Countering Plan Z - What would the Royal Navy have done?

[@Drachinifel]

Pinned post for Q&A :)

[@Alex-cw3rz]

Do aircraft carrier decks have drains and is the top have a camber like a road, to reduce water pooling?

[@ble688]

How would the capture of the french navy by the Germans have impacted the war in the Atlantic?

[@Alex-cw3rz]

how often did navy's train on the guns and fighting tactics? Did it change and become more/less from the golden age of sailing too WW2?

[@archangelofstories5565]

Do you think that the German Navy would have adopted the triple gun turret arrangement like some of the other navies during ww2 did or would they have stuck with the twin gun turret configuration even if they developed the H Class battleships?

[@leogazebo5290]

Will you do a version of this but with the Soviet, Japanese, Italian, French, or US navy?

[@deaks25]

The Z-Plan always makes me think of the Military History Visualised line of "Assuming your opponent will remain passive is no plan at all, it's just a day-dream." The Z-Plan relied ENTIRELY on the Royal Navy just sitting back, drinking tea and doing nothing instead of forming an actual response, which given what the Royal Navy did in the the 1900's and 1910's, is just complete wishful thinking.

[@GeordieSwordsman]

"Sir, the Germans are building up a navy again!" *Dusts off the folder labelled 'Make every ship afloat obsolete'*

[@kameron1290]

Then on the other side of the pond, the US would obviously be concerned and wouldn’t hesitate to build up their naval forces again and even bigger than in real life

[@hoangho6781]

@Andy Ruse objection donirtz ( butchering German names as usual ) wanted 300 subs as a immediate priority

[@neniAAinen]

Z-plan was simply a scaled-up build-up plan of the 1930s. It didn't rely on something in particular.

[@greycatturtle7132]

Ye

[@rodneymccoy8108]

I’m sorry to say Drach, you have opened Pandora’s box here. We need the USN, IJN, French and Italian fleets, but I’d be most interested in the Soviet fleet of 1946 if war had not broke out.

[@andrewfanner2245]

After the opening of the Stalinium mines in Irkutsk and the development of the stuff as useable armour plate, contruction steel, shell casings...:-)

[@muffinman6048]

@TSZ LONG CHAN True, it would just be "whatever congress feels like funding, and probably even less than that!"

[@fear-is-a-token]

You would be quite disappointed in Soviet Navy in 1946 if you're a battleship aficionado, so to say. Only 4 (yet quite modern and bearing a 16-inch battery) battleships divided equally between all 4 Fleets of the USSR and thus being completely overpowered by enemy nations' navies. Two Soviet Union-classes of Baltic and Northern Fleets that can be used in Northern Atlantic and the Baltic itself are not a big threat to the British Home Fleet and not the greatest threat of all (they still have the British) to the Kriegsmarine (if, of course, no conflicts start and we are overlooking the situation where everything goes as it should have gone except for the war). And I don't even want to think about the sole Soviet BB on the Far East having nearby Japanese, that are known for having a damn lot of battleships But for the cruiser and destroyer guy, to which I certainly belong, Soviet Navy mod.1946 would be a pure pleasure. 17 Chapayev-class (project 68K) light cruisers (if you occasionally don't know what is it - imagine a mix of Belfast-class and Prinz Eugen, but without the flaws of both and with a little Italian touch), some ten Kirov/Gorki-class (light cruiser killers, basically a light cruiser resembling the Duca d'Aosta, but with nine 7-inch, or 180-mm 60-cal guns), some late heavy cruiser types resembling the Myokos/Takaos in some way, the infamous Stalingrads with their 12-inch battery, the 10-inch non-treaty heavy cruisers, and an angry swarm of Project 30 destroyers with later classes as flotilla leaders. Oh boy, how much would I like to see it. Ah yes. A carrier. At least one Project 71 carrier (based on light cruiser-style hull). My goodness, what a Navy could it have been if not for the war... We Russians may have had a bluewater fleet 25 years earlier than it actually happened

[@rodneymccoy8108]

@@fear-is-a-token Actually this is very interesting. I’ve read before that Stalin envisioned a large cruiser fleet of fast light cruiser types to disrupt trade routes and commerce.

[@Viper-dn8ix]

I support this tbh. And at the end of this series we “Let them fight” in a mega-alt history battle. Has Drach done a collab with alt history hub?

[@MatthewChenault]

The more terrifying idea is imagining Norway sinking a German Battleship instead of a German cruiser with an outdated land fort.

[@markusdanielsson498]

Or Germany attacking Sweden and getting a battleship sunk by three ww1 era costal defence battleships and a crusier/carrier hybrid.

[@unclestone8406]

_"SØDEM, FIRE EVERYTHING!"_

[@MrSGL21]

11 inch AP is gonna be a bitch to anything regardless of how outdated when the range is only 400m.

[@jakublulek3261]

@@markusdanielsson498 And than Soviet fleet piles in...

[@tortenschachtel9498]

A battleship with a thicker torpedo belt probably would have survived the torpedos, and the 11'' guns wouldn't have been firing very long. Now i don't know if Norway could have mustered an air attack on that flotilla ...

[@Ralph-yn3gr]

In terms of battleships, at Jutland the High Seas Fleet was 57% of the size of the Grand Fleet (28vs16). The Z Plan Fleet is _33%_ the size of this very reasonable hypothetical building scenario. The Royal Navy could literally send 1/3 of it's strength, let's say all 10 of the modernized ships, all the way around the world to just hang out in Singapore as a deterant to the Japanese _and still have a greater numerical advantage over the Z Plan Fleet than what Jellicoe had over Scheer at Jutland._ And that's before you factor in that 20% of the German fleet is armed with only 6 15" guns.

[@neniAAinen]

Technically it was still a massive downgrade in British situation. Throughout the interwar period, RN could be reliably superior either in the East or in the West, OR equal to the US. In the 1940s it couldn't anymore, anywhere, and even this massive build-up couldn't really change this.

[@DavidMartin-ym2te]

I don't think any BBs would have been a deterrent to the Japanese. The air cover was pretty much non-existent out there.

[@Ralph-yn3gr]

@@DavidMartin-ym2te It wasn't so much a realistic plan as an attempt to semi-humorously show just how outmatched the Germans would have been. I also didn't include aircraft carriers to keep it simple. The British could have also sent 3 or 4 of them and still had an overwhelming advantage over the German carriers. 10 battleships and 4 carriers combined with what the Americans would have had in 46-47 might have been enough. That being said, yeah. Ten battleships, and especially the 10 legacy ships, would not have been a great deterant for the Japanese on their own. Japan would likely have 4 Yamatos at that point, which would be an overwhelming force when combined with Nagato and Mutsu and Kido Butai.

[@neniAAinen]

@@DavidMartin-ym2te Difficult to gauge, but probably relatively similar to how it went in the real life. When nations build up from a high level during peacetime, it becomes much more difficult to change ratios, and even when you can - it happens slower. Both Japan and UK were building up. European powers could build up for a much more plain reason - their interwar battlefleets were outright meh, so it is effect of a very low base point.

[@Dave5843-d9m]

@@DavidMartin-ym2te In 1939, the British Fleet Air Arm had nothing effective against the Japanese Zero. It’s likely the results would have been the same even if carriers had been sent to protect Burma and Singapore.

[@martinazariancriminaldefen3081]

It's too much Drach! I've taken to my own naval arms build up. Building 1/350 scale warships at a record pace because you never know what your neighbors are building.

[@Xchainz_69]

Hahaha very good. I have a row of 1/700 my wife asks why do you keep building more? I say because they won't stop building I have to stay ahead. Her response "who's they?" Now I have an answer for her. Thank you sir

[@martinazariancriminaldefen3081]

@@Xchainz_69 Thank you. I build 1/350s but have considered building 1/700s. I tried making the switch many years ago but I didn't like the quality of 1/700s. How does the level of quality and detail compare to 1/350s today, if you know?

[@Xchainz_69]

@@martinazariancriminaldefen3081 I honestly don't know how they compare. The quality is very good on the trumpeter and a some hasegawa. I went with 1/700 because I couldn't decide on only a few. Trumpeter 1942 Renown is coming together very nice

[@jonathanstrong4812]

heh-heh-heh

[@grahamstrouse1165]

You fools! Your primitive human sailing ships are no match for my Tyrannid legions!

[@falloutghoul1]

"Jolly good, ol chap. Keep going~" -The Royal Air Force revving up their engines.

[@davidbrennan660]

“ Play up and play the game!”...... not a trait known of the fascist German State

[@Simon_Nonymous]

I wonder if the Germans had attempted Plan Z what the effect on the development of the RAF would have been as well... hopefully more orientated about flattening shipyards and antishipping capability? We can only speculate :-)

[@Colonel_Overkill]

@@Simon_Nonymous for the longest time nothing but more Lancasters. "The bomber will always get through" once rational thought took over it would change but when would likely determine the path chosen.

[@falloutghoul1]

@@Colonel_Overkill "The Swordfish will always get through!"

[@jamesharding3459]

@@falloutghoul1 Well, history proved that one right!

[@EricDKaufman]

"Who's battleship is this?" "It's Zed's" "Who's Zed?" "Zed's dead baby, Zed's dead."

[@jamesmckenzie9551]

If the Graf Spee goes to Vietnam, I want a a man hiding in a bowl of rice ready to put a cap in his ass.

[@EricDKaufman]

@@jamesmckenzie9551 I almost used Panzerschift!!!! LOL

[@easystreet1888]

@@jamesmckenzie9551 You need a time machine first.

[@micheal49]

Zed's not here, man!

[@raypurchase801]

Eeny-meenie-miney-mo...

[@thesuit4820]

Submarines really shouldn't be kettles of fish. Something has gone wrong by that point.

[@klobiforpresident2254]

They're vaguely kettle shaped and they contain fish.

[@Voron_Aggrav]

@@klobiforpresident2254 Fish go on the Outside of the Submarine... in case of Internal Fishy situations either deal with it, or abandon ship in case it's no longer salvageable :P

[@klobiforpresident2254]

@@Voron_Aggrav Come on, now. Of course go from inside to outside. They have entire rooms dedicated to the handling of fish.

[@ulrichkalber9039]

@@klobiforpresident2254 we call them eels in german

[@klobiforpresident2254]

@John Milton Would they be boiled alive? My physics knowledge sucks but that doesn't check out.

[@whitebeardedgnu]

Drach: "We're going to leave out submarines, as they're a somewhat different kettle of fish." USN: *Chuckles in Gato, Grunion, Barb, Albacore....*

[@stevewindisch7400]

Anything after the Tench's would be much different if there had not been Type XXI's (and who knows when those would come about if the Z plan and war delay happened). Probably with only incremental improvements in test depth, battery size, etc... similar to the changes with Balao and Tench classes over the Gato's. Without the XXI's there are no Guppies, no streamlining, no removal of deck guns and large increases in submerged speed.

[@AsbestosMuffins]

US subs were good but their armaments made them basically useless without 1942's losses to force the BeuOrd to finally fix the dang mark 14, there's just nothing better to say when your subs fire 10-20 torpedoes and only 1 detonates

[@TheOfficial007]

@@AsbestosMuffins 1 if you are lucky that it glanced off the side jarring the detonator.

[@keefymckeefface8330]

@@stevewindisch7400 yes different- but other navies were already sometimes removing deck guns, and the simple pressures of need would have forced the research on hull shapes down the same paths sooner rather than later, ditto more speed - nations would have found a way in the end even if no type XXI´s to light the path so well.

[@stevewindisch7400]

@@keefymckeefface8330 Unlikely. It takes the pressure cooker of war to make those real sea changes. Otherwise, it is "if it ain't broke don't fix it". For instance, the US actually doubled-down on deck guns in late '44-'45, increasing some of them to 5" to take on sampans and coastal ships too small for wasting torps on. As for streamlining, they actually made it worse with minimalist skeletal superstructures to make them harder to see at night. If the allies had any plans for a much better Type XXI like sub... we would certainly have heard about it, because they would be bragging that they did. They did not.

[@The_Laughing_Cavalier]

Well, they would have to go down the branch of their focus tree that adds naval dockyards, some naval xp and a 1944 Battleship hull in their production queue before doing some more of their political focuses. (And then the game will break when Paradox releases the next dlc)

[@Sei_gsicht]

Well, the best plan would be to build lots of heavy cruisers with a single twin 8 inch gun and lots of 6 inch guns 🤦‍♂️

[@silverhost9782]

As far as HOI4 goes the UK might just be better off with their 36 fleet, not building any new ships, instead putting all their dockyards into convoys to send to the dominions to later annex them😈

[@klassehkhornate9636]

The idea that Beatty was an inheritor of Nelson's legacy is terrifying.

[@davidbrennan660]

He did have issues with signals so there is some bases to the statement.

[@Edax_Royeaux]

Also all Nelson could do when Redoutable closed her gun ports and engaged in a pure musketry duel that left Victory's top deck a no-man's land was to just stand there and present himself as the grand prize of this turkey shoot instead of adapting to the situation. As Nelson once said, "No captain can do very wrong if he places his ship alongside that of the enemy." and Beatty was very good at placing his ships alongside the enemy. But what you do once you're alongside the enemy is for smarter people to figure out.

[@Peorhum]

Beatty was an ass wipe who should not have become an admiral, let alone a 1st sea lord. Pays to have powerful friends.

[@propellhatt]

Beatty should have ended up a pickle in a jar if he was truly to inherit Nelson's legacy. Also, he ought to have been competent.

[@robertfrost1683]

Beatty was NO Nelson !

[@paulsteaven]

Now we're expecting for the American, Japanese, Italian, and French equivalent of this.

[@iatsd]

God, the French equivalent of this would be amazing. 10 years of 15 major programmes, all bouncing around all over the place. Trying to figure out what they might end up with would be a nightmare, but whatever it was, it would be amazingly bizarre, entertaining, and fascinating. It might even be capable.

[@ravenknight4876]

Inb4 Japan's economy folds in upon itself under the weight of whatever is supposed to superceed the Yamatos.

[@paulsteaven]

@@ravenknight4876 indeed, the Japanese Diet is already complaining on how they're going to fund further IJN naval expansion programs before WW2 started but during that same period, the IJN is also planning for Kongo class replacement (different from the Amagi class) once the naval treaties expires.

[@kameron1290]

@@paulsteaven I feel like if there’s anything good from Washington Naval Treaty for Japan, it basically stopped they themselves from imploding their own economy

[@neniAAinen]

@@kameron1290 Ironically, in 1922 Japan was in a far better position(economically) than in the late 1930s.

[@TheIamfrustrated]

I feel like a Lion Class successor design competition would be a fun subscriber competition with the assumption that WWII doesn’t kick off the way we know it.

[@grahamstrouse1165]

Would it have even made sense to scale up to 18” guns? Consider that the throw weight of US BBs with their 16”/45s & 16”/50s wasn’t that much lighter than the Yamatos-American super-heavy AP shells weren’t all that much lighter than Japanese 46 cm AP shells (2700 lbs vs 3200 lbs) & the American guns had superior rate-of fire and accuracy. Maybe a Lion successor would have used semi-auto loading 16” guns rather than upscaling to 18” guns…

[@Self-replicating_whatnot]

"Sorry ol chap, can't hear you over the sound of our shipyards going brr"

[@nitsu2947]

US shipyards producing Liberty ships: whomst hath summoned the almighty one ??

[@silverhost9782]

@@nitsu2947 Americans when they aren't constantly the centre of attention: 'How can I make this about us?'

[@rhysfirth3506]

@@silverhost9782 Hollywood reading history books. "Cmon, no-one would watch that! Lets make the heros Americans" And so the British salvage of Enigma from U-110 shows up in cinemas as being a US job... What a load of Bull.

[@silverhost9782]

@@rhysfirth3506 Yeah. The worst bit is it seems to lead some Americans into having a highly distorted view of the war, genuinely thinking that they did it all themselves. But I suppose a cynic would say that's the point...

[@josephkugel5099]

@@silverhost9782 to be fair thanks to the Left wing takeover of our schools most modern Americans especially our youth couldn't even tell you who fought in WW2 yet alone any specifics and while those of us who know how hard England battled when she stood some what alone there is NO argument to be made that American aid wasn't absolutely vital to winning the war and that Allied defeat would have been almost certain had we not shown up, don't forget that financial aid and lend lease were happening before Japan committed suicide on Dec 7th and got US boots on the ground in WW2.

[@ironstarofmordian7098]

Good to back watching uncle Drach. Got busy with joining the infantry.

[@Davete]

Congrats

[@neilwilson5785]

Hope username doesn't check out.

[@Fizwalker]

I am soooo sorry. Best of luck from a fellow grunt.

[@marcvanartevelde5586]

Best of luck from a former grunt.

[@ironstarofmordian7098]

@@neilwilson5785 yeah I'm probably going to change that. Stupid edgy teenager bull shit, i honestly didn't even think about it. It was really picked because Daddy warcrimes was taken.

[@jackray1337]

"Germany's historically built fleet which we all know and...well...we know." made laugh. You make a great point by underlining what is not said. Thank you for the video.

[@alexhunt7810]

20:57 : Good to see that old N3 image is getting some more seamiles

[@Kellen6795]

I still dream the ability to see what 7 QEs would have looked like in the line of battle. The gloriousness of such a line would have been amazing.

[@victoriacyunczyk]

1st Scouting Group: Oh scheiße...

[@gequitz]

"German's historically built fleet that we all know and ... well, we know" LOL

[@pajiad191]

some of us love ;)

[@KZ-xt4hl]

@@pajiad191 go join em

[@jenshusted641]

Prince of Wales and Repulse

[@Emoboyjohnny]

😄😃😀

[@sixstringedthing]

File under: Drach, Classic Quotes, 2021-2022, Q2

[@TheTryingDutchman]

I've served as a marine but i never really put much time/interest in the navy itself back than. But since I've stumbled across this channel I'm learning a lot about naval battles and strategics and i often find them quite fascinating. You're doing a great job, keep up the good work!

[@pdunderhill]

No problems at all with the brief advertising at the start of your piece Drach, liked your simile, 'Submarines are a different kettle of fish' :)

[@tonydarby9096]

Also no problem, nearly signed up, but annual sub put me off. Would not mind month by month.

[@xanderanderson6673]

That's not a simile

[@Dogbertious]

But what if Hitler used a free trial of Skillshare to take a course in "How not to throw vast resources into an unworkable and unrealistic naval building programme"?

[@aquila4460]

To be fair, this would not have solved anything. And if Hitler had fully studied all skillshare points on how to run a country, and would have had Germanies best interests in mind, he would have quietly surrendered, held free and fair elections and stopped the entire hilariously inefficient thing.

[@tominiowa2513]

Hitler was nothing more than an "useful idiot". Real decisions are made at higher pay grades (follow the money applies here).

[@datadavis]

@@tominiowa2513 and we all know who owns all the moneys 🤔

[@thehandoftheking3314]

@@tominiowa2513 oh lordy, who was it then?

[@tominiowa2513]

@@thehandoftheking3314 - The information is out there, but people get accused of things they are not actually guilty of if the names are mentioned.

[@binugschingis1308]

Viewing your videos feels more like attending a university lecture rather than anything else. I am endlessly impressed how you have come to acquire all of this knowledge and additionally have the time and motivation to create these videos.

[@Alex-cw3rz]

4:25 "which would included germany's historically built fleet, that we all know and... Well we know" 😂😂😂

[@SuperLusername]

I was just about to comment that haha "that we all know and lov...well we know"

[@AussieCarsRule]

Did you include the infamous triple turret Vanguard photoshop in the video?

[@tobiasGR3Y]

"Amusingly featuring quad-stacked 5.25-inch dual turrets" *cries joyfully in Atlanta*

[@crazywarriorscatfan9061]

*sad Juneau noises*

[@tobiasGR3Y]

@@crazywarriorscatfan9061 *sad Juneau noises* 😢

[@Peorhum]

The 5.25s were better for surface actions then the US 5s...likely better suited for a cruiser then the US 5s as in the Atlanta class.

[@Akm72]

@@Peorhum Depends on the target. As I understand it in the Mediterranean theatre they were found to be not really good enough for a surface action against another cruiser which would probably be shooting back with at least 6 inch guns and have protection over the vitals of at least 3 inchs of armour, while the higher rate of fire of the US 5 inch or the British 4 inch or 4.5 inch would actually be better for a surface action against an unarmoured ship like a destroyer or a fast attack boat. The best claim to fame of the 5.25 inch seems to be the superior effective anti-air range compared to pretty much everything else out there. On the other hand the superior traverse/elevation and rate of fire of the lighter medium calibre DP guns was preferable for air defence otherwise. It's a shame as I would like to like the quirky RN solution :/

[@Peorhum]

@@Akm72 The 6in was better for surface actions then the 5.25s BUT I was not comparing them to the 6in but to the US 5in for surface actions. The RN round was heavier then the US round making it better suited for surface action BUT the US round was better suited for AA role.

[@andrewdurand339]

Japan's economy would have likely imploded from trying to carry out its naval expansion. Japan had to face not just Britain, but the US, and while Japan also had to build up its army because of the frontier it shared with the Soviets in Manchuria, the British and US in peacetime really didn't have much in terms of armies and could focus all their efforts on their navies. The British and US had the stronger economies and more access to resources. Japan's economy imploded in the early 1920's from naval expansion.

[@andrewzheng4038]

Agreed, the Japanese threw a hissy fit over the 5:5:3 tonnage ratio, but Yamamoto being ever the smartest guy in the room felt the treaty limited the US and Allies. Japan could never outproduce the US, but an artificially imposed local superiority courtesy of the treaty would at least buy them enough time to *maybe* deal a crushing Hail Mary blow to the USN If the US had been permitted to run wild and churn out 1920s SoDaks at full rates, though, the IJN would’ve been buried under their weight before they even gotten the chance for that to happen

[@warrenking1815]

😊😊😅😮😢😢

[@merafirewing6591]

​@@andrewzheng4038 and to compound it, the Lexington class Battlecruisers are also built along with a few more successor classes and let's also throw the Tillman Maximum Battleships into the mix because why not flex at the Japanese very hard.

[@TheRealTburt]

Oh yeah, for sure. Their little engagement with the Russians pre-WW1 almost bankrupted the country with only a slight territorial gain for their trouble. Japan is ambitious but tiny with very little raw materials to fulfill their ambitions.

[@andrewdurand339]

Economic reality wouldn't have permitted Japan to build a bigger navy. Japan of the early 1920's was about 50 years from the feudal era of samurai and major Japanese industrialization really only began in WWI. This was a predominantly agrarian Japan whose exports were just silk and light manufacturing so they were never going to be able to afford the navy they wanted.

[@victoriacyunczyk]

Let's take a minute to appreciate the various beautiful paint schemes that World of Warships suggests for the hypothetical heavy cruisers. Especially Ablemarle, which has more than a significant similarity to USS Olympia.

[@AsbestosMuffins]

*Germany Builds 10 Battleships* *RN Builds 30 Battleships* "So Senator Tillman, tell us about that battleship plan you had them design."

[@kasparkannel3108]

You should do a video analysing the russian naval buildup plans in the late 30's, especially their battleship plans, many laughs will be had i'm sure

[@NewtypeCommander]

He does have the Sovetsky Soyuz-class battleships coming soon as seen listed in the description.

[@NathanOkun]

British Mark 12 9.2 inch APC shells looked like the larger BB-sized APC of the new models developed during the 1930’s, but the 9.2” retained the large 3.8% filler (now Shellite, I think) of the old WWI designs. They were still widely used in Coast Defense batteries in WWII. The large filler would seemingly weaken these shells against thick face-hardened armor or , at higher impact angles, even homogeneous (deck, etc.) armor of moderate thickness. Also a large amount of the latest lots of these shells were made by the U S Crucible Steel Company to closely match the British design specifications,including the large filler size. However, amazingly, these shells tested out to be the BEST armor penetrators (for their size) ever tested by the British Navy, remaining intact (“fit to burst”) during all complete penetrations at 30 degrees (much tougher than the 20 degrees of the last WWI APC shells - the final “Greenboy” models usually referred to generally as the “Mark 5” APC after the last post-WWI early-1920’s 15” shell ID). This included the US-made shells too, interestingly enough, showing that the British design somehow was superior no matter who made these APC shells.

[@petergaskin1811]

It's always occurred to me that a lot of grief could have been avoided if only Fisher had proposed the 9.2" for arming his cruiser-killer (battlecruiser) concept. Given the extreme range possible and the penetration achievable (albeit in later marks) with 9.2" weapons, the battlecruisers wouldn't have been battle line ships except in extremis but rather would have created a new type of super-heavy cruiser but one which could have been used near the battle line to snipe away at extreme range at anything available.

[@cheesedetectiverook5950]

One of my favorite questions asked is "Why didn't the Germans just go with plan Z so they can challenge the Royal Navy, lol" simply because it's so easy to answer in so many different ways and every answer is correct. And this is just the British response. We're not even counting the other Powers way of responding to Plan Z

[@neniAAinen]

For German naval power in particular, Z was still a good thing (force ratio would've been getting better than it was originally or in real world). For UK - depending on the wishful thinking, at best it would've remained there where it was planned after 1936 (i.e. roughly 1:0.33:0.33:0.33 against Western Europe combined). The main problem is 1940s UK isn't 1910s UK anymore. The main advantage is that 1940s US isn't 1910s US anymore, but in peacetime this isn't exactly an advantage for the interwar Britain.

[@cheesedetectiverook5950]

@@neniAAinen I don't see how spending so much money for a bunch of ships that you won't be even be able to use die to lack of oil can be considered a good thing. More guns? Yes. More progress? Doubtful. If they went with Z, there wouldn't have been a major naval battle in the Atlantic. The French and the British would have just straight up plugged walk through Germany as soon as war broke out and it would have been High Seas Fleet Mk. II

[@neniAAinen]

@@cheesedetectiverook5950 We already saw how French and British straight up plugged walk through Germany.

[@silverhost9782]

@@neniAAinen Yes, but you have to now reimagine a German Army even more starved of resources because it all went into building 100s of large surface ships... Good luck with that

[@cheesedetectiverook5950]

@@neniAAinen We never did, and considering the amount of money and materials the Germans would have needed to even remotely making Z work, something the allies had, it won't be unrealistic that a branch of their armed forces would have seen major cuts. The amount of steel needed for said ships and submarines would have deprived the army the amount of steel they needed for their supplies and equipment. So by mid 40s, we'd be looking at a German army in the hundreds of thousands, maybe a few thousand tanks, trucks, and vehicles. And their enemy, a modernized French and British army in what will probably be over a million. So yeah, Safe to say that a war breaking out with plan Z happening will just play in the allies' favour in winning the war earlier. A plugwalk

[@jeffgaboury3157]

Excellent video. The notion that the Z Plan wouldn't have been countered by the British is one that is obviously flawed, and yet so often put forth as if it was a given by Z Plan enthusiasts. Your logical way of looking at likely countermoves by the British makes for a fascinating study. Thank you.

[@kevinconrad6156]

Tanks for taking the ad Drach, you deserve the revenue for all the work you pour into this channel.

[@Big_E_Soul_Fragment]

So basically, British Plan Z? Can we call it Plan T(ea)? God that was terrible

[@houraisanproductions5879]

Das actually quite smart! Here have my like

[@thehandoftheking3314]

Yes. Yes it was. But I still chuckled.

[@Self-replicating_whatnot]

Plan T for teabagging with extreme prejudice.

[@mpetersen6]

Plan Alpha Omega. The be all and end all.

[@CaptainSpadaro]

I chuckled.

[@funkoreviews3657]

Good for you, Drach! It’s so gratifying to see your success. Cheers!

[@hazchemel]

Lol, if Germany has dark wizards, then, as a British fantasy book series had Gladstone as an arch -magician, perhaps Churchill would be flying alone above the continent and blasting Axis shipyards with his occult umbrella.

[@andyf4292]

like a clinically obese - Mary Poppins....

[@NoPegs]

@@andyf4292 Beat me to it...

[@WayneBorean]

Well laid out. You do great videos. I’ve learned more about how politics, resources, and infrastructure impact fleet design from them than from all of the books I’ve been lucky enough to find. Thanks Drach. We really appreciate your efforts.

[@victoriacyunczyk]

Germany: *wants to build 10 battleships* Royal Navy: Hold my tea, lad.

[@Kevin-mx1vi]

Alternatively, build half a dozen more Warspites, identical to the last rivet. "Eeeeeek !" 😁

[@davidandmartinealbon3155]

Overkill

[@alanhughes6753]

1 Warspite was seriously bad news 2 would have been a complete catastrophe 3 would have have probably resulted in the end of the universe So lets build 4 😁

[@GeordieSwordsman]

@@alanhughes6753 Just to see what happens.

[@stuartwald2395]

@@davidandmartinealbon3155 There is no such thing. “We may now picture this great Fleet, with its flotillas and cruisers, steaming slowly out of Portland Harbour, squadron by squadron, scores of gigantic castles of steel wending their way across the misty, shining sea, like giants bowed in anxious thought. We may picture them again as darkness fell, eighteen miles of warships running at high speed and in absolute blackness through the narrow Straits, bearing with them into the broad waters of the North the safeguard of considerable affairs…The King’s ships were at sea.” The World Crisis,vol. 1, 1911-1914, pp. 212.

[@Philistine47]

It's nice to hear some acknowledgement of Germany's economic difficulties instead of people just saying, _"Well, they planned to build (whatever) so obviously they'd find a way to afford it."_ Even if it's just to note that this video is deliberately glossing over them because that's not really the point! In response to the question posed in the title, I would start by asking _why_ war didn't break out in 1939. If it's because Germany backed down and didn't invade Poland, that suggests certain changes inside Germany which are likely to be relevant. As part of those changes Plan Z would go spectacularly off the rails - possibly to the point that the Kriegsmarine wouldn't have been able to build all the ships they actually did historically. On the other hand if Germany did invade Poland, but France and Britain didn't declare war, that suggests certain _other_ likely-to-be-relevant changes inside _those_ countries. I can't say whether those changes would result in more (fear-based) or less (despair-based) of an arms buildup than historical pre-war plans called for, but either way historical pre-war plans would probably go out the window. As for the Pacific... Japan had a specific, rather narrow window of opportunity in which to act. It opened when the European colonial powers were humiliated in 1940; and even before it opened it was obviously going to close in 1943 when the fruits of the Vinson-Trammel Act started commissioning into the USN, shifting the naval balance of power in a major way. It's _possible_ in the second scenario above that Japan _might_ gamble on the Europeans being as unresponsive to their own colonies being invaded as they were to their guarantees of Polish independence being violated; in the first scenario I don't see any likelihood of the Japanese going for it all alone.

[@UncleJoeMedia]

The cruiser part I found most interesting. Building some new & upgrading the 8" heavy cruisers, and adding a few 6" light cruisers for each heavy, turned out to be the way to go. The Battle of the River Plate, chasing the Bismarck, [sad sigh] Scharnhorsts and the Mediterranean theatre turned out well. Cruisers were obviously most important for the RCN, RNZN & RAN, as more battleships/battlecruisers really weren't feasible for us. Our exile minor navies - perennial over-achievers - needed good destroyers/corvettes & luckily we had some Dutch subs in Australia from '42.

[@TrickiVicBB71]

This naval arms race reminds me of all us Axis & Allies War at Sea players. Going all out collecting to class limits. I have 1041 minis currently. I heard of someone having 10,000 pieces

[@groovedwareman]

Good video - how about a video "Countering War Plan Red - What would the Royal Navy have done?" that would be an interesting topic too.

[@jimtalbott9535]

Since finding your channel, I’ve always been fascinated by what the response would be to the CORRECT specifications of the Yamato class, had they become known. This is quite interesting, and helps to answer that, especially from the British side. Now, how about France and Italy? ;)

[@gregorywright4918]

Italy had no interest in the Pacific, and France had only a little. Neither would have been able to build anything that could threaten a Yamato.

[@lucasfragoso7634]

Italy probably didn't need to worry that much as they were more focused on dominating the med and if the Japanese ever tried to enter well let's just say it probably wouldn't go to well for the Japanese fleet

[@ianbell5611]

Thank You. You're always worth listening to. Thanks for researching this subject and creating and posting this video👍

[@Riccardo_Silva]

A very interesting "what if" digression. What do you think about FAA aircraft development? With about ten years out of RAF management, i wonder which aircraft could have replaced the Stringbags in fleet service. Some weird looking contraption like the "Barracuda" (or some other typically british original contrivance), or some superb achievement (another typically british exploit), like some Martin-Baker project? Of course, in such a scenario jet propulsion wouldn't have had the "war necessity" priority but it should be taken in account too.

[@Splattle101]

Sea Fury

[@sawyerawr5783]

I think realistically you'd have seen the stuff they got in 45: Firefly, Fury, etc. remember that those were projected to come online in 41 I think, but were massively delayed. Obviously they wouldn't be as good (the Sea Fury being arguably one of the best piston engine fighters ever made), due to wartime needs not pushing piston engine tech as far. I suspect Barracuda would see an outing, and maybe something like Firebrand.

[@davidchambers8697]

Before radar, carriers did not have time to launch fighters after spotting an incoming air attack, so carrier fighters were only useful escorting attacks on land, air cover for amphibious assaults etc. Not much call for that in mid-Atlantic. After radar, carriers could defend against air strikes, so there is a use for fighters in mid-Atlantic, if the enemy has carriers. Radar turned up in 1939. The FAA can be expected to start looking for fighters at that point. The real fun is that jets replaced propellers around 1948, so air wings around then must have looked quite eclectic.

[@Riccardo_Silva]

@David Chambers yes and not. In this video a german four carrier fleet is envisaged by 1948, as well as a more deep involvement of the RN against the japanese in the pacific. Furthermore, the already superior (and under development) british radar technology in the early forties might have left even further behind that of the germans. Don't forget who was in command in Germany at that time!

[@Riccardo_Silva]

@Sawyer AWR you are probably right but i can't help to think that the formidable Martin Baker projects were shelved because of the war...there was no room nor money for new promising aircraft in the last year of the war. It was because of the war that the allies had already plenty of tested and powerful aircraft. Without it (but looming in the near future) ...who knows!

[@bigsarge2085]

Fascinating. Astute conclusions, thanks!

[@TBone-bz9mp]

'Gunter Lutjens looks through binoculars at Six Lion class Battleships waiting for the Bismarck' 'Hmm, does one pray to God or Poseidon?'

[@kordellswoffer1520]

Lol.

[@josephkugel5099]

No problem, as long as the Brits didn't bring any Swordfish torpedo planes to get that lucky hit my moneys on Bismarck and Eugen.

[@Dabberontour]

@@josephkugel5099 😂🇬🇧

[@SMarie-zk9oj]

@@josephkugel5099 What about them tall boy bombs? Those went through the Tirpitz from top to bottom.

[@chriscw3487]

well done drach ....if you got to do ad's keep it classy and learning sh^t is always classy ...thats why i watch you :)

[@jontheballer]

if i remember correctly, the initial plan for wars start (German planing) was 1946ish, which fits more with their original building plans.

[@josephpicogna6348]

Marvelous, to me, one of your best programs.

[@mpersad]

Goodness, what a fleet the Royal Navy would have had! Great video!

[@jonathanstrong4812]

Indeed Mr Persad it would of costing everything including the kitchen-sink to pay for that lot and thensome

[@diorocks5858]

Just want to say about my experience with ships was building models of WW2 Battleships, Bismarck model I built was amazing in my mind anyway! I was 15 maybe not that good. I love this channel started watching it about 2 years ago.

[@creanero]

This reminds me of a question that keeps coming back to me any time I read about Axis war plans: "How did you *think* this was going to go?" Sometimes followed by the conclusion that they must have started to believe their own propaganda.

[@dsloop3907]

Just like the democrats?

[@creanero]

@@dsloop3907 I have no idea why you would bring up a modern American political party in the context of a video about a European military from the 1930s.

[@paidwitness797]

@@creanero I guess for some people their domestic politics/soap operas are assumed to be something the rest of the world cares about?

[@ReichLife]

You do realize this is basically the same with Allies? The only difference was such that latter had both resources and territory to adapt when theirs' initial war plans turned into utter disasters.

[@creanero]

@@ReichLife That's pretty much my point. Each of the British Empire, Soviet Union and United States had territory and resources comparable to the axis powers combined, winning a long-term war against any one of them would have been an uphill struggle, winning against all three combined was a fool's errand.

[@arthurfisher1857]

Just re-watched this. Absolutely terrific!

[@meeware]

I’m really intrigued by what could have followed the Lions. Part of me looks at the late war Minotaur designs and what the Tigers became, and wonders if something pretty revolutionary might have been entertained. Granted we’d not have the lessons of war, nor the accelerated development of tech such as radar, but still, it seems likely the traditional balance of speed armour and weight of fire might have been open to a new approach. Here’s a suggestion- build a ship with strategic reach, 600 miles a day, and trans ocean range at that. And the power for a 35 knot sprint when you want to close in a hurry. Then give her a relatively small number of semi auto loading water cooled guns, so needing a smaller armoured volume. Build radar into the fire control from the baseline, with salvoes staggered tracking the outbound shells for first salvo high probability of hit. Unit machinery, with staged protection. No aviation facilities. It’s possibly absurd, but by 1945 if you were going to design a capital ship from a blank sheet…?

[@Writingman4126]

Thanks for the excellent post, Drach.

[@richardarcher7177]

No destroyers in the 194-41 time frame could probably be taken up by the Hunts in order to keep the traditional destroyer builders active and retain personel. I doubt 86 would be built but with the last of the S class and many V&W's due to go to the breakers they would need a useful force of smaller vessels for dedicated escort purposes. Some of the earlier A-I types could be reassigned to fill partly fill the gap when the L, M & N classes reach the fleet during 1941 but I could see 3-4 'Hunt' flotillas being projected in a 1940-42 time frame for the purpose.

[@agesflow6815]

Thank you, Drachinifel.

[@leecrt967]

Not related to Plan Z, but how about doing a history of the Japanese Navy Destroyer "Lucky" Shigure? Quite a tale to be told there.

[@sawyerawr5783]

Her "Luck" was that she survived when all those around her died, just saying.

[@victoroduarte]

@@sawyerawr5783 Surviving the US Navy between 1943/1945 is something to celebrate

[@kevinlowe3884]

Amazing how you keep your thoughts together!

[@GaryCameron]

It's interesting to think what would have happened with carriers. Without wartime urgency, jet development probably would have been delayed a few years. But even without jets the increasing threat and sophistication of aircraft would eventually have tilted development away from battleships.

[@vernonfindlay1314]

Plan Zed in Canada as well,your videos are always awesome, watched one on the Bismarck was great. Have a great Thursday, God bless from 🇨🇦

[@JohnRodriguesPhotographer]

Wouldn't the Yamato-class be three ships since the carrier losses of 1942 would not have happened?

[@niclasjohansson4333]

There would have been at least 4 "Yamatos", hull nr 111 (the 4th one) was about 30% compleated before the order came to scrap her/it......

[@JohnRodriguesPhotographer]

@@niclasjohansson4333 assuming they didn't modify their plans base on the UK's building spree. Not discussed would be the US response. That would also directly impact Japan's building is plans. #4 would be the one most likely subjected to severe modification basically turning it into either a subclass or totally new class. Japan would not sit idly by while the world around her that she feels threatened by starts building a lot of warships. That is why I didn't count the fourth hull. Shinano on the other hand was much further along so completion would be a better option. It would also clear the ways for other construction.

[@whiskeytangosierra6]

That took considerable thought. Most interesting and thanks.

[@jaradgreen6013]

I go to sleep with KZbin in the background. When I wake up in the middle of the night I always end up here. You’ve got endless watch hours from me.

[@joeblow9657]

THanks for posting this vid!

[@tonyennis1787]

24:20 carriers. Up until late 1941, with the drubbing at Pearl Harbor and the sinking of Repulse and Prince of Wales, carriers' striking power had not been demonstrated to be sufficient to destroy capital ships, especially those underway. How do you think this would have changed the plans you outline? Surely someone might have said, "Maybe all we need are carriers." This turned out to be pretty much true with the USA in the pacific.

[@Cailus3542]

Not quite. The British knew full well how devastating fleet carriers could be against capital ships long before 1941, hence the Illustrious-class and the crippling of several Italian battleships at Taranto by a carrier strike in 1940. The problem is that many naval enthusiasts (particularly Americans, for obvious reasons) tunnel vision on the Pacific then declare "carriers rule the waves, battleships should've all been thrown in the bin". In reality, it simply didn't work that way. Battleships still had a major role in the Pacific throughout WW2, and that role was far bigger in the more confined waters around Europe, where the power of carriers was far more limited, requiring battleships and battlecruisers to take up the slack. Contrary to popular myth, it was the advent of jet aircraft and missiles that rendered battleships obsolete, not carriers.

[@tonyennis1787]

@@Cailus3542 Taranto... where the ships moving, or was it a pre-Pearl Harbor type of raid? Also, we're going to have to agree to disagree on what lead to BBs' becoming obsolete. I'll adhoc my statement a little bit by saying it was the carrier and sufficiently capable aircraft (Dauntless and Wildcat, for example.)

[@merafirewing6591]

​@@tonyennis1787 honestly I'm an American and frickin tired of the aircraft carrier being what made Battleships obsolete nonsense as annoying as hell and Billy Mitchell being some visionary when he is nothing but an a-hole that went out of line to make more enemies in both the army and navy.

[@tonyennis1787]

@@merafirewing6591 Mitchell wasn't wrong. The facts bear-out his vision, utterly and unambiguously. I don't know if he was an a-hole or not, or whether this mattered in any event.

[@merafirewing6591]

@@tonyennis1787 never liked him nor even respected him. It's still a stupid move to try and make enemies in the army and navy just to prove your concept and satisfy your ego.

[@andrewbarker6230]

Excellent video a very informative watch.

[@stephenrickstrew7237]

I think Plan Z would have been great for Britain …. Imagine all those ships at anchor without oil …..like Tirpitz

[@neniAAinen]

Tirpitz wasn't really w/o oil as much as it was constantly damaged, away from proper repair facilities.

[@Cailus3542]

@@neniAAinen Tirpitz was also perpetually pinned down by numerous Allied battleships. Scharnhorst's fate was a clear indication of what would happen to Tirpitz if it tried to sortie.

[@hariitokyashimoto3458]

Funnily enough Tirpitz still managed to scare the British enough for them to allocate significant resources into the theatre to counter her. It didn't change the inevitable of course. Still funny that in this case the scare factor worked pretty well by the ship just existing.

[@JostVanWair]

@@hariitokyashimoto3458 Unlike the Germans, they actually HAD such resources to allocate!

[@DanielGreen-j4c]

@@hariitokyashimoto3458yes, because the Bismarck was scared the minute she sunk the Hood, and everyone on board knew run or gun. You don’t take on the biggest navy in the world (at that time) without expecting to survive. A fleet in being tied up resources. However we could allocate resources. How much better those resources could have been to the land war, the one that was decisive for the Germans, remains parlour games. Hitler wanted a navy. He got a couple of boats on the pond. He still thought he had the teeth to take in the Royal Navy. Megalomaniac idiot in his highest expectations.

[@Ciborium]

Congratulations for getting a real sponsor.

[@darrellsmith4204]

All scenarios that have the Royal Navy being defeated between 1805-1945 involve some variation of the "spherical cow" argument..

[@leeanthony126]

Morning drach thank u.

[@davidyoungs1482]

Drach, you mention early in this issue that some of the ships that might have been built early would have used the big guns from older outmoded vessels that would be (or already were being) retired. But, I heard in other videos (I think some of yours, perhaps elsewhere) that some of the US Pacific fleet battleships were refitted with new barrels since the existing ones were 'worn out' (which I take to mean that the rifling was worn reducing accuracy, etc). Shore bombardments probably used a lot of rounds). So, the question is: How many rounds would be expected from the various sized naval guns? What's the expected lifetime and what was actually found in reality? By the way, I grew up in the Albany NY area, proximate to the Watervliet Arsenal, where many (most? all?) of the large WWII naval guns were produced. Thanks for taking a look at my inquiiry.

[@TheStefanskoglund1]

I expect that the Navy would have commissioned replacement liners for the guns. The liner itself is basically a long thin-walled pipe which isn't essential for integrity so produce such ones so heat up the gun and send cold water down the tube and the liner should drop out.

[@alcibiadesW]

The barrels had liners on the inside. These liners took the wear of firing. And they could be replaced, although that does take some work. The Royal Navy had built close to 200 15" guns before production ended, more than it was using at any one time. That was deliberate. When a ship needed gun replacement, it would receive some of the extras. It's old guns would be taken in for refurbishment, and then go into the stockpile. At a later time, some other ship using 15" guns would get them as a replacement while it's guns went to be refurbished. And so on. It is unlikely that any guns would go straight from one battleship to another, although the turrets and associated items would. Instead, a new ship would get guns from the ready stockpile, and the old ship's guns would go for refurbishment.

[@viktork706]

Epic vid Drach'. TY.

[@itjustjuan5148]

Plan Z has always been such an interesting topic!

[@TheJsmitty85]

This is honestly well thought out alt-history question. Thank you for the effort.

[@timjake78]

A large difference would be the electronic systems. The hundreds of millions spent on radar advancements were driven by the war. Without the war, yes, radar would likely have continued developing, but not at the urgency as demanded by the war. So, yes, the hulls and guns would have likely been similar, but the plans would not have necessarily included the structures required for the radar centric fire control systems.

[@kumasenlac5504]

The most effective Allied application of radar technology in WW2 was the proximity fuze. Discuss.

[@Tepid24]

Yoooo, Drach got that skillshare sponsorship! Let's goooooooooooooo!

[@hibikinyan7180]

Would be cool to have this as a series for all the navies! Especially the french for me personally

[@beigethursday1352]

Another brilliant video

[@thepolishnz]

if the carrier losses in the pacific didn't happen for either the Americans or Japanese wouldn't the yamato class have remained 3 ships not two? the shinano would have been completed as a battleship and not a floating bomb

[@odileelido8407]

I found a postage stamp with a photo of HMS Seafire pennant number G68. Tiny low quality image but hey, we have doubled the number of confirmed photos on the interwebs.

[@Trek001]

Easiest way to sort out Plan Z would be to build more Swordfish

[@AWMJoeyjoejoe]

And Lancasters

[@Trek001]

@@AWMJoeyjoejoe Indeed

[@ReichLife]

Swordish performance during Operation Cerberus rather quite easily kills this meme.

[@nickw7619]

4:52 what is that a picture of? Someone trying to draw each ship in the entire navy? Where did you find it? Pretty cool looking

[@Shutterbug5269]

Of course, the Japanese may have still started a war with the United States during this period even if Germany wasn't involved, which may have removed the Japanese navy from the equation, since we may have concentrated more heavily on them.

[@silverhost9782]

I wonder if Japan would have been foolish enough to start a war with Britain, the USA and France in the Pacific without 2 years of European war affecting the balance of power so much

[@bluemarlin8138]

The combined USN and RN would have crushed Japan in 1942 if they hadn’t had to devote resources to the Atlantic and Med. Even if Pearl Harbor happened, the US still had four (soon to be 5) large fleet carriers and a lot of fast battleships nearing service. The RN wouldn’t have lost 3 fleet carriers and had another damaged, and would have had much better carrier aircraft since they wouldn’t have been stuck with mid-1930s designs due to production demands. They also would have had more fast capital ships, and a lot more cruisers than the USN did. And most importantly, they had working torpedoes and were well-trained in night fighting, including night carrier strikes. (Hopefully Admiral King would have actually let the USN learn from them.) Even the French could have sent a fleet. Japan likely never would have taken the British and French colonies in the first place, depriving them of bases, strategic position, and fuel. They might have taken some of the US territories if Pearl happened as historically, but the US could bring much more of its fleet to bear due to being able to use RN/French bases/fuel and probably having those fleets joining it in relieving the Philippines and Guam. I suspect that the Allies would have blockaded Japan and crushed its economy while supplying the Chinese army against Japanese forces. In all likelihood, Japan wouldn’t have been dumb enough to attack the US and Britain/France without the German/Italian distraction. They knew that they couldn’t fight both the RN and USN at full strength.

[@jeffbybee5207]

Imagine if the navy had refused to go to war and the army went ahead like they did in china

[@Shutterbug5269]

@@silverhost9782 These were the same people who honestly thought we would sue for peace after they attacked Prarl Harbor . Adm. Yamamoto literally told them starting a war with us was a bad idea and they ordered him to do it anyway. They were not exactly rational, strategicly minded people.

[@73Trident]

@@bluemarlin8138 My thoughts exactly.

[@jamesngotts]

The upkeep on this would have been crushing imo.

[@milsimmaniac711]

Please do what if the dutch got the 1047 battlecruisers built along with the de zeven province class and the various other ships they wanted to build before the Japanese invasion

[@deepgardening]

If wishes were shipses... reminds me of our school-day daydreams My maternal grandfather was crew on a convoying destroyer in WW1, an uncle officered on submarines in the Pacific, and my father was quite happy to still be in officer training when VJ day happened. He had a story of cadets on that day setting up a keg of beer at the top of a long sloping lawn: down a beer, take a short run and a looong slide in yr. dress whites. I got to watch the scrapping of many WW2 ships on my commutes past the docks.

[@randomlyentertaining8287]

"All the ships of the Royal Navy - The world's most formidable fleet" 1945 USN - "And I took that personally." Yes, yes, I know if it wasn't for WW2, the RN would've remained bigger than the USN for possibly many decades. It's just a joke. I do like that drawing though. Really cool.

[@seanbudd8852]

Hi dude, these vids are so specific and rite up my street, the lesser known facts about WW2 invasion of England is fascinating and you wont find it on any of the other documentaries, just a quick sentence or two about the whole event, I don't think if German armed forces would have had a chance in crossing and defending a beech head if they got ashore, it took the allies three years to make the higgins boat, Germany was no where near really.. floating rafts with 88's as affective shore bombardment.nope. I thinks having watched a lot of naval docs yours rocks. pipe the side.

[@aliabdallah2235]

Another thing drach, do note the resources the royal navy might have gotten if plan z got through would have been far more than ww1, as plan z would have reinforced the doctrine to to abandon any sort of military beyond security of British ground.

[@JevansUK]

At what point would the age of oldest destroyers need to be replaced even when you have the numbers you want?

[@michaelsnyder3871]

The "V/W" class, which set the standard for destroyers for the next ten-twenty years were still effective surface combat ships which could be converted for AA and ASW warfare and they entered service in 1918-1920.

[@JevansUK]

@@michaelsnyder3871 ah I think we've both missed something the V/W classes were in reserve at this point. The 16 flotillas are by my reckoning A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,IJ,K,N,L,M and 2 Tribals. With the A/Bs only by 12 years old I can see the british could afford maybe a year or 2 lull in destroyer production.

[@donaldmunro3542]

@@JevansUK Not sure if the "C's" can be included. Half flotilla of 4 and Transferred to Canada before 1939, if remember rightly.

[@JevansUK]

@@donaldmunro3542 oh yeah labour budget cuts. After they I class they don't build leaders any more, did they reduce flotillas from 9 to 8?

[@donaldmunro3542]

@@JevansUK Yeah, I think it was from 1937 onward, Leaders tended to be slightly modified from the rest, generally to give more space for Captain "D"'s staff. Usually 2 from 8 would be done, so you got a Flotilla leader and a Half Leader.

[@adamdubin1276]

I mean the Chamberlain might have been content with the jolly good old chap response... Although Churchill would have likely been in the background frothing at the mouth with a glass of champagne in one hand and a cigar in the other calling him an idiot.

[@joechang8696]

Bismark was right, skip sea power, focus east. Hitler started rearming. I think the service chiefs were thinking for the Army to be war ready in the mid-40's. The other European powers starting rearming after Germany started. In picking up Austria, then Czechoslovakia for free, this gave a considerable boost to the Army capabilities, incorporating Austrian divisions, and equipment from Czech. At some point, it was realized that the maximum differential readiness state between Germany and others was 1940, and not the time when peak German capability is achieved. Between the manpower and steel consumed by the Kreigsmarine, those extra panzers in a no-navy scenario would have made a big difference in the late phase of Barbarossa

[@ivanmonahhov2314]

One of more interesting ideas on the topic : USSR wanted to delay the war to 1943 and Winter wars initial goals was prevent a possibility of naval assault on Leningrad. So Imagine a scenario of Plan Z goint trougth mined baltic to be greeted by 200-250 subs ( 1941 219 were complete and 91 under construction ) , 3 Project 23 battleships , 3 old type battleships , 60 destroyers ( low estimate in 1941 45 are under construction 59 are in service ) and just around 3000 DB-3F ( IL-4 naval designation )

[@jkilla9934]

what use are more panzers if there is not enough fuel or not enough trains to bring ammo and fuel to the front lines? they did not even manage to bring winter clothing to the front in winter 41, that stuff arrived in summer 42.

[@joechang8696]

@@jkilla9934 Kreigsmarine also consumed fuel, so split the steel between panzers, stugs, and trains. Not sure what actually happened with winter clothing in 41. But what typically happens in military is when something like winter clothing is sent to "front," i.e., supply depots under the front commanders jurisdiction but behind the actual front, the supply guys and support people grab it first, and are very slow to send to the actual front, because a guy could get shot getting close to the front. Also, the Russian winter comes on in sudden. I was in Kharkov end of Sep to early Oct. It was hot summer like when I got there, then is a span of a few days, shifted to 0C at night.

[@whyjnot420]

At 8:22 I love how that illustration turns the Nelson as to make the stern harder to see. Sure Nelson was a capable ship.... but she wasn't the best looking one. A lot of that has to do with its general layout imo. Hiding the stern like in that illustration makes the ship look far better than something from the side would. But it also makes her look far less powerful than she is, as it hides her third turret. It is odd that the person who made that illustration did that with Nelson, but kept Rodney aligned with the other ships. I almost feel like they had drawn Rodney prior to Nelson, realized how weird Rodney looked, then changed the positioning of Nelson in response. Or that they planned to have the ship placed where Nelson is to be turned like that, in order to fill up space and choose Nelson to be the one to put there, due to her and Rodney not being the greatest of lookers. Overall I think it is simply due to the lack of symmetry caused by the lack of guns on the stern. Sure 2 turrets forward and 1 aft isn't perfectly symmetrical, but it is more symmetrical than all of the guns forward and only superstructure aft. addendum: Sure, I am only talking about how things look, but that is the whole point of that illustration, to make the Royal Navy look badass.

[@nathanmaxon4692]

Drach, a question about the politics of the time. Forgive me if I get things mixed around, I’m a yank. Was there a substantial difference in support for large Naval building programs between Labour, the Tories, or the other parties at the time? I only ask because there is a huge difference in support for funding in the US’ military between parties. Thanks man, love your videos!

[@silverhost9782]

One thing I can say is that, as Drach mentioned, the two York class cruisers were intended to be a class of 8 not 2. When Labour came to power they cancelled 6 to save money. Whether that was endemic or just a one off i'm not sure though

[@bluemarlin8138]

@@silverhost9782 This is true, but surprisingly, in the late 1930s, the Labour Party actually supported re-armament and opposed Chamberlain’s appeasement policy. It wasn’t until after WWII, and especially (and shamefully) in the late 1960s, that they gutted the military to (partially) pay for their socialist policies and debt. Although in fairness, everyone made big military cuts after WWII. And in any event, Labour never had more than a minority coalition government for a few years in the 20s and 30s, as they were blamed for the Depression. It’s unlikely that they would have won in the 1940s as the economy recovered, and historically, they were only able to win in 1945 by convincing people that they deserved a welfare state as a reward for their WWII sacrifices. If Germany had gotten serious about implementing Plan Z, then I suspect there would have been broad support in Britain to respond. Germany could try to spin its buildup of land forces as being defensive and not a direct threat to Britain, but there’s no way it could spin a huge naval buildup as anything but a direct challenge to the Royal Navy, and by extension, the security of British trade and territory. There would be no choice but to respond. And Britain would have had plenty of money to do it with the improving economy and open trade lanes.

[@silverhost9782]

@@bluemarlin8138 Those are all good points, I agree with the idea that Labour would have opened the purse strings in the face of an arms race. Its interesting how little the Labour of the 20s and 30s gets talked about though, seems to get overshadowed by the Conservatives of the late 30s and obviously 40s.

[@keefymckeefface8330]

@@bluemarlin8138 RE-they were only able to win in 1945 by convincing people that they deserved a welfare state as a reward for their WWII sacrifices. HUUUUUUUGE landslide victory the like of which hasnt been seen since- i think the people wanted a radical change and a the welfare state was much desired by the population, not an idea that needed much selling a teh time. And if you read memoirs of soldiers and sailors and airmen at teh time- was a widespread feeling among many that it was time for radical new government to ensure what had happened over previous 15 years could never, never happen again. The poor of the 30´s remembered their suffering pre ww2.

[@furious5009]

I’d like to see a analysis of War Plan Red/War Plan Red-Orange and subsequently possible British responses