วีดีโอ

1:06:33. The most striking contradiction. The first subs are not designed to move on water. But, of course, after a short time of barrel-shaped blockade-breaking submarines, it was time for seaworthy diving torpedo boats and even diving ocean raiders. Because the underwater speed was disproportionately low. After the war, it became possible to obtain underwater speed like that of surface ships. And for quite a long time. But in the interval, blunt-nosed, fusiform and teardrop high-speed torpedoes were practiced underwater.

Not going nuclear, going nowhere the American way.

Thank you for this informative lecture! Please, provide us with more.

Interesting observations, thx

What an initiative! 👏👏👏

Love this topic. Thanks buddy !

Thanks Tim Lyon! I thoroughly enjoyed every minute of your lecture 👌

12:09+92?

Yes his the boats werent perfect when introduced but Hellmut Walther already proposed his ideas in 1933 and was rejected. It then took them until basically the end of 1943 to realise that his idea for a new pressure hull was worth looking at and given the state of the war they did not go for a test run to iron out the problems but directly ordered 170 new boats. So if you change the story, have Dönitz and Walther see Hitler at an earlier stage, have them build a couple test boats with conventional propulsion and develop the "Walther-boat" on the side, you might see the "Type XXI" earlier on and without its many problems Almost forgot, Walther did finish his development of the "Walther-boat" and in November 1943 U-792 and U-794 were finished and apparently sometime between November 1943 and March 1944 during trials they reached underwater speeds of 24 knots, so that apparently was going somewhere, now if anyone wonders why we dont use boats like that, the nuclear submarine ruled out Walthers developments

Cockatoo’s last decade was a total disaster HMAS Cook always in dry dock and decommissioned after 7 years and scrapped problems that couldn’t be rectified. My grandfather served on AE1 to Australia.

The real game changer of the war would have been when V2's began falling on Washington, DC and NYC. The war would have come to a screeching halt. Germany was just a few months away from developing their New York missile (from what was said on a History Channel documentary).

If Hitler had nearly 100 Type XXl Submarines, he could have swept the oceans clean of all allied shipping. Think about it.

We are lied to constantly by our governments. We can't believe anything they say.

Super

There are methods to get a rough range using hydrophones, but it takes time to do (like an hour) and is limited to something you can repeatedly hear over that length of time.

Shame beause it would be interesting. The voice dips and fades which doesn't help.

Transcript not good and sound is unclear.

'PromoSM'

megastructure and the likes... are nothing more than rubbish, more like the ancient aliens trend, nothing related to history. Holland is no better... he is well suited for that misleading history channel crap

Excellent presentation. Thank you.

We don't need nuclear powered warships or submarines here. It's just an LNP ploy to get a nuclear industry set up in Australia by stealth.

Wasn’t dissimilar metals the reason those new stealth destroyer projects were canned?

1) The Flower class was not designed as an Oceanic Escort. As no one could guess the Norway and France would provide the U-Bootewaffe with forward access to the Atlantic, it was thought the U-Boat campaign would, as in the Kaiser War, be centered around the UK. So the Flowers (and hunts) were designed for coastal work. They had to be pressed into deep sea work as they were the only modern escort available in numbers. 2) The RCN built a large number of Algerine class minesweepers, many of which never streamed a sweep, but were ASW vessels "Many Canadian ships omitted their sweeping gear in exchange for a 24-bomb Hedgehog spigot mortar and a stowage capacity for 90+ depth charges." They were close in ability to the Flowers 3) With the end of the war in Europe in sight, some vessels of the Loch class were modified to AA frigates while on the slipway, creating the Bay class for use against Japan "The Bay class made use of the hull, machinery, lattice mast and superstructure of incomplete Loch-class frigates. The armament was altered to suit them to the A/A role, with twin QF 4 in Mark XVI guns fore and aft in mounts HA/LA Mark XIX fitted with remote power control (RPC), controlled by a rangefinder-director Mark V carried on the bridge and fitted with Type 285 radar for range taking. Due to a shortage of supply of 4-inch (10 cm) guns and mountings, many ships had these removed from laid up V and W-class destroyer "WAIR" conversions and Hunt-class destroyers that were constructive total losses. A pair of Mark V "utility" mounts for twin 40 mm Bofors guns were sited amidships, each with its own predictive Simple Tachymetric Director (STD) for fire control. The A/A armament was completed by a pair of mounts Mark V for twin 20 mm Oerlikon guns, carried in the bridge wings. Later, the Oerlikons were replaced with single mounts Mark VII for Bofors guns, a further pair of which were added amidships on raised platforms. For A/S use, a Hedgehog projector was carried on the fo'c'sle and the quarterdeck carried two racks and four throwers for up to 50 depth charges." 4) The RN's Bathurst class minesweepers were referred to as corvettes locally as they were often used for ASW. "The Bathurst-class corvettes were a class of general purpose vessels designed and built in Australia during World War II. Originally classified as minesweepers, but widely referred to as corvettes, the Bathurst-class vessels fulfilled a broad anti-submarine, anti-mine, and convoy escort role. "A total of 60 Bathurst-class corvettes were built, at eight Australian shipyards: 36 were paid for by the Australian government and 24 were built on British Admiralty orders. Of these UK-owned vessels, 20 were officially commissioned into the Royal Australian Navy (RAN), and manned by RAN personnel, while four served in the Royal Indian Navy; none of the UK-owned vessels was commissioned into the Royal Navy" Armament - Varying, but generally: 1 × 12-pounder (76-mm) gun or 1 × 4 inch (102-mm) Mk XIX gun 1 × 40 mm Bofors gun 2-3 × 20 mm Oerlikon guns up to 40 depth charges 5) "The Bird-class minesweeper was a class of naval trawlers built for the Royal New Zealand Navy and which served during the Second World War. A total of three vessels in the class were built: Kiwi, Moa and Tui. All were named for New Zealand native birds and were also referred to as corvettes.he main armament was a 4-inch (102 mm) gun, supplemented with two quick firing 3-pounder Hotchkiss guns and one twin Lewis machine gun. The ships carried ASDIC and 40 depth charges. Propulsion was through a single-shaft reciprocating steam engine that burned oil, providing a top speed of 13 knots (24 km/h; 15 mph) at 1,100 indicated horsepower" "The flotilla was offered for service in the South Pacific and the offer was accepted by Vice Admiral Robert L. Ghormley the commander of South Pacific. The ships of the flotilla began operations in the Solomon Islands, conducting anti-submarine operations and carrying out escort missions from December 1942. They also disrupted the Japanese supply efforts, destroying a number of landing barges. The ships were considered to have weak defences against attacking aircraft, and they were unofficially up-gunned with 20 mm (0.8 in) Oerlikon guns scrounged from wrecked ships.[2] "On 29 January 1943, Kiwi and Moa rammed and wrecked the Japanese submarine I-1, which had surfaced off the coast of Guadalcanal after several depth charges had been dropped. Kiwi's bow had been damaged and she returned to Auckland for repairs. Once completed she went back to the Solomons but not long after her return to service she suffered damage from a friendly fire incident which necessitated more repairs at Auckland. In April 1943, Moa was sunk when it was attacked while refuelling at Tulagi Harbour, by Aichi D3A "Val" dive bombers. The attack killed five seamen and wounded another 15. One of the wounded was the captain of Moa, Lieutenant Commander Peter Phipps (later Vice Admiral), who had a bomb penetrate the roof of his cabin and pass through the floor where it exploded beneath him. On 19 August 1943 Tui with some United States Kingfisher floatplanes jointly sank the Japanese submarine I-17. With her ASDIC, Tui had detected the submarine and depth charged it. Contact with the submarine had then been lost and Tui departed the scene. However, passing Kingfishers directed Tui to the crippled submarine, I-17, which had surfaced some distance away. Tui scored hits with her main gun and these were followed up with depth charges from the US aircraft, resulting in the sinking of I-17. Tui picked up six survivors who confirmed that her earlier depth charge attack had forced the submarine to the surface" www.navygeneralboard.com/david-and-goliath-in-the-solomons-the-pocket-corvettes-kiwi-and-moa-vs-i-1/ th-cam.com/video/U8Xd2DWfHYE/w-d-xo.html

Thanks for that.

If Trump wins this will not go ahead. Back to square one. Hope Govt has plan number 2.

Australia is purchasing 11 new ship's to replace the Anzac class frigate. So why not upgunned the Hunter.class to AWDs?. I don’t understand the new RAN surface fleet posture at all 11 smaller frigates 6 Hunter.class frigates 6 optional crewed vessels all with maximum 16 to 32 cell VLS. Looks like all ASW capability with limited long range stike offensive capability. Wouldn't it be better to just purchase 17 smaller frigates for ASW and upgunned the hunter.class to AWDs?

When the B-29 bomber was first introduced it was rushed into production and was so full of problems that nearly every one flew out of the factory runway directly to Kansas to be retrofitted with the hundreds of changes and refits. Even so, many were lost due to engine fires. It took some time to work out all the bugs in the design. I suspect that would Germany have had another year they would also have worked out all the bugs on this submarine as well. Perhaps the Type XXI was less than presented but this did not stop navies all over the world finding the sunken wrecks and raising them to use for their own purposes. Yes it had a lot of flaws but it was an innovative boat and far ahead of anyone else at the time. It was also the design that was the influence for many later designs by both the allies and Russia. It's importance should not be discounted.

Great lecture: logistics, economics, tactics, statistics. Not being a naval architect nor a native English speaker, I will have to take a second look at these specific naval coeffs to grasp their full meaning.

Enjoy, still going strong. th-cam.com/video/k2y45p_jvpY/w-d-xo.html

Super

The Royal Navy abandoned its trials with their allotted type XXI U-boats namely U-3017 and U-2502 (and not just one boat as stated) due to accidents, breakdowns and cost instead sending them for disposal at Lisahally (op' Deadlight) and Newport, South Wales in the second half of 1945. Therefore could not have confirmed the results of the USN trials of U-3008 and U-2513. I question many of the claims made in this presentation and the apparently creative interpretation of the sourced information much of which can be easily found online. I also question whether Tim has access to any historical documents other than those already in the public domain especially in support of his most fundamental claims.

I'm always skeptical of people who say "This is the weapon that would have changed the war, there was no way to counter it." That was true of the Type VII and Type IX boats at the start of WWII, it was why the U-Boat service had a "Happy Time". But the allies figured out how to counter them to great effect and the happy time ended. Even if the Type XXI was everything it seemed to be on paper, the Allies would have altered their tactics to meet the new threat.

I really like the content, but the audio quality is so bad that as a non native english speaker I almost cannot follow the presentation. I really think naval architects can do a lot better than this.

This is all a real shock to me. I have read much on U-boats in WW2, and only recently have I discovered that the specs on the XX1 most books quote are wildly exaggerated.

1 mile west of Piney Point Maryland in about 80 feet of Potomac river water sits the wreck of a type 21 U-Boat. The U - 1105 Black Panther was sunk by the US Navy in testing after WWII.

IT IS BOEING trancways project

Lets skip to the good part: 15:41

China is Australia's largest trading partner, outpacing the combined purchases of the next three. Our export to China stands at 10.4% of our GDP. Our military budget is less than 2% of our GDP. AUKUS is a tactical masterstroke, leveraging our robust trade surplus with China and spending A$170 billion to acquire eight Virginia-class nuclear-powered cruise missile hunter-killer fast-attack submarines to attack our biggest trading partner. With the deployment of these submarines, we have the power to bring their entire global sea-borne trade to a standstill, at any moment of our choosing. They have been intimidating and bullying us for the last 30 years by buying so much from us and selling so much to us. This interdependency is a national security threat. Diversifying our trade is crucial. Currently, the US is our largest trade deficit partner, but a 700% increase in sales to them will match China. India's population projected to surpass China offers an opportunity for us to increase exports to India by 600%. We could also consider boosting exports to the United Kingdom by 2,300% to match China's levels. Security trumps prosperity, stop complaining about funding for healthcare, education, welfare, and infrastructure. We and our allies do not recognize the legitimacy of China's political systems and will seek to change them by all means necessary. We are buying weapons from the US, so that we can be at the forefront, leading the charge with the US and UK following closely behind. We are the deputy sheriff and the tip of the spear for the US, as in the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Malayan Emergency, the Indonesia-Malaysia Confrontation, the Gulf War, the Afghanistan War, the Iraq War, Libya, and Operation Inherent Resolve against ISIS in Iraq and Syria. These countries are very far away and have not threatened us in any way, we defend our values. We take pride in and celebrate our tradition of fighting in other nation's wars. Come visit the Australian War Memorial in Canberra, it showcases everything. Our military is well-trained and has gained a wealth of experience through participating in these conflicts. In contrast, the Chinese military has not been involved in any wars for the past forty-four years and thus lacks combat experience. In that time, they have not used their weapons to kill a single person in combat. The US is fighting without winning. China is winning without fighting. We must keep poking the dragon, the US will protect us. The US has never abandoned its allies, except in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, and with the Kurds. The US will never harm the interests of its allies, sorry about the destruction of the Nord Stream pipelines. The US has never fabricated events or evidence to justify the escalation of a war, except for the Tonkin Gulf incident to start the Vietnam War and the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The US doesn't overthrow a democratically elected government, sorry Gough. When things escalate, as they often do, retrofitting these submarines with nuclear warheads will not pose a problem. These submarines require assistance from the US Navy for their operation and maintenance. They will also be using US battlefield integration systems, in line with all our other platforms. Australia is purchasing these submarines to complement the US fleet, effectively placing them under US control. The provision of Low-Enriched Uranium (LEU) submarines to non-nuclear nations does not violate the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Neither Russia, the UK, nor the US has submarines powered by LEU. China Type 094 LEU-powered submarine costs approximately $750 million per unit. AUKUS will set a precedent, encouraging countries in ASEAN, many of which have a trade surplus with China, to purchase weapons from China. These submarines must be returned to China every few years for refueling. AUKUS will also provide additional incentives to China and India to expand their nuclear submarine fleets. AUKUS gives countries with a nuclear supply chain, such as Japan, South Korea, Canada, Brazil, South Africa, Pakistan, Iran, and North Korea, the green light to develop submarines powered by HEU. AUKUS will contribute to global economic growth by encouraging all countries to increase spending on their security, creating jobs in the defense industry, and possibly leading to some cool new technology. A safer world is always a good thing.

💯🔥! Find out the secret = ƤＲＯ𝓂Ｏ𝕤ᗰ

Hi, solid presentation. However it has now aged a little as technology is improving fast in the sector. Any updated presentation? Thank you

According to Aaron S. Hamilton, Total Undersea War (pp. 1765). Seaforth Publishing, "Admiral Eberhard Godt served as Dönitz’ Operations Chief during the war and succeeded him as Chief of the BdU. Godt was directly involved with high-speed U-boat designs and their future employment. In his post-war interrogations by Allied Naval Intelligence he revealed that it was on the future design of the Walter turbine-powered Type XXVI that the future of the U-boat arm had rested, not the Electro-boat Type XXI: This view of the German high command is confirmed in the account of said interrogations mentioned in LLewellyn-Jones, Malcolm, "The Royal Navy on the threshold of modern anti-submarine warfare, 1944-1949"; Captain G. H. Roberts concluded that the German plan was to continue the inshore campaign with the coastal Type XXIII, gradually replacing the Type VII schnorkel-fitted U-boats in this role, which had been a stop-gap solution. The Type XXI, itself a stop-gap until the Walter Type XXVI was available. The Type XXVI was planned to be capable of sustaining 23 knots for 6 hours, Roberts' assessment emphasized the lack of any coherent German doctrine for the use of the Walter boats, but this did little to ameliorate the Admiralty's concern over the ability of existing weapons to deal with this 25-knot submarine. Therefore, and somewhat contrary to common belief held during the decades after the end of WW II, the Type XXI was not the ultimate goal in terms of the new ocean-going submarine, but was considered to be just too large for convoy. warfare in the North Atlantic, and that it was too costly to manufacture, this together with the very little published problems caused by the vibrations generated by the snorkel design (and many other problems widely described in this magnificent presentation) led to the decision to invest in the Type XXVIW with its Walter turbine, closed conning tower and completely streamlined hull devoid of anti-aircraft guns. Hamilton, Aaron S. Total Undersea War (p. 173)

45:38 My only question is based on the final bit. This assumption that Type 21 would not have had an impact is based on the 1945 delivery date. Are we debating their effectiveness when actually delivered or alternatives. If Karl Dönitz had gotten his way and first boat delivered in 1941, I think the boats features and capabilities would have had a great impact. As to what actually happened, of course the type 21 was never going help win the war, the amount of materials and men coming over in the latter half of war was just too great.

42:00 I agree this battle plan is a waste of resources and horrible way to use the weapon systems. I think we can agree that German's did not really have a good idea of how to fight with this new capability and would have had to adapt after learning the full capabilities and limitations. Of course, this is from modern point of view and a former U.S. submariner (SONAR) which have lots of experience in tracking and creating solutions and firing modern torpedoes which if put in the correct envelop are very accurate and difficult to escape.

37:35 This is an ASSUMPTION based on the current design. So you are telling me that you believe the Germans would have just left all of these flaws in place? None of these issues even in 1942 are material based. Most of these issues are design and production related. If the German could have worked out their diesel engine and Schnorchelling problem in order to accomplish the 15 knot requirements, then answer to the question change to possible. It is important to remember that during the development of this type of submarine Germany was already deeply losing the war. Steel, fuel, and skilled workers were already in short supply. As such, compromise had to be made. If this sub had been prototyped and build in 41 like Karl Dönitz has desired, it is possible the majority of these compromises and faults could have been resolved.

36:30 Another example of prototyping or compromise. If the German had a few more years to work on this, I am sure they would have figured it out. Over-engineered is a common problem for the first iteration.

Everything you pointed out is true based on British and US research. However, these are all items which could be explained as the first prototypes in a line and compromises when developing a new class of submarine in war time and especially when you are losing the war. The Type 21 was a major revolution in submarine design which is the reason why British and US tested and examined it so much.

What about U - 505 Being Captured by USA ?

About 7:13 - being submerged alone would not provide complete protection from air attack. The Mark 24 “mine” (also titled Fido) was a very effective air-dropped homing torpedo designed specifically to attack submerged targets. And the later centimetric-band ASV radars could detect Schnörkel heads. The Type XXI represented a major potential advance, but commanding one still wouldn’t have been a sinecure.

How often does LNG Terminal Storage Tanks get refilled?. Every week? Every month?

As I understand it: Even if the type xxi had delivered on the promised stats it would have made no difference. Germany was in no position to perform air patrols looking for convoys in the latter part of the war… It would be a case of being all dressed up but no party to go to. Only factor that mattered was time. When all was going well for the germans, they did like the americans with the sherman, pumping out proven weapons. When they started looking for new, fancy weapons it was already to late. None of the new weapons the germans was looking into (regardless of how far they were in development) would have made a difference.