The Drydock - Episode 054B (2/3)

[@Drachinifel]

Pinned post for Q&A :)

[@MasterOfDickery]

Drachinifel is it true someone has survived escaping a sunken submarine through a escape hatch after the submarine has touched the seabed.

[@ChopperBruce]

How would the completion of the Kronstadt-Class have affected the war on the Russian front? Lets say maybe the soviets were supplied with Mk I 15”/42s from Britain, or Vickers Armstrong decided to give Stalin a 14” gun with that.

[@Ushio01]

Satsuma class cries at being ignored.

[@Maddog3060]

That trimaran hull question makes me wonder: What if, wanting a mobile (if less maneuverable) AAA platform to defend amphibious landing fleets and/or convoys, the USN strapped three old Flush-deckers together with an entirely new superstructure up top connecting them and bearing a metric buttload of dakka? Would that fall under "feasible but inefficient" or "too stupid to work"?

[@user-ol5lw3md3h]

Were there warships build by shipyards without them being ordered, resulting in some kind of store, where you could have bought a destroyer (or other warships)

[@ChopperBruce]

Could we get “would sir like a 14” gun with that?” on a t shirt please?

[@onejokeman2002]

"Alright that'll be a large hamburger, a medium fry, and a 14" gun." "No 14" gun." *opens warehouse* ".....why are their 14" guns with my order..."

[@kyle857]

Just a 14" gun on a giant silver platter.

[@scottyfox6376]

I'll take 9 × 14 inch guns with creamy Aioli dipping sauce with large fries & torpedoes.

[@Yui_187]

We need a drachnifel 14" gun merch

[@joeblow9657]

Would you like a 14" gun armament sir, Mr. Drachinifel?

[@jessy2kjames]

Sees 14" gun limit of the London treaty. Vickers sailsman *slams paper on desk* "my time has come"

[@klobiforpresident2254]

Vickers salesman: *slaps ship hull* This bad boy can fit so many 14" guns in it.

[@willrogers3793]

I really, *really* want to see that “Would Sir like a fourteen-inch gun with that?” bit turned into an actual sketch, in the vein of the old Monty Python ones. Maybe Squire would be interested?

[@alecmay2418]

Would sir want a 14 inch gun for a KZbin video

[@Kevin_Kennelly]

Drachisms of the Day (2/3): 12:34 "Well, I couldn't easily find a picture of the 'B-Bomb' for love-nor-money, sooo...HERE...have a picture of a 'Grand Slam' instead! Ah...(lowered voice) it's always good for a laugh. Anyway..for those of you who are unaware, the B-Bomb was a design of bomb, unsurprisingly enough. HaHa." 15:11 "Level bombing in, or dropping bombs from any significant height at any sort at the beginning of WW2, was NOT the world's most accurate endeavor." 18:19 "And then, at some point in WW2, they just dropped all subtlety and went with stuff like this...which was, yeah, you know, 'STUFF ACCURACY. We'll just hit the same post-code and you'll still be dead.' 20:27 "As opposed to the old black powder charges, which were: Fire guns. INSTANT smoke screen. Everyone might as well sit down and have a cup of tea because nobody can see what-the-heck is on either side of that cloud of smoke for a good five or six minutes." 27:19 "Imagine some kind of weird trimaran-IOWA maybe if they just..MAYBE IF THEY LITERALLY just took some industrial girders and strapped a couple of ATLANTAs to each side." 28:41 "In some ways, eh...BOTH of the answers actually are potentially answers to BOTH of the questions, in that aspect." 31:58 "Well if you want to break the Naval Treaty, you are effectively shooting your own economy in the head. Soo..have fun with that. (continue listening until) It was a simpler time back then." 33:28 "Everyone was horribly 'rules lawyering' the Washington Naval Treaty." 46:04 "DON'T PUT YOUR MAIN MAST RIGHT BEHIND THE FUNNEL. Stupid people. Anyway." 53:08 "Their ball-and-chain effect on the rest of the fleet is less." (I googled 'b bomb', 'bee bomb', etc. No luck. Your assistance is appreciated.)

[@CharlesStearman]

I've not heard of the 'b bomb' under that name - I have read of a weapon based on the same principal being tried against the Tirpitz without success, but I forget what name was given to it. The British also designed an 'anti capital ship' bomb which was intended to be dropped directly on the target ship and used the 'explosively formed penetrator' (a.k.a. 'self forging fragment') effect to blast a heavy steel disk through the armoured deck.

[@andrewharrison7811]

Search for "Bomb Buoyant Mk IV" there are at least two blog posts featuring an image and diagram of the 250 ib version of the bomb.

[@Kevin_Kennelly]

@@andrewharrison7811 Thanks Charles & Andrew. I do not want to spread dis-info.

[@ChapBloke]

Maybe King hated the British because they kept trying to sell him a 14” gun...

[@admiraltiberius1989]

Goes to the bathroom after a lengthy meeting with other British admirals, just sitting down to handle business when I look down and I see a pamphlet slide across the floor from a neighboring stall, I pick it up and hear "Would sir like to purchase some 14inch guns" GAAAHHH NO NO NO SOD OFF AND SELL THEM TO SOMEONE ELSE 😂😂 ....all of those visuals are hilarious. Amazing video as usual Drach, 2 hours of DryDock down and 1 to go. I need more tea stat.

[@theleva7]

Turns around to see if anyone else is in the room, sees "Would sir want a 14" gun for anything at all?" written on the wall.

[@wilsonj4705]

Then when done with your business you come to discover that the pamphlet has been printed on the roll of toilet paper.

[@ebr8]

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." It's from Animal Farm, not 1984 (still Orwell though). Great video nonetheless

[@WildBillCox13]

"Four legs good! Eight legs better!" Octopus lobby.

[@wilsonj4705]

Almost simultaneously with you mentioning black powder an e-mail pops in from MidwayUSA about a sale on black powder.

[@klobiforpresident2254]

Can't wait for Drach to mention lightly used battleships for sale. (the ebay ones don't count.)

[@BornRandy62]

black powder went off with a BANG. a sudden explosion. You mentioned it in your last drydock, large naval guns use a powder that burns and pushes the shell from the barrel with a whoosh. large shells react badly when there is a huge shock load

[@josynaemikohler6572]

Can't believe Radetzky class and Satsuma class were left out. :P Although, Satsuma wouldn't be fair. It is a Dreadnought hull, where they placed different guns on the side. And it is just around 3-5000 tons heavier. Which is kind of significant, if we look at 13000-16000 ton ships. Kind of similiar to Danton.

[@RedXlV]

In addition to that, Satsuma's sister ship Aki had turbines and a 20 knot top speed.

[@blogsblogs2348]

Forgetting the Lord nelsons full height bulkheads.... they were incredibly resilient... Italian upgrades... impressive in style. .. makes you miss those 5 Iron Dukes

[@scottdrone-silvers5179]

I am somehow imagining a scene in a Savile row tailoring shop, with the tailor asking “and on which side does Sir wear his 14 inch gun?”

[@Metal_Auditor]

But if you don't put the mainmast behind the funnel, where's the captain to hang his kippers for smoking?

[@johnfisher9692]

And here we are for round two of the marathon I've read that prior to the Washington Treaty the Japanese were spending as much as 40% of their GDP on the Navy alone, so the Treaty saved the country from bankruptcy although they don't like to admit that. And for abiding by the Treaty's, basically the Japanese never did. All the cruisers built under the treaty were grossly over the announced displacement as well as over the 10K limit for CA's. The carriers were also over the agreed limits and the Japanese just lied. In building the Dreadnought Jackie Fisher said "It was better for the RN to take the lead rather than play catch up" The US ships were NOT laid down before HMS Dreadnought. Both being laid down in December 1906 while Dreadnought was laid down in October 1905 and completed in December 1906 I agree the Danton's were the best of the last Pre-Dreadnoughts but they were built years after the others. The sailors of the HSF didn't think much of their Pre-DN's as main battle line units dubbing them the five minute ships. The enemy would spend four minutes laughing at them and one minute to sink them

[@jameshope7933]

Depending on the importance one puts on the turbine vs triple expansion engines you could make a case that South Carolina wasn't Quite a Dreadnought,but sort of a super duper predreadnought.Besides,if the US ship had been laid down, launched and completed first,we would still call them all Dreadnought because it just sounds so cool.

[@Digmen1]

Did Vickers get the contract for the 14inch guns for the KGV's?

[@Drachinifel]

Different model of 14" :D

[@kendramalm8811]

"I do not like them with a goat, I do not like them on a boat. I do not like the 14 inch, I do not like them Vickers, cinch!" (with apologies to Dr. Suess)

[@hart-of-gold]

27:25 Did Drachinifel just design a 60,000 ton anti-aircraft monster?

[@ChopperBruce]

Why yes, yes he did. Hopefully someone will decide it could be fun to kitbash that monstrosity.

[@Vespuchian]

@@ChopperBruce I'm sure someone's done it somewhere. I've seen trimaran cruisers with destroyers for secondary hulls and most impressively, a pair of cruisers used to create a catamaran aircraft carrier.

[@rlosable]

Would you like a 14" gun on that?

[@lilhuish9733]

@@rlosable yes please

[@hartofgold2992]

@@rlosable For the humpteenth time Vickers No.

[@Tuning3434]

HERE WE GO, still running circles around (most) of the competition!

[@mattblom3990]

I've had KZbin Premium forever and its never promoted to me a Drachinifel clone.

[@sergarlantyrell7847]

Vickers: "Would sir like a 14" gun on his roof?" Me: ... Yes. Yes, one would. In fact, one would like 2, one for the house, one for the car too.

[@Halinspark]

"Would Sir like a 14" gun on his roof?" You know...

[@Cbabilon675]

Two-part question. First part, what was the typical caliber of a a for the Italians and the Germans respectively. Second part, from what I've understood the German light Cruiser cologne was the first to successfully launch a VTOL craft. What was the craft, and was this actually a success? Thank you in advance.

[@WulfCorbett]

I'm new to the channel, and most of what I know of warships comes from what I've watched so far (usually while cleaning up 3d prints for the wargame Cruel Seas...), so I'm not sure if I'm allowed to ask a question here, but... You've mentioned numerous warships being sunk & refloated (usually while in harbour, admittedly). How? With WWII technology, is it a matter of divers closing off submerged watertight doors, then pumping out water & hoping the hull retained enough structural integrity despite the holes, or did they have some way to actually seal up the holes underwater? Fascinating stuff...

[@WulfCorbett]

Subsidiary question - I believe both the Scharnhorst & Gneisnau were amongst the refloated, which reminds me that the Gneisnau's turrets, I have read, were used as coastal defences. I've never thought about it before, but how did they move those massive turrets, or did they assemble them within the shipyards? The Gneisnau's turrets were to be used on the Ratte supertank, ludicrous Nazi pipe dream, so I've seen it in scale with other vehicles. How the hell do you move one of those?

[@klobiforpresident2254]

I cannot answer your questions, alas, other than a guess for moving turrets between ships and something else: I would assume it is a case of transport using railway nearly exclusively, with heavy lift cranes being used to move them between cars and the destination. Or perhaps for smaller turrets they employed specialised vehicles when convenient, I know of at least one vehicle designed for carrying heavy loads (essentially just a pair of tracks with an engine in the middle, looks a lot like a bridge laying tank). For a bit of trivia, it has happened that nations bought ships from foreign yards and had to disarm said ships under a treaty, only that this was impossible because no cranes of the necessary size existed anywhere in the nation. Lastly, the reason I actually bothered to comment: Of course any new viewers are welcome to comment and ask questions, especially if they're interesting like yours. Drach himself once stated that his videos are, or at least were then, more geared towards entry level content (specifically it was in response to a question about triple turrets vs three gun turrets and why Drach doesn't seem to differentiate; the TL;DR is that Drach doesn't want to confuse beginners with this technical detail, since the main difference is that triple turrets move all guns together, whereas three gun turrets can flip off the enemy by raising only the middle gun).

[@WulfCorbett]

@@klobiforpresident2254 Thanks for the answer. I assumed I was allowed to ask questions, I just wasn't sure I should ask on a Drydock video. The other questions answered were asked on other specific videos... p.s. maybe that's why the Ratte had the middle gun removed, so it couldn't be rude...

[@mysss29]

One of the oldest modern forms of welding, with oxy-acetylene, is I believe WWI, and definitely WWII technology, so perhaps that's how. Before that? I'm curious about that as well. You can't exactly nail new timbers in place over a hole in an iron hull...although nailing underwater is also probably impossible, come to think of it. Maybe in the wooden era the buoyancy of the whole ship was exploited by removing everything heavy? You may want to repost this as a comment on the Q&A post.

[@gonatas1]

Drach: your discussion of Smokeless powder focussed on the visibility aspect exclusively. I am thinking you failed to comment at all how and when “high explosive” propellant and bursting charges were introduced on the naval side.

[@dezeekat]

Indeed he just talked about smoke.. but nothing on other changes

[@20chocsaday]

@@dezeekat There are indeed some changes. The block of propellant has to be tuned to the gun and the shell for maximum effect. Almost like a solid rocket is made to be reproduced. It doesn't all burn at once. You may have heard The Chieftain's crack about Britain being unable to make its own tank shells. I don't think it was the projectile he was referring to.

[@AdamMGTF]

I'll keep bugging you for a WW2 collaboration you know.... It worked when I commented on all the ww2 Channel videos to ask for a collaboration with you 🤣 I'm sure I'm not the only one who'd love to see this... Also. Please don't work yourself to death.... We want to see years of sustainable Drach'! Don't ware your machinery out...

[@punky0515]

Yes I would like a fourteen inch gun. Does that come with fries?

[@randomguy-tg7ok]

So the B-bomb was basically a targeted airdropped mine?

[@Vespuchian]

I'm faintly disappointed it wasn't a bomb that dispensed bees.

[@rlosable]

except that it needs to hit at the right angle, at the right speed, pretty much dead center. A mine only needs to hit the side at some point or get close enough if it is magnetically detonated... its more like the bastard child of a torpedo and a mine, with all the drawbacks of both, with the advantages of neither and a vulnerable and difficult delivery system. Wonder why it never caught on

[@klobiforpresident2254]

@@Vespuchian "Not the bees!" - Kapitän zur See Lindemann, I'd imagine.

[@karlvongazenberg8398]

47:27 What about Radetzky's?

[@alexhogarth184]

I thought the front mast (main mast behind funnel on dreadnought) was classed as the foremast the main mast being the smaller mast aft

[@johnbeyrau7611]

you asked about places in the US w/ ships to visit in a previous drydock. two places that I have visiteda re the U505 at the chicago museum of science and industry ( this was when I was a child). and the Newport News Mariners Museum (Uss Monitor is there). The Mariner's Museum also has a very nice collection of hand built wooden ship models. The latter is only a few miles from the USS Wisconsin in Norfolk VA. The Wisconsin is open for tours. Also the Chesapeake bay Wildlife Refuge, just across the bridge from Norfolk has a couple of 16 inch gun barrels on display- There was a Battery placed at the Bay entrance during WW2.

[@ironstarofmordian7098]

Another excellent Drachism: "Would sir like a Fourteen inch gun with that flower pot!?"

[@jamespfp]

38:27 -- "... The French Fleet, a lot of the French knew they were fighting *THE INEVITABLE* ... " -- There she is! HMS Inevitable! #CalledIt

[@alan6832]

I feel that anything that can keep up with the battle fleet can contribute something to it, if only additional, diversionary targets to draw fire away from the modern elements. That's in addition to the fact that anything with the range has some chance of doing some damage to the enemy, so you might as well throw the kitchen sink at them. So If no pre-dreadnoughts could keep up, then the next thing to consider is cruisers, then destroyers (enough range includes torpedoes). Slow ships might also be useful even arriving late, such as during the night after Jutland, finishing off damaged ships, including Rodney vs Bismark. I can also see 2 ways of reducing confusion between primary and secondary splashes. One is target different ships with different batteries, and the other is during ranging practice, in advance, calculate what angles one needs to get all the batteries to hit at the same range. then once you have this data, it shouldn't matter which shell fell short. If any shell falls short, you raise all your guns according to the ranging tables you compiled in advance. Because you know that you have already elevated all of your various batteries to fall at the same range, so that if any shell falls short, then you know that they all will. Variable windage might throw this off, but not by much.

[@jamesfisher4326]

Two additional possible disadvantages to a trimaran battleship. The snappy roll characteristics of a multi hull ship would complicate fire control. The enlarged deck area would also require an increased weight in deck armor.

[@VersusARCH]

1:02:23 5 of them did not do much more than a single US destroyer just did just minutes before (sinking a Fuso-class battleship).

[@davefinfrock3324]

This is one of those things only apparent in hindsight--and finding the wrecks so one knows what actually did happen. The situation wasn't anything like clear to the US and the response was all hands on deck and everything that could go downrange did go downrange (aside from MacArthur on USS Nashville). The ammunition situation wasn't good (lowish in general and very little AP), so everyone was needed--at least in theory. Of course, it turned into a maritime serial execution, but no one could have predicted that going in.

[@wcweathe]

In the post dreadnought era.. for ships which has that main armorment that could be point at itself (C other mid ship) were there any safeties to avoid shooting their own ship if no were their any accidents?

[@CountArtha]

19:47 The reason smokeless powder is "smokeless" is because it's a much more energetic propellant with more complete combustion than black powder (that's what smoke is, after all - it's fuel that didn't burn inside the barrel). Because you have a more efficient chemical reaction that releases more energy in a shorter amount of time, the chamber pressure is so much higher that it more or less _doubles_ the velocity of your guns. So the rate of fire increase was a plus, but the _biggest_ advantage of smokeless powder was its high velocity, bringing longer ranges (including point-blank range, the range where the gun hits where you're aiming with no need to elevate) and better penetration. It's not a coincidence that pointy bullets became a thing right around the time smokeless powder was being adopted - it was the first time they could take advantage of a fast, aerodynamic projectile that flies straight as opposed to a round-nosed shot whose energy comes mostly from its mass.

[@alan6832]

On trimarans, you got protection. The pontoons would be excellent at prematurely detonating stuff as you said, and they would very rarely have to be ditched, since one could flood and the weight of the other would prevent capsize, even more so if the other one was counterflooded, but even if not; so the only reason I can see for disconnecting a pontoon would be drag, or perhaps explosion risk if the pontoons contained magazines, detachable pontoons would also make great lifeboats, but I would not expect pontoons to be detachable. The Battle of Mobile Bay involved Jerry rigged catamarans for some of these reasons. Another huge benefit of trimarans is speed with less power and thus needing less space for engines. Such designs would solve the stability issues common in treaty era upgrades, even with a pontoon flooded. So I think they are an excellent idea that just was neglected after Farragut. Trimaran battleships could even potentially survive with all but one pontoon flooded. Such ships would be on their sides and nonfuntional, but unless scuttled, the crew could sit on the side of the floating pontoon until rescue and the whole ship could be towed in for repairs; so what's not to love? Turret barbettes were rarely full width anyway, and it certainly would be worthwhile to go to twin turrets if that were necessary, and double superfiring twins at each end makes a 12 gun broadside. I think it just wasn't invented, after all, many new ferries are multihull, but almost none in the day.

[@tracyjordan5679]

Your discussion of Tri-hull littoral ship reminds of recent discussion of French pre-dreadnoughts.. I.e. I suspect if tri- hull ever incurs battle damage which compromised buoyancy of an outright hull, I wonder if stability of remaining structure would be compromised?

[@RedXlV]

You could probably flood the other side's pontoon to equalize the buoyancy.

[@jamespfp]

35:50 -- *AND* this is partly due to the nature of "Work" for the average sailor, which might mean a brig goes from a merchant trader to a warship. In the periods of peace that interspersed the age of sail, the various nations of the world supplied men to a common pool of labor which was not prevented from accessing the relative benefits of this or that world market, due to the *Various* flags the ships regularly flew under. In wartime, once the fighting is done, the enemies in the water are far less threatening and indeed, might present an eager new replacement that doesn't need any further press ganging.

[@fred6319]

you put the crew in the space you gain by bridging the the pontoons and the main hul and building a superstructure on that have a good look at that picture you show off that trimaran that ship has a lot more internal space than a monohull with the same displacement it is a lot more stable(roll) than a monohull the pontoon can be used to store fuel ore even have a small engine room

[@garynew9637]

Have a set of postcards depicting the salvage of mini subs from Sydney harbour

[@Halinspark]

Considering you would need extra altitude for the buoyant bomb idea, surely you could compensate with a larger bomber? Set a timed fuse to limit reliance on a good hit setting off the weapon, drop a bunch of them in an area in front of a ship, and just shotgun it under the waterline. Sounds like it would work in an event like the Channel Dash or hunting the Yamato, Bismarck, Tirpitz, Musashi, etc. where you know you're going for something big.

[@linnharamis1496]

Hour two of three? When the hell do you sleep?😀 Anyway, Thank you, as always, for A fascinating discussion of naval - military technology.

[@howlerofthegrey9368]

Drach's videos goes into overdrive.

[@frednone]

Dang, when I saw B-Bomb I was hoping we were going to get your take on the bat-bomb.

[@Ekergaard]

Ok, Trafalgar and the memory of it, there’s an episode of Mock the week there Hugh Dennis claims that when Tour de France started in London, the French reporters all got quiet when the riders passed Nelson's column. If they wanted to be nationalistic over a 200 year old thing, they could have said something about the quality of their sharpshooters ... Or I'm I just being silly?

[@andrewcox4386]

The Dantons win!!?? What have you done with Drachinifel 😱

[@WildBillCox13]

Seems it might be simpler and more effective to drop magnetic mines in the path of an oncoming battlegroup or convoy. Your plane doesn't need to approach too close . . . remember--a lot of USN and allied planes were shot down by the "crappiest AA gun ever" before the introduction of better wave tactics. The free floating minefields so formed would present a lingering danger to all subsequent traffic, of course, but that sort of thinking wasn't much in anyone's minds at the time. I think the US Navy put it best when one iof its wags observed: "What's mined is yours and what's your is mined." I'll let myself out through the SMA mine shafts just aft of the conning tower of my Typ VIID.

[@WildBillCox13]

Consider Admiral King . . . His reactions seem easy to interpret from my perspective. My spin? He caught the clap from a whore . . . in England. That made him mad in general and mad at England-- and the English (especially if his wife was the recipient of this cross the pond gift)-- in specific. Everything sucks to a guy with the clap . . . but, to Ernest J King the British would suck worse. Totally unsupported by any histories I am familiar with . . . but . . .

[@Arthion]

Speaking of the 14" gun, were there any other nations that bought it other than the aforementioned Japanese and Imperial Russia for their Borodino-class battlecruisers?

[@RedXlV]

Chile for Almirante Latorre.

[@Alex-cw3rz]

Very petty but 56:34 you mean Animal Farm, not 1984. But seen as this is almost 3 hours of content and it is an unrelated quote, as the only thing that seems to be wrong, fantastic work.

[@davemacnicol8404]

In regards to the B-bombs. The concept sounds right but your assessment is also accurate. The solution I think is like hedgehog with projectiles with those characteristics the B-bombs uses. This increases the chances of hit and maybe lighten the charge to make it viable and the underside explosion would make up for the smaller charge? Also proximity fuses or magnetic for depth charges seems like a no-brainer. Just let them sink until they pop. Is there a significant barrier to this method? Is it the medium? Then magnetic it is. What were the effective ranges of the gauss mine the Germans had? Far enough to make depth charges better? Also what IS the range at which you can damage a sub from DC or HH?

[@davemacnicol8404]

^^these inquiries are for anyone brave enough to answer. Lol I know Drach has a lot on his plate 🍽️

[@Wolfeson28]

Interesting that you only considered battleships/battlecruisers for the question of "most successful major rebuild". Considering that aircraft carriers also fall under the capital ship category, my most likely candidate would be Akagi. Akagi went into her 1935-1938 refit essentially useless for active service with her obsolete triple-flight-deck configuration, and came out of it a fully modern warship. The ships you mentioned did all see substantial improvements from their refits, but even afterward all of them were still clearly less capable than more modern vessels of their types. Whereas Akagi post-refit was a first-rate aircraft carrier that easily matched the capabilities of anything else launched prior to her sinking.

[@sos_legio_primus]

1X 3ish hour Q&A or 3x Q&A's = 3ish hours Whatever; it is still 3ish hours of Drach talking about something he loves. and we are all lucky that; that is warships and not say knitting or gardening/horticulture, although with that voice; meh I'd suffer through whatever the topic. So 3ish hours is still 3ish hours, so we all win. And maybe Drach also if KZbin has not demonetized him again.

[@klobiforpresident2254]

I would listen to three hours of Drach knitting an IJN Most Honourable Combat sweater.

[@sos_legio_primus]

@@klobiforpresident2254 LoL

[@artificernathaniel3287]

"Trimarine hull would be used to increase deck space" So what your saying is that it's perfect for the Americans so they can proceed to do what they do best, add more AA guns to try to make each ship like the USS Texas. So take the Atlanta and weld a Clemson or a Fletcher to each side.

[@artificernathaniel3287]

Ah I see you had the same thought, but bigger.

[@Iris421989]

Intro music on point!

[@thomaslinton1001]

King certainly didn't like the U.S. Army.

[@ScholRLea]

I notice you didn't mention the _Regina Elena_ , _Andrei Pervozvanny_ , and _Radetzky_ classes in your discussion of later pre-dreadnoughts ( *much* later, in the Austro-Hungarian case). This was rather tactful of you. As for Adm. King, he was of the temperment that if a British naval officer told him the sun rises in the East, he'd issue a fleet order saying that East was now defined as the direction 45 degrees from sunset...

[@alan6832]

It's not clear to me that treaties saved much money, since older ships were scrapped and replaced far sooner under the treaties than they would have been without the treaties. The treaties should have contained age handicaps or budgetary limits to reduce accelerated replacement, but they did not have enough, so they did more to cause scrapping and replacement than they did to save money or produce peace dividends.

[@rorixdragonblade8480]

3:30 all sounds like great places for a 14” gun

[@JohnThomas-gy6lq]

Very informative!

[@thepolishnz]

could we imagine a world where they are called north Carolina's and not dreadnoughts?

[@MaxwellAerialPhotography]

I do not like green eggs and ham, i would not like a 14” gun, i do not like them Sam i am.

[@michaelkaylor6770]

In reference to best capital ship updater/refit, I would have to say the Iowa class, I mean they fired tomahawks and still plastered 16 inch shells on the poor Iraqi conscripts! WWII on/off to Desert Storm?

[@bkjeong4302]

Michael Kaylor Except they were horribly cost-inefficient at shore bombardment compared to alternatives, even in WWII.

[@Islander0711]

Yea, more videos.

[@rlosable]

to be fair to Admiral King: Armies and Navies learn more from their enemies thant their allies. Seens to be a rule of warfare: Look at the Brits at the Somme when the French told them their plans where crap. Look at the US Army in 1917 and 1942, telling the Brits: If you know so damn well how to fight the Germans, then why have you been loosing so far? The US Army Airforce telling Bomber Command that the German AA fire can't be THAT bad, etc. etc.

[@Yui_187]

If lindybeige is selling the lindybeige tank then drach should sell the drachnifel 14" gun

[@alan6832]

It sounds easier to just drop mines, or torpedoes set to circle, in front of enemy fleets.

[@CSSVirginia]

Why yes, I would like a 14in rifle. Yes, I do live in the USA, and yes I am an NRA member. How did you guess?

[@theleva7]

If only to shoot it once a year on 4th of July. Or for personal Project HARP.

[@CSSVirginia]

@@theleva7 Gotta keep the ground hogs away from the garden.

[@theleva7]

@@CSSVirginia Can't stop imaginig a 1960s style commercial. "Having trouble with stopping ground hogs pouring reinforced concrete bunkers in your backyard? Have I got a solution for you! This 16"/50 naval rifle will do a quick work of any fortified rodent burrow with just one AP shell. As a bonus, it will leave a nice hole in the ground, suitable for a pool or a nuclear shelter!"

[@cvproj]

Tryin' to figure out how to mount one of those on a '93 Saturn SL1...

[@punky0515]

Lmao

[@bull614]

Would love to see someone who is good with CGI build the Iowa/Atlanta trimaran! Lol

[@murderouskitten2577]

13:50 I am not impressed with mk 48 adcap.... Nuke would have done better :D

[@joearnold6881]

1984 had no talking animals. I believe the book you quoted is the anti-Stalinist one by perhaps the *coolest* early socialist, the epitome of antifa himself, George Orwell! Which allegorical novel is: Animal Farm /pedant

[@verticallogic5909]

King was of Irish heritage. Probably the main reason for his dislike of the British.......

[@tjb0502]

Yes, I would LOVE a 14" gun on my roof.

[@klobiforpresident2254]

03:29 Yes, Sir, I would appreciate an 14" gun in my bed. I'm sorry, this was my inner 14 -year old- inch gun coming out.

[@mobilechief]

I want a 14" gun

[@billthecat2410]

That's great, and you know I'd really love to have a 14" gun on my roof because I keep getting religious people showing up trying to convert me into one of the many religions that crop up now and then. Wouldn't that been a hoot... The racoons are also a bit of a problem and I need to protect my cat so one of those guns would be just super......LOL..

[@lunatickoala]

Jackie Fisher was absolutely correct in not only building Dreadnought when he did, but pulling out all the stops to ensure that it would be the first to hit the water. Imagine if Dreadnought hadn't been first but instead was a few years late to the table. People probably wouldn't be calling all-big-gun turbine-driven battleships "dreadnoughts" if it's late to the party, and neither "Satsuma" nor "South Carolina" are names that are particularly suited to a generic name for a type of ship. And if "dreadnoughts" were instead simply called "second generation battleships" or "big-gun battleships", what would lazy sci-fi writers call big, mean, and powerful ships? It's pretty rare for a ship to be both revolutionary and have a name so appropriate that the name gets adopted for ships of that type. If either Gloire or HMS Warrior had had a name that was on the caliber of HMS Dreadnought, ironclads might have gone by a different term ("HMS Ironsides" might have worked had "Old Ironsides" not already been taken as a nickname). Strategically, the US considered the Solomons more important than the Japanese did. The main Japanese presence in the South Pacific was on Truk, and they did have some presence on Rabaul to the northwest of the Solomons but the Solomons were quite a ways away from Japan as well as the oil fields of the Netherlands East Indies and was pretty much on the outer edge of their logistical capabilities. As such, the ships stationed at Rabaul would have been older ships like Tenryū and the Aoba/Furutaka classes. And while the US did consider the Solomons more important than the Japanese did as holding it meant controlling the sea routes to Australia, in mid-1942 the USN wasn't in a position to really fight any heavy engagements and Guadalcanal was a bit of an opportunistic take precisely because it wasn't very heavily defended. I'm guessing that the disaster in the Battle of Savo Island wasn't something anyone in the USN believed could happen even in the worst case scenario because the IJN ships involved weren't exactly the latest and greatest. So the Solomons campaign ended up as sort of a meeting engagement that escalated to a level of fighting that was far heavier than either side had anticipated. Had the IJN realized that it might very well have been the decisive battle they'd been looking for (and if they'd been a bit more attuned to the IJA's overly optimistic assessment of their situation), they probably would have committed more heavy ships and earlier rather than the somewhat piecemeal attacks they did send. The USN in many ways acted similarly. South Dakota and Washington for example were only sent into the Slot because by the time of the Second Naval Battle of Guadalcanal, there wasn't anything bigger than a destroyer left to send in.

[@RedXlV]

Gloire ("glory") and Warrior are both *excellent* names for warships, so I'm not sure what you're talking about on that point. But the fact is, "ironclad" is a single word that perfectly encapsulates what made the new type of ships revolutionary. As such, it was inevitable that this is what such ships would be called. I suspect that if Dreadnought hadn't been the first of her kind, we would've just ended up calling them "super-battleships" or something along those lines. Also, had Britain held off, the USS Michigan would've been the first, since she was completed 2 months ahead of South Carolina. (And one day ahead of Minas Geraes, but would that ship even have existed had HMS Dreadnought not already entered service to such great fanfare? Nassau would've also come later than in reality, because she was only even designed in response to the launch of Dreadnought.)

[@lunatickoala]

@@RedXlV Warrior and Glory are both great names for *a* warship, but not necessarily a *type* of warship. A coastal monitor monitors a coastline. A dreadnought is the biggest most powerful thing on the seas and fears nothing. What does a glory do? A warrior fights but that could apply to any warship.

[@MS-gr2nv]

As an American i can tell you we generally like the English, But we never forget our war of independence and war of 1812 and why they were fought...I bet King hated Churchill...i know i do...