Did the loss of HMS Audacious - which came only a month after the loss of HMS Cressy, Aboukir and Hogue - while not particularly affecting the numerical advantage of the british fleet, affect british morale much like the loss of HMS Royal Oak?
Drach, sir, I just binged watched the Horatio Hornblower series. I found it entertaining. However, (given their budget) how accurate was their portrayal of the various facets of the Royal Navy? The command structure? Historically, was there really that much friction between captains or was that just the show? Was their portrayal of the average British seaman accurate? How about the ships, gun crews, and cannons? I would greatly appreciate any of your insights. What did you like and dislike about Horatio Hornblower? Thank you for the amazing naval vids!
Even given the needs in North Sea etc.... simply deploying 4 to 8 fairly basic submarines to the far east... (defence of singapore) would have resulted in the Japanese invasion force finding itself severely attritted if even 2 of them were lurking off the coast.... ... seems so short sighted that it ranks up there with the other blatant incompetence.... not talking about long range submarines just something that can transit via trincomalee... plenty of personnel and material for this and would have limited impact in North Sea as swordfish etc mining of Norwegian coast was ramped up...
Hi Drach! Would the Royal Navy have benefited more by keeping the Battlecruisers Tiger, Lion and Princess Royal of the Revenges? Considering the Battlecruisers have better speed than the revenges to chase after the german raiders and they got the speed and armament to match the refitted italian capital ships.
Hey Drach, I want you to know one thing: I have three huskies and usually I have a "short" 6km evening walks with them on weekdays and a "long" 11km walk at weekends. The both start the same, and then, at one particular T-junction, it is either turn to the left for the "short" or to the right for the "long" walk. One more thing, I live in the Netherlands now, which is very nice country, but bloody cyclists are everywhere, so I do not use headphones during my walks, just listen to podcasts or TH-cam videos via the main phone speaker (Sorry, passing by Dutch folks), so I can hear their bells. About a year ago I realised that my dogs start understanding where to turn on Saturdays, I attributed that to my schedule first, but then work-from-home started, but still my dogs knew where to turn every Saturday. I even start suspecting my Siberian Huskies of having some Jewish ancestors :) But just a couple of weeks ago I realised the way they guess the direction: it was a Saturday, but due to some reason I was listening not to a fresh Dry-dock but to other podcast. And they turned the "weekday" route suddenly. So, Drach, I want you to know: there are not only thousands of naval geeks on this planet for whom your voice is a sign for pleasure and joy, but three Siberian Huskies who love to hear your voice as it means more fun for them this evening!
One of my cats recognizes the Dry-Dock intro music and they know I'll be settled in with snacks and coffee for a straight hour and change so he comes running and settles in to enjoy absent stroking. The first epic Patreon Dry-Dock had him a bit confused because I took a break to relieve and refill and then the show went on.
@@calvingreene90 I left my sled back at home (Russia), training cart is under consideration. Though, there are fenced dog forests in 30 minutes drive, so I take my dogs to run freely several days a week. They are happy, but missing snow and cold.
I had a dog that knew a short walk from a long walk, when we started I would say one or the other and let him lead. He always knew which one I said when we got to the cutoff path.
The Germans did have to consider the size of the Kiel canal when building large ships. The Baltic was a major concern even if it gets less attention that the Atlantic.
They wouldn't have needed to if thay used more oney during construction of said canal (making it deeper). When first built it was fine as ship size was managabl, but they made no room for ship size expansion in future ship types. This results in "Wide Bismarck" that as Drach described had unfavorable roll characteristicks.
Regarding Captains overruling their Admirals, I believe a pertinent case was Captain Lindemann on the Bismarck after being told to hold his fire said "I will not have my ship shot out from under my @$$" and opened fired, overruling Lutjens who was right there, thus starting the Battle of the Denmark Straight.
Given that the extra time the Admiral essentially gave the gun crews to re work their initial calculations, perhaps it was not such a bad decision to hold fire for a bit. We will never know for sure.
As for mast height limitations, the Germans were limited by a bridge over the Kiel Canal (which was widened and dredged deeper itself as battleship sizes increased). There is also the Bridge of the Americas over the Panama Canal that sets the height limit on Panamax ships.
Hi all !! Another superb video as usual,but i was wondering how many British admirals were present when POW and Repulse were sunk. Drach mentions Adm Holland a few times in the question on ships that could have been saved and i always though; the only Adm. present was Adm.Tom Phillips. I was also wondering if the Adm. Holland mentioned was any relation to the Adm. Holland of HMS Hood.
Ships that perhaps could have been saved. Ark Royal is probably the most obvious, the failings of damage control there were used for training purposes for many years afterwards. Audacious is probably another one.
@23:58 Nitpick time: doubling something is not a 200% increase! A particularly amusing error given you had immediately before correctly stated multiplying something by 1.5 is a 50% increase!
As far as follow-up strikes on Force Z had the initial attack not been successful, the Japanese might have found a second attack considerably more difficult. A squadron of British fighters actually arrived on the scene just as POW sank. They could have remained on station or organized their relief to counter follow-up attacks. Even though they were Brewster Buffaloes, they could have easily broken up and decimated an unescorted Japanese strike force.
Applolgies if this has already been answered. Why did it take the UK so long to move to start using triple turrets. From memory the first were the Nelsons, while most other fist rate navies had triple (3 gun) turrets.
Thinking about the noise of battle question, i am wondering how common hearing loss was during each age. Additionally, in the dreadnought and later time did sailors suffer damage from the concussion of the big guns?
The Brooklyn Bridge placed a limit on the air draft of ships visiting the New York (actually, Brooklyn) Navy Yard. The Forrestals had lowerable masts to clear the bridge. The Midway, Iowa, South Dakota and North Carolina classes might have had the same requirement.
Wait.... I believe I heard you say about the 1950s the Sound of Battle, sort of died off!!! I thought I remember reading something, years ago... Or a documentary on tv. About the Vietnam War being INSANELY loud for the soldiers. Also... For what you are saying about dreadnought... Wouldn't metal ships.. be far far worse than wood... Metal reverberates so so much more. So if you were in the ship it technically should be louder, not quieter. Wood quiets noise. Drastically.... Or wood dulls noise very well
Interesting that the US objection to a 12" caliber limit in the London Naval Treaty was the prospect of not being able to fit enough AA, rather than 12" guns simply not being sufficient to deal effectively with the most powerful existing battleships. Shows a surprising amount of awareness in 1930 that the threat of air attack was real. That said, it doesn't seem like there's any particular reason why a 12" armed BB couldn't be just as big a hull as a 14" armed one.
I'd guess it's due to efficiency in armor plating. You'll still need to defend against the heritage 12"+ guns. Keeping the ship smaller allows for a better armor scheme/while staying under weight limits.
We have 4 fly over on weekends (usually) between April to end of September. (added, Vancouver Island BC Canada) A distinct sound for sure. Nothing sounds so awesome when they go by heading south and then back to airport hanger going, yup, north. Add 96 more and it would be truly unreal.
As I understand it, the USSR agreed to comply with the treaty ship size limits when Britain and the USSR signed their treaty settling their differences after WW1. So even though they were not signatories to the naval treaties, they were bound by the size limitations.
44:50 rate of fire was also an obsession in the 1914 BEF...15 aimed* rounds a minute, if I recall rightly. But it certainly stood them in better stead than it did the abominable Beatty. *edit
@@thehandoftheking3314 I don't know if it was an RM company...I would think that any company of 100-150 men firing 15 aimed rounds/min would probably stop a much larger body in their tracks
Drach, have asked this a few times - why did the RN not start building the flower class corvettes before they did? Which I think from commission dates they didn’t until war broke out. Surely if they had started in 38 they could have been onto the rivers earlier and had a better escort force in 39/40?
The way Dr Clarke put it sums it up pretty well to be honest. Its relatively easy to get funding for big, prestige ships, and for your main battle fleet. When you are asking for things like ASW shipping however the Politicians of the time were far, far less likely to open the nations wallet. Fortunately the Flower's were specifically designed to be built rapidly in civilian yards so leaving larger slipways free for Destroyers and larger. The RN knew they would get limited money for Escorts before a war so chose to concentrate on the war fighting fleet while ensuring they had Escort designs that could be rapidly built. And that's another reason, in the event of war large ships tend to get cancelled or delayed in favour of small, rapidly built shipping which are going to be taking the lions share of the losses anyway.
As an example of wikipedia being "the abomination that causes misinformation", wikipedia describes the Brooklyn class as including St. Louis and Helena as a subclass with four twin turrets with 5"/38 guns. The US Navy (and the dictionary of american naval fighting ships) consider the St. Louis to be a separate class. The Clevelands give up one triple 6"/47 turret to install two additional 5"/38 twin turrets superfiring over the main battery turrets fore and aft, in addition to various other minor changes.
Frank, I entered a reply here an hour or so ago, which has since vanished. The Cliff Notes version is the people writing the Wiki articles are only as good as their sources. There are plenty of "sources" with bogus information.
Meanwhile the Preliminary Design Section of the Bureau of Ships handled Helena and St Louis as members of the Brooklyn class. If you look into Helena's war damage report from 1944 (describing her loss in 1943), it will state that "the installation of blisters on the seven remaining ships of the class is not justified". Take CL40 to CL50, remember that #44 did not exist, consider USS Savannah already having the blisters installed, Helena being no more, and you get the seven remaining ships of the class, including St Louis. Can knock Wikipedia for a lot of things, this is not among them...
Way to have a great birthday (when YT doesn't make it look like I double posted 🤦🏻♀️): watch a new Drydock and open my holiday/birthday presents from my mom and aunt to see they got me both the HMS Thunderchild and Kamchatka asking her famous question t-shirts. 🎂🎁 Have a happy Boxing Day, Drach and Mrs. Mine!
In the question of a captain overriding orders from an admiral aboard, there comes the story in my mind where during the battle of Denmark Strait captain Lindemann overrode admiral Lütjens by giving the permission to open fire.
We need a good WW1 ship simulator. I recall there was one from SSI about 25 years ago but I could never get it to work well and it was just never quite as good as Battles of the North Atlantic (which was a great game from SSI )
I love these lengthy discussions on ships. Can you do one on the super max prison/container ship that Stallone and Schwarzenegger had to break out of back in 2013?
How common is it for people's comments to vanish in this site? I had two or three vanish on last Wednesday's video, and a reply to another person's comment today has vanished.
YT may be acting strangely. It looked like I had somehow just double posted even after reopening comments - until I deleted one and saw I had no comments, thus having to repost it. Maybe YT had a little too much at holiday parties...
Thank you Drach, perfect timing. It's now just before 8am , eastern time in the USA, I've made my first cup of coffee and am just settling in to work on my 1/350 scale model of HIRMS Tsesarevich . Enter Drach with the perfect accompaniment to my project. Happy Boxing Day to you and Mrs Drach.
The 12 inch gun design does make more sense when you think of it in the context of the time the Defflingers should have been obsolete before the war due to armour, speed and a good gun which although not as great as others was still usable at battle ranges, yet were still exceptionally competent units up until the end of the war when the renowns are around. If you think of every other gun it's had 1 or 2 iterations (US 16 inch) to improve it, just think of the improvements the 50cal 16inch brought. This would be the what 6th or so iteration of a 12 inch gun, after 20 years of hiatus 1 iteration the Alaska's 12 inch outperformed the 14 inch imagine 2 by the same designers of the originals by WW2. That could be a suprisingly competitive weapon, especially as the advance in technology means you can make 12 inch shells go faster yet have a higher bursting charge than before and the American anti aircraft thing doesn't make sense when you think about the Sharnhorsts or the fact the tonnage was exactly the same. I'm glad they didn't go for it but it's much much more logical than you think and not just economics.
I don't agree! Those 13.5, 14, and 15 inch guns are still out there, all substantially better than a 12 inch in both range and hitting power! Those ships would have been endlessly rebuilt, upgraded, and modernized! They would never have gone out of service! It was, as Drachinifel suggest, "a triumph of hope over reality".
Well if an alternate 2nd London treaty had made 12" the treaty limit in the 1930s they would have been something more like Alaska class 12" guns than pre WWI 12" guns.
@@mahbriggs what you said is nonsencial the derfflinger existed all through those times and performed from beyond brilliantly to fine against those ships (and easily outperformed most of them), the Alaska's 12 inch was better than the standards 14 inch, and that was one iteration after 20 years hiatus, let alone the same designers have 2 more itteration. I like how in your idea those ships are allowed to "endlessy" modernise, but you can't see the 12 inch modernising sort of shows how you aren't thinking about it. Not saying it's preferable just quite logical and showed a very good understanding of firearms development.
@@toddwebb7521 exactly and they outperformed the 14 inch and that's with one iteration extra of 12 inch guns after a long term hiatus let alone a couple by WW2. Not saying it was better just a lot more logical and showed a quite an understanding of firearms development.
@@Alex-cw3rz well although the penetration is there with 14" guns for Alaska 12" and even Scharnhorst 11" they still have the problem of their bursting charge being puny in comparison to a 14" and with a 28k ton or so limit in that iteration of the treaty you aren't going to be able to put turret farm amounts of guns on it if you want decent armour. If you absolutely had to design one I'd say make it with triples or Quads so you can up gun it to 14s if the treaty collapses. No twins unless you make them intentionally wide enough to get twin 14s even though they are twin 12s
I think the biggest what if on saving a ship that is teetering between being salvageable and being lost would be the Lexington and Yorktown. Those ships should have been saved but mistakes were made. Some of those mistakes would be fixed quickly, others took longer. But having even one of those carriers for the late 42, early 43 battles would have been huge. Absolutely fantastic video as always Drach. Hopefully everyone who reads this had a merry Christmas and has a fantastic start to 2022 as well.
Something I have been playing with over the last few days: the fleet tonnage quotas of the WNT seems to have ended with Second London, as the RN laid down four new treaty max carriers in 1937, which would put the RN far over their quota, if it was still in force. If the US had delayed ordering Wasp until after the Second London conference, and the end of the fleet quotas, the ship could have been redesigned as a 23,000 ton treatymax ship. With that new 23,000 ton design in hand, when Congress authorized two more carriers in 38, that new design would have been used for Hornet, rather than the obsolescent Yorktown design. That matters because, after the Yorktowns, the USN went to staggered boiler and engine rooms, for better survivability. What doomed Hornet was total loss of power. If Hornet had been built to a design with staggered boiler and engine rooms, she may have still had partial power for damage control and propulsion.
00:00:36 - How did the sounds of battle change through the ages? I attended a few at sea firepower demonstrations during my service in the US Navy and I can say for certain that the Snipes (engineering) and other folks below deck would have known when ordnance exploded near the ship. The noise I heard were from 500lbs bombs dropped about a mile from the ship and the sound of explosion would arrive through the water and be imparted into the hull as a ringing sound first and then you would here the sound of the explosion a few seconds later.
At 43:48 - and also a way to ruin what could have been a perfectly good career if you are held responsible for ramming your new ship into a pier, grounding it, or similar... ;)
wrt the USN rebuilding ships during the interwar period, the USN spent a surprising amount of money modernizing obsolete ships in the 20s, starting with the oldest. Some $18.3M was budgeted for modernizing the six coal burners. $6.6M was spent on Florida and Utah alone, in 1926-28. only a few years before they were scrapped/demilitarized. The budget for modernizing the two Nevadas was over $13M. $30M went into the three New Mexicos. This at a time when a new battleship cost $30-$35M. For a long time, the USN did not build up to treaty limits, so, in the 30s, a lot of what money was available went to replacing other obsolete types. The USN had not built any new destroyers since the WWI types. The Vinson-Trammell Act of 1934 mentions that ships that Congress had authorized in 1929 still had not been started. So, at the end of the day, there wasn't any money to modernize the Tennessees and Colorados.
Have a great boxing day. Enjoy some goodies and cheers from West coast of Canada @ 6am Pacific time. Snowing here, unusual. Snowed yesterday & only the 3rd time in my life (63), it's snowed on Christmas 🌲 day. Another very interesting video. Thanks.
In the Jutland videos, Drach mentions one officer on a battleship who realized he was about to go into battle in a main battery turret without hearing protection, only to find that a helpful midshipman had lots of extra cotton balls to share. Not that cotton balls are great hearing protection, and it certainly wasn't organized across the ship, but certainly individual sailors were trying to protect their own hearing by the beginning of the 20th century.
I seem to remember references in the Napoleonic era to RN gun crews tying scarves and the like around their heads and over their ears before going into action.
On angled propshafts: the angles of propellers - and indeed the entire outboard engine, sterndrive or pumpjet - are often adjustable on very small, very fast craft due to the fact that these craft are capable of moving fast enough that the bow can come entirely out of the water, catch the air, cause the stern to come out of the water, and the whole thing ends up tumbling end over end like a stock car at Daytona. Oddly enough, the only racing craft I can think of that don't have adjustable prop angles are certain designs of inboard Hydroplanes, particularly the Unlimiteds, which have a driver-adjustable front wing instead, though craft like that also have other devices at the rear to assist in that trim adjustment.
kinda replaced by the modern twist- assaulting your enemy with 2 simultaneously arriving volleys of missiles from both one beam and the bow at same time, so as to split CWS fire in way that favours the attacker.
Response to the question about Beatty and responsibility of ammo management .. Beatty was concerned about Beatty . < period. to the point i believe of ignoring repeated attempts to communicate with him,, with his goal of making other commanders including Jellico to appear bad. Simple blatant proof of this is available. 1 being of course how many casualties under his command how many capitol ships under his command went boom. to me this is flat out treason. like the u.s. navy refusal to acknowledge the glaring failure of the mk.14 torpedoes'. this can only be attributed to corruption and greed. Beatty was completely unconcerned with the ships and ppl in them. ppl like to come up with reasons why.. .. by ignoring the reality of why.
Well with the tiger instead of Iron Duke as training vessel putting it back in service as a battle cruiser is just one option, carrier conversion is another. There was also the 13.5" KGV Centurion that was a remote control target ship so it could have been Princess Royal or Lion instead if the British govt had thought of this gaming the treaties. The British military was still using the 13.5 as coastal batteries and railway guns in WWII so they are still having to keep stocks of 13.5" shells whether there's any on ships or not.
There's also the possibility of reusing the turrets but replacing the old 13.5" with some of the KGV class's spare 14" barrels. IIRC, there was initial consideration of using Iron Duke as a test ship for the new guns, so they were designed to fit the old 13.5" turrets. Thought personally, I still think it would've been a good idea to keep Tiger in active service, scrap Iron Duke, and convert whichever of the Revenges was in the worst shape into a training ship. Probably Revenge herself, since she was scheduled for a refit in May 1931. The resulting additional 15"/42 turrets being available in 1940 might also result in Vanguard getting a sister ship.
In regards to the 12 inch gunned battleship, are we talking about a ship armed with 9 or 12, 12 inch guns on a displacement of 28,000 tons? If the tonnage were allowed to rise, say to 35,000 tons, could you potentially have got 4 turrets with quad guns on that displacement? 16-12 inch guns?
![[Live] ศึกมหึมันส์มวยไทยสังเวียนเดือด เวทีมวยชั่วคราวสวนสยาม | จันทร์ 30 กันยายน 2567](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/pM1k6f7JXUc/mqdefault.jpg)
Pinned post for Q&A :)
Did the loss of HMS Audacious - which came only a month after the loss of HMS Cressy, Aboukir and Hogue - while not particularly affecting the numerical advantage of the british fleet, affect british morale much like the loss of HMS Royal Oak?
Drach, sir, I just binged watched the Horatio Hornblower series. I found it entertaining. However, (given their budget) how accurate was their portrayal of the various facets of the Royal Navy? The command structure? Historically, was there really that much friction between captains or was that just the show? Was their portrayal of the average British seaman accurate? How about the ships, gun crews, and cannons? I would greatly appreciate any of your insights. What did you like and dislike about Horatio Hornblower? Thank you for the amazing naval vids!
If the Elektroboot managed to get to service in 1941 how would it affect the battle of the Atlantic?
Even given the needs in North Sea etc.... simply deploying 4 to 8 fairly basic submarines to the far east... (defence of singapore) would have resulted in the Japanese invasion force finding itself severely attritted if even 2 of them were lurking off the coast....
... seems so short sighted that it ranks up there with the other blatant incompetence.... not talking about long range submarines just something that can transit via trincomalee... plenty of personnel and material for this and would have limited impact in North Sea as swordfish etc mining of Norwegian coast was ramped up...
Hi Drach! Would the Royal Navy have benefited more by keeping the Battlecruisers Tiger, Lion and Princess Royal of the Revenges? Considering the Battlecruisers have better speed than the revenges to chase after the german raiders and they got the speed and armament to match the refitted italian capital ships.
Hey Drach, I want you to know one thing:
I have three huskies and usually I have a "short" 6km evening walks with them on weekdays and a "long" 11km walk at weekends. The both start the same, and then, at one particular T-junction, it is either turn to the left for the "short" or to the right for the "long" walk. One more thing, I live in the Netherlands now, which is very nice country, but bloody cyclists are everywhere, so I do not use headphones during my walks, just listen to podcasts or TH-cam videos via the main phone speaker (Sorry, passing by Dutch folks), so I can hear their bells.
About a year ago I realised that my dogs start understanding where to turn on Saturdays, I attributed that to my schedule first, but then work-from-home started, but still my dogs knew where to turn every Saturday. I even start suspecting my Siberian Huskies of having some Jewish ancestors :)
But just a couple of weeks ago I realised the way they guess the direction: it was a Saturday, but due to some reason I was listening not to a fresh Dry-dock but to other podcast. And they turned the "weekday" route suddenly. So, Drach, I want you to know: there are not only thousands of naval geeks on this planet for whom your voice is a sign for pleasure and joy, but three Siberian Huskies who love to hear your voice as it means more fun for them this evening!
One of my cats recognizes the Dry-Dock intro music and they know I'll be settled in with snacks and coffee for a straight hour and change so he comes running and settles in to enjoy absent stroking. The first epic Patreon Dry-Dock had him a bit confused because I took a break to relieve and refill and then the show went on.
Three sled dogs and no sled? Not even a training cart?
@@calvingreene90 I left my sled back at home (Russia), training cart is under consideration. Though, there are fenced dog forests in 30 minutes drive, so I take my dogs to run freely several days a week. They are happy, but missing snow and cold.
I had a dog that knew a short walk from a long walk, when we started I would say one or the other and let him lead. He always knew which one I said when we got to the cutoff path.
Thank you, Drachinifel.
The Germans did have to consider the size of the Kiel canal when building large ships. The Baltic was a major concern even if it gets less attention that the Atlantic.
They wouldn't have needed to if thay used more oney during construction of said canal (making it deeper). When first built it was fine as ship size was managabl, but they made no room for ship size expansion in future ship types. This results in "Wide Bismarck" that as Drach described had unfavorable roll characteristicks.
"He knew roughly what his own fleet was doing, at least when he bothered to talk to them."
Seems to sum up Beatty pretty well.
Drachinfel's voice, the absolute cure for insomnia.
Regarding Captains overruling their Admirals, I believe a pertinent case was Captain Lindemann on the Bismarck after being told to hold his fire said "I will not have my ship shot out from under my @$$" and opened fired, overruling Lutjens who was right there, thus starting the Battle of the Denmark Straight.
Given that the extra time the Admiral essentially gave the gun crews to re work their initial calculations, perhaps it was not such a bad decision to hold fire for a bit. We will never know for sure.
As for mast height limitations, the Germans were limited by a bridge over the Kiel Canal (which was widened and dredged deeper itself as battleship sizes increased).
There is also the Bridge of the Americas over the Panama Canal that sets the height limit on Panamax ships.
The bridges over the Kiel Canal all have a height of 42 meters, while the Bridge of the Americas is 58 meters.
The Transporter Bridge on the Kiel Canal is interesting, there"s anothers in Middlesborough and Newport.
Hi all !! Another superb video as usual,but i was wondering how many British admirals were present when POW and Repulse were sunk. Drach mentions Adm Holland a few times in the question on ships that could have been saved and i always though; the only Adm. present was Adm.Tom Phillips. I was also wondering if the Adm. Holland mentioned was any relation to the Adm. Holland of HMS Hood.
Ships that perhaps could have been saved. Ark Royal is probably the most obvious, the failings of damage control there were used for training purposes for many years afterwards. Audacious is probably another one.
How easy would it have been to swap out Tiger's 13.5 inch guns and fitting her with the same 14 inch guns for the KGV's
Always a great episode. Absolutely love listening to these before my nightly slumber
Honestly i listen to these when I'm grinding world of warships
@23:58 Nitpick time: doubling something is not a 200% increase! A particularly amusing error given you had immediately before correctly stated multiplying something by 1.5 is a 50% increase!
Thanks for answering my question!
Hi drach, to you and your family belated merry Christmas and a happy New year.
As far as follow-up strikes on Force Z had the initial attack not been successful, the Japanese might have found a second attack considerably more difficult. A squadron of British fighters actually arrived on the scene just as POW sank. They could have remained on station or organized their relief to counter follow-up attacks. Even though they were Brewster Buffaloes, they could have easily broken up and decimated an unescorted Japanese strike force.
Tiger, Tiger burning bright/In the oceans & the bights/What littoral enemy/Dare frame thy fearful symmetry? (With apologies to William Blake.)
Happy new year Drach and Mrs Drach. Thank you for a great 2021
You have some kind of ground loop or other electrical issue going on with you mic, buddy. There's a slight buzz in the background.
Applolgies if this has already been answered.
Why did it take the UK so long to move to start using triple turrets. From memory the first were the Nelsons, while most other fist rate navies had triple (3 gun) turrets.
If memory serves, the Nelsons were the only battleships ever built by the Royal Navy with triples, as well as the only ones with 16" guns.
Thinking about the noise of battle question, i am wondering how common hearing loss was during each age. Additionally, in the dreadnought and later time did sailors suffer damage from the concussion of the big guns?
WHAT?
The single most limiting size factor in the USN was the Panama Canal.
Well HMS Troutbridge seemed to have survived ramming the docks multiple time
The depth of the propeller also decreases cavitation, by increasing water pressure.
The Brooklyn Bridge placed a limit on the air draft of ships visiting the New York (actually, Brooklyn) Navy Yard. The Forrestals had lowerable masts to clear the bridge. The Midway, Iowa, South Dakota and North Carolina classes might have had the same requirement.
Wait.... I believe I heard you say about the 1950s the Sound of Battle, sort of died off!!!
I thought I remember reading something, years ago... Or a documentary on tv. About the Vietnam War being INSANELY loud for the soldiers.
Also... For what you are saying about dreadnought... Wouldn't metal ships.. be far far worse than wood... Metal reverberates so so much more. So if you were in the ship it technically should be louder, not quieter.
Wood quiets noise. Drastically.... Or wood dulls noise very well
Interesting that the US objection to a 12" caliber limit in the London Naval Treaty was the prospect of not being able to fit enough AA, rather than 12" guns simply not being sufficient to deal effectively with the most powerful existing battleships. Shows a surprising amount of awareness in 1930 that the threat of air attack was real.
That said, it doesn't seem like there's any particular reason why a 12" armed BB couldn't be just as big a hull as a 14" armed one.
I'd guess it's due to efficiency in armor plating. You'll still need to defend against the heritage 12"+ guns. Keeping the ship smaller allows for a better armor scheme/while staying under weight limits.
A set of 12inch70 guns would be interesting.
The sound of an incoming attack wave of 100+ aircraft must have been absolutely deafening
We have 4 fly over on weekends (usually) between April to end of September. (added, Vancouver Island BC Canada) A distinct sound for sure. Nothing sounds so awesome when they go by heading south and then back to airport hanger going, yup, north. Add 96 more and it would be truly unreal.
As I understand it, the USSR agreed to comply with the treaty ship size limits when Britain and the USSR signed their treaty settling their differences after WW1. So even though they were not signatories to the naval treaties, they were bound by the size limitations.
44:50 rate of fire was also an obsession in the 1914 BEF...15 aimed* rounds a minute, if I recall rightly.
But it certainly stood them in better stead than it did the abominable Beatty.
*edit
Was it a company of royal marines who stopped a German division for a time because they thought they had walked into a machine gun battalion?
@@thehandoftheking3314 I don't know if it was an RM company...I would think that any company of 100-150 men firing 15 aimed rounds/min would probably stop a much larger body in their tracks
Drach, have asked this a few times - why did the RN not start building the flower class corvettes before they did? Which I think from commission dates they didn’t until war broke out. Surely if they had started in 38 they could have been onto the rivers earlier and had a better escort force in 39/40?
The way Dr Clarke put it sums it up pretty well to be honest. Its relatively easy to get funding for big, prestige ships, and for your main battle fleet. When you are asking for things like ASW shipping however the Politicians of the time were far, far less likely to open the nations wallet.
Fortunately the Flower's were specifically designed to be built rapidly in civilian yards so leaving larger slipways free for Destroyers and larger. The RN knew they would get limited money for Escorts before a war so chose to concentrate on the war fighting fleet while ensuring they had Escort designs that could be rapidly built.
And that's another reason, in the event of war large ships tend to get cancelled or delayed in favour of small, rapidly built shipping which are going to be taking the lions share of the losses anyway.
Done something differently....you men, like your example of Taiho not training her damage control crews properly?
Asked that a bit too fast.....
Acts of desperation and acts of extreme stupidity can be hard to differentiate.
Happy Boxing Day, Drach
Please stop doing paid promotions on the videos.
As an example of wikipedia being "the abomination that causes misinformation", wikipedia describes the Brooklyn class as including St. Louis and Helena as a subclass with four twin turrets with 5"/38 guns. The US Navy (and the dictionary of american naval fighting ships) consider the St. Louis to be a separate class. The Clevelands give up one triple 6"/47 turret to install two additional 5"/38 twin turrets superfiring over the main battery turrets fore and aft, in addition to various other minor changes.
Frank, I entered a reply here an hour or so ago, which has since vanished. The Cliff Notes version is the people writing the Wiki articles are only as good as their sources. There are plenty of "sources" with bogus information.
Meanwhile the Preliminary Design Section of the Bureau of Ships handled Helena and St Louis as members of the Brooklyn class. If you look into Helena's war damage report from 1944 (describing her loss in 1943), it will state that "the installation of blisters on the seven remaining ships of the class is not justified". Take CL40 to CL50, remember that #44 did not exist, consider USS Savannah already having the blisters installed, Helena being no more, and you get the seven remaining ships of the class, including St Louis.
Can knock Wikipedia for a lot of things, this is not among them...
Way to have a great birthday (when YT doesn't make it look like I double posted 🤦🏻♀️): watch a new Drydock and open my holiday/birthday presents from my mom and aunt to see they got me both the HMS Thunderchild and Kamchatka asking her famous question t-shirts. 🎂🎁 Have a happy Boxing Day, Drach and Mrs. Mine!
In the question of a captain overriding orders from an admiral aboard, there comes the story in my mind where during the battle of Denmark Strait captain Lindemann overrode admiral Lütjens by giving the permission to open fire.
I will not have my ship shot out from under my ass is what Lindemann told Lutjens.
@@suflanker45 exactly 👍🏻
Content suggestion: Battle of Taranto
We need a good WW1 ship simulator. I recall there was one from SSI about 25 years ago but I could never get it to work well and it was just never quite as good as Battles of the North Atlantic (which was a great game from SSI )
I love these lengthy discussions on ships. Can you do one on the super max prison/container ship that Stallone and Schwarzenegger had to break out of back in 2013?
I like listening to these on long drives!
How common is it for people's comments to vanish in this site? I had two or three vanish on last Wednesday's video, and a reply to another person's comment today has vanished.
YT may be acting strangely. It looked like I had somehow just double posted even after reopening comments - until I deleted one and saw I had no comments, thus having to repost it. Maybe YT had a little too much at holiday parties...
Gleðileg Jól og farslælt komandi ár :)
Perfect! Working today, hope I got time between calls to listen.
Thank you Drach, perfect timing.
It's now just before 8am , eastern time in the USA, I've made my first cup of coffee and am just settling in to work on my 1/350 scale model of HIRMS Tsesarevich .
Enter Drach with the perfect accompaniment to my project.
Happy Boxing Day to you and Mrs Drach.
The 12 inch gun design does make more sense when you think of it in the context of the time the Defflingers should have been obsolete before the war due to armour, speed and a good gun which although not as great as others was still usable at battle ranges, yet were still exceptionally competent units up until the end of the war when the renowns are around. If you think of every other gun it's had 1 or 2 iterations (US 16 inch) to improve it, just think of the improvements the 50cal 16inch brought. This would be the what 6th or so iteration of a 12 inch gun, after 20 years of hiatus 1 iteration the Alaska's 12 inch outperformed the 14 inch imagine 2 by the same designers of the originals by WW2. That could be a suprisingly competitive weapon, especially as the advance in technology means you can make 12 inch shells go faster yet have a higher bursting charge than before and the American anti aircraft thing doesn't make sense when you think about the Sharnhorsts or the fact the tonnage was exactly the same. I'm glad they didn't go for it but it's much much more logical than you think and not just economics.
I don't agree! Those 13.5, 14, and 15 inch guns are still out there, all substantially better than a 12 inch in both range and hitting power!
Those ships would have been endlessly rebuilt, upgraded, and modernized! They would never have gone out of service!
It was, as Drachinifel suggest, "a triumph of hope over reality".
Well if an alternate 2nd London treaty had made 12" the treaty limit in the 1930s they would have been something more like Alaska class 12" guns than pre WWI 12" guns.
@@mahbriggs what you said is nonsencial the derfflinger existed all through those times and performed from beyond brilliantly to fine against those ships (and easily outperformed most of them), the Alaska's 12 inch was better than the standards 14 inch, and that was one iteration after 20 years hiatus, let alone the same designers have 2 more itteration. I like how in your idea those ships are allowed to "endlessy" modernise, but you can't see the 12 inch modernising sort of shows how you aren't thinking about it. Not saying it's preferable just quite logical and showed a very good understanding of firearms development.
@@toddwebb7521 exactly and they outperformed the 14 inch and that's with one iteration extra of 12 inch guns after a long term hiatus let alone a couple by WW2. Not saying it was better just a lot more logical and showed a quite an understanding of firearms development.
@@Alex-cw3rz well although the penetration is there with 14" guns for Alaska 12" and even Scharnhorst 11" they still have the problem of their bursting charge being puny in comparison to a 14" and with a 28k ton or so limit in that iteration of the treaty you aren't going to be able to put turret farm amounts of guns on it if you want decent armour.
If you absolutely had to design one I'd say make it with triples or Quads so you can up gun it to 14s if the treaty collapses. No twins unless you make them intentionally wide enough to get twin 14s even though they are twin 12s
Thank you Drach, another great one!
great stuff!
I think the biggest what if on saving a ship that is teetering between being salvageable and being lost would be the Lexington and Yorktown. Those ships should have been saved but mistakes were made. Some of those mistakes would be fixed quickly, others took longer. But having even one of those carriers for the late 42, early 43 battles would have been huge.
Absolutely fantastic video as always Drach. Hopefully everyone who reads this had a merry Christmas and has a fantastic start to 2022 as well.
Same with Ark Royal.
Merry Christmas 🎄 to you also!
@@davidbirt8486 most definitely...that was a screw up of epic proportions.
@@admiraltiberius1989 And then there is Glorious
Something I have been playing with over the last few days: the fleet tonnage quotas of the WNT seems to have ended with Second London, as the RN laid down four new treaty max carriers in 1937, which would put the RN far over their quota, if it was still in force. If the US had delayed ordering Wasp until after the Second London conference, and the end of the fleet quotas, the ship could have been redesigned as a 23,000 ton treatymax ship. With that new 23,000 ton design in hand, when Congress authorized two more carriers in 38, that new design would have been used for Hornet, rather than the obsolescent Yorktown design. That matters because, after the Yorktowns, the USN went to staggered boiler and engine rooms, for better survivability. What doomed Hornet was total loss of power. If Hornet had been built to a design with staggered boiler and engine rooms, she may have still had partial power for damage control and propulsion.
Good vid as usual, Happy Christmas and Happy new year. Looking forward to a five hour installment next weekend.
00:00:36 - How did the sounds of battle change through the ages?
I attended a few at sea firepower demonstrations during my service in the US Navy and I can say for certain that the Snipes (engineering) and other folks below deck would have known when ordnance exploded near the ship. The noise I heard were from 500lbs bombs dropped about a mile from the ship and the sound of explosion would arrive through the water and be imparted into the hull as a ringing sound first and then you would here the sound of the explosion a few seconds later.
Thank for answering my question!
You just made my Christmas (and my birthday) a lot better ¦)
Merry Christmas and a happy new Year, Drachinifel & Family!
At 43:48 - and also a way to ruin what could have been a perfectly good career if you are held responsible for ramming your new ship into a pier, grounding it, or similar... ;)
Merry Christmas, Drach!
Merry Christmas drachinifel and Mrs drach :)
wrt the USN rebuilding ships during the interwar period, the USN spent a surprising amount of money modernizing obsolete ships in the 20s, starting with the oldest. Some $18.3M was budgeted for modernizing the six coal burners. $6.6M was spent on Florida and Utah alone, in 1926-28. only a few years before they were scrapped/demilitarized. The budget for modernizing the two Nevadas was over $13M. $30M went into the three New Mexicos. This at a time when a new battleship cost $30-$35M. For a long time, the USN did not build up to treaty limits, so, in the 30s, a lot of what money was available went to replacing other obsolete types. The USN had not built any new destroyers since the WWI types. The Vinson-Trammell Act of 1934 mentions that ships that Congress had authorized in 1929 still had not been started. So, at the end of the day, there wasn't any money to modernize the Tennessees and Colorados.
Any chance of a link to the source of the schematic shown in the Cleveland question? Google is failing me.
A fast troop transport might want to keep armor to protect the passengers when attacked so if you talk fast enough...
All the best to the Drach family 👪
What ship is in the photo for the propeller question
The Empire is safe while Drach’s Fleet is at sea.
Merry Christmas and Many New Brus.
AA flack is not going to do rangefinders any good.
Yep, STILL enjoying your presentations.
Thank you. Merry Xmas and all the best for 2022.
Have a great boxing day. Enjoy some goodies and cheers from West coast of Canada @ 6am Pacific time. Snowing here, unusual. Snowed yesterday & only the 3rd time in my life (63), it's snowed on Christmas 🌲 day. Another very interesting video. Thanks.
When was hearing protection introduced?
What's that sonny? 👂
In the Jutland videos, Drach mentions one officer on a battleship who realized he was about to go into battle in a main battery turret without hearing protection, only to find that a helpful midshipman had lots of extra cotton balls to share. Not that cotton balls are great hearing protection, and it certainly wasn't organized across the ship, but certainly individual sailors were trying to protect their own hearing by the beginning of the 20th century.
I seem to remember references in the Napoleonic era to RN gun crews tying scarves and the like around their heads and over their ears before going into action.
Anyone got a link to the Drydock episode referenced in the Seydlitz question, the hypothetical where British shells worked correctly at Jutland?
On angled propshafts:
the angles of propellers - and indeed the entire outboard engine, sterndrive or pumpjet - are often adjustable on very small, very fast craft due to the fact that these craft are capable of moving fast enough that the bow can come entirely out of the water, catch the air, cause the stern to come out of the water, and the whole thing ends up tumbling end over end like a stock car at Daytona. Oddly enough, the only racing craft I can think of that don't have adjustable prop angles are certain designs of inboard Hydroplanes, particularly the Unlimiteds, which have a driver-adjustable front wing instead, though craft like that also have other devices at the rear to assist in that trim adjustment.
I don’t think crossing the “T” is a useful strategic move nowadays.
kinda replaced by the modern twist- assaulting your enemy with 2 simultaneously arriving volleys of missiles from both one beam and the bow at same time, so as to split CWS fire in way that favours the attacker.
Response to the question about Beatty and responsibility of ammo management .. Beatty was concerned about Beatty . < period.
to the point i believe of ignoring repeated attempts to communicate with him,, with his goal of making other commanders including Jellico to appear bad.
Simple blatant proof of this is available.
1 being of course how many casualties under his command how many capitol ships under his command went boom.
to me this is flat out treason.
like the u.s. navy refusal to acknowledge the glaring failure of the mk.14 torpedoes'.
this can only be attributed to corruption and greed.
Beatty was completely unconcerned with the ships and ppl in them.
ppl like to come up with reasons why.. .. by ignoring the reality of why.
Well with the tiger instead of Iron Duke as training vessel putting it back in service as a battle cruiser is just one option, carrier conversion is another.
There was also the 13.5" KGV Centurion that was a remote control target ship so it could have been Princess Royal or Lion instead if the British govt had thought of this gaming the treaties.
The British military was still using the 13.5 as coastal batteries and railway guns in WWII so they are still having to keep stocks of 13.5" shells whether there's any on ships or not.
There's also the possibility of reusing the turrets but replacing the old 13.5" with some of the KGV class's spare 14" barrels. IIRC, there was initial consideration of using Iron Duke as a test ship for the new guns, so they were designed to fit the old 13.5" turrets.
Thought personally, I still think it would've been a good idea to keep Tiger in active service, scrap Iron Duke, and convert whichever of the Revenges was in the worst shape into a training ship. Probably Revenge herself, since she was scheduled for a refit in May 1931. The resulting additional 15"/42 turrets being available in 1940 might also result in Vanguard getting a sister ship.
In regards to the 12 inch gunned battleship, are we talking about a ship armed with 9 or 12, 12 inch guns on a displacement of 28,000 tons? If the tonnage were allowed to rise, say to 35,000 tons, could you potentially have got 4 turrets with quad guns on that displacement? 16-12 inch guns?
I can't see any reason why that wouldn't have been possible.
ahh nice and short for once
65th
Last hour of a car drive and this posted, the gods smile upon me favorably