I've read from the Damage Report of the USS North Carolina's torpedo hit from I-19, that the torpedo did actually did cause a flash in Turret One's Magazine and that it could have possibly detonated the magazine if it had struck even slightly aft than it did. Is that actually true, and do you think I-19's torpedo could have done that had it struck more aft than it did?
Given its highly likely a shell from New Jersey's 16" guns would go straight through a ship of the line, in the unlucky event all she'll miss the canons I wonder how many shells it would take to sink something the size of HMS Victory
One of the close calls I had was when a defective 5" 38 HE round exploded right outside the gun mount during a training exercise. It left a sizeable dent on the frontal armor right where I was stationed. Some of the shrapnel flew back onto the bridge, too. Yes, I have tinnitus.
Makes me wonder: The proximity fuze in WW2 is generally hailed as a game changer. Given the number of rounds fired, how often would the fuze detect "enemy nearby" just after leaving the muzzle? Or worse, while still inside the barrel?
@@TomFynn If I recall correctly, in the WW2 channel Spies & Ties special episode about "Allied superweapons", that the proximity fuses had a delay built into them so that they wouldn't explode too close to the ship by accident. I believe it was the firing of the shell itself that activated the delay. I highly recommend you go check out that video!
@@Hyssar If as the OP told, the round detonated right after leaving the barrel, I think we can assume that the fuze was faulty. And in WW2, given the sheer number of rounds, there must have been defective prox fuzes, which went boom where they were not supposed to simply because the delay was faulty or wrongly installed or any number of things. So the question is, how often did such a fuze suffer from premature detonation?
at the end of the movie : "..and now the point is... pointy !" Admiral-General Aladeen : "Who cares!?" "Who cares ?!?...you literally exiled me for it" Admiral-General Aladeen signs to have him executed
Hail to we nerds of Naval trivia that find videos like this interesting. Because my wife walked in while I was enjoying a ginger ale and some chips while enjoying this video and she laughed, gave me a hug and left, knowing that I'm again cramming knowledge into my head that will serve no useful purpose if a zombie apocalypse ever breaks out.
Perhaps a little unrelated, but the glass marble example mentioned, triggered an old funny memory from school. The school I attended has four floors, and in one location there are stairs with an open volume through all floors down to the basement floor. Thus five floors. The floor at the bottom is smooth stoned slabs, very tuff and hard. So... one day walking the stairs, holding a small billiard ball that I inexplicably had found somewhere, an intrusive thought raised it's stupid head. I could not resist, so from the top of the stairs, looking down an estimated 18 m(?), I threw the billiard ball, balancing force with control, as hard as I could down towards the bottom of the stairs. I expected the ball to shatter, but to my surprise, the ball bounced back high enough for my friend standing one floor below me to catch it. Examining the ball, there was little to see, just a small mark of contact. Looking at the stone floor... there was a somewhat larger mark of contact. The slab was cracked to each corner, with a very visible crater at the convergance of those cracks, but it had not shattered either. Physics is fun, in theory and practice. We the started to calculate the G-forces involved, but decided to go talk to the girls walking by instead. That is at least how I choose to remember the end of the story... 🙂
Very interesting video ! Being a non native English speaker, thank you for speaking so intelligibly. You are very easy to understand contrary to a lot of other anglophone youtubers.
Amazing thanks, my grandfather was an engineer at chatham docks, sadly died trying to save the life of a friend who inadvertently fell into the water just after they left the security gate on shore leave! The friend could not swim so my grandad dived in and its believed he struck his head fatally. Still have the plaque given to my grandmother by the King.
I tried to save a friend when we were in gradeschool. He was bigger and stronger so he climbed me like a ladder and stomped me to the bottom of the pool. Luckily a much old and much much strong guy saw this and pushed Jack over to the pool edge where he climbed out. It all happened in such slow- motion, I can still see 3 of us standing watching Jack flounder.
I still have the newspaper cuttings, but from memory his body was not found, It happened in the evening. There had been no alcohol and the security said they were both in good spirit, or probably intending to. My grandma always spoke will of him.
As a mechanical structural engineer, this is an excellent explanation for the phenomenon and their effects in shell impacts, shockwave, compression and what their stresses want to do to the shell. Putting down this basis is very good for the explanations with armored caps. Also, the sacrificial role of the AP cap, made to take the worst of stresses of the impact. A sacrificial penetrator made to push the strongest part of the armor out of the way of the shell, and get itself out of the way by shattering. I never thought a shattering object could be used to absorb energy, but I guess what actually happens is this does the inverse, concentrate energy inwards to create damage.
Most definitely. Literate intelligent technically competent beings with the ability to explain clearly are a treasure. Thank you, Drach. You are a beacon of lucidity in a very cluttered content-scape. Greedily gobbling may be just a touch exaggerated, but not by much, of what happens when I heave into sight of one of your videos.
Honestly, the biggest changes are improvements to explosive fillers and fuses so they actually "delay" properly, and greatly increased hardness for the armor piercing cap.
Most important advances happened during WWII: shaped charges / explosively formed penetrators. They are the reason why today's ships are not heavily armored (they can stop 20mm projectiles at best). You can't realistically have armor thick enough to withstand a EFP formed by a warhead with 15 or more kg of explosives, would need something like 80 cm of steel.
@@denysvlasenko1865 you could but you would have to consider doing it to the scale of Abrams armor. Though actually modern armor piercing weapons are only designed to go through one piece of armor. Like the deck armor on ships back in WW 2 you would be going through at least two layers and they would be ten feet or more apart. THAT is why the comparison to weapons meant to take out a tank fail when talking about armored ships. You are not trying to kill four men in a small compartment.
Well, it's not exactly *modern*, except by comparison with cannonballs. No modern ships have these enormous calibre guns, and so we're not equipped to fling these monstrous shells, either. Naval guns firing big shells are almost obsolete in the scenario of anti-ship missiles and air attack, although Royal Navy destroyers are still fitted with 4.5 inch (114 mm) Mark 8 guns. What they lack in sheer mass they make up for in great accuracy, and rate of fire, but they're not primary armament.
An excellent, detailed explanation narrated in a clear, concise manner. Technical enough to be relevant, clear enough to be understood by people without engineering knowledge. The narrator achieved that difficult task of giving a clear, detailed explanation without alienating or boring viewers that don't know enough about the specific subject. The knowledge from this video increases my respect for the men that faced these weapons in war. My father and several uncles served in the Royal Navy and my uncle, whom was a gun layer, revealed absolutely horrific details of what occurred on board during and post engagements. I understood why such information was voluntarily suppressed and never made public. I considered myself extremely fortunate to have been born after the war had ended, what our forces endured for the length of that conflict was something that today's generation would find impossible...
Excellent video, Drach! Your explanations were clear enough the a very non-engineer, political scientist could understand. Count me as a vote for further videos on this topic regarding WWII ships!
My takeaway: Given sufficient energyu-- Every elastic collision becomes an inelastic collision and Corollary: Newtonian mechanics become fluid mechanics
I was a GMG in US navy in the early, mid 80’s. As a child, I was fascinated with the type vessels you cover. I was shocked at what little armor our gun turrets were provided with. Different era, I understand, but I realized I didn’t want to be in a Savo Island, type battle. Lol
@trickydicky2908: I was a GMG in the late sixties, I so wanted to get aboard one of the big gunslingers that were still in service, like Oklahoma City or Newport News… no luck, I was sent to the brown water navy which was a hell of an adventure but I never got to be around anything bigger than a Browning M-2.
@JoshuaTootle 1/4” I suppose. Lots of sound-deadening foam, inside the turret, lol. The turret housing was there purely to protect the machinery and electrical bits, from seawater. Lol
@@molybdaen11it also would have helped if the Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine could have worked together, but the inefficiencies inherent in authoritarianism and fascism in particular made that impossible.
SUPER INTERESTING! Battleships and their guns are fascinating bits of historical technology. The battles these ships fought are covered in minute detail, yet the actual, physical effect of their weapons on an unfortunate competitor is rarely ever explained. Good on yer Drach!! ; D
You have seen and felt the 16" Battleship Massachusetts Shell that slammed into the French Battleship in Moracco ,as I did in 1972 when I was 11 , it was so bizarre, I couldn't understand how the after end of it was so devastated , it was so deformed, so much missing and that Scalloped pattern of destruction made it look like a Meteor the damage was so extreme, but I was amazed how the front of the Projectile was so intact?
I’d enjoy watching as much content about projectiles and their impacts as you are willing to make, from WWII or any time period in which projectiles have been impacting ships
I concur. An analysis of shell hits on USS South Dakota or a study of Kirishima's impotency in the duel with Washington would be fantastic, for example.
Ive never been subject to naval gunfire, but I imagine being hit with a capital ships main battery would be very much consistent with "A significant emotional event"
I love reading (hearing) names and anecdotes of engineers, craftspeople, labor, actual people who make inventions and advancements and labor to build these things. Im sure the metallurgy of naval armor has much to do with making steel and other metals for civil uses.
That slightly raggedhole in the turret reminds me of when I gradually drill through hard metal pipe with a cobalt drill tip and finally break through the first side and need to take a break and so does the drill engine before making the hole neater. Then I need to continue so that the bit passes through the pipe's other side.
Fascinating! Decades of interest in Navel history and that was the first time I had ever been shown the mechanics of shell fire and the effects on armor. yes please on a WW2 chapter and may I suggest a part three as to what happens with missiles and modern shipping and why the change over (apart from range) Thanks for the presentation
H.M.S. Tiger was a beautiful-looking ship. Her well-proportioned lines are very attractive. I especially like the layout of her tripod mast, bridge structure, and three funnels.
it's not really geometry, at least in the commonly used meaning, the only things you use from it is trigonometry, most of the calculations are algebraic (I can still tell you how to calculate the simplest case involving no air resistance and it's all algebra, the only geometric thing is the firing angle)
from a completely different POV, actual artillery operations are just plugging numbers into an app that gives you the angles to set on the gun (at least that's how Ukrainian artillery operates, and yes, it's a literal app on your phone)
Wow. Had no idea THIS is what a naval cannon could ACCURATELY do at THOUSANDS of yards. Bone chilling. Just, jaw on the floor, all those men facing it. Wow.
@@0ld.RichardIt used to be good because you could not just stop but had inertia. But sadly it got worse over the years. They piss on they audience and are not even nice enough to call it rain.
WoWs & WoT are both garbage. They're owned by a malicious company that alters the mechanics and the matchmaking to manipulate the player base / collect data, then go out and support historical organizations (museums, etc.) to further improve their standing within the community. I used to think EA was bad, but Wargaming is more insidious. 🤷♂️
Plus every time you turn around they want to install a new update. I used to play the Blitz version on my tablet a lot. Often when an update came out l would have to uninstall a bunch of apps just to free up enough memory. And the cheats. Get into a multi player game and 5 seconds you have a full spread of torps slamming into you before can even get up to speed.
I have a pdf saved somewhere of a detailed study talking about all of the failure modes and the physics involved for how the armor breaks apart. Very interesting - I'll try to find it if anyone is interested.
When at boarding school in the ‘60’s, the school was managed as a naval ship and many of the teachers were ex-RN. One particular teacher had been the commander on a destroyer, and was responsible for fire and damage control. If you wanted an easy lesson, all you had to do was ask him about how badly his ship was damaged in WWII, and he would give you precise details of each and every shell hit. Fascinating.
Great work, once again. This is a prime example of why I support you on Paetron and watch every video you produce. Interesting, well researched and presented. No one does it better.
Because I am a hunter and reloader this fascinates me.I am nowhere near being an engineer or physicists,but just a pure layman.I do understand a bit about ballistics and terminal performance,and why different projectiles work in different ways.By all means,please continue with the WWII data,and maybe also making a series of the different types of shells used,why they were used,and the effects of them being used.I have always been a fan of major battleships ever since first visiting the North Carolina as a little boy.I enjoy your channel,keep up the good work.
Referring to Drach's introductory remarks... Never have I heard, or imagined hearing, so many qualifiers in such a short amount of time, and yet have them still be both intelligible and interesting (even amusing). Well, well done Sir!
I've been looking forward to watching this... not only for the chance to see some rare photos of what naval shell damage actually looks like (I still hope someday to make a model of a battleship abandoned after a large naval battle), but because of the physics and the history of technological development involved!
I think Jean Bart, Kirishima, and South Dakota would be interesting to look at. 2 of the 3 survived and I believe Kirishima's DC log did or it's DC chief made a report afterwards which lines up with what divers have found on the wreck.
This episode highlighted many of the design treatise I've read about putting "de-capping decks/bulkheads" and "anti-spall bulkheads" integral to the hull.
WWII study would be fantastic. I am a retired USCG Gunnersmate Chief and serious history buff. The WWII "knife fights" are always interesting. Appreciate the post this is really interesting.
Just to confirm, the first hit on Von der Tann from Batham is the same one described by the guest barrator in the Jutland video series as having "caused the hull to vibrate like a tuning fork"?
A WW2 version of this video would be splendid and most appreciated as a more practical-minded examination of how the march of armor and shell technology has changed their performance over that time period.
Excellent presentation ! I have been hoping for a long time that you would do this. And yes, I would love to see more about the effects of world war II armor versus armament. Thanks again.
A beautifully articulated narrative, both knowledgeable AND humble. Your pains to point out the limitations of your essay, and the danger of rushing to sweeping conclusions is a breath of fresh air in a media landscape saturated with spin doctors and polemicists. I would love to know how many armchair hawks got through to the end. And by armchair hawks I mean those who believe firepower is the answer to every problem both in war and ordinary life. The people who green-lit the building of these battleships, believed firepower was everything. Gunship diplomacy ASSUMES firepower is everything. The reality of a shooting war is very different, to this day! It is never as simple as blowing shit up. We see that in Gaza today. Armchair hawks will bluster that levelling the place will teach the enemy a lesson... and it does! Many! Just not the lessons the hawks believe. War is never about killing all the enemy, it is about convincing enough of the enemy that continuing the fight is impossible. And this is hard to do this by firepower alone, in the complex environment of modern industrialised warfare. Simple people demand simple answers and there are no simple answers in the fog of war. The devil is ALWAYS in the detail. And many of those details were set in stone by engineers years before the battle, and that is a very scary thought. The battle of Jutland is a perfect example of just how complex war is, with both sides having reasonable cause to claim victory at the time. In the end winning the war, beats the hell out of winning all the battles.
Need more channels actually deserving of a platform around. This guy has genuine value in reality. Tired of worthless media churned out for quick pennies. Nice channel dude.
I think this serves as an objective study in why battleship shells were historically so inefficient at sinking things even if the battleships got to open fire and hit, barring extreme size mismatches or magazine detonations.
@@tommatt2ski If you’re shooting at point-blank range obviously you’re going to not only hit way more often (even if Lee wasn’t at the helm) but also do more damage.
@@bkjeong4302USS Washington opened fire on Kirishima at 8,450 yards, and the two fleets were passing near parallel to each other traveling in opposite directions with the closest approach being just after when Washington fired her fourth salvo at 7,850 yards (which had an angle to target of only 5° from perpendicular). After which they were past each other and the range opened up until Washington fired a final salvo at 12,650 yards. That's not exactly "long range" by WW1-2 battleship standards, but it isn't particularly close range either... Rather than "point blank", the battle occurred at ranges closer to the Maximum effective range of WA's secondary 5"/38 armament when firing anti-ship SAP shells of 13,800 yards (with 1" penetration at that range)...
@@tommatt2ski - You beat me to it. I was about to say, "...unless the shooter happens to be W. "Ching" Lee", in which case, the target could serve admirably as an illustration for the concept of *_perforation._*
Absolutely would love to see more information on the WWII-era examples of shell hits that were recorded with whatever you consider a sufficient level of fidelity to warrant even this level of casual analysis you find in a TH-cam video.
In Willard Park, Washington Naval Yard, they display a turret face plate that had been earmarked for a Yamato class battleship. The Americans took it as spoils and fired a 16'' round at it. The result can be seen on the exhibit and imagining yourself to be one of the guys behind that armor plate the result is...toe curling. And not in a good way.
Does anyone know if the shell was fired with a full or reduced charge? I would not be surprised if it was fired at a reduced charge to attempt to mimic a hit from a greater distance.
Fascinating stuff. I have always been interested in “terminal ballistics” and of course when a child I spent many happy hours shooting various airgun pellets into blocks of “plasticene”, which makes a very satisfying crater and penetration channel. I expect the admiralty brass enjoyed testing their shells with the same boyish enthusiasm.
Shows the difference when the creator has a depth of subject knowledge and does some thorough research. A lot of you tube channels these days are someone reading out the Wikipedia page with a few random - and often incorrect - photos.
WWll Bombers does deep dives actually going into source data. Bringing up graphs and reports. Chris from Military Aviation History and History not Visualized are top notch too.
A long time ago, when the Washington, D.C. Navy Yard was a working navy yard, sometimes they would build a turret, take it way down the river to a range, shoot it, weld it up, then shoot it again to test the patch. Kind of a combined R&D and QC. Take care.
Fascinating information Thank you, I learned so much I had no idea of about naval shells, and how they work. I never thought this would be interesting.
Having a moderate understanding of British culture, I did pause to reflect on the extensive moral damage done by that No.6 hit on HMS Tiger to it's resident bakery dept. Quite underhanded of the Germans to target the scone and biscuit supplies.
iVE always been interested in the LAYTE gulf action against i beilieve it was FUSO, being firied apon by WV with its new radar. What kind of power or penitration would have happened on the full frontal armor of FUSO from WW1 based guns on a ship coming straight at the guns.
Also, the cap was itself often capped by an aero-ballistic cap that was pointy. APCBC (Armour Piercing Capped Ballistic Capped) had the armour piercing shell, an armour Piercing cap, and then a Ballistic (pointy) cap on top of thr armour Piercing cap to provide minimum air friction and resistance
The picture of the Battleship firing at 02:07 is using what type of propellant, Black Powder, Soot or is this another way of making smoke, did they not use smokeless powder bags or shells?.
Unfortunately, I cannot tell the class or type of ship, but being that the rear turrets are super firing That’s a good inclination that the ship is relatively modern at least from the 20th century so my best guess is that it is using smokeless powder and perhaps a black powder ignition charge I don’t know the proper term for it, but the black powder would’ve been used to ignite the smokeless powder so my best guess is that it could be a smokeless powder ship that is just beingshot with a film that was not particularly happy with the shade of smoke that was coming out of the gun
Pinned post for Q&A :)
please could you make a video on what if the Bismarck broke into the Atlantic OF DAY 65
What is the most commonly repeated blatant misinformation about naval matters you have ever come across?
Did they make any 14 inch HESH rounds?
I've read from the Damage Report of the USS North Carolina's torpedo hit from I-19, that the torpedo did actually did cause a flash in Turret One's Magazine and that it could have possibly detonated the magazine if it had struck even slightly aft than it did. Is that actually true, and do you think I-19's torpedo could have done that had it struck more aft than it did?
Given its highly likely a shell from New Jersey's 16" guns would go straight through a ship of the line, in the unlucky event all she'll miss the canons I wonder how many shells it would take to sink something the size of HMS Victory
One of the close calls I had was when a defective 5" 38 HE round exploded right outside the gun mount during a training exercise. It left a sizeable dent on the frontal armor right where I was stationed. Some of the shrapnel flew back onto the bridge, too.
Yes, I have tinnitus.
Me too.
66mm L.A.W.
Was it on one of the Iowas during the ‘80s?
Makes me wonder: The proximity fuze in WW2 is generally hailed as a game changer. Given the number of rounds fired, how often would the fuze detect "enemy nearby" just after leaving the muzzle? Or worse, while still inside the barrel?
@@TomFynn If I recall correctly, in the WW2 channel Spies & Ties special episode about "Allied superweapons", that the proximity fuses had a delay built into them so that they wouldn't explode too close to the ship by accident. I believe it was the firing of the shell itself that activated the delay. I highly recommend you go check out that video!
@@Hyssar If as the OP told, the round detonated right after leaving the barrel, I think we can assume that the fuze was faulty. And in WW2, given the sheer number of rounds, there must have been defective prox fuzes, which went boom where they were not supposed to simply because the delay was faulty or wrongly installed or any number of things. So the question is, how often did such a fuze suffer from premature detonation?
It needs to be pointy , pointy is scary... ~ Admiral-Gerneral Aladeen
at the end of the movie : "..and now the point is... pointy !"
Admiral-General Aladeen : "Who cares!?"
"Who cares ?!?...you literally exiled me for it"
Admiral-General Aladeen signs to have him executed
He even quoted nadal wrong and said "its about aerodynamics"
What about shiney..
Color Black, Pistol Grip. Barrel shouds and detachable magazines also make things very scary
A rabid squirrel is pretty scary! Should we fling baskets of rabid squirrels?
Hail to we nerds of Naval trivia that find videos like this interesting. Because my wife walked in while I was enjoying a ginger ale and some chips while enjoying this video and she laughed, gave me a hug and left, knowing that I'm again cramming knowledge into my head that will serve no useful purpose if a zombie apocalypse ever breaks out.
What if we need people to build warships in the zombie apocalypse?
As I say, my head is clogged with interesting but not terribly useful trivia. This is why I can't function like a normal human being in society.
Hear, hear!!!
If a zombie apocalypse does break out, the sea may be our only refuge!
She sounds like a keeper, well done to you both!
Perhaps a little unrelated, but the glass marble example mentioned, triggered an old funny memory from school.
The school I attended has four floors, and in one location there are stairs with an open volume through all floors
down to the basement floor. Thus five floors. The floor at the bottom is smooth stoned slabs, very tuff and hard.
So... one day walking the stairs, holding a small billiard ball that I inexplicably had found somewhere, an intrusive
thought raised it's stupid head. I could not resist, so from the top of the stairs, looking down an estimated 18 m(?),
I threw the billiard ball, balancing force with control, as hard as I could down towards the bottom of the stairs.
I expected the ball to shatter, but to my surprise, the ball bounced back high enough for my friend standing one
floor below me to catch it. Examining the ball, there was little to see, just a small mark of contact. Looking at the
stone floor... there was a somewhat larger mark of contact. The slab was cracked to each corner, with a very
visible crater at the convergance of those cracks, but it had not shattered either. Physics is fun, in theory and
practice. We the started to calculate the G-forces involved, but decided to go talk to the girls walking by instead.
That is at least how I choose to remember the end of the story... 🙂
'Fool of a Took...'
Sometimes you have to let the intrusive thoughts win
Lmao the end
I choose to believe you.
Wise choice !👍
Very interesting video !
Being a non native English speaker, thank you for speaking so intelligibly. You are very easy to understand contrary to a lot of other anglophone youtubers.
I do agree and if I may, Drach voice is quite plaisant too
He speaks proper English.
😂😂 he's English, I hope he speaks it properly😂
What a puerile comment 😂
@@tclanjtopsom4846 I can assure you that a lot of English people are very difficult to understand for a foreigner. He does speak BBC English 😃
Amazing thanks, my grandfather was an engineer at chatham docks, sadly died trying to save the life of a friend who inadvertently fell into the water just after they left the security gate on shore leave! The friend could not swim so my grandad dived in and its believed he struck his head fatally. Still have the plaque given to my grandmother by the King.
Greater love than this has no man, that he give up his life for his friend.
I tried to save a friend when we were in gradeschool. He was bigger and stronger so he climbed me like a ladder and stomped me to the bottom of the pool. Luckily a much old and much much strong guy saw this and pushed Jack over to the pool edge where he climbed out. It all happened in such slow- motion, I can still see 3 of us standing watching Jack flounder.
Thank you and there will be many many more where their bravery is never recorded. So sad we are at it again, is there no end? Take care
What happened to his friend?
I still have the newspaper cuttings, but from memory his body was not found, It happened in the evening. There had been no alcohol and the security said they were both in good spirit, or probably intending to. My grandma always spoke will of him.
My answer would be "a significant emotional event"
Oh bugger, the battleship is on fire!
@@Fl0ep now I want a series of Cheiftan trying to evacuate through different parts of museum ships with various scenarios being played out
Oh, bugger, the battleship is on fire!
You shout, "Stop poking holes in my ship!"
@@ald1144 I want the 40k version of this
As a mechanical structural engineer, this is an excellent explanation for the phenomenon and their effects in shell impacts, shockwave, compression and what their stresses want to do to the shell. Putting down this basis is very good for the explanations with armored caps.
Also, the sacrificial role of the AP cap, made to take the worst of stresses of the impact. A sacrificial penetrator made to push the strongest part of the armor out of the way of the shell, and get itself out of the way by shattering. I never thought a shattering object could be used to absorb energy, but I guess what actually happens is this does the inverse, concentrate energy inwards to create damage.
Yes more examples and assesments of shell impacts. All of them that you have, can be a new series
I second that. Gib Moar!!!
Aw hell yeah, engineering Drach is one of my very favorite varieties of Drach
Agreed in full!
that naval engineering playlist has served me very well as background noise for some years now
@@drakshal403same here
Most definitely. Literate intelligent technically competent beings with the ability to explain clearly are a treasure.
Thank you, Drach. You are a beacon of lucidity in a very cluttered content-scape. Greedily gobbling may be just a touch exaggerated, but not by much, of what happens when I heave into sight of one of your videos.
Absolutely, I'd love to hear more detail from WWII. Particularly any advancements in armour composition and AP materials.
Do you mean the manufacturers secrets of the time.
Honestly, the biggest changes are improvements to explosive fillers and fuses so they actually "delay" properly, and greatly increased hardness for the armor piercing cap.
Most important advances happened during WWII: shaped charges / explosively formed penetrators. They are the reason why today's ships are not heavily armored (they can stop 20mm projectiles at best). You can't realistically have armor thick enough to withstand a EFP formed by a warhead with 15 or more kg of explosives, would need something like 80 cm of steel.
@@denysvlasenko1865 Like a tank.
@@denysvlasenko1865 you could but you would have to consider doing it to the scale of Abrams armor.
Though actually modern armor piercing weapons are only designed to go through one piece of armor. Like the deck armor on ships back in WW 2 you would be going through at least two layers and they would be ten feet or more apart. THAT is why the comparison to weapons meant to take out a tank fail when talking about armored ships. You are not trying to kill four men in a small compartment.
This is the best video I’ve yet to watch on the topic of modern naval shells, with appropriate pictures accompanied by succinct narratives, Thank you.
Well, it's not exactly *modern*, except by comparison with cannonballs. No modern ships have these enormous calibre guns, and so we're not equipped to fling these monstrous shells, either. Naval guns firing big shells are almost obsolete in the scenario of anti-ship missiles and air attack, although Royal Navy destroyers are still fitted with 4.5 inch (114 mm) Mark 8 guns. What they lack in sheer mass they make up for in great accuracy, and rate of fire, but they're not primary armament.
An excellent, detailed explanation narrated in a clear, concise manner.
Technical enough to be relevant, clear enough to be understood by people without engineering knowledge.
The narrator achieved that difficult task of giving a clear, detailed explanation without alienating or boring viewers that don't know enough about the specific subject.
The knowledge from this video increases my respect for the men that faced these weapons in war.
My father and several uncles served in the Royal Navy and my uncle, whom was a gun layer, revealed absolutely horrific details of what occurred on board during and post engagements.
I understood why such information was voluntarily suppressed and never made public.
I considered myself extremely fortunate to have been born after the war had ended, what our forces endured for the length of that conflict was something that today's generation would find impossible...
Excellent video, Drach! Your explanations were clear enough the a very non-engineer, political scientist could understand. Count me as a vote for further videos on this topic regarding WWII ships!
Anyone else have his naval engineering playlist on repeat honestly endlessly fascinating
Yep... Do not watch another Drach Playlist they all make this effect 😂
Check out Asianometry for more incredible history videos. Many are tech-y but there are plenty of unexpected topics.
I would like to see another video on this subject: WW2 incidents, and maybe something on cruiser-level armor and guns.
Yes, please, of course! More information about shell impacts on WW2 ships. Awesome work Drach!
My takeaway: Given sufficient energyu--
Every elastic collision becomes an inelastic collision and
Corollary: Newtonian mechanics become fluid mechanics
I was a GMG in US navy in the early, mid 80’s. As a child, I was fascinated with the type vessels you cover. I was shocked at what little armor our gun turrets were provided with. Different era, I understand, but I realized I didn’t want to be in a Savo Island, type battle. Lol
@trickydicky2908: I was a GMG in the late sixties, I so wanted to get aboard one of the big gunslingers that were still in service, like Oklahoma City or Newport News… no luck, I was sent to the brown water navy which was a hell of an adventure but I never got to be around anything bigger than a Browning M-2.
If a modern ship with radar and missiles ends up in a Savo Island scenario, something already has gone very, very wrong for both sides.
You had armor?
@JoshuaTootle 1/4” I suppose. Lots of sound-deadening foam, inside the turret, lol. The turret housing was there purely to protect the machinery and electrical bits, from seawater. Lol
@@trickydicky2908 PROTECT THE GUN!
we can always get more gunners
Last time I was this early, the Kriegsmarine was still convinced that more capital ships was the right answer
More submarines didn't work out so well either
"Just one more capital ship bro. I swear we'll beat the royal navy this time"
I would have helped to use what they have but oh well.
@@molybdaen11it also would have helped if the Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine could have worked together, but the inefficiencies inherent in authoritarianism and fascism in particular made that impossible.
@@normtrooper4392 if only Goering did not block the creation of German aircraft carriers.
SUPER INTERESTING! Battleships and their guns are fascinating bits of historical technology. The battles these ships fought are covered in minute detail, yet the actual, physical effect of their weapons on an unfortunate competitor is rarely ever explained. Good on yer Drach!! ; D
Plastic deformation of metal is really cool effect to see in slow motion, friction stir welding of aluminum in particular. 😎
You have seen and felt the 16" Battleship Massachusetts Shell that slammed into the French Battleship in Moracco ,as I did in 1972 when I was 11 , it was so bizarre, I couldn't understand how the after end of it was so devastated , it was so deformed, so much missing and that Scalloped pattern of destruction made it look like a Meteor the damage was so extreme, but I was amazed how the front of the Projectile was so intact?
I’d enjoy watching as much content about projectiles and their impacts as you are willing to make, from WWII or any time period in which projectiles have been impacting ships
Definitely interested in detailed analysis of more shell hits, especially from WW2, though more WW1 are also welcome!
I concur. An analysis of shell hits on USS South Dakota or a study of Kirishima's impotency in the duel with Washington would be fantastic, for example.
The visual aids in this presentation are great Drach.
Yes WW1 comparison to WW2 would be interesting. What was learned and what was dropped
This must be the continuation to : Stop poking holes on my ships.. and I'm all for it!
I have arrived early enough the Kamachatka is a welcome addition.
Do you see torpedo boats?
@@tomhsia4354Da, Comrade!! FIRE!
I don't know, getting hit by shells seems a bit life threatening
Yeah, I've always recommended *not* getting hit, myself.
depends, are you a Warspite?
well they are generally not life extending 😅
Just dodge lol
Armor proofed in units of Extreme Emotional Events.
Ive never been subject to naval gunfire, but I imagine being hit with a capital ships main battery would be very much consistent with "A significant emotional event"
The Images you put during you talk and amazing, just floors this old sailor. Thanks Mac
I love reading (hearing) names and anecdotes of engineers, craftspeople, labor, actual people who make inventions and advancements and labor to build these things. Im sure the metallurgy of naval armor has much to do with making steel and other metals for civil uses.
That slightly raggedhole in the turret reminds me of when I gradually drill through hard metal pipe with a cobalt drill tip and finally break through the first side and need to take a break and so does the drill engine before making the hole neater. Then I need to continue so that the bit passes through the pipe's other side.
Fascinating! Decades of interest in Navel history and that was the first time I had ever been shown the mechanics of shell fire and the effects on armor. yes please on a WW2 chapter and may I suggest a part three as to what happens with missiles and modern shipping and why the change over (apart from range) Thanks for the presentation
H.M.S. Tiger was a beautiful-looking ship. Her well-proportioned lines are very attractive. I especially like the layout of her tripod mast, bridge structure, and three funnels.
Definitely more examples of damage. Fascinating, and your analysis is valuable and appreciated.
If my early math teachers had told me geometry was the key to artillery I'd have mastered it straighaway......
it's not really geometry, at least in the commonly used meaning, the only things you use from it is trigonometry, most of the calculations are algebraic (I can still tell you how to calculate the simplest case involving no air resistance and it's all algebra, the only geometric thing is the firing angle)
from a completely different POV, actual artillery operations are just plugging numbers into an app that gives you the angles to set on the gun (at least that's how Ukrainian artillery operates, and yes, it's a literal app on your phone)
Yes on WW2 hits. Also yes if you can find and discuss testing results with cool pictures.
Wow. Had no idea THIS is what a naval cannon could ACCURATELY do at THOUSANDS of yards. Bone chilling. Just, jaw on the floor, all those men facing it. Wow.
It is mostly due to your RNG what happens. WoWs taught me that in a hard way.
@@0ld.RichardIt used to be good because you could not just stop but had inertia.
But sadly it got worse over the years.
They piss on they audience and are not even nice enough to call it rain.
aww damn someone beat me to it.
WoWs & WoT are both garbage. They're owned by a malicious company that alters the mechanics and the matchmaking to manipulate the player base / collect data, then go out and support historical organizations (museums, etc.) to further improve their standing within the community. I used to think EA was bad, but Wargaming is more insidious.
🤷♂️
Plus every time you turn around they want to install a new update. I used to play the Blitz version on my tablet a lot. Often when an update came out l would have to uninstall a bunch of apps just to free up enough memory. And the cheats. Get into a multi player game and 5 seconds you have a full spread of torps slamming into you before can even get up to speed.
Where'd my comment go, TH-cam? Scared of the truth??
🤔
Wargaming is a con-game, not a video gaming company, imo...
😡🖕
I’d proudly consider this a worthy lecture on ‘Naval Ordnance’ for the US Naval Academy. The mids would love your style of presentation! Thanks!
I have a pdf saved somewhere of a detailed study talking about all of the failure modes and the physics involved for how the armor breaks apart. Very interesting - I'll try to find it if anyone is interested.
Did you find it?
I am very interested. Joe
When at boarding school in the ‘60’s, the school was managed as a naval ship and many of the teachers were ex-RN. One particular teacher had been the commander on a destroyer, and was responsible for fire and damage control. If you wanted an easy lesson, all you had to do was ask him about how badly his ship was damaged in WWII, and he would give you precise details of each and every shell hit. Fascinating.
Fascinating! Do the WW2 version.
Great work, once again. This is a prime example of why I support you on Paetron and watch every video you produce. Interesting, well researched and presented. No one does it better.
Who doesn’t love hearing what happens when high velocity armor piercing shells hit armor plating?
Because I am a hunter and reloader this fascinates me.I am nowhere near being an engineer or physicists,but just a pure layman.I do understand a bit about ballistics and terminal performance,and why different projectiles work in different ways.By all means,please continue with the WWII data,and maybe also making a series of the different types of shells used,why they were used,and the effects of them being used.I have always been a fan of major battleships ever since first visiting the North Carolina as a little boy.I enjoy your channel,keep up the good work.
Excellent - thank you! Please do a WW2 episode as well.
Referring to Drach's introductory remarks... Never have I heard, or imagined hearing, so many qualifiers in such a short amount of time, and yet have them still be both intelligible and interesting (even amusing).
Well, well done Sir!
Very educational! I never thought this deeply on what actually happens when a shell hits armor. Thank you!
I've been looking forward to watching this... not only for the chance to see some rare photos of what naval shell damage actually looks like (I still hope someday to make a model of a battleship abandoned after a large naval battle), but because of the physics and the history of technological development involved!
Oh... my.... how I have waited for this video. Thank you drac
Another great video, I always enjoy your technical commentary, looking forward to the next one.
What happens when you shell seashells by the seashore?
She shall see, shan't she?
@@redramagemay stay see- worthy?
Depends if you have a vendors license
Craters and the quoat "temper temper"
You eat oysters
A very informative and detailed analysis of Naval gun effects upon armour in the WW I era!
I think Jean Bart, Kirishima, and South Dakota would be interesting to look at. 2 of the 3 survived and I believe Kirishima's DC log did or it's DC chief made a report afterwards which lines up with what divers have found on the wreck.
This episode highlighted many of the design treatise I've read about putting "de-capping decks/bulkheads" and "anti-spall bulkheads" integral to the hull.
Yes. Please, I would love to see dara on WW2 impacts.
WWII study would be fantastic. I am a retired USCG Gunnersmate Chief and serious history buff. The WWII "knife fights" are always interesting. Appreciate the post this is really interesting.
Just to confirm, the first hit on Von der Tann from Batham is the same one described by the guest barrator in the Jutland video series as having "caused the hull to vibrate like a tuning fork"?
A WW2 version of this video would be splendid and most appreciated as a more practical-minded examination of how the march of armor and shell technology has changed their performance over that time period.
Drach: "What happens when a shell hits a battleship?"
Me: "Physics!" 😁
The laws of physics giggle and then laugh at us....
Very nice. I always love battle damage assessments.
Excellent presentation ! I have been hoping for a long time that you would do this. And yes, I would love to see more about the effects of world war II armor versus armament. Thanks again.
Really enjoyed. Would like more when able
A beautifully articulated narrative, both knowledgeable AND humble. Your pains to point out the limitations of your essay, and the danger of rushing to sweeping conclusions is a breath of fresh air in a media landscape saturated with spin doctors and polemicists.
I would love to know how many armchair hawks got through to the end.
And by armchair hawks I mean those who believe firepower is the answer to every problem both in war and ordinary life.
The people who green-lit the building of these battleships, believed firepower was everything.
Gunship diplomacy ASSUMES firepower is everything. The reality of a shooting war is very different, to this day! It is never as simple as blowing shit up.
We see that in Gaza today.
Armchair hawks will bluster that levelling the place will teach the enemy a lesson... and it does! Many! Just not the lessons the hawks believe.
War is never about killing all the enemy, it is about convincing enough of the enemy that continuing the fight is impossible. And this is hard to do this by firepower alone, in the complex environment of modern industrialised warfare.
Simple people demand simple answers and there are no simple answers in the fog of war.
The devil is ALWAYS in the detail. And many of those details were set in stone by engineers years before the battle, and that is a very scary thought.
The battle of Jutland is a perfect example of just how complex war is, with both sides having reasonable cause to claim victory at the time. In the end winning the war, beats the hell out of winning all the battles.
Need more channels actually deserving of a platform around. This guy has genuine value in reality. Tired of worthless media churned out for quick pennies. Nice channel dude.
Yes please do another video of shell impacts.
Still the best intro in all of youtube.
I think this serves as an objective study in why battleship shells were historically so inefficient at sinking things even if the battleships got to open fire and hit, barring extreme size mismatches or magazine detonations.
USS Washington: " I beg to differ....SIR"!!!
@@tommatt2ski
If you’re shooting at point-blank range obviously you’re going to not only hit way more often (even if Lee wasn’t at the helm) but also do more damage.
Depends upon what you're trying to sink
@@bkjeong4302USS Washington opened fire on Kirishima at 8,450 yards, and the two fleets were passing near parallel to each other traveling in opposite directions with the closest approach being just after when Washington fired her fourth salvo at 7,850 yards (which had an angle to target of only 5° from perpendicular). After which they were past each other and the range opened up until Washington fired a final salvo at 12,650 yards.
That's not exactly "long range" by WW1-2 battleship standards, but it isn't particularly close range either...
Rather than "point blank", the battle occurred at ranges closer to the Maximum effective range of WA's secondary 5"/38 armament when firing anti-ship SAP shells of 13,800 yards (with 1" penetration at that range)...
@@tommatt2ski - You beat me to it. I was about to say, "...unless the shooter happens to be W. "Ching" Lee", in which case, the target could serve admirably as an illustration for the concept of *_perforation._*
Excellent presentation - superb photos Thanks
Drac have you looked at the damage report from S. Dakota. That would be a good one to do from WW2 that has a lot of good details.
Absolutely would love to see more information on the WWII-era examples of shell hits that were recorded with whatever you consider a sufficient level of fidelity to warrant even this level of casual analysis you find in a TH-cam video.
In Willard Park, Washington Naval Yard, they display a turret face plate that had been earmarked for a Yamato class battleship. The Americans took it as spoils and fired a 16'' round at it. The result can be seen on the exhibit and imagining yourself to be one of the guys behind that armor plate the result is...toe curling. And not in a good way.
Point blank range 90 degrees the only way the armor could be penetrated ever 😉
Yes was point blank
@@JeffEbe-te2xs in other words that says a lot about how better the armor was it was rated too stop 18inch shells
Does anyone know if the shell was fired with a full or reduced charge? I would not be surprised if it was fired at a reduced charge to attempt to mimic a hit from a greater distance.
Fascinating stuff. I have always been interested in “terminal ballistics” and of course when a child I spent many happy hours shooting various airgun pellets into blocks of “plasticene”, which makes a very satisfying crater and penetration channel. I expect the admiralty brass enjoyed testing their shells with the same boyish enthusiasm.
IMHO Drach and Greg's Aeroplanes and Automobiles are the best technical You Tube sites.
Shows the difference when the creator has a depth of subject knowledge and does some thorough research. A lot of you tube channels these days are someone reading out the Wikipedia page with a few random - and often incorrect - photos.
WWll Bombers does deep dives actually going into source data. Bringing up graphs and reports. Chris from Military Aviation History and History not Visualized are top notch too.
Looking forward to your next grouping on the subject of shell hits a battleship and am keen to see some WWII examples as well. Cheers
Those poor young blokes behind the armour.
A long time ago, when the Washington, D.C. Navy Yard was a working navy yard, sometimes they would build a turret, take it way down the river to a range, shoot it, weld it up, then shoot it again to test the patch. Kind of a combined R&D and QC. Take care.
14:28 - Say no more! YES, do some WWII examples, please!
I think I speak for all of us interested enough to follow your niche channel in the first place: Yes, please!
I just visited the USS Missouri in Pearl Harbor. The 16" rifles are AMAZING . . . i'd love to hear more about WWII armor impacts!
Time to watch a hard thing hit a hard place.
Fascinating information
Thank you, I learned so much I had no idea of about naval shells, and how they work.
I never thought this would be interesting.
Having a moderate understanding of British culture, I did pause to reflect on the extensive moral damage done by that No.6 hit on HMS Tiger to it's resident bakery dept. Quite underhanded of the Germans to target the scone and biscuit supplies.
That is what happens when you stop for a cup of tea! " Sorry ol boy, but that last salvo was fired before you called time out for tea break!
1:54 awesome photo. You always find the best photos.
iVE always been interested in the LAYTE gulf action against i beilieve it was FUSO, being firied apon by WV with its new radar. What kind of power or penitration would have happened on the full frontal armor of FUSO from WW1 based guns on a ship coming straight at the guns.
Very interesting, especially how penetration of the armour isn't necessary to cause havoc. I'd be interested in a WW2-focussed video!
I would like another lesson on this subject, please.
Good video, as usual! Yes, I would be interested in a similar analysis of hits on WWII vessels.
I always find it shocking that hard steel can look like it was plasticine when it was hit.
That was really interesting Drach. I hope you do lots more of these. What good is a battleship if the armor doesn't work?
Surprised by how blunt the armor piercing cap seems to usually be
at those sizes it just has to be really hard and really dense rather than pointy
Dead on 90 degrees a sharp pointy tip aids penetration. But it doesn't take much of an angle before it causes more problems than it's worth.
@joearnold6881 look at hydraulic metal hole punches. I used one at work. It was flat with a small point
Also, the cap was itself often capped by an aero-ballistic cap that was pointy. APCBC (Armour Piercing Capped Ballistic Capped) had the armour piercing shell, an armour Piercing cap, and then a Ballistic (pointy) cap on top of thr armour Piercing cap to provide minimum air friction and resistance
Fantastic and well in depth, would love to hear more. Well done!
Commenting for the algorithm
I was waiting quite a while for such a video. Thatnk you very much, highly informative. Will share it with my community... 😊
“ *Stop poking holes in my ship: Part III* “
Please update to WW2 damage, excellent review. Thanks for your research
The picture of the Battleship firing at 02:07 is using what type of propellant, Black Powder, Soot or is this another way of making smoke, did they not use smokeless powder bags or shells?.
Unfortunately, I cannot tell the class or type of ship, but being that the rear turrets are super firing That’s a good inclination that the ship is relatively modern at least from the 20th century so my best guess is that it is using smokeless powder and perhaps a black powder ignition charge I don’t know the proper term for it, but the black powder would’ve been used to ignite the smokeless powder so my best guess is that it could be a smokeless powder ship that is just beingshot with a film that was not particularly happy with the shade of smoke that was coming out of the gun
There is allot of powder gas/smoke.
Mmmmmmmm I wonder if black was used? If you can get a date on that pic we then could tell.