabethan ruff, and what else?
@@slavkovalsky1671 The flock of birds add something...
Your engineering background is most appreciated as it obviously enables your cogent explanations of the various design balances and the why's of these based on the physics, materials etc., etc.
Reach, you are undoubtedly the only person who could make this subject interesting and entertaining. Excellent video, just excellent. By the way, a battleship isn't alone in sea-keeping issues. I have seen an Essex class carrier take green water over her boss and completely engulf her island.
Regarding flexing, I met a captain of a container ship, that sat "when you are in heavy seas on your bridge at the back of the ship, it is an impressive sight how the waves are rolling through the container rows".
Meaning, you see the gaps between the containers widening and narrowing when the hull flxes when going over the crests and troughs of the waves.
The example of stable hull vrs unstable, I worked mainly on Fast Craft ferries. The Italian built MDV1200 SuperSeaCat's are mono hull fast craft and quite high freeboard. While they do have stabilisers to somewhat reduce their motion they still tend to roll around if things get a bit choppy. They were rated up to force 6 or 7 weather. Anything more we'd just not go. Passengers found them quite comfortable though.
Most of my time was served on Incat 74 and 81's. These are Fast Craft Cats and as they're catamaran hulls very stable in the water even though they are slightly smaller than SuperSeaCat. As a result those were rated in everything right up to force 9 weather. We'd head on out in weather that everyone else was battening down the hatches and heading off home. SeaCat Scotland did however pick up the nickname "the Vomit Comet" in Belfast 😂 It took more to get them bouncing but when they did move around, the pitch and roll was just weird and there were times you'd feel her roll, pause then snap back exactly as you described.
Fun story, worst weather I was ever out in was part of the crew that took Seacat Scotland light ship from Belfast to Dover to hand her over. We got caught in a massive storm off the coast of Wales. All we could do was turn away from the coast, head further out and try to go round the worst of it. We ended up lashing the cpt to his chair to stop him being thrown out of it and the rest of us just lay on the deck because we'd end up on our arse anyway if we tried to stand. In the cabin heading up to the bridge when we first got into it I was walking along then the deck just dropped out from under me then came back up to smack me as I fell. Well built little ship though. There were massive container and tanker ships out that night reporting damage over the radio all through it and we came through with some bumps and bruise but not a scratch on the ship and compared to the ships that got the snot kicked out of them, we were like a coke can 🤣
Now that is fascinating, since I found when I was young that I don't get seasick and I love to travel on the water. I am moving over to the PC to look those up!
Drach gave a good explanation of BB hull forms and their advantages/disadvantages in Drydock 63 in response to my question about it. It’s at about the 32-min mark.
Using US codes for hull types isn't really appropriate, as it is hardly universal. I know the US like to go their own way, but US terminology for things is crass.
Owain Shebbeare It’s just an abbreviation which (1) is more convenient for me while typing on an iPhone, and (2) is readily understood by almost everyone who cares enough to read the comments on a naval history channel. It’s not intended to be some statement about US superiority. The USN just happened to be the service that used hull codes which are widely known. Don’t get all bent out of shape over it.
"Don't do this with a real gun."
_Grab_ _the_ _shooter_ _from_ _behind_
Good advice there.
Thank you for another great one Drach!! One request that I think people would love is that each ship picture you use be labeled with a name and the year the picture was taken
It's like this:
basic people make a video use one sentence to describe something, cash in on 10 minutes diarriha content (goes in and out in a minute)
Drachnifel takes every word of that one sentence and makes 1+hour videos, after which you wanna build your own ship :D
keep it up! really appreciate your content (and I'm not even that deep into water, ships or the technicalities)
This video is great. The information that you imparted allows me to look at ships in a far different way. To be able to look at a vessel and actually know in a few novice ways the capacities of the ship the maneuverability what it can do and what it can't do makes a huge difference. I can now look at the ships that I served on and really understand why the ship behaved in certain ways and whether those ways are in fact desirable or not desirable for what the vessel is meant to do in its service life. this is one of the videos I am definitely going to watch more than 10 times just to really hone the observational skills that a historian needs to have with particular attention to equipment in the case of naval warfare. I particularly like your way of attacking the various aspects of construction. For example the weight armament maneuverability and speed that balance also applies to tanks and armored equipment of the army and to the Air Force. This is really good thank you ever so much and keep up the good work. Thank you
I recommend adding labels to the pictures for videos like this. At least the country and name of the ship, maybe its years of service and/or the date of the picture.
I was looking in the note section hoping there was a list. Awesome set of pictures.
You forgot the true final form of the dreadnought bow, as seen in a much later modification of the _Yamato_ : the fixed center-line forward cannon bow, favored for use in interstellar combat :-P
Not the sort of wave motion you had in mind.
The Emperor approves your use of the prow Lance battery!
Battlecruiser Operational...
Despite evidence presented in the _Star Blazers_ documentary I'm pretty sure it's all urban legend.
Taken to heart by the UNSC, even their frigates had ship length coil guns to put really big holes in whatever they were pointed at.
wow that was exactly the video i asked for, so good. at work our 3d design software has options for plugins that will calculate metacentric height, trim et al of a ship while it's being designed but back in the day it had to be done by hand, mad respect for doing all that with the tools available.
Always love your videos Drach.
If you keep it up, you may get a ship named after you later in this century.
Five pounds says the motto of the ship is "sail me closer, I wish to hit them with my sword"
at this point maybe we should just start a GoFundMe to get Drach a boat... maybe commission someone to build one of those ridiculous 3m long powered model ships (of Warspite of course) for him to cruise around in?
@@snorri0411 could be a good idea....as long as he doesn't try to conqueror someone.
Don't the English occasionally ask for suggestions for boat names? AKA- Boaty Mc Boatface?
@@darrellsmith4204 next time they do...I'm suggesting Drachinifel
@yeah I'm John Assal I'm waiting on Vickers to pop in and offer some guns for sale.
Interviewer: What is your job?
Drachinifel: I'm a battleship scientist.
Interviewer: What..?
"It's an accountant job but YOU ARE HIRED."
I read that the unusual lines of IJN ship decks -- especially the carriers -- was to minimize the amount of steel required. Steel being in short supply in even pre-war Japan.
Some nice shots of post Pearl Harbor USN Standards.
53 minutes on 'battleship hull design'. What has my life come to?
It's peak, nothing will ever be this good again.
Lay on your deck your ensign upon your chest and go down with your ship mate, the end has come.
Well its better than the just over half hour video on the mk 14 torpedo. That one was mostly a dud.
@@nickierv13 Ahaaaaaaaah I got the joke nice one ;)
@@NM-wd7kx how about a 53m vid on Battleship superstructure design?
When you're interested in boats and ships (a.k.a. a geek like me) it's interesting
Very nice discussion on the basics of hull mechanics. I am a small boat builder by hobby and am working on my first design. All of this is a great way to introduce my boys to what I keep jawing about.
What're you looking at for a primary battery?
Tommy McGuire Twin .875 mount on the foredeck foam ball flywheelers.
Ah, another good Wednesday Special. Sure do enjoy looking forward to these each week. Keep up the great work, Drach!
Loved this video! As someone no where near fluent in “battleship” I would have liked labels under the names of these ships. Most I knew or at least thought I did but some..... nope. Great video nonetheless.
Such quality of content on YT nowadays is very impressive. Thanks for all your hard work!
The two main factors of Dreadnought design today: Is it premium, and is it Russian? If yes to either, put more guns and armor on it. If both, make it from pure Stallinium.
Joseph Stalin birth name was Ioseb 'Besarionis dze Jughashvili'. He took the name Stalin, because it made him the man of steel. Russian for steel is "stali".
Everything I ever wanted to know about battleship construction, and probably a few things I didn't. Specially relevant to me as my Dad served from '39 to '47 on the battle cruiser Renown. Thank you.
The most interesting description of bowel movements I've ever heard!
Love this channel, I find the narration soothing and informative. keep up the great work
Drach, as usual, another informative video. Nice assortment of pictures during construction and other dry-dockings.
I saw two of the Iowa class BBs in Norfolk, VA during their final reincarnation of commissioned service. I remember quite clearly admiring their hulls and thinking these are the sleekest lines of any large naval ship, not just battleships. Now that I know about their poor sea-keeping in roughs seas I'm glad I never sailed on one. But, damn, those are some sexy curves (nautically speaking, of course ;-)
Much of the prestige of leading powers of the era was actually being able to produce such complex artifacts... not mearly ownership or numbers....
And even if you couldn't build them, just buying one from someone who could and maintaining it was still a status symbol.
Just like being able to locally build CVs, submarines and nuclear weapons nowadays.
It's the culmination of a nation's prowess in technology and heavy industry. The more numerous and more technologically-advanced they were, the more you can flaunt your nation's superiority and discourage enemy nations from getting in your way.
Part of the weapon's role, as instrument of awe and war deterrent.
Imagine balancing the hundreds of factors needed in a fighting ship with basically hand calculations
Slide rules at best.
Don't be afraid of sliderules... sliderules and FORTRAN put men on the moon.
@@walterk1221 I like this comment lol. My grandpa used sliderules, and my dad used FORTRAN. My generation gets infinite computing power, but we really are standing in the shadows of giants
@@walterk1221 Right. I took a peek inside the main draftsman room at a Ford auto plant in 1973. 800 people with slide rules paper, & pencils. As late as 1985 we were still using slide rules as our primary calculating device for artillery fire control.
@@archiveacc3248 infinite computing power... and we use it to play games...
Once I see a video from Drachinifel, I am happy. Perfectly enjoy the discussion on naval combat discourse
48:33 Wait, are you telling us that building a warship out of glass is a bad idea? Especially if you plan on using it mostly to ram into the enemy, breach their hulls and board from within? Anime has lied to me! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass_Fleet :)
pretty sure those weren't in the water, tho
26:55 Clearly the Russian round hull ships win the extreme stability award, right? :)
And probably the tight turning radius award too?
@@stevevalley7835 Does spinnning in place count as turning, technically? I think it might be rotating more than turning. :)
Good morning,
nothing better naval history with coffee in the morning
Idk why I am fascinated why your videos I'm an field artillery guy and never been on a boat in my life but I think it is just amazing
Hi! Perhaps some day you can cover the subject of Russian dreadnoughts and battleships in the first half of the 20th century, especially since they flew below the radar and then, much like the russian tanks, they suprised everyone with some relatively modern and effective designs!
Unfortunatly russian naval personel and building quality is below average even poor .
And as the japanese russo war , first worldwar and 2nd world war showed the russian navy was all but useless .
I would expect that the main problem is getting hold of documentation.
Well, documentation that doesn't say that Russian, and especially Soviet, ship building is the best thing since sliced bread.
Yes!
Marcus Franconium how do any of those wars show the navy was useless? The navy was effective in the 2nd world war for sure, had several effective engagements in the 1st world war, and the ruso-Japanese war’s defeat didn’t have anything to do with the fleet being ineffective
With respect to bow bulbs, they are only effective in one speed regime, so if you design it to be optimized for cruise, it will have little positive effect at any other speed, and will likely have a slight negative effect, especially at low speeds.
Secondarily, bow bulbs contribute a small ammount of boyancy foreward, but the moment developed is worth considering as it may mean that you can add some more equipment forward. This is somewhat mitigated by the fact that they are heavily built so their structure weighs a considerable ammount more than that of other void spaces, but it is still worth considering.
And finally, in heavy seas they are not effective either, as the sea is too heavily disturbed to make a proper wake anyway, and you will be running at reduced speed as well.
Aircraft carriers and Container ships run at fairly high speed all the time (and generally avoid bad weather like the plague - it breaks things).
The ultimate expression of a bulbous bow is the swath design - which is basically two submarines with a bridge linking them. A Swath reduces drag by reducing the waterline length to an absolute minimum. It’s rough sea handling is limited to the height of the main hull above the water surface. Below that wave height, it is almost absolutely stable in any sea state (like semisubmersible oil rigs).
Last time I was this early _Dreadnought_ still had Longbowmen
Hello Drac.
I have become a 'fan' of your videos. Mostly due to the way you present the information, and the clarity of your voice and your lack of 'taking sides'.
Keep up the good work... I enjoy seeing each new video as it is released, and look forwards to seeing and hearing your informational reading upon the subject given.
The amount of water that can come over a ship's surface is quite amazing. SS _Edmund Fitzgerald_ Was easily the largest Lakes ore boat when launched in 1959 at 728 feet. Her freeboard to the deck level was 35 feet while the bridge added yet another 18 feet. During the 1975 storm that sank her, the water not only topped the deck, it even topped the bridge during ~ 80 mph winds..
I think her fretboard was considerably lower when filled to her rated capacity. Which crept upwards between 59 and 75
@@mpetersen6 You lost me on that one. Between 59 and 75 what?
@@sarjim4381 I think he meant dates of service.
@@sarjim4381 1959 to 1975.
Aircraft carriers take water over the bow in really heavy seas. And that's up to 90ft above the normal waterline!
Fantastic video. Great coverage of this topic that I've not seen before. Very helpful for understanding why some ships looked and behaved like they did.
The bulbous bow doesn't shift the bow wave forward. Its hydrodynamic shape helps drain it away making it smaller. Remember the bow wave isn't the "curl" of water thrown up as the leading edge slices through the water. It's a large mass of water always pushed ahead of a hull in motion. By reducing its size (thus mass) the bulbous bow reduces the amount of energy required to push a hull through water. For the same power it can make a ship faster.
Two big caveats. For a given hull a bulbous bow must be designed for one speed--usually cruising speed for merchants and top speed for warships. At any other speed the advantage is lost. Second, a bulbous bow is designed for relatively calm seas. When it's rough enough that water is coming over the bow the advantage is lost.
A bit off topic, but non the less slightly interesting since Wasa was mentioned as a pinacle of unstable ship: the Swedish war ship Wasa sank at it maiden voyage after a little more then a kilometres journey on 10 August 1628. Beforehand, they had made a test/demonstration of the ships stability by letting 30 men running from side to side of the ship while docked. The test had to be aborted since it was a clear danger that the thing would keel over. The watching admiral said he was glad that the king was not there. And then they pretended that the test had never took place, since the monark was breathing down their necks to get Wasa commisioned and ready for war.
It all ended with a commision that found no one guilty of anything. That was basically becuase the king himself had signed off on the design, and he had pushed it to be made fast. It was political impossible to write a report that pointed towards the king being involved in anything even slightly bad. So it fizzled out. The careers of the involved was not even hampered the tiniest bit.
Makes you wonder if perhaps that ended up being a net positive - I'm sure all the engineers and everybody involved learned a lot of lessons about how not to make the same mistakes, and they actually got to use that knowledge in the future because they avoided punishment, firing, or reprimand
@@witeshade I'm sure someone got up much as now and said "Lessons have been learned" then expected everyone to go away and never mention it again
Well... One silver lining, that's at least better than the scape goating I would have expected in that situation.
Actually, they did find a scapegoat - the original shipwright Henrik Hybertsson ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrik_Hybertsson ).
However, he had died in the spring of 1627, just over a year before the disaster.
This was convenient for everyone involved, except for the thirty sailors who drowned :(
people drowned during the sinking...
Great video -- thanks! One teeny suggestion? As the photos went by I kept wondering, "Which one is that?" I know some here can identify most of these ships, but not all of us are that well informed.
Thanks Drachinifel.
You've convinced me, I'll stop imitating Kaiser Wilhelm ll who designed BB's in his spare time.
I'm hiring some professionals to design and build my Dreadnoughts. And there's no way I;m naming any of them Captain.
And thinking about it 'Admiral' may also not be the best choice...
52:11 is an interesting demonstration of "other considerations" in hull design. In this case, a minor factor called the Panama Canal.
Nice episode. Helps make math and engineering concepts somewhat understandable for those whose backgrounds are NOT math and engineering.
Does this mean we will have a follow up video, classifying which ships/ classes by these features ie where the Nelsons sat on stability, turning sea keeping etc
Another very interesting video. You covered the various considerations involved in the design of these ships, in enough detail to give a general idea, without belaboring things to the point of boredom for the average viewer; and you kept things moving along nicely. Well done !
“Yanked off in a completely different direction.”
~giggidy~
I'd love if you captioned your videos just so we know which ship we're looking at. Maybe a 5 second delay to see if we guessed the ship correctly! Love your videos, keep up the great work!
Damn, I’m on my lunch break, but I’m definitely going to be watching this when I get home
I was an engineer and number 1 attack team leader for the ships Flying Squad when I was on the Kitty Hawk. I've been down inside the TSPS system. We actually had to make sure it was configured right. I'd be happy to answer any questions that wouldn't get me in trouble on Torpedo Side Protection Systems if you have any.
"...build a pyramid or a giant office block on the ship." Honestly, I was waiting for a bait-shot of USS Long Beach or Zumwalt to follow that up
USS Chicago was a good example, also.
@@kevinbendall9119 those were uggggh-leeeee!!!!😂😂😂
Or CVN65 Enterprise.
thanks for the in depth look, I love the long format vids
Has anyone else heard of the "X-bow" that has been developed for some of the newest seagoing support vessels for oil rigs? Smoother ride, a lot less water thrown upwards? Also, if battleships were still around, I think they would be a good candidate for the same barrel stabilizing technology that tanks use. Just thoughts that I was thinking about while listening to this...
I think tank gun stabilization evolved from battleship gun stabilization. Though the extra systems (muzzle reference sensor etc) in the fire control system would be good.
Drachinifel ( 15:05 ): 60' freeboard would be impressive to see.
US Navy: laughs in aircraft carrier.
So where do you start?
I will take 'Giant piles of cash' for $800 Alex
I will take "beg congress for funds" for 1200
Given the propensity for Pork Barrelling in matters such as these, I suspect one of the Daily Doubles will be in these categories.
1) Hire workers to build ships
2) Pay workers
3) Workers spend money on goods and services which have goods tax
4) Companies and workers also pay taxes to the government
5) Keep building ships for free! (Hopefully)
Boat , a hole in the water that you throw money into also Brake Out Another Thousand. A ship is basically the same, and by basically the same I mean much , much bigger
@@grifter3680
Taxes come in, government spends tax money plus more on other stuff
Excellent introduction to the organizational and philosophical requirements that went into the pre-designing phase of Capital ship construction. In this particular instance this was regarding the 1905-1945 Dreadnought 'types' which evolved and grew over their relatively short lifespan as arbiters of global geopolitical power.
Having said that, a continuation of this discussion into the topics of determining and generating "balanced designs" that are appropriate seems like the next obvious step. Whereas books and journals, both contemporary and historical are plentiful regarding this and the plethora of related topics, a contemporary discussion would be of considerable value from today's very different historical perspective. Quite interesting too, considering the apparent dryness of topics relating to metallurgical properties and those requirements as well as the logistical and budgetary issues that each major Naval power had to address. Some issues were common to all major Naval powers. Politics and imperial aspirations versus retaining security during changing times. The national and international issues were variable and changed over time via treaties, temporal economics, and geopolitical pressures from rising nations which challenged the existing world order of the first half of the twentieth century versus the older superpowers who were concerned with continued domination and command of the sea was an obvious imperative to achieve such lofty objectives.
Very interesting topics related to ship design are inevitably included in such a survey of recent history. This includes an infinite number of "what if" alternative historical scenarios which the battleship and it's relatives enable the imagination to give serious thought to with numerous potential outcomes.
Another excellent and thought provoking presentation by the producer and I applaud his efforts.
Our last battleship, the Vanguard was, apparently, an excellent sea boat, shipping green seas in Korea. What I remember of her in Pompey was the height of the superstructure. While not a 'hotel', I guess her armour belt kept her stable. I don't think any battleships had anything more than bilge keels.
The vid no one asked for but we all needed!
Incredible how inventive humans are when it comes to building machines to murder other humans. Great video by the way. Superb.
Murder? Seriously,,, think about it for a second.
@@sadwingsraging3044 yes, it's homicide... let's build starships for peaceful exploration instead...
Am always delighted by your choices.
I'll never forget the advice my dad gave me from his life, never throw stones in glass houses, and never attempt to fire a 12 inch shell off the deck of a glass battleship
I love these excellent summaries of ship design, I must say. Far beyond speeed, aamaah and faahpaaah.
When talking about the WWII American vessels I was positive you'd finally say the word Panamax...
The thing about your videos that has always impressed me is all the warship photos, (and where the hell you find them), But this video is just something else !
Imagine beeing in the mast lookout on one of those ships and you go into a battle, large caliber stuff flying all around you and all the smoke and shaking from the weapons of you ship, while you try to spot where they hit and talk to them through some pipes.
Crazy.
5:50 bow waves have been one of the first things i learnd about ship in from a at that point already 25 year old science magazin.
I'm so glad you kept it brief.
I already have a flared bow on my Narrowboat, but I definitely need a bulbous bow now 🤔. Especially effective on lock gates. 🙈
Edit.... Anyone willing to teach me how to use a sextant to help me navigate ? 🙈🙈🙈😳😳😳. 😈
A lend lease destroyer packed with explosive and a dogey pencil acid fuse holds the record for that.
Dancing with the darkness 🤫😊😄
funny but on serious note you need a bit bigger ship for that to actually be effective. or at least i have heard that way.
Hmm. Narrowboat. Top speed about 5 knots. Lock gates constructed of foot-thick seasoned oak. Why don't you just get out and open the paddles then let the gates open like everyone else? ;)
Do you often exceed 20 knots?
After the fourth time of Drachnifel foreshadowing future videos i stop counting and am now frilled with anticipation.
Where were the cutlass racks located to repel boarders?
wow so many spectacular pics of beautiful ships.
Perfect timing! (lying ill in my bed having nothing to do)
Same mate
Same.
Get well soon!
Or after catching up with your Drach backlog, whichever you prefer.
Everyone, best wishes for a speedy recovery.
Thank you for the video. I like the deeper side of ship construktion for battleship. It alsow answers som question of designe and funktion of som ships. Thank you. Do more of this. An if you can links to books, be Nice.
At 20:00, on the stern end of this battleship, does it say "Roma," or "Boma?"
Roma. She's Italian.
In the early part of the century one of the MAJOR reasons for Masts was the handling of the ships boats. The RN did a considerable amount of experimentation of where to put the fore mast in successive classes of Dreadnoughts with some classes having the mast behind the fore funnel mostly to make boat handling easier but discovered that flue gasses from the funnels made the spotting top nearly uninhabitable at high speeds.
The straight sides of American battleships may have more to do with the width of the Panama Canal than with hydrodynamics.
I dont know why this series of videos, that are both about a different time and of an unrelated topic to my profession, have become so addictive.
Thanks Drach for a great video. I really liked the pictures in the background of the commentary - is there any chance that you could put captions on them, in future videos? I can’t be the only one wishing that I knew what each ship was. Many thanks.
How did I spend my time self-isolating from Covid - 19? Learning from Drachinifel !!!
Welp i know what i'm watching with my morning coffee
thank god for this video, the Time Travelling Czar won't get off my back about giving him a dreadnought design.