Replace the 4 Japanese carriers in the battle of midway for 4 taiho class. Replace the ships but keep the experienced crews and air arms. How much would it change the battle and the war?? The compromises in the torpedo defenses wouldn't be such a problem if the Americans have devastators but would the dive bombers have a chance to cause such damage against the armored flight deck of taiho?
For the Atlanta class cruisers, how did they number the main battery’s? I know the normal scheme was gun mount 51, 52, 53, etc. but what would the wing turrets be numbered?
In a case of the ships engins/ boilers neade to be replased did they take apart the top of the ship and simply replaise the parts or how did they do it
Fantastic video as always Drach. I am imagining the Black Gang on Rodney donning red robes, using oils and prayers to motivate the engines to go that bit faster. Maybe sacrificing a certain cheese or cake to the Machine Spirits. I would love to have seen Rodney plowing through the North Atlantic. It must have been a stirring sight to see the old warrior so eager to have its revenge.
James we all would. But Drach has a full time job and it takes many hours longer to edit a two hour video than video is long. But yes more Uncle Drach is always good.
Thank you again for another great video, Drach! Speaking of wooden ships being refloated and used again: After the Treaty of Ghent ended the War of 1812, three of the Lake Erie squadron of US ships were sunk near Presque Island. When the base there was closed in 1820, the Niagara was sunk nearby as well - to preserve the ships against future need. Eventually they were sold, and raised in 1836 to be used as commercial ships. Two of the ships were deemed to be in too poor condition, and had too small holds, to be economical as merchant vessels, and were allowed to sink again. That means after over 20 years in the water two of the ships were able to be raised and put into service. (Later on, in 1913, the Niagara was salvaged and rebuilt, but looking at the photo of what they pulled out then, you can't say it was ready for service after nearly 100 years.)
Check what happened to Hiei. It took a lot of hits by US heavy and light cruisers as well as destroyers to just slow it down enough to be found and sunk by aircraft the next morning.
@@andrewszigeti2174 Well - the Kirishima would have obliterated the sole light cruiser with 14in gunfire looong before the cruiser could sink it (as Hiei historically crippled USS Atlanta).
@@VersusARCH : Except at the point-blank range we're talking about said light cruiser is punching shells straight through Kirishima's armor belt, much as Kirishima is busy doing to the South Dakota at the time this is happening. A couple hits into the boiler rooms and Kirishima no longer has power to move OR turn it's main battery turrets. Besides, if it ignores South Dakota to swat the light cruiser, the battleship might just get IT'S guns operational again...
In chapt. 14 (P. 147) He says Prinzregen Luitpold could have been brought back into commission in a year. So it varies by ship and local conditions. Apparently Cox was forbidden from selling any of the ships he raised.
tdil Fisher was even more of a maniac than I thought. Forget "the Follies" or plans for a Baltic Invasion, forget Dido class gun layout on a battleship. Sailing to the homeport of the High Seas Fleet, at peacetime (1907-1908), sink them all and leave like nothing happened daring Germany to try and do something about it. This man gets better the more I hear about him.
Would have been the death of Great Britain. The Royal Navy was big. It wasn't threaten France, Russia, Austria, Italy, and the US simultaneously big. France may have been sore at Germany over some land, but at least the Germans didn't try to tell them they didn't have the sovereign right to build ships in their own ports.
Re: Salvaging Ships - In Ellesburg's fascinating memoir 'Under the Red Sea Sun' about his time salvaging ships in the captured Eritrean port of Massawa he seems to have been quite taken with using compressed air to raise fully submerged ships so they could be moved to a floating drydock. Divers could make the topside sufficiently airtight and then pump in compressed air to drive the water out the still open holes from the ship's scuttling. The compressed air not only displaced the water, restoring buoyancy, but also supported the ship's deck and hull against the force of the surrounding water.
Danish inventor Karl Krøyer patented a method using ping pong balls to provide buoyancy. Making a ship ping pong ball tight seems to be quite feasible, since this method was used to raise the freighter Al Kuwait.
Wilhelm Bauer (otherwise mainly known as a submrine pioneer) raised the same ship three times while he was in Russia. He was not the one responsible for it going to the bottom again twice.
@@lostalone9320 You definitely need a salvage expert to determine what strategy is likely to work for a given ship. But as long as the holes that sunk it are close to the bottom, and the ship doesn't roll over on you, compressed air can keep it somewhat afloat as long as you can pump in enough to replace leakage. If the compressors stop it becomes a problem. So you fairly quickly need to get it into a drydock, or beached on a sand or something. But if the holes are in the wrong place, or it's likely to tip over and let the air out once it surfaces, then compressed air wouldn't be the correct salvage strategy. And then you need to consider an other strategies like repairing it further with divers before raising it, pumping, using lift devices, etc. etc.
The German Bundesmarine post WW2 used three U-Boats that spend eleven or twelve years under water. One of them, Wilhelm Bauer (originally designated U-2540) is the last surviving Type XXI in the world.
What a nice start to my birthday. Drach, thank you for everything you do. Best channel on TH-cam. Anyone who says otherwise either doesnt care about warships or isnt that bright. Keep up the great work.
In terms of arguments for 2-hour Drydocks each week, I totally get that you don't have the time to put them together, but I do think you underestimate how much we would be willing to watch an extra hour every Sunday XD
As far as USN Carriers are concerned wouldn’t it depend on none of those “extra” carriers being docked in Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. If the USN had more carriers they might have rotated part of the carrier fleet out of harbor instead of all off their carriers.
Well you should also look then at what would Japanese do at that point. They might have made different decision then attacking Pear Harbor. They could have tried to keep up with production, possibly investing more into carier pilot training, could have run out of oil and other material earlier or go different direction all together since mid 30s. Can of worms rly.
Michals: The Japanese might have launched a second attack to finish off any carriers in Pearl Harbor. Yes it is futile to speculate. But during the war the US built about 150 of all types of carriers for USN and Great Britain. Attacking the US was a long odds play at best and a decision made by big egos.
@@JackBWatkins The Japanese did launch a 2nd wave. 1st took out the Airports and Defenses. 2nd was for the Carriers. None were there , 2nd target would be the Battle Ships. 3rd wave was canceled becouse the location of the Aircraft Carrier was unknown and bad Intelligence from the Pilots. 3rd Dave's targets were fuel depots and dry docks.
Well more to the point, if the U.S. went all in on CV's, the world navies would have to respond. Maybe the Yamato would be a super carrier class and not a BB. But if I were Japan, my raid on Pearl would be a sub attacks. If the U.S. were all Navy Air based, my fleet probably wouldn't make it home. Generally speaking, a CV is a big ol transport. It's the aircraft on board that make the difference. In 1941, budget and mindset were on BB's and very litter was done to support CV's. If the U.S. is all in on CV's. Those airplanes would probably be starting WW2 with the type of aircraft we saw at the end of WW2.
As far as no fast battledhips and more carriers scenario, two more issues might be problematic. Heavy bombardment at night during the island hopping probably needs to be considered. Then there might also be problems during kamakazi attacks late in the war few to the lack of AA that the BB's carried.
Neither of these are problems as more cost-effective options were available for both (namely, more subcapital units). Also note that CAP downed far more kamikazes (and normal aircraft) than AA ever did.
There is also a philosophical/ strategic ideology change to switch from Battleships to Carriers. Admirals wanted Battleships. It is only after Pearl Harbor that the US lost some of it's battleships and had to rely on it's a carriers. In the end the US still had the production advantage. Even Yamamoto understood that.
As to the Rodney getting extra speed out of its engines, it was clearly the engineer taking a swig and then pouring the rest of a bottle of Scotch into the fuel line to thin out the mix and get an extra 50 RPM out of the engines.
Regarding the more carriers instead of battleships: Early war the US was *very* limited by their low numbers of oilers, much less fast oilers. One reason the US had no battleships defending the carriers at Coral Sea or Midway. In fact at Coral Sea Fletcher was struggling with fuel levels at Coral Sea with just his historic forces. And its not like the US had more avalible that they just didn't sent; so I just don't see how the historically available oiler forces could have kept additional carriers fueled (much less the additional escorts they'd presumably need). So hopefully this hypothetical hard turn towards carriers also includes the foresight to build quite a number more Cimarron-class fast oilers to support all these extra carriers.
@@bkjeong4302 Yes, lack of oilers affects both. That's why, historically, the US couldn't afford to send any fast battleships to Coral Sea or Midway. So if you have more carriers instead then they'd be the ships that weren't sent due to lack of fuel. (Admittedly that would make Midway slightly better because instead of sending out a damaged Yorktown on of her sisters that had to sit out Coral Sea could be sent instead) Also I think carriers running air ops tend to use even more fuel that fast battleships escorting them (and definitely less than a distant BB covering force). While a Yorktown-class appears to be more fuel efficient than a North Carolina-class at any given speed the carrier keeps having to sprint up to full speed for air ops, while outside of active combat the heavy escort forces tend to plod along the base course at lower speed and wait for the carrier to return (and so saving lots of fuel by not working up to full speed). Plus, at this point in the war, US doctrine was to split up their carriers rather than concentrating them in a single formation. So unless they revise that doctrine much earlier than historic adding carriers requires adding a bunch of extra escorting destroyers and an escorting cruiser or two - and all those need frequent refueling. But a battleship escort usually stays tucked into the carriers existing formation and so doesn't need so many extra escorts. So even for operations where the US did have the fuel resupply historically to send battleships along, bringing extra carriers instead likely requires significantly more fuel.
Actually, the USN re-floated about 5 or 6 BB’s off the mud at Pearl Harbor that served in WW-II. I think they started that project almost immediately after the surprise attack.
I have thought on your comments about the US building more Yorktowns instead of BBs. You suggested that the Japanese night fighting ability would be more of a factor. I would assume that the Japanese carrier production wouldn't be much higher because they wouldn't be able to go much higher. Maybe a few conversions earlier. Also remember that until PoW and Repulse, CVs were not a proven system, so Japan might have just stayed with the BBs anyways. If the US had more CVs, we would have had a more aggressive posture early. And during Guadalcanal the US CVs would be hunting and not sitting in the back hiding from Japanese forces. The Japanese ships running down the slot had a mission profile of normal cruising followed by a quick dash at the end to avoid the Cactus air force. With more US CVs, more aggressively deployed, that mission would be a risky mad dash from the moment they lose Rabaul air cover. And considering the extra planes available, Rebaul air cover probably would not have been adequate.
I remember a modern British warship parking itself on Lord Howe island like a decade ago I think . They managed to refloat it , limp back to Newcastle then it got a piggy back ride home to the UK , that must have cost a fortune . Oh my bad they only managed to hole themselves , I'd always thought they fully grounded it but I was mistaken . I didn't laugh too hard as I once managed to miss a natural gas rig by about a couple boat lengths myself , I'm sure I would have used the Royal Navies misfortune to drill home to less experienced deck hands of the importance maintaining a proper watch .
Mathew Kelly - _"…missed a NG rig by a couple of boat lengths…"_ With the seasoned voice of experience, the seasoning is sometimes sweet, sometimes savory, sometimes bland, but the most interesting seasonings come from things best not tasted directly. Glad you're around too tell about it!
If your ship is sinking, remember to turn off the engine. A coworker was on a fishing vessel in Alaska that sunk in port. Since the diesel engine was shut down before it went under, the boat was pretty easily salvaged and ready to go. My coworker did complain that his weed was ruined by the saltwater.
Drach - ping pong balls worked well for the VASA. They are however still conserving her. The german battleships at Scapa were firstly inspected and parched along the hull where there were any openings and then they were pumped using air to displaced the water and float the ship. It was an amazing feat of diving.
When the original American frigates were designed in the 1780's, one of the selling points for building such large frigates was that, in weather, the frigates could take down a ship of the line. This was a stated feature of their design.
The Germans were convinced the British would just turn up on their doorstep and give them a Copenhagening, to the point that the RN sitting back in a distant blockade caught them off guard.
About this carrier building question. 5 or 6 hulls are nice, but where are the pilots and planes? Aircraft production is not reaching a peak till mid war. Pilot training takes maybe a year? The USN and USMC can't fill those air groups in pre war conditions.
@@lamwen03 The Congress was not gung ho for defense spending. The current one even less so. As the training? Doubling or tripling output pre war is very optimistic.
Don’t worry, person who asked how long it takes. I asked dozens of times, I waited months, (and I can’t even remember whether it was covered in a dry dock or a special)... But I got my coverage of those magnificent galleases!!
wrt the carrier only USN in the 30s, the first problem is that Wasp consumed the last of the US' treaty allotment for carriers. Once the treaty system collapsed, Congress authorized two new carriers in 38. Of those two, one was built to the existing Yorktown design, which was, by then somewhat outdated, while the second carrier, Essex, was delayed while the new design was drawn up. The North Carolinas could be laid down when they were, because of the expiration of the treaty battleship construction moratorium at the end of 36. There was no treaty mechanism that would allow more carriers to be laid down at that time. So, even if the US had not been laying down BBs in the late 30s, they would not have started the war with more carriers, due to the Navy's preference in 38 to wait for a new, more capable, design, rather than building obsolescent Yorktowns to infinity. The Navy ordered 11 Essexes in 1940, one year after Hornet was ordered, but the war was upon them before they were completed.
"La raison du plus fort" etc. is the moral of la Fontaine's version of the fable of the wolf and the lamb. When the wolf threatens to eat the lamb it protests that it has done nothing to deserve such a thing. The wolf invents specious reasons why the lamb deserves to die, drags it off and eats it. And the reasons of the stronger are always the better. Fisher was saying Nelson did just that at Copenhagen, and Britain could do the same when pre-empting Germany's attempt to build a powerful Navy.
Normandy-class carriers might have been very useful as large escort carriers for merchant convoys, assuming they join the Free French and not the Vichy forces.
I have often wargamed a much more closely integrated Marine National and Royal Navy in the 1930s similar to modern NATO forces and I often pair Bearn along with Argos, Eagle and Hermes along with the older French BBs and the Rs for convoy escort while pairing the Dunkerque's, Renown and Repulse along with Ark Royal and the 3 fisher refit carriers to make a pair of heavily escorted fast carrier divisions with two big CVs and a fast heavy hitting escort
FYI: The Vasa was the first ship of the line to use a unitary armament of 24 pounder cannons, her broadside was more than twice as heavy as the nearest competitor and slightly heavier than the USS Constitution 160 years later.
Hey Drach, I appreciate you making quality content on such a regular schedule. But I encourage you to take a break from time to time. Give your family the time or just yourself. I have seen people burn out doing what they thought they loved. Just take care of yourself man.
Is there anything left to be said about ironclad warships ? The volume of content is getting epic
4 ปีที่แล้ว
50:50 One thing I would like to add about the Spanish Armada is: The point of the Armada was (and they relied on) carrying an army to England. Except they had no army on board. Loading that had been largely interdicted by the Dutch coastal ships. It's not a stretch to think thatif you're a Spanish captain your willingness to fight with guns or board English ships will be affected by your crew being a bunch of monks going "que es cañón?", compared to land soldiers who can fight a boarding action and for a gun battle are at least physically trained and grasp the concepts of how a cannon might work.
@51:15 "You do still get the odd reversal of fortune where someone boards a ship by all rights it has no right to capture, and succeeds." HMS Speedy vs. Gamo, anyone?
I wonder if the “no fast BB” scenario would result in increased production of cruisers, both to accompany the new carriers for AA coverage and for surface striking forces? Also, I wonder if this would have increased the urgency to raise and repair some of the standards, and would this have resulted in producing Alaskas in quantity, especially if surface conflicts are not going as well as hoped?
Yeah it would mean more cruisers for AA and shore bombardment purposes, which is the more cost-effective option. I’d imagine the Standards would also do shore bombardment though they’d be overkill for it.
The Kirishima's chief damge control officer survived the war. He wrote a book about about the engagement . He also provided detailed information on it's battle damge. Does anyone have an english translation of this book??
I've always thought that sending the older pre - dreadnoughts and older dreadnoughts should have entered Kiel at the outbreak of the war and bin the high seas fleet
I'm not all that bothered when _(if,_ even) my question is answered, because every Drydock Q & A is fascinating, anyway. That said, when will you answer my f-cking question❓😉 Only joking❗ Top work, sir. Thank you. 👍😎
In your analysis of the potential Mers al kebir battle you're ignoring the fact that the RN has hundreds of years of experience at embarrassing the french navy.
How many ships shared in the prize money for the capture of USS President? Was it only four (three large frigates and a large razee), or were there brigs and sloops as well?
About the Norwegian frigatte that sunk a year ago (or something like that): as soon as a ship is under water, you will need to gut the hull from EVERYTHING electric and probably everything mechanic. While you may just pick apart a small hobby boats engine and renovate the thing, that is not something you would want to try on a war ship. And that goes for almost every moving part that has even the most miniscure important function. You cannot have a war ship that perhaps wont break down in interesting ways at the most stupid of times. And nothing ever breaks when its convinient to fix it - things tend to break when you are pushed to your limit. It needs to work. All the time. So in reality the ship needs to be completley gutted and put together again with new parts. I have never done that with a boat, but with cars and a couple of houses. Its faster to build a new car, or a house, in a factory then to gut the thing and put it togehter again. This time difference goes up exponentionally with complexity in the project. And a war ship is probably as complex as anything comes. We are by all likleyhood talking a difference by lots and lots of thousands of man hours done by a highly trained and therefore very expensive workforce. You need a small army of engineers, electricians, mechanics, weapons experts etcerea comitted for years. Basically, you may reuse the hull. But gutting it in a way that you can reuse it for war purposes will take a lot longer then to weld a new hull together.
The game publisher Avalanche Press a few years ago does a special publication called The Golden Journal. It's for the members of there Gold Club. I bring this up in reference to the question Carrier only USN in the 1930's? A few yeas ago a Golden Journal took a look at this. It supposed in response to the economic dip over 1937-8 orders for navy ships had been increased. Two more Washington class BB's, two more Yorktown class CV's, some additional CL's of a class the USN did look at but not build with extra DD's of the classes being built at that time. By the time this would have been done the 1922 and 1930 numbers restrictions and weight restrictions where falling away or had fallen away. Vote. In person. Choose wisely.
The surrender in Toyoko Bay would have been signed on the Enterprise. It was in action through out the war. A battleship's utility was it was usually a flagship. The fact that the president of the United States was from Missouri has not been lost on many.
An all Carriers US Navy more likely have Admirals like John Towers in command positions and, with the appropriate training, the abysmal flight operations at the battle of Midway would have been eliminated and most likely the Yorktown would not have been lost. Without Admiral Fletcher the aftermath of the battle of Savo Island would have been very different. The battle of the Phillipine Sea might not have left enough Japanese carriers for a decoy force for Leyte.
My reference to the aftermath of the battle relates to Admiral Fletcher's withdrawal of his carrier forces. In the conference setting up the command structure (Fletcher was the Expeditionary Force Commander) he wished to withdraw his carriers after 2 days (Aug 7=8) but was persuaded to stay an extra day. Nevertheless, he requested to withdraw on August 8 and maneuvered to the southeast to avoid air attacks. His subsequent actions have been the subject of much discussion but it should be noted that one of his jobs as Expeditionary Force Commander was to cover the transports until unloaded and he clearly had no intention to do that and he refused to send carrier strikes after the battle. The best discussion of these events, I believe, is in Guadalcanal by Richard Frank. There are more than enough candidates for blame in allowing Mikawa's advance and retreat however..
wrt the Mers-el-Kebir full battle scenario: the Bretagnes were only armed with 13.4" guns. As well as being even slower than an R class, they would be hard pressed to penetrate to the vitals of a QE or R class, while the British 15/42s would have no problem cutting through their 10" belts. Given the RN's numerical superiority in light units, plus it's heavier guns, plus speed advantage, it sounds like a slaughter if the entire French squadron stood out to engage. Were I the French commander, out of respect for French human life, I think I would have the Bretanges stay in port and provide covering fire, while the Dunkerques and DDs run at high speed. Leaving Valiant and Resolution in their wake would even the odds, if the RN wanted to make a running fight of it, while the crews of the Bretagnes could swim to shore.
Lepanto - Gian'Andrea Doria's decision to leave the rams unshipped, according to Furneaux, allowed the bow guns to fire on a lower, more effective, trajectory. Rodney's speed in the chase of Bismark is disputed. Kennedy reports her signalling KGV "Your 23 knots is a little faster than mine". as she fell behind. Possibly her fuel state had an effect on her speed (and possibly KGVs too)
If Fisher had "Copenhagened" the High Seas Fleet, I imagine that there would have been a big change in how the United Stated viewed entering the war, maybe even on who's side they would have entered.
Oh yeah, the US had a large German population, and only two world wars cut them off from that. But the US also was growing into a great power, and primarily naval as well. It would have made sense for the US to seek to expand at the uks expense, and if they saw the uk pull such an ignominious attack, they would see the writing on the wall. Coalition time!
If you replace the North Carolinas and the South Dakotas with Yorktowns, and Iowas with Essexes, that still doesn't change the Battle of Surigao Strait, which still only had revised Standards in the battle-line. They won't be useful as AA defense for the higher-speed carriers.
I don’t know if you’ll see this or not, but I just had someone walk into my Deli that watches you. A small sleepy town in South Central Pennsylvania in the USA.
What effect would allowing 2 battle cruisers (e.g. G3, lexington and saratoga, etc) each for Britain, the US and Japan in the Washington naval treaty have on WW2?
@joanne chon Look at the sea routes the German principalities were constrained to use before the Kiel canal was built. 250 miles of sailing just to get to where the UK, Netherlands, and France begin.
i saw the website you are working on has a page for the design competition. interested in seeing how competition 6 pans out and what designs get the go ahead.
wrt the Normandie carrier conversions, seems someone would have pointed out their lack of speed to temper the enthusiasm for converting all of them to carriers. If someone had that moment of clarity, and France not having anything in the works that could show a decent turn of speed, they could have claimed the three incomplete Mackensen class battlecruisers as war reparations and towed them to France to be fitted with French machinery and converted to carriers.
One problem with claiming the Mackensens and completing them in any configuration, the Mackensens were 730 feet long. France did not have a drydock that big at that time. They had looked at lengthening and up-engining the Normandies to compete with the 28kt Caracciolos, but the cost of building a drydock big enough for the work put the cost of the project out of sight.
I'd have to argue the point of what if the U.S. stopped BB production. Go into WW2, take every BB on the roster and switch it to a CV. So battle of Surigao Straight, there wouldn't be 6 "old" BB's sitting at the back waiting. There would be 6 CVs sitting in the back waiting. But that isn't even the craziest part of all this. At the start of WW2 Navy brass were all BB drivers... focus and efforts were to modernize BB's over CV's which were seen as inferior. Without that political hamstringing of CV/Aircraft development the U.S. goes into WW2 with all focus on making one type of ship and all aircraft much better. All those crew trained for BB operations, would be trained for CV ops. CV's planes would be rapidly developed into a much better wing of aircraft given the focus of all efforts put solely into them. Hell the Doolittle raid wouldn't be a one off, we probably would of made a CV large enough to hold and launch bombers. Only way to counter this is with your own CV fleet, which becomes a numbers game. Or vast amounts of submarines.
A pre-war attack on the High Seas Fleet would have robbed the Allies of their influence with the USA, altering the financial assistance provided to France and the UK along with the future involvement of the USA in the War at all. The blockade of the High Seas Fleet was expensive but sufficiently effective that Fisher's Plan was unnecessary, even in retrospect.
@@CTXSLPR who couldn't have gone full CV? The Japanese gave notice in late 34 that they would not participate in the treaty after the end of 36, so they could build all they wanted. Ark Royal used the last of the RN's carrier tonnage, except there was a clause in the treaty that carriers in service or building at the time of the treaty were "experimental" and not held to the treaty's 20 year replacement cycle. Hermes, Eagle and Argus all fit that criteria, so the RN could have refitted all three as sub tenders, for instance, and freed up enough tonnage for two more Ark Royals. If they measured the age of the Courageous class carriers from when they commissioned as "large light cruisers", rather than as carriers, they were all 20 years old by 37, so they could all have been replace by new build carriers as well. The Brits laid down four 23,000 ton Illustrious class carriers in 37, so they probably had one of these replacement scenarios in mind at the time. Only the USN had all it's tonnage quota tied up in relatively new carriers *and* was still trying to abide by the treaty, until 38.
Would have been a brave decision to build fleet carriers over battleships 1936 if you look at the aircraft available for the USN at the time. I don't believe any naval air service have the aircraft to justify that until 40 at the earliest.
Biggest problem with the British pulling off a "Copenhagen" in 1914 is that they would have instantly lost the moral high ground, especially if they did it before the Germans invaded Belgium.
Would the US have enough fuel to power 4-5 additional carriers and their flight ops early in the war? They had a hard time fueling the old battleships they did have in theater at the time.
Would it be feasible, time wise, for you to have a short (maybe an hour or so) livestream every Friday (or whenever), like the Patreon ones, just not as long, where you answer questions that you can answer off the top of your head? That would add an optional extra hour of Drach for those of us who want it, and wouldn't take as much production time as an extra hour of drydock would. I honestly really like the format, and just more Drach in general is a good thing. With regards to a livestream purely about answering chat questions, I don't know about it. It tends to devolve into mostly superchat questions being answered, which is understandable from your perspective, as they are giving you money so you feel obligated to answer, but it does hamper those of us who have interesting questions but little money, while those with money can pay $5 and get you to talk about something you've already spent 10 minutes talking about in a drydock before. That's not always the case, don't get me wrong. Additionally, i would like to suggest a name for the livestreams: The Floating Drydock.
For the Mers El Kibir scenario, how does the all forward armament of the Dunquerque's effect the outcome? I would expect that would provide some tactical advantage.
The French plan to fight broadside to broadside against equal opposition, just like everyone else's battleships. (Fighting bow-on is a Really Bad Idea, because your enemy then only has to get the range right by +/- 100 metres instead of +/- 15 metres when side on.) The all forward guns on the Dunkerques, like on the Nelsons, are to shorten the amount of hull that needs to be armoured.
@@hughfisher9820 most of what you say may be true, that is why I asked the question, I cannot argue that, but I'm not so sure about the range thingie. The size of the target is unchanged, so i think the probability of hitting would be the same. Any loosening of range calculation should be exactly canceled by tightening the angular component of fire control. Again, this is based on geometry, the ability to determine bearing may be easier than range, but at 10 to 20 thousand yards, I am not so sure. And the French all forward was different than the Nelson class. The French could fire all of their guns directly forward. Nelson only had 2/3rds of their guns available to fire at an opponent directly in front of them.
@@MrTScolaro You're right that the overall target size doesn't change, but the probability of hitting does. Measuring the angular component is easier, you can see surveyors on any land management project using optical devices that date back centuries to measure angles against landmarks. Plotting bearings (angular measurements) used to be how ships navigated into harbour, even through narrow channels. Before radar (and now lasers) measuring the range to something was less accurate. Hence the discussion in Drach's videos on fire control about coincidence vs stereoscopic rangefinders, whether to have one, two, or three in parallel, upgrading from 8 metre wide to 10 metre wide, etc. It was harder to be precise. So if you were a warship in battle, being side on made you harder to hit with guns. (But easier to hit with torpedoes, because torpedoes don't need to get the range right.)
@@MrTScolaro In Drach's videos on the Dunkerque and Richelieu classes, he mentions that the all forward armament was for the same reason as the Nelsons, shortening the armour belt. If the British could have stacked three 16" turrets up so all could fire forward without overbalancing the ship, they would have.
@@hughfisher9820 but remember my original question. In the mers el kibir situation, D&S would be coming out of port and still have their full armament. I don't doubt it is easier to determine the angular component, but, jeez it's complicated, you will have some angular error in any case and all naval guns have some dispersion. I certainly could be wrong, but I just don't think the difference would be that great. Also, although the all forward design was to shorten the citadel length, being able to use your entire armament through, what 270, 300 degrees seems like it would provide a nice tactical advantage, particularly with the speed of D&S enabling to set the terms of the engagement.
Aside from Second Guadalcanal, is the lack of battleships for the Solomons campaign in that scenario really such a problem? The Japanese were mostly sending in cruisers and destroyers.
@@CharlesStearman But that was unusual, there were plenty of cases in WWII where cruisers and even destroyers did heavy damage to enemy positions (including heavily fortified ones), even outperforming battleships in this role. And given that the reason battleships (including all fast battleships) were originally conceived in the first place was to be the primary strike units, they're too costly to justify building for anything else.
The US Marines on Guadalcanal really did not want to be bombarded with 14" shells again. That's why the USN had to send modern battleships into a short range night action which could easily have turned into a deathtrap for them.
@@bkjeong4302 It was the best option the Japanese had available. You fight with what you've got, not what you wish for. The US Marines said at the time, loudly, that the bombardment by Kongo and Haruna did far more damage than any of the cruiser bombardments, so the USN had better stop the next one. Size matters for explosive shells, 14" is about 4x as much explosive as 8"
There are many decent to excellent TH-cam videos of ship salvage methods. The Dutch seemed to have the greatest expertise. There is a book on the Pearl Harbor salvage efforts. Don't ask the name, you can Google it as easy as me.
43:00 at this point in time any modern warship would be written off purely because of the sheer cost of replacing all the electronics. With Iowa at least it would not be any more difficult than salvaging an old car; mechanical and basic electronics would need replacing at the least, with possibility of major structural repairs of course.
Ib think if the bits had done this to the high sea fleet in the bigger picture it would have brought the US to eather not enter the war or enter on the Germans side not that in WW1 the yanks did much but the supplys were needed
wrt Kirishima at Guadalcanal, one wonders why the IJN did not make more use of the Nagatos. The Kongos were constantly put in harm's way, and were harmed a lot. The Nagatos were not that slow, better armed and better protected. The battles of Guadalcanal would have probably gone differently if the IJN had brought Nagato and Mutsu.
You’re wrong about them being fast enough to be used in the Slot. Also, even the Kongos were unnecessary and overkill for most Solomon’s engagements (the one exception was Second Guadalcanal and they lost that one).
@@bkjeong4302 I would think speed not that important in restricted waters, like the Slot. The faster you get the ship going, the harder it is to turn. The Nagatos were only a couple kts slower than SD or Washington, and, with their better armor, a Nagato would probably not have been disabled by cruiser fire in round one, so the odds would have been more even in round two.
@@stevevalley7835 The problem with speed was that the Japanese needed to get in and out of the Slot fast to avoid being caught by American aircraft (especially from Henderson Field) during the daytime. The Nagatos were nowhere near fast enough for this (even the Yamatos, which were as fast as the South Dakotas, would be pushing things massively when trying to make that run).
Pinned post for Q&A :)
Replace the 4 Japanese carriers in the battle of midway for 4 taiho class.
Replace the ships but keep the experienced crews and air arms. How much would it change the battle and the war??
The compromises in the torpedo defenses wouldn't be such a problem if the Americans have devastators but would the dive bombers have a chance to cause such damage against the armored flight deck of taiho?
How would operation Rheinubung have gone like, had admiral Marschall lead it instead of Lutjens? Would Bismarck have survived?
If the Bismarck and her sister ship Tirpitz didn't sunk at the Atlantic ocean would the British short out of food supply?
For the Atlanta class cruisers, how did they number the main battery’s? I know the normal scheme was gun mount 51, 52, 53, etc. but what would the wing turrets be numbered?
In a case of the ships engins/ boilers neade to be replased did they take apart the top of the ship and simply replaise the parts or how did they do it
Fantastic video as always Drach.
I am imagining the Black Gang on Rodney donning red robes, using oils and prayers to motivate the engines to go that bit faster.
Maybe sacrificing a certain cheese or cake to the Machine Spirits.
I would love to have seen Rodney plowing through the North Atlantic.
It must have been a stirring sight to see the old warrior so eager to have its revenge.
Well that works in WarHammer 40K...
@@shaunsalter450 Warhammer 1940K ?
I would listen to a two hour dry dock every week
James we all would. But Drach has a full time job and it takes many hours longer to edit a two hour video than video is long. But yes more Uncle Drach is always good.
@@notbobrosss3670 wasn't complaining about the lack of them, just saying he is happy to have them.
I listen to dry docks at work so would love to have 2 hour long episodes... however I understand the constraints on time.
I’m on a 12 hour night shift
@@notbobrosss3670 I do understand. Just want him to know that his work is very appriciated
Thank you again for another great video, Drach!
Speaking of wooden ships being refloated and used again: After the Treaty of Ghent ended the War of 1812, three of the Lake Erie squadron of US ships were sunk near Presque Island. When the base there was closed in 1820, the Niagara was sunk nearby as well - to preserve the ships against future need. Eventually they were sold, and raised in 1836 to be used as commercial ships. Two of the ships were deemed to be in too poor condition, and had too small holds, to be economical as merchant vessels, and were allowed to sink again.
That means after over 20 years in the water two of the ships were able to be raised and put into service.
(Later on, in 1913, the Niagara was salvaged and rebuilt, but looking at the photo of what they pulled out then, you can't say it was ready for service after nearly 100 years.)
51:49. The machine spirits were as motivated by a desire for revenge for Hood as the crew.
Praise be the Omnissiah
_Nelson_ class battleship: +2 to speed when chasing _Bismarck._
My 2yo niece dances around the room when she hears the dry dock theme😂
Carry on 👍👍🍺🍺🍺
I do the same as a 23 year old ;-)
My sons can repeat the epilogue on command.
Now THAT would be an infamous battle. Kirishima put down by a light cruiser using only gunfire... What an embarrassing way to go!
Check what happened to Hiei. It took a lot of hits by US heavy and light cruisers as well as destroyers to just slow it down enough to be found and sunk by aircraft the next morning.
@@VersusARCH : True, but imagine the embarrasment of being a battlecruiser sunk by gunfire from a single light cruiser with no help!
@@andrewszigeti2174 Well - the Kirishima would have obliterated the sole light cruiser with 14in gunfire looong before the cruiser could sink it (as Hiei historically crippled USS Atlanta).
@@VersusARCH : Except at the point-blank range we're talking about said light cruiser is punching shells straight through Kirishima's armor belt, much as Kirishima is busy doing to the South Dakota at the time this is happening. A couple hits into the boiler rooms and Kirishima no longer has power to move OR turn it's main battery turrets.
Besides, if it ignores South Dakota to swat the light cruiser, the battleship might just get IT'S guns operational again...
@@VersusARCH I thought Akatsuki and San Fransisco crippled Atlanta?
Ernest Cox salvaging the scuttled German High seas Fleet in the 1930's is in a very interesting book, "The man who bought a Navy"
In chapt. 14 (P. 147) He says Prinzregen Luitpold could have been brought back into commission in a year. So it varies by ship and local conditions. Apparently Cox was forbidden from selling any of the ships he raised.
Fisher: If violence is not solving the problem, you are simply not using enough.
The Very Embodiment of the Second Amendment. MOAR DAKKA!
Fisher: Future generations will say: We've Kielled Them!
“I’ll end this violence the only way I know how, with more violence.”
Isaac arthur ?
@@shaunbrennan5281 Keil Canal get it?
tdil Fisher was even more of a maniac than I thought. Forget "the Follies" or plans for a Baltic Invasion, forget Dido class gun layout on a battleship. Sailing to the homeport of the High Seas Fleet, at peacetime (1907-1908), sink them all and leave like nothing happened daring Germany to try and do something about it. This man gets better the more I hear about him.
Would have been the death of Great Britain. The Royal Navy was big. It wasn't threaten France, Russia, Austria, Italy, and the US simultaneously big. France may have been sore at Germany over some land, but at least the Germans didn't try to tell them they didn't have the sovereign right to build ships in their own ports.
Re: Salvaging Ships - In Ellesburg's fascinating memoir 'Under the Red Sea Sun' about his time salvaging ships in the captured Eritrean port of Massawa he seems to have been quite taken with using compressed air to raise fully submerged ships so they could be moved to a floating drydock. Divers could make the topside sufficiently airtight and then pump in compressed air to drive the water out the still open holes from the ship's scuttling. The compressed air not only displaced the water, restoring buoyancy, but also supported the ship's deck and hull against the force of the surrounding water.
Danish inventor Karl Krøyer patented a method using ping pong balls to provide buoyancy.
Making a ship ping pong ball tight seems to be quite feasible, since this method was used to raise the freighter Al Kuwait.
Wilhelm Bauer (otherwise mainly known as a submrine pioneer) raised the same ship three times while he was in Russia. He was not the one responsible for it going to the bottom again twice.
@@lostalone9320 You definitely need a salvage expert to determine what strategy is likely to work for a given ship. But as long as the holes that sunk it are close to the bottom, and the ship doesn't roll over on you, compressed air can keep it somewhat afloat as long as you can pump in enough to replace leakage. If the compressors stop it becomes a problem. So you fairly quickly need to get it into a drydock, or beached on a sand or something.
But if the holes are in the wrong place, or it's likely to tip over and let the air out once it surfaces, then compressed air wouldn't be the correct salvage strategy. And then you need to consider an other strategies like repairing it further with divers before raising it, pumping, using lift devices, etc. etc.
Jonathan Smith That’s also how Stan Rogers raised the Mary Ellen Carter th-cam.com/video/Fhop5VuLDIQ/w-d-xo.html
Periscope Films has a couple of videos on ship salvaging. Subs and ships on different films.
The German Bundesmarine post WW2 used three U-Boats that spend eleven or twelve years under water.
One of them, Wilhelm Bauer (originally designated U-2540) is the last surviving Type XXI in the world.
At least U-Hai (U 2365) was sunk with some "conservation" measures as in allowing oil to drain into the hull. That actually worked quit well.
I only started asking drydock questions after I realized I was watching every one all the way through. Always something interesting Drach.
What a nice start to my birthday. Drach, thank you for everything you do. Best channel on TH-cam. Anyone who says otherwise either doesnt care about warships or isnt that bright. Keep up the great work.
In terms of arguments for 2-hour Drydocks each week, I totally get that you don't have the time to put them together, but I do think you underestimate how much we would be willing to watch an extra hour every Sunday XD
Thank you for the online archive site Drach!!!
I often listen to these while at work or painting miniatures, so personally I would love longer drydocks
As far as USN Carriers are concerned wouldn’t it depend on none of those “extra” carriers being docked in Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. If the USN had more carriers they might have rotated part of the carrier fleet out of harbor instead of all off their carriers.
Well you should also look then at what would Japanese do at that point. They might have made different decision then attacking Pear Harbor. They could have tried to keep up with production, possibly investing more into carier pilot training, could have run out of oil and other material earlier or go different direction all together since mid 30s.
Can of worms rly.
Michals: The Japanese might have launched a second attack to finish off any carriers in Pearl Harbor. Yes it is futile to speculate. But during the war the US built about 150 of all types of carriers for USN and Great Britain. Attacking the US was a long odds play at best and a decision made by big egos.
@@JackBWatkins The Japanese did launch a 2nd wave. 1st took out the Airports and Defenses. 2nd was for the Carriers. None were there , 2nd target would be the Battle Ships. 3rd wave was canceled becouse the location of the Aircraft Carrier was unknown and bad Intelligence from the Pilots. 3rd Dave's targets were fuel depots and dry docks.
pat36a : yes you are correct. I stand corrected, thanks.
Well more to the point, if the U.S. went all in on CV's, the world navies would have to respond. Maybe the Yamato would be a super carrier class and not a BB. But if I were Japan, my raid on Pearl would be a sub attacks. If the U.S. were all Navy Air based, my fleet probably wouldn't make it home. Generally speaking, a CV is a big ol transport. It's the aircraft on board that make the difference. In 1941, budget and mindset were on BB's and very litter was done to support CV's. If the U.S. is all in on CV's. Those airplanes would probably be starting WW2 with the type of aircraft we saw at the end of WW2.
As far as no fast battledhips and more carriers scenario, two more issues might be problematic. Heavy bombardment at night during the island hopping probably needs to be considered. Then there might also be problems during kamakazi attacks late in the war few to the lack of AA that the BB's carried.
Neither of these are problems as more cost-effective options were available for both (namely, more subcapital units).
Also note that CAP downed far more kamikazes (and normal aircraft) than AA ever did.
There is also a philosophical/ strategic ideology change to switch from Battleships to Carriers. Admirals wanted Battleships. It is only after Pearl Harbor that the US lost some of it's battleships and had to rely on it's a carriers. In the end the US still had the production advantage. Even Yamamoto understood that.
More fighters > more ack-ack.
Plus…
One Atlanta more than offsets one BB, given all 16 of its 5/38s are on the centerline.
As to the Rodney getting extra speed out of its engines, it was clearly the engineer taking a swig and then pouring the rest of a bottle of Scotch into the fuel line to thin out the mix and get an extra 50 RPM out of the engines.
@joanne chon I didn't say that it was good scotch. Good catch on the Down Periscope reference.
US Carriers option, Japanese surrender signing would have been on the USS Johnston, of course!
I WANT TO LISTEN TO A TWO HOUR DRYDOCK EVERY WEEK!
Regarding the more carriers instead of battleships: Early war the US was *very* limited by their low numbers of oilers, much less fast oilers. One reason the US had no battleships defending the carriers at Coral Sea or Midway. In fact at Coral Sea Fletcher was struggling with fuel levels at Coral Sea with just his historic forces. And its not like the US had more avalible that they just didn't sent; so I just don't see how the historically available oiler forces could have kept additional carriers fueled (much less the additional escorts they'd presumably need).
So hopefully this hypothetical hard turn towards carriers also includes the foresight to build quite a number more Cimarron-class fast oilers to support all these extra carriers.
Even worse is air crew. There is no way pre war to fully train 6 air groups.
Doesn’t this apply to BOTH battleships and carriers?
@@bkjeong4302 Oiler support? True... Both need refuel at sea.
@@WALTERBROADDUS
Yeah I meant the Oiler support.
@@bkjeong4302 Yes, lack of oilers affects both. That's why, historically, the US couldn't afford to send any fast battleships to Coral Sea or Midway. So if you have more carriers instead then they'd be the ships that weren't sent due to lack of fuel. (Admittedly that would make Midway slightly better because instead of sending out a damaged Yorktown on of her sisters that had to sit out Coral Sea could be sent instead)
Also I think carriers running air ops tend to use even more fuel that fast battleships escorting them (and definitely less than a distant BB covering force). While a Yorktown-class appears to be more fuel efficient than a North Carolina-class at any given speed the carrier keeps having to sprint up to full speed for air ops, while outside of active combat the heavy escort forces tend to plod along the base course at lower speed and wait for the carrier to return (and so saving lots of fuel by not working up to full speed).
Plus, at this point in the war, US doctrine was to split up their carriers rather than concentrating them in a single formation. So unless they revise that doctrine much earlier than historic adding carriers requires adding a bunch of extra escorting destroyers and an escorting cruiser or two - and all those need frequent refueling. But a battleship escort usually stays tucked into the carriers existing formation and so doesn't need so many extra escorts. So even for operations where the US did have the fuel resupply historically to send battleships along, bringing extra carriers instead likely requires significantly more fuel.
Oh i do love to hear drydock every week no matter the time duration.
Captain: Faster, faster!
CO: She may break Sir!
Captain: Break it then!
Chief enginer: not on my watch!
Do you think the cheif engineer on board was of Scottish decent
She'll fly apart! Captain Sulu of HMS Rodney, FLY HER APART THEN!
Actually, the USN re-floated about 5 or 6 BB’s off the mud at Pearl Harbor that served in WW-II. I think they started that project almost immediately after the surprise attack.
The harbor was only 25 feet or so deeper than the BB's draft. Easy to work on.
I have thought on your comments about the US building more Yorktowns instead of BBs. You suggested that the Japanese night fighting ability would be more of a factor. I would assume that the Japanese carrier production wouldn't be much higher because they wouldn't be able to go much higher. Maybe a few conversions earlier. Also remember that until PoW and Repulse, CVs were not a proven system, so Japan might have just stayed with the BBs anyways. If the US had more CVs, we would have had a more aggressive posture early. And during Guadalcanal the US CVs would be hunting and not sitting in the back hiding from Japanese forces. The Japanese ships running down the slot had a mission profile of normal cruising followed by a quick dash at the end to avoid the Cactus air force. With more US CVs, more aggressively deployed, that mission would be a risky mad dash from the moment they lose Rabaul air cover. And considering the extra planes available, Rebaul air cover probably would not have been adequate.
I remember a modern British warship parking itself on Lord Howe island like a decade ago I think . They managed to refloat it , limp back to Newcastle then it got a piggy back ride home to the UK , that must have cost a fortune .
Oh my bad they only managed to hole themselves , I'd always thought they fully grounded it but I was mistaken .
I didn't laugh too hard as I once managed to miss a natural gas rig by about a couple boat lengths myself , I'm sure I would have used the Royal Navies misfortune to drill home to less experienced deck hands of the importance maintaining a proper watch .
Mathew Kelly Hms Nottingham hit Wolf Rock near Lord Howe island in 2002, I thought it was like ten years ago too but more like 20
Didn't they just scrap it and not repair it?
@@viking1236 no they fixed it
@@michaeljones9861 yeh when I looked up article to refresh my memory I was like omg almost 20 years ago
Mathew Kelly - _"…missed a NG rig by a couple of boat lengths…"_
With the seasoned voice of experience, the seasoning is sometimes sweet, sometimes savory, sometimes bland, but the most interesting seasonings come from things best not tasted directly. Glad you're around too tell about it!
If your ship is sinking, remember to turn off the engine. A coworker was on a fishing vessel in Alaska that sunk in port. Since the diesel engine was shut down before it went under, the boat was pretty easily salvaged and ready to go. My coworker did complain that his weed was ruined by the saltwater.
Drach - ping pong balls worked well for the VASA. They are however still conserving her. The german battleships at Scapa were firstly inspected and parched along the hull where there were any openings and then they were pumped using air to displaced the water and float the ship. It was an amazing feat of diving.
When the original American frigates were designed in the 1780's, one of the selling points for building such large frigates was that, in weather, the frigates could take down a ship of the line. This was a stated feature of their design.
Mers-el-Kebir full battle winner Germany/Italy.
Thanks for answering my question!
The Germans were convinced the British would just turn up on their doorstep and give them a Copenhagening, to the point that the RN sitting back in a distant blockade caught them off guard.
About this carrier building question. 5 or 6 hulls are nice, but where are the pilots and planes? Aircraft production is not reaching a peak till mid war. Pilot training takes maybe a year? The USN and USMC can't fill those air groups in pre war conditions.
Well, if you were going to build hulls, you're going to train air wings. Even the U.S. Congress would know that.
@@lamwen03 The Congress was not gung ho for defense spending. The current one even less so. As the training? Doubling or tripling output pre war is very optimistic.
Don’t worry, person who asked how long it takes.
I asked dozens of times, I waited months, (and I can’t even remember whether it was covered in a dry dock or a special)...
But I got my coverage of those magnificent galleases!!
wrt the carrier only USN in the 30s, the first problem is that Wasp consumed the last of the US' treaty allotment for carriers. Once the treaty system collapsed, Congress authorized two new carriers in 38. Of those two, one was built to the existing Yorktown design, which was, by then somewhat outdated, while the second carrier, Essex, was delayed while the new design was drawn up. The North Carolinas could be laid down when they were, because of the expiration of the treaty battleship construction moratorium at the end of 36. There was no treaty mechanism that would allow more carriers to be laid down at that time. So, even if the US had not been laying down BBs in the late 30s, they would not have started the war with more carriers, due to the Navy's preference in 38 to wait for a new, more capable, design, rather than building obsolescent Yorktowns to infinity. The Navy ordered 11 Essexes in 1940, one year after Hornet was ordered, but the war was upon them before they were completed.
"La raison du plus fort" etc. is the moral of la Fontaine's version of the fable of the wolf and the lamb. When the wolf threatens to eat the lamb it protests that it has done nothing to deserve such a thing. The wolf invents specious reasons why the lamb deserves to die, drags it off and eats it. And the reasons of the stronger are always the better. Fisher was saying Nelson did just that at Copenhagen, and Britain could do the same when pre-empting Germany's attempt to build a powerful Navy.
Normandy-class carriers might have been very useful as large escort carriers for merchant convoys, assuming they join the Free French and not the Vichy forces.
I have often wargamed a much more closely integrated Marine National and Royal Navy in the 1930s similar to modern NATO forces and I often pair Bearn along with Argos, Eagle and Hermes along with the older French BBs and the Rs for convoy escort while pairing the Dunkerque's, Renown and Repulse along with Ark Royal and the 3 fisher refit carriers to make a pair of heavily escorted fast carrier divisions with two big CVs and a fast heavy hitting escort
"French warship for sale. Guns in still-new condition, but stern and engines need serious work."
FYI:
The Vasa was the first ship of the line to use a unitary armament of 24 pounder cannons, her broadside was more than twice as heavy as the nearest competitor and slightly heavier than the USS Constitution 160 years later.
Comparing Vasa and Constitution makes little sense to me since Constitution was a (heavy) Frigate while Vasa was a Ship of the Line.
@@gokbay3057 The Constitution is 1000 ton heavier than the Vasa though !
Gokbay Ships were not as large in the 1620s.
@@AdurianJ And the Constitution didn't sink on its maiden voyage.
@@budwyzer77 Vasa's sister ships survived though.
Hey Drach, I appreciate you making quality content on such a regular schedule. But I encourage you to take a break from time to time. Give your family the time or just yourself. I have seen people burn out doing what they thought they loved. Just take care of yourself man.
a destroyer giving advice to a battleship..
Nah, add more coal, make that boiler glow. You can get a refit when you get home.
I agree with Soham, Drach should chill out for a week or two or three or four !!
I can't believe its 112 weeks since the first and 10 times the subscribers. Impressive progress with the channel!
It's the drydock time of the week XD
_Drachday_ - the 24 hour period between _Saturday_ and _Monday._
Is there anything left to be said about ironclad warships ? The volume of content is getting epic
50:50 One thing I would like to add about the Spanish Armada is: The point of the Armada was (and they relied on) carrying an army to England. Except they had no army on board. Loading that had been largely interdicted by the Dutch coastal ships.
It's not a stretch to think thatif you're a Spanish captain your willingness to fight with guns or board English ships will be affected by your crew being a bunch of monks going "que es cañón?", compared to land soldiers who can fight a boarding action and for a gun battle are at least physically trained and grasp the concepts of how a cannon might work.
While I completely respect your time restrictions and limitations, I completely endorse the theory I would listen to 2 hour drydocks every week.
@51:15 "You do still get the odd reversal of fortune where someone boards a ship by all rights it has no right to capture, and succeeds." HMS Speedy vs. Gamo, anyone?
Torpedos vs ship of the line? Thinking MTB at Trafalgar or somesuch. More specifically the St Nazaire flotilla.
I wonder if the “no fast BB” scenario would result in increased production of cruisers, both to accompany the new carriers for AA coverage and for surface striking forces? Also, I wonder if this would have increased the urgency to raise and repair some of the standards, and would this have resulted in producing Alaskas in quantity, especially if surface conflicts are not going as well as hoped?
Yeah it would mean more cruisers for AA and shore bombardment purposes, which is the more cost-effective option. I’d imagine the Standards would also do shore bombardment though they’d be overkill for it.
The standards were used primarily for shore bombardment during WWII
The Kirishima's chief damge control officer survived the war. He wrote a book about about the engagement . He also provided detailed information on it's battle damge. Does anyone have an english translation of this book??
I've always thought that sending the older pre - dreadnoughts and older dreadnoughts should have entered Kiel at the outbreak of the war and bin the high seas fleet
I'm not all that bothered when _(if,_ even) my question is answered, because every Drydock Q & A is fascinating, anyway. That said, when will you answer my f-cking question❓😉 Only joking❗ Top work, sir. Thank you. 👍😎
In your analysis of the potential Mers al kebir battle you're ignoring the fact that the RN has hundreds of years of experience at embarrassing the french navy.
How many ships shared in the prize money for the capture of USS President? Was it only four (three large frigates and a large razee), or were there brigs and sloops as well?
I love the Drydocks, but the themed specials on your own initiative are more important. I'd like to see more of them, even if at the cost of Drydocks.
About the Norwegian frigatte that sunk a year ago (or something like that): as soon as a ship is under water, you will need to gut the hull from EVERYTHING electric and probably everything mechanic. While you may just pick apart a small hobby boats engine and renovate the thing, that is not something you would want to try on a war ship. And that goes for almost every moving part that has even the most miniscure important function. You cannot have a war ship that perhaps wont break down in interesting ways at the most stupid of times. And nothing ever breaks when its convinient to fix it - things tend to break when you are pushed to your limit. It needs to work. All the time. So in reality the ship needs to be completley gutted and put together again with new parts. I have never done that with a boat, but with cars and a couple of houses. Its faster to build a new car, or a house, in a factory then to gut the thing and put it togehter again. This time difference goes up exponentionally with complexity in the project. And a war ship is probably as complex as anything comes. We are by all likleyhood talking a difference by lots and lots of thousands of man hours done by a highly trained and therefore very expensive workforce. You need a small army of engineers, electricians, mechanics, weapons experts etcerea comitted for years. Basically, you may reuse the hull. But gutting it in a way that you can reuse it for war purposes will take a lot longer then to weld a new hull together.
The game publisher Avalanche Press a few years ago does a special publication called The Golden Journal. It's for the members of there Gold Club.
I bring this up in reference to the question Carrier only USN in the 1930's?
A few yeas ago a Golden Journal took a look at this. It supposed in response to the economic dip over 1937-8 orders for navy ships had been increased. Two more Washington class BB's, two more Yorktown class CV's, some additional CL's of a class the USN did look at but not build with extra DD's of the classes being built at that time. By the time this would have been done the 1922 and 1930 numbers restrictions and weight restrictions where falling away or had fallen away.
Vote. In person. Choose wisely.
The surrender in Toyoko Bay would have been signed on the Enterprise. It was in action through out the war. A battleship's utility was it was usually a flagship. The fact that the president of the United States was from Missouri has not been lost on many.
An all Carriers US Navy more likely have Admirals like John Towers in command positions and, with the appropriate training, the abysmal flight operations at the battle of Midway would have been eliminated and most likely the Yorktown would not have been lost. Without Admiral Fletcher the aftermath of the battle of Savo Island would have been very different. The battle of the Phillipine Sea might not have left enough Japanese carriers for a decoy force for Leyte.
You shouldl view MONTEMAYOR's series on Midway. The chaotic arrival of the Devastators is what made the victory possible.
Have watched it.
Fletcher wasn't to blame for Savo Island.
My reference to the aftermath of the battle relates to Admiral Fletcher's withdrawal of his carrier forces. In the conference setting up the command structure (Fletcher was the Expeditionary Force Commander) he wished to withdraw his carriers after 2 days (Aug 7=8) but was persuaded to stay an extra day. Nevertheless, he requested to withdraw on August 8 and maneuvered to the southeast to avoid air attacks. His subsequent actions have been the subject of much discussion but it should be noted that one of his jobs as Expeditionary Force Commander was to cover the transports until unloaded and he clearly had no intention to do that and he refused to send carrier strikes after the battle. The best discussion of these events, I believe, is in Guadalcanal by Richard Frank. There are more than enough candidates for blame in allowing Mikawa's advance and retreat however..
@@papajohnloki Some of that criticism may be misplaced. Have you watched this lecture on Fletcher? th-cam.com/video/ltDL-JKO70E/w-d-xo.html
wrt the Mers-el-Kebir full battle scenario: the Bretagnes were only armed with 13.4" guns. As well as being even slower than an R class, they would be hard pressed to penetrate to the vitals of a QE or R class, while the British 15/42s would have no problem cutting through their 10" belts. Given the RN's numerical superiority in light units, plus it's heavier guns, plus speed advantage, it sounds like a slaughter if the entire French squadron stood out to engage. Were I the French commander, out of respect for French human life, I think I would have the Bretanges stay in port and provide covering fire, while the Dunkerques and DDs run at high speed. Leaving Valiant and Resolution in their wake would even the odds, if the RN wanted to make a running fight of it, while the crews of the Bretagnes could swim to shore.
It is greatly under estimated the impact of Korean use of guns in 1592 naval battle Battle of Hansan Island defeating the Japanese ships.
Thank you.
Lepanto - Gian'Andrea Doria's decision to leave the rams unshipped, according to Furneaux, allowed the bow guns to fire on a lower, more effective, trajectory. Rodney's speed in the chase of Bismark is disputed. Kennedy reports her signalling KGV "Your 23 knots is a little faster than mine". as she fell behind. Possibly her fuel state had an effect on her speed (and possibly KGVs too)
If Fisher had "Copenhagened" the High Seas Fleet, I imagine that there would have been a big change in how the United Stated viewed entering the war, maybe even on who's side they would have entered.
Oh yeah, the US had a large German population, and only two world wars cut them off from that. But the US also was growing into a great power, and primarily naval as well. It would have made sense for the US to seek to expand at the uks expense, and if they saw the uk pull such an ignominious attack, they would see the writing on the wall. Coalition time!
If you replace the North Carolinas and the South Dakotas with Yorktowns, and Iowas with Essexes, that still doesn't change the Battle of Surigao Strait, which still only had revised Standards in the battle-line. They won't be useful as AA defense for the higher-speed carriers.
Providing of course, that none of the US carriers are sunk at Pearl Harbor (i.e., being anchored along battleship/carrier Row).
Even if they were, same damage type as the BBs got. Still sitting in shallow water.
Ah Popcorn in hand, Coffee is rdy = 1 hour of fun!
I don’t know if you’ll see this or not, but I just had someone walk into my Deli that watches you. A small sleepy town in South Central Pennsylvania in the USA.
Do you have any footage of HMS Courageous ship animal, Mongo the elephant ? Would love know more about that.
Would be a interesting video on salvaging warships.
You need to do a dry dock podcast. It would be way easier to deal with 2h if I could lock my phone screen and listen.
What effect would allowing 2 battle cruisers (e.g. G3, lexington and saratoga, etc) each for Britain, the US and Japan in the Washington naval treaty have on WW2?
Sorry for viewing this a few hours late... I saw torpedo boats
think its sad that the Royal Naval Air service missing out, there being no Sopwith Triplane on the new poster
What did Germany have during the "Age of Sail"? One doesn't hear of the Bosch until, what, Heligoland? That's all that comes immediately to my mind...
@joanne chon Look at the sea routes the German principalities were constrained to use before the Kiel canal was built. 250 miles of sailing just to get to where the UK, Netherlands, and France begin.
Im pretty sure that hood will suffer an existential crysis anyhow.
i saw the website you are working on has a page for the design competition. interested in seeing how competition 6 pans out and what designs get the go ahead.
wrt the Normandie carrier conversions, seems someone would have pointed out their lack of speed to temper the enthusiasm for converting all of them to carriers. If someone had that moment of clarity, and France not having anything in the works that could show a decent turn of speed, they could have claimed the three incomplete Mackensen class battlecruisers as war reparations and towed them to France to be fitted with French machinery and converted to carriers.
One problem with claiming the Mackensens and completing them in any configuration, the Mackensens were 730 feet long. France did not have a drydock that big at that time. They had looked at lengthening and up-engining the Normandies to compete with the 28kt Caracciolos, but the cost of building a drydock big enough for the work put the cost of the project out of sight.
I'd have to argue the point of what if the U.S. stopped BB production. Go into WW2, take every BB on the roster and switch it to a CV. So battle of Surigao Straight, there wouldn't be 6 "old" BB's sitting at the back waiting. There would be 6 CVs sitting in the back waiting.
But that isn't even the craziest part of all this.
At the start of WW2 Navy brass were all BB drivers... focus and efforts were to modernize BB's over CV's which were seen as inferior. Without that political hamstringing of CV/Aircraft development the U.S. goes into WW2 with all focus on making one type of ship and all aircraft much better.
All those crew trained for BB operations, would be trained for CV ops. CV's planes would be rapidly developed into a much better wing of aircraft given the focus of all efforts put solely into them.
Hell the Doolittle raid wouldn't be a one off, we probably would of made a CV large enough to hold and launch bombers.
Only way to counter this is with your own CV fleet, which becomes a numbers game. Or vast amounts of submarines.
@Drachinifel how dare you good sir question whether we will listen to a 2-hour, of course we would! Especially in podcast form!
A pre-war attack on the High Seas Fleet would have robbed the Allies of their influence with the USA, altering the financial assistance provided to France and the UK along with the future involvement of the USA in the War at all. The blockade of the High Seas Fleet was expensive but sufficiently effective that Fisher's Plan was unnecessary, even in retrospect.
If the US has gone full CV, would they have eve built Wasp as a Yorktown-lite?
No I don't think it would have ever been built. It had a lot of problems with its design. There might have been a lot of fast light carriers built.
They could not have built anything bigger than Wasp in 36, as Wasp used the last of the USN's carrier tonnage allotment under the treaty.
@@stevevalley7835 They couldn't have gone full CV either so I'm guessing the treaty system has utterly collapsed for this scenario.
@@CTXSLPR who couldn't have gone full CV? The Japanese gave notice in late 34 that they would not participate in the treaty after the end of 36, so they could build all they wanted. Ark Royal used the last of the RN's carrier tonnage, except there was a clause in the treaty that carriers in service or building at the time of the treaty were "experimental" and not held to the treaty's 20 year replacement cycle. Hermes, Eagle and Argus all fit that criteria, so the RN could have refitted all three as sub tenders, for instance, and freed up enough tonnage for two more Ark Royals. If they measured the age of the Courageous class carriers from when they commissioned as "large light cruisers", rather than as carriers, they were all 20 years old by 37, so they could all have been replace by new build carriers as well. The Brits laid down four 23,000 ton Illustrious class carriers in 37, so they probably had one of these replacement scenarios in mind at the time. Only the USN had all it's tonnage quota tied up in relatively new carriers *and* was still trying to abide by the treaty, until 38.
Would have been a brave decision to build fleet carriers over battleships 1936 if you look at the aircraft available for the USN at the time. I don't believe any naval air service have the aircraft to justify that until 40 at the earliest.
Biggest problem with the British pulling off a "Copenhagen" in 1914 is that they would have instantly lost the moral high ground, especially if they did it before the Germans invaded Belgium.
Would the US have enough fuel to power 4-5 additional carriers and their flight ops early in the war? They had a hard time fueling the old battleships they did have in theater at the time.
Aboard Rodney:
“I bought a 25 naught speedometer and by god am I going to get what I payed for!”
“Full power!!!”
Would it be feasible, time wise, for you to have a short (maybe an hour or so) livestream every Friday (or whenever), like the Patreon ones, just not as long, where you answer questions that you can answer off the top of your head? That would add an optional extra hour of Drach for those of us who want it, and wouldn't take as much production time as an extra hour of drydock would.
I honestly really like the format, and just more Drach in general is a good thing.
With regards to a livestream purely about answering chat questions, I don't know about it. It tends to devolve into mostly superchat questions being answered, which is understandable from your perspective, as they are giving you money so you feel obligated to answer, but it does hamper those of us who have interesting questions but little money, while those with money can pay $5 and get you to talk about something you've already spent 10 minutes talking about in a drydock before. That's not always the case, don't get me wrong.
Additionally, i would like to suggest a name for the livestreams: The Floating Drydock.
Drach, what is the vessel shown at 41:46? German WWll ?
Admiral Yi FTW!
Guy needs his own Wednesday special or two.
For the Mers El Kibir scenario, how does the all forward armament of the Dunquerque's effect the outcome? I would expect that would provide some tactical advantage.
The French plan to fight broadside to broadside against equal opposition, just like everyone else's battleships. (Fighting bow-on is a Really Bad Idea, because your enemy then only has to get the range right by +/- 100 metres instead of +/- 15 metres when side on.) The all forward guns on the Dunkerques, like on the Nelsons, are to shorten the amount of hull that needs to be armoured.
@@hughfisher9820 most of what you say may be true, that is why I asked the question, I cannot argue that, but I'm not so sure about the range thingie. The size of the target is unchanged, so i think the probability of hitting would be the same. Any loosening of range calculation should be exactly canceled by tightening the angular component of fire control. Again, this is based on geometry, the ability to determine bearing may be easier than range, but at 10 to 20 thousand yards, I am not so sure.
And the French all forward was different than the Nelson class. The French could fire all of their guns directly forward. Nelson only had 2/3rds of their guns available to fire at an opponent directly in front of them.
@@MrTScolaro You're right that the overall target size doesn't change, but the probability of hitting does. Measuring the angular component is easier, you can see surveyors on any land management project using optical devices that date back centuries to measure angles against landmarks. Plotting bearings (angular measurements) used to be how ships navigated into harbour, even through narrow channels.
Before radar (and now lasers) measuring the range to something was less accurate. Hence the discussion in Drach's videos on fire control about coincidence vs stereoscopic rangefinders, whether to have one, two, or three in parallel, upgrading from 8 metre wide to 10 metre wide, etc. It was harder to be precise.
So if you were a warship in battle, being side on made you harder to hit with guns. (But easier to hit with torpedoes, because torpedoes don't need to get the range right.)
@@MrTScolaro In Drach's videos on the Dunkerque and Richelieu classes, he mentions that the all forward armament was for the same reason as the Nelsons, shortening the armour belt. If the British could have stacked three 16" turrets up so all could fire forward without overbalancing the ship, they would have.
@@hughfisher9820 but remember my original question. In the mers el kibir situation, D&S would be coming out of port and still have their full armament.
I don't doubt it is easier to determine the angular component, but, jeez it's complicated, you will have some angular error in any case and all naval guns have some dispersion. I certainly could be wrong, but I just don't think the difference would be that great.
Also, although the all forward design was to shorten the citadel length, being able to use your entire armament through, what 270, 300 degrees seems like it would provide a nice tactical advantage, particularly with the speed of D&S enabling to set the terms of the engagement.
Aside from Second Guadalcanal, is the lack of battleships for the Solomons campaign in that scenario really such a problem? The Japanese were mostly sending in cruisers and destroyers.
I've read that the reason the Japanese sent battleships to bombard Henderson Field was because the cruisers' lighter guns weren't doing much damage.
@@CharlesStearman But that was unusual, there were plenty of cases in WWII where cruisers and even destroyers did heavy damage to enemy positions (including heavily fortified ones), even outperforming battleships in this role.
And given that the reason battleships (including all fast battleships) were originally conceived in the first place was to be the primary strike units, they're too costly to justify building for anything else.
The US Marines on Guadalcanal really did not want to be bombarded with 14" shells again. That's why the USN had to send modern battleships into a short range night action which could easily have turned into a deathtrap for them.
@@hughfisher9820
Doesn’t mean that battleships were the best option for the bombardment.
@@bkjeong4302 It was the best option the Japanese had available. You fight with what you've got, not what you wish for.
The US Marines said at the time, loudly, that the bombardment by Kongo and Haruna did far more damage than any of the cruiser bombardments, so the USN had better stop the next one. Size matters for explosive shells, 14" is about 4x as much explosive as 8"
There are many decent to excellent TH-cam videos of ship salvage methods.
The Dutch seemed to have the greatest expertise.
There is a book on the Pearl Harbor salvage efforts.
Don't ask the name, you can Google it as easy as me.
"How long does it take for a question to be answered?"
Looking to be about four months' turnaround time.
1:90...Maybe if the cooks got out, and threw potatoes?
43:00 at this point in time any modern warship would be written off purely because of the sheer cost of replacing all the electronics. With Iowa at least it would not be any more difficult than salvaging an old car; mechanical and basic electronics would need replacing at the least, with possibility of major structural repairs of course.
Just thought I would give you a heads up, your amazon link does not work unless you drop the "Drydock" part of the url.
Ib think if the bits had done this to the high sea fleet in the bigger picture it would have brought the US to eather not enter the war or enter on the Germans side not that in WW1 the yanks did much but the supplys were needed
wrt Kirishima at Guadalcanal, one wonders why the IJN did not make more use of the Nagatos. The Kongos were constantly put in harm's way, and were harmed a lot. The Nagatos were not that slow, better armed and better protected. The battles of Guadalcanal would have probably gone differently if the IJN had brought Nagato and Mutsu.
You’re wrong about them being fast enough to be used in the Slot. Also, even the Kongos were unnecessary and overkill for most Solomon’s engagements (the one exception was Second Guadalcanal and they lost that one).
@@bkjeong4302 I would think speed not that important in restricted waters, like the Slot. The faster you get the ship going, the harder it is to turn. The Nagatos were only a couple kts slower than SD or Washington, and, with their better armor, a Nagato would probably not have been disabled by cruiser fire in round one, so the odds would have been more even in round two.
@@stevevalley7835 The problem with speed was that the Japanese needed to get in and out of the Slot fast to avoid being caught by American aircraft (especially from Henderson Field) during the daytime. The Nagatos were nowhere near fast enough for this (even the Yamatos, which were as fast as the South Dakotas, would be pushing things massively when trying to make that run).
Bk Jeong - And saying that the Japanese AA sucked might actually be charitable!😱🤦🏼♂️🤷🏼♂️
@@TraditionalAnglican Believe it or not, that was still a significant improvement over German naval AA as a whole.......
I wonder what the chances of the French scoring a Bismarck like hit on the hood of the open sea battle had happened
do a video about uss zumwalt