Battleship Guns of WW2 - A series of tubes

[@Drachinifel]

Pinned post for Q&A :)

[@Cbabilon675]

Now you need to do the same thing with Heavy Cruiser, light Cruiser, and destroy your guns. Excellent job my friend.

[@joshthomas-moore2656]

Has there ever been a naval version of the Christmas Truce in World War One?

[@joshthomas-moore2656]

Whose 18 inch gun's that were actually built were better and more powerful the British or the Japanese?

[@firefox5926]

1:46 i disagree

[@williamwarwolf1]

Modern Anti-Ship Missile Damage against Battleship Armor?

[@downskated]

Well these tubes have serious amounts of history written about them, you'll have to just rifle through it.

[@joshthomas-moore2656]

Boo! have a like but still Boo!

[@kpdubbs7117]

Grooviest comment on the internet right here.

[@ManiusCuriusDenatus]

He who would pun would pick a pocket.

[@downskated]

The funny part is he does this video on the day that I have to drive pass the USS Massachusetts.

[@SonsOfLorgar]

With the experience Drach has, I predict it to slide pretty smoothly anyway, as most screw ups of the time have already been interrupted or breeched and wedged ;)

[@OnboardG1]

It's not hard to spot an engineer when half the work is the "methods" section.

[@karlvongazenberg8398]

Yeah, try a method, then check reality.

[@neilwilson5785]

I didn't fast forward a little bit. Honest...

[@flattblackcopper4558]

That and the inevitable explanation and pondering of the Square cube law 😏

[@elliottjames8020]

Actually any profession will do that, you've obviously not read or produced any accounting cost/benefit analysis for a client ;-)

[@evyn1558]

@@karlvongazenberg8398 I’m aq

[@kpdubbs7117]

AA Guns - "Haha, Drach did a 61 minute video about us" Battleship Guns - "Hold my Rum Ration..."

[@zachsmith1676]

Wouldn’t it be “shell ration”?

[@markchip1]

@@zachsmith1676 - not on the British ships though!!

[@GrayD1ce]

Wait till we ask for cruiser and smaller guns

[@markchip1]

@@GrayD1ce - or galley equipment!

[@jamesalles139]

@@zachsmith1676 nooo, Pusser's Rum

[@chrish.942]

Re: rate of fire being an advantage. If the ordered rate of fire is 1 per minute, the guy who has 25 seconds of actual work to do has time for a couple deep breaths and possibly a sip of tea/coffee, while his opponent who spends 59 seconds hauling shells around is gonna be more exhausted, and consequently less effective, especially in a long fight.

[@bkjeong4302]

This so much. Most of the guns on this list simply never fired at their full rate of fire because it would be a bad idea.

[@tominiowa2513]

Who drinks tea while firing guns except the members of St. Gloriana Girls' College Panzerfahren team?

[@Masterchiefkf3]

@@tominiowa2513 Her Majesty’s Royal Navy of course! How else did they conquer the globe in a century, then lose it in half the time?

[@NashmanNash]

@@Masterchiefkf3 Because you they WANTED good looking women and good food and than found out that they do not like either?

[@SCjunk]

More or less all battleship guns 10 inches or greater are not down to srenious effort by the loaders, they use elevators and auto rammers therefore the idea that one type of weapons crew can sit on their collective arses drinking tea while other may struggle to load their gun for 4 times the time. Even secondary armament of battleships is limited by the capacity of hand loading so anything larger than a 80lb shell with separate charge is beyond hand loading so 5.5 to a max of 6.5 inch

[@Napalmratte]

2:19 "armour piercing capabilities in an anti aircraft gun isn't really that important ..." *Sad 88 mm noises*

[@SonsOfLorgar]

*mournful Bofors 40mm/L70 sniffles over grandpappy m/36*

[@FiauraTheTankGirlGamer]

*laughs in Swordfish Bomber*

[@liberalsockpuppet4772]

Samuel B Roberts finds your armor to be irrelevant. 20mm goes through portholes.

[@extremetea]

When you make the 88s sad i get hotter than a pistol buddy. Being gun shy, I'm gonna scatter like buckshot, if the lead starts flying. But I'll tell their other friends out there who are pure shooters.

[@Gustav_Kuriga]

Its armor piercing capabilities were incidental to the role, it wasn't made for armor piercing in mind. That's just how fast it had to shoot the shell in order for it to get to the height required for AA.

[@pedenharley6266]

I love Drach’s sense of humor and “Drachisms”, but I am starting to want to propose a drinking game for Drach’s videos. Every time Drach says: “To be honest” - take a shot of rum “Nothing to write home about” - write a letter to your mother or nearest living relative “Beatty” - walk out your front door and scream obscenities into the night. Other words / actions? (And I have to admit, as someone who speaks publicly on a regular occasion, I have my own set of go-to phrases!)

[@briannicholas2757]

Excellent game: Perhaps in reference to the Imperial Russian Navy, " every time Japanese Torpedo Boat is mentioned, you must hurl a pair of binoculars into the nearest body of water" (a bathtub will suffice if you don't live near a body of water)

[@samuel5916]

Kamchatka - Play a round of Russian Roulette with a fully loaded revolver.

[@RCAvhstape]

"Hilariously"

[@reotem]

"Whilst", you will die of alcohol poisoning.

[@patttrick]

Im on whiskey and soda

[@stevewyckoff6904]

I'd like to see a deeper look a how the big guns were made. As a metal lathe user, the boring and rifling process seems really difficult.

[@CharliMorganMusic]

Yeah, for real, what kind of monstrous lathe would be required for this?

[@lazyman7505]

Here kzbin.info/www/bejne/qIu0q4uAbZqWmq8 is a short documentary about production of naval guns during WW2. Only 15 minutes unfortunately. If I have time (and don't forget), I'll post more, at one point I was obsessed with wartime manufacturing and accumulated collection of documents and such of all kinds. Assuming I can find them in my bookmark archive.

[@davefinfrock3324]

It's an interesting subject and there was more than one way to do it. The debate between wire-wound guns and built-up guns being a case in point. Suffice it to say, it's complex and guns were one of the most difficult things to build for capital ships. Gun mountings were probably the most difficult thing to make, followed by armor, then the guns themselves. You had to be a world class industrial power to produce this stuff.

[@garywheeley5108]

What about cruiser guns 5.25 6 8 I recon I've got about 25 seconds to get under cover.......says running 🏃‍♂️

[@myopiniongoodyouropinionbad]

Sounds a bit *BORING*

[@TrojanHell]

Drach, I havent watched you in a while but after watching this I realized what I miss about you. 40 minutes into the video, and you havent actually described a single cannon yet, you've given us a dissertation on the difficulties of quantifying gun performance and pretty much defeat your own quest by stating that its heavily reliant on the vessel that bears it and the turret it is housed in before giving the answers anyway. That kind of anti-hype, deep and down to earth kind of explaining is what I love to see, and I'm always delighted that you take your time to give us a clear picture so we do not get misguided by a chart or some buzzwords that hype up guns in different ways.

[@doctormcboy5009]

i find it extremely boring and it makes me leave alter seeing that is goes on for 40 min thanks for the heads up bro!

[@TrojanHell]

@@doctormcboy5009 I mean, sometimes it can be quite a drach I guess, but I personally really like knowing about the historical context in which to see developments in engineering.

[@doctormcboy5009]

@@TrojanHell cool, i love most of his content now i see maybe i got bro wrong

[@InternetEntity]

A self confessed Royal Navy fanboy: 1) Wait, the good old 15" gun *IS* that good? 2) Wait, the good old 15" gun isn't the best? 3) Oh, that's alright, those newfangled 16" guns were invented for a good enough reason.

[@onebigadvocado6376]

The extra inch make all the difference, I'm reliably informed.

[@ian_987]

@MusicMaster1987 Youd think if 15" wasnt enough, that perhaps she is NOT such a good woman...

[@Ugly_German_Truths]

Well of course it is THAT good. Drach had to change the criteria 2 times to get it there :P

[@asuka7309]

The results of the British 15" guns are kind of funny in that they show how they were an absolutely amazing weapon for the time they were originally developed... But it also shows they were kinda unnecessary. The only major action they saw in WW1 was at Jutland, where even the 13.5" weapons were already bigger than anything the Germans could field. The British then did absolutely nothing to actually upgrade the guns in the interwar period, so that by the time WW2 comes around suddenly other countries have 13, 14, and 15" guns that are all roughly equal to (or arguably even better than) the British 15". Hell even the British their own new 14" gun on the KGV class was about as good... Taking Drach's results at face value it'd seem the UK could/would have been better off if they had adopted a 14" weapon early on instead of the 13.5 and 15" guns they had instead. It would still be more than enough for WW1, outgunning basically every single German ship by a significant amount (even the 13.5" already did that), while also simplifying the supply situation a lot (halving the amount of main armament calibres in use). If they can then upgrade those guns (like the Americans did) during the interwar period and end up with anything resembling the 14" weapons of the KGV class they would have as good a weapon for WW2 as they had with the 15" guns. They would also end WW1 with only 14" guns, and as a result only build ships with 16" guns in the interwar period to make up for it. The ironic part is that this hypothetical 14" gun actually existed, and could have been ready in time to take the place of the 13.5" guns as above... They're Vickers' 14" guns as seen on the Kongo, or Elswick Ordinance's guns as seen on HMS Canada (built for Chile).

[@xarglethegreat]

@@asuka7309 If I recall correctly the RN jumped from 13.5 to 15 specifically to avoid progressive scalling up of the guns, the logic being if they jump straight to 15 from 13.5 then they have a gun that is good enough for a long while into the future and dont have a bunch of ships too new to be scrapped but under armed and ineffective post war, they knew they were probably going to retire the 12 and 13.5 inch gunned ships sooner or later probably sooner. and the 15 inch gun wasnt particularly expensive to develop, it was essentially a scaled up 13.5 inch gun

[@DamianMaisano]

With how the Dutschland’s 11” guns were included, I can’t help but think that the Alaska’s should be. Sure, they weren’t battleships, but they were closer to capital ships than than the Panzerschiffs

[@blueboats7530]

On the other hand they were never fired in anger at another warship, maybe that's why they didn't get included

[@Silverhks]

@Blue Boats Neither were the Vanguards

[@philb5593]

The Alaska’s had super heavy shells that had better penetration than 14”, so it would be and interesting inclusion.

[@rolfs2165]

One point that speaks for the Deutschlands (but not the Alaskas): the Deutschlands' guns were basically the same as the Scharnhorsts'.

[@target844]

@@blueboats7530 If fired in anger against another warship in a relevant factor the Iowa and Yamato-class barely qualify. From what I can find online in a relatively quick search the Iowa class only main gun engagement was during Operation Hailstone where Iowa with the Japanese light cruiser Katori with the main guns. They used high-capacity shells so not the armor penetration shells this video is about. New Jersey sunk a trawler and a destroyer at the same time but from what I can read it only used secondary guns. The Yamato class the only I fund were Battle of Leyte Gulf where is fired on and helped in the sinking of the escort carrier Gambier Bay and the destroyer Johnston. I have no idea what shells were used but because the Japanese misidentified the enemy ship types they might have used armored penetration shells.

[@TeaRexChannel]

The calibre of these videos is always outstanding. Pun fully intended.

[@SonsOfLorgar]

I bet Frederik the great felt that pun stirr something inside.

[@poltergeist5548]

You hit the bullseye with this one :D

[@brianreddeman951]

A barrel of fun

[@lorenrogers9269]

Well played Sir.

[@stevewindisch7400]

One thing is true for all the guns listed, having them fired at you will stimulate the loading of your breeches.

[@NathanOkun]

Shell weight gets full effect against homogeneous, ductile plate, but against face-hardened plate, weight has much less effect since the failure method by such hard-faced armor is always (other than some surface flacking) due to cracking of the hard face layer radially and circularly, like safety glass in a car window, and this is much more due to shock effects from the velocity of the shell when its tip suddenly stops on the plate surface and the shock of impact goes back into the shell and into the plate. Once the shock forms the cracks to weaken the hard face, it can be pushed back through the soft shock-absorbing back part of the plate by the mass-based KE- remaining to the shell. Since the cracking of the face is needed to allow the shell to do more than gouge the plate face somewhat with no other real effect, the mass part is delayed and thus has minimal effect in the total penetration results. Against homogeneous, ductile armor, the deforming of the softer steel or iron begins immediately on initial impact and full KE using the full mass is always applied. If you have weak/brittle AP projectiles that can't take the initial shock, especially at an oblique angle, then those shells will be even more degraded against all armor type with one exception: Above 45 degrees impact angle, a projectile nose shape and AP cap design affects the penetration ability -- ricochet result instead of penetrating at a given impact velocity -- and it turns out that a broken shell, if not reduced to to small pieces, can have its upper end broken off and fail to penetrate (glance off), but now this no longer pulls the rest of the shell with it, so the middle and lower body, if not too broken up, can keep digging into the same area of just beyond it like a snow plow and punch through where an intact shell merely bounces off. In some cases, if the filler cavity is small enough, the shell will still blow up at full power, too, though don't count on that. Still, any penetration is better than no penetration, even if the results are minimal.

[@ulrikschackmeyer848]

Check out his FORGING ON video on differences in the production of armour plate.

[@rdfox76]

@@ulrikschackmeyer848 Trust me, Nathan knows about this. He's one of Drach's sources for that video. He's also pretty much *the* accepted expert on external and terminal ballistics for large guns, and for armor metallurgy and performance, at least in the unclassified world. I think he actually has a doctorate in the field. He's probably forgotten more about the differences in different armor compositions than most of us will ever learn...

[@mortisCZ]

@@rdfox76 I've googled Nathans' name and I have to salute his dedication. I have a lot to read thanks to this comment.:-)

[@oldcynic6964]

Nathan; all that may be true - and I don't doubt a word from a man as well-credentialled as yourself - but what is the point you are making? Are you saying that for Drachinifel to assess the value of each gun he needs to add a new parameter to reflect the type of armour on the nationality of the ships against which the gun will be used ? If you simply were to say "Armour penetration is affected by the type of armour being struck, and the angle at which the shell hits that armour" then I would not disagree, but the statement is no more than an obvious motherhood.

[@hanzzel6086]

​​@@rdfox76Hmm (scribbles another name on a list titled "people to kidnap when time traveling to build a historical navy"). Oh, don't mind me, just writing a, uh.... a grocery list?! yes, that's right, a grocery list!

[@Axel0204]

Overall, I think that the way you ultimately ended up comparing them was excellent, and about as unbiased as a human is likely to achieve. One comment though; while I know it is not technically a battleship gun, I would have liked to have seen the 12"/50 of the Alaska-class included in this list as it is in the within the range of capabilities displayed in the guns discussed here, and the inclusion of the Deutschland-class seems to me to open the door to including other cruisers with battleship caliber guns.

[@su-57stealthfighter73]

IIRC 12"inch/50 cal of Alaska class is somewhat similar/better than British and Japanese 14"inch guns ..

[@travispollett2120]

Drach, isn’t time of flight of the shell to a given range more relevant than range itself? If I understand the issue with hitting a target at over 30k yards is that it gives the targeted ship the ability to leave the area given statistical hit probability. However, if a shell is able to reach 35k yards in the same time as a different shell travels 30k yards, wouldn’t the ability of the targeted ship to exit the targeted area be similar? Are flight times close enough to obviate the discrepancy or have I misunderstood the maximum useful range in some way?

[@bkjeong4302]

Going by live-fire tests in 1944 involving Iowa, even if the enemy ship doesn’t move you’re going to have serious issues hitting the enemy at 30k yards.

[@NickTrouble]

In combat, if you out range your opponent, and are faster than them you are immune to them completely. Effectively have your ship at 0% risk of serious damage. Sure 1 in every 100 shells MIGHT hit at this range, but that is still having their ship under direct threat of damage. Now if 2 ships have same range, and different velocity and correlating air drag values, then a higher initial muzzle velocity would likely be beneficial.

[@NM-wd7kx]

That extra 5k yards adds more chance for deviation from weather/atmospheric conditions (alongside the natural spread of tacking on a 1/6 to the distance). But yes, time of flight is a definite advantage.

[@genericpersonx333]

Yeah, faster shells that keep their speed over distance have better odds of hitting a moving target, but functionally, hitting anything beyond 30,000 yards with enough consistency to matter proved to be just a bit beyond the fire-control technology. This was always an issue with firearms from the 19th century onward, with people aware the guns could shoot further than they could be aimed, but struggling to find ways to effectively do it. By way of example: in 1870, Germans invaded France. Most Germans saw the maximum range for volley fire with rifles to be about 600 meters. They knew the guns were lethal beyond that, but the dispersion of bullets they were measuring was just too big to justify the ammunition spent. So as Germans expected to be mostly safe from rifles until about 600 meters from the enemy. Well, French officers disagreed. They figured out that if they made use of optics and developed their range-finding techniques, they could do better than 600 meters with their rifles. Sure enough, come 1870, Germans were in a rude shock when French volleys starting hitting them as far away as 1,800 meters! The Germans had rifles that could have matched the French, but with virtually no German officers experienced in actually directing fire to those ranges, they never would match the French riflery during the war. So good were French volleys in 1870 that they basically set the tone for riflery right up to the Great War, with everyone assuming that riflemen had to be able to shoot as far as 2,000 meters or more.

[@travispollett2120]

Thank you all for the replies; the 30k effective limit on range and flight time not playing a significant part to change that makes more sense now.

[@NathanOkun]

Armor penetration is rather complicated because there are two different kinds of armor, face hardened (based on a variant of German Krupp Cemented (KC) armor in the 20th Century) and homogeneous, ductile (either based on the highest-strength steel similar to KC armor, but no face hardened, used for thinner direct hit protection or protection from highly-oblique impacts such as decks, or a weaker steel, such as British High Tensile IHT) or the improved post-WWI "D" steel, both pf the latter used primarily as anti-blast/fragment protection with projectile impact being secondary. Face hardened armor is designed to break projectiles up to reduce their penetration ability and the AP shells designed to penetrate it had steel "crash helmets" called "AP caps" added to their noses to prevent the nose breakage. as well as making the projectiles stronger by various other means to stay in one piece. The AP caps can be soft, tough, hard, or super-hard, each having different properties. This gets complicated very fast...

[@phil20_20]

Well, not to be difficult, but there are a lot more than two types of armor steel in these ships. You might narrow it down by individual production runs, but that's about as lucky as you're going to get with that one.

[@thehandoftheking3314]

Having to use the Captions option has reaped unexpected benefits. At 51:00 drach appears to confirm HMS Incomparable and HMS Overcompensation did exist as he mentions the existence of British 50 inch guns....

[@The_Laughing_Cavalier]

I am remined of a famous poem from WW1 about the German guns: "Boom, Boom, Boom, Boom, Boom, Boom, Boom, Boom, Boom, Boom, Boom, Boom, Boom, Boom"

[@simperous4308]

Shut up baldrick! 😀

[@sixstringedthing]

"If a hungry cannibal cracked your head open, there wouldn't be enough inside to cover a small water biscuit".

[@thehandoftheking3314]

Boom, boom, boom???

[@Philip271828]

How did you guess?

[@tomdolan9761]

Ah yes by that venerable poet Krupp

[@F5000Racer]

As Ching Lee demonstrated, turret alignment and calibration with fire control radar led to the most important aspect of BB main batteries; being the first to put steel on target usually won a particular engagement.

[@stevebloom5606]

That would probably matter a lot in an equalish fight, but at Guadalcanal it didn't

[@F5000Racer]

@@stevebloom5606 The cruiser admirals had no faith in radar in 1942. Had they trusted some of the cruiser captains like Gil Hoover who knew how to use SG radar, the USN would have lost far fewer ships and sailors and admirals in Ironbottom Sound

[@libraeotequever3pointoh95]

Putting projectiles on target first is important, whether it involves a handgun or a naval gun.

[@grahamstrouse1165]

At the ranges Washington & Kirishima were engaged at getting the first licks in definitely made a difference!

[@joshkamp7499]

Opening it up to external factors would've changed things dramatically because you would've been forced to include the Ching Lee Coefficient, giving the Washington's 16/45s an overwhelming victory.

[@m60a3tts2]

So who do you like in a 1 v 1 battle of Yamato vs. Washington with Ching Lee on board but under the command of Captain Evans (yes, of the USS Johnston).

[@Captain_Seafort]

But then there would be an argument over whether the Lee coefficient was higher than that of HMS Rodney and her three Shredded Wheat for breakfast.

[@riverraven7359]

And out of the Blue Sky comes warspite on a completely mental rampage just because.

[@stevebloom5606]

@@m60a3tts2 Ramming speed! ;)

[@unclestone8406]

@@riverraven7359 Belli Dura Despicio, baby, now and forever 😉

[@anumeon]

"Perhaps today is a good day to Drach.. Prepare for ramming speed" - Worf. Startrek: First Contact (slightly paraphrased)

[@justanotherhuumon]

Tough little ship.

[@anumeon]

@@justanotherhuumon Little?

[@thehandoftheking3314]

You're afraid. You want to run away and destroy the Ship. You coward.

[@DavidDrahos]

Setting the large cruiser or battlecruiser argument aside. I'm curious to see how the 12"/50 on the Alaskas would compare to the other 11" and 12" guns.

[@420JackG]

Those are widely regarded as the most powerful 12" weapons ever created.

[@MrTScolaro]

It is not how they would compare to 11 and 12, but how they would compare to 14 and 15 inch guns.

[@420JackG]

@@MrTScolaro 12"/50s were lauded by ordinance as being ballistically very close to the 14"/50 mk B.

[@gokbay3057]

@@420JackG Sure, but do you trust the BuOrd?

[@markusz4447]

@@gokbay3057 not if they tell you something about working torpedoes

[@CH3TN1K313]

Still waiting for the conclusion to the Destroyer series, you were just getting to the juicy WW2 stuff in the last video, and I was looking forward for Part 3. :(

[@rolfs2165]

Drach could make a bonus video to that series where he just reads out the names and launch dates of all 175 Fletchers and people'd watch it. :D

[@CH3TN1K313]

@@rolfs2165 110%

[@neilwilson5785]

The Destroyers are super interesting

[@toddwebb7521]

Although the US 14" had rather pedestrian rate of fire and bursting charge I'd like to point out that they had mostly 12 and some 10 gun arrangements. Many of their competitors are rocking 6-8. 12 to a salvo definitely makes up for some rate and bursting charge if comparing to a 6 or 8 gun ship.

[@pdunderhill]

Ladies and Gents, welcome to the new 'Super strength' Irn Bru where Drach reveals his true and proper Engineering background. Excellent explanation of your analysis of the stats with a practical appreciation of what that meant in real life situations. Thank You.

[@Big_E_Soul_Fragment]

Ah yes, over an hour long video on big shootas. My inner Ork is pleased.

[@CSSVirginia]

Big shootas best for crumping hummies!

[@durhamdavesbg]

You ain't no mek, these are Kannon!

[@Paludion]

I think orks would be more pleased if the guns were in action, not analysed.

[@janczaplinski658]

Kill the alien.

[@UnderTrack_]

you could try to look at muzzle velocity alongside range to remove bias from gun elevation, since muzzle velocity doesn't depend on the turret/mount, a higher velocity weapon having a flatter ballistic curve compared to lower velocity one similar to the advantage of range, otherwise it seems pretty good

[@trumpetedeagle2]

Muzzle velocity can also be adjusted very easily, just put less charges in.

[@klobiforpresident2254]

When trying to go for high range and/or a flat ballistic arc they won't usually put in fewer charges.

[@SyncViews]

@@trumpetedeagle2 Yes but generally can't put "extra charges in" if you have a gun with a low velocity to start with

[@SyncViews]

Velocity would also I expect have a big impact on accuracy, since if the shell reaches the target faster it will have moved less / easier to predict?

[@markusz4447]

Hood would have appreciated a flatter ballistic curve from Bismarck

[@vridiantoast7096]

Oh yes a 1 hour video on big guns! This’ll be fun!

[@apexqc04]

This is a brilliant video, not just simply because it is a good parallel comparison video but especially because it is masterclass in how to do, and how not to do a comparison or best-of you-tube video. Yes a WW1 equivalent might be quite interesting especially in light of all the potential mythology surrounding the Grand Fleet and High Seas fleet actions.

[@TEmery]

One of my favorite channels! Great content and narration. Fall to sleep listening and no commercial interruptions. T.Y.

[@BokoDisraeli]

As regards to range, would comparing the range of a weapon at a specific elevation, for example 20° or 25° would allow for a better comparison of ballistic properties by controlling for the mounts.

[@juanordonezgalban2278]

But is that information availible for every weapon you'd like to study?

[@JoramTriesGaming]

@@juanordonezgalban2278 if not, one would hope enough angles are available to at least make a functional graph: one could compare the curves to get an idea of performance.

[@oceanhome2023]

Why not include muzzle velocity in addition to the range ?

[@JoramTriesGaming]

@@oceanhome2023 Shell weight will affect the loss of momentum over distance, so even a gun with a ludicrous MV will lose more energy over a given distance than would SHS at a more pedestrian speed, if it's using a light shell. Honestly, having a category for "momentum at X range" would be more useful.

[@glennsimpson7659]

@@JoramTriesGaming Why not use muzzle energy = 1/2 m v2?

[@AndrewGivens]

I love it! This is what discussion of the technical aspects of WW2 naval is always - and should always - be like: Half an hour of chatting soberly about the ponderables and the empirical data sets, how to reconcile them and the difficulties of simple comparisons... and then *That* chart. Oh my goodness. I paused, I giggled, I asked myself out loud "what happened?"... and then I burst out laughing like Michigan's 12-inch failing. Thank you so much for bringing us this slice of infotainment, Drach. It is not an easy (or even plausible) task to do this with realistic hopes of being 'right', but you are super-game for taking the Nihon Kaigun challenge. Laurels and props. (I recently got into a near-argument with someone for dismissing Nathan Okun's "Here is a computer programme me and my mate made up to model shell performance and it told us... pretty much what we told it to tell us - ta-dahh!" whilst accepting his research on the known metallurgical properties of Class A, Class B, STS etc. The guy couldn't understand why I would accept one set of Okun's 'conclusions' but not the other. A clue: Empirical Vs made-up.)

[@thestonedabbot9551]

I live in Coventry where there used to be a huge factory on Stoney Stanton Rd that made big gun barrels for battleships in WW1. Most of the gun barrels used at Jutland were made there. Sure the citys canals got major refits to accommodate the cargo but I always found it somewhat ironic because Coventry is literally the most landlocked city in the UK

[@gaberobison680]

I mean the USn had a habit of naming battleships after landlocked states. Americans lost the irony battle

[@glennsimpson7659]

The Coventry Ordnance Works was established there because of the availability of skilled workers. Its gun making facilities were sorely missed in 1939.

[@steppedtuba50]

@@glennsimpson7659 Pittsburgh and Ohio steel built our battleships

[@TzunSu]

As a Wrexham fan, I smile at seeing Coventry mentioned ;)

[@Grrymjo]

What I like even more than guns in your video is short, but informative introduction into data normalization. IMHO, this part can be clipped and used in any beginner's statistics course. Thank you very much!

[@namielkhazen3619]

Just finished watching the Lethality of splinter video just to be greeted with this one. A lucky day!

[@driftertank]

Too bad you couldn't establish a universal range factor, such as "range at 30° elevation," as that would effectively make the range factor into a measure of muzzle velocity and ballistic coefficient. That would effectively make the range a factor of gun, rather than turret, performance.

[@gokbay3057]

Some older turrets couldn't have made 30° elevation, no?

[@RCAvhstape]

@@gokbay3057 Doesn't matter, since you're evaluating the gun as if it were in a 30° capable turret.

[@mikeholloway2625]

Think big drills and lathes... America does have some incredible power tools that nobody on Earth has. National asset stuff. Conspiracy theory stuff...

[@pubbarian]

muzzle velocity would be a good measure for this generally gives longer ranges at higher elevation or a flatter trajectory for the same range

[@harley3282]

I was thinking the same. But I would it "range at 15° elevation" as not every turret could elevate to 30° but they all should be able to get to 15°.

[@bigsarge2085]

Informative AND entertaining! I can only imagine the effort it took to comprehensively research this documentary. We appreciate you!

[@rileyernst9086]

Drachinifel has the most glorious introduction of any channel on youtube.

[@hajoos.8360]

World record in rate of fire is held by Seydlitz at the Battle of the Doggerbank. After the stern-turrets blew up Seydlitz was shooting with the remaining 3 turrets 123 11'inch-shells in 6 rounds a minute to Beatty's squadron.

[@justforever96]

That is kind of cheating. 11in shells are significantly smaller and lighter than 12", which are tiny next to 16" shells. An inch or two doesnt sound like much but you are increasing the diameter of a circle, which has a disproportionate effect on the area, and the shell length is increased proportionate to the diameter. If you compare a 7.62mm bullet with a 12.7mm, the diameter is not even doubled, but a 7.62 weighs 158 grains and a 12.7 weighs 700-800 grains. So 5mm difference and it weighs almost 5 times as much.

[@hajoos.8360]

@@justforever96 Yes, that's correct. But at the doggerbank were only 11, 12 & 13,5 inch guns present. At Jutland the Brits had some 15 inch gun ships. The weight of a British 15 inch gun was around 880 KG on Hood. The German 15 inch gun had a weight of 750 KG,. on Bismarck 800 KG. The 11-inch high velocity-projectile of the Scharnhorst-class had only a weight of slightly above 300 KG. On paper the Scharnhorst could shot 3,5 rounds a minute, same as Bismarck, caused by the same simple reload system. But Schneider shot at Denmark Strait in average 1 round a minute. The 11 inch gun had several advantages, more projectiles in the magazine and the guns had more stamina than 15 inch guns. 15 inch guns could survive 254 rounds, 11 inch guns a 100 rounds more. Scharnhorst's 11 inch guns could penetrate most of all existing armaments except the main belts. The fatal hit on Scharnhorst at the North Cape by Duke of York's 14 inch guns reached the propulsion room slightly above the main belt. This hit was deadly by his lucky accuracy not by the weight of the projectile. When Kirishima was hit by Washington's 16 inch guns of several broadsides on nearly point blank range, the broadside weight made no difference. As You mentioned, smaller calibre, more broadsides available. And in WWII only 2 British BB-constructions were sunk by artillery.

[@LucioFercho]

@@hajoos.8360 LOL! You are taking Bismarcks AVERAGE to discuss MAX RoF... seriously? You only got to rapid fire once you have straddled the target. The supposed hit on Scharnhorst is pure speculation, whatever happened to the ship, she was already regaining its speed when caught. "And in WWII only 2 British BB-constructions were sunk by artillery." Wasnt that because Bismarck was the only BB they actually faced and their record was, 1 explosion, 1 damaged and ran away, surviving because the Admiral in charge refused to pursue; and 2 others that got lucky against a ship without rudder control and that still managed to get a straddle but no hits?

[@hajoos.8360]

@@LucioFercho You are not very educated in navy-affairs. Bismarck's ability to fire 3,5 rounds a minute was documented during the sea-trials. DoY made 14 x 14 inch hits on Scharnhorst, are all witnessed. The second very effected hit knocked turret A out of action. And yes, Sir, the ship Bismarck is not responsable for an admiral, who is an idiot and a coward. And as I said, only 2 BBs in WWII were sunk by artillery, Hood and Kirishima, both british constructions. And again, You are correct, it is idiocy of the SKL to bring BBs during winter into action which had a under-devloped radar-system. In the mediterranean Scharnhort would have sunk the entire British squadron. In 1943 the British radar was well developed. Before 1943 the British performances via the usuall optical methods with rangefinders were very poor. Nearly 3k shells were needed to hit a 250 meter target, a sitting duck on point blank range. It can only mean, the Brits were, as usual, all drunk.

[@LucioFercho]

@@hajoos.8360 Thst was excatly MY point, Bismarck could indeed fire fast, and certainly faster than 1rpm. You claimed Scharnhorst suffered a machinery hit, there is no proof of that, that is pure speculation and contradicted by the actual facts.

[@AEsir2023]

Sir I just wanted to say thank you I’m home on disability and your videos have been great I love naval history and it’s really helped get my mind off things.

[@scrambledganglia6946]

Well, if you insist on using objective measures, I can only quibble. I really appreciate the step back, stare at the first results, some thinking, and then the 2+2 does not equal 5 moment. That is real scientific method at work.

[@NathanOkun]

The 46cm Type 91 or slightly improved Type 1 AP shell used in YAMATO Class ships has an ABSOLUTE MAXIMUM rate of fire of 45 seconds between gun shots, with the time to re-elevate the guns from the fixed minimal loading angle after firing the last shell at a higher angle slowing the rate down even more (I think that it would take about 5 seconds to elevate the guns up to the maximum 45 degrees to manually re-sync them with the fire-control system orders, so 45-60 seconds between each gun firing is the loading/aiming rate at rapid fire). Also, the shells were using a similar hardening system to the British "Greenboy AP shells, which the KONGO Class had been given after WWI and used as the baseline for the Japanese AP ammo after that, with the biggest change being the Type 91 shell shape (International Type 2 conical nose and large tapered "boat-tailed" base) for maximum range), which was only exceeded in streamlining by the post-WWI French 5-calibe-long naval AP shells of DUNKERQUE and RICHELIEU Classes. The hardness pattern for the 46cm Type 91/1 shells was improved slightly to increase the test angle from 20 degrees (British Greenboy standard) to 30 degrees (most WWII foreign AP shell standard tests) against face-hardened armor, but was found in further testing to not even be able to remain intact against the thicker test plates at even just 33 degrees (poor). The British "layer-cake" decremental hardness pattern, though improved in their WWII ammo but not much in the Japanese copied ammo, was not very good against angled impacts under high stress conditions, as the US test results of British 14" Mark IB APC Shell after WWII demonstrated conclusively. This makes long-range Japanese gunfire using battleship-sized APC shells iffy against US battleships due to the thick armor and higher belt tilts used in the US new-design battleships. Also, about the Japanese AP shell WWII filler: NOT GOOD AT ALL!! The Japanese are in their naval officer corps somewhat "Good Enough For Grandpa" traditionalists -- they kept trying to use British Lyddite (which they called "Shimose") with delay-action-fuzed shells until finally even they, in their nearly infinite stubbornness (these were the "super-shells" of the Russo-Japanese War, remember), had to give up in NINETEEN-THIRTY-ONE (1931!) and substitute another explosive filler. trinitroanisol ("Type 91 Explosive") in their new Type 91 AP shells. This filler was also extremely sensitive, but also nearly as powerful as Shimose (as if that really mattered in actual use, as I mentioned before), but to get it to be cushioned enough to not explode on impact like Lyddite did against thick armor, they had to put into all of their Type 91/1 AP shells (uncapped 6.1" and 8" and capped larger versions) 33-40% of inert cloth, plaster, wood, and aluminum liners like a Russian doll surrounding the filler, especially at the nose-end of the cavity, so the total explosive charge in the shells was much smaller, than the cavity would indicate, AP-size in the uncapped smaller shells even though they had SAP-size cavities, and US AP-sized fillers in their British-Greenboy-sized cavities. Thus, the Japanese WWII AP shells were much more fragile and had a small explosive charge much more like US small-filler WWII AP shells without the added shell-cavity-side metal thickness increase, that existed for increased fragmentation, that the US shell had -- even their SAP-type cruiser-sized "AP" shells), and also without the US super-inert Explosive "D" (ammonium picrate) filler that could be relied on to penetrate ANYTHING without unwanted explosions if the shell remained more-or-less intact and the fuze worked properly (not completely true even with all that cushion in Japanese WWII AP ammo). Thus, intact penetrations by US 2700-pound 16" Mark 8 AP shells were usually going to be MUCH more reliable in doing full-power damage to an enemy ship than the Japanese 46cm Type 91 or Type 1 ammo would, either as a penetrator if hitting at an oblique angle or as an explosive-filled weapon even if it penetrated and fuzed properly. I would greatly reduce the Japanese 46cm AP ammo as to its damage-causing ability in many cases even against WWI-era BBS due to the poor oblique-angle penetration ability, especially an intact shell afterwards even if the shell penetrates completely. Just drilling holes or merely having low-order explosions like black powder after penetrating much of the time does not make for a good AP shell -- solid shot or shotgun-like effects that happen just behind the outermost armor side or deck plate is not very useful, barring blind luck, against large warships like WWII battleships.

[@TheJazsa80]

After reading this I was thinking: Whoever wrote thinks he's Nathan Okun or something. Then I check and it actually is Nathan Okun. Love your work, mate.

[@BobSmith-dk8nw]

For what it's worth ... In my old group of beer drinking and war gaming buddies - there was one guy who had developed his own set of naval combat rules - which we used - and he was in agreement with you about those 18.1 inch guns vs. the 16" guns on the Iowas. .

[@jetdriver]

This is great info thank you! I’d be very curious to see how you would approach such a task and what your final ratings would end up looking like.

[@solus48]

Damn, the Nathan Okun. Thanks for the information.

[@BobSmith-dk8nw]

@@solus48 You might want to adjust your punctuation and spelling here. The thanks at the end is probably enough for people to realize you are NOT cursing him but some might be confused. I would suggest something like: "Damn! It's The Nathan Okun! Thanks for the information." Something like that ... .

[@CharliMorganMusic]

Who would win: a fleet of 4 cruisers + 2 destroyers or a series of tubes

[@joshkamp7499]

Is the Johnston one of the destroyers?

[@bkjeong4302]

Save for the part that building battleships just to go after supporting units is strategically idiotic.....

[@Battleship009]

@@bkjeong4302 Agreed, and I've been looking for you for a while as I wanted to end the discussion of the usefulness of battleships on a different note. There's two things that we can probably agree on. 1. There's a certain cool factor that battleships have. 2. There's something satisfying at the sight of a battleship blowing stuff up with their main battery.

[@GearGuardianGaming]

@@Battleship009 also that in those times, the only thing more intimidating than seeing a battleship on the horizon was hearing a growing hum that you couldnt see the source of. Battleships were quite intimidating. Especially for smaller ships.

[@genericpersonx333]

Well, I can reference at least one US naval officer of WW2 who dealt with the question of whether or not battleships were a problem in 1944: my Grandfather. When asked what he feared most in the Pacific? Battleships. Why? Because with a destroyer, he could shoot down planes, was a match for any destroyer he was likely to meet, and at 10,000 yards or less, the 5''/38 could do significant-enough harm to a cruiser though it was not a fight he relished getting into, but if an IJN battleship showed up 20,000 yards from his ship, there was nothing he could reasonably do but run. His guns would be effectively useless and torpedoes from him were not only unlikely to hit, the BB would certainly have good chance of hitting his ship with a probably fatal blow long before those torpedoes got anywhere close to the BB. Oh, and the BB would certainly be maneuvering in anticipation of torpedoes, making it even less likely he would hit the BB. Basically, he was unafraid of destroyers, confident against airpower, and felt he had a fair chance against cruisers, but BBs represented a truly dangerous threat which he could not expect to handle. People laud the USS Johnston, but getting lucky by being plucky is NOT something most captains responsible for the lives of dozens of sailors should be depending on.

[@lostpony4885]

This is a great lesson on the issues with selecting variables in any data model and the influence of the guy who picks em, on what the model results say.

[@NathanOkun]

I have to go further into bursting charge size effects.. I only rate these shells into generic classes, AP (under 4% filler weight), SAP,/Common z(4-5% filler weight), HE (over 5% and under 8% filler weight), and bombardment/CPC (over 8% filler weight, up to 12%). I assume a reasonably powerful, detonable, HE-type filler and effective, reliable fuzing capable of giving a full-power detonation of that filler type reliably (at least 80% of the time, roughly), which unfortunately for many shells, including WWII German AP and SAP-type shells, the fuzes and, particularly the booster/"exploder" that sets off the main filler was not very good in some designs with the post-WWI reduced sensitivity fillers (not a problem with Japanese shells!). It took some nations some time -- if they ever com0letely fixed the problems -- in getting reliable detonations even when the shell worked perfectly otherwise. German shells, maybe due to sabotage from the slave labor or not-so-good design work with booster charges, seem to have had the worst problem during WWII. British shells using Shellite had a problem with this too, since they originally used the delay-action modified version of their old Lyddite fuze, the Number 16. Shellite was much less sensitive to impact shock, as desired, but it also was somewhat more difficult to detonate at full power, so lots of "partial detonations" mixed with less-powerful, black-powder-like "violent explosions" occurred, These gave OK results in many cases to nearby spaces in the target, but not nearly the complete destruction desired. The TNT fillers used in smaller guns and, I believe in the NELSON 16" APC shells, was actually better, since more work was done to make these shell detonate at all using Tetryl boosters and only later did tetryl boosters start being applied to Shellite-filled APC shells with good results. A mixed bag here. The US use of Tetryl, starting in 1928 (the same year that British TNT shells started getting reliable Tetryl -- "CE" -- boosters) and had a better design from the start, using two small rocket-nozzle-shaped pits ion the sides of the upper end of their fuzes with Tetryl filling them, so that they fired two needle-like shaped charge jets into their extremely inert Explosive "D" fillers and very reliably set them off in full detonation with this redundant booster design. So, let us say that all of the shells go off with full-power high order detonations. The filler size does affect the blast effects, with the bigger the better, obviously. Bur larger fillers cut out bigger cavities in the shell, greatly reducing the number of high-velocity sideways fragments of the main body of the shells. Nose pieces of heavy-nosed, base-fuzed AP, SAP, and CPC projectiles are all broken up into a few large chunks (sometime they stay in one huge piece) and can act like a huge bowling ball tearing through several spaces and only bouncing off the thick deck and far-side armor plates. However, these are not very many pieces and only do relatively minor damage, barring a blind luck impact (not likely) -- pieces of the armor punched out are on the same scale of secondary damage effects. Base pieces are just as big as nose pieces but tend to be reduced a lot in speed by the detonation in front of them and do little damage, if any at all. So you get faster, but less high-velocity middle-body fragments from large-filler shell, but s9mewhat slower, but a lot more, fragments from small-filler shells. So as long as the filler sizes are in the ranges I give above, the total effect of blast versus fragments roughly balances' out, since fragments cause somewhat different, but just as deadly damage as blast does (its a "wash" as far as I can see). When the filler sizes switch to the larger ranges, the blast effects get bigger much faster than the fragment sizes get smaller (the filler cavity gets longer and makes some more fragments due to this) so there is "a more blast for the buck" effect, but the ranges have less effect since the ship spaces are fixed in size and you can only do so much damage to the space you blow up in and perhaps one space to the sides by blast along (fragments from side blasts do not penetrate very well due to their small size and highly irregular shapes), so it takes a lot larger filler size to get more blast-created damage results that matter.-- the CPC/bombardment shells are much like small aircraft bombs, with CPC (the later TNT-filled version after WWI) having some light armor penetration ability due to its heavy nose and AP cap and SAP-type base fuze -- US bombardment shells, originally railroad gun projectiles in WWI, also had base fuzes, but were designed as merely enlarged HE/HC shells with very little true armor penetration ability, but good rock, masonry, cement, or earth penetration against land forts.

[@stevebloom5606]

Wow, thanks for these thorough comments. I made a somewhat speculative comment above about the potential shock effect of US 16" AP shells against Yamato's riveted armor belt. Could you comment on that? TIA.

[@tomkunkle318]

Nathan: About the overall energy balance: For the AP shells that I've looked at the explosive energy of the bursting charge is appreciably less than the kinetic energy of the shell. For example, the IJN Type 91 AP projectiles used in the Type 94 18.1-inch guns weighed 1460 kg and were fired at a muzzle velocity of 780 m/s (2600 ft/s), giving an initial kinetic energy of 444 MJ. Assuming complete detonation, the 34 kg HE bursting charge added an additional 140 MJ of explosive energy. So depending on the striking velocity and energy loss during armor penetration, the kinetic energy of the fragments might be anticipated to be somewhat more damaging than the blast effects of the bursting charge. I tend to think of AP shells as kinetic energy attack weapons rather than explosive weapons, but I've no idea if this notion is correct in the real world.

[@bkjeong4302]

@@stevebloom5606 Most of the belt armour of Yamato was welded (only the thickest sections were riveted).

[@stevebloom5606]

@@bkjeong4302 Yes, the ones that mattered the most!

[@griffinfaulkner3514]

@@tomkunkle318 In terms of raw material damage, the impact definitely does more damage, but the explosive payload is there more to get those juicy secondary explosions from cooking off ammo or rupturing boilers than any additional kinetic energy benefits.

[@alexhunt7810]

I'm only halfway through, but I just wanted to say that your videos are wonderful for their methodological thoroughness and openness alone.

[@NathanOkun]

I am impressed. Your discussion on how range capability can affect the gun's function even at close range (flatter trajectory and less oblique impact angles to improve penetration -- you are GREAT in thinking about that!!!). There is another problem here, though, that needs to be address in armor penetration: The ability of the projectile to actually remain intact on impact and (1) be able to penetrate thick armor at any angle or medium armor at higher angles and (2) how the shell can still function as a complete, reasonably intact explosive device on the far side of the penetrated plate. This damage thing is ENORMOUSLY complex and is the major variable in the capability differences between the shells at different time frames for a single country or different countries at the same time (roughly). One of the bigger examples is the "28cm" (actually 28.3cm in size -- Krupp standard from before WWI). In WWII there were two types AP of shell used, the L/3.7 in the Pocket Battleships and L/4.4 for the SCHARNHORST Class BBs (this is the length of the shell in calibers (projectile diameters, regardless of actual size of the shell)). The former are basically hard-capped improved reheated WWI L/3.2 version of these shells. The older shell has MUCH poorer penetration ability due to poor metallurgy mostly and partially due to the smaller, lighter AP cap for use against cruiser-thickness armor, not the thick armor of heavy, BB/BC-type warships. Even new guns in WWII have a major problem here: British 14" and 15" guns have APC shell in WWII that were designed for better oblique impact (very soft lower body and their very much better "Hadfield "Patent Relief" base plug holding the base fuze away from the effects of base slap (slamming the base against the armor at highly oblique impact). This softening worked OK against face-hardened and homogeneous, ductile armors used in average battleships of typical WWII thickness, such as all British battleships, making the shell much more difficult to break up due to the impact -- good point of course -- BUT when hitting any armor, even at right angles, that are significantly thicker than the projectile diameter (18" US Class "B" turret face or conning tower armor or 17.3" of US WWII "Thick Chill" Class "A" armor used on most barbette sides, which these new British APC shell CANNOT PENETRATE AT ALL, EVEN AT THE MUZZLE. These British shells bend like bananas or broke up, depending on the armor and//or impact angle, at most making a deep dimple in the armor. The shells that bent rather than broke up on rejection were rather interest8ing, in that they will still explode properly, usually, but outside the armor so with a much poorer final effect on the target. My program FACEHARD has this built into its computations for all kinds of face-hardened armors. Note another effect: While the size of the explosive filler (assuming roughly the TNT-power filler, usually within 10% of this when exploding properly even in WWI) has some effect, the larger the filler, the smaller number of high-speed fragments formed from the shell sides (noses and bases form big, slower-moving pieces in all such shells and can punch deeper through internal bulkheads, of course), so the smaller-filler shells of similar weight have many more sideways fragments and thus this can compensate for less blast effect in the same place it explodes (which causes the most damage depend on where the shell is when it detonates). So the big jumps -- when using the similar kind of filler explosive (important!) -- from AP to SAP to HE to "bombardment"/CPC shells have more effect on internal damage when a shell of each type penetrates (if possible, of course). These are the major, though not the only, differences that can rate these projectiles against one-another as to their effectiveness against the target as their primary purpose. Fuzing limitations are also complex, but I am not talking about that, which makes things even worse, of course. This makes things REALLY a mess to evaluate (it took me over 50 years and 70 versions of FACEHARD) to get what I have now, which still includes a lot of educated guesses, though I have a lot of test results to make the term "educated" rather high in this database.

[@kylesmith1601]

The factors you mention include the capabilities of the ammunition. This is very important but is not the gun itself.

[@glennsimpson7659]

@@kylesmith1601 It is not really possible to evaluate the gun without evaluating the shell. The inaccuracies of the Italian 15” gun were caused by the combination of the rifling (which overspun the shell) and the length of the shell itself - see the Warship International article mentioned by Drach. Nor can you really evaluate a gun without regard to the mount, in spite of what Drach says.

[@selfhelp4testing]

This is why I come to the comments. I'm rather new to WW2 naval history but completely addicted to Drach's content. Being a Mechanical Engineer and building process control systems for a living, the fuses and detonators, plus the construction of armor piercing shells, and the timing of all that to maximize penetration, delay for detonation, but equipment that survives the launching charge, then survives the impact long enough to reliably set off the weapon is both fascinating and a mystery for me. I hope someday to find some technical information and animations of those fractions of a second.

[@justastudent1423]

People really do not give bullet/shell construction enough consideration. It is one of if not *the* most important factor when it comes to effect on target. This is true wether you're discussing WW2 naval/land guns or hunting today. It's no use having an amazing gun if whats going into the target is not an adequate projectile.

[@dogcarman]

What makes you a great communicator is that you put forward your methods and biases. Just gotta love it.

[@bux834]

I think you could have bundled range and mass under a „kinetic energy“ (0.5*m*v^2) category. A shell with more kinetic energy will also travel further and a lighter shell might do more damage if it travels faster than a heavier shell.

[@antred11]

There would still be some differences not readily apparent just from (initial) kinetic energy alone, though. A heavier shell will usually bleed less kinetic energy in flight, as for instance making a shell twice as large (in all 3 dimensions) will grow its mass (and hence kinetic energy, if initial velocity remains the same) to a factor of 8, while only increasing its surface area to a factor of 4. This means it will lose speed due to friction / resistence more slowly than the lighter / smaller shell.

[@SlavicCelery]

I enjoy your precision in explaining your methodology! Thank you for spending the time at the beginning of the video clarifying the ways and means.

[@davidbrennan660]

A Drach video on Big Guns....... hurrah for Wednesday! Drach rewiring non Euclidean and four dimensional hyper-mathematics just for his Wednesday Rum Ration to entertain us is note worthy. The new SI unit of “cats per Ironing-board” could revolution large calibre ballistics and the collapsing Warp Field within a Singularly theory.

[@duwop544]

Wonderful run of rare photos. Thank you, great thing.

[@hernerweisenberg7052]

I might have included velocity, as a flatter trajectory makes it easier to score hits at range :)

[@arthurbachmann3117]

Aim Off for Globe and Earth Corriolis also ?

[@SwitchBlade743]

Hi, Been watching your channel for a little over a year and enjoy it very much. Thanks for the information and entertainment. I was in the U.S. Navy for 24 years - about half as a Gunner's Mate and half as an Ordnance Officer, so enjoyed todays episode. A couple of comments on your evaluation. 1. The bursting charges aren't directly comparable because different countries (and possibly time periods) used different explosives. This may be one of the reasons the U.S. consistently uses smaller charges. 2. WRT range, as you mentioned several times, gun elevation has a significant influence one the range. A better data point may be Initial Velocity. 3. The Rate-of-Fire category is almost entirely a function of the ammo and turret handling system (ie, the elevation the gun can be loaded at, which in turrets that have to load the gun at zero degrees elevation, the elevation speed again becomes relevant).While this may be a tie breaker in your presentation, it's not strictly a function of the gun. Again, good episode

[@g00se99]

Series of tubes. I see what you did here. Epic meme.

[@BHuang92]

I was surprised about Drach's rating of the French 15" gun which in my opinion is very underrated. Its known unfortunately for some of the shell defects but the guns of the Richelieu class were on par if not slightly better then the Bismarck class when those defects were fixed.

[@eric24567]

If I'm not mistaken the French also didn't introduce delay coils well after the conclusion of WW2. And since the 4 gun turret is basically just 2 2 gun turrets literally strapped together, there were some accuracy issues. Obviously if I'm wrong it means what I said is a load of crap lol, but if not that might contribute to why people would rate the Bismarck class' guns over the Richelieu class'.

[@kpdubbs7117]

I am disappointed Drach, your talk of tubes seems rather hollow.

[@scheimong]

My tube isn't hollow

[@hughgordon6435]

@@scheimong then its not a tube,by definition

[@hughgordon6435]

It has to be ,by definition

[@treyhelms5282]

Seems pretty on target though

[@stevebloom5606]

That he made it long should be a consolation.

[@davidkillin8466]

Really interesting and detailed overview. I think the end results of the data analysis reflect the realities of the weapons pretty accurately, knowing as we do about the guns and ships in question! Thanks Drach :)

[@garyhill2740]

I would like to have seen the two tables combined so that the pre-1930 guns still in service, like the British 15"/42, can be ranked to where they stand in WW II relative to the other guns they served against and alongside. Found this video to be exceptionally interesting. Thank you for all the effort and hard work that went into this! :)

[@athrowaway3487]

gonna have to save this one for after school, was just about to leave and got the notification lol

[@johnlavery3433]

Wise man. Remember to study and shit. And stick to your strengths

[@khaelamensha3624]

Unless you have history course. You may negotiate to have the video instead of the course 😇😂

[@athrowaway3487]

@@johnlavery3433 This is the best piece of advice I have been given from an anonymous internet person

[@johnlavery3433]

@@athrowaway3487 here’s a better bit. Learn what your weaknesses are, it took me an attempt at my Biology and Chemistry A Levels, and a year in Business economics in Uni to learn there’s just a level of maths where I am good, and a level after that where I am utterly hopeless. So now I’m doing history and politics and I’m loving it.

[@SonsOfLorgar]

@@athrowaway3487 I'd suggest this video to your social sciences teacher as an example of how to interpret statistics and how easily statistics can be manipulated for undisclosed or unintentional biases to show something preposterous without actually lying.

[@avgj0378]

I see you've tried to engineer a solution :) Honestly, Drach, I think most of us would trust your opinions vs. attempts at unbiased calculations. I think the problem here is that the guns are just the "business end" of a larger weapon system which includes the hardest variable to measure... Crew Quality.

[@mlmmt]

Not to mention any external fire control (ex: the computers on the Iowa class) that might make far more of a difference in actual combat than the theoretical accuracy of the gun.

[@styx4947]

2 guys get into a fight: one has a sharpened stick. The other has stick. Who wins?

[@tcpratt1660]

@@styx4947 the one who is Theodore Roosevelt, of course!

[@styx4947]

Love that comment

[@jarrusjenkins]

I would have thought the KGV 14inch would have been further up the table.... but the evidence is there to suggest otherwise and I cannot dispute it. (Not that I would because I trust the source is good) ....and without even looking I would have bet any money that 18.1inch Yamato would have been top followed by the 16inch Iowa (to no bodys surprise) Bismarck and Vanguards guns being on par seems about right to me.... etc etc... The Littorio coming that low was a shock as Reichilieu coming that high was also a shock.... but again I trust the source so I have no intention of disputing your numbers Great work Drac, loved it

[@mpersad]

Hugely impressive piece of work Drach! Thank you as always for such a well researched and presented video.

[@huntercurts9998]

The fact that the 15inch guns of Richelieu manage to tie for third with a 16inch gun speaks very highly on how well she was desgined and built

[@GrayD1ce]

Unfortunately they also tended to blow themselves up in a hope we hit quick scenario and the Italians needed to fire the qc team in charge of the 15 inchers out of the guns themselves

[@PalleRasmussen]

@@GrayD1ce what? Italians what?

[@themanformerlyknownascomme777]

@@PalleRasmussen jean Bart's time in the Vichy navy (which was handed over to the italians)

[@PalleRasmussen]

@@themanformerlyknownascomme777 but did the Italians ever actually get to use it? They had no oil.

[@themanformerlyknownascomme777]

@@PalleRasmussen Jean Bart wasn't even finished construction, but during Operation Torch (the American Invasion of North Africa) her one working turret was used in a gun duel with one of those she ties with here: USS Massachusetts (of the South Dakota class)

[@rem26439]

Congratulations for the 300k, just noticed you passed the mark! Thank you for your incredible work!

[@brianlakemper9676]

I really think muzzle velocity should have been considered in the data used, perhaps in place of range or perhaps in addition. Shell flight time does matter substantially. Also I agree with the people who want to see where the Alaska's 12"/50s would have landed on this table, and perhaps also the unused American 14"/50 Mark B.

[@BenTrem42]

Lovely introduction, spreadsheets and such. *_Muchly appreciated!_* Something I've applied many times while dealing with questions of public policy: *_information_* should be seen as *_data that makes a difference._* FWIW, true apparatchik sophists know that *analysis paralysis* gives them great cover. *_Carry on!_* ^5

[@vikkimcdonough6153]

1:10:34 - I would _definitely_ like to see a video comparing the abilities of the main batteries of WWI-era battleships.

[@josephpicogna6348]

Very well done as always and, in my opinion, an objective analysis. We did feel that the amazing traverse and losing characteristics of the turrets housing the USN 16” 50 cal, were very special.

[@DawnUnderHeavenA37]

I would love to see an addendum to this video covering some of the developed but unfielded naval guns if you're willing, Drac. Like the American 457mm gun and the revised 16" gun the British were going to mount on the Lion-class battleships.

[@timgrimes2589]

I can't imagine anymore data is available, this is one of your best post yet , keep up the great work mate

[@Capri42PRG]

I'm not sure what I was expecting before watching this but I'm blown away by the quantity and quality of the data! I'd very much appreciate you doing this for First World War guns too. In theory, could you do this for all of the ships systems and then combine the results to decide which overall ship designs were best?

[@knmo2642]

Dude I just want to say you are great. All around. Thank you for the hard work.

[@carlrehnberg4581]

There is one very important metric that was left out. The amount of shells that could be fired per rifle before they wore out and needed relining or replacing. This is the category that would have sunk the Yamatos down quite a long way. Due to the complicated shrinking/expaning around a wire part they would not have been durable in the long run, and a shore bombardment would have been disastrous for the rifling. A high estimate would be around 150 firings before the rifling was shot, and since it was impossible to reline them they would have needed to rebarrel them. Not then counting that they would likely have peeled like a banana at 200 firings mark.

[@terrancemalone405]

The 15” guns on Littorio and Vittorio Veneto should probably also have been marked down in this regard.

[@AaronR-C]

The pedantry on display here is breathtaking. It's a bit overwhelming, but also deeply charming. Much appreciation 🌻

[@johnladuke6475]

Thirteen minutes in, Drach is still just laying the foundations for how he even made the comparisons. Skimming chapter titles I see that it may be some thirty or maybe forty minutes of this before we get to ranking any guns. Some people would complain, but I have a feeling the man knows that this is what his audience wants. It's a thing of beauty.

[@nakamichi682zx]

Superb as usual Drach. Astonishing detail and thoroughness.

[@simoncadden968]

when you mention accuracy of the guns; how was this quantified as a discrete porperty of the gun itself as opposed to a property of the system as a whole,? Say in terms of mount & turret design combined with sighting sytems etc?

[@firkopersson]

Thank you for your excellent content! It's informative and well thought out, it shows that you really care for your content :)

[@michaelimbesi2314]

You forgot that shore bombardment targets can’t maneuver. So it might be possible to hit shoreside targets at ranges well beyond the practical limit of anti-ship gunnery

[@SonsOfLorgar]

"Shore targets" at ~40km isn't really at the shore anymore ;)

[@SlavicCelery]

@@SonsOfLorgar they could still be located on a shore...you might be taking on a shore battery at near max range to prevent return fire.

[@bkjeong4302]

Considering the track record of battleships when it came to shore bombardment at extreme range, it really wasn’t enough to make them that good. This is a big part of why destroyers ended up being more effective at fire support at Normandy.

[@SlavicCelery]

@@bkjeong4302 woah, woah woah. You're forgetting some very important info why the destroyers and not the battleships were more effective and really the only option. They were doing close fire support. The danger range for a 15-16" shell is pretty large. You couldn't have the BB dropping HE with allied forces on the beach. The BB were doing deep fire support. DD were pulling into dangerously close to beaching, to fire directly at various bunkers slowing down the invasion force.

[@bkjeong4302]

@@SlavicCelery Yes, the destroyers are coming right up to the beach to directly target German positions. And that actually furthers my point; the battleships were a) too large and b) considered too valuable to risk (especially given German minefields and such were present), which forced them to shoot from afar, significantly reducing their effectiveness.

[@Straswa]

Great vid Drach! Interesting results, thanks for all the great work.

[@ronalddunn291]

Gun size is important but the biggest problem they had was actually hitting the target and doing substantial amount of damage when making contact.

[@pedrofelipefreitas2666]

Idk man, kirishima would probably disagree

[@rippertrain]

I'm so glad I did so many drugs in high school. It lets me listen to my favourite videos over and over because I can't remember anything. This will be the 8th time listening to this one. Great video cheers from Canada!!!

[@Quasarnova1]

I think this video shows that there are a lot more factors to gun performance than one may initially think. One thing that I think is useful that you mentioned, but was not used in this comparison was 'overkill' in regards to penetration. As I understand it, the 16/45 guns on the Washingtons and South Dakotas were chosen to have that length because it gave better angles of impact for penetrating deck armor at long range. Looking at data, that seems to be the case, at 20,000 yards the 16/45 guns have better deck penetration than the 16/50 guns even with their higher velocity. Of course the 16/50 guns have better belt penetration, but the 16/45 guns still have enough to penetrate anything short of a Yamato at an angle, while being able to penetrate over 4 inches of deck armor and opening up a significantly larger target area. This could lead to scenarios where which gun is better depends on the range, and would require a lot of input data, but I think it is interesting to look at nonetheless.

[@denysvlasenko1865]

If you want a plunge, you can always fire less than full charge from a "better" gun and achieve higher trajectory.

[@Quasarnova1]

@@denysvlasenko1865 That's true, I didn't realize that the 16"/50 guns had range tables for those reduced charges as well way back when I wrote that comment.

[@DaveMcKeegan]

Could your range conundrum not be solved by using required elevation for a set range? As you point out, guns with greater range can fire flatter for closer ranges. So if set the range to say 20k yards and one ship requires a 20* elevation to reach it yet another gun only requires 15* then the advantage goes to the 15*

[@ifax1245]

Surely rate of fire isn't tube performance but the turrets and shell handling prior to tube presentation?

[@madrabbit9007]

Normally I could care less for the math you used to get your results but the journey to get there was very interesting and informative. A lot of hard number crunching there and my respect to you sir for going that deep for us.

[@nathanbrown8680]

The gun element of range should be found between shell weight and muzzle velocity so if you had the data using muzzle velocity instead of range would have been better.

[@glennsimpson7659]

Thanks Drach for a most interesting and informative video. Also very courageous of you to enter this 'Best xxxx' field, where the focus is on one part only of a complex weapons system which makes it very difficult to perform meaningful analysis. There have been so many superficial ‘Best tank/Fighter/Battleship’ videos that don’t address the question of “Best for Who”? "Best" is very much in the eye of the beholder - best for the government who pays for the naval rifles and selects the enemy they are to be fired at; for the Admiralty that selects their caliber and numbers; for the Captain who selects the target and range of engagement; for the crew who have to operate them safely in a noisy and dangerous environment; for the Gunnery Officer who has to achieve straddles on the enemy; or for St Catherine, patron saint of gunners, who arranges the actual hitting? So you need to decide in advance just what 'best' means for the purposes of any particular analysis. Also, it is the shell and not the gun that does the actual damage, and therefore you must consider not just the gun but the whole system that gets the shell there, including fire control, rate of fire (which depends on turret/hoist/magazine factors) and shell exterior ballistics, for a genuinely useful comparison. To a large extent you have done this, although I am not sure I would have given so much attention to turret training and elevation rates - these seldom affect the ability to hold a target at normal WW2 battle ranges of 10-20,000 yds. However, if you must consider the gun in isolation from the rest of the weapons system, then the best gun is one that puts the heaviest shell most often on the most distant target with the highest accuracy at the lowest cost and least ship impact (gun weight and space, power requirements, etc.). So gun weight is a factor that I would have taken into account, even in a broader analysis such as yours, since of two guns that both have equal performance, the best one is the lightest, since you will be able to mount more of them in your ship (all other things being equal). That is the main reason why the 16" gun on North Carolina is better than the 16" gun on Colorado. That said, I think your comparisons are an appropriate balancing of theoretical and practical factors. In particular, I agree that accuracy matters, even it it cannot be fully quantified. Your other factors are all appropriate and well assessed even if circumstances of particular occasions will make their relative weighting vary (for example, once the shell explodes in the boiler room, or magazine, doesn’t matter if it is 11” or 18.1”). I also want to applaud the excellence of other people’s comments on this video - very high quality, especially Nathan Okun (who I have been following for very many years). It is evident that your viewership is well above the median of social media.

[@Lucas12v]

Great video. I appreciate that you took the time to explain your reasoning for how the ratings were arrived at. Did you consider using the mass of the guns as a data point? Physical size and mass of the guns was the major limiting factor that dictated most of the other criteria. Not to mention the resources needed to build it. One side thought that i had is that absolute maximum range is useful for shore bombardment. For example in the days following d-day. It may not be what these ships were primarily designed for but it mattered in the end. Of course, in this case it would need to be the range with high capacity shells.

[@glennsimpson7659]

Very good point. The lightweight US 16”/45 was a better gun than the older US 16” in Colorado partly because it was lighter, so more could’ve been carried on the same displacement.

[@wacojones8062]

Very good work up. Having sat on a fair number of these projectiles while in training the 18.1 is a very blunt shape that detracts a bit from both range and penetration at off angles. Another hidden statistic is how reliable were the fuzes. Personally I like penetration over blast effect. Clean up in lane 12 with High Capacity HE is always a good backup option to scrub the deck and citadel junk off. Like AA guns, range finders and fire control stations. Note how many nasties are found every year around the world for EOD to deal with.

[@WTFBODY]

That was one of the more interesting excel presentations I've observed. Seems like a pretty reasonable comparison. The only factor you ignored was the most important -luck.

[@mikemahon4472]

The explanation and description of your thought processes at the beginning of this video deserves a sub all on its own🇨🇦✌🏻

[@andreaxamo2992]

I might have missed a point or two, but here I am wondering if RoF of the gun can be actually evaluated independently from the weapon system in which it is mounted (i.e. turret layout, shell storage, etc.). And the same sidenote may apply to turning speed - if I got that right - as well.

[@pegzounet]

This video is basically a serious(ish) version of me fangirling on the stats of warship description sheets as a kid ^^ Thanks, put a huge grin on my face :)

[@charlesballiet7074]

once shells start weighing as much as a bus things like penetration and max range become rather moot. Might be more relevant to compare fire control and targeting systems at that point

[@hillbillyscholar8126]

Totally agree.

[@duncanhamilton5841]

This. As Jutland proved - doesn't matter how big your shooty tubes are if they can't hit stuff, even adjusting for moronic Battlecruiser admiral.

[@SonsOfLorgar]

It's more about shell density than mass tbh.

[@michaelkovacic2608]

I fully agree on max range, however, penetration is quite important. For example, the US 16inch gun could theoretically penetrate both of Bismarck's armour decks already at below 20km, which is not good!

[@alexmathis8505]

Agreed, that would see Yamato's score drop significantly. The Brits had some exceptional gunnery skills, but I still think the Iowa's would end up on top. Granted they squeaked into the war fairly late.

[@davidmurphy563]

That was a good effort. Personally I'd express it as a vector with normalised components. This gives you a geometric representation of the relationships with an arrow for each gun pointing in a particular direction. Try not to worry about the fact it's plotted in more than 3 dimensions, it's just a representation, putting them on orthogonal axes and plotting a straight line. This gives you a "latent space", a landscape. To know which gun is best you can normalise the vectors (make them between zero and one) and then it's a case of multiplying it by a transformation matrix. That means you can do a further matrix multiplication to project it into a single dimension which expresses how good the gun is. To be fair, if you haven't studied this it might seem a bit intimidating but that's certainly one way to do it.

[@joehealy6376]

I wonder if you took into account the total energy of the bursting charge. If you have tropx or RDX compared to say C4 you have more energy with less than half the weight.

[@fdegeorge2000]

Thank you Drac, very informative I often wondered about this subject. Good job as always.

[@juicysushi]

I really love that you took thirty minutes to outline your methodology and acknowledge the challenges you faced. We all will have our favourites, but your attempts to be impartial and accurate were admirable. It’s interesting how highly rated the French 15’ guns proved to be. That’s something that seems to add to the mystique of the Richelieu class as one of the most intriguing, but sadly unproven designs of the period.