The 18.1 inch Naval Gun - Origins and Development

[@Drachinifel]

Pinned post for Q&A :)

[@joshthomasmoorenew]

In her last action HMS Repluse was doing torpedo beats at level 100, did any other ships have to do dodge torpedos as much and did they survive the attack?

[@fidjeenjanrjsnsfh]

Why build a 3-gun instead of a triple turret?

[@themanformerlyknownascomme777]

while it is said that the 18 inch/47 caliber gun was most likely not going to be able to fit on a triple turret without making possible sacrifices to speed on a panamax (aka Iowa) hull. Could the 16 inch/56 caliber gun (either the prototype or a more purpose built design) have been fitted in a triple turret on the Iowa/Montana hull form instead?

[@tianwong152]

Sanshiki doesn't mean anti aircraft, it simply means Type 3.

[@fg3893]

Assuming their conversion never took place, how would you redesign the Lexington class battlecruisers?

[@CStone-xn4oy]

"It didn't blow up which made everyone quite happy."

[@ivanruzic2592]

Considering that the tests with other guns caused those to explode after less than a dozen shots fired, guns not exploding was a good thing in comparison to that.

[@kemarisite]

USS Princeton and Thomas Walker Gilmer have entered the chat.

[@vbscript2]

As opposed to the Mark 14, where it didn't blow up and that made everyone (except Bureau of Ordnance) very angry.

[@walterpleyer261]

This reminds me of the old custom form the very early history of guns, when the founder of a gun had stand next to it, when the first test shots were fired

[@CStone-xn4oy]

@@walterpleyer261 Huh, well thats one way to make sure that a gun maker puts their best effort into making a strong firearm.

[@fearthehoneybadger]

The Washington Naval Treaty was often considered bad for Japan. If it weren't enacted, however, Japan would have faced US battleships armed with 18 inch guns.

[@田中徳和-n9q]

日本語で失礼しますけど例えワシントン海軍軍縮条約が締結されなくても日本海軍は46センチ以上の大砲を持って巨大戦艦を建造したと思います。ロンドン海軍軍縮条約を破棄して大和型戦艦を建造しても更に巨大な51センチ砲を搭載する巨大戦艦を計画した位ですから。アメリカ相手に物量では太刀打ち出来ないですから。

[@davidmcintyre8145]

Both Japan and the USA would have faced the N3 class plus their follow on classes

[@DanielWW2]

The treaty was quite favourable to Japan, in that they got such a large allocation of tonnage, while the US and British had to give up a lot of their (planned) fleets. Without the treaty, especially the USN would have been a lot bigger. Its not just battleships, its everything planned for the USN and the British response. The Japanese had nowhere near the economy to compete with that. Further such a new arms race, would have quickly made the existing Japanese fleet, obsolescent. So basically what happened when the treaties expired. The Americans crushed the IJN with both numbers of ships the Americans could build and in a lot of cases, also better ships than the Japanese could make. Fletcher, Cleveland, Baltimore and the Essex classes where overall better ships.

[@harrisonrawlinson5650]

I never thought about that before, there likely wouldn’t have just been 1 or 2 US, Battleships with 18” guns, there’d likely have been several classes with 18” guns as long as Japan kept building larger and larger ships

[@davidmcintyre8145]

@@DanielWW2 The issue is that as of 1920 when the ships were being designed the US would have faced the IJN and the RN as a combined force

[@middleclassthrash]

I've just realized that this is my favorite channel on youtube. You consistently end up delving into subjects i find myself wondering about. Thank you for all you do.

[@williestyle35]

Drachinifel does produce more videos at higher quality levels than we can usually get from one "presenter" or "creator". Drach always tries so hard to give such accurate and verified historical information on these ships. 😊

[@FlorentinoRebuildingCo.5644]

Middleclass.....Between Drach and Mark Felton. I never realized how much military history I didn't know. Love BOTH channels...

[@EtuSunTzu]

Drach is my clear favorite channel by far

[@andrewthomson]

​@@FlorentinoRebuildingCo.5644 I stopped watching felton after his meltdown videos about some tour he went on. Is he normal again?

[@FlorentinoRebuildingCo.5644]

@@andrewthomson seems more closer to normal recently. He is bring up interesting topics on his YT Channel. Most recently: panther tank turrets used a buried gun bunkers....seems very interesting.

[@owencleverton2509]

Yes please. A seperate video on the manufacture of battleship guns would be great.

[@AndrewGraziani-k7d]

A great source for naval knowledge, including building guns, is the "Pacific War encyclopedia" found online. It's one of the most extensive military history sources I've ever found. Its only downside is deals exclusively with WW2 in the Pacific, but boy, is it packed with info.

[@kc4cvh]

14:55 An interesting statistic revealed here: the average Japanese sailor was expected to be five feet, one inch tall and weigh one hundred twenty-two pounds.

[@eldarhighelfhealermiriella7653]

Indeed yes. But also there were exceptions. Japanese also had up to 5.7 feet tall men along their troops. Most of population were thinking theese people were "touched" by Yokais spirits.

[@ogie4893]

No land to grow beef. Not kidding.

[@PierreManslapper]

I tell you what, them boys there needed them some of that there raw milk.

[@SynchronizorVideos]

I’m 5’9” tall (69 inches, nice), which is almost exactly the global average for folks with a Y chromosome. I’ve been to Japan, and I felt quite tall there while walking around in a crowd or riding the trains.

[@Hierax415]

@@SynchronizorVideos My nickname growing up was "Little Mike" because my best friend was also Mike and he was around 6'4. I'm 5'11 and when my Japanese co-workers got to know me well enough to hear people call me that. There was a comically long period where everyone was to polite to ask for an explanation but obviously curious. I don't know if you encountered those self enclosed shower capsules when you were there (more popular in the 90s) but even at my modest height I literally couldn't get my head under the shower head and had to wash my hair in a sink. Funny little movie called "lost in translation" has a shower scene with Bill Murray struggling to get in the shower, if anything its funnier because at 6'1 they must have used an unusually tall shower to shoot the scene. Id be curious to know just how much smaller deck height was in things like WW2 Japanese subs. I've heard they specifically found submariner recruits with a genetic trait that reduced body odor. Doesn't seem like a stretch to imagine they found abnormally short men as well.

[@nagasako7]

Fun Fact. Company that made Yamato guns is still around. Making MBT barrels for JSDF.

[@scottmccrea1873]

So are Krupp and Thyssen.

[@naverilllang]

the company that built Musashi is now making televisions and motorcycles

[@karthus006]

Well, you can't see the gun itself, but you can see the lathe that is used to build these guns. It's one of the latest exhibits of the Yamato Museum in Kure. They launched a donation drive in 2021 to save and preserve the last lathe, aiming to get only around 480K USD, but that target was reached by a mere 12 hours since the drive was launched. And at the end of the 2 month campaign, around 2.7 million USD was raised, thanks to the Japanese gaming community.

[@stevewyckoff6904]

Any pics of this lathe?@@3socksMorgan

[@bobo-cc1xw]

We need the equipment to build more space battleships

[@shadowwolf2608]

Never underestimate the gaming community.

[@karthus006]

@@krispypriest5116 There is a 1:1 scale of Yamato's deck (Forgot whether it's the fore or aft deck) in the park near the museum. The Clayton Bay Hotel in Kure also has a special room at the same height as the Yamato's command centre. And one of the chef there is the descendant of the chief cook on board the Zuikaku. Not to mention the various Ship Memorial sites littered across the town. The entire town is listed as one of the various Sacred Sites for KanColle.

[@robertsneddon731]

@@bobo-cc1xwLast time I visited the Yamato museum they had a Space Battleship Yamato gallery with models and cel art from the early movies. I don't know if it's still there.

[@Maverick966]

The reason why the 460mm common type 0 has less explosive than an American 406mm High Capacity is that it isn't an HE in the first place, it is a common round, which means it has thicker walls than an HE almost like a semi-armor piercing round with a base fuze to increase armor penetration and explode inside the target, the ideal round to destroy cruisers

[@willyvereb]

Aren't common rounds and SAP are often interchangeable depending on specifics?

[@Maverick966]

@@willyvereb The difference is that common rounds are not made of hardened steel unlike semi-armor piercing rounds, also common rounds have more explosive filler percentage than SAP

[@nicholausbuthmann1421]

Went all the way through the U.S. Destroyer's in the Philippines.

[@gustavchambert7072]

​@@nicholausbuthmann1421 That's because DDs have no armour, only structural plating, which is the equivalent of wet tissue paper to the fuse of any BB main calibre round. And even that plating is thinner than that of most cruisers. A cruiser on the other hand has anywhere between 50-80% thicker plating, and then actual armour in some places. They are also much wider, deeper and longer, meaning more time for a fuse to arm.

[@taras3702]

​@@gustavchambert7072The fuse arms after leaving the barrel. Impact with the target initiates the fuse which then detonates after a predetermined number of milliseconds.

[@vipondiu]

11:45 And here is a photo of Yamato/Musashi I have never seen before! If I remember correctly there's fewer than 20 images of both superships that survived the torching of 1945

[@metaknight115]

Nope, there’s a good few dozen of them. Found a really cool colorized image of Musashi under air attacks at the battle of the Sibuyan Sea at a straight down view

[@davidrox4591]

Beautiful ship.

[@swordmonkey6635]

The san shiki rounds had timing devices on them that enabled the gunners to control when the bursting apart of rods at certain distances. It's one of the reasons the Japanese didn't just go full grapeshot with the AA rounds. It was an imperfect system because of the chaotic and fast moving dynamics of an air attack coming from multiple angles and altitudes. At the end of Operation Ten Go, Yamato was firing san shiki rounds with the barrels pointed horizontal to try to engage with the torpedo planes attacking just above the water. They set the timers to zero, meaning it was effectively buckshot at that point and hoped to make an impenetrable flak cloud. It failed due to the inability of the guns to fire fast enough to effectively create a flak wall.

[@everythingsalright1121]

Volume of fire in most battles is what wins, instead of a few super cannons. Its still insane to me they made such rounds though.

[@swordmonkey6635]

@@everythingsalright1121 Volume of air taken up by AA is what wins battles since the AA accuracy was stupidly low in WW2. The "fill the air with lead" method was the standard practice, which on average AA guns meant high rates of fire, but when you have 18.1 inch flak cannons that could fire 1 to 2 shells every minute and cause a very large shrapnel cloud, the idea was feasible on paper. The problem was coordinated gun directing and experience with defense methods since they didn't fire the san shiki rounds often in drills.

[@Kevin_Kennelly]

17:46 "Unfortunately, there is only one known photo of Yamato class." In "Build The Musashi" by Youshimura, he discusses the test firing of the guns. They'd bolted cages to the deck, within the blast zone of the guns. They placed small animals within the cages. This book is noteworthy because much of it discusses the extreme security measures surrounding the construction of this class of ship. The result of the security measures is that this book suffers because it is 'sparse' on detail. My opinion.

[@FireFox_60]

Hey Drac have you considered making a video on the development of non-carrier born aircraft ie scout/spotting seaplanes on cruisers and battleships. The three D’s Design,Development and Differences between naves.

[@lcsuperman1735]

Rex's hanger covers aircraft in this era he probably has what your looking for

[@astrowolf_1313]

CAM ships would probably make an interesting topic.

[@teejin669]

Another amazing source for WW2 aircraft is gregs airplanes and automobiles, although he might not have a video on those seaplanes

[@Vinemaple]

I think Drac would enjoy making his own video about this, though. He could focus more on the shipboard side of aircraft accomodation, perhaps.

[@FireFox_60]

He could also talk about how they influenced the design of said ships

[@peteh9720]

The intro to these videos of Drach's always makes me feel like the main feature of my evening's KZbin has arrived, and that whatever I was watching previously was just a warm-up.

[@Alobo075]

Yamato 2199 does show the guns returning to almost level between salvos for reloading. A nice nod to historical accuracy. Also, they took Drach's idea and created a shrapnel shell to deal with incoming missile fire.

[@jamesmaas7244]

Fun animation

[@jlvfr]

that shell allready existed in WWII, it was call the "San Shiki" and was made for multiple gun calibers. They were also used in shore bombardement of open areas, as in Guadalcanal.

[@williestyle35]

Ahh, the "extended life" of an Imperial Japanese Navy ship. _Space Battleship Yamato_ was originally made for both "entertainment" and to resurrect "pride" in the armed forces of Imperial Japan, in their own way.

[@jlvfr]

@@williestyle35 and before the wreck was discovered... and found to be broken in half...

[@rantanen1]

@@jlvfr yes, like said in the video.

[@ClimateScepticSceptic-ub2rg]

Very thorough and interesting video on a subject I never thought could be anything but dull. It shows the value of having KZbin's best naval historian tackling the topic.

[@godlucifer8428]

26:34 "...The third of ammunition was the Type-3 Sanshiki or Anti-aircraft round uniquely found only in Imperial Japanese Navy Battleship *_as far as battleship of WW2 went_* ..." Ah yes The *_other_* Type-3 Shell that the Japanese equip on another warship name Yamato which have proven to be surprisingly useful against various enemies crafts during it journey. That story through would probably be told in another day, probably in April.

[@bkjeong4302]

Actually, the USN tried to do the same thing with the Iowas (to the point AA fire manuals for the 16”/50 gun exist!). I doubt they would have been any more effective, even with the VT fuse-battleship main guns can’t rotate fast enough and have a nasty habit of rendering the actual AA and DP weapons unusable while being fired.

[@kemarisite]

​@@bkjeong4302at the ranges these kinds of heavy, barrage AA guns fire, rotation speed is far less relevant than for the point defense guns. One of the few ways it could be relevant is if a squadron of torpedo bombers has split to attack from both bows and one group is circling at the edge of AA range (5 miles, maybe) to get into position. Although some quick math suggests that is less relevant than I first thought, since crossing at 150 knots at 10,000 yards is only about 0.5 degrees per second, much less than the 4 degree per second train rate for the turrets on the Iowas. Even bringing it into 4,000 yards where the Bofors mounts open up only increases the change in angle to about 1.2 degrees per second.

[@robertsneddon731]

@@bkjeong4302I recall reading somewhere that the Tirpitz had AA shells for her main battery and fired them at Lancasters carrying Tallboy bombs on the fjord attacks. They had no reported effect.

[@Marin3r101]

​@@robertsneddon731 I dont recall Germany having any form of VT-like fuses for AA purposes. They had timed-fuse sensitive warheads. These would detonate at an altitude that had to be calculated. VT fused warheads do not need to be set. They detonate based off of proximity to the target being fired at. Not sure what you're trying to point out about Tirpitz....

[@ralphe5842]

These shells made a interesting fireworks but useless against aircraft in the real world

[@bored383]

dragon's breath shotgun shells . . . for a battleship . . . madness

[@christopherconard2831]

For supporting amphibious landings. When you want to turn the beach and everything up to 5KM inland into a parking lot.

[@Reaper_495]

Sounds very American lol

[@lostalone9320]

*Percy Hobart has entered the chat*

[@bkjeong4302]

@@christopherconard2831 No, it was for AA uses, except it was worse than useless at that. To make things crazier, the Germans and even the Americans got in on it.

[@GrahamWKidd]

Wednesday Fun with BIG GUNS!!

[@jackgreen412]

My uncle was on a mine sweeper lying off the Normandy coast during WW 2. He said the concussion from the 14" gun would about put you off your feet.

[@lostalone9320]

TMW you realise that you aren't under attack, you just felt your sides heavy guns firing from a mile away.

[@hmsverdun]

A 120% charge for testing only has me thinking that I would be very, very far away from the thing during said test preferably in a bunker if I am being called to watch it.

[@christopherconard2831]

"It's perfectly safe as long as you are stay in the trench and don't look directly at it. Says the scientist who will be three miles behind us, in a reinforced concrete bunker." Random soldier at a Nevada atomic bomb test.

[@khaelamensha3624]

I was asking myself when people have taken cover and the turret fired if people were still able to hear the next warning 😂

[@ljubomirculibrk4097]

That is wery small aditional charge comparing to firearms testin. Normal tormentation up to 200%, if remember well for old black gunpowder even up to 300%, since there are great deviations of burn speeds...

[@Vinemaple]

Thank you so much! I have inexplicably been wondering, lately, if we had any accounts of the overpressure effects from these guns... I remember, as a young plastic model builder, seeing how differently the Yamato-class's decks were laid out, and realizing it must have been about the blast effects. Now I just want to see some photos of the hangar deck and boat bay, and the overhead boat-crane system! I suppose there probably aren't any... but that's the most fascinating thing about the Yamatos, to me, was the engineering infrastructure involved in sheltering the boats and aircraft. Not to mention, of course, that the boat-launching tunnel was a visually prominent feature in _Space Battleship Yamato._

[@bkjeong4302]

Blasts effects were actually an issue with battleship guns in general, though Yamato was unusual in that her other armaments were laid out to account for them (at the expense of wasted space, but building a new battleship at this point was already a waste for everybody).

[@Vinemaple]

@@bkjeong4302 Yeah, that's exactly what got me thinking. The conning tower on a US fast battleship was not a safe place to be when the guns were firing

[@pierremainstone-mitchell8290]

Fascinating indeed Drach! Thanks indeed!

[@LeeBrasher]

At 7:00 I find it interesting that the 45 cal did not have superior deck penetration at long range due to the steeper angel of descent. I believe that US 45 cal 16" had better extreme range deck pen due to this?

[@williamgreen7415]

Thanks!

[@lilmachingunn]

Looking forward to the guns manufacture video

[@alexbenis4726]

Wow, great video and 11:45 never seen that picture of Yamato in early config, wonder what she is carrying on the deck between the mid secondary turret and the after main turret?

[@williestyle35]

Wish I could spot something specifically unusual. I see the usual mass of superstructure and spotting / observation towers.

[@lillybaerga4725]

Kindof looks like a ship's boat if you mean that long object just behind the superfiring turret

[@pedrofelipefreitas2666]

I always enjoy a more in-depth look at the Yamato, love the video :) I wonder if you'll do a future video on the rangefinders and radar yamato had equipped, I've seen different opinions as to how precise Yamato truly was.

[@willarth9186]

Ah, a new Drach video to enjoy with my morning coffee... It's a great day already!

[@pauleandersonmusic]

Thank you for making so much quality content. It's been a real relief for me to sit down and relax to a topic that I've always been interested in. You are doing great! It's been very illuminating and so thorough. Keep it going!

[@Self-replicating_whatnot]

The original YEET cannon.

[@williestyle35]

Šeems like it 🤣

[@pedrofelipefreitas2666]

More like the original .50 Action Express

[@knutdergroe9757]

A little more costly..... And not found in Detroit. Great call, though 😂😛🤔🧐

[@73Trident]

Great episode as per usual and very interesting. Thanks Drach.

[@drakeconsumerofsoulsandche4303]

As a note on the AA shells, tirpitz was also tested with them though i dont believe they were ever used

[@bkjeong4302]

The Iowas as well. IIRC Tirpitz did try to use AA main gun shells during one of the many raids thrown at her and only ended up making her AA weaker as a result.

[@scottburton509]

I saw a documentary on the raid that sunk Tirpitz and the pilots said the Tirpitz was firing AA shells from the main guns at them.

[@GreyWolfLeaderTW]

The great irony of those 18.1-inch guns is that only Yamato fired them against other naval warships, and the only warships she used them on were destroyers, destroyer escorts, and escort carriers. And in the greatest irony, she fired armored piercing rounds that over-penetrated those small light ships, undermining their destructive power.

[@bkjeong4302]

Well the 16”/50 has just as bad if not even worse record against enemy ships.

[@zadmiral55]

Except that a damaging straddle on white Plains put that CVE out of front line service

[@howardhofelich1]

So Musashi never fired a round?

[@panzerschliffehohenzollern4863]

​@@howardhofelich1Aganist Aircraft? Yes. Against enemy battleship she was expected to fight? No.

[@malcolmmacdougall]

yes the shells just went straight through without exploding, but this might be a too long a fuse time as well........but a destroyer is paper thin isn't it, i expect the fuse isn't even triggered..... not sure

[@probusthrax]

Great video on the largest WWII naval gun!

[@trevorday7923]

You've got to hand it to the Japanese, they've elevated "Go Big or Go Home" to an absolute fine art. They don't look at these niggling little problems like "can we make battleship guns SO HUGE we can pretty much fire a small frigate out of them?". They just say "what the hell, let's find out!". And that attitude lead to the biggest, most powerful, and I would argue also the most beautiful battleships ever built

[@williestyle35]

I think the designs of the _Montana_ class were a bit more beautiful for their size, but they were not built and that is my subjective opinion. On the other hand the Imperial Japanese Navy going "all in" on the biggest artillery gun they could possibly make.,. well that is impressive in an American kinda way.

[@sodadrinker89]

Too bad Aircraft Carriers became the meta.

[@Acer_Maximinus]

This was very interesting. The making of an Armstrong gun is a great KZbin video. As well as a couple of other videos about early naval gun manufacture.

[@eugenemiya4935]

Amusing. My 12th grade English teacher was a Lt. Col. in the Corps of Engineers. His job starting before the formal surrender and lasting years was to demilitarize Japanese technology. His directives were to either repurpose things or destroy things. He found the lathes to the 18.1 inch guns. And he thought it would have been a shame to destroy this machinery. So his decision was to give it to the Chinese. His comment in the late 80 and 1990s: was he was not certain whether he set the Chinese back or gave my honorable ancestors an excuse to make newer technology.

[@andrewfidel2220]

There big thing i learned from this that i didn't already know is how low the twist rate for naval guns were in this era, 1:28 for the Japanese guns and 1:25 for Iowa.

[@wafflesnfalafel1]

awesome vid sir, thank you - that over pressure info is incredible, injure a significant number of your own crew just be firing your own main guns....

[@DD-fj2ut]

I was on the deck of my Navy destroyer, with no hearing protection, no warning that I heard, looking out to see at the rail, and about 150 feet away when the 5 inch gun went off. My expectation after this was that blood would be pouring out my ears, but despite my frantic attempts too see the blood on my hands, no blood. Lacking blood I can say “OUCH” was the next or first sensation perhaps. Fortunately it appears no permanent damage was done.

[@johnnybrandon2206]

Can anyone tell me in the intro when they're firing the big guns it looks like confetti all over. Is that from the powder bags remains and wrapping etc?

[@rogergadley9965]

A suggestion for a ship type to review, and it has to do with the American Navy in WWII, troop transport. My father joined the USMC a month or so after December 7th, 1941, the beginning of the war for the U.S. The American military was woefully shorthanded (short-equipped, short-shipped, short-everything) at the beginning of the war. His Marine Corps boot camp (basic training) was dramatically shortened from two or three months before the Pearl Harbor attack to just under a month. Even then, the Marine Corps was so desperate to get troops to the Pacific my dad said the last two weeks of boot camp on board his troop ship. And, the Navy didn’t have enough troop ships. His troop transport was a converted wooden sailing ship which had plied the Pacific coast between Alaska and California carrying cargo of fish, lumber, coal oil, or anything else that could be loaded. The last two weeks of boot camp consisted of classes, gunnery, first aid and more classes.

[@derrickstorm6976]

3:08 Could someone elaborate on what this "wirewinding" is like, and how can it be denser (thus increasing the weight of the gun, as Drach mentioned) than the metal used for the normal pieces?

[@christopherconard2831]

Oversimplified version. Long lengths of heated steel similar to rebar (Though a different alloy of metal) or metal bands are wound around a liner. Along with tension they are hammered creating sort of damascus shell around the liner. This is repeated until you have a desired length and strength. It provides both flexibility and strength when the gun is fired. It also means that if a particular batch of steel is faulty it can be tested and scrapped before final assembly so you don't have to restart the whole process. It's a variant of the oldest method of making barrels. They'd start with a hollow wood tube. Then wrap wire around the length to strengthen the barrel. Soon after the wood would be replaced by a metal tube (liner) but the exterior stayed the same. The final product looks like one giant piece of steel that's been turned on a huge lathe. But if you cut one in half and looked at it under magnification you can see the different layers.

[@colinsdad1]

Ahhhh! I've been waiting for this video for YEARS from Drach! Now then.... any chance of comparing this gun to the weapon on the General Wolfe Monitor from WW1? Its my understanding the latter had the furthest distance fired of any naval gun in combat. I'm awaiting some source books to come in on these Monitors- specifically the raid/bombardment of Zebrugge in WW1. EXCELLENT video as always, Drach!!!

[@naverilllang]

I've stood next to one of those shells. they're so massive that a lot of people wouldn't even recognize them for what they are. It was up to my shoulder, and I'm a pretty tall guy. A lot of sailors can count themselves very lucky that these saw so little use.

[@peterides9568]

Outside the Australian War Memorial in Canberra, the have an 8 inch gun from a County Class- HMAS Australia, on display. I think it would make an interesting contrast to have an 18.11 inch ring to show the comparison with Yamato.

[@adrianjorgensen3750]

The test gun didn’t explode. Always a good sign.

[@plunder1956]

Have you ever seen even a video of a Naval Gun Lathe for much smaller diameter guns? They are utterly huge. A man that used to drive the cross slide on one, would get onto a platform that held the cutting head. Would set up for a cut and sit on it for over an hour as it moved along - usually he was reading a newspaper. actually drinking the barrel and cutting the rifling was a major job and there are big issues cutting these horizontally. The casting issues and post machining heat treatment add even more problems.

[@CowMaster9001]

Is there a book you would recommend about the metallurgy of naval guns over time?

[@psour33]

Taking a nap beside the gun's house was not a great idea. 🤣🤣

[@Big_E_Soul_Fragment]

Cool gun, too bad those fancy flying machines became the new meta

[@bkjeong4302]

Same applies to the 16”/50 gun.

[@CSSVirginia]

I sometimes wonder where capital ship design would have ended up if planes hadn't been invented?

[@sir_dreadlord_on_blitz7042]

​@@CSSVirginiaAsk senator Tillman

[@dukenukem5768]

@26:40 I have read a description of anti-aircraft shells being fired from the 16" guns of the British Nelson class battleships. Sorry, I can't remember where, and don't know whether they were carried routinely or that was just an experiment. Given the range they would have been used at, and the 3-D nature of the target, they must have been wildly inaccurate.

[@bkjeong4302]

It’s actually false that the Japanese were the only people crazy enough to try and use battleship main guns for AA: the Americans tried the same thing with the 16”/50 gun on the Iowas (AA firing manuals exist for the 16”/50, suggesting that this actually went beyond the experimental stage!) and the Germans also tried to do it with Tirpitz. As far as I know all of these attempts ended just as badly as the Type 3 shells.

[@Drachinifel]

A lot was tried, Tiger and Hood both took potshots at German aircraft in their respective wars, but only the IJN operationally deployed it as a matter of doctrine.

[@UthurRytan]

One of Bismarck 15 in shell splashes managed to remove the fabric flooring of a Swordfish piloted by Les Sayer during the attack on her by HMS Victorious

[@kieranh2005]

​@@UthurRytan"make sure your seatbelts are buckled, lads. That's a long first step!"

[@lostalone9320]

The interesting thing here is that this style of AA defense (big shells shooting at areas, not individual planes) is actually genuinely effective but main guns are actually too big for it. Battleships can't carry infinite ammunition, and most only had about 1000 main battery shells total to work with. And main guns are slow to reload, so they are bad at creating the constant flak barrage that you really want. And of course a 5inch gun on land would be a "heavy" AA gun, and battleships have plenty of them on board already. They can carry a lot more 5 inch ammo too. Sometimes its just better to make your existing dual-use guns better at AA (better fuses, radar guidance etc) than trying to make your whole BB into a flak platform.

[@dannyzero692]

I found your channel recently and found that your videos are very good for listening to when on the road to kill time!

[@williestyle35]

Yep, Drachinifel has a very even vocal tone overall. Makes for "easy listening" and you can learn so much!

[@kidmohair8151]

11:43 17:46 (…)well, there’s a (couple [slew] of) picture(s) of a Yamato I’ve not seen before 15:45 turret base, I assume. that is an interesting view of something I would have expected (I’m not sure why) to be more complex.

[@SitioLumbia]

In a different subject; will a shaped charged naval shell be effective?

[@fidjeenjanrjsnsfh]

I think Drach mentioned in the past 'not really'. You want shells to penetrate deep in the armor before exploding, shaped charge pretty much explode on impact to maximize penetration. Also layers of bulkheads reduces the damage. I think the closest to a shape charge naval weapon would be a torpedo, surrounded by incompressible water, all the explosion is directed towards the hull...

[@la_potat6065]

Following up unto the previous comment, because of what was said, the only thing that would be vulnerable to a shaped charged naval shell would be areas with more confined space like that of a tank, would be the ship’s armoured conning tower or the main turrets or barbettes. However to hit a ship is already extremely improbable with a naval shell and to have a shaped charge shell to actually hit where it would be effective, which is frankly also against the most heavily protected parts of the ship, well the probability of that happening is even further far fetched. And it doesn’t help that Japanese turret designers incorportated armoured wall dividers for 41cm turrets after Nagato Class’ modernisation in the early 1930s which also extends to Yamato Class’ 46cm triple turrets. The same can be said to other rounds like HESH and honestly even APFSDS. APFSDS does not have a charge, it relies on its sheer kinetic impact to produce the needed thermal energy for its explosion, which will suffice if it hits confined spaces like those previously mentioned, but I am not confident if even a battleship sized apfsds penetrating rod, piercing the hull of a battleship, would produce a great enough explosion against its vast multilayer bulkheads designed to protect, contain shockwaves and reduce spalling from hits of full ap shells. Although a well placed hit would certainly pierce the protection and vitals of a ship with greater penetration than a typical AP shell, I doubt it would equal to the physical destructive power of a shockwave explosion of a typical ap shell that has managed to also pierce, travel deep into the ship and detonate its explosive charge successfully. This is why torpedoes capable of snapping a ship in 2 (with a combination of a larger charge, hitting the keel and the explosion causing cavitation under the ship) and anti ship missiles with magnitudes of order heavier explosive charges (than that of naval shells), capable of super sonic speeds, that would suffice in both charge and penetration power to frankly blanket the unarmoured upper structure of a ship from bow to stern in the blink of an eye… is the way to go now a days.

[@jbepsilon]

For a modern take on the concept see the BROACH tandem warhead as used on the Storm Shadow / Scalp missiles that Ukraine has used against Russian ships (and that drydocked sub). It has a shaped charge for making a hole that the second warhead then flies in through and explodes inside the ship/bunker/whatever.

[@boobah5643]

@@la_potat6065 Dude, APFSDS doesn't explode at all; it just makes a hole and takes advantage of the fact that you don't waste space in an AFV with things like bunks and galleys to hopefully put that hole somewhere that matters. It's certainly hot after punching through the armor, which lets it start fires if it hits ammunition or fuel, but that's not the same thing.

[@la_potat6065]

@@boobah5643 Well you’re right APFSDS does not explode as its just a single material metal rod. However DU penetrator rods are pyrophoric with incendiary properties, when it fragments into fine dust, which reacts with the oxygen in the air, which would suffice in blanketing the tight crew space of a tank, although I don’t know if that is applicable against a shipsized vessel.

[@silvergalaxie]

iron and steel. just insane. weights&distribution. just insane. was there never a supergun that had reduced weight? good work.

[@ChullsterOG]

Quick question; Is there any footage of the impact on a ship from battleship guns? I've seen plenty of them firing but never seen an impact outside of a testing range.

[@scottmccrea1873]

There's a scene in the movie _Under Siege_ (literally the only decent movie Seagal ever did) where a 16in gun is fired when one of the characters is on deck and the over pressure bursts his ear drums. 22:00

[@scottmccrea1873]

Yup. Tommy Lee Jones. You are correct about Seagal. It is a good, fun movie. Somehow, his bullshit actually works.

[@pauldonnelly7949]

A great vid, very informative, thanks for your efforts.

[@kiereluurs1243]

Video.

[@rybuds47]

Hey Drach i just learned that the Pual Allen war museum in Arlington WA is open again. You would love that place if you stopped there on a trip. Some super rare stuff. Cheers!

[@chriskortan1530]

Interesting comparison of the capabilities of the 18.1" vs 16" guns. What I'd really like to see is a comparison with the Wave Motion Gun ?

[@AndrewGraziani-k7d]

15:12 Where did you get that picture?! The one comparing the size of a man to the shell. I want one as a poster for the man-cave! It must be rare as the Japanese destroyed so much documentation of the Yamamotos.

[@takis-t2g]

what kind of reinforcements did they had to do to the decks to support all that weight and the recoil Forces of them HUGE guns? this is just astounding

[@Kwaj]

A box of Cheez-Its, two cans of ginger ale, and a fresh Drach video... Good morning to _me._

[@williestyle35]

Living the life you are 😊

[@MoultrieGeek]

White cheddar Cheez-Its I hope, easier to hide the Cheez-it/Cheetos dust.

[@sargepent9815]

I remember reading somewhere that Japan had "super Yamato" ships/guns in consideration with turrets of x2 20in guns. But I don't think any such weapon was even developed. After midway, they lacked the ability to even make such a weapon

[@bkjeong4302]

They had the theoretical ability but never bothered going ahead with it as all the super-Yamatos were cancelled. IMO, the reduction in barrel count from 9 to 6 is too big a cost to justify an 20” gun, especially when the 18.1” is already arguably the most powerful battleship gun ever (tied for first place in penetration and unrivalled in bursting charge size while not being bad in other areas)

[@alun7006]

The weight of fire would actually go down IIRC - such huge guns would be very slow to load, and hit rate starts to really suffer when you fire so few shells. A hit would be devastating but hits are statistically less likely. Plus the blast and recoil have a huge effect on the ship itself, and (eg) open AAA mounts become uninhabitable on large parts of the ship.

[@thomasbeach905]

No matter how big a shell is, it is only effective if it hits (or near-misses). Japanese long-range accuracy, or even mid-range accuracy was poor. The much slower reload rate and fewer barrels would only make this worse. A maneuvering fast battleship with good radar fire control could probably be within 16” range without much danger.

[@bkjeong4302]

@@thomasbeach905 Japanese gunnery accuracy (*provided good visibility*) wasn’t that bad, and the accuracy of radar fire control’s been significantly exaggerated over the years to a level not supported by either actual combat or by contemporary live-fire tests.

[@GearGuardianGaming]

germany did too, take a gander at the H-class blueprints. iirc 2 of the 5 plans sported 8 20" guns.

[@fattyfranz4272]

Hell yes! I come home from work and there's fresh Drach waiting for me.

[@kiereluurs1243]

Djeeses, djeeses, djeeses, ... It's all so GIGANTIC.

[@AlMount]

Very interesting, very informative 👍

[@doctorartphd6463]

Well done. Thank you.

[@Digmen1]

Hi Drach. Long time no see I like the new music intro

[@erfquake1]

One big gun that might be worth an episode is the HARP "Gerald Bull" gun. If I remember correctly it was two gun barrels stacked, which I have no idea how that would even have worked.

[@Phoenix-ej2sh]

"something something battleship cannon construction deserves its own video something something" (paraphrased) Promise accepted.

[@SamAlley-l9j]

Thanks Drach.

[@selimcelik3494]

If it were possible to make a highly detailed video covering naval gun manufacture, evolution and possibly maybe the advancements in steel production in relation to warship armor and weaponry I would enjoy that quite a bit. The amount of information on the advancement of refineries abilities to manufacture better and better steel in larger quantities or blocks on the internet in general I've found highly lacking. They usually just say " the blast furnace was invented and it was important" and leave it at that. Like what did Krupp bring to the table and why do we call it Krupp steel? etc.

[@colinthomasson3948]

re wire winding, I recall reading of a steam car manufacturer who had developed a wire-wound boiler and had no success when trying to test it to destruction : it could take any pressure they could generate in the usual way, which must have been somewhere around the triple point of water.

[@LaMarcheFutilé101]

"The only way you'll get to see an 18.1 inch gun these days is if you happen to have a submersible" Please don't give the billionaires any more ideas.

[@bgclo]

But we need to know where the Yamato is in case the Gamalons attack!

[@boobah5643]

@@bgcloWell, on the plus side, once the Gamalons do their thing you won't need the submersible.

[@Nightdare]

Hell, they can dive in beer cans for all I care

[@JoshuaTootell]

No, please, give billionaires ideas!

[@LaMarcheFutilé101]

@@JoshuaTootell Look if they wanna find ways to perish that's fine but it seems like every time they do it, the rest of us end up paying hundreds of millions of dollars to uncover the hidden truth of "they were reckless idiots who were repeatedly told not to but did anyways." And frankly, I ain't got the scratch to do that often enough to make a dent in the 1%.

[@Kevin_Kennelly]

11:15 But the fine details of battleship gun manufacture are best left to their own video. I look forward to that discussion.

[@kemarisite]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/pYOVnad-acakd68si=gY-VLOk1SURBmzqc

[@danmcdonald9117]

Great video!

[@Pinnaclebeacon634]

Great video for some reason my I saw the name and thought this was a video on the mine laying submarines of the US navy Argonaught!

[@johnsturm3128]

Hello, Drach. What progress have you made in putting together “The Battle of the River Plate”?

[@stephenrickstrew7237]

One wonders how many infantry weapons could have been made or developed in lieu of these ..

[@whazzat8015]

What do we remember? "Banzai charging" kamakazis or Musashi ? Or are sussid bomber simply good sense in the big picture, sparing lives and saving money? Not very heroic on many levels, but economics is like that.

[@robertewalt7789]

Or destroyers, or submarines, or airplanes.

[@gregorywright4918]

@@robertewalt7789The first two might be comparable, but airplanes were mostly made out of aluminum, so you can't just recycle the steel.

[@christopherconard2831]

They are an example of Generals are always fully prepared to fight the last war. They were thought up when naval warfare was assumed to be ship vs ship. Advances in aircraft and submarine warfare weren't taken into proper consideration. Not the fault of the Japanese. Every navy in the 1930's assumed large battleships would be kings of warfare on the seas. You weren't a "real navy" if you didn't have a couple these floating fortresses.

[@klade5031]

Depends if you are talking about army infantry or naval infantry. In the former case, none because the IJN hated the IJA with a passion.

[@jaredcolon4535]

With the Shinano originally going to be a Yamato class battleship but then converted to a carrier vessel making it basically I would say the "Shinano Class Carrier" wasn't that or doesn't that count as the world's first super carrier in terms of not just overall size but also the number of support crafts that she carried. I'd love to see you comparison between it and the world's first supercarriers built by the United States the Nimitz class and the class just before the Nimitz class as a intermediate degree comparison

[@charleswade2514]

Or Tommy Lee jones on ‘Under Siege’. They were shooting blanks at that.

[@sillypuppy5940]

Now that's strange, because two days ago I was thinking it was about time we had a video about the Yamato's guns

[@chrissnape9537]

200 rounds seems to be very few. I do suppose a battleship would use far less in a naval battle, compared to shore use. How many riunds was an Iowa class main gun rated for ?

[@Man_Emperor_of_Mankind]

I believe it was 300'ish during WW2, but it went up significantly later as different additives were developed for the propellant which helped to protect the bore Both the 200rnd and 300rnd figures were for full charges. Lower propellant charges were used for training and allowed more total firings

[@PeterNebelung]

If all the outer layers were heated and then shrunk round the liner, I'd really like to know how they expected to pull the worn liner. Dry ice to shrink it? Combination of heat outside and dry ice inside? It would have been a fun engineering question to figure out. Blast shielding for the AA guns is something I"ve never even considered.

[@ejhanley7362]

This video made me wonder what kind of penetration values you could get if you made a discarding sabot round from steel (I don’t see tungsten rounds being economically viable on a battleship scale) for a 16-18 inch cannon

[@iberiksoderblom]

Why is a shell constructed like it is, of several apparently solid metal parts (appart from the windshield)?

[@skyden24195]

The affect the Yamato's main guns had on anyone out on an open deck when the guns fired reminds me of the scene(s) in the 1992 film, "Under Siege," when one of the main antagonists of the film, a character by the name of "Stranix" (played by Tommy Lee Jones,) finds himself on an open deck of the Iowa-class battleship, "USS Missouri," when the ship's main guns are fired at an escaping submarine. The film depicts "Stranix" being thrown forcefully from his feet and causes extreme hearing injury/damage to the character. It is to my understanding that this type of result on personnel out on open decks of the "Missouri" when the main guns are fired is fictional, however learning that the possibility of this kind of effect is possible, dependent on the gun size and charge strength, makes me wonder if the USS Missouri's guns could have had the potential to create such a dangerous environment to persons exposed on an open deck. Any insight to this possibility or not would be appreciated; for, if nothing else, curiosity's sake.

[@bkjeong4302]

The blast wave issues are a problem with battleship guns in general.

[@demoskunk]

Ah yes, as Ryan, the curator of the Battleship New Jersey Museum, likes to call it, the "documentary" film Under Siege. The true-life events of that movie are now the stuff of legend!

[@jeromethiel4323]

Drach, did any navy experiment with sabot rounds? Seems like an obvious move, but i'm sure there is a reason it wasn't done (to my knowledge).

[@boobah5643]

Presumably because the bursting charge of a sabot would be too small for any increase in penetration. Besides, sabot rounds didn't really come into common use until after people stopped seriously designing battleships, so that could be even more of a factor.

[@dougjb7848]

2:05 looks like if I and some of my friends built a naval gun in my backyard

[@maxchia2339]

Any chance you would do a list of japanese ww2 paper ships especially focusing on them CVs? 😅

[@stephengardiner9867]

The U.S Navy were testing 18 inch guns but the carrier became the heavy hitter in naval battles. The 16 inch gun was more than enough to pound enemy positions to dust! Had the war entered into 1946 it is unlikely that the 18 inch gun would have seen use as even the cancelled Montana Class battleships still carried 16 inch main armament.

[@metaknight115]

Which Japanese heavy cruiser did USS Hoel report closing to point blank range shortly before her sinking?

[@DaystromDataConcepts]

Can anyone tell me what sort of recoil forces were involved in an 18.1 inch broadside? Would such recoil forces play any part in the ship's motion, even one as large as Yamato?

[@bkjeong4302]

No. No battleship ever had a recoil so strong or displacement so light that the recoil would move the ship.

[@Magikarp-4ever]

Imagine the amount of bullets, machinery, tanks and guns could've been made with the energy and resources shoved into the Yamato class that never even tasted much blood except making the Johnson a legend

[@SudrianTales]

Tbf, progress caught everyone off guard.

[@bkjeong4302]

You can say this about literally every WWII-era battleship class. The Yamatos just get singled out for it because double standards.

[@SudrianTales]

@bkjeong4302 That and just as she was launched, Pearl Harbor happened. Her service record also is kinda sad for a ship so powerful. Her greatest display is her sinking when her captain did a fantastic job at sailing her. Yes he failed but a lot of US ordinance missed beforehand

[@bkjeong4302]

@@SudrianTales She was actually fully completed and about to enter service by PH; she had been launched the previous year. Yamato ended up entering service right after Force Z which gave the IJN a conundrum as they realized how much they fucked up rhere.

[@SudrianTales]

@bkjeong4302 just realized I was thinking of Intrepid there. Yeah, Yamato was in a tough spot. 5 or so years earlier and she'd have done well

[@Compulsive_LARPer]

Noooo, why so short? Is the lack of primary sources THAT bad? : ( I love you btw. It is a shame (for my little ego) that you seem already taken. But my rational side is more than happy with the privilege of getting to watch the results of your historical research, with your signature, incredibly high-quality, rigorous-yet-funny style.

[@marcbhoy2811]

Japan destroyed a lot of documents

[@DeclanOReilly]

Missed the wave motion gun

[@TomFynn]

During the Falklands war, naval gun fire from the 5 inch guns proved vital. I can't help wondering what result that naval support would have had, if the RN still had operated battleships with 15 inch guns. The Battle Of The Valley Formerly Known As Mount Tumbledown?

[@GrayD1ce]

Falkland campaign would have gone differently if they had the vanguard there

[@bobo-cc1xw]

Vanguard with enough radar aa to be the target for everything

[@TomFynn]

@@bobo-cc1xw"Vanguard, you have been hit by an Exocet!" "Thank you, I hadn't noticed."

[@bluelemming5296]

The naval support would have been immensely better with a battleship. In the right circumstances naval gunfire can be enormously effective. Battleship gunnery in particular has an incredible effect on those who are subject to it - Drach's comments about the shock wave for the 18 inch guns in this video gives a clue, but if interested go find and read the comments from the US marines that were exposed to Japanese battleship gunnery one night at Guadalcanal in WW 2 ... A standard 155 mm howitzer is a ~6 inch shell, which means land based artillery seems close to ~5 inch naval artillery in capability if you limit yourself to looking at size. But that can be very misleading. A lot depends on the electronics and things like rate of fire. Position also matters - and the ability to change position quickly. For example at Omaha Beach in WW2 there was a stalemate mid-day - and a real chance they weren't going to get off the beach. The German positions were just too tough, and they had veteran troops manning them. They couldn't land artillery because the beach was covered by German guns and the artillery would never get a chance to fire. But US Destroyers could get really close to shore and fire lots of rounds from their 5.5 inch guns at the Germans at what is essentially point-blank range for naval guns - and since they were moving they were very difficult targets for land based guns. This helped break the stalemate. There were a few tanks that had made it to shore, and these helped as well - the tank guns had a tough time destroying German positions, they just weren't powerful enough in many cases, but the destroyers could see where the tanks were shooting and fire their guns at the same spots, with a much greater effect. There were studies of fast battleship gunnery done in ~2006 in Warship International when the details were finally declassified. These are based on real data on the firing range, and show astonishing accuracy against Yamato size moving targets at ridiculous ranges (and completely negating all the old myths that those guns were not accurate, myths that were probably allowed to exist as a deliberate security measure since they certainly had data to disprove the myths - you'll see people on these forums that still believe those old myths). However, we can not generalize this data to land bombardment: the most accurate gunnery at sea depended upon full salvos and the radar being able to show the splashes, if the splashes were on both sides of the target's return, then you were 'on target' and could 'fire for effect' - the late war radar in WW2 could show this (and not just the US: the British had these on some ships, they called them 'fall of shot' sets because the splashes showed where the shots landed). But all of that doesn't apply to land based targets, where a full salvo might be a waste and there won't be any splashes and naval radar probably won't show you anything of use. Hence, accuracy against land based targets depends on either LOS (line of sight) or on spotters (aka forward observers). One of the big disasters of the Normandy landings is that so many of the radios issued to the British forward observers with the airborne broke during the landings - they were too fragile for many to survive being air-dropped. Worse, in one case where the radios had survived, Allied fighters strafed the paratroopers and spotters, mistaking them for German troops - the strafing destroyed the radios that had made it through the landing, and also killed a bunch of the forward observers. This made it quite difficult for the paratroopers to complete some of their missions because they no longer had the planned ability to call down naval gunnery on their targets (details on this are probably found in "If Chaos Reigns: The Near-Disaster and Ultimate Triumph of the Allied Airborne Forces on D-Day" by Whitlock). Eventually they managed to get more spotters on shore, with new radios, and get some spotters in small planes overhead as well. Once this was done, battleship gunnery could be used again against targets not in LOS - too late to help the paratroopers but still useful to support the main invasion. For example, the battleship Warspite actually prevented a German tank attack, completely wiping out the assembly area for the attack and destroying all the tanks that were present, using indirect fire (meaning NOT line-of-sight) relying on a spotter. Similarly, for two of the landings in Italy, naval gunfire turned back the German Panzers when they got close to the beach. You may have heard the idea that the Germans might have thrown the Allies into the sea at Normandy if "somebody had only woken Hitler and gotten permission to move the tanks". That is nonsense: it had already been shown repeatedly that the German tanks could not survive in the presence of naval guns. There was another study done during the mid-Vietnam War that is relevant here: they found that 90% of the missions assigned to carrier air could have been better accomplished by battleship gunnery. The key here is that anti-air defenses had gotten really good, and were shooting down a lot of very expensive planes - but they couldn't shoot down a rain of incoming battleship shells (and there were lots of shells left over from WW2 and Korea). Not only were planes being shot done (with heavy loss of life, people that cost a lot of money to train), in some cases the carrier air couldn't complete the mission because they just couldn't get close enough without being exposed to the air defenses. But battleship gunnery with spotters was accurate enough to do the job. In a sense, it was the carriers that had become 90% obsolete (at least under those circumstances) and the battleship was once again useful. Of course, technology has since moved on and aircraft are a lot harder to hit now (think Gulf War), but there is still value in big guns in some circumstances - and they would have been useful in the Falklands.

[@pedrofelipefreitas2666]

In the korean war (and vietnam too i think) the 8-inch guns mounted on the heavy cruisers were very good for shore bombardment.