Couldn't you largely get around the firing arc limitations of an all-forward layout by using Mogami-style layout with the B turret non-superfiring but able to fire over the A turret when elevated for longer range? As seen on the F2 and F3 battlecruiser designs. Also, an Alsace with three quad turrets forward would've been absolutely hilarious.
Ep. 209 is a bittersweet moment for me. After discovering this channel around 2 years ago, I'm finally caught up to the most recent Drydock. Drach, you've gotten me through so many hours of work commuting, cooking sessions, and household chores with your amazing content. As I head off next to begin the livestreams, I just wanted to express my deepest appreciation for all the fascinating content you provide at what can only be described as a superhuman level of frequency. If you ever find yourself in The States again, I'd be honored to shake your hand on BB 62!
You'll be ok... I have listened many many of them.. over and over again... Especially the 4 hour plus ones... Omg. I have no clue how many times I have listened to each of them...
re: 00:22:08 - Ranging gun on a ship? at least some 20th century batleships and the like did cary subcalibre training guns which wer aligned to the main guns for TRAINING purposes, so I guess those could have ben used for ranging. (Though I doubt they ever were) A big reason why ranging rounds are often employed is that you may not have more than 1 or 2 full calibre rounds to fire. The LAW80 anti-tank rocket, for example, had a single actual anti-tank round and an integrated spotting rifle with a few rounds, the idea being that you only have one "real" shot with the ocket so it makes sense to give the best chance of hitting. If you are carying enough ammo to use the main weapon for ranging, that makes sense ...
Subcalibre guns were usually fitted inside the barrels of the main battery, so you wouldn't want them in place when actually in a battle. Exercising them trained fire control systems without wearing the barrels, and with much lower cost than full-calibre ones.
To add a thought, one of the big reasons for ranging guns, to my understanding, is to get the range without revealing what it is you're about to unleash. In a naval setting, that generally doesn't apply since concealment isn't quite so much a thing.
Re ranging. There is a record of a Sherman tank in the surf D-day targeting a pill box, then being shocked by a 16" shell going over it to the same target. They continued as a forward spotter for further targets.
If only USS Montana had been built. Twelve 16"/50 guns, armored more heavily than any previous American battleship, massive AA suite... She would have been MAGNIFICENT!
Another great video - As per usual Drach! Any chance of us getting one, or two videos about the battles of Copenhagen? Sincerely, one of your Danish viewers
I understand that the Jspanese used autogyros [Kayaba Ka-1] for anti submarine warfare. They could carry a couple of small(60 kg) depth charges. As these were Army craft, they were operated from an Imperial Japanese ARMY escort CARRIER(!), Akitsu Maru, from August 1944 until Nov.1944(she was sunk).
That DD vs. DE question for me thinking: If we got every single destroyer to enter service between 1900 and 1950 and had them engage in the mother of all close-quarter night actions, which class would have the most survivors?
Further to the Question regarding the name of the British Army, it should be noted that the British armed forces as a whole swear allegiance to the Crown not parliament and this is a hold over from Charles II's natural reluctance to let parliament control them. it means that the Army is above party politics or should be .
Dear Drach, I am gratified to learn that you have selected me to receive a lovely prize. Please tell me this is so, or could it just be bad pirates have infiltrated your site and are up to no good.
The Imperial Japanese Army used autogyros. They were assigned to the amphibious landing support carriers and ended up hunting American submarines close to shore IIRC. See the Kayaba Ka-1 and 2.
The Twin gun turrets at Ft. Drum (the concrete battleship) in the Philippines had an armored bulkhead between the guns in a manor similar to the French quad turrets.
Hey Drach I got a wierd question. I recently watched Flags of our Father's and there is a scene of a US battleship taking a pretty bad hit by shore artillery during the initial landing. Now I swear I've looked this up but I can't seem to find any evidence if any of the battleships taking a hit like that. So did I miss something?
If the Lord Clive class monitors with their under 3m Draught, had been retained till ww2, do you think they could have been used in the St Nazaire raid. Their armour is too thick to be penetrated by all but the on shore 170mm guns and that's only when they are right up on a straight arc of fire. There were some railway guns, but I don't think they were set up to shoot at the estuary or have the time to hit the monitors if they could. The monitor could shoot at the lock gates themselves or maybe used to distract fire from the Campbeltown and shoot at shore implacements before taking the men back home as a transport that won't be sunk, unlike the small boats.
I've always wonder why they (HMS Campbeltown) didn't have someone, perhaps an officer, who spoke German on the Signal Light to flash something like "Turn Off those lights, there's an air raid going on" to help prevent them from being identified as something that wasn't in the Kriegsmarine....
iirc, the Lord Clive class used 12" turrets scrounged from some very old pre-dreadnoughts. Due to their age, these turrets were subject to frequent breakdown. They were not the sort of thing to rely on. The Admiralty was probably right in scrapping the Lord Clives, and only keeping the monitors that had the new 15" turrets on them. Additionally, any monitor would be immediately recognized as not German.
@@stevevalley7835 I mean we are shooting at 0 elevation a few thousands metres the idea these are not good enough is laughable. We need to remember "constant breakdowns" of which I can't actually evidence of, so not exactly sure why you made that up. Even if true it could have just been the support ship wouldn't matter if it gun jammed once or twice, it can't be penetrated anywhere and when they get the guns going, they may be old, but they still pack a huge punch, destroying anything it vaguely aims at and probably a few dozen feet around it as well.
@@timengineman2nd714 they did, it's just the Germans have no record of the ship, it's heading for a dock gate and not the harbour, there are tons of smaller boats which is just odd and when it gets close enough you know your not looking at a German destroyer. So the signals only got them so far.
Indeed, the Japanese used Kayaba Ka-1 and Ka-2 autogyros for ASW work both land based and of Akitsu Maru, one of the Japanese Army's Aircraft carriers.
The Navy is a privilege of the Monarch, the Army belongs to the people (Parliament). There are royal armies out there, they just don't recognize Elizabeth Windsor as their sovereign (for example, the Royal Thai Army)
The Royal Air force was an amalgam of the Royal naval Air service and the army Air corps, and the navy being navy insisted on their superior Terms of service for the "Royal" according to my father ex FAA?
@@hughgordon6435 The WW1 army air force was the Royal Flying Corps, so it already had the Royal prefix prior to the merger. I suppose it was analogous to other 'Royal' arms of service such as the Royal Engineers and the Royal Artillery.
@@hughgordon6435 No. While I have no doubt that historically, Drach is correct. It is obviously not the case in modern times. An organisation (including a military force/unit) in modern times having "Royal" appended to its name just means the Monarch said they could. It could kind of be seen as the equivalent of a Knighthood for an organization. The other big factor Drach doesn't mention is that the Army historically wasn't a cohesive organization but an amalgam of various military forces without any sore of over-arching command. A regiment (or company or other unit) would be raised by a noble who would pay for it and lead it and the unit would have a title like the "Earl of Oxford's Regiment" as it was literally the regiment of the Earl of Oxford. A regiment raised by the monarch would be the "Royal Regiment of X" with X usually being the type of regiment. Over time the names of the regiment became more ceremonial, as the Army became a more structured organization you already had "royal" regiments so you wouldn't have a "royal army". In the modern period you then have a unit established and usually after some distinctive service or some other in light of some royal event or something would be granted the "royal" moniker. And generally a unit split off from a "Royal" entity will keep that designation as will amalgamated units if one has the "Royal" designation. For the RAF: The Corps of Engineers was formed in the British Army in the early 18th century. Near the end of the 18th century it was granted the honour of the "Royal" prefix and eventually became the "Corps of Royal Engineers". Then in 1911 the Air Batallion of the Corps of Royal Engineers was established. It would soon be separated into its own corps the "Royal Flying Corps" (which also absorbed the Navy's few air assets) perpetuating the "Royal" designation from the Corps of Royal Engineers. And when the Admiralty wanted its own toys they established the "Royal Naval Air Service" (which was not technically part of the Royal Navy but separate under the Admiralty, hence the separate "Royal" moniker that the later Fleet Air Arm didn't get because it was initially part of the Royal Air Force and then part of the Royal Navy). Then when it was decided to merge the RNAS and RFC it kept its predecessors "Royal" title as the RAF. In contrast during the same time period the Australian Army (which followed British Army precedent of regiments or corps receiving the "Royal" designation) established a new corps, the "Australian Flying Corps" which did not have any lineage to entitle it to use the "Royal" name. It was later renamed the "Australian Air Force" and then King George V authorized them to become the "Royal Australian Air Force".
I served as a Gunners Mate in the US Navy from 1975 to 1981. I had always heard the word 'tampion' pronounced as 'tompkin' by my shipmates. Is this an American thing?
19:45 actually italy thinked tho use Autogyros on the Littorio's to avoid to arguing with the Airforce, but as many of you may guest the Airforce didn't care and demanded even those Autogyros because "in Fascist Italy EVERYTHING that fly belongs to the Airforce", so they swicthed on normal desings.
For future reference the term roundhead was only used in part of London and then only for a brief time. So if you turned up outside of London during the civil war no one would know what you are talking about. If they did know what you were talking about and were part of the parliamentarian army then do not be surprised if they decided to show you the business end of whatever weapons they were carrying as it was a derisory term. In the same vain do not call the royalists cavaliers as this would also be met with anger. The term cavalier referred to the Spanish cavalry which had a reputation for what we today would call war crime. I did read of one warship which was steering to the fall of shot. Unfortunately it just so happened that one of the turrets on the enemy ship had not adjusted to the new position so the ship was hit. Interestingly during the Battle of Britain the idea came about that if your caught out in the open during a bombing raid the best place to be was inside one of the bomb craters as the chances of a bomb landing in the same crater is very small. Unfortunately more than one crater was hit a second time, or near enough to be deadly. Also jumping into a hole were high explosives have just detonated is not a good idea. Especially in areas where there is chalk just below the surface such as in Kent. A number of people suffered from very bad burns until it was stopped.
One oddity - the Coldstream Guards were an older regiment than the (Royalist) Grenadier Guards, but Charlie Two wouldn't allow them to be the Senior regiment, so they were paraded, told to lay down their guns, marched round the parade ground an told to pick them up again, allowing the convenient fiction that they were disbanded for that period and were thus junior to the Grenadiers.
@@iansadler4309 Thanks, Ian. I had forgotten all about that. Interesting that they kept the New Model Armies red coat. Though, as I am sure you know, the guards regiments wore scarlet with a different arrangement of the tunics buttons to denote which regiment they are.
"Ranging guns" do not actually have the same ballistics as the main gun, but if the ranging gun is set for x number yards and hits, then the main should hit when set for the same range. Ditto short or over. It just gets you on range faster. Note for example the Chieftains ranging machine gun for it's 120mm used the same cartridge/bullet as the one for the Centurion's 105 and the 120mm WOMBAT recoiless rifle, and no, the three weapons did not share the same ballistics. The naval equivalent would be firing a ranging ladder from the secondaries.
Ranging/spotting guns don't have to have the same ballistics; but often they will actually use ammunition which is calibrated to be ballistically identical to the gun they are ranging/spotting for. For example the M8C spotting gun for the M40 106mm recoilless rifle which does use ammunition which matches the main gun. I'm pretty sure the WOMBAT actually used the same gun though it had a different designation when used in the UK; I'm thinking it was L40A1 but my memory may be wrong on that one.
irc The British sent a mission to the US to try to interest them in one of the Cierva autogyros, but they saw the Sikorsky R4 and decided that was a better bet. First one that went to sea was in SS Daghestan I think.
In Australia we have The Royal Australian Navy and Air Force but just the Australian Army with all the different corps being Royal like Royal Australian Armoured corps , Royal Australian Artillery and Royal Australian Regiment which are our infantry units .
The Australian Army, The Canadian, The New Zealand Army and the British Army are not Royal because they are made corps and regiments some of which are royal and some are not. Goes back to the English Civil War and privately raised regiments
Is there a "Ye Olde Lystt of Names Acceptable for A Gentyleman who may become King of England, Ireland, Etc" or some similar document or law to explain the 8 Henrys and Edwards and 6 Georges?
It's more a case of tradition once "bynames" drop out of favour to tell people apart. (Ironside, Rufus, longshanks etc.) George III is probably the last with a nickname to be known by. (Mad King George/ Farmer George )
It's partly a dynastic thing and partly a search for legitimacy, I suspect. The Plantagenets were fairly long lasting, hence the flood of Edwards. The Hannoerians had four Georges in a row. George VI, by contrast chose his regnal name to reinforce the link to his father following the embarrasing interruption Edward VIII.
Speaking of the small light Auto Gyros of World War II I believe that it was the Germans who first were successful at launching and recovering one off one of their light Cruisers. I believe it was the Nuremberg?
it had been the Focke Achgelis FA330 "Bachstelze" developed in early 1942 ,flown first in April 1942 from a small floating plattform being towed by a U-Boat,startet flying at 30km/ h as a lookout for UBoats. More than 100 produced and could be stored in two small watertight tubes ,Ready totake-off in less than 7 minutes, stowed again in 2 minutes.
That was the one detail that bothered me about Master and Commander. Would they have been training to rapid fire broadsides when they were thousands of miles away from home?
I think ships of the time period had on average, 50 to 60 cannonballs per gun. Their plan against the Acheron was to only expend 1 cannonball per gun so I'm not sure ammunition would be an issue.
@@WALTERBROADDUS Their mission is to confront a single ship and they cannot defeat it in a long range engagement. Hoarding powder and shot may not be prudent as it weighs the ship down and increases the chance of an explosion. It's just a win-win to conduct gunnery practice in anticipation of a close ranged ambush and free the ship of it's heavy and dangerous cargo. If they lose the duel with Acheron, they've handed the French all that powder and shot anyway.
Re: Ship guides. I’ve been searching the channel and haven’t found any guides for the IJN Design A-150 (aka Super-Yamato). Is that a design you would be interested in reviewing?
The primary purpose of a sub-calibur ranging gun is to hide the main gun. For instance a 50 cal spotting gun for a 106 recoilless rifle. The likelihood of a single 50 caliber shot being noticed and seen by a tank or a pill box is minimal. When you shoot a 106 for coinless rifle everybody's aware of where that shot came from. I don't think the same thing applies at sea.
Spotting rifles on tanks usually were machine guns shooting tracer bullets. It'd be quite a challenge to build anything remotely similar in principle and usable for a naval gun 12-inch or bigger.
This was the first time, after many many hours of unscripted talk, that I noticed a mis-saying that was not immediately corrected. At 26 minutes late 19-hundreds instead of late 18-hundreds. Goes to show how bright and focused Drach is!
The split of risk described in the first question was pretty much the one used in the 19th and 20th centuries, which is why the reference book I was using yesterday had 6 pages on the meaning of “warlike operations”, all about maritime liability and none about the power to call out the reserves if warlike operations are in preparation.
drach land artillery have a rocket assisted/ boosted shells for increased range has that ever been tried for the bigger naval guns? can you speak to rocket use in naval combat say WW2 back, maybe in a Weds special on the subject?
Do you just make up names for privacy's sake or something with these questions? Because I'm 95% certain I was the one who asked that question about ranging guns way back when, if not one that was very, very similarly phrased...? No problem if you do, but just curious if it's the case.
Sure feels like the future of warfare can be totally changed when these mini drones the kids are flying are weaponised and a swarm of 10,000 of them fly into a city and just start exploding next to anyone with a gun or who's face is recognized.
Pinned post for Q&A :)
Did any navies ships use balloons hot air or hydrogen for Lookout posts?
Couldn't you largely get around the firing arc limitations of an all-forward layout by using Mogami-style layout with the B turret non-superfiring but able to fire over the A turret when elevated for longer range? As seen on the F2 and F3 battlecruiser designs.
Also, an Alsace with three quad turrets forward would've been absolutely hilarious.
Ep. 209 is a bittersweet moment for me. After discovering this channel around 2 years ago, I'm finally caught up to the most recent Drydock. Drach, you've gotten me through so many hours of work commuting, cooking sessions, and household chores with your amazing content. As I head off next to begin the livestreams, I just wanted to express my deepest appreciation for all the fascinating content you provide at what can only be described as a superhuman level of frequency. If you ever find yourself in The States again, I'd be honored to shake your hand on BB 62!
Me too lol
Well said! I work 3-11:30 and Drach gets me through every night!!
You'll be ok... I have listened many many of them.. over and over again...
Especially the 4 hour plus ones... Omg. I have no clue how many times I have listened to each of them...
Yep, I’m learning and having a great time. Drach does a superb job putting design, strategic, tactical, and economic concerns in context.
To be honest though... I really do miss the super long versions, of the Dry Docks...
But at least I got the old ones
"Apologies, there is a plane passing overhead."
More Oerlikons please!
Drach’s air defence capability drove it off.
woh, I was reading this comment as the plane came into audible range.....woh
re: 00:22:08 - Ranging gun on a ship? at least some 20th century batleships and the like did cary subcalibre training guns which wer aligned to the main guns for TRAINING purposes, so I guess those could have ben used for ranging. (Though I doubt they ever were)
A big reason why ranging rounds are often employed is that you may not have more than 1 or 2 full calibre rounds to fire. The LAW80 anti-tank rocket, for example, had a single actual anti-tank round and an integrated spotting rifle with a few rounds, the idea being that you only have one "real" shot with the ocket so it makes sense to give the best chance of hitting. If you are carying enough ammo to use the main weapon for ranging, that makes sense ...
Subcalibre guns were usually fitted inside the barrels of the main battery, so you wouldn't want them in place when actually in a battle. Exercising them trained fire control systems without wearing the barrels, and with much lower cost than full-calibre ones.
@@iansadler4309 I think some were externally mounted though. Maybe the Richelieus?
To add a thought, one of the big reasons for ranging guns, to my understanding, is to get the range without revealing what it is you're about to unleash. In a naval setting, that generally doesn't apply since concealment isn't quite so much a thing.
Re ranging. There is a record of a Sherman tank in the surf D-day targeting a pill box, then being shocked by a 16" shell going over it to the same target. They continued as a forward spotter for further targets.
You can imagine the reaction of the defenders in the adjacent pillbox ...
"Mein Gott, Heinz! What sort of gun have they put in that Sherman?"
For Q&A : what ideas would Jackie Fisher come up with if he had access to Nuclear Propulsion
The Samuel B Roberts used the follow the fall of shot tactic at the battle off Samar. It worked to keep her alive quite a bit longer.
It worked...
Until it didn't.
Tudor Warship Leasing: Taker out for a Spin and a Raid or two before buying... ^~^ Sounds so much like dealing with Lexus... >~
If only USS Montana had been built. Twelve 16"/50 guns, armored more heavily than any previous American battleship, massive AA suite...
She would have been MAGNIFICENT!
Another great video - As per usual Drach!
Any chance of us getting one, or two videos about the battles of Copenhagen?
Sincerely, one of your Danish viewers
I understand that the Jspanese used autogyros [Kayaba Ka-1] for anti submarine warfare. They could carry a couple of small(60 kg) depth charges. As these were Army craft, they were operated from an Imperial Japanese ARMY escort CARRIER(!), Akitsu Maru, from August 1944 until Nov.1944(she was sunk).
That DD vs. DE question for me thinking:
If we got every single destroyer to enter service between 1900 and 1950 and had them engage in the mother of all close-quarter night actions, which class would have the most survivors?
Fletchers.
There's just... enough of them...
@@AnimeSunglasses 175 - and 150 survived WW2
@@colbeausabre8842 yep. Should be enough.
Only class of ship I can think of with more is the Clemsons, and they weren't built with radar...
Fletchers. Because Burke, Moosbrugger, and Evans.
@@rackstraw That helps too!
I love the painting of the TURBINIA's grand appearance at the 1897 Naval Review. Who is the artist? I don't think I have ever seen this before.
Further to the Question regarding the name of the British Army, it should be noted that the British armed forces as a whole swear allegiance to the Crown not parliament and this is a hold over from Charles II's natural reluctance to let parliament control them. it means that the Army is above party politics or should be .
The USA version of this is swearing to defend the Constitution (our monarchy) and obey orders of the President and superior military officers.
Dear Drach, I am gratified to learn that you have selected me to receive a lovely prize. Please tell me this is so, or could it just be bad pirates have infiltrated your site and are up to no good.
Thanks for flagging the scam-bot
@@Drachinifel What, no prize money! What am I supposed to do for rum? Think nothing of it shipmate, glad to be of help. 😊
The Imperial Japanese Army used autogyros. They were assigned to the amphibious landing support carriers and ended up hunting American submarines close to shore IIRC. See the Kayaba Ka-1 and 2.
they were put on one ship and it was torpedoed the instant it sailed!!!
Fa 330 kite gyro was definitely used by U boats
The Twin gun turrets at Ft. Drum (the concrete battleship) in the Philippines had an armored bulkhead between the guns in a manor similar to the French quad turrets.
161st after 16 seconds.
You can't be 161 I'm 161 :p
Thank you, Drachinifel.
Hey Drach I got a wierd question. I recently watched Flags of our Father's and there is a scene of a US battleship taking a pretty bad hit by shore artillery during the initial landing. Now I swear I've looked this up but I can't seem to find any evidence if any of the battleships taking a hit like that. So did I miss something?
I'm not sure about Iow Jima, but the BBs we're shot up now and then. Colorado as a case in point got hit numerous times off tinian.
If the Lord Clive class monitors with their under 3m Draught, had been retained till ww2, do you think they could have been used in the St Nazaire raid. Their armour is too thick to be penetrated by all but the on shore 170mm guns and that's only when they are right up on a straight arc of fire. There were some railway guns, but I don't think they were set up to shoot at the estuary or have the time to hit the monitors if they could. The monitor could shoot at the lock gates themselves or maybe used to distract fire from the Campbeltown and shoot at shore implacements before taking the men back home as a transport that won't be sunk, unlike the small boats.
I've always wonder why they (HMS Campbeltown) didn't have someone, perhaps an officer, who spoke German on the Signal Light to flash something like "Turn Off those lights, there's an air raid going on" to help prevent them from being identified as something that wasn't in the Kriegsmarine....
@@timengineman2nd714 From memory - they did.
iirc, the Lord Clive class used 12" turrets scrounged from some very old pre-dreadnoughts. Due to their age, these turrets were subject to frequent breakdown. They were not the sort of thing to rely on. The Admiralty was probably right in scrapping the Lord Clives, and only keeping the monitors that had the new 15" turrets on them. Additionally, any monitor would be immediately recognized as not German.
@@stevevalley7835 I mean we are shooting at 0 elevation a few thousands metres the idea these are not good enough is laughable. We need to remember "constant breakdowns" of which I can't actually evidence of, so not exactly sure why you made that up. Even if true it could have just been the support ship wouldn't matter if it gun jammed once or twice, it can't be penetrated anywhere and when they get the guns going, they may be old, but they still pack a huge punch, destroying anything it vaguely aims at and probably a few dozen feet around it as well.
@@timengineman2nd714 they did, it's just the Germans have no record of the ship, it's heading for a dock gate and not the harbour, there are tons of smaller boats which is just odd and when it gets close enough you know your not looking at a German destroyer. So the signals only got them so far.
Re: autogyros: there was a Japanese ship equipped with an autogyro to help spot submarines. Akitsu Maru was an IJA ship, though, not an IJN ship.
Indeed, the Japanese used Kayaba Ka-1 and Ka-2 autogyros for ASW work both land based and of Akitsu Maru, one of the Japanese Army's Aircraft carriers.
The Navy is a privilege of the Monarch, the Army belongs to the people (Parliament). There are royal armies out there, they just don't recognize Elizabeth Windsor as their sovereign (for example, the Royal Thai Army)
Does that mean, then that the air arm...the ROYAL Air Force is also the privelege of the sovereign?
The Royal Air force was an amalgam of the Royal naval Air service and the army Air corps, and the navy being navy insisted on their superior
Terms of service for the "Royal" according to my father ex FAA?
@@hughgordon6435 The WW1 army air force was the Royal Flying Corps, so it already had the Royal prefix prior to the merger. I suppose it was analogous to other 'Royal' arms of service such as the Royal Engineers and the Royal Artillery.
@@hughgordon6435 No. While I have no doubt that historically, Drach is correct. It is obviously not the case in modern times.
An organisation (including a military force/unit) in modern times having "Royal" appended to its name just means the Monarch said they could. It could kind of be seen as the equivalent of a Knighthood for an organization.
The other big factor Drach doesn't mention is that the Army historically wasn't a cohesive organization but an amalgam of various military forces without any sore of over-arching command. A regiment (or company or other unit) would be raised by a noble who would pay for it and lead it and the unit would have a title like the "Earl of Oxford's Regiment" as it was literally the regiment of the Earl of Oxford. A regiment raised by the monarch would be the "Royal Regiment of X" with X usually being the type of regiment. Over time the names of the regiment became more ceremonial, as the Army became a more structured organization you already had "royal" regiments so you wouldn't have a "royal army".
In the modern period you then have a unit established and usually after some distinctive service or some other in light of some royal event or something would be granted the "royal" moniker. And generally a unit split off from a "Royal" entity will keep that designation as will amalgamated units if one has the "Royal" designation.
For the RAF:
The Corps of Engineers was formed in the British Army in the early 18th century. Near the end of the 18th century it was granted the honour of the "Royal" prefix and eventually became the "Corps of Royal Engineers". Then in 1911 the Air Batallion of the Corps of Royal Engineers was established. It would soon be separated into its own corps the "Royal Flying Corps" (which also absorbed the Navy's few air assets) perpetuating the "Royal" designation from the Corps of Royal Engineers.
And when the Admiralty wanted its own toys they established the "Royal Naval Air Service" (which was not technically part of the Royal Navy but separate under the Admiralty, hence the separate "Royal" moniker that the later Fleet Air Arm didn't get because it was initially part of the Royal Air Force and then part of the Royal Navy).
Then when it was decided to merge the RNAS and RFC it kept its predecessors "Royal" title as the RAF.
In contrast during the same time period the Australian Army (which followed British Army precedent of regiments or corps receiving the "Royal" designation) established a new corps, the "Australian Flying Corps" which did not have any lineage to entitle it to use the "Royal" name. It was later renamed the "Australian Air Force" and then King George V authorized them to become the "Royal Australian Air Force".
@@ronaldfinkelstein6335 No, the RAF is royal because it originated as part of the Royal Engineers, a corps of the British Army
I served as a Gunners Mate in the US Navy from 1975 to 1981. I had always heard the word 'tampion' pronounced as 'tompkin' by my shipmates. Is this an American thing?
19:45 actually italy thinked tho use Autogyros on the Littorio's to avoid to arguing with the Airforce, but as many of you may guest the Airforce didn't care and demanded even those Autogyros because "in Fascist Italy EVERYTHING that fly belongs to the Airforce", so they swicthed on normal desings.
For future reference the term roundhead was only used in part of London and then only for a brief time. So if you turned up outside of London during the civil war no one would know what you are talking about. If they did know what you were talking about and were part of the parliamentarian army then do not be surprised if they decided to show you the business end of whatever weapons they were carrying as it was a derisory term. In the same vain do not call the royalists cavaliers as this would also be met with anger. The term cavalier referred to the Spanish cavalry which had a reputation for what we today would call war crime.
I did read of one warship which was steering to the fall of shot. Unfortunately it just so happened that one of the turrets on the enemy ship had not adjusted to the new position so the ship was hit. Interestingly during the Battle of Britain the idea came about that if your caught out in the open during a bombing raid the best place to be was inside one of the bomb craters as the chances of a bomb landing in the same crater is very small. Unfortunately more than one crater was hit a second time, or near enough to be deadly. Also jumping into a hole were high explosives have just detonated is not a good idea. Especially in areas where there is chalk just below the surface such as in Kent. A number of people suffered from very bad burns until it was stopped.
One oddity - the Coldstream Guards were an older regiment than the (Royalist) Grenadier Guards, but Charlie Two wouldn't allow them to be the Senior regiment, so they were paraded, told to lay down their guns, marched round the parade ground an told to pick them up again, allowing the convenient fiction that they were disbanded for that period and were thus junior to the Grenadiers.
@@iansadler4309 hence second to none
@@iansadler4309 Thanks, Ian. I had forgotten all about that. Interesting that they kept the New Model Armies red coat. Though, as I am sure you know, the guards regiments wore scarlet with a different arrangement of the tunics buttons to denote which regiment they are.
"Ranging guns" do not actually have the same ballistics as the main gun, but if the ranging gun is set for x number yards and hits, then the main should hit when set for the same range. Ditto short or over. It just gets you on range faster.
Note for example the Chieftains ranging machine gun for it's 120mm used the same cartridge/bullet as the one for the Centurion's 105 and the 120mm WOMBAT recoiless rifle, and no, the three weapons did not share the same ballistics.
The naval equivalent would be firing a ranging ladder from the secondaries.
Ranging/spotting guns don't have to have the same ballistics; but often they will actually use ammunition which is calibrated to be ballistically identical to the gun they are ranging/spotting for.
For example the M8C spotting gun for the M40 106mm recoilless rifle which does use ammunition which matches the main gun. I'm pretty sure the WOMBAT actually used the same gun though it had a different designation when used in the UK; I'm thinking it was L40A1 but my memory may be wrong on that one.
@@travispollett2120 same for several Swedish guns used for recoilless gun aiming too.
irc The British sent a mission to the US to try to interest them in one of the Cierva autogyros, but they saw the Sikorsky R4 and decided that was a better bet. First one that went to sea was in SS Daghestan I think.
In Australia we have The Royal Australian Navy and Air Force but just the Australian Army with all the different corps being Royal like Royal Australian Armoured corps , Royal Australian Artillery and Royal Australian Regiment which are our infantry units .
The Australian Army, The Canadian, The New Zealand Army and the British Army are not Royal because they are made corps and regiments some of which are royal and some are not. Goes back to the English Civil War and privately raised regiments
Ditto NZ
Is there a "Ye Olde Lystt of Names Acceptable for A Gentyleman who may become King of England, Ireland, Etc" or some similar document or law to explain the 8 Henrys and Edwards and 6 Georges?
It's more a case of tradition once "bynames" drop out of favour to tell people apart. (Ironside, Rufus, longshanks etc.) George III is probably the last with a nickname to be known by. (Mad King George/ Farmer George )
@@riverraven7359 William IV was known as "Sailor Bill"
@@iansadler4309 I didn't know that, thanks!
It's partly a dynastic thing and partly a search for legitimacy, I suspect. The Plantagenets were fairly long lasting, hence the flood of Edwards. The Hannoerians had four Georges in a row. George VI, by contrast chose his regnal name to reinforce the link to his father following the embarrasing interruption Edward VIII.
Why don't you talk about the navy on the Spanish civil War
Glad to hear that your life has settled down. Stay cool! 🍻✌️
Did any navies use towed balloons hot air or hydrogen for lookouts?
Strangest sinking of a warship?
the mary rose maybe?
What do you define as strange?
I'd say the Confederate submarine Hunley is pretty strange. Not many vessels sink three times.
U-boat sunk by its toilet.
Speaking of the small light Auto Gyros of World War II I believe that it was the Germans who first were successful at launching and recovering one off one of their light Cruisers. I believe it was the Nuremberg?
it had been the Focke Achgelis FA330 "Bachstelze" developed in early 1942 ,flown first in April 1942 from a small floating plattform being towed by a U-Boat,startet flying at 30km/ h as a lookout for UBoats. More than 100 produced and could be stored in two small watertight tubes ,Ready totake-off in less than 7 minutes, stowed again in 2 minutes.
That was the one detail that bothered me about Master and Commander. Would they have been training to rapid fire broadsides when they were thousands of miles away from home?
I think ships of the time period had on average, 50 to 60 cannonballs per gun. Their plan against the Acheron was to only expend 1 cannonball per gun so I'm not sure ammunition would be an issue.
@@Edax_Royeaux Dry firing exercises were also held
@@jamesmaclennan4525 They needed to hit a moving target as narrow as the main mast, so live fire drills seemed prudent.
@@Edax_Royeaux you don't have a port to resupply. Your powder and ball Supply is not endless. Not sure you have enough to be wasting on practice.
@@WALTERBROADDUS Their mission is to confront a single ship and they cannot defeat it in a long range engagement. Hoarding powder and shot may not be prudent as it weighs the ship down and increases the chance of an explosion. It's just a win-win to conduct gunnery practice in anticipation of a close ranged ambush and free the ship of it's heavy and dangerous cargo. If they lose the duel with Acheron, they've handed the French all that powder and shot anyway.
Would you ever consider doing a video on the Mary Rose?
Re: Ship guides. I’ve been searching the channel and haven’t found any guides for the IJN Design A-150 (aka Super-Yamato). Is that a design you would be interested in reviewing?
Why in the world talk about 'she' all the time, it makes no sense
0:36:55 - the ship in the picture looks a bit like the skyships from Burrough's John Carter books
I looked it up - it is actually an illustration from the 1893 novel "The Angel of the Revolution" by George Griffin.
@@CharlesStearman Thanks, I have not had time to start looking.
The primary purpose of a sub-calibur ranging gun is to hide the main gun. For instance a 50 cal spotting gun for a 106 recoilless rifle. The likelihood of a single 50 caliber shot being noticed and seen by a tank or a pill box is minimal. When you shoot a 106 for coinless rifle everybody's aware of where that shot came from. I don't think the same thing applies at sea.
Spotting rifles on tanks usually were machine guns shooting tracer bullets. It'd be quite a challenge to build anything remotely similar in principle and usable for a naval gun 12-inch or bigger.
Do next about SMS Friedrich Carl.
This was the first time, after many many hours of unscripted talk, that I noticed a mis-saying that was not immediately corrected. At 26 minutes late 19-hundreds instead of late 18-hundreds. Goes to show how bright and focused Drach is!
The split of risk described in the first question was pretty much the one used in the 19th and 20th centuries, which is why the reference book I was using yesterday had 6 pages on the meaning of “warlike operations”, all about maritime liability and none about the power to call out the reserves if warlike operations are in preparation.
drach land artillery have a rocket assisted/ boosted shells for increased range has that ever been tried for the bigger naval guns? can you speak to rocket use in naval combat say WW2 back, maybe in a Weds special on the subject?
Great Drydock 🙂
3:00 Thysse policie excludeth ye actes of Godde and actionnes of ye Kinge's enemies... The more things change the more they stay the same.
Royal Air Force?
Do you just make up names for privacy's sake or something with these questions? Because I'm 95% certain I was the one who asked that question about ranging guns way back when, if not one that was very, very similarly phrased...? No problem if you do, but just curious if it's the case.
I would say given his continual perplexment at the "fishfishyfishingfish..." guy that the answer is no, lol.
It's just the screen-names people choose, sometimes people edit their names over time so there are variations :)
Comment
people sleeping in ??
yes, it is only 434 am here LOL
33rd, 7 August 2022
20: 34 , name one (:-))
:)
First!
Sure feels like the future of warfare can be totally changed when these mini drones the kids are flying are weaponised and a swarm of 10,000 of them fly into a city and just start exploding next to anyone with a gun or who's face is recognized.
It's definitely a game changer.
Skynet is watching
Not exactly the same thing but there was a Tom Selleck movie back in the 80s that touched on what the future might hold.
@@shawnc1016 "Runaway." Yep, With a skinny Christie Alley.