How much of a shock were the dreadnoughts to the world I mean I know they were great but couldn't anyone realize that britian had that big docks and a massive battleship until she had trials also when was bb term invented and why are destroyers called DD when shouldn't they be d
Question about merch. when do you plan on restocking hats? My friend and I would like to buy a "do you see torpedo boats?" hat. thanks for doing all these Q&As.
Way, way more than that, as a conservative guesstimate I'd say for every hour of video time there's probably ten of prep, research, script writing, recording, editing, etc etc. Drach has some incredible stamina and discipline to keep pumping these things out, and we are truly lucky to be able to enjoy so much content for free, or a small price if you are a patreon.
The discussion of the Royal Australian Navy's anthem vs Hearts of Oak sent me down a rabbit hole of military songs. Now I've listened to Prussian Glory, Marine Corps Hymn, Le Boudin, To Serve Russia, and there's no end in sight
Same here, but be careful when listening to Preußens Gloria, it sometimes has the side effect of making people want to annex the place next door. I've also been listening to a fairly modern composition "Scrap Iron Flotilla March" and it's not bad. th-cam.com/video/-F_iMWladNE/w-d-xo.html
Preußens Gloria is pretty mainstream german march. Try the march of Yorcks Corps, or the various Präsentiermärsche (the prussian one being my favorite)
If you haven't already, listen to Erika, a song about a soldier reminiscing about his love. It is composed by a Nazi but has no overt nazi themes. And it is catchy as hell. Another recommendation is "Sare jaha se aacha" marching version. It's an Indian army song adapted to march.
In response to the question about naval songs, having done marching band for a good number of years I strongly agree with your assessment. Heart of Oak can be marched to but you certainly have to think about it more whereas the Australian Royal Navy Anthem easily matched up to a comfortable march time. And did I look like a fool out on the street trying this? Yes. Was it worth it? Maybe.
In the Southwest Pacific area the allies threw alot of "skip bombs" at the Japanese. Highly effective especially when from all those B-25,A20 gunships. Plus of course Aussie Beaufighters.
You don't usually think of John Moses Browning in a naval context, but the power of 6 to 12 .50 cal machine guns -- with the odd bouncing bomb thrown in -- is pretty damn scary. And this (Battle of the Bismarck Sea) was the Army Air Force and not even the Navy.
Yah I remember captian hara talking about skipping bombs and being terrified of them because there was precious little to do about them once released, especially when in a destroyer lol
Agree, the RAN surely screwed the pooch when they abandoned Heart of Oak for that rather ordinary and uninspiring piece. Trying to reinvent the wheel in a effort at national individualism can come at a price.
Re warships being designed as merchant ships, a couple cases come to mind. In the 30s, Italy built 4 banana boats that were designed from the outset for easy conversion to merchant cruisers. Guns and military equipment for them were pre-positioned in Naples and Massawa. When the war started, three of the ships were stranded in the Red Sea. One was converted to a hospital ship, while Ramb1 and Ramb2 were armed as planned. The IJN designed ships to be easily converted to carriers to game the tonnage limits of the naval treaties. The Chitose class seaplane tenders and Zuihō class sub tenders were designed for this transformation, as well as the passenger liners that were converted to Hiyō class carriers.
@@Dave_Sisson "Escape of the Red Sea Flotilla: RAMB I, RAMB II and Eritrea" by The History Guy.posted 10 days ago. I found that by investigating Italian ops in the Red Sea as half a dozen Italian DDs became stranded there when the war started. The thought crossed my mind that, as the Italians were losing Ethiopia, the ships were doomed. What if the Italians steamed them all up the Gulf of Suez, stuffed them all into the Canal and scuttled them? Then the Brits would need to move supplies overland from Suez City, rather than using the vastly more extensive port and transportation facilities in Alexandria, or run the gauntlet between Tunisia and Sicily.
Yeah, I can be a musical snob as well. I'm putting together a new TH-cam Channel about vintage cars, and I wanted an intro song. I couldn't find one I liked, so I wrote and produced my own- in the style of the 1900-1910 vaudeville complete with scratchy recording. 'Tis fun.
The issue of large muzzle loaded guns went way beyond the USRC Naugatuck and reached its apex with the Armstrong 100 ton (17.7") guns - initially built for the Italian Duilio class ironclads, but then also deployed by the British to defend Gibraltar and Malta. Two of the British guns still exist - and if you are in Malta I can highly recommend a visit to the Fort Rinella Battery museum, where you can see not only the gun but also parts of the complex hydraulic loading arrangements built into the fort either side of the gun. After firing the gun would rotate to the side, where it would be pressure washed out, it would then depress to allow the water to drain out and would automatically open a loading hatch which then allowed the 200kg of black powder and 900kg shell to be rammed home after which the gun would rotate and elevate back onto target. The whole process was semi-automatic powered hydraulically by a large water reservoir. If you can't visit Malta then the "Forgotten Weapons" channel on youtube has an excellent 25 min video showing it all.
hearing about your sickness, (may you be vouchsafed a happy recovery) is like discovering that one's schoolteacher didn't, in fact, pop out of a box at the back of the room 5 minutes before class
Just so everybody knows, on the New York class Dreadnought(BB-34 New York/BB-35 Texas), Shell/Powder Charges were human handled at both ends of the chain. This class had automated lifts FROM the Powder/Shell Room to the turret. But in the turret EVERYTHING was done by hand, no shell trays to move the shell from lift to gun, no shell/Powder rammer, nothing. Imagine loading the 14"/45 cal with the 1400 Lbs AP shell BY HAND & ramming it & the 4 105 Lbs powder charges with a HAND RAMMER Crew, in the tropics/pacific. Explained why the New York's had such a large gun crew. When the US Navy was building the New York's, they just didn't trust those new fangled gun rammers.
I paused the video to go watch the archive of the highball. Jesus Christ that’s utterly terrifying. You can see the Crewmen on Malaya bricking it when the bomb hits the armour. Imagine being on Tirpitz and being hit by one of these monsters...
It is scary, however one thing to point out is that part that was penetrated was not covered by anything like main "citadel" armor. How it would fare against that I don't know and certainly it would do cripling damage even where it did hit if it would explode, but the question of effectiveness against main BB armor belt is not included in that video. Maybe if someone can nick a plate off HMS Barham we can test it? :-)
In the Grand Fleet vs. the American Standards, if Beatty is in change of the Grand Fleet we can pretty well predict that something would have been wrong with his bloody ships that day. And if Seymour had still been his signal officer, they would have a replay of the Russian Second Fleet.
I watched the Highball video and you have got to wonder the effect it would have had on an enemy warship. Not only could the Mosquito come in fast, 365 MPH was given for the first film clip, but trying to shoot at a fast moving aircraft when you can see that bomb coming your way would need nerves of steal.
No joke! Shooting at a Mosquito that is most likely shooting back at you as well... frightening! I wonder what that variant of Mosquito would have been armed with... 20mm? .303 Browning? Possibly a Browning .50?
On 16th century sailing ships, there's one more factor that complicates them even more - loot. This being right after the tail end of middle ages, and having very common boarding actions, loot and its acquisition and distribution is a huge part of warfare, in a way we're not used to today. That makes an operational range of a ship theoretically infinite, what with looting the supplies from defeated vessels, especially since you can repair hull with carpenter on board. Well, until the keel iteslf breaks, at least. Just about the only thing that limits you is that sailors and soldiers present are entitled to a share of the loot (as is standard for soldiers at this time), and that will eventually fill you to capacity - and the men are not likely to appreciate you throwing gold overboard to make space for tackbread. In practice, infinite ranges don't manifest for some reason, but your early renaissance raider can extend his range in ways that modern warships don't posses.
As for warships being built to resemble merchant ships, the RN had 40- or so of the WWI Flower class convoy sloops altered during the build to resemble merchant ships and the last few of the WWI P Boats(also convoy escorts) were also altered during or prior to the build to resemble merchant ships, so there were indeed steam warships built to look like merchant vessels.
Just a correction the US Navy was flying Northrop BT-1/2 in 1938 a monoplane retractable gear dive bomber. The Navy was also operating the Buffalo in 1939. The Japanese were using the B5N1 Kate in 1939.
The Swordfish sank more shipping than any other aeroplane. In an Atlantic convoy, no merchant ship was sunk when protected by a MAC ship that launched Swordfish. The first ever aeroplane with on board radar to detect ships so ships could be sunk at night.The range with extra tanks, 1,000 miles. The only plane that could still launch from a short take off in Atlantic storms. And the Bismark.....
Looked up the footage of the Highball test. Aside from the terrifying prospect of an AA-gunner trying to shoot down a Mosquito going full tilt at low level, the weapon does indeed look terrifying: it looks like it misses the main armour belt, but it goes through HMS Malaya's hull like a knife through butter!! If that blew up in the position it penetrated: hello magazine detonation, goodbye ship. A swarm of angry Mossies with two of these each.... *Shudder*
23:30 With regard to a dreadnought with larger than 6" guns, there actually *were* at least a couple of designs with very large secondaries, though in both cases they existed only on paper. So Two of the earliest designs for what became the Austro-Hungarian Tegetthoff-class (Vorprojekt I and Vorprojekt II) had 4x2 30.5cm main guns and either 10x1 or 4x2 19cm secondaries. In those forms they were arguably only pseudo-dreadnoughts. Ultimately, Vorprojekt VIII (4x3 30.5cm and 10x1 15cm) formed the basis of the Tegetthoff-class www.viribusunitis.ca/bb-bc-pre-designs-vu There's also a few to be found among the many designs proposed by Armstrong for Brazil in the process that eventually led to Rio de Janeiro/HMS Agincourt. Design 686 (designed with the direct input of a Brazilian admiral) called for 4x2 16"/45 main guns and 3x2 9.4"/50 secondaries. At one point this was actually expected to be the ship Brazil was going to order in 1911. Meaning that the most powerful of the super-dreadnoughts (at least until the Colorado and Nagato classes) would've been in part a throwback to pre-dreadnought design. stefsap.wordpress.com/2016/12/13/the-brazilian-dreadnoughts-1904-1914/ stefsap.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/sistema-pugliese-da-dg-231.jpg stefsap.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/sistema-pugliese-da-dg-291.jpg stefsap.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/sistema-pugliese-da-dg-301.jpg
Drach, you now have the privilege to say what fighter pilots, commandos, and commuters in London traffic have earned: Cheated death again! Glad you're with us and mending.
For that theoretical heavy cruiser I would put the some extra weight into longer 8 inch guns to get extra penetration and shorter flight times for the shells.
I'd like to submit the SMS Seeadler, aka the Pass of Balmaha as a possible answer to the 2nd to last question as a warship(-ish) disguising as a merchantman to go raiding, although it did have sails. That said, the captain (one Felix von Luckner) would make great material for a special and of himself *nudge nudge* Get better soon @Drachinifel!
Churchill agreed with that sentiment. During his second stint as First Lord of the Admiralty (1939-1940), he seriously pushed for super-heavy cruisers with 9.2" guns. If you play World of Warships, Drake and Goliath in the British heavy cruiser line are loosely based on those design studies.
re UK FAA aircraft in 1939. Prior to the SBD, the USN had the SB2U Vindicator, first deployed on Saratoga in December of 37, so by 40, with the SBD, the USN was into it's second generation of monoplane dive bombers. The original F4F proposal was a biplane, and soundly trounced in trials by the Brewster F2A monoplane with retractable landing gear. First deployment of the Buffalo was on Saratoga in December 39. Add the TBD, first deployed in 37, and the USN is deploying all retracting gear/monoplanes by the start of 40.
FYI: The so called Wind Indicator could not actually drive bomb. It was restricted to an angle of 45°. By USN standards dive bombing started at 60° and the closer you get to 90°, the better for accuracy.
There was a third monoplane USN bomber in the late 30s, the SBA. With a smaller payload than the SBD, and lacking folding wings, it wasn't really in the hunt.
@@stevevalley7835 I wasn't aware the plane had that nickname too. Regarding the SBA, it had not entered service in 39. Otoh, the Sea Gladiator biplanes still served in the RN.
@@carlcarlton764 The SBA took forever to get into production because Brewster was already running at capacity building Buffalos, so SBA production was handed off to the Naval Aircraft Factory in Sept 38. NAF had it's hands full too, and with the SBD in the pipeline, the NAF didn't give the SBA, now the SBN high priority, so they only built a handful by 42, when the SBN was obsolete, so the project was dropped. Brewster was a dumpster fire of a company, notorious for late delivery and terrible build quality. The only people who were bigger crooks than Jimmy Work, who owned Brewster, were Brewster's export agents, long time independent arms dealers, the Miranda brothers, dba Brewster Export Company, who, when not doing time in the federal pen for violating the US arms embargo on Bolivia, were embezzling from Brewster. The Royal Navy did have the Skua for a fighter in 39. If Force Z had had a carrier, it probably would have had Skuas embarked. Only problem is the Mitsu Nell bombers that attacked Force Z were faster than a Skua.
So delighted that your PC is living. Wonderful to have Drydock 104 today with upcoming Jutland episodes on the way. Thank you for all your work!! One question re heavy cruisers - why didn't the RN build some heavy cruisers as well or instead of more 6" Town Class once we were beyond the treaty era (i.e. late 30s)? Surely a modernized Town (or County) would have been valuable and there would have been time to design, lay down and even commission a few during WW2?
+Robert Marsch Dr. Alexander Clarke addresses this in his Town class video's. Essentially the Royal Navy was faced with the following points: 1) They had a limited cruiser tonnage, but a huge world-wide commitment requiring as many cruisers as possible to police and 'show the flag'. It's also one of the reasons why they had a (less profitable) excursion with the small Dido-class cruisers, and (a considerable more favorable) cruiser-like Tribal-class large destroyers. 2) The Royal Navy knew that in case of war, cruisers would most likely be cough alone (think China station!). Offensive fleet actions out of the question, it would be preferred to use the cruisers as commerce raiders (one of the main missions for the Town Class). The (modernized!) Battlecruisers HMS Renown, Repulse and Hood where retained and intended to be the fast heavy-hitters, and the big battle-wagons that 'showed the flag'. 3) As Battle of the River Plate showed, 6 Inch guns are perfectly able to mission kill tougher opponents. And with the larger rate of a 6" gun, you will have thrown more shell weight after the first minute of engagement as a 8" armed cruisers, with larger chance of hitting. Also the 6" gun doesn't have a lot less (practical) range than a 8". Radar guided guns changed this a bit, but this wasn't in consideration when the Royal Navy was building up the force it would go into war with. With this in mind, the Royal Navy was just less interested in heavy cruisers and was fine with just the Counties (still 15 units compared to 18 US navy CA commissioned prior to WW2).
@@Tuning3434 thanks! I'd be interested to find some authoritative data on 6" v 8" guns in fleet action. Absolutely agree re the commerce raider point, and smaller shells = store more of them and fire faster makes sense in that context. I think I heard Alex Clarke assert that there was significant damage done by 6" on Graf Spee yet other sources suggest that 6" shells were ineffective against ships larger than cruisers on anything other than non heavily armoured parts hence me wondering what the RN would lose in early 40s by (say) creating a 8" heavy cruiser based on the towns perhaps weighing 13 or 14000 tons. No one cared about the treaty limits by then and could have been useful especially in the Far East or perhaps against the Italian cruisers. On the other hand most upgrades were focused on AA and rightly so given experience in the Med etc.
@@robertmarsh3588 It was considered, to be armed with the 8"/50 MkIX. (navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_8-55_mk9.php) I wouldn't mind Drach to go a bit into the paper design for the follow 8" or whatever fever-dream was the origin of the 9.2" WoWs paper ships.
@@Tuning3434 The origin of the 9.2" gun paper ships in World of Warships was Winston Churchill's fever dream. Though the Tier 10 Goliath's 12 guns really should be in 3 quad turrets instead of 4 triples, as that's what the actual design study called for.
Speaking of music, a query: What did the Austrian-Hungarian Navy use as a naval march, if it wasn't the Radetsky March? And two fun facts, courtesy of Walter Lord's book, "Incredible Victory": Some of the Japanese pilots listened to "Kirameku Seiza" en route to Midway... ...and one of the priority repair items on the USS Yorktown radioed to Pearl Harbor was the ice cream freezer.
The IJN would have learned about the ice cream freezer and thought, "We're going to win!" And then, after digesting the attack of the Yorktown's torpedo bombers, they should have thought, "We're going to lose!" The dive bombers did the damage but the torpedo bombers refuted what the IJN thought was their advantage.
@@MakeMeThinkAgain One correction - the USN torpedo planes at Midway didn't come out well at all, as tactically (as noted by Lord), there was little to no coordination between the torpedo bombers, the fighters, and the dive bombers - Yorktown's being the best of the three US carriers at Midway, but in Yorktown's first attack, the fighters were attacked by Zeroes from the IJN combat air patrol while the torpedo bombers were also being attacked separately, so, like the Enterprise and the Hornet, the Yorktown's torpedo bombers were directly ineffective... ...but inadvertently, their sacrifice, and the uncoordinated nature of the US attacks, brought the IJN CAP low, leaving the high area above the IJN carriers free for the dive bombers. The uncoordinated nature of the attacks also played havoc with Nagumo's efforts to arm and launch a strike on the US carriers, after arming for a second attack on Midway. Which is where the 30 minute delay of the Tone launching one of the search planes came into play, if it had launched on time, the strike would have been immediately ordered, and armed for, attacks on the US carriers, instead of Nagumo having to change orders, and the IJN crews being too hasty, leaving bombs and fuel carts on the flight decks.
@@theokamis5865 This is all true but beside the point I was trying to make. The Japanese acknowledged that the USA had all sorts of material advantages but they felt the Americans were weak and lacked any sort of military spirit. They believed their Samurai spirit and willingness to die for the Emperor would overcome the morally weak Westerners. In the sacrifice of the torpedo bomber squadrons the Americans out Japanese spirited the IJN. Later, when the USN had working torpedoes, better planes, newer ships, the latest radar technology, and more experience, American material advantages played a huge role in the destruction of the IJN. But in the first half of 1942 (or really all of 1942), the USN fought the IJN to a stalemate and all but destroyed the Kidō Butai with second rate equipment coupled with the spirit displayed by those torpedo bomber squadrons.
About warships looking like merchant ships. What of the "Convoy Sloops" of WWI? As I recall those intentionally kept a lot of Merchant character (midships superstructure etc).
You missed a critical factor for bore diameter commonality. Boring and rifling machines. So even as rounds get larger and more powerful, they tend to use the same bores as they can make the shells longer and propelled by more powder. Therefore they don't have to make a whole new boring machine just for the new gun, they can use the old one. Russia is a particular brutal example in its small arms where everything had to be 7.62mm at one point because thats all they had for domestic tooling. Also never underestimate mental familiarity or desire to categorize things. Someone could have make a 16.75" battleship gun if they wanted to beat the next guy, but its just ugly on paper, doesn't categorize well, and doesn't "taste" like a meaningful difference. So why not just go with 16" which if nothing else you can steal the other guys homework if you run into a problem.
WWI did see the PC-class sloops a variant on the RN P-class sloop which were given the outline of a small merchant vessel in order to act as a decoy Q ship
Drach's answer to the 10 inch gun 9" belt thing missed another aspect of why people didn't build them - the political consequences, where it would have fitted in treaties and how people would have responded - in other words an arms race nobody wanted or using battleship capacity.
It’s pretty clear that the Japanese were wrong in their decision to construct the Yamato and Musashi, how wrong were they when they started construction? How much information on naval aircraft capability was there when Yamato was planned? What could the Japanese have constructed for a similar amount of materials and man hours?
Hmm, this was completely absorbing, I came across on TH-cam, a Pathe News prewar, visit to the fleet, a sequence of film, taken on board the Hood, in a modest swell, her decks were totally awash.
When answering the question about Britain using the Swordfish biplane as a torpedo bomber when the US & Japanese had monoplanes the answer you gave(imho) left out what I also thought was a major contributing factor to British Carriers not getting the newest & best airplanes in quick & timely manner. And that major contributing factor is "The Battle of Britain!" Cuz the Germans wanted to invade England but knew that crossing the channel with a landing force would be suicide with England's Royal Navy being strong 💪 enough to murder such a force. So they got the big idea that if they could take over the skies with the Luffwaffe that air power could in part neutralize the power of the Royal Navy if the Luffwaffe could have complete air superiority in the skies over England. And because so much time, money & effort was being funneled into fighters for the RAF in order to rule the skies over England that carrier aircraft was put on the back burner so to speak cuz winning the skies over London took priority. Once it became clear that if Germany did try to invade England, that England could repel such an invasion with heavy losses that was when they began trying to get better aircraft for their carriers. And you also have to figure that during that time when Britain was so involved in the Battle of Britain that everyone was so preoccupied building ground based fighters that development & funding for carrier based aircraft was practically non- existent. Anyway, that was what I had always heard. And that although the Swordfish was outclassed by most monoplane fighters they could still deliver devastating torpedo hits to ships. Just ask Bismark. Although HMS Rodney & HMS KGV may have turned Bismark into a battered & sinking wreck full of carnage. It was the Swordfish that delivered the crippling torpedo blow that jammed the steering mechanisms that enabled those 2 battleships to attack Bismark and send it to it's home on the sea bed. And furthermore, the Swordfish that attacked Bismark received AA fire that arguably may bave torn a wing from a metal monoplane but easily passed thru the canvass of the Swordfish and then was easily repaired with tape. I WONDER IF THEY HAD DUCT TAPE BACK THEN?? Or an equivalent? Anyway, I hope what I've said makes sense & is also a major factor in the Brits being just a tiny bit behind in having modern up to date aircraft on their carriers. Once the US started stocking British Carriers with US monoplanes evidently the British pilots had no problem learning to fly them. Which leads me to think I need to learn more about aviation history.
You were talking about the caliber and pounders in regards to naval guns. I'm more understanding the size of infantry and aerial guns where the caliber of a infantry rifle or hand gun is the diameter of the barrel not the length. But it seems that artillery rifles diameter are measured inches or MM and the caliber has to due with the length of the barrel. How do they arrive at these measurements?
Divide length of barrel by diameter to give the caliber figure. So a 6 inch gun with a barrel length of 25 feet is a 50 caliber weapon. German WW2 guns used the same system, hence 75mm L/24, L/43, L/48 and L/70 had the same barrel diameter and different barrel length.
just listened to both the ran wuick march id say is more of a beat to msrch to but hearts of oak is pretty neat. now im a aussie but the the nrittish on my mums side does get the blood pumping
Not if you build a giant cruiser with part of your capital ship tonnage. Which is something that France actually considered doing. One of the early design studies that eventually led to the Dunkerque-class was for a 17,500 ton "battleship" with 305mm guns in two forward quad turrets, a top speed of 35 knots, and armored to protect against 203mm guns (it doesn't seem to have been listed exactly how thick this armor would be, but a belt of around 180mm seems likely). They ended up deciding that while this would do quite well in chasing down and destroying Italian heavy cruisers, the armor was insufficient to guarantee stopping the Deutschland-class's 283mm guns. As such, Dunkerque ended up designed at 26,500 tons (still far below the 35,000 limit), with two quad 330mm guns, 29.5 knot top speed, and 225mm belt. (In practice, Dunkerque actually achieved 31 knots.)
I don't (didn't) know shit about your expertise. I find it fascinating cuz I am a seeker of knowledge youtubewise. Thank you. Great Voice btw. America is a decent country. Sorry you had a double indignity. Coro....+ Politics that shouldn't be histrionic
+John Reske The copious amount of Irn Bru should indeed be more than enough confirmation that Drach is not part to the lost territories on the other side of the Ocean.
@@Tuning3434 but equally I know more russians than English people who are regular consumers of Irn Bru 😉 And I'm being serious, I think their only factory outside of Scotland is in Russia! Tins of Irn Bru in Cyrillic text are kinda of a weird collectors item back in Scotland :) but its only a small section of English rugby league fans or english people who holidayed in scotland as kids who seem to have that sweet sweet ginger habit 🤣
Pinned post for Q&A :)
How much of a shock were the dreadnoughts to the world I mean I know they were great but couldn't anyone realize that britian had that big docks and a massive battleship until she had trials also when was bb term invented and why are destroyers called DD when shouldn't they be d
You mentioned in an earlier video that bow tanking your opponents shells was a bad idea. Why is this?
Personal question do you prefer Johnny Horton sink the Bismarck or sabaton
Question about merch. when do you plan on restocking hats? My friend and I would like to buy a "do you see torpedo boats?" hat. thanks for doing all these Q&As.
@EFEZZE6280 wasn't she constructed
Can we appreciate that there is over 100 Hours of this man doing QNA?
Respect o7
Way, way more than that, as a conservative guesstimate I'd say for every hour of video time there's probably ten of prep, research, script writing, recording, editing, etc etc. Drach has some incredible stamina and discipline to keep pumping these things out, and we are truly lucky to be able to enjoy so much content for free, or a small price if you are a patreon.
o7 History like a baws!
Yes, a tremendous body of work by Drach.
There is at least one 5 hour 40 or so Drydock...
RESPECT
IT LIVES !!!!!!!!
PRAISE THE DRY DOCK......AND DAMN THE NECRONS !!!!!
Also happy to hear you are among the living Drach.
Underverse curse you heretic..😏
Thank for not dying, Uncle Drach. Health to you and yours.
The Swordfish had to lift off with a heavy "passenger" from a small carrier so maximum lift at low speed was all important. A biplane can do that.
The discussion of the Royal Australian Navy's anthem vs Hearts of Oak sent me down a rabbit hole of military songs. Now I've listened to Prussian Glory, Marine Corps Hymn, Le Boudin, To Serve Russia, and there's no end in sight
Same here, but be careful when listening to Preußens Gloria, it sometimes has the side effect of making people want to annex the place next door. I've also been listening to a fairly modern composition "Scrap Iron Flotilla March" and it's not bad. th-cam.com/video/-F_iMWladNE/w-d-xo.html
Preußens Gloria is pretty mainstream german march. Try the march of Yorcks Corps, or the various Präsentiermärsche (the prussian one being my favorite)
If you haven't already, listen to Erika, a song about a soldier reminiscing about his love. It is composed by a Nazi but has no overt nazi themes. And it is catchy as hell.
Another recommendation is "Sare jaha se aacha" marching version. It's an Indian army song adapted to march.
Yes! I was starting to experience Drydock withdrawal symptoms.
NMCCW me too
I had to check it was Sunday on my phone. Felt very strange.
Unrequited Drydock Syndrome!
Andrew L - Had me worried with Drach having surgery and all. Hope he’s feeling as well as he sounds.
The rite of percussive maintenance once again proves the might of the Omnissiah!
In response to the question about naval songs, having done marching band for a good number of years I strongly agree with your assessment. Heart of Oak can be marched to but you certainly have to think about it more whereas the Australian Royal Navy Anthem easily matched up to a comfortable march time. And did I look like a fool out on the street trying this? Yes. Was it worth it? Maybe.
You're back!! And your computer must have been recovered too.
Computer: Hold up, let me die again. X[
Top work getting this out Drach! Hope you've sorted your computer probs. Btw this weekend's "Armchair Admirals" was excellent.
Hope you are feeling better real soon. Thanks for our time at the Drydock. Stay well.
In the Southwest Pacific area the allies threw alot of "skip bombs" at the Japanese. Highly effective especially when from all those B-25,A20 gunships. Plus of course Aussie Beaufighters.
You don't usually think of John Moses Browning in a naval context, but the power of 6 to 12 .50 cal machine guns -- with the odd bouncing bomb thrown in -- is pretty damn scary. And this (Battle of the Bismarck Sea) was the Army Air Force and not even the Navy.
Yah I remember captian hara talking about skipping bombs and being terrified of them because there was precious little to do about them once released, especially when in a destroyer lol
"Dammit, again? Are we the Highball squadron or the Blueball squadron?"
Denied any chance to release their special loads
I use your content to fall asleep to very frequently. Very calming. Just thought you should know.
"All sorts of Weird and Wonderful shapes"... >_< be it a16th century Galleon, or a 20th century Armored Barbet... Bravo sir, bravo... ^_^
Excellent job of not dieing, sir drach.
congrats on two years of the drydock Drach
Came here faster than Shimano could sink
Shimano is fast, if you pedal fast.
So you got here in about 10 days..?
Dont you mean Vasa ?
There are a few ways to interpret that joke...
@@spudskie3907 I feel this would be cursed but I really want to know another way
Always cheers me up when i hear the drydock intro.
hurra, you managed to salvage the hard drive then? and all the good stuff in it?
All his old 70’s Pornos
Just endless photos of The Kamchatka
Glad you are back up & running!
Hooray for Drach! Well done on the WOWS livestream.
What livestream?
History chat... th-cam.com/video/AS1V07B9ygY/w-d-xo.html Jingles posted a link to it.
I see Drach fell back on his Tech Preist knowledge and resurrected his PC.
The quick march of the Royal Australian Navy, I got bored listening to after 2 mins, Hearts of Oak I can listen to all day long
Agree, the RAN surely screwed the pooch when they abandoned Heart of Oak for that rather ordinary and uninspiring piece. Trying to reinvent the wheel in a effort at national individualism can come at a price.
GLAD YOU ARE RECOVERING!!!
Re warships being designed as merchant ships, a couple cases come to mind. In the 30s, Italy built 4 banana boats that were designed from the outset for easy conversion to merchant cruisers. Guns and military equipment for them were pre-positioned in Naples and Massawa. When the war started, three of the ships were stranded in the Red Sea. One was converted to a hospital ship, while Ramb1 and Ramb2 were armed as planned. The IJN designed ships to be easily converted to carriers to game the tonnage limits of the naval treaties. The Chitose class seaplane tenders and Zuihō class sub tenders were designed for this transformation, as well as the passenger liners that were converted to Hiyō class carriers.
I saw that video too. It was rather good but I forget who made it. Possibly Mark Felton Productions or The History Guy?
@@Dave_Sisson "Escape of the Red Sea Flotilla: RAMB I, RAMB II and Eritrea" by The History Guy.posted 10 days ago. I found that by investigating Italian ops in the Red Sea as half a dozen Italian DDs became stranded there when the war started. The thought crossed my mind that, as the Italians were losing Ethiopia, the ships were doomed. What if the Italians steamed them all up the Gulf of Suez, stuffed them all into the Canal and scuttled them? Then the Brits would need to move supplies overland from Suez City, rather than using the vastly more extensive port and transportation facilities in Alexandria, or run the gauntlet between Tunisia and Sicily.
Ye Gods! That video of the Highball test is absolutely terrifying. Poor old Malaya must have rung like a bell.
Yeah, I can be a musical snob as well. I'm putting together a new TH-cam Channel about vintage cars, and I wanted an intro song. I couldn't find one I liked, so I wrote and produced my own- in the style of the 1900-1910 vaudeville complete with scratchy recording. 'Tis fun.
Dry Dock jingle tune!!
It's time to sail off to battle knowledge
The issue of large muzzle loaded guns went way beyond the USRC Naugatuck and reached its apex with the Armstrong 100 ton (17.7") guns - initially built for the Italian Duilio class ironclads, but then also deployed by the British to defend Gibraltar and Malta. Two of the British guns still exist - and if you are in Malta I can highly recommend a visit to the Fort Rinella Battery museum, where you can see not only the gun but also parts of the complex hydraulic loading arrangements built into the fort either side of the gun. After firing the gun would rotate to the side, where it would be pressure washed out, it would then depress to allow the water to drain out and would automatically open a loading hatch which then allowed the 200kg of black powder and 900kg shell to be rammed home after which the gun would rotate and elevate back onto target. The whole process was semi-automatic powered hydraulically by a large water reservoir. If you can't visit Malta then the "Forgotten Weapons" channel on youtube has an excellent 25 min video showing it all.
Glad you were able to get some help on your computer issues!
the swordfish is the irl equivalent to the family guy skit were stewie followed a fat guy around with a tuba
Am I the only one here who started hearing the Accountancy Shanty when Drachinifel mentioned a "mobile office block with guns" at 30:24?
For god's sake don't die! This is the golden age for amateur military history and I couldn't bear to lose you or TIK or Ian or Nicholas or Bernhard.
hearing about your sickness, (may you be vouchsafed a happy recovery) is like discovering that one's schoolteacher didn't, in fact, pop out of a box at the back of the room 5 minutes before class
Best intro song in the game
Thanks for the video to help me sleep.
I listen to Drach every night to fall asleep. I don’t know what I’d do if his channel ever disappeared!
Just so everybody knows, on the New York class Dreadnought(BB-34 New York/BB-35 Texas), Shell/Powder Charges were human handled at both ends of the chain. This class had automated lifts FROM the Powder/Shell Room to the turret. But in the turret EVERYTHING was done by hand, no shell trays to move the shell from lift to gun, no shell/Powder rammer, nothing. Imagine loading the 14"/45 cal with the 1400 Lbs AP shell BY HAND & ramming it & the 4 105 Lbs powder charges with a HAND RAMMER Crew, in the tropics/pacific. Explained why the New York's had such a large gun crew. When the US Navy was building the New York's, they just didn't trust those new fangled gun rammers.
I paused the video to go watch the archive of the highball. Jesus Christ that’s utterly terrifying. You can see the Crewmen on Malaya bricking it when the bomb hits the armour. Imagine being on Tirpitz and being hit by one of these monsters...
It is scary, however one thing to point out is that part that was penetrated was not covered by anything like main "citadel" armor. How it would fare against that I don't know and certainly it would do cripling damage even where it did hit if it would explode, but the question of effectiveness against main BB armor belt is not included in that video. Maybe if someone can nick a plate off HMS Barham we can test it? :-)
As Always, Thank you.
Love the reference to an OCP (Outside Context Problem) from Ian Banks (Excession).
In the Grand Fleet vs. the American Standards, if Beatty is in change of the Grand Fleet we can pretty well predict that something would have been wrong with his bloody ships that day. And if Seymour had still been his signal officer, they would have a replay of the Russian Second Fleet.
No they wouldn't have because the both of them didn't see torpedo boats every where. Would it have been bad ? Yes. But not as bad as the second fleet.
@@reaperking2121 True. But Beatty would have seen torpedoes everywhere (see Dogger Bank).
I watched the Highball video and you have got to wonder the effect it would have had on an enemy warship. Not only could the Mosquito come in fast, 365 MPH was given for the first film clip, but trying to shoot at a fast moving aircraft when you can see that bomb coming your way would need nerves of steal.
No joke! Shooting at a Mosquito that is most likely shooting back at you as well... frightening! I wonder what that variant of Mosquito would have been armed with... 20mm? .303 Browning? Possibly a Browning .50?
On 16th century sailing ships, there's one more factor that complicates them even more - loot. This being right after the tail end of middle ages, and having very common boarding actions, loot and its acquisition and distribution is a huge part of warfare, in a way we're not used to today. That makes an operational range of a ship theoretically infinite, what with looting the supplies from defeated vessels, especially since you can repair hull with carpenter on board. Well, until the keel iteslf breaks, at least.
Just about the only thing that limits you is that sailors and soldiers present are entitled to a share of the loot (as is standard for soldiers at this time), and that will eventually fill you to capacity - and the men are not likely to appreciate you throwing gold overboard to make space for tackbread.
In practice, infinite ranges don't manifest for some reason, but your early renaissance raider can extend his range in ways that modern warships don't posses.
What's the name of the opening theme? I have the irresistible urge to swing to it.
Now I have pictures in my head :D
th-cam.com/video/nE4wCIbi8Bw/w-d-xo.html
Thank you for another great video, Drknfl.
Working Guy oh, no. You’ve disemvowelled him!
@@scottdrone-silvers5179 lol
floating office block with guns?
Its the crimson Perminant Assurance!
You're the best Drach!
If The Drydock is here, can Jutland part 2 be far away? Hope springs eternal!
As for warships being built to resemble merchant ships, the RN had 40- or so of the WWI Flower class convoy sloops altered during the build to resemble merchant ships and the last few of the WWI P Boats(also convoy escorts) were also altered during or prior to the build to resemble merchant ships, so there were indeed steam warships built to look like merchant vessels.
I'm glad to hear you didn't die.
Just a correction the US Navy was flying Northrop BT-1/2 in 1938 a monoplane retractable gear dive bomber. The Navy was also operating the Buffalo in 1939. The Japanese were using the B5N1 Kate in 1939.
Well . . . that was a long day in the U.K. It's a special day in the U.S. West . . .
Here's to a speedy recovery.
The Swordfish sank more shipping than any other aeroplane. In an Atlantic convoy, no merchant ship was sunk when protected by a MAC ship that launched Swordfish. The first ever aeroplane with on board radar to detect ships so ships could be sunk at night.The range with extra tanks, 1,000 miles. The only plane that could still launch from a short take off in Atlantic storms. And the Bismark.....
18:38 unless that 13.5 inch ship is Iron Duke with it's hit rate!
Looked up the footage of the Highball test. Aside from the terrifying prospect of an AA-gunner trying to shoot down a Mosquito going full tilt at low level, the weapon does indeed look terrifying: it looks like it misses the main armour belt, but it goes through HMS Malaya's hull like a knife through butter!! If that blew up in the position it penetrated: hello magazine detonation, goodbye ship. A swarm of angry Mossies with two of these each.... *Shudder*
23:30 With regard to a dreadnought with larger than 6" guns, there actually *were* at least a couple of designs with very large secondaries, though in both cases they existed only on paper. So
Two of the earliest designs for what became the Austro-Hungarian Tegetthoff-class (Vorprojekt I and Vorprojekt II) had 4x2 30.5cm main guns and either 10x1 or 4x2 19cm secondaries. In those forms they were arguably only pseudo-dreadnoughts. Ultimately, Vorprojekt VIII (4x3 30.5cm and 10x1 15cm) formed the basis of the Tegetthoff-class
www.viribusunitis.ca/bb-bc-pre-designs-vu
There's also a few to be found among the many designs proposed by Armstrong for Brazil in the process that eventually led to Rio de Janeiro/HMS Agincourt. Design 686 (designed with the direct input of a Brazilian admiral) called for 4x2 16"/45 main guns and 3x2 9.4"/50 secondaries. At one point this was actually expected to be the ship Brazil was going to order in 1911. Meaning that the most powerful of the super-dreadnoughts (at least until the Colorado and Nagato classes) would've been in part a throwback to pre-dreadnought design.
stefsap.wordpress.com/2016/12/13/the-brazilian-dreadnoughts-1904-1914/
stefsap.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/sistema-pugliese-da-dg-231.jpg
stefsap.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/sistema-pugliese-da-dg-291.jpg
stefsap.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/sistema-pugliese-da-dg-301.jpg
imma say something useful after i watch the video
Did rolling back the Windows update work for you? Whatever did it, at least you were able to get the upload done. Hooray!
Yay for not dying!
Mandatory Kamchatka joke!!
On a separate note, there appear to be some vaguely torpedo-boat shaped items of the port side
Drach, you now have the privilege to say what fighter pilots, commandos, and commuters in London traffic have earned: Cheated death again!
Glad you're with us and mending.
For that theoretical heavy cruiser I would put the some extra weight into longer 8 inch guns to get extra penetration and shorter flight times for the shells.
I'd like to submit the SMS Seeadler, aka the Pass of Balmaha as a possible answer to the 2nd to last question as a warship(-ish) disguising as a merchantman to go raiding, although it did have sails. That said, the captain (one Felix von Luckner) would make great material for a special and of himself *nudge nudge* Get better soon @Drachinifel!
Edited while I watched it yay
I was on dd 979 in 5in mag crew. Shells were about 70lbs, powder 30lb. We loaded mag at sea with no problem, one person per shell.
I can hear Drach clicking in the background.
You really want 9.2 inch weapons on a cruiser
Churchill agreed with that sentiment. During his second stint as First Lord of the Admiralty (1939-1940), he seriously pushed for super-heavy cruisers with 9.2" guns.
If you play World of Warships, Drake and Goliath in the British heavy cruiser line are loosely based on those design studies.
The lowly Swordfish enabled the defeat of the Bismarck.
re UK FAA aircraft in 1939. Prior to the SBD, the USN had the SB2U Vindicator, first deployed on Saratoga in December of 37, so by 40, with the SBD, the USN was into it's second generation of monoplane dive bombers. The original F4F proposal was a biplane, and soundly trounced in trials by the Brewster F2A monoplane with retractable landing gear. First deployment of the Buffalo was on Saratoga in December 39. Add the TBD, first deployed in 37, and the USN is deploying all retracting gear/monoplanes by the start of 40.
FYI: The so called Wind Indicator could not actually drive bomb. It was restricted to an angle of 45°. By USN standards dive bombing started at 60° and the closer you get to 90°, the better for accuracy.
@@carlcarlton764 "Wind Indicator"? You mean the "Vibrator"?
There was a third monoplane USN bomber in the late 30s, the SBA. With a smaller payload than the SBD, and lacking folding wings, it wasn't really in the hunt.
@@stevevalley7835 I wasn't aware the plane had that nickname too. Regarding the SBA, it had not entered service in 39. Otoh, the Sea Gladiator biplanes still served in the RN.
@@carlcarlton764 The SBA took forever to get into production because Brewster was already running at capacity building Buffalos, so SBA production was handed off to the Naval Aircraft Factory in Sept 38. NAF had it's hands full too, and with the SBD in the pipeline, the NAF didn't give the SBA, now the SBN high priority, so they only built a handful by 42, when the SBN was obsolete, so the project was dropped. Brewster was a dumpster fire of a company, notorious for late delivery and terrible build quality. The only people who were bigger crooks than Jimmy Work, who owned Brewster, were Brewster's export agents, long time independent arms dealers, the Miranda brothers, dba Brewster Export Company, who, when not doing time in the federal pen for violating the US arms embargo on Bolivia, were embezzling from Brewster. The Royal Navy did have the Skua for a fighter in 39. If Force Z had had a carrier, it probably would have had Skuas embarked. Only problem is the Mitsu Nell bombers that attacked Force Z were faster than a Skua.
So delighted that your PC is living. Wonderful to have Drydock 104 today with upcoming Jutland episodes on the way.
Thank you for all your work!!
One question re heavy cruisers - why didn't the RN build some heavy cruisers as well or instead of more 6" Town Class once we were beyond the treaty era (i.e. late 30s)? Surely a modernized Town (or County) would have been valuable and there would have been time to design, lay down and even commission a few during WW2?
+Robert Marsch
Dr. Alexander Clarke addresses this in his Town class video's. Essentially the Royal Navy was faced with the following points:
1) They had a limited cruiser tonnage, but a huge world-wide commitment requiring as many cruisers as possible to police and 'show the flag'. It's also one of the reasons why they had a (less profitable) excursion with the small Dido-class cruisers, and (a considerable more favorable) cruiser-like Tribal-class large destroyers.
2) The Royal Navy knew that in case of war, cruisers would most likely be cough alone (think China station!). Offensive fleet actions out of the question, it would be preferred to use the cruisers as commerce raiders (one of the main missions for the Town Class). The (modernized!) Battlecruisers HMS Renown, Repulse and Hood where retained and intended to be the fast heavy-hitters, and the big battle-wagons that 'showed the flag'.
3) As Battle of the River Plate showed, 6 Inch guns are perfectly able to mission kill tougher opponents. And with the larger rate of a 6" gun, you will have thrown more shell weight after the first minute of engagement as a 8" armed cruisers, with larger chance of hitting. Also the 6" gun doesn't have a lot less (practical) range than a 8". Radar guided guns changed this a bit, but this wasn't in consideration when the Royal Navy was building up the force it would go into war with.
With this in mind, the Royal Navy was just less interested in heavy cruisers and was fine with just the Counties (still 15 units compared to 18 US navy CA commissioned prior to WW2).
@@Tuning3434 thanks! I'd be interested to find some authoritative data on 6" v 8" guns in fleet action.
Absolutely agree re the commerce raider point, and smaller shells = store more of them and fire faster makes sense in that context.
I think I heard Alex Clarke assert that there was significant damage done by 6" on Graf Spee yet other sources suggest that 6" shells were ineffective against ships larger than cruisers on anything other than non heavily armoured parts hence me wondering what the RN would lose in early 40s by (say) creating a 8" heavy cruiser based on the towns perhaps weighing 13 or 14000 tons. No one cared about the treaty limits by then and could have been useful especially in the Far East or perhaps against the Italian cruisers.
On the other hand most upgrades were focused on AA and rightly so given experience in the Med etc.
@@robertmarsh3588 It was considered, to be armed with the 8"/50 MkIX. (navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_8-55_mk9.php)
I wouldn't mind Drach to go a bit into the paper design for the follow 8" or whatever fever-dream was the origin of the 9.2" WoWs paper ships.
@@Tuning3434 yes, that would be very interesting!
@@Tuning3434 The origin of the 9.2" gun paper ships in World of Warships was Winston Churchill's fever dream. Though the Tier 10 Goliath's 12 guns really should be in 3 quad turrets instead of 4 triples, as that's what the actual design study called for.
Speaking of music, a query:
What did the Austrian-Hungarian Navy use as a naval march, if it wasn't the Radetsky March?
And two fun facts, courtesy of Walter Lord's book, "Incredible Victory":
Some of the Japanese pilots listened to "Kirameku Seiza" en route to Midway...
...and one of the priority repair items on the USS Yorktown radioed to Pearl Harbor was the ice cream freezer.
The IJN would have learned about the ice cream freezer and thought, "We're going to win!" And then, after digesting the attack of the Yorktown's torpedo bombers, they should have thought, "We're going to lose!" The dive bombers did the damage but the torpedo bombers refuted what the IJN thought was their advantage.
@@MakeMeThinkAgain One correction - the USN torpedo planes at Midway didn't come out well at all, as tactically (as noted by Lord), there was little to no coordination between the torpedo bombers, the fighters, and the dive bombers - Yorktown's being the best of the three US carriers at Midway, but in Yorktown's first attack, the fighters were attacked by Zeroes from the IJN combat air patrol while the torpedo bombers were also being attacked separately, so, like the Enterprise and the Hornet, the Yorktown's torpedo bombers were directly ineffective...
...but inadvertently, their sacrifice, and the uncoordinated nature of the US attacks, brought the IJN CAP low, leaving the high area above the IJN carriers free for the dive bombers.
The uncoordinated nature of the attacks also played havoc with Nagumo's efforts to arm and launch a strike on the US carriers, after arming for a second attack on Midway.
Which is where the 30 minute delay of the Tone launching one of the search planes came into play, if it had launched on time, the strike would have been immediately ordered, and armed for, attacks on the US carriers, instead of Nagumo having to change orders, and the IJN crews being too hasty, leaving bombs and fuel carts on the flight decks.
@@theokamis5865 This is all true but beside the point I was trying to make. The Japanese acknowledged that the USA had all sorts of material advantages but they felt the Americans were weak and lacked any sort of military spirit. They believed their Samurai spirit and willingness to die for the Emperor would overcome the morally weak Westerners. In the sacrifice of the torpedo bomber squadrons the Americans out Japanese spirited the IJN.
Later, when the USN had working torpedoes, better planes, newer ships, the latest radar technology, and more experience, American material advantages played a huge role in the destruction of the IJN. But in the first half of 1942 (or really all of 1942), the USN fought the IJN to a stalemate and all but destroyed the Kidō Butai with second rate equipment coupled with the spirit displayed by those torpedo bomber squadrons.
About warships looking like merchant ships. What of the "Convoy Sloops" of WWI? As I recall those intentionally kept a lot of Merchant character (midships superstructure etc).
Ads have started appearing in the Dry Dock. Previously they only appeared before and after.
Can you send me a screenshot? This should not be happening.
You missed a critical factor for bore diameter commonality. Boring and rifling machines. So even as rounds get larger and more powerful, they tend to use the same bores as they can make the shells longer and propelled by more powder. Therefore they don't have to make a whole new boring machine just for the new gun, they can use the old one. Russia is a particular brutal example in its small arms where everything had to be 7.62mm at one point because thats all they had for domestic tooling.
Also never underestimate mental familiarity or desire to categorize things. Someone could have make a 16.75" battleship gun if they wanted to beat the next guy, but its just ugly on paper, doesn't categorize well, and doesn't "taste" like a meaningful difference. So why not just go with 16" which if nothing else you can steal the other guys homework if you run into a problem.
WWI did see the PC-class sloops a variant on the RN P-class sloop which were given the outline of a small merchant vessel in order to act as a decoy Q ship
IT'S HERE! PRAISE THE MACHINELORDS!
HMS Duke of York sounds like something Hitler would have made if Germany existed in the 1800's. O.O
(P.S. Good to hear you're doing better! :D)
Anesthesia is nasty stuff, sir. It takes time to fully work out of your system, so be prepared for a bit of lingering fatigue.
Tfw i got here so fast the question list isn't available
Yep, same
Drach's answer to the 10 inch gun 9" belt thing missed another aspect of why people didn't build them - the political consequences, where it would have fitted in treaties and how people would have responded - in other words an arms race nobody wanted or using battleship capacity.
It’s pretty clear that the Japanese were wrong in their decision to construct the Yamato and Musashi, how wrong were they when they started construction? How much information on naval aircraft capability was there when Yamato was planned? What could the Japanese have constructed for a similar amount of materials and man hours?
What about the French cruiser Guichen of the 1890's , which was designed to imitate an ocean liner?
You're gonna have to link the highball footage of it being tested on ships!
If your interested then I strongly recommend max Hastings book on operation chastise. Wonderful summery of the whole saga
Steven Cross not sure if this is the footage referenced. Either way, it’s impressive! th-cam.com/video/8zBp1NCbAr0/w-d-xo.html
Hmm, this was completely absorbing, I came across on TH-cam, a Pathe News prewar, visit to the fleet, a sequence of film, taken on board the Hood, in a modest swell, her decks were totally awash.
When answering the question about Britain using the Swordfish biplane as a torpedo bomber when the US & Japanese had monoplanes the answer you gave(imho) left out what I also thought was a major contributing factor to British Carriers not getting the newest & best airplanes in quick & timely manner. And that major contributing factor is "The Battle of Britain!" Cuz the Germans wanted to invade England but knew that crossing the channel with a landing force would be suicide with England's Royal Navy being strong 💪 enough to murder such a force. So they got the big idea that if they could take over the skies with the Luffwaffe that air power could in part neutralize the power of the Royal Navy if the Luffwaffe could have complete air superiority in the skies over England. And because so much time, money & effort was being funneled into fighters for the RAF in order to rule the skies over England that carrier aircraft was put on the back burner so to speak cuz winning the skies over London took priority. Once it became clear that if Germany did try to invade England, that England could repel such an invasion with heavy losses that was when they began trying to get better aircraft for their carriers. And you also have to figure that during that time when Britain was so involved in the Battle of Britain that everyone was so preoccupied building ground based fighters that development & funding for carrier based aircraft was practically non- existent. Anyway, that was what I had always heard. And that although the Swordfish was outclassed by most monoplane fighters they could still deliver devastating torpedo hits to ships. Just ask Bismark. Although HMS Rodney & HMS KGV may have turned Bismark into a battered & sinking wreck full of carnage. It was the Swordfish that delivered the crippling torpedo blow that jammed the steering mechanisms that enabled those 2 battleships to attack Bismark and send it to it's home on the sea bed. And furthermore, the Swordfish that attacked Bismark received AA fire that arguably may bave torn a wing from a metal monoplane but easily passed thru the canvass of the Swordfish and then was easily repaired with tape. I WONDER IF THEY HAD DUCT TAPE BACK THEN?? Or an equivalent? Anyway, I hope what I've said makes sense & is also a major factor in the Brits being just a tiny bit behind in having modern up to date aircraft on their carriers. Once the US started stocking British Carriers with US monoplanes evidently the British pilots had no problem learning to fly them. Which leads me to think I need to learn more about aviation history.
At last... I was going through withdraw symptoms...
By the way the longsword participated in sinking the Bismarck,they could fly lower than the aa guns could depress and got hits on the Bismarck.
You were talking about the caliber and pounders in regards to naval guns. I'm more understanding the size of infantry and aerial guns where the caliber of a infantry rifle or hand gun is the diameter of the barrel not the length. But it seems that artillery rifles diameter are measured inches or MM and the caliber has to due with the length of the barrel. How do they arrive at these measurements?
Divide length of barrel by diameter to give the caliber figure. So a 6 inch gun with a barrel length of 25 feet is a 50 caliber weapon. German WW2 guns used the same system, hence 75mm L/24, L/43, L/48 and L/70 had the same barrel diameter and different barrel length.
How much did the Bismarck and TirpItz weigh? and what/ where was the extra weight on the Tirpitz?
just listened to both the ran wuick march id say is more of a beat to msrch to but hearts of oak is pretty neat. now im a aussie but the the nrittish on my mums side does get the blood pumping
10-inch is obviously in excess of Treaty limits
Many things Japan did were obviously in excess of treaty restrictions 🤫
Not if you build a giant cruiser with part of your capital ship tonnage.
Which is something that France actually considered doing. One of the early design studies that eventually led to the Dunkerque-class was for a 17,500 ton "battleship" with 305mm guns in two forward quad turrets, a top speed of 35 knots, and armored to protect against 203mm guns (it doesn't seem to have been listed exactly how thick this armor would be, but a belt of around 180mm seems likely). They ended up deciding that while this would do quite well in chasing down and destroying Italian heavy cruisers, the armor was insufficient to guarantee stopping the Deutschland-class's 283mm guns. As such, Dunkerque ended up designed at 26,500 tons (still far below the 35,000 limit), with two quad 330mm guns, 29.5 knot top speed, and 225mm belt. (In practice, Dunkerque actually achieved 31 knots.)
I don't (didn't) know shit about your expertise. I find it fascinating cuz I am a seeker of knowledge youtubewise. Thank you. Great Voice btw. America is a decent country. Sorry you had a double indignity. Coro....+ Politics that shouldn't be histrionic
Drach is not American
+John Reske
The copious amount of Irn Bru should indeed be more than enough confirmation that Drach is not part to the lost territories on the other side of the Ocean.
@@Tuning3434 but equally I know more russians than English people who are regular consumers of Irn Bru 😉
And I'm being serious, I think their only factory outside of Scotland is in Russia! Tins of Irn Bru in Cyrillic text are kinda of a weird collectors item back in Scotland :) but its only a small section of English rugby league fans or english people who holidayed in scotland as kids who seem to have that sweet sweet ginger habit 🤣
@@mor4y I guess so: www.glasgowlive.co.uk/news/history/irn-bru-russia-glasgow-history-15963356
The Italian, German, and Japanese navies gave up BECAUSE of the high ball bomb 😁
I say the high-ball had a 100% success rate... ALL there targets where removed from combat
Do the checkerboard gun ports interfere with the ribs? 4 decker downwind, 2 decker wind on the beam.
Tim 0neill - No. It just would’ve had a LOT of ribs.
My prayers were answered lol
Hi, Cant find either bouncing ball video. Can you please post the links???
Did you fix your PC Drach?