@46:23, ISTR the Deltic engines, used in British Rail diesel locomotives, were also used in RN ships, frigates or minesweepers, perhaps. An iteresting design, rather complicated to describe in words, worth a search... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_55
Regarding the reuse of a BB's machinery, and just to drive home how massive these were: when the Iowa-class _Kentucky_ was canceled, it's powerplant was split in two groups, each being used to power the new _Sacramento_ class fast fleet support ships. Which displaced 53.000 tons and could make 26 knots. So the machinery of _one_ 50000 ton BB powered _two_ 53000 ton oilers...
@@bkjeong4302 *_at the time_* the other 4 were very much necessary. Don't forget when they were designed (1938): the USN needed fast battleships to counter the japanese _Kongo_ class, as well as what else the IJN might be designing. Hence theses ships. At that time there was no thought (or possibility) for the kind of massed carrier air strikes we would see in late 1943-1945. Even within the IJN, with it's superior carrier doctrine and training, many saw the carrier as an aid, a means to slow down the enemy battleline and strip it of escorts. The ships commissioned between early 43 and mid 44, so still in the "may serve as anti-BB weapon" possibility. Don't forget that on the 15th November 1942, the _Washington_ sank the _Kirishima_ , the _Duke of York_ sank the _Scharnhorst_ after xmas 1943 and the last battleship v battleship battle took place in *October 1944* . So, in the context of their time, at least the first 4 ships were needed. They also served admirably as heavy escorts for USN carrier groups, a job most older BBs could not do, because of their low speed. If you want to talk about waste of time, money and resources, talk about the _Alaska_ class. Now there's a mess of a class, with much confusion on what it was supposed to do, specially after the _Iowa_ was built...
24:43 a fade to black with just Drach's avatar before going to what he would do for a preserved CV-6 Enterprise. I am not sure if its deliberate but I like this. Drach having a quick moment of existential dispair that a ship as important as Enterprise wasnt preserved?
One thing about the Swedish navy, the tactic was to go full chihuahua, the fleets heavier units would hide in the archipelago, and wait untill the hostile invasion fleet was spoted, and then ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK, untill the troop transports was sunk or the fleet was destroyed themself. Alternative the enemy is stupid and enter the archipelago, and get annihilated by costal artillery, mines, and light torpedo units, and long range fire from the pansarskepp (coastal defense ship, think slow and smale battleship)
10:23 I love the design of that swedish 6 gun battleship / very large coastal defence ship. Even though it's not the best layout, that Italian derived design means it just has beautiful lines and proportion
It was rejected almost immediately becuse of cost, and it was to large, to effectively operate in the Swedish the archipelago. Yes the ship look handsome, compare that to the plane of a realy ugly smale gun-cruiser-airplane-carrier battelstar that look like a tall barn, with casemate guns. It to was rejected and Sweden did build Gotland instead.
Thanks for answering my question Drach. In addition to what you've mentioned, if Enterprise was converted into a museum ship. Other exhibits and/or artifacts include: An SBD set up on the spot where Aviation Machinist Mate 3rd Class Bruno Gaido shot down the Nell at the Marshall Islands. A series of exhibits on the Admirals that used her as flagship. Most notably, Halsey, Spruance, Kincaid, Sherman, Radford, Reeves, Davison, Gardner and Mitscher. For Mitscher in particular you can tie that into his service as Captain on Hornet (CV-8) and CO of Task Force 58. For Halsey, that may result in a fight with Battleship New Jersey for some exhibits. A number of the aircraft aboard are painted in the colours and designations of some of her most famous pilots, including a short biography on them, such as Dick Best, Eugen Lindsay, Wade McClusky, Earl Gallaher, Swede Vejtasa, William R "Killer" Kane, William I "Bill" Martin etc. In addition to any IJN carrier aircraft. Some ordinance (if found and disarmed) or replicas should also be shown. An exhibit of early night carrier ops. An exhibit of pre-war carrier development. 1 of her superfiring 40 mm tubs should have its quad Bofors removed and have a 1.1-inch gun placed in it, as a before and after her 1943 refit. As well as show the evolution of USN AA during the war. Thanks to @Bkjeon4302 for the idea. Her kill boards are prominently displayed on the Hangar deck with possible portrait of her fighting Shokaku and Zuikaku. Either in the Hangar Deck or the Flight Deck paint the "Enterprise VS Japan" sign.
I turned on the captions for the giggles. Straight away, as you spoke of the Shōkaku, it was captioned Chicago. Can't stop laughing now. Thanks for all you knowledge Drachinifel. 🤣😅🌸
I'm hard of hearing so I have captions on by default. For giggles, nothing beats the caption of some Sabaton songs, Attack of the Dead Men or Bismarck, saying "Epic solo". I mean, they are, but the honesty in the captioning is refreshing.
@@kemarisite same here. I like how the processor in this video is saying no no no no no and then ah at the end but it's really the sound of a q-tip on metal th-cam.com/video/SBuhxsvtE7A/w-d-xo.html
The Army National Guard had to change some staffing rules during the war on terror. We had several communities lose a major portion of adults due to losses from 06-08. The change required 25% of the roster to be from more than 50 miles away. The issue still happens
00:11:49- January 1904 the city of Alesund, Norway was ravaged by a fire destroying around 85% of the buildings, wood being the major construction material. The Kaiser upon hearing of the disaster immediately dispatched ships with men and materials to aid in the recovery. The story as told by my father and other Norway born relatives is that the Kaiser would spend time in the area following the German fleet on summer maneuvers, and had a fondness for the area. The city was rebuilt to a code that required that building exteriors to be built of non cumbustible material like stone and slate, and along the in vogue styles of Germany and France. Financial aid came from other parts of Norway and throughout Europe withe the bulk coming from Germany. A park with a statue of the Kaiser was built in his honor and is still there today. A story that I'm not able to verify as fact or legend is that the buildings originally had copper roofs provided by the Kaiser, but at some point during WW1 he decided that the copper was actually on lone, and he wanted it back, and it was replaced with the slate that is seen now.
57:27 interestingly enough you could say this happened in a way with the first Ocean going Steam powered warship, the 20 gun PS Rising Star commissioned in 1822 for Thomas Cochrane. This was when he was Admiral of the Brazilian Navy, it was payed for by Thomas Cochrane and then transferred to the Brazilian Navy. It was never used in action as the war was almost over, it had an interesting design of internal paddle wheels to protect them a bit more from cannon fire. The first Steam warship to participate in combat was the Karteria commissioned in 1826 and first saw combat in 1827 in which it was highly effective. This again involves Cohrane, he and another British naval officer Frank Abney Hastings, were employed by the Greek government in their independence movenment against the ottomans. They set out a plan to build 6 Steam warships and buy two old 74 gun ship of the lines and razee them to become heavy frigates, this plus the rest of the Greek fleet was seen as good enough to take on the ottoman navy. This was very ambitious and in the end only 1 steamship was delivered and they got two heavy Frigates built in the US rather than Razeeing a 74, but due to major corruption in the end the Greeks could only got 1 Frigate. The Steamship although only having 8 x 68 pounder guns proved to be brilliant, using the power plants Steam to create heated shot and a method developed by Hastings to stop any barrel explosions, meant that it was highly effective and destroyed quite a number of ships even when the Greek side was outnumbered in the battle. Sorry went off on a bit of tangent at the end, just thought it was such a cool naval story.
With an even more colourful background than Lord Cochrane, the Abney-Hastings are the Plantagenet pretenders to the English throne. The head of the family, Simon Abney-Hastings, 15th Earl of Loudoun lives on a modest farm in Victoria, Australia.
>Imagines Won Gyun at Jutland Then again, Won Gyun did MUCH worse than completely screw up a battle; he intentionally got his predecessor (and replacement) falsely accused, demoted and almost executed for no reason besides so he could be in charge, *while knowing said predecessor was right to make the decision that got him falsely accused.* He literally committed an act of treason to advance his own career and almost cost the entire war as a result.
Both the LNER and the LMS railways built experimental steam turbine powered locomotives in the 1930s. They were rebuilt as conventional reciprocating engines as the increase in efficiency was outweighed by increased maintenance costs. They also had reliability issues caused by the operating environment on a loco. A class of minesweepers built for the RN in the 50s, the 'Ton' class were powered by the same English Electric, Deltic engine as a class of diesel locomotives. In that case the engine was initially developed for railway use and they were adapted for marine use because they were very compact and powerful. Also being all alloy they had a very low magnetic signature.
Battleship power plants. Not for mobile use, but I recall that a turbine plant for one of the uncompleted Alaska BCs sat around for decades, and was finally sold as surplus to run a city power plant. This is from 20-30 year old memory, so I have no details.
Pronounciation of balholm is good. It was a small island outside the village of balestrand, with a anchorage. The kaiser visited balestrand almost yearly in the years before ww1
46:24 the LNER Gresley designed experimental high pressure steam locomotive called the Hush Hush named that due to the secretive nature of the project, used a marine boiler (not navy but still interesting), it is a very bizarre looking steam Locomotive.
In reference to the question about personnel losses from a single community: there was the sinking of _USS Juneau_ with the five Sullivan brothers. Hence why we have the Fletcher-class destroyer _USS The Sullivans_ as a museum ship.
Speaking of which. The late Rear Admiral James D "Jig Dog" Ramage. Who served aboard Enterprise 3 times (first as a deck officer in 1939. Followed in 1943-1944 as XO and CO of VB-10) was from Waterloo Iowa. He was involved in a campaign to have the Convention Centre in the town renamed after the Sullivans.
Thanks for answering my question! Seems like the Shokakus did indeed live up to their intent as Japan’s other naval superweapons, only let down by factors that had little to do with their design (and still maintaining a few qualitative advantages in spite of that, such as speed and arguably even survivability). That part about hangar space really clarifies things: it wasn’t bad hangar design that limited Japanese carrier loads (for purpose-built carriers), but the less efficient wing folding design compared to the USN. And now I am trying to imagine exact how many American carrier aircraft could you fit on Shokaku (possibly upwards of 120…)
@@notshapedforsportivetricks2912 Really old maps of the area do have it listed as semi-circular quay, but I guess at some point that was considered to complicated for us lol
English is not my native language, but I had in my mind very different definitions of those terms. Wharf = a shipyard that can build, repair and service ships and boats Quay = a long, stone or concrete structure that ships can dock along for loading and unloading Dock = a U-shaped "parking space" for a ship or a boat for repair or service Jetty = a smaller, wooden structure for boats, never ships Pier = a long, stone or concrete structure that primarily acts as a breakwater but can have a secondary function as a quay or part of a dock
In the US a jetty almost always refers to a rock breakwater, not often used to describe anything a ship or boat moors to. A pier is never used to describe a breakwater, but is an structure for mooring ships/boats and loading and offloading.
The UK might be slightly different from the USA but that is not unusual. A pier might be long or short as well as being curved to act as a breakwater when it is often called a Mole. But the purpose of many was to extend dry land out to deeper water where a ship could unload passengers. Then they could walk along till they came to the town. Often the deepest part of it was held up by iron girders. Then railways were built and people travelled to the town by train. Many piers became amusement places. Famously Blackpool Pier, Brighton Pier and so on. If you really want to know, ask a local because they might call a structure by their own name. It's fun.
@@jimneitzel3111 I don't know what I would have called the wooden structure I started walking along some years ago by the side of a river. I am almost certain it was in the deep channel, where HMS Hood, Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth were taken by tugs to the Tail o' the Bank. At first it was a broad, firm timber walkway that could have taken a loaded lorry from a Victory Ship. It stayed broad and firm but after I saw a few missing wooden battens I realised it was not thin board I was walking on, it was 12' long railway sleepers. I caught sight of one of the supports rising out of the water and topped with an iron mooring post. A long drop. By and by there were fewer sleepers and they were irregular. They became slippy and a bit rounded. The town I was headed for might only be a mile away. Before I came to a rotten sleeper that would dump me in the river I turned back. But was it called a wharf during WW2 do you think? Maybe it was only a place for ships to wait before they were taken to one of the docks upriver, or maybe the graving dock?
Hope this helps. Docks are just spaces for ships to tie up alongside, with necessary bollards, capstans, etc. Dry docks are probably what you are thinking of, being 'U' shaped. These are capable of being drained and are reinforced. They are typically sealed off by a lock gate (permanent) or caisson (essentially a mobile lock gate). They can also be used as docks, especially if not properly maintained. Locks are like dry docks, but have a gate at both ends. They can be used in this way or to transit between 2 separated waterways. Either because they are different levels or the water on one side shouldn't be disturbed - it can separate tidal and non-tidal water. Locks are also used regularly in canals. The quay is just the area alongside where ships dock. It is typically reinforced stone/concrete and can handle heavy loads. A jetty is either a breakwater or an extension from a quay. It can be a pier, floating dock, concrete or other. They are typically created for different sized boats/ships to dock, to give additional space on the quay or because the water is too shallow. They can be small docks sticking out or extensive network for docking lots of boats in marinas, etc. A pier is a typically wooden structure on struts extending over the sea. This can be to dock ships/boats, fish from or to build on (houses, theme parks, arcades, etc.). When a pier is used as a dock, it is typically because the water on the quayside is too shallow or more space is required. The Wharf is the area on the quayside used to load/unload cargo/passengers. A basin is an enclosed area of water in a shipyard surrounded by docks. This can be tidal or non-tidal. If non-tidal, this will normally be sealed off by a caisson or a lock. Edit: hadn't got to Drachs question yet. These are the rough definitions I go by, but also see Drachs response. Seawall is another useful term, which will usually apply to breakwaters, quays and concrete piers. Particularly around a basin.
"Balholmen" sounds perfectly pronounced. My respect Drach. (I suppose it is a part of the harbour in Balestand. I hope the locals will have ME excused.)
I was a little disappointed you didn't address Nathan Okun's description of the fuse issue. Basically, explosive D in storage can offgas corrosive components which can corrode parts of the fuse mechanism, preventing the fuse train from locking into place so it will function when the shell hits. I strongly suspect that Washington had the same issues with fuses, but woth 20 or so 16" hits over the space of a few minutes, from such short range that the shells still retain a lot of the kinetic energy they started with, I doubt the Japanese were in any position to evaluate whether a shell had detonated or not in the few hours before they had to abandon ship. Subsequently, of course, it hasnt been practical to conduct a physical examination of the ship, compared with Jean Bart which was still right there and would eventually be repaired and put into setvice after the war.
@33:07: Perhaps the. difference between the USS Massachusetts and the USS Washington's shells was the amount of armor they were hitting.... (Battleship .vs. Battlecruiser/Fast (Light) Battleship)
49:45 I'm not sure that's strictly correct. A lot of British hired trawlers came out of communities. And a lot were lost. It seems very likely that the loss of a trawler or two would disproportionately impact a family or small community. Yes, the loss of something like Hood or Defence was spread around somewhat (more so than a pals battalion), but the smaller boats could create something similar.
As I recall, the channel's coverage mostly ends at WWII, so I'm not putting this in Drach's Q&A but...what is the shape of naval tactics in a modern navy. Cruise missiles have reached a point where a direct engagement between surface ships is probably going to look more like a missile cruisers lobbing gigantic rockets at the horizon rather than the big dramatic gunfights of the Battleship days. Naturally if the modern Navy in question is the US, there's going to be a carrier or two at the centre of the formation launching aircraft that are probably all-but-invisible to radar to rain death on anything that dares get close. The classic role of torpedo submarines has gotten vastly more advanced than the U-boats we know from WWII, to the point where some of them can get in through a modern US carrier group and sink the carrier, according to recent NATO wargames. (And then die spectacularly as the entire screening force shoots every anti-submarine weapon at their disposal at the source of the torpedo launch, since that's gonna make enough noise to give everyone's sonar a good fix...but that doesn't happen until after they've launched the torpedo salvo that destroys the carrier) I....genuinely have no idea what destroyers are for these days, except possibly just something that floats and holds anti-submarine and anti-aircraft systems. But then, I've *never* had a good handle on what destroyers are for in any era. Given the rate the USN churned them out in WWII they were extremely important. Long range aircraft and missiles from land bases mean that it's not unreasonable to expect something that doesn't fit on a carrier to show up in the middle of the ocean and wreck your day. Drones mean you can get kamikaze style approaches (ie: stuff no simple homing torpedo or missile can pull off) are possible, and the pilot involved in that approach can just move on to driving the next drone and thus actually gets a chance to learn how to do that kind of thing. Loitering munitions make the idea of a naval minefield way scarier. There' s just so much open to a modern navy....
It's a system. Every ship is part of a bigger machine and contributes to a complete suite of capabilities. I guess the basic idea is that you destroy the enemy beyond visual range now and early detection is really important.
You mentioned the Texas Mexican War in your discussion on the selling of warships. I've never heard of any naval activity during that war. Could you give me more information and maybe a book to read on the topic?
I can't name any books, but the Battle of Campeche between rebellious elements of the Mexican State of Yucatan joined with the Texas Navy ships Austin and Wharton engaged several Mexican Navy ships, on May 16, 1843. There were other actions, before and after, mostly involving privateers. There are several books listed on the Wikipedia page for Texas Navy. I haven't read any of them, but I think I will see if I can find some of them. They look interresting.
@mahbriggs Thanks. It goes to show that there is something new to learn. I'm 75 & have studied history at the undergrad & postgrad levels. ;-) I have something to new to study.
I'm curious about what is commonly referred to as a raking broadside in the age of sail. Hypothetically, a couple of smaller ships pass on either side of a larger ship. Do the gun crews fire as soon as they see hull, in which case they would pound the same area of hull, more or less or do they wait until all guns see hull and let fly all at once. It seems to me that the first scenario, all firing on one spot would be more effective when you're firing smaller guns against a hull built to take bigger hits.
Every case will vary because people call local things by local names. There is a concrete structure at the Isle of Iona, almost square but long enough to float the Roll-on-Roll-off car ferry. Different people call it by different names. They still use it in the same way. Usually I think of a Mole as being a long curving stone and concrete structure extending from the land into the sea and curving round to provide shelter for small vessels on the inside of the curve. But waves can wash over. The sea is mighty. It might even be built to cover some rocks on the way into harbour. Some harbours are complicated to make several barriers for waves to negotiate. There might be a Mole curving to the left inside an outer Mole curving to the right. And so on. Many maps or photos taken from the air show you the wide variety.
30:35 He almost certainly wouldn’t have sailed dead-on toward the German Scouting Group, without opening fire, for ten minutes. He also likely would not have completely awful at communicating back to Jellicoe about where the German Battle Fleet was
I’d rather sacrifice the battleships and keep E, though ideally we could sacrifice the Iowas and have Enterprise and WWII-spec’s Washington and West Virginia as museum ships.
Ship engines being used for railway locomotives-This did happen, Fairbanks Morse in the USA supplied diesel engines to the US Navy and built locomotives using the same engine
from what i have heard those diesel engines did not take well to the relatively harsh suspension of the railroad locomotives compared to the softer rocking of of submarines.
Counterpoint to the battleship powered railroad locomotive: Get one of the electric drive battleships, string some catenary, and use it to power a fleet of electric locomotives.
I’d like to imagine the second you tried to display Japanese aircraft inside museum enterprise the ghost of her AA crews would annihilate them or she would simply implode out of sheer refusal to have them near her again
wrt the Lexington's protection. As Drac said, USN Scouting Group doctrine was 35kts. The 1919 Lexington design was better protected than the earlier designs. From what I have read, the need for better protection was acknowledged, but the reduction to 34kts to gain the protection was only grudgingly accepted. The ship could easily have been better protected, but TPTB were not willing to accept a further reduction in speed. The alt history possibilities post-Treaty are interesting. Reportedly, the UK was willing to accept a single ship maximum of some 42,000 tons, because of Hood. If the other powers had dug in their heels and demanded that each was entitled to build a 42,000 ton ship, because of Hood, what would the US have done? If they completed one South Dakota, it would have been a red-headed stepchild as no other US battleship could keep up with it. With two Lexingtons being converted to carriers, a new mission for the battlecruiser emerges, as consort for the carriers. Seems most likely that, if the US had been allowed one 42,000 ton ship, it would have been a Lexington, not a South Dakota.
46m23s: Capital Ship engines used ashore. yeah, outside of smaller ship engines suych as the deltics, hard no. BUT, while the main engines are far too large, the Emergency Diesel Generators are another matter. Dont know what the Royal Navy does, but the US Does frequently use Locomotive engines. USCGC Confer of WW2 vintage had (still does in her post government career) Diesel Electric Driver and was re-engined with locomotive engines. My ship Truman CVN75 received her four EDGs from the Forrestal CV59 and they were essentially the same engines used in freight locomotives from the time period Forrestal was built. most of the Nimitz class and other major ships use something along these lines.
I mean, I'm about as big a fan of the Lexingtons as there is. And my take on it boiled down to 'undeniably underarmored, but less likely to blow up than usually assumed, because American powder was less explodey than British cordite'. I'll grant that I said they were more focused on the scouting role- which is true! -but not that they wouldn't fight capital ships because of it. If someone is seriously arguing 'lol, scouts, never fighting capital ships' then there's something wrong with them.
Yes. CV6? A B-25, a loaded SBD2, a night fighting F4U. And all her hits taken well marked. Where? Pearl Harbor or San Diego. HMS Warspite? Make room on the Thames, she'll run into something...
Dear Drach, If Admiral Rozhestvensky and Admiral King were to get into a binocular hurling competition which admiral would likely win? If they were commanding a large number of binoculars in the same era that is.
@@calvingreene90Some work needs to be done without the possibility of sparks. An old example was the small steam locomotives operating in Town Gas generating plants. They were charged with steam under pressure and needed no other power for the day. A battery powered electric locomotive could be sealed off from a flammable atmosphere.
@@20chocsaday They need charged more than once a day but do better the electric batteries charging faster and costing far less with a greater cycle life.
Largest proposed land vehicle which was a 1500 ton German "tank" /"SPG" mounting the 80 cm Gustav gun and two 15 cm secondary armed turrets probably those of the MAUS design -but even that was proposed power plant was a mere 4 x Type IX U boat motors MAN 740 kw each .So hardly Battleship turbine or triple expansion motors.
Were the Shokakus and Yorktowns really contemporaries? The Shokaku and Zuikaku were both commissioned within three months of Hornet CV-8's October 1941 commissioning, yes, but Yorktown CV-5 was laid down in 1934 and commissioned in 1937 several months prior to Soryu while Enterprise was older than Hiryu in every respect. The original two Yorktowns were far superior to their IJN Soryu-class contemporaries in every way, and it showed...specifically when Yorktown and Enterprise slayed their counterparts at Midway without additional US assistance (Yorktown, on the other hand, probably would have survived if I-168 hadn't torpedoed her). But even compared to the Shokakus the Yorktowns had significant advantages--none more so than resistance to fire. Yorktown's resistance was so great she was mistakenly claimed as sunk once in the Coral Sea and twice off Midway before I-168 found her (and still taking nearly a day to sink). Hornet was so tough her escorts were unable to scuttle her in October 1942 before Japanese surface forces drove the USN cruisers and destroyers away while carriers named Enterprise are invulnerable to anything other than the scrappers' torch. USS Cavalla, on the other hand, demostrated Shokaku's resilience was exclusively towards bombs when the Japanese carrier went up like a Roman candle in the same June 1944 battle where Zuikaku's fires caused by TF 58 attacks became so bad her skipper ordered abandon ship (only to survive four more months on account of the carrier's damage control teams not receiving the order prior to bringing the flames under control.) Nor was their AAA worth a damn. Parshall and Tully go on at length in Shattered Sword that short of a direct hit with a 5-inch shell Japanese anti-aircraft fire was utterly worthless in 1942, a major deficiency that was not corrected by April 1945 as evidenced by Yamato taking out more TF 58 aircraft by means of her main magazines detonating than the entire Ten-Go force downed with their AAA. Worse, all Japanese keel-up WW2-era fleet carriers were inherently inefficient on account of the Kate. The Type 97 IJN torpedo bomber, which was designed and entered service concurrently with Soryu, was dramatically underpowered when lugging at Type 91 torpedo off a carrier deck with full fuel tanks; hence the Soryus and Shokakus were designed with much greater length-to-beam ratios than their USN counterparts so the 1930s-era Japanese fleet carriers could attain 34+ knots, giving that extra bit of airflow to launch fully-loaded B5Ns. This required 32,000 to 40,000 more horsepower to attain these speeds than the 120,000 shp aboard each Yorktown-class carrier, with commensurately less space available. Worst, the narrow beam of non-conversion Japanese fleet carriers cut down on air group size. Yorktowns as originally built had 6000 more square fleet on the flight deck compared to the Shokakus, and after her October 1943 refit at Bremerton Enterprise's lengthened and widened flight deck was 13000 square feet larger than the Shokakus'--plus CV-6's torpedo blisters made her much tougher compared to the Shokakus' inadequate torpedo defenses. Enterprise's maximum tonnage also rose to 32,060 at full load as a result of the refit, bringing her to within 600 tons of the Shokakus' maximum, but also enabled her to embark the "Sunday Punch." The Sunday Punch, which was the initial 36 Hellcat, 36 Dauntless and 18 Avenger air group that each Essex-class carrier brought when Task Force 50 supported the invasion of the Gilbert Islands in November 1943. USS Enterprise was also in attendance, embarking 90 aircraft in the same configuration as her Essex-class descendants. Less than a year later in the Philippine Sea, there were fewer than 210 aircraft embarked between Shokaku, Taiho l, and Zuikaku...meaning the Japanese never got anywhere close to Sunday Punch numbers. Enterprise, meanwhile, managed to embark 92 in Leyte Gulf while Essex-class carriers routinely embarked more than 100 aircraft each into 1945. This also might explain why Enterprise was eventually scrapped rather than preserved in 1958--she might have been considered too much of an intelligence bonanza to the Soviets or (later) the Chinese. After HMAS Melbourne was decommissioned in 1982, the Australians sold the hulk to be scrapped by the China United Shipbuilding Company in February 1985. Upon arrival in Guangzhou, the PLAN went over the Majestic-class carrier, and apparently the carrier wasn't dismantled for years, contributing to China's carrier program according to Stratfor in a 2002 publication. Would the same have been possible had Enterprise been opened to the public in New York since the 1950s? Was she close enough in design to the Essexes, which were still the backbone of the US carrier fleet in 1958, that preserving her was a security risk? The ongoing Melbourne intelligence disaster almost certainly has influenced the failure of any of the Kitty Hawk-class carriers to be turned into museums, as all but USS America were decommissioned after the 2002 Stratfor report and the nation's namesake was sunk in 2005 to test supercarrier survivability before construction commenced with the Ford-class. Is the only reason there are any museum carriers at all because the Essex-class was thoroughly obsolete by June 1970, when Hornet and Yorktown were decommissioned for the final time, and the same was true of the Midway-class in 1992?
Somewhere there is this alternate reality where battlecruiser Lexington clashes with battlecruiser Courageous and maybe even Courbets participate for more added lulz.
@@RayyMusik I would say a sense of utter dread facing a ship that was better in a seaway,had more guns and armour that a Lexington could not penetrate. remember a G3 could match an Iowa in terms of speed and firepower but was far better protected and was more than 20 years older
@@davidmcintyre8145Well, not really. Let’s not forget that 1940s armor was better than early 1920s armor, and that the Iowa class had a steeper slope to its armor. The Iowa class was nominally 32-33 knots, but that was with all the extra AA guns and radars they ended up with during construction, and an oversized combat loadout. We know that New Jersey once hit 35 knots at a lighter displacement. The G3’s were designed to hit 32 knots, although whether they really would have is an open question. But if they had stuck around, they would have been slowed a couple knots by all the upgrades they would have acquired over the 1930a and WWII. And finally, those were NOT equal armaments on the Iowas and G-3. The G3’s gun (used on the Nelson class) was the least powerful 16” gun of WWII. Yeah, it was still a 16” gun, but it was a pop gun compared to the 16”/50 Mark VII, and was significantly weaker than the 16”/45 Mark VI on the SoDak/NC, or even the 16”/45 Mark V that the Colorado class got in the 1930s.
@@bkjeong4302 We must remember that the Iowa and Yamato are late 1930's designs while the G3 was a late 1910s,early 1920's design and that nothing in the water or planned at the time could have matched a G3
As Drach said these things vary by country. Australian government copyright lasts 50 years, corporate copyright lasts 70 years and personal copyright lasts for the life of the author plus 70 years.
A relative died in the Enterprise 5inch guns in the gallery. I would display the film taken of the bomb strike that gutted that position. Gee whiz, just show any film record of bomb strikes and maneuvers to avoid bombs and torpedoes. I am sad to realize that a recreation of the pressure waves from bomb strikes would cause any insurance firm to break out in hysterical screaming.
Mass. fuse failure: The whole idea behind the Super Heavy shells is to engage at long range and punch the deck, they didn't make sure the fuses would work in this situation?
Anyone know which book contains quality line drawings of GOTLAND ? I model in 1:700th scale & strive for detail.... I'd prefer her aircraft carrying config., but the AA config. is also a help- considering it's kinda an obscure vessel versus the HOODS & BISMARCKS.... Any title or author that features outboard, overhead, ect. accurate line drawings ? Any help here is truly appreciated !! 🚬😎👍
Unemployed History Major. But I repeat myself... I totally get it, if income had not been a concern I would have much preferred to study history with a doctorial degree and tenure, as the ultimate goal. Since income was a concern, the BSEE I ended up with was just fine.
Yonks agp I read a book about the USN refloating 3 sunken dry docks in Mesopotania. My local libary can obtain this book for me but at an increbidle cost for a two weeks loan. Can you kindly use your resourses to advise me of the contents of this book? 😃
It is much easier to find a book if you mention the author, title and year of publication. It is even easier still if you have the ISBN, a number printed in all books published in the last 50 years.
Mesopotamia seems rather unlikely. Possibly the Persian Gulf. But what comes readily to mind is the Red Sea. There was a captured Italian Naval base at Massawa that Commander Edward Ellsberg served at. He wrote several books about his WWII experiences including "Under the Red Sea Sun". This involved raising a scuttled Italian dry dock and a couple of adventures with a Persian dry dock, along with various other ships he salvaged. This may be the book you are thinking of, if not, it is well worth reading. In fact all his books are well worth reading. It is available as an E-book on both Kindle and Nook.
@@Dave_Sisson Thanks for your quick reply. Also had a reply from mahbriggs who suggested the Italian base was at Massawa & the Author was Cmdr Ellsberg who wrote several books including :Under the Red Sea Sun; This seems to be the book I was looking for.
Interesting explanation of docks, jetties, etc. I've never heard any sort of boat/ship docking facility called a quay (key) in the SE US. Mostly, I've heard the term applied to small islands that have low elevation above sea level and are usually mostly sand covered with no significant outcropping of rock. Also, we tend to spell it KEY. In example, the Florida Keys are a string of islands where sand has built up on dead coral reefs or underwater rock ridges and is held in place by various salt tolerant trees, shrubs and grasses. The term Key (quay) seems to be used to distinguish these islands from ones that are volcanic in origin, but there are exceptions both ways. I guess that Georgia's barrier islands would be called Keys if they were in South Florida, since they are mostly sand bars held together by vegetation.
So as it turned out the US received its money worth converting the Lex and Sara to Carriers, Japanese long lances would have tore them to pieces in their traditional roles!
Concerning the just-introduced in 1941 US Navy Mark 21 Base Detonating Fuze used in all WWII US Navy AP shells (6" and up had AP, smaller guns had base-fuzed Common (SAP-type) anti-ship shells): Dach, you are COMPLETELY WRONG!!! This new fuze was designed on purpose for highly oblique impact function against thick face-hardened armor (shells were tested at 35-40 degrees from normal, much more oblique than any other nation). When first installed in a shell using the US Explosive "D" filler, this fuze, which had a special explosive locking mechanism to ensure that the heavy slamming effects of the shell going through such armor at such angles, the fuzes worked as designed very reliably (which is why they replaced the prior fuze design introduced just a few years before. However, the explosive locking mechanism required that the internal section with the 0.033-secodn black powder delay, be moved as a unit iinto its lo0ced position very quickly when the nose of the shell hit the armor (using the deceleration of the shell from the plate struck to throw the firing pin into the exploding primer that also set off the delay. Unfortunately, as was later found after the JEAN BART hits, Explosive "D" (ammonium picrate) had a small and slow corrosive effect on the steel of the fuze, so that after about 6 months many shells had fuzes that could not move the delay section reliably to its final lock position due to friction with the thin layer of rust on the moving surfaces. Hence the duds and other abnormal filler effects in JEAN BART. BuORD immediately started a crash troubleshooting (literally!) program to see what was going on, which took about 6 months to complete. They found the corrosion problem (a microscope could see it easily) due to the much tighter design specs of this fuze than any other fuze ever used by the US Navy. A lot of suggestions as to how to fix the problem were finally rendered unnecessary by the bright idea of simply dipping the completed fuze in liquid Bakelite plastic so when it hardened, the fuze was sealed tight. After this, all US Navy fuzes in WWII were so sealed. Problem solved forever. Whether USS WASHINGTON had this problem depended on how old its AP ammo loadout was from the time of manufacture and fuze installation at the storage facility. If less than 6 months, then there was no real problem with the Mark 21 BDF. Anyway, these shells against KIRISHIMA would tear hole completely through where they hit if the shells did not explode properly, so major damage would happen regardless...
The last question about "selling" crewed warships has some applicability to today specifically under the AUKUS treaty. Starting around 2027, there will be 4 Virginia Class and 1 Astute Class subs rotating through Perth and they will be engaged in regular, persistent patrols. You could argue that this is functionally comparable to "selling" crewed warships to Australia, but the fiction is that they since they remain homeported in their home countries that nothing of the sort is happening. This certainly smells like what Germany was doing with the Goeben.
Nothing like. These subs will not be renamed. They will not fly a different flag. They will not be commanded my officers of the Australian navy. Their crews will not adopt a different uniform. An attack on one of them would be an attack on the USA, not Australian. Etc. Navies have rotated their vessels through ports of friendly nation for centuries. It’s never had a connotation of “these ships belong to you Dr this time period.”
Well it might be time to write my BiLs dad served at Gotland. And it should also be said it was after the war. Or of course this is not i interesting to anyone, but it is not often one have the opportunity to write a comment about personal relationships to the ships mentioned.
No, because you have to look at intent. What was the ship supposed to do? In this case, the Admiral-class were meant to be equivalent to a Queen Elizabeth-class BB, but capable of 32kts (more or less). When Hood was completed she was the best protected ship in the RN. However, it was also recognized that she was a pre-Jutland design and had some protection issues--like everyone else's ships at this time. The G3's would have corrected that, but then you have a ship with 20% more displacement than Hood. Lastly, keep in mind that Bismarck's armor scheme was very similar to Hood's. VERY similar. Ultimately, it came down to who got lucky first and everything that could possibly go wrong pretty much did for Hood at Denmark Straight.
@@davefinfrock3324 Bismarck and Hood, with all their armor, we’re still knocked out relatively easily. I’m suggesting at a certain point, even if you can stop the shell your ship is going to be so heavily damaged it doesn’t matter. You will become a sitting duck.
It depends what gets hit. When you look at war games that navies performed and how they looked at potential damage, it didn't take that many hits to render a ship combat ineffective. It could happen quite quickly. Moreover, once range gets under 10k yards armor ceases to matter all that much. Modern guns had tremendous penetration. On the other hand, if nothing good got hit, a battleship could absorb tremendous punishment. Yamashiro at Suriagao Straight springs to mind. @@ericokurowski
@@ericokurowski The HMS Prince of Wales was at that battle and survived, the Bismarck also survived that battle, and took a great deal of damage later before she was sunk. So no, armor was not useless. Read about the sea battles of WWI and WWII, and you will find a great many ships that survived quite a bit of battle damage because of their armor.
I put forward the idea to make drach and ryan from battleship New Jersey be made head custodians of ALL museum ships. Their knowledge, passion and outgoing personality would be perfect for the job. Just my humble opinion, but im no expert, they are lol
Pinned post for Q&A :)
Chelsea v Liverpool?
@@DaveSCameron Up the Reds
@46:23, ISTR the Deltic engines, used in British Rail diesel locomotives, were also used in RN ships, frigates or minesweepers, perhaps. An iteresting design, rather complicated to describe in words, worth a search...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_55
Who is the highest ranked US Navy officer killed in an automobile accident?
Can you do a ship ep of HSwMS Fylgia, a Swedish Cruiser from 1905, that look quite "modern" with her 4*2 15cm gun turrets.
Regarding the reuse of a BB's machinery, and just to drive home how massive these were: when the Iowa-class _Kentucky_ was canceled, it's powerplant was split in two groups, each being used to power the new _Sacramento_ class fast fleet support ships. Which displaced 53.000 tons and could make 26 knots. So the machinery of _one_ 50000 ton BB powered _two_ 53000 ton oilers...
Also puts into perspective just how much more effort it takes to get the last few knots out of a hull
Also shows how wasteful these new battleships were and what could have been done instead with the resources and infrastructure.
@@bkjeong4302 which is why the US stopped building them in 1942 for 2 years then never finished them.
@@jlvfr
After building another 4 unnecessarily.
@@bkjeong4302 *_at the time_* the other 4 were very much necessary. Don't forget when they were designed (1938): the USN needed fast battleships to counter the japanese _Kongo_ class, as well as what else the IJN might be designing. Hence theses ships. At that time there was no thought (or possibility) for the kind of massed carrier air strikes we would see in late 1943-1945. Even within the IJN, with it's superior carrier doctrine and training, many saw the carrier as an aid, a means to slow down the enemy battleline and strip it of escorts. The ships commissioned between early 43 and mid 44, so still in the "may serve as anti-BB weapon" possibility. Don't forget that on the 15th November 1942, the _Washington_ sank the _Kirishima_ , the _Duke of York_ sank the _Scharnhorst_ after xmas 1943 and the last battleship v battleship battle took place in *October 1944* . So, in the context of their time, at least the first 4 ships were needed. They also served admirably as heavy escorts for USN carrier groups, a job most older BBs could not do, because of their low speed.
If you want to talk about waste of time, money and resources, talk about the _Alaska_ class. Now there's a mess of a class, with much confusion on what it was supposed to do, specially after the _Iowa_ was built...
24:43 a fade to black with just Drach's avatar before going to what he would do for a preserved CV-6 Enterprise. I am not sure if its deliberate but I like this. Drach having a quick moment of existential dispair that a ship as important as Enterprise wasnt preserved?
new achievement unlocked
I was kind of hoping the avatar would remain until the next slide was presented so we get the unshakeable visual of that grin overlooking E's hangar.
@@gth042 And yet one of the _least_ significant battleships, USS Texas, was. I'd gladly trade her for WeeVee, The Big E or one of the Atlantas..
@@marckyle5895
Texas is still more significant than the Iowas. I’d sacrifice all four of them for Enterprise and/or Washington.
One thing about the Swedish navy, the tactic was to go full chihuahua, the fleets heavier units would hide in the archipelago, and wait untill the hostile invasion fleet was spoted, and then ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK, untill the troop transports was sunk or the fleet was destroyed themself. Alternative the enemy is stupid and enter the archipelago, and get annihilated by costal artillery, mines, and light torpedo units, and long range fire from the pansarskepp (coastal defense ship, think slow and smale battleship)
10:23 I love the design of that swedish 6 gun battleship / very large coastal defence ship. Even though it's not the best layout, that Italian derived design means it just has beautiful lines and proportion
It was rejected almost immediately becuse of cost, and it was to large, to effectively operate in the Swedish the archipelago. Yes the ship look handsome, compare that to the plane of a realy ugly smale gun-cruiser-airplane-carrier battelstar that look like a tall barn, with casemate guns. It to was rejected and Sweden did build Gotland instead.
Thanks for answering my question Drach.
In addition to what you've mentioned, if Enterprise was converted into a museum ship. Other exhibits and/or artifacts include:
An SBD set up on the spot where Aviation Machinist Mate 3rd Class Bruno Gaido shot down the Nell at the Marshall Islands.
A series of exhibits on the Admirals that used her as flagship. Most notably, Halsey, Spruance, Kincaid, Sherman, Radford, Reeves, Davison, Gardner and Mitscher. For Mitscher in particular you can tie that into his service as Captain on Hornet (CV-8) and CO of Task Force 58. For Halsey, that may result in a fight with Battleship New Jersey for some exhibits.
A number of the aircraft aboard are painted in the colours and designations of some of her most famous pilots, including a short biography on them, such as Dick Best, Eugen Lindsay, Wade McClusky, Earl Gallaher, Swede Vejtasa, William R "Killer" Kane, William I "Bill" Martin etc.
In addition to any IJN carrier aircraft. Some ordinance (if found and disarmed) or replicas should also be shown.
An exhibit of early night carrier ops.
An exhibit of pre-war carrier development.
1 of her superfiring 40 mm tubs should have its quad Bofors removed and have a 1.1-inch gun placed in it, as a before and after her 1943 refit. As well as show the evolution of USN AA during the war.
Thanks to @Bkjeon4302 for the idea. Her kill boards are prominently displayed on the Hangar deck with possible portrait of her fighting Shokaku and Zuikaku.
Either in the Hangar Deck or the Flight Deck paint the "Enterprise VS Japan" sign.
I turned on the captions for the giggles. Straight away, as you spoke of the Shōkaku, it was captioned Chicago. Can't stop laughing now. Thanks for all you knowledge Drachinifel. 🤣😅🌸
I'm hard of hearing so I have captions on by default. For giggles, nothing beats the caption of some Sabaton songs, Attack of the Dead Men or Bismarck, saying "Epic solo". I mean, they are, but the honesty in the captioning is refreshing.
@@kemarisite same here. I like how the processor in this video is saying no no no no no and then ah at the end but it's really the sound of a q-tip on metal th-cam.com/video/SBuhxsvtE7A/w-d-xo.html
Now I want to see a game played by the Shōkaku Cubs. Or even the Shōkaku White Sox. Maybe one aginst the other!
Episode 259.
Next week is five years.
That's an achievement.
🥲 I remember when he was just a robot voice like it was yesterday. They grow up so fast. 🥲
@@LeCharles07 Why was he a robot voice? I avoided the channel then. And its not like he has a weird voice!
The Army National Guard had to change some staffing rules during the war on terror. We had several communities lose a major portion of adults due to losses from 06-08. The change required 25% of the roster to be from more than 50 miles away. The issue still happens
In the TA, now army reserve, I think everyone in my company lived within 20 miles of the centre.
I was in the NG during the first Gulf war. Half the battery worked at 2 local companies.
Yes, the "Pals Battalions" were a terrible idea.
00:11:49- January 1904 the city of Alesund, Norway was ravaged by a fire destroying around 85% of the buildings, wood being the major construction material. The Kaiser upon hearing of the disaster immediately dispatched ships with men and materials to aid in the recovery. The story as told by my father and other Norway born relatives is that the Kaiser would spend time in the area following the German fleet on summer maneuvers, and had a fondness for the area. The city was rebuilt to a code that required that building exteriors to be built of non cumbustible material like stone and slate, and along the in vogue styles of Germany and France. Financial aid came from other parts of Norway and throughout Europe withe the bulk coming from Germany. A park with a statue of the Kaiser was built in his honor and is still there today. A story that I'm not able to verify as fact or legend is that the buildings originally had copper roofs provided by the Kaiser, but at some point during WW1 he decided that the copper was actually on lone, and he wanted it back, and it was replaced with the slate that is seen now.
Thank you all, so much appreciated.
57:27 interestingly enough you could say this happened in a way with the first Ocean going Steam powered warship, the 20 gun PS Rising Star commissioned in 1822 for Thomas Cochrane. This was when he was Admiral of the Brazilian Navy, it was payed for by Thomas Cochrane and then transferred to the Brazilian Navy. It was never used in action as the war was almost over, it had an interesting design of internal paddle wheels to protect them a bit more from cannon fire. The first Steam warship to participate in combat was the Karteria commissioned in 1826 and first saw combat in 1827 in which it was highly effective. This again involves Cohrane, he and another British naval officer Frank Abney Hastings, were employed by the Greek government in their independence movenment against the ottomans. They set out a plan to build 6 Steam warships and buy two old 74 gun ship of the lines and razee them to become heavy frigates, this plus the rest of the Greek fleet was seen as good enough to take on the ottoman navy. This was very ambitious and in the end only 1 steamship was delivered and they got two heavy Frigates built in the US rather than Razeeing a 74, but due to major corruption in the end the Greeks could only got 1 Frigate. The Steamship although only having 8 x 68 pounder guns proved to be brilliant, using the power plants Steam to create heated shot and a method developed by Hastings to stop any barrel explosions, meant that it was highly effective and destroyed quite a number of ships even when the Greek side was outnumbered in the battle. Sorry went off on a bit of tangent at the end, just thought it was such a cool naval story.
With an even more colourful background than Lord Cochrane, the Abney-Hastings are the Plantagenet pretenders to the English throne. The head of the family, Simon Abney-Hastings, 15th Earl of Loudoun lives on a modest farm in Victoria, Australia.
To be perfectly honest it's difficult to imagine who could've done _worse_ than Beatty at Jutland.
The only person who could have done worse then Beattie was probably his bloke who was meant to be sending the bloody signals.
That's the truth!
>Imagines Won Gyun at Jutland
Then again, Won Gyun did MUCH worse than completely screw up a battle; he intentionally got his predecessor (and replacement) falsely accused, demoted and almost executed for no reason besides so he could be in charge, *while knowing said predecessor was right to make the decision that got him falsely accused.* He literally committed an act of treason to advance his own career and almost cost the entire war as a result.
Me
Take your pick from pretty much any Japanese WW2 admiral. For example Kurita?
Both the LNER and the LMS railways built experimental steam turbine powered locomotives in the 1930s.
They were rebuilt as conventional reciprocating engines as the increase in efficiency was outweighed by increased maintenance costs.
They also had reliability issues caused by the operating environment on a loco.
A class of minesweepers built for the RN in the 50s, the 'Ton' class were powered by the same English Electric, Deltic engine as a class of diesel locomotives.
In that case the engine was initially developed for railway use and they were adapted for marine use because they were very compact and powerful.
Also being all alloy they had a very low magnetic signature.
Battleship power plants. Not for mobile use, but I recall that a turbine plant for one of the uncompleted Alaska BCs sat around for decades, and was finally sold as surplus to run a city power plant. This is from 20-30 year old memory, so I have no details.
Pronounciation of balholm is good. It was a small island outside the village of balestrand, with a anchorage. The kaiser visited balestrand almost yearly in the years before ww1
46:24 the LNER Gresley designed experimental high pressure steam locomotive called the Hush Hush named that due to the secretive nature of the project, used a marine boiler (not navy but still interesting), it is a very bizarre looking steam Locomotive.
think you mean a marine (water tube) boiler
@@nomdefamille4807 oops I meant to say Boiler thanks I didn't notice that
In reference to the question about personnel losses from a single community: there was the sinking of _USS Juneau_ with the five Sullivan brothers. Hence why we have the Fletcher-class destroyer _USS The Sullivans_ as a museum ship.
Speaking of which. The late Rear Admiral James D "Jig Dog" Ramage. Who served aboard Enterprise 3 times (first as a deck officer in 1939. Followed in 1943-1944 as XO and CO of VB-10) was from Waterloo Iowa. He was involved in a campaign to have the Convention Centre in the town renamed after the Sullivans.
Yes, to get the proportional equivalent to a Pals battalion, you are looking at a very small community, such as the Sullivan family.
Drach already knows. He’s mentioned the Sullivans on multiple occasions.
Thanks for answering my question! Seems like the Shokakus did indeed live up to their intent as Japan’s other naval superweapons, only let down by factors that had little to do with their design (and still maintaining a few qualitative advantages in spite of that, such as speed and arguably even survivability).
That part about hangar space really clarifies things: it wasn’t bad hangar design that limited Japanese carrier loads (for purpose-built carriers), but the less efficient wing folding design compared to the USN. And now I am trying to imagine exact how many American carrier aircraft could you fit on Shokaku (possibly upwards of 120…)
Coffee & boaty floaty things.. best way to start a weekend.
Good early morning from Alaska and thanks for the fresh post 3 minutes old!
So in Sydney, we have Circular Quay, it has a wharf, a terminal and a number of piers lol
Is it upside down as well LOL!
It's also not circular.
@@notshapedforsportivetricks2912 Really old maps of the area do have it listed as semi-circular quay, but I guess at some point that was considered to complicated for us lol
Minotaur 5 minute guide, followed by Drydock 259.
Sigh.
Perfect Saturday night in.
🎉8:00 .. I love your national “pointless posturing” angry chihuahua analogy. How many times we thought this … well said.
"bark! bark! bark!" - An official statement, probably
English is not my native language, but I had in my mind very different definitions of those terms.
Wharf = a shipyard that can build, repair and service ships and boats
Quay = a long, stone or concrete structure that ships can dock along for loading and unloading
Dock = a U-shaped "parking space" for a ship or a boat for repair or service
Jetty = a smaller, wooden structure for boats, never ships
Pier = a long, stone or concrete structure that primarily acts as a breakwater but can have a secondary function as a quay or part of a dock
In the US a jetty almost always refers to a rock breakwater, not often used to describe anything a ship or boat moors to. A pier is never used to describe a breakwater, but is an structure for mooring ships/boats and loading and offloading.
The UK might be slightly different from the USA but that is not unusual.
A pier might be long or short as well as being curved to act as a breakwater when it is often called a Mole.
But the purpose of many was to extend dry land out to deeper water where a ship could unload passengers. Then they could walk along till they came to the town. Often the deepest part of it was held up by iron girders.
Then railways were built and people travelled to the town by train. Many piers became amusement places.
Famously Blackpool Pier, Brighton Pier and so on.
If you really want to know, ask a local because they might call a structure by their own name.
It's fun.
@@jimneitzel3111
I don't know what I would have called the wooden structure I started walking along some years ago by the side of a river.
I am almost certain it was in the deep channel, where HMS Hood, Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth were taken by tugs to the Tail o' the Bank.
At first it was a broad, firm timber walkway that could have taken a loaded lorry from a Victory Ship.
It stayed broad and firm but after I saw a few missing wooden battens I realised it was not thin board I was walking on, it was 12' long railway sleepers. I caught sight of one of the supports rising out of the water and topped with an iron mooring post. A long drop.
By and by there were fewer sleepers and they were irregular.
They became slippy and a bit rounded. The town I was headed for might only be a mile away.
Before I came to a rotten sleeper that would dump me in the river I turned back.
But was it called a wharf during WW2 do you think? Maybe it was only a place for ships to wait before they were taken to one of the docks upriver, or maybe the graving dock?
Hope this helps.
Docks are just spaces for ships to tie up alongside, with necessary bollards, capstans, etc.
Dry docks are probably what you are thinking of, being 'U' shaped. These are capable of being drained and are reinforced. They are typically sealed off by a lock gate (permanent) or caisson (essentially a mobile lock gate). They can also be used as docks, especially if not properly maintained.
Locks are like dry docks, but have a gate at both ends. They can be used in this way or to transit between 2 separated waterways. Either because they are different levels or the water on one side shouldn't be disturbed - it can separate tidal and non-tidal water. Locks are also used regularly in canals.
The quay is just the area alongside where ships dock. It is typically reinforced stone/concrete and can handle heavy loads.
A jetty is either a breakwater or an extension from a quay. It can be a pier, floating dock, concrete or other. They are typically created for different sized boats/ships to dock, to give additional space on the quay or because the water is too shallow. They can be small docks sticking out or extensive network for docking lots of boats in marinas, etc.
A pier is a typically wooden structure on struts extending over the sea. This can be to dock ships/boats, fish from or to build on (houses, theme parks, arcades, etc.).
When a pier is used as a dock, it is typically because the water on the quayside is too shallow or more space is required.
The Wharf is the area on the quayside used to load/unload cargo/passengers.
A basin is an enclosed area of water in a shipyard surrounded by docks. This can be tidal or non-tidal. If non-tidal, this will normally be sealed off by a caisson or a lock.
Edit: hadn't got to Drachs question yet. These are the rough definitions I go by, but also see Drachs response. Seawall is another useful term, which will usually apply to breakwaters, quays and concrete piers. Particularly around a basin.
"Balholmen" sounds perfectly pronounced. My respect Drach.
(I suppose it is a part of the harbour in Balestand. I hope the locals will have ME excused.)
I was a little disappointed you didn't address Nathan Okun's description of the fuse issue. Basically, explosive D in storage can offgas corrosive components which can corrode parts of the fuse mechanism, preventing the fuse train from locking into place so it will function when the shell hits. I strongly suspect that Washington had the same issues with fuses, but woth 20 or so 16" hits over the space of a few minutes, from such short range that the shells still retain a lot of the kinetic energy they started with, I doubt the Japanese were in any position to evaluate whether a shell had detonated or not in the few hours before they had to abandon ship. Subsequently, of course, it hasnt been practical to conduct a physical examination of the ship, compared with Jean Bart which was still right there and would eventually be repaired and put into setvice after the war.
1:00 - laughed at the Veg-O-Matic reference. 😂
As for an example of a battleship powering a railway. Ships like Lexington did provide ship to shore power where there were electric trolly lines.
9:55 That bridge looks like it belongs on a yacht. A very nice looking ship.
@33:07: Perhaps the. difference between the USS Massachusetts and the USS Washington's shells was the amount of armor they were hitting.... (Battleship .vs. Battlecruiser/Fast (Light) Battleship)
49:45 I'm not sure that's strictly correct. A lot of British hired trawlers came out of communities. And a lot were lost.
It seems very likely that the loss of a trawler or two would disproportionately impact a family or small community.
Yes, the loss of something like Hood or Defence was spread around somewhat (more so than a pals battalion), but the smaller boats could create something similar.
It is not Naval, but yes, there have been many tragedies where most of the men in the family went down.
55:00 Could you put a SKETCH, on the Digital Drydock to clarify a bit.
Basically, nothing is what I thought it was called. 😁
As I recall, the channel's coverage mostly ends at WWII, so I'm not putting this in Drach's Q&A but...what is the shape of naval tactics in a modern navy.
Cruise missiles have reached a point where a direct engagement between surface ships is probably going to look more like a missile cruisers lobbing gigantic rockets at the horizon rather than the big dramatic gunfights of the Battleship days.
Naturally if the modern Navy in question is the US, there's going to be a carrier or two at the centre of the formation launching aircraft that are probably all-but-invisible to radar to rain death on anything that dares get close.
The classic role of torpedo submarines has gotten vastly more advanced than the U-boats we know from WWII, to the point where some of them can get in through a modern US carrier group and sink the carrier, according to recent NATO wargames. (And then die spectacularly as the entire screening force shoots every anti-submarine weapon at their disposal at the source of the torpedo launch, since that's gonna make enough noise to give everyone's sonar a good fix...but that doesn't happen until after they've launched the torpedo salvo that destroys the carrier)
I....genuinely have no idea what destroyers are for these days, except possibly just something that floats and holds anti-submarine and anti-aircraft systems. But then, I've *never* had a good handle on what destroyers are for in any era. Given the rate the USN churned them out in WWII they were extremely important.
Long range aircraft and missiles from land bases mean that it's not unreasonable to expect something that doesn't fit on a carrier to show up in the middle of the ocean and wreck your day.
Drones mean you can get kamikaze style approaches (ie: stuff no simple homing torpedo or missile can pull off) are possible, and the pilot involved in that approach can just move on to driving the next drone and thus actually gets a chance to learn how to do that kind of thing. Loitering munitions make the idea of a naval minefield way scarier.
There' s just so much open to a modern navy....
It's a system. Every ship is part of a bigger machine and contributes to a complete suite of capabilities. I guess the basic idea is that you destroy the enemy beyond visual range now and early detection is really important.
You mentioned the Texas Mexican War in your discussion on the selling of warships. I've never heard of any naval activity during that war. Could you give me more information and maybe a book to read on the topic?
I can't name any books, but the Battle of Campeche between rebellious elements of the Mexican State of Yucatan joined with the Texas Navy ships Austin and Wharton engaged several Mexican Navy ships, on May 16, 1843.
There were other actions, before and after, mostly involving privateers.
There are several books listed on the Wikipedia page for Texas Navy.
I haven't read any of them, but I think I will see if I can find some of them. They look interresting.
@mahbriggs Thanks. It goes to show that there is something new to learn. I'm 75 & have studied history at the undergrad & postgrad levels. ;-) I have something to new to study.
6:51 there seems to also be a coastal battleship design with two 4 gun turrets in the same layout as the Sverige-class coastal defence ship.
Re 00:43:26
If you happened to find an animator to do a collab with, a visual guide to fleet tactics would be the perfect first video.
I'm curious about what is commonly referred to as a raking broadside in the age of sail. Hypothetically, a couple of smaller ships pass on either side of a larger ship. Do the gun crews fire as soon as they see hull, in which case they would pound the same area of hull, more or less or do they wait until all guns see hull and let fly all at once.
It seems to me that the first scenario, all firing on one spot would be more effective when you're firing smaller guns against a hull built to take bigger hits.
Regarding dock, wharves and such... what is a "mole" as in the mole at Dunkirk
Every case will vary because people call local things by local names.
There is a concrete structure at the Isle of Iona, almost square but long enough to float the Roll-on-Roll-off car ferry.
Different people call it by different names. They still use it in the same way.
Usually I think of a Mole as being a long curving stone and concrete structure extending from the land into the sea and curving round to provide shelter for small vessels on the inside of the curve.
But waves can wash over. The sea is mighty.
It might even be built to cover some rocks on the way into harbour.
Some harbours are complicated to make several barriers for waves to negotiate. There might be a Mole curving to the left inside an outer Mole curving to the right. And so on.
Many maps or photos taken from the air show you the wide variety.
30:35
He almost certainly wouldn’t have sailed dead-on toward the German Scouting Group, without opening fire, for ten minutes.
He also likely would not have completely awful at communicating back to Jellicoe about where the German Battle Fleet was
Beatty was Peter Principled up past his level of ability there.
@52.20 straight up from the stern of the warship, is that a pet dinosaur at Clydebank?😀 Just curious!
How much better it would be to have Enterprise over one of the four modernized Essex class. Fortunately we have several WW2 configured BB’s.
Also think of the patronage from not just the regular historical crowds. But also from trekkies and Azur Lane degenerates.
I’d rather sacrifice the battleships and keep E, though ideally we could sacrifice the Iowas and have Enterprise and WWII-spec’s Washington and West Virginia as museum ships.
But we needed soup cans and razor blades!
Immediately after the war, there was little interest in museum ships.
The USS Texas got lucky.
Ship engines being used for railway locomotives-This did happen, Fairbanks Morse in the USA supplied diesel engines to the US Navy and built locomotives using the same engine
from what i have heard those diesel engines did not take well to the relatively harsh suspension of the railroad locomotives compared to the softer rocking of of submarines.
Project Gutenberg does have the Mahan books available in several formats. There are also a few other old naval history/maritime books.
Is this a decisive answer? (And if so what do you do after answering...)
Counterpoint to the battleship powered railroad locomotive: Get one of the electric drive battleships, string some catenary, and use it to power a fleet of electric locomotives.
I’d like to imagine the second you tried to display Japanese aircraft inside museum enterprise the ghost of her AA crews would annihilate them or she would simply implode out of sheer refusal to have them near her again
wrt the Lexington's protection. As Drac said, USN Scouting Group doctrine was 35kts. The 1919 Lexington design was better protected than the earlier designs. From what I have read, the need for better protection was acknowledged, but the reduction to 34kts to gain the protection was only grudgingly accepted. The ship could easily have been better protected, but TPTB were not willing to accept a further reduction in speed.
The alt history possibilities post-Treaty are interesting. Reportedly, the UK was willing to accept a single ship maximum of some 42,000 tons, because of Hood. If the other powers had dug in their heels and demanded that each was entitled to build a 42,000 ton ship, because of Hood, what would the US have done? If they completed one South Dakota, it would have been a red-headed stepchild as no other US battleship could keep up with it. With two Lexingtons being converted to carriers, a new mission for the battlecruiser emerges, as consort for the carriers. Seems most likely that, if the US had been allowed one 42,000 ton ship, it would have been a Lexington, not a South Dakota.
46m23s: Capital Ship engines used ashore. yeah, outside of smaller ship engines suych as the deltics, hard no. BUT, while the main engines are far too large, the Emergency Diesel Generators are another matter. Dont know what the Royal Navy does, but the US Does frequently use Locomotive engines. USCGC Confer of WW2 vintage had (still does in her post government career) Diesel Electric Driver and was re-engined with locomotive engines. My ship Truman CVN75 received her four EDGs from the Forrestal CV59 and they were essentially the same engines used in freight locomotives from the time period Forrestal was built. most of the Nimitz class and other major ships use something along these lines.
I mean, I'm about as big a fan of the Lexingtons as there is. And my take on it boiled down to 'undeniably underarmored, but less likely to blow up than usually assumed, because American powder was less explodey than British cordite'. I'll grant that I said they were more focused on the scouting role- which is true! -but not that they wouldn't fight capital ships because of it.
If someone is seriously arguing 'lol, scouts, never fighting capital ships' then there's something wrong with them.
There were Ross-shire fishing villages that lost a very large proportion of their men first in the Royal Oak and then in the Hood.
Yes. CV6? A B-25, a loaded SBD2, a night fighting F4U. And all her hits taken well marked. Where? Pearl Harbor or San Diego.
HMS Warspite? Make room on the Thames, she'll run into something...
Courageous, Glorious, Furious and... Lexington.
Perhaps better named USS Disadvantageous 🤔
Dear Drach, If Admiral Rozhestvensky and Admiral King were to get into a binocular hurling competition which admiral would likely win? If they were commanding a large number of binoculars in the same era that is.
47:00 You could use a BB's engines to turn a turbine to power a grid and then charge a battery powered locomotive.
Battery-powered locomotives are a joke but electric locomotive drawing power from the wires as is demonstrated all over the world, quite practical.
@@calvingreene90Some work needs to be done without the possibility of sparks.
An old example was the small steam locomotives operating in Town Gas generating plants. They were charged with steam under pressure and needed no other power for the day.
A battery powered electric locomotive could be sealed off from a flammable atmosphere.
@@20chocsaday
They need charged more than once a day but do better the electric batteries charging faster and costing far less with a greater cycle life.
Largest proposed land vehicle which was a 1500 ton German "tank" /"SPG" mounting the 80 cm Gustav gun and two 15 cm secondary armed turrets probably those of the MAUS design -but even that was proposed power plant was a mere 4 x Type IX U boat motors MAN 740 kw each .So hardly Battleship turbine or triple expansion motors.
It would be rather hard to examine Kirishima's wreck for 16" duds as it is upside down and a large part has exploded.
Were the Shokakus and Yorktowns really contemporaries? The Shokaku and Zuikaku were both commissioned within three months of Hornet CV-8's October 1941 commissioning, yes, but Yorktown CV-5 was laid down in 1934 and commissioned in 1937 several months prior to Soryu while Enterprise was older than Hiryu in every respect. The original two Yorktowns were far superior to their IJN Soryu-class contemporaries in every way, and it showed...specifically when Yorktown and Enterprise slayed their counterparts at Midway without additional US assistance (Yorktown, on the other hand, probably would have survived if I-168 hadn't torpedoed her).
But even compared to the Shokakus the Yorktowns had significant advantages--none more so than resistance to fire. Yorktown's resistance was so great she was mistakenly claimed as sunk once in the Coral Sea and twice off Midway before I-168 found her (and still taking nearly a day to sink). Hornet was so tough her escorts were unable to scuttle her in October 1942 before Japanese surface forces drove the USN cruisers and destroyers away while carriers named Enterprise are invulnerable to anything other than the scrappers' torch.
USS Cavalla, on the other hand, demostrated Shokaku's resilience was exclusively towards bombs when the Japanese carrier went up like a Roman candle in the same June 1944 battle where Zuikaku's fires caused by TF 58 attacks became so bad her skipper ordered abandon ship (only to survive four more months on account of the carrier's damage control teams not receiving the order prior to bringing the flames under control.) Nor was their AAA worth a damn. Parshall and Tully go on at length in Shattered Sword that short of a direct hit with a 5-inch shell Japanese anti-aircraft fire was utterly worthless in 1942, a major deficiency that was not corrected by April 1945 as evidenced by Yamato taking out more TF 58 aircraft by means of her main magazines detonating than the entire Ten-Go force downed with their AAA.
Worse, all Japanese keel-up WW2-era fleet carriers were inherently inefficient on account of the Kate. The Type 97 IJN torpedo bomber, which was designed and entered service concurrently with Soryu, was dramatically underpowered when lugging at Type 91 torpedo off a carrier deck with full fuel tanks; hence the Soryus and Shokakus were designed with much greater length-to-beam ratios than their USN counterparts so the 1930s-era Japanese fleet carriers could attain 34+ knots, giving that extra bit of airflow to launch fully-loaded B5Ns. This required 32,000 to 40,000 more horsepower to attain these speeds than the 120,000 shp aboard each Yorktown-class carrier, with commensurately less space available.
Worst, the narrow beam of non-conversion Japanese fleet carriers cut down on air group size. Yorktowns as originally built had 6000 more square fleet on the flight deck compared to the Shokakus, and after her October 1943 refit at Bremerton Enterprise's lengthened and widened flight deck was 13000 square feet larger than the Shokakus'--plus CV-6's torpedo blisters made her much tougher compared to the Shokakus' inadequate torpedo defenses. Enterprise's maximum tonnage also rose to 32,060 at full load as a result of the refit, bringing her to within 600 tons of the Shokakus' maximum, but also enabled her to embark the "Sunday Punch."
The Sunday Punch, which was the initial 36 Hellcat, 36 Dauntless and 18 Avenger air group that each Essex-class carrier brought when Task Force 50 supported the invasion of the Gilbert Islands in November 1943. USS Enterprise was also in attendance, embarking 90 aircraft in the same configuration as her Essex-class descendants.
Less than a year later in the Philippine Sea, there were fewer than 210 aircraft embarked between Shokaku, Taiho l, and Zuikaku...meaning the Japanese never got anywhere close to Sunday Punch numbers. Enterprise, meanwhile, managed to embark 92 in Leyte Gulf while Essex-class carriers routinely embarked more than 100 aircraft each into 1945.
This also might explain why Enterprise was eventually scrapped rather than preserved in 1958--she might have been considered too much of an intelligence bonanza to the Soviets or (later) the Chinese. After HMAS Melbourne was decommissioned in 1982, the Australians sold the hulk to be scrapped by the China United Shipbuilding Company in February 1985. Upon arrival in Guangzhou, the PLAN went over the Majestic-class carrier, and apparently the carrier wasn't dismantled for years, contributing to China's carrier program according to Stratfor in a 2002 publication.
Would the same have been possible had Enterprise been opened to the public in New York since the 1950s? Was she close enough in design to the Essexes, which were still the backbone of the US carrier fleet in 1958, that preserving her was a security risk? The ongoing Melbourne intelligence disaster almost certainly has influenced the failure of any of the Kitty Hawk-class carriers to be turned into museums, as all but USS America were decommissioned after the 2002 Stratfor report and the nation's namesake was sunk in 2005 to test supercarrier survivability before construction commenced with the Ford-class.
Is the only reason there are any museum carriers at all because the Essex-class was thoroughly obsolete by June 1970, when Hornet and Yorktown were decommissioned for the final time, and the same was true of the Midway-class in 1992?
Somewhere there is this alternate reality where battlecruiser Lexington clashes with battlecruiser Courageous and maybe even Courbets participate for more added lulz.
Can you do a video on ss cape trafalgar
And the WW1 battle of the ocean liners
Can you imagine the expression on the face of a commander of a Lexington class being told he had to face a G3?
Minor degree of enthusiasm, I guess.
@@RayyMusik I would say a sense of utter dread facing a ship that was better in a seaway,had more guns and armour that a Lexington could not penetrate. remember a G3 could match an Iowa in terms of speed and firepower but was far better protected and was more than 20 years older
A G3 could actually fight a Yamato or an Iowa and have a good chance of winning (!!). A Lexington is cannon fodder.
@@davidmcintyre8145Well, not really. Let’s not forget that 1940s armor was better than early 1920s armor, and that the Iowa class had a steeper slope to its armor. The Iowa class was nominally 32-33 knots, but that was with all the extra AA guns and radars they ended up with during construction, and an oversized combat loadout. We know that New Jersey once hit 35 knots at a lighter displacement. The G3’s were designed to hit 32 knots, although whether they really would have is an open question. But if they had stuck around, they would have been slowed a couple knots by all the upgrades they would have acquired over the 1930a and WWII. And finally, those were NOT equal armaments on the Iowas and G-3. The G3’s gun (used on the Nelson class) was the least powerful 16” gun of WWII. Yeah, it was still a 16” gun, but it was a pop gun compared to the 16”/50 Mark VII, and was significantly weaker than the 16”/45 Mark VI on the SoDak/NC, or even the 16”/45 Mark V that the Colorado class got in the 1930s.
@@bkjeong4302 We must remember that the Iowa and Yamato are late 1930's designs while the G3 was a late 1910s,early 1920's design and that nothing in the water or planned at the time could have matched a G3
"Pals" ships. In age of sail wouldn't that be more common in privateers? And pirates?
Re: copyright, anything by a branch or agency of the U.S. government or military is public-domain from creation by law.
As Drach said these things vary by country. Australian government copyright lasts 50 years, corporate copyright lasts 70 years and personal copyright lasts for the life of the author plus 70 years.
@@Dave_SissonWe had better check up on who wrote "Waltzing Matilda".
@@20chocsaday It was written by Andrew 'Banjo" Patterson. I don't like it, it's an unpleasant story about a suicidal sheep duffer.
I wonder if Drach was speedrunning at 44:00
A relative died in the Enterprise 5inch guns in the gallery. I would display the film taken of the bomb strike that gutted that position. Gee whiz, just show any film record of bomb strikes and maneuvers to avoid bombs and torpedoes. I am sad to realize that a recreation of the pressure waves from bomb strikes would cause any insurance firm to break out in hysterical screaming.
Publishers can sometimes sub-licence eBook & audiobook rights. I work at literary agencies, may I help/advise?
Mass. fuse failure: The whole idea behind the Super Heavy shells is to engage at long range and punch the deck, they didn't make sure the fuses would work in this situation?
Mk 14 Torpedo ? 🙂
They didn’t even make sure the 16”/50 gun would be able to get the right trajectories for deck penetration at reasonable combat ranges, so…
Anyone know which book contains quality line drawings of GOTLAND ? I model in 1:700th scale & strive for detail.... I'd prefer her aircraft carrying config., but the AA config. is also a help- considering it's kinda an obscure vessel versus the HOODS & BISMARCKS....
Any title or author that features outboard, overhead, ect. accurate line drawings ?
Any help here is truly appreciated !!
🚬😎👍
Battle of the Komodorski islands fits this scenario
Unemployed History Major. But I repeat myself... I totally get it, if income had not been a concern I would have much preferred to study history with a doctorial degree and tenure, as the ultimate goal. Since income was a concern, the BSEE I ended up with was just fine.
pretty sure a tenured gig extolling our passions is the great wish of many of us in a cruel and oft insipid world....
could a gotland type of ship be more likely to work with aircraft such as the f35 b? I still don't think that is a good design.
Yonks agp I read a book about the USN refloating 3 sunken dry docks in Mesopotania. My local libary can obtain this book for me but at an increbidle cost for a two weeks loan.
Can you kindly use your resourses to advise me of the contents of this book? 😃
It is much easier to find a book if you mention the author, title and year of publication. It is even easier still if you have the ISBN, a number printed in all books published in the last 50 years.
Mesopotamia seems rather unlikely. Possibly the Persian Gulf. But what comes readily to mind is the Red Sea. There was a captured Italian Naval base at Massawa that Commander Edward Ellsberg served at. He wrote several books about his WWII experiences including "Under the Red Sea Sun". This involved raising a scuttled Italian dry dock and a couple of adventures with a Persian dry dock, along with various other ships he salvaged.
This may be the book you are thinking of, if not, it is well worth reading.
In fact all his books are well worth reading.
It is available as an E-book on both Kindle and Nook.
@@Dave_Sisson Thanks for your quick reply. Also had a reply from mahbriggs who suggested the Italian base was at Massawa & the Author was Cmdr Ellsberg who wrote several books including :Under the Red Sea Sun; This seems to be the book I was looking for.
A lot of sailors are from coastal communities for obvious reasons.
For ep 260 bring back the robot voice for the 5 year anniversary.
Drach as a publisher of audio books....hmmmmmmm.....Yes.
Interesting explanation of docks, jetties, etc. I've never heard any sort of boat/ship docking facility called a quay (key) in the SE US. Mostly, I've heard the term applied to small islands that have low elevation above sea level and are usually mostly sand covered with no significant outcropping of rock. Also, we tend to spell it KEY. In example, the Florida Keys are a string of islands where sand has built up on dead coral reefs or underwater rock ridges and is held in place by various salt tolerant trees, shrubs and grasses. The term Key (quay) seems to be used to distinguish these islands from ones that are volcanic in origin, but there are exceptions both ways. I guess that Georgia's barrier islands would be called Keys if they were in South Florida, since they are mostly sand bars held together by vegetation.
If you are going to sail on a loch, you must have a quay.
Moving a space shuttle or SLS to the pad at 30-40mph is.... not going to end well.
Now I want a crawler-transporter racing game.
@@LeCharles07 Sounds like something Top Gear would do!
So as it turned out the US received its money worth converting the Lex and Sara to Carriers, Japanese long lances would have tore them to pieces in their traditional roles!
Concerning the just-introduced in 1941 US Navy Mark 21 Base Detonating Fuze used in all WWII US Navy AP shells (6" and up had AP, smaller guns had base-fuzed Common (SAP-type) anti-ship shells): Dach, you are COMPLETELY WRONG!!!
This new fuze was designed on purpose for highly oblique impact function against thick face-hardened armor (shells were tested at 35-40 degrees from normal, much more oblique than any other nation). When first installed in a shell using the US Explosive "D" filler, this fuze, which had a special explosive locking mechanism to ensure that the heavy slamming effects of the shell going through such armor at such angles, the fuzes worked as designed very reliably (which is why they replaced the prior fuze design introduced just a few years before. However, the explosive locking mechanism required that the internal section with the 0.033-secodn black powder delay, be moved as a unit iinto its lo0ced position very quickly when the nose of the shell hit the armor (using the deceleration of the shell from the plate struck to throw the firing pin into the exploding primer that also set off the delay. Unfortunately, as was later found after the JEAN BART hits, Explosive "D" (ammonium picrate) had a small and slow corrosive effect on the steel of the fuze, so that after about 6 months many shells had fuzes that could not move the delay section reliably to its final lock position due to friction with the thin layer of rust on the moving surfaces. Hence the duds and other abnormal filler effects in JEAN BART.
BuORD immediately started a crash troubleshooting (literally!) program to see what was going on, which took about 6 months to complete. They found the corrosion problem (a microscope could see it easily) due to the much tighter design specs of this fuze than any other fuze ever used by the US Navy. A lot of suggestions as to how to fix the problem were finally rendered unnecessary by the bright idea of simply dipping the completed fuze in liquid Bakelite plastic so when it hardened, the fuze was sealed tight. After this, all US Navy fuzes in WWII were so sealed. Problem solved forever.
Whether USS WASHINGTON had this problem depended on how old its AP ammo loadout was from the time of manufacture and fuze installation at the storage facility. If less than 6 months, then there was no real problem with the Mark 21 BDF. Anyway, these shells against KIRISHIMA would tear hole completely through where they hit if the shells did not explode properly, so major damage would happen regardless...
The last question about "selling" crewed warships has some applicability to today specifically under the AUKUS treaty. Starting around 2027, there will be 4 Virginia Class and 1 Astute Class subs rotating through Perth and they will be engaged in regular, persistent patrols. You could argue that this is functionally comparable to "selling" crewed warships to Australia, but the fiction is that they since they remain homeported in their home countries that nothing of the sort is happening. This certainly smells like what Germany was doing with the Goeben.
Nothing like.
These subs will not be renamed.
They will not fly a different flag.
They will not be commanded my officers of the Australian navy.
Their crews will not adopt a different uniform.
An attack on one of them would be an attack on the USA, not Australian.
Etc.
Navies have rotated their vessels through ports of friendly nation for centuries. It’s never had a connotation of “these ships belong to you Dr this time period.”
10:20 It's a midget battleship?
Wait, someone defends the Lexington? 16" armed light cruisers above 30k tons is dumb.
39:00 THANKS DISNEY FOR THIS IMPOSSIBLE COPYRIGHT SYSTEM! ..|.
what the heck is a battlestar?
Well it might be time to write my BiLs dad served at Gotland. And it should also be said it was after the war. Or of course this is not i interesting to anyone, but it is not often one have the opportunity to write a comment about personal relationships to the ships mentioned.
Thank you.
Can you imagine what Jeremy Clarkson could do with a battleship's power plant?
And I bet that he would still be yelling "MORE POWER".
James May: CLARKSON!!
:)
In hindsight, couldn’t you say Hoods armor was basically worthless since she went to Davy Jones locker like a rock with basically all hands on board?
No
No, because you have to look at intent. What was the ship supposed to do? In this case, the Admiral-class were meant to be equivalent to a Queen Elizabeth-class BB, but capable of 32kts (more or less). When Hood was completed she was the best protected ship in the RN. However, it was also recognized that she was a pre-Jutland design and had some protection issues--like everyone else's ships at this time. The G3's would have corrected that, but then you have a ship with 20% more displacement than Hood. Lastly, keep in mind that Bismarck's armor scheme was very similar to Hood's. VERY similar. Ultimately, it came down to who got lucky first and everything that could possibly go wrong pretty much did for Hood at Denmark Straight.
@@davefinfrock3324 Bismarck and Hood, with all their armor, we’re still knocked out relatively easily. I’m suggesting at a certain point, even if you can stop the shell your ship is going to be so heavily damaged it doesn’t matter. You will become a sitting duck.
It depends what gets hit. When you look at war games that navies performed and how they looked at potential damage, it didn't take that many hits to render a ship combat ineffective. It could happen quite quickly. Moreover, once range gets under 10k yards armor ceases to matter all that much. Modern guns had tremendous penetration. On the other hand, if nothing good got hit, a battleship could absorb tremendous punishment. Yamashiro at Suriagao Straight springs to mind. @@ericokurowski
@@ericokurowski
The HMS Prince of Wales was at that battle and survived, the Bismarck also survived that battle, and took a great deal of damage later before she was sunk.
So no, armor was not useless.
Read about the sea battles of WWI and WWII, and you will find a great many ships that survived quite a bit of battle damage because of their armor.
89th, 13 August 2023
Too long to watch, maybe 30 minutes tops
From what i’ve heard, the rights to photos makes re-publishing reference books a real pain in the ⸺, making it basically impossible.
I put forward the idea to make drach and ryan from battleship New Jersey be made head custodians of ALL museum ships. Their knowledge, passion and outgoing personality would be perfect for the job. Just my humble opinion, but im no expert, they are lol
The tedium of arguing about ships that were never built.