Fun fact (which I just learned looking this up), _Ha19_ survives to this day in the National Museum of the Pacific War in Texas. One of her two crewmen also survived the sub being beached and was captured, and decades later was reunited with the sub at the museum (one of my favourite kinds of war stories).
In the case of the Dreyfus affair in addition to ripping off epulettes braid and buttons they also broke the sword -which just to ensure the theatre the sword was pre-broken and the soldered back together to make sure it didn't just brutilize the officer of the day's knee.
In a fairly recent example in Canada when Air Force Colonel Russell Williams was convicted of being a serial killer and expelled from the military his uniform was burned, his medals destroyed, and his car (the one I believe he used to drive to the murder scenes and whose tire imprint was key is discovering his crimes) was crushed. Not sure if that sort of thing is common in Commonwealth militaries or if that flair for the dramatic is part of our French heritage
whats it like to be able to pontificate about old ships for over an hour and have nearly 15 thousand people watch your videos in less than 14 hours after publication. the internet is such a great place.
Regarding the tampions, I do recall seeing videos where guns were being brought into action. They had canvas tampions and they seemed to use the bore evacuator system to blow them off while the guns were amidships before turning the turret to bear.
Concerning armor quality. Krupp Experimental Plate 420 tested in the middle of 1894 was the first of the Nickel-Chromium "Krupp Steels" (Krupp original name was of course "Quality 420 Steel"). It is essentially very clean -- low Sulphur or Phosphorus or other interfering elements in the alloy -- Silicon-Manganese "mild" steel (minimal ability to harden much for armor but used a lot in construction) to which about 2.5% Nickel and 4% Chromium was added to greatly increase toughness (inhibit brittle cracking under impact) to allow some increased hardening and strength plus the Chromium added allowed much higher hardening (up to 700 BHN in the cemented (Harveyized thin high-carbon surface layer) when the steel was also used for making the thick "Krupp Cemented" face-hardened side armor. Prior to the Chromium addition, Krupp could only make its new KC armor up to 9" thick before excessive cracking occurred, even with the Nickel by itself, much as was used with the better Harvey armors ("Harveyizing" that thin, but extremely hard cemented face layer could also be applied to mild steel but the armor was, of course, somewhat weaker). Chromium-steel can be hardened like high-Carbon steel, but with less brittle behavior from the Carbon and Iron interactions. Amazingly, in its soft form like US Rolled Homogeneous Armor Steel used as tank armor, this 420 plate was virtually IDENTICAL in strength to the late WWII RHA steel. Thus, while some improvements were made a little as metallurgy improved through the end of WWII, the best soft armor was still more-or-less the original Krupp 420 armor steel!!! Krupp really nailed it at the very beginning! KC face-hardened versions of this basic steel material added a deep (originally 35%) somewhat softer hard face behind the thin, very-hard Harveyized surface as a heavy impact-support, with the rest of the plate being a thick shock-absorber and kept soft. Minor note: There is no such thing as "Harvey Steel". Any steel could have the thin high-Carbon face added to it, as most, but not all, KC-type armors did. It is merely a method of hardening any steel surface for various purposes, including, but not always, naval armor.
Just add a legend “all numbers in kg” and not only will you have a reminder for yourself, but for readers if that spreadsheet is public facing (or might become so). Easy peasy…
12:12 It also needs to be taken into account to what degree ballasting would be required to maintain trim and stability. In other words a ship running on fumes may not be much lighter depending on the degree of ballasting.
Could we do a session on the possibilities to repair warships abroad? Was the ability of the US to perform global naval operations a direct result of its territorial gains since 1898 or, especially since 45 its good relation with the UK?
A couple more factors about RANGER's characteristics/capabilities relative to WASP and her serving in the Pacific... RANGER wasn't built with the same compartmentalization as WASP. There was a real concern that a single torpedo might sink RANGER, while it's more likely that WASP might have survived one torpedo strike, since it was her fires from three torpedoes that forced her abandonment. Perhaps a naval engineer might pipe in on this, but I recall reading somewhere that some of RANGER's compartments ran more longitudinally versus laterally. Also, her aviation gasoline wasn't as protected as WASP's. I'm also not convinced that RANGER in 1942 could steam at her often cited top speed of 29 knots. I've already quoted from my grandfather's memoirs regarding how proud he was of his Chief Engineer's increasing her top speed to 27 knots (see Drach's Drydock response here: th-cam.com/video/J7wrCbKgr5s/w-d-xo.html). WASP was newer and had more shaft horsepower, so I don't doubt her ability to sail at 29+ knots.
The Bosporus and Dardanelles aren't the same thing; the Bosporus is the strait linking the Black Sea and the Sea of Marmara, while the Dardanelles are the strait linking the Sea of Marmara to the Aegean Sea. (The collective term for the two, often including the Sea of Marmara as well, is the _Turkish Straits.)_
The midget subs at Pearl are an very interesting subject. When looking at the famous photo that is used as "proof" that a midget was able to torpedo a BB, there are some things that argue against it: 1) The timing of the photo is during the torpedo attack. To believe that a midget was there would put said sub in the field of fire of the torpedo planes. Would the planners have approved that? 2) The firing position of the alleged sub would have required that sub to make a 180 degree turn that I am not sure it could have made in the short space provided (the channel is to the right of the picture). Could such a maneuver been made when it was dark? Otherwise, I would think that a periscope would have been detected after daylight and certainly after the attack started. It's not cut and dried.
A) the planners did not mark out specific times for “midget subs to attack” and “airplanes to attack.” The two vectors were independent of each other. B) midgets subs are designed to maneuver in tight spaces. Turning 180 in a water space 3x own length was doable. Also, midget subs don’t need “a channel” the way large surface ships do. C) Periscopes are not as easy to spot visually as you claim, which is why so much effort was put into millimeter-bad radar to detect periscopes. Otherwise, submarines the world over would not have been nearly as effective as they were because their periscopes would have been spotted. Add the fact that the USN of 1941 had very little training, let alone experience, detecting and combating subs, and a midget sub would have been very hard to detect.
@@dougjb7848 A) The sub was in the middle of the area where the Kate's torpedoes were going. Certainly the planning was independent, but you would think someone in IJN or on the sub cmdr would have thought that positioning a sub there during the torpedo portion of the attack could do more harm than good. In terms of the sub cmdr, maybe not. B) I've not found anything on the turning radius of these subs. Retired US Sub Capt Bill Todi did a youtube video on these subs in the "Unauthorized History of the Pacific war" channel. He stated that the two rudders are too small to make them very maneuverable (they are a little over a length of a hand wide). If you have details, let me know. C) Your statement about visibility of periscopes is true, especially in the open sea. But the one submarine that did penetrate the harbor was seen by at least two ships, including the Monaghan, who rammed her. With torpedoes in the water, eyes would naturally have been drawn to the surface of the harbor.
The realy big gun on Malorica is a /vickers 305 (12 inch) there are also some 1940'ish era 6inch Vickers 152/50 Off hand I don't know of an 8 inch gun but could be a spare from the 8 inch cruisers fitted in a bespoke single gun mount, but no pics no I.D I'll look into it and see what comes up but most Mallorcia guns were specifically coastal type not ship mounts AFAIK. Certainly worth a holiday viewing as there is even a computing table in the museum
The Austrian army attempted to employ the Girardoni air rifle, but rejected it on the grounds of cost, material seal problems, and the need to produce as many regular weapons as possible for the war with France. But given that there is no flame in firing, and navies had desperately spent the better part of few thousand years trying to keep fires of any sort off of the ships, what did the Austrian Navy think of it? Given the smaller size of Navy vs the army in re-equipping, did it gain any more traction there?
Drach it wouldn't be a Sunday without you. Great stuff as always. I see you pop up on other channels I follow but you never seem to copy presentation later on, on your own channel. Any reason? Just think its a good way cross fertilizing - I've found channels because the contributor copied to his own channel.
I've often wondered ? American hydrophonicc operators during the second World war? Did they report type 93 torpedoes at ranges greater than the accepted ranges? And how did the American nayvy explain these repirts?
I remember reading an article in a warbuff mag about the minisubs some years ago featuring an aerial picture during the attack that showed what could be a minisub with the bow pointed at Batttleship Row. Since it is an aerial photo very early, (IIRC, Oklahoma was still upright) the film would have been Japanese. It could be a real pic or it could have been altered during the war.
About battleships' speeds and fuel: would a navy ship take on water ballast for improved stabiity as fuel tanks emptied, or are they not vulnerable in this way?
I thought any conference in Montreaux would be an opportunity to speak to building codes and/or considering giving Funky Claude a medal for heroism after some idiot fired a flare gun into the ceiling of the casino during a Frank Zappa concert. I understand the fire in the sky was matched by smoke wafting across Lake Geneva. Oversight of the Dardanelles, eh? Learned something new today.
Side note, While I don't know of any intentional document destruction relating to U.S. navy records from WWII, I do know there was a fire in a records storage facility in the US not too long after WWII which destroyed at least some US army personal records. Perhaps this is the origin of the claim that some navy documents were intentionally destroyed.
Regarding what the British would've counted the Number 13s with, it seems to me that a stretched N3 with G3's machinery would do the trick quite nicely for closing the speed gap. For the Americans...imagine if Tillman IV-2 actually got built.
Follow up on the question about seawater on gun barrels: Would tampions ever be an issue in the case of a surprise attack? I'd imagine you'd avoid using the heavier ones (the ones you can't easily just shoot through) in peacetime, and the only example of a surprise attack on a navy that's fully on peacetime footing is, of course, Pearl Harbor - a massive air raid where the only guns that matter are the AA guns, which are probably easier to bring up to fighting capability than the main battery. Or would they always be such that you could just shoot through them fine if you're caught completely flat footed? If not, would there be a fast way to eject them, like say putting a small powder charge with the tampion itself being treated as the projectile. (Or is that a terrible terrible idea, I know dry firing is never a good idea, and I don't know if the tampion would be sufficient.)
My understanding is that dry firing is only an issue with some firing pins; as far as I'm aware, I'm totally fine with dry firing my flintlock, because the hammer is still striking a frizen just as expected. If they're putting a charge in, even if the gun is fired with a firing pin, there would still have to be a primer to ignite the charge, so there's no issue there.
@@StumpfForFreedom Ahh, ok. My understanding of dry firing is mostly in wooden weaponry - particularly torsion engines (Roman style siege engines). There, I think it's mostly a matter of the weight of the projectile pulling energy out of the system. That energy has to be dissipated somehow, and if you're not flinging a 40 pound rock at 50km/h, then you're using that energy to rip the wood and rope machinery to pieces, along with anything unfortunate enough to be within convenient range, like the crew for that machine. Even with longbows it can be a problem.
USS Ranger Deemed too slow for use with the Pacific Fleet's carrier task forces against Japan,[1] she spent most of World War II in the Atlantic Ocean, where the German fleet, the Kriegsmarine, was a weaker opponent. Ranger saw combat in that theater and provided air support for Operation Torch. In October 1943, she fought in Operation Leader, air attacks on German shipping off Norway. She was sold for scrap in 1947. Wackipedia
Well on a heavy vs normal load speed difference Bismarck specifically was at least 1&1/2 knots slower with its super heavy war load and extra crew for prizes etc than with its design load because it was sub 31 knots with heavy and over 32 knots with design load
I suppose the Number Thirteen fully developed would have ended the entire Washington Naval Treaty process and led to a capital ship arms race ultimately air power in hindsight is still going to be the determining factor in the next World War.
Concerning US using Japanese tactics during fleet problems, tactical manuals are generally unclassified and therefore available to naval attaches. Open intelligence gathering is their mission so any professional articles written in the various journals, conversions observations etc. Generally, any change in tactics is discussed in open source magazines first and for quite awhile before the changes take place in action. Consider the decades long arguments about blitzkrieg style use of tanks. No one should have been surprised.
Question Drach some years ago you did a alternate history on what would potentially have happened if the US and the Brits were on opposite sides of WW2. Which video was that because I would like to watch it again and I can't find it.
I've read that USS Wasp's air group could operate at night. Why were they not used during the Battle of Savo Island and in the day/evening prior when it was known that a Japanese fleet (albeit incorrectly identified by the RAAF Hudsons and US B17s)? Does this amount to incompetence on behalf of Fletcher?
1:40 British engineer admitting that using metric measurement made it easier to calculate, somehow I feel incredibile amused by that statement :) You made my day mate ! Wait I have question : Did Auntie Mikasa build by British shipyard was build in imperial measurements or metric, for Japanese Navy ?
I'm pretty sure he was saying it was easier because more countries use the metric system than imperial measurements. Fewer calculations to achieve overall parity, given the amount of different guns he was comparing in the light, medium and heavy AA video. Now, as long as we're discussing Enforcing The No Fly Zone... Can you tell me where I might obtain a fully operable octuple 40mm Pom Pom mount? I want to address the birds crapping on my car properly... Need to set a tone 🤣🤣🤣🤣
"Reaction to the No.13 Battleships if built?" If the US Navy didn't give a crap about the treasury they would have taken the Lexington's engine, the 18" MK1 gun and built a battleship around that. Probably an upgunned, uparmored and stretched Colorado but topping at 30 knots. If the Royal navy tied the royal treasurer onto a chair and locked him inside his closet they would have taken the I3 design out of the icebox and slapped G3 armor thickness on that design.
The brittish manufactured aircraft that used a boundry layer to increase /decrease their resistance??? So how would a warship with a boundry layer be affected?
Everything moving through a fluid, whether air or water, has a boundary layer. It's caused by friction between the surface of the vessel (whether airborne or floating) and the fluid touching it, causing it to be turbulent instead of flowing smoothly. In the picture of USS Ranger in this video, you can see a bubble stream just under the water clinging to the ship. It's almost non-existent at the bow and gets wider as it goes aft. If that's not the surface effect of Ranger's boundary layer, it at least can give you the idea. The thicker it is, the more drag it makes. Thus... Devices like vortex generators are used in airplanes to reduce the boundary layer so drag can be lessened. I'm not aware of any industry-wide solutions to reduce the boundary layer of ships, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.
Why do you think that if they had been built that a 1930s update of the Number 13-class would include aircraft handling facilities? I grant that other Japanese battleship updates of the period included adding aircraft, but they also considerably increased displacement and it's questionable whether Japan would have had the facilities to do that even in an alternative 1930s. The IJN was comfortable with using cruisers with significant scouting aircraft complements, so I can't see Japan developing the facilities needed only for the purpose of adding aircraft to the Number 13-class battleships.
Cheers for the answer Drach. Next question since it's coming up on Remembrance/Veterans day. If someone showed up and told you they were going to send you to a battle back in time as an active participant not just an observer, you get to pick the battle. However they tell you the caveat is you die in the Battle. No action you can take will stop this from happening and you can't refuse going back. What battle do you pick....and why?
@@Dave_Sisson ok that wasn't an option, consider it this way. Someone arrives and says your going back no matter what because I say so and you'll die. But to show you I'm not all evil I'll let you decide when and where.
00:37:12 - Do you think the USN's concern over using Ranger in the Pacific was justified? Another factor of consequence that is often overlooked is that the US Navy desired for the US Atlantic Fleet to maintain all organic capabilities deemed necessary by doctrine to avoid requiring use of British assets should the British prove impractical to cooperate with in practice. In other words, the US Navy wanted its own fleet carrier in the Atlantic so it didn't have to rely on British carriers for naval airpower. It is debated to this day how much of this was legitimate concern that the British and American fleets needed more time to develop functional joint-operational capacity and how much was contempt/distrust of the Royal Navy by traditionally Anglophobic American leadership. Whatever the case, of all the US fleet carriers in 1942, USS Ranger was the logical choice for the role of the US Atlantic Fleet's fleet carrier, because while being the least capable of them all, it was still deemed plenty able to handle whatever the French, Italian, or Germans were capable of bringing to action.
I agree with your assessment. USS WASP might never have gone to fight in the Pacific if it weren't for the losses sustained at Coral Sea and Midway (and SARATOGA sucking up torpedoes). I've got a story from my grandfather Gordon Rowe's unpublished memoirs when he commanded RANGER from March 1943 - May 1944, which included her operations with the British Home Fleet for Operation LEADER. After assuming command from the recently promoted RADM Cal Durgin, Capt. Rowe asked the former CO, "Do you have any special instructions to turn over to me?" "Yes," he replied. "Admiral King told me, and I will pass it along, 'Don't let anything happen to RANGER. She's the only ship we have in the Atlantic that can do anything quickly and effectively should the German heavy ships come out raiding our troop convoys.'" This explains why RANGER operated out of Argentia, Newfoundland for the first half of 1943.
Thank you very much! Glad to hear more documentation survives from the men and women on the ground (or the sea in this case.) It fits with my understanding of affairs at the time. Americans fight hard for their allies, but it is very hard for Americans to trust others to fight just as hard for Americans, and so it never surprises me when I see people like King and Patton not place a lot of faith in any foreign ally, even when the USA is clearly the junior partner in the theatre of operations. USS Ranger was America's fast capital ship in the Atlantic, and so, as far the United States Navy was concern, it was THE centerpiece of North Atlantic security, irrespective of how many British battleships and carriers might happen to be around! @@christopherrowe7460
You're welcome,@@genericpersonx333. After the early losses of HMS COURAGEOUS and GLORIOUS, there may have been some misgivings on the part of US Navy aviators of sending WASP and RANGER to join the Home Fleet. I'm curious as to what King thought of using WASP as an airplane ferry to Malta, given her relative lack of protection. When initially deployed to Scapa Floe, RANGER's flag officer didn't get along well with the senior officers of the British Home Fleet (or my grandfather). RANGER's task force was then subsumed under RADM Olaf Hustvedt, who had already been getting along well with the British. My grandfather's only misgiving about the transfer was it left him, a ship's captain, as the most senior aviator among the British and American officers in the Home Fleet.
Personally, I would really appreciate it if you labeled the pictures of the ships you use to illustrate the point of your answers. Some I can guess, but many I find interesting but I am unable to due further research on since I don't know the name of the ship. Nothing elaborate is require, just some simple text label.
Has anyone ever constructed a metal hulled ship from something other than iron and steel? Like for example a full copper hull, rather than just copper sheeted wooden hulls?
![⭐ฮิตในTikTok!! ( หมูเด้ง MooDeng ) Ver. แดนซ์โจ๊ะๆ ReMix BY [ ดีเจกิต รีมิกซ์ ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/3krsyfWUeHU/mqdefault.jpg)
Fun fact (which I just learned looking this up), _Ha19_ survives to this day in the National Museum of the Pacific War in Texas. One of her two crewmen also survived the sub being beached and was captured, and decades later was reunited with the sub at the museum (one of my favourite kinds of war stories).
Coffee, some sunshine and a Drydock. Perfect way to start the weekend.
Fuel is transferred between tanks to preserve the trim of the ship.
Fuel actually being used is transferred to a running tank for immediate use.
M Xmas's a 😅I ❤😅person who is 😂😂😂😂I
Is the tank a long distance runner or more of a sprinter?
In the case of the Dreyfus affair in addition to ripping off epulettes braid and buttons they also broke the sword -which just to ensure the theatre the sword was pre-broken and the soldered back together to make sure it didn't just brutilize the officer of the day's knee.
In a fairly recent example in Canada when Air Force Colonel Russell Williams was convicted of being a serial killer and expelled from the military his uniform was burned, his medals destroyed, and his car (the one I believe he used to drive to the murder scenes and whose tire imprint was key is discovering his crimes) was crushed. Not sure if that sort of thing is common in Commonwealth militaries or if that flair for the dramatic is part of our French heritage
whats it like to be able to pontificate about old ships for over an hour and have nearly 15 thousand people watch your videos in less than 14 hours after publication. the internet is such a great place.
50% of us just want to listen to a British man reinforce national stereotypes.
@@StumpfForFreedomWhere did the bad Drach touch you?
My goodness this site is awesome. I don’t know how I missed it. Thank you.
Regarding the tampions, I do recall seeing videos where guns were being brought into action. They had canvas tampions and they seemed to use the bore evacuator system to blow them off while the guns were amidships before turning the turret to bear.
Last time I was this early the MK 14 still wasn’t working
And if you were late - it still wouldn't be working!
Concerning armor quality. Krupp Experimental Plate 420 tested in the middle of 1894 was the first of the Nickel-Chromium "Krupp Steels" (Krupp original name was of course "Quality 420 Steel"). It is essentially very clean -- low Sulphur or Phosphorus or other interfering elements in the alloy -- Silicon-Manganese "mild" steel (minimal ability to harden much for armor but used a lot in construction) to which about 2.5% Nickel and 4% Chromium was added to greatly increase toughness (inhibit brittle cracking under impact) to allow some increased hardening and strength plus the Chromium added allowed much higher hardening (up to 700 BHN in the cemented (Harveyized thin high-carbon surface layer) when the steel was also used for making the thick "Krupp Cemented" face-hardened side armor. Prior to the Chromium addition, Krupp could only make its new KC armor up to 9" thick before excessive cracking occurred, even with the Nickel by itself, much as was used with the better Harvey armors ("Harveyizing" that thin, but extremely hard cemented face layer could also be applied to mild steel but the armor was, of course, somewhat weaker). Chromium-steel can be hardened like high-Carbon steel, but with less brittle behavior from the Carbon and Iron interactions. Amazingly, in its soft form like US Rolled Homogeneous Armor Steel used as tank armor, this 420 plate was virtually IDENTICAL in strength to the late WWII RHA steel. Thus, while some improvements were made a little as metallurgy improved through the end of WWII, the best soft armor was still more-or-less the original Krupp 420 armor steel!!! Krupp really nailed it at the very beginning! KC face-hardened versions of this basic steel material added a deep (originally 35%) somewhat softer hard face behind the thin, very-hard Harveyized surface as a heavy impact-support, with the rest of the plate being a thick shock-absorber and kept soft.
Minor note: There is no such thing as "Harvey Steel". Any steel could have the thin high-Carbon face added to it, as most, but not all, KC-type armors did. It is merely a method of hardening any steel surface for various purposes, including, but not always, naval armor.
You mixed up pounds & kilos?? You’re on thin ice! Don’t let it happen again!
Just add a legend “all numbers in kg” and not only will you have a reminder for yourself, but for readers if that spreadsheet is public facing (or might become so). Easy peasy…
@@scott2836is I 9 I ip 8
Then there are tons and tonnes and gallons and Imperial Gallons
I much prefer British pints
Just get rid of those silly imperial measurements.. the empire os gone too.
As an ex 5/38 gunner the warhead weighs in at 54lbs . That's my story and I'm sticking to it !
You had the obese American ones.
😂😂😂
12:12
It also needs to be taken into account to what degree ballasting would be required to maintain trim and stability. In other words a ship running on fumes may not be much lighter depending on the degree of ballasting.
Could we do a session on the possibilities to repair warships abroad?
Was the ability of the US to perform global naval operations a direct result of its territorial gains since 1898 or, especially since 45 its good relation with the UK?
Great DD Thanks Drach.
Happy Guy Fawkes night to Drach since that's apparently a thing over there
Prodigious is the only word!
A couple more factors about RANGER's characteristics/capabilities relative to WASP and her serving in the Pacific...
RANGER wasn't built with the same compartmentalization as WASP. There was a real concern that a single torpedo might sink RANGER, while it's more likely that WASP might have survived one torpedo strike, since it was her fires from three torpedoes that forced her abandonment. Perhaps a naval engineer might pipe in on this, but I recall reading somewhere that some of RANGER's compartments ran more longitudinally versus laterally. Also, her aviation gasoline wasn't as protected as WASP's.
I'm also not convinced that RANGER in 1942 could steam at her often cited top speed of 29 knots. I've already quoted from my grandfather's memoirs regarding how proud he was of his Chief Engineer's increasing her top speed to 27 knots (see Drach's Drydock response here: th-cam.com/video/J7wrCbKgr5s/w-d-xo.html). WASP was newer and had more shaft horsepower, so I don't doubt her ability to sail at 29+ knots.
The Bosporus and Dardanelles aren't the same thing; the Bosporus is the strait linking the Black Sea and the Sea of Marmara, while the Dardanelles are the strait linking the Sea of Marmara to the Aegean Sea. (The collective term for the two, often including the Sea of Marmara as well, is the _Turkish Straits.)_
The midget subs at Pearl are an very interesting subject. When looking at the famous photo that is used as "proof" that a midget was able to torpedo a BB, there are some things that argue against it: 1) The timing of the photo is during the torpedo attack. To believe that a midget was there would put said sub in the field of fire of the torpedo planes. Would the planners have approved that? 2) The firing position of the alleged sub would have required that sub to make a 180 degree turn that I am not sure it could have made in the short space provided (the channel is to the right of the picture). Could such a maneuver been made when it was dark? Otherwise, I would think that a periscope would have been detected after daylight and certainly after the attack started. It's not cut and dried.
A) the planners did not mark out specific times for “midget subs to attack” and “airplanes to attack.” The two vectors were independent of each other.
B) midgets subs are designed to maneuver in tight spaces. Turning 180 in a water space 3x own length was doable. Also, midget subs don’t need “a channel” the way large surface ships do.
C) Periscopes are not as easy to spot visually as you claim, which is why so much effort was put into millimeter-bad radar to detect periscopes. Otherwise, submarines the world over would not have been nearly as effective as they were because their periscopes would have been spotted. Add the fact that the USN of 1941 had very little training, let alone experience, detecting and combating subs, and a midget sub would have been very hard to detect.
@@dougjb7848 A) The sub was in the middle of the area where the Kate's torpedoes were going. Certainly the planning was independent, but you would think someone in IJN or on the sub cmdr would have thought that positioning a sub there during the torpedo portion of the attack could do more harm than good. In terms of the sub cmdr, maybe not.
B) I've not found anything on the turning radius of these subs. Retired US Sub Capt Bill Todi did a youtube video on these subs in the "Unauthorized History of the Pacific war" channel. He stated that the two rudders are too small to make them very maneuverable (they are a little over a length of a hand wide). If you have details, let me know.
C) Your statement about visibility of periscopes is true, especially in the open sea. But the one submarine that did penetrate the harbor was seen by at least two ships, including the Monaghan, who rammed her. With torpedoes in the water, eyes would naturally have been drawn to the surface of the harbor.
The realy big gun on Malorica is a /vickers 305 (12 inch) there are also some 1940'ish era 6inch Vickers 152/50 Off hand I don't know of an 8 inch gun but could be a spare from the 8 inch cruisers fitted in a bespoke single gun mount, but no pics no I.D I'll look into it and see what comes up but most Mallorcia guns were specifically coastal type not ship mounts AFAIK. Certainly worth a holiday viewing as there is even a computing table in the museum
Thanks Drach.
The Austrian army attempted to employ the Girardoni air rifle, but rejected it on the grounds of cost, material seal problems, and the need to produce as many regular weapons as possible for the war with France. But given that there is no flame in firing, and navies had desperately spent the better part of few thousand years trying to keep fires of any sort off of the ships, what did the Austrian Navy think of it? Given the smaller size of Navy vs the army in re-equipping, did it gain any more traction there?
Drach it wouldn't be a Sunday without you. Great stuff as always.
I see you pop up on other channels I follow but you never seem to copy presentation later on, on your own channel. Any reason? Just think its a good way cross fertilizing - I've found channels because the contributor copied to his own channel.
I've often wondered ? American hydrophonicc operators during the second World war? Did they report type 93 torpedoes at ranges greater than the accepted ranges? And how did the American nayvy explain these repirts?
I remember reading an article in a warbuff mag about the minisubs some years ago featuring an aerial picture during the attack that showed what could be a minisub with the bow pointed at Batttleship Row. Since it is an aerial photo very early, (IIRC, Oklahoma was still upright) the film would have been Japanese. It could be a real pic or it could have been altered during the war.
@ 0:25:21 Another way to protect the various ship's guns in heavy weather is to "crank them up" to maximum elevation.....
The chance to tour Belfast with Drach!? Suddenly another trans-Atlantic flight doesn’t sound all that bad.
Pearl Harbor mini subs have always fascinated me. For instance, what likely happened to the crews? Looking forward to that future discussion.
Request: could you look up Admiral Weems of the USN? Really quite a story. Thanks, Drach.
About battleships' speeds and fuel: would a navy ship take on water ballast for improved stabiity as fuel tanks emptied, or are they not vulnerable in this way?
I thought any conference in Montreaux would be an opportunity to speak to building codes and/or considering giving Funky Claude a medal for heroism after some idiot fired a flare gun into the ceiling of the casino during a Frank Zappa concert. I understand the fire in the sky was matched by smoke wafting across Lake Geneva. Oversight of the Dardanelles, eh?
Learned something new today.
Side note, While I don't know of any intentional document destruction relating to U.S. navy records from WWII, I do know there was a fire in a records storage facility in the US not too long after WWII which destroyed at least some US army personal records. Perhaps this is the origin of the claim that some navy documents were intentionally destroyed.
I do not ken if you have answered but the best looking ship. Plus the age of sail.
Regarding what the British would've counted the Number 13s with, it seems to me that a stretched N3 with G3's machinery would do the trick quite nicely for closing the speed gap. For the Americans...imagine if Tillman IV-2 actually got built.
Senator Tillman intensifies
I would have let that go, but after the "redheaded stepchild" comment...
Let the flogging commence! 😂
The design speed for a ship is typically required to be able to be achieved at the designed full load.
Follow up on the question about seawater on gun barrels:
Would tampions ever be an issue in the case of a surprise attack? I'd imagine you'd avoid using the heavier ones (the ones you can't easily just shoot through) in peacetime, and the only example of a surprise attack on a navy that's fully on peacetime footing is, of course, Pearl Harbor - a massive air raid where the only guns that matter are the AA guns, which are probably easier to bring up to fighting capability than the main battery. Or would they always be such that you could just shoot through them fine if you're caught completely flat footed? If not, would there be a fast way to eject them, like say putting a small powder charge with the tampion itself being treated as the projectile. (Or is that a terrible terrible idea, I know dry firing is never a good idea, and I don't know if the tampion would be sufficient.)
My understanding is that dry firing is only an issue with some firing pins; as far as I'm aware, I'm totally fine with dry firing my flintlock, because the hammer is still striking a frizen just as expected.
If they're putting a charge in, even if the gun is fired with a firing pin, there would still have to be a primer to ignite the charge, so there's no issue there.
@@StumpfForFreedom Ahh, ok. My understanding of dry firing is mostly in wooden weaponry - particularly torsion engines (Roman style siege engines). There, I think it's mostly a matter of the weight of the projectile pulling energy out of the system. That energy has to be dissipated somehow, and if you're not flinging a 40 pound rock at 50km/h, then you're using that energy to rip the wood and rope machinery to pieces, along with anything unfortunate enough to be within convenient range, like the crew for that machine.
Even with longbows it can be a problem.
Merry Sunday funday to all!
USS Ranger Deemed too slow for use with the Pacific Fleet's carrier task forces against Japan,[1] she spent most of World War II in the Atlantic Ocean, where the German fleet, the Kriegsmarine, was a weaker opponent. Ranger saw combat in that theater and provided air support for Operation Torch. In October 1943, she fought in Operation Leader, air attacks on German shipping off Norway. She was sold for scrap in 1947.
Wackipedia
You recently did an expose on keelhauling?? Was flogging round the fleet an actual punishment?. And if so how common was it?
Well on a heavy vs normal load speed difference Bismarck specifically was at least 1&1/2 knots slower with its super heavy war load and extra crew for prizes etc than with its design load because it was sub 31 knots with heavy and over 32 knots with design load
I suppose the Number Thirteen fully developed would have ended the entire Washington Naval Treaty process and led to a capital ship arms race ultimately air power in hindsight is still going to be the determining factor in the next World War.
Concerning US using Japanese tactics during fleet problems, tactical manuals are generally unclassified and therefore available to naval attaches. Open intelligence gathering is their mission so any professional articles written in the various journals, conversions observations etc. Generally, any change in tactics is discussed in open source magazines first and for quite awhile before the changes take place in action. Consider the decades long arguments about blitzkrieg style use of tanks. No one should have been surprised.
00:31:47 like in Muppet Treasure Island, Kermit to Long John?
Question Drach some years ago you did a alternate history on what would potentially have happened if the US and the Brits were on opposite sides of WW2. Which video was that because I would like to watch it again and I can't find it.
I've read that USS Wasp's air group could operate at night. Why were they not used during the Battle of Savo Island and in the day/evening prior when it was known that a Japanese fleet (albeit incorrectly identified by the RAAF Hudsons and US B17s)? Does this amount to incompetence on behalf of Fletcher?
1:40 British engineer admitting that using metric measurement made it easier to calculate, somehow I feel incredibile amused by that statement :) You made my day mate !
Wait I have question : Did Auntie Mikasa build by British shipyard was build in imperial measurements or metric, for Japanese Navy ?
I'm pretty sure he was saying it was easier because more countries use the metric system than imperial measurements. Fewer calculations to achieve overall parity, given the amount of different guns he was comparing in the light, medium and heavy AA video. Now, as long as we're discussing Enforcing The No Fly Zone...
Can you tell me where I might obtain a fully operable octuple 40mm Pom Pom mount? I want to address the birds crapping on my car properly...
Need to set a tone 🤣🤣🤣🤣
"Reaction to the No.13 Battleships if built?" If the US Navy didn't give a crap about the treasury they would have taken the Lexington's engine, the 18" MK1 gun and built a battleship around that.
Probably an upgunned, uparmored and stretched Colorado but topping at 30 knots.
If the Royal navy tied the royal treasurer onto a chair and locked him inside his closet they would have taken the I3 design out of the icebox and slapped G3 armor thickness on that design.
The brittish manufactured aircraft that used a boundry layer to increase /decrease their resistance??? So how would a warship with a boundry layer be affected?
Everything moving through a fluid, whether air or water, has a boundary layer. It's caused by friction between the surface of the vessel (whether airborne or floating) and the fluid touching it, causing it to be turbulent instead of flowing smoothly. In the picture of USS Ranger in this video, you can see a bubble stream just under the water clinging to the ship. It's almost non-existent at the bow and gets wider as it goes aft. If that's not the surface effect of Ranger's boundary layer, it at least can give you the idea. The thicker it is, the more drag it makes. Thus...
Devices like vortex generators are used in airplanes to reduce the boundary layer so drag can be lessened. I'm not aware of any industry-wide solutions to reduce the boundary layer of ships, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.
@johngregory4801 thank, was always 🤔
There's a lot of writing home going on.
Why do you think that if they had been built that a 1930s update of the Number 13-class would include aircraft handling facilities? I grant that other Japanese battleship updates of the period included adding aircraft, but they also considerably increased displacement and it's questionable whether Japan would have had the facilities to do that even in an alternative 1930s. The IJN was comfortable with using cruisers with significant scouting aircraft complements, so I can't see Japan developing the facilities needed only for the purpose of adding aircraft to the Number 13-class battleships.
Could you do a video on the ghosts of the battleship north carolina?
Alright Drac lad?
Can you do a vid on the IJN Yukikaze please?
Request: Make guide on the Soviet cruiser Krasny Kavkaz
When the New Jersey transited across the Atlantic in 1983 under light load she hit 35 knots.
✌️
Cheers for the answer Drach. Next question since it's coming up on Remembrance/Veterans day. If someone showed up and told you they were going to send you to a battle back in time as an active participant not just an observer, you get to pick the battle. However they tell you the caveat is you die in the Battle. No action you can take will stop this from happening and you can't refuse going back. What battle do you pick....and why?
Well if you want to live (and everyone does want to live), you just decline the invitation. There's no way anyone is going to choose certain death.
@@Dave_Sisson ok that wasn't an option, consider it this way. Someone arrives and says your going back no matter what because I say so and you'll die. But to show you I'm not all evil I'll let you decide when and where.
00:37:12 - Do you think the USN's concern over using Ranger in the Pacific was justified?
Another factor of consequence that is often overlooked is that the US Navy desired for the US Atlantic Fleet to maintain all organic capabilities deemed necessary by doctrine to avoid requiring use of British assets should the British prove impractical to cooperate with in practice.
In other words, the US Navy wanted its own fleet carrier in the Atlantic so it didn't have to rely on British carriers for naval airpower.
It is debated to this day how much of this was legitimate concern that the British and American fleets needed more time to develop functional joint-operational capacity and how much was contempt/distrust of the Royal Navy by traditionally Anglophobic American leadership.
Whatever the case, of all the US fleet carriers in 1942, USS Ranger was the logical choice for the role of the US Atlantic Fleet's fleet carrier, because while being the least capable of them all, it was still deemed plenty able to handle whatever the French, Italian, or Germans were capable of bringing to action.
I agree with your assessment. USS WASP might never have gone to fight in the Pacific if it weren't for the losses sustained at Coral Sea and Midway (and SARATOGA sucking up torpedoes).
I've got a story from my grandfather Gordon Rowe's unpublished memoirs when he commanded RANGER from March 1943 - May 1944, which included her operations with the British Home Fleet for Operation LEADER. After assuming command from the recently promoted RADM Cal Durgin, Capt. Rowe asked the former CO, "Do you have any special instructions to turn over to me?"
"Yes," he replied. "Admiral King told me, and I will pass it along, 'Don't let anything happen to RANGER. She's the only ship we have in the Atlantic
that can do anything quickly and effectively should the German heavy ships come out raiding our troop convoys.'" This explains why RANGER operated out of Argentia, Newfoundland for the first half of 1943.
Thank you very much! Glad to hear more documentation survives from the men and women on the ground (or the sea in this case.)
It fits with my understanding of affairs at the time. Americans fight hard for their allies, but it is very hard for Americans to trust others to fight just as hard for Americans, and so it never surprises me when I see people like King and Patton not place a lot of faith in any foreign ally, even when the USA is clearly the junior partner in the theatre of operations.
USS Ranger was America's fast capital ship in the Atlantic, and so, as far the United States Navy was concern, it was THE centerpiece of North Atlantic security, irrespective of how many British battleships and carriers might happen to be around!
@@christopherrowe7460
You're welcome,@@genericpersonx333. After the early losses of HMS COURAGEOUS and GLORIOUS, there may have been some misgivings on the part of US Navy aviators of sending WASP and RANGER to join the Home Fleet. I'm curious as to what King thought of using WASP as an airplane ferry to Malta, given her relative lack of protection.
When initially deployed to Scapa Floe, RANGER's flag officer didn't get along well with the senior officers of the British Home Fleet (or my grandfather). RANGER's task force was then subsumed under RADM Olaf Hustvedt, who had already been getting along well with the British. My grandfather's only misgiving about the transfer was it left him, a ship's captain, as the most senior aviator among the British and American officers in the Home Fleet.
Personally, I would really appreciate it if you labeled the pictures of the ships you use to illustrate the point of your answers. Some I can guess, but many I find interesting but I am unable to due further research on since I don't know the name of the ship. Nothing elaborate is require, just some simple text label.
Algorithm Engagent Comment.
I have to say such things so that the algorithm will share this video with other people!
26:50 So, naval tampons.
woo
Has anyone ever constructed a metal hulled ship from something other than iron and steel? Like for example a full copper hull, rather than just copper sheeted wooden hulls?
Plenty of aluminium hulled ships around, but copper hulls sounds unlikely. Plus the Soviet titanium hulled submarines.
13th, 5 November 2023
Was the brittish navy calling ships" Berwick" an insult to scotland or something different?
:)
You were right. The metric system is wrong.
My goodness this site is awesome. I don’t know how I missed it. Thank you.
Good luck. I believe Drach is related to Chronos based on some of his 5 minute guides.
1😊
Yes, how? How about "The Unauthorized history of the Pacific War"? as well?