The Drydock - Episode 218

[@Drachinifel]

Pinned post for Q&A :)

[@hughgordon6435]

Drach, sir, on several occasions you have made reference to Shell hits tending to migrate to the forward superstructure on ships? Is this a product of aiming? The middle gun of a salvo? Or something else?

[@marcusfranconium3392]

Kongos a camoflage in words. Calling light cruisers flottila leaders , calling aircraft carriers through deck cruisers . Destoryers frigates etc etc. In the naval treaties it makes sence as a battle cruiser is not a battle ship . also clasifactations change over time .

[@hughgordon6435]

When was the last year the kreigsmarine could of cancelled all other ship construction and could have concentrated on U boats to get the numbers they "needed" according to doctrine?

[@robertillston2350]

Q&A You have talked about battleships being used for shore bombardment, Texas's sniper dual on D-Day comes to mind, which battleships had the best fire control systems for shore bombardment and would you say was the most impressive AND effective shore bombardments during the range you talk about.

[@marcusfranconium3392]

@@hughgordon6435 that would depend on when the germans actualy wanted to start the war and that was 1944 . if they wanted to build the number of U-boats they needed they should have started as soon the anglo gemant naval agreement of 1935 was anounced . on average it takes 2 years to build a submarine . and to have the numbers in 1939 they would have needed more shipyards then they had , they might have looked at the dutch to build u-boats for them as they where already cooperating and the Type IIA ,IIB and prototypes of the Type VII where designed and build by the dutch IVS/Inkavos company . Calculating , ships that are needed in permanent numbers at sea ,you need multiply the number by 3 . 1 on patrol 2 in transit /repair /refit 3 in reserve to replace losses and cover refit . and then you need a constant stream of replacements.

[@dyerwulf5459]

Any Drydock with an HMS Thunderchild reference is going to be a good one.

[@michaelk19thcfan10]

Still hoping for a Drach special episode analyzing the Edwardian Royal Navy taking on Martian Tripods from the BBC adaptation of "War of the Worlds".

[@andrewbarker6230]

Unless your Martian

[@hughgordon6435]

Ferrets running loose and drach to listen to? Heaven is a Sunday with Drach!

[@seanmccann8368]

11:10 - What a fine upstanding young man on his graduation day. Noble and purposeful.....

[@nanamikamiya6500]

46:58 Drach, you had me going down a rabbit hole in my trusty Japanese and kanji dictionaries. I was able to find out that “battleship” is translated as either “senkan” or “sentookan”, while “cruiser” is translated as “jun’yookan”. My kanji dictionary does NOT have a translation for “battlecruiser”. Google translate gives a translation of “jun’yoosenkan”, which is the word for “cruiser” with the kanji for “battle” (“sen”) written in the middle of the word. My GUESS (I am not a native speaker, so take this with a grain of salt) is that most Japanese documents of the WWII era would have used one of the two words for “battleship” and that the difference in the translated documents would have been due to the translator.

[@Drachinifel]

jun'yōsenkan was the designation, officially it was disposed of at the start of the 1930s, bit it crops up in accounts and a few documents thereafter. It was aslo resurrected during ww2 for new ships

[@crichtonbruce4329]

I would dearly love for you to apply your brilliance to a deep look at Admiral Chester Nimitz, but focusing solely on WW2. There are so many outstanding things he did to bring the USA from near defeat to overwhelming victory I think it would be well worth 1 (or 2 or 3) long posts.

[@fabianzimmermann5495]

As someone who speaks German, yeah, the Linienschiff/ship of the line is rather amusing. It's essentially every major warship from the ship of the line with sails era like HMS Victory, up to and including the pre-dreadnoughts like SMS Schleswig-Holstein. That means ironclads are also some kind of ship of the line, though they do also have their separate classification. So central battery ironclads, turreted ironclads and all other types of ironclads are also ships of the line. When we get to the pre-dreadnoughts, those are called "Einheitslinienschiffe" which I guess more or less means "unit ship of the line" or something like that if you translate it literally.

[@toddwebb7521]

While Linienschiff (equivalent of Ship of the line in English)is somewhat archaic it's still the name of the big bad ship of it's era so I don't feel like it would be that weird if the English speaking navies of the day had stuck with the name ship of the line after ships went to metal instead of coming up with battleship. Especially considering they still largely fought in line of battle till the Washington treaty cut fleet sizes down.

[@535phobos]

And even the Dreadnoughts were still "Großlinienschiffe" (Big Ships of the Line (?)). Officially, at least. The first german Battleship that was called "Schlachtschiff" was Scharnhorst. Even Bayern was still a ship of the line

[@fabianzimmermann5495]

@@535phobos Right, I forgot about that.

[@gokbay3057]

@@535phobos Great is probably more fitting than Big but yeah, big is right (maybe Large? Großkreuzer was another Imperial German terminology and one can see it as analogous to US Large Cruiser).

[@toddwebb7521]

@@gokbay3057 yes as you pointed out Groß can also be"great " in addition to being large. I'm not sure which one was intended when they decided on it.

[@DirtyHairy1]

Ahhh Baby Drach is soo cute! Not knowing that even with an engineering degree he's gonna end up as a historian.

[@dougjb7848]

Methinks he was gonna end up a historian regardless.

[@GrahamWKidd]

Ah, Saturday night. An excellent 5 minute guide, and now a Drydock. Heaven!

[@mtgAzim]

11:52 Oh don't be so modest Drach. You're a very handsome boy. 😌

[@robertillston2350]

Q&A You have talked about battleships being used for shore bombardment, Texas's sniper dual on D-Day comes to mind, which battleships had the best fire control systems for shore bombardment and what would you say was the most impressive AND effective shore bombardments during the era you talk about?

[@EFFEZE]

Wouldn't it be exactly the same as which ones were best at sea? I'd say whichever one had the best optics and precise and accurate aiming mechanisms

[@MrNicoJac]

Is there a question here? Punctuation saves lives 😂

[@daguard411]

Normally I trouble you with questions, but this time I wish to offer a bit of information. In muzzle loading cannon the steps for reloading is to swab the barrel with the wet end of the rammer to make sure all of the embers are extinguished and clear a bit of the black powder residue. The man who rammed would retract the rammer, shake it or knock the wet end in the hopes of shaking free the black powder clutter and any surviving embers and after the powder and projectile(s) were fed he would ram the dry end into the barrel to finish the loading. If there was ever a worry about double loading, the rammer would return the ram to the boar and the they knew from the length of ram still exposed if the device needed loading. If I may add, there were a few transition technologies between muzzle loading and breech loading cannon. The most notable, or for me the easiest to remember, is the "Beer Mug" type of cannon. These devices were made with a "loading slot" in the cannon tube where a "beer mug" round of powder and shot was inserted and fired. As quickly as that "beer mug" could be traded out, it could fire again.

[@georgesoros6415]

You know, Drach, you really should do voice-over work. Your mellifluous voice, great vocabulary and smooth, actually gorgeous, delivery of the spoken word could make you a very rich man. I watch tons of sites and your delivery is now as good as the ones that use professional announcers and way better than 95% of those. I know I criticized you way back when. However you did it, you are now, I think, one of the finest announcers on the internet. Or anywhere. You should look into it. You have a gigantic body of work to show off. I should think you could get hooked up very easily. Get an agent.

[@stevevalley7835]

Drac, I'm up for a deep dive in the design and construction of the Hoods. Conventional wisdom says the Admirals were conceived as a counter to the Mackensens, but all but Hood herself were suspended, before the UK knew the Mackensens were suspended. My suspicion is they pressed on with Hood herself, so that she, combined with the Renowns, made up the losses from Jutland, which offers an interesting alternative if Resistance had been reordered as a third Renown, rather than Fisher diverting into the Courageouses.

[@samoilenko3887]

Just if someone wonders, in russian language battleship is still called „ship of the line” (линкор/linkor, which comes from *лин*ейный *кор*абль/*lin*eynyy *kor*abl’) hovewer a little bit shortened. It is a term for the real ships of the line aka Man’o’Wars and strangely for the dreadnoughts and postdreadnoughts up to the latest battleships. The name „ironclad” is basically the same as the armadillo species, but literally it means „armor carrier” (броненосец/bronienosietc) and it also reffers to any ship before the dreadnought, so at the Tsushima ships are still named the ironclads. In ukrainian even 1910+ battleships sometimes named ironclads, the „Potemkin” battleship is definitely named ironclad. And the ukrainian name of an iroclad (Панцерник/Pancernyk) is also a name for an armed warrior and an armored car. Also the core of the word „Pancyr” is obviously very close to german „panzer” (pronounced the same or nearly the same) and it as well is a synonim for the cuirase a. e. the breastplate. So maybe ukrainian „pancernyk” is close to the french „navire cuirassé” In french the navire cuirassé applies to any armored ship from civil war ironclads to Richeleus and Vanguards. The same is in polish, the „pancernik” is basically anything armored and with big guns

[@gokbay3057]

German (and Scandinavian languages) have "Panzerschiff", famously applied to the Deutschland class Cruisers/"Pocket Battleships" but also used for their Coastal Defense Ships. In Turkish as well, while the term "Muharebe Gemisi" (Battleship) does exist "Zırhlı" (literally "armoured") is far more common.

[@lerougeau2399]

The French, in their love of tiny language distinctions differentiate between a "cuirassier" as the heavy cavalry soldier (man who wears a breastplate) and "cuirassé" as an armoured warship (thing that is armoured, basically). This being French, the difference in pronunciation is tiny and extremely difficult for a non-native speaker to parse

[@samoilenko3887]

​@@lerougeau2399 I as a non-native speaker can understand the difference (the ending "sie" and "se" is completely different, mais je peux dire en general, que comment une personne francophone parle n'importe que vite, j'entends toute la phrase comment juste une tres long mot. Et puisque ces petites différences dans la fin du mot peuvent generalement changer tout de sence de sentence... Bien, je ne veux pas dire que vite langue francais est impossible de comprendre, mais ce n'est pas facile XDDDD

[@JG-ic3py]

Regarding the Kongos, the interesting thing to me is they are basically a sidegrade somewhere around Tiger and the Renowns, but the RN never presumed to think those ships were battleships. At its thickest, Kongo's belt armor is the thinner even than ships properly called battlecruisers. Even in their use in WWII, the IJN never really operated them with the battleships. The IJN seemed to acknowledge that they were still battlecruisers in their use. As far as I know, role-wise they were almost always deployed with the screens, on scouting missions or on fast raiding missions. All of those are cruiser roles.

[@dougjb7848]

Makes one wonder if IJN would have sent Kirishima to bombard Henderson if they’d known that a NoCar and SoDak were intent on stopping her.

[@RedXlV]

As I recall, the Kongos were actually first redesignated as battleships not after their major refits in the 1930s, but after their late 1920s refits. Because in those much smaller refits, deck armor was added but nothing was done with their machinery. This cut their top speed to 25.9 knots, which made them too slow to be battlecruisers. After all, Nagato was capable of 26.5 knots. Having battlecruisers that are slower than your battleships would just be silly. So at that point, they're considered to just be poorly-armored battleships. This also explains why, around 1930 whenJapan was looking to replace the Kongos with treaty-compliant new construction instead of rebuilding them, almost all of Hiraga's "Kongo replacement" designs were for 25 to 26.5 knot battleships and not 30+ knot battlecruisers. And when the 1930s rebuilds happened, the Kongos were designated as "fast battleships" rather than battlecruisers, because Japan had simply stopped using the latter designation.

[@andrewdesmarais737]

I don’t like many KZbin videos, but I do like the dry dock

[@nomdefamille4807]

I have often wondered why the "warrior" era breach loaders did not use a partial length brass (or even copper) cartridge to provide a breech seal. Metallic revolver cartridges had been in use for several years at that point and scaling the idea up seems pretty obvious (and it worked for the germans giving them a vastly simpler breech mechanism). Was it ever tried?

[@lorenrogers9269]

Loved the latest Nelson video, always great to see Matt!

[@KrzysztofDanielCiba]

I wouldn't expect you Drach to mention that French Navy was also involved in Dunkirk evacuation. Legend must be hold: only small British boats alone. But Marine Nationale lost over there 3 destroyers making up 33% of all lost ships of that class.

[@Drachinifel]

Can't cover everything so I was trying to focus on larger campaigns and key ships :)

[@agesflow6815]

Thank you, Drachinifel.

[@riverraven7359]

The Kongos may not have been battleships but would still be handy to have onside. Imagine them helping in the hunt for Graf Spee or assisting the Mediterranean fleet. (For that matter the Fusos and Nagatos would be great convoy escorts)

[@colbeausabre8842]

Accuracy - don't forget there is a certain amount of variation in shell weight, shape, exterior finish, powder charge and gun manufacture and wear the inevitably produce dispersion. Are you shooting a hot or cold gun? What is the wind speed and direction? Barometric pressure? Even the Earth's rotation and Coriolis Effect. You may know the range precise4ly, but these and other items mean you have to apply some "aim off" from what the firing tables say is the book solution "at STP" (Standard Temperature and Pressure)

[@cmedeir]

Another great video ... my favorite part of Sunday.

[@scott2836]

Drach - for what it’s worth, I think that the Fun Friday videos should be entirely at your discretion. Take suggestions, by all means. But if it isn’t fun for you, chances are decent that it won’t be fun for us, either. Lighthearted fare, whether hot sauce competition, having a go at the lighter side of naval matters, dumb naval designs that never made it to the build stage, etc., should be the order of the day (within reason). Mock up some wooden binoculars and have the First Annual Admiral Rozhestvensky Binocular Hurling Championship… 😊

[@mediocrefunkybeat]

'Outside context problem'. I see somebody is also a fan of Iain Banks. Excellent.

[@haraldpettersen3649]

I've seen this video quite a while ago, but I can't wait to watch it again. All the beautiful old ships, the big guns, and lighter guns like a porcupine's spikes sticking out everywhere. The crew's tasks and living quarters, as well as the officers'. Steam engines with their silent operation, and enormous powers, and the mixed smell of oil and water that I think I can smell in my nose. At the time, men were men, and had to stand by their word, respect and honor were commonplace. Yes, I look forward to seeing them again.

[@EFFEZE]

Are you a time traveller

[@davemacnicol8404]

Yeah you're calling early steam engines silent? Definitely from out of town.

[@stevevalley7835]

For Ninja, the KGV 14" armament seems to follow the "more smaller guns means more hits" theory. I have been looking into that issue, as most of the justifications offered do not make any sense. The Admiralty produced a wide variety of designs for the KGVs with 14", 15", and 16" guns. In the fall of 35, the alternatives were analyzed by the Technical Division of Naval Staff. Their conclusion was that a 9-15" armament provided the best balance of hitting power, speed, and protection. The analysis said "The 14" gun ship should be ruled out, unless required by treaty." The Sea Lords agreed to go 15". Then, the US said it would be open to the upcoming Second London treaty imposing a 14" limit, contingent on Japan agreeing. A year earlier, December of 34, Japan had withdrawn from the treaty system. At that time, Japan said it's withdrawal was due to it's demand for parity with the US and UK. Japanese representatives said at the time, they were open to a new treaty, as long as the new treaty gave Japan parity. The US and UK were not going to give Japan parity, so I don't see how anyone could have taken the US offer of 14", contingent on Japan's agreement, seriously. The designs for KGVs with the different armament schemes show the 9-15" armament weighs less than the 12-14" under consideration. As the 15" armament has fewer guns, the lower parts count would indicate the 15" armament would cost less. Clearly, someone wanted the 14" armament badly enough to go against the Technical Division's analysis, against the issue of weight, and against the issue of cost. The only reason I can think of is adherence to the "more smaller guns equals more hits" theory.

[@SPR-Ninja]

@Steve Valley Cheers for the insight mate. In rating the treatyish battleships I always come accross this issue of not really knowing how to rate the KGV's, they have average speed, good protection, good fire control, but then there is this question of how do I rate the firepower? How does it stack up? At the end of the day 14" shells from KGV's did serious damage to Bismarck and Scharnhorst, so I suppose it wasn't lacking... but would a 9x15" KGV have been better? (probably not the way the war actually happened, but its an interesting question to consider)

[@stevevalley7835]

@@SPR-Ninja the promoters of 14" always base their position on the ships being able to close to a range where the 14" can penetrate. During 1915-16, Admiral Strauss at BuOrd kept insisting that engagements would always be fought at 12,000 yards, or less. SecNav Daniels and the General Board overruled Strauss in the summer of 16, after Jutland proved it was practicable to engage at longer range. Admiralty fighting instructions that the KGVs were designed for also dictated engagements be fought at relatively short range, less than 16,000. An Admiralty analysis of a KGV with 14" guns and a hypothetical 15" KGV showed the 15" gunned ship would have a penetration range advantage on the order of 1,000 yards. There was another factor one book brought up about those Admiralty fighting instructions: the instructions were, in part, based on the assumption that the remote gun directors would be knocked out, so the ship would need to be close enough for the guns to hit anything under local control. Apparently, Bismark's remote directors were knocked out. Scaling off of the map of the engagement I find on-line, KGV and Rodney appear to have been following the fighting instructions and been within 16,000 yards, but Bismark couldn't hit anything with turrets under local control, so the premise of the fighting instructions, that you could hit anything under local control at that range appears to be wrong. But the "why 14"?" question, and why change the treaty limit, as nothing prevented the KGVs being built below treaty limits, are still there. Raven says the UK pushed the treaty change to prevent the US and Japan building 16" ships, but, by going to 14", the UK handed the French, Italians, and Germans, gunnery superiority with their 15" ships, so that makes no sense. The only thing that makes sense is someone clinging to the "more smaller guns equals more hits" theory and everything else is excuses, intended to obfuscate embrace of a theory that had been discredited twenty years earlier. Bottom line, I figure the KGVs did OK. Three of them squared off against other capital ships, and survived. (there are some claims that Lindemann wanted to finish off the PoW, but was overruled by Lutjens) The only one to be defeated, was defeated by aircraft.

[@darwindemartelaere3195]

I've shot muzzle loader rifles since I was a kid, we always marked our ramrods to know you had loaded the proper charge and shot. I'm surprised that for the hundreds of years of muzzle loading cannons that ramming devices weren't marked to prevent double loading.

[@Crazyfrog41]

Considering that loading double shot was a legitimate strategy... Not to mention the different sizes for chain or grape shot... It would probably just get needlessly complicated very quickly

[@timschoenberger242]

There were other failures of oversight that were mentioned in a book I read on the Mark 14 torpedo: It was both designed and manufactured by the same facility, Naval Torpedo Station, Newport. They also resisted all allegations of problems with design of the torpedo as well as the manufacturing process, which was done one by one rather than by any form of mass production. That single facility, if I remember correctly, could only turn out about 400 torpedoes a month pre-war, and that figure includes Marks 13 and 15 as well as the 14 (hard to live fire test at those quantities and cost). Newport was also protected by the New England congressmen, who saw the jobs generated as patronage to favored groups, including labor unions.

[@SPR-Ninja]

Hey Drach, if you are interested I could do some quick small scale research in bore size vs barrel length through the medium of rifles... It wouldnt take super long to find out the muzzle velocity of say, 6.5 Creedmoor, 7mm-08 and .308Win with the same powder charge and 147gr - 150gr Projectiles and the same barrel length. The outlier would be that the Creedmoor is a more efficient case design, so I'd maybe have to find someone with a 6.5-08 wildcat. **EDIT** I did some book research on this after work, bascially *with the same powder load* the narrower (proportionally longer) barrel gets a faster muzzle velocity than the wider. *but only* with the same powder load, by moving to a faster burning powder, the wider bore will see far higher muzzle velocity, due to physics reasons. Comparison data. 6mm Creedmoor vs 6.5mm Creemoor Borth with 107gr Sierra projectiles and 41gr of ADI AR2209 powder. The 6mm gets 3000fps, with the 6.5 at 2830, but the 6mm is getting to dangerous levels of pressure, 50% higher than the 6.5, its also worth nothing that you can get the 6.5 up to the same pressure at the 6mm and get 3130fps.

[@jfess1911]

Given the same barrel length, powder charge, bullet weight and barrel length, the largest diameter bullet would start at the highest velocity. The 260 Rem, 7mm-08, and 308 can all be loaded with a 150 grain bullet. The 308 will have the highest initial velocity but eventually be outranged by the smaller diameter, but sleeker bullets . It has to do with the area of the bullet base and the total amount of "swept-volume" inside the barrel. Increases in either (or both) increase the amount of energy transferred from the propellant to the bullet.

[@semicolontransistor]

The term for battleship in Chinese, 战列舰, actually translates to ships of the line. We used the same term from the age of sail all the way to the last battleships of the mid-20th century.

[@kennethdeanmiller7324]

And yeah, I think it's kinda cool how Dunkirk was built one way & then Strasburg was built with armor 2.2" thicker because it's being built later & it gets thicker armor in case it needs to counter Scharnhorst. Even though it never has to fight that ship, it was being built to fight the best of what Germany had so they were trying to give it a better chance! Makes sense to me!

[@bernadmanny]

Awww baby Drach is so handsome

[@papajohnloki]

a three-parter rather than two-parter on Trafalgar? Excelsior Drach!!!!!

[@MARGATEorcMAULER]

Would definitely love to hear from you and others on the aftermath of Admiral Nelson's death and the legacy of the battle of Trafalgar.

[@VersusARCH]

00:38 I seriously object to failing to mention the French Navy's contribution to supplying the Macedonian (AKA Salonika) Front. Galipoli Campaign, an abject failure that everybody likes to talk about lasted for several months. The Macedonian campaign lasted for more than 3 years and resulted in the first armistice with a Central Power (Bulgaria) and contributed significantly to Turkey's and Austria-Hungary's decision to ask for an armistice (the latter also broke apart). Allied armies had to be transported there. Serbian Army needed to be evacuated from Albania in late 1915. having retreated there in the aftermath of the joint Central Powers' invasion, later being transpotrted to Salonika to fight on the Macedonian front. Allied armies on the said front needed to be supplied and serviced by hospital ships... French and Italian navies with some British and Japanese contribution maintained the security of the sea lanes (although Central powers' submarines caused quite a few losses), and their merchant fleet did the hard work of supplying the allied armies there.

[@colbeausabre8842]

The Allied Forces in Salonika were primarily Serbian, French Empire and British Empire. They were led to victory in 1918 by a French Commander in Chief, Franchet D'Esperey (which the Tomiies, in classic fashion, turned to "Desperate Frankie") "Louis Félix Marie François Franchet d'Espèrey[b] (25 May 1856 - 8 July 1942) was a French general during World War I. As commander of the large Allied army based at Salonika, he conducted the successful Macedonian campaign, which caused the collapse of the Southern Front and contributed to the armistice."

[@edroosa2958]

Q&A. We’re there instances where naval a naval attache was pressed into service during a time of emergency? If so what were the results? Thank you for considering this question. You have the best naval channel on KZbin btw.

[@WALTERBROADDUS]

Probably the Battle of the River Plate? The naval attaches at Montevideo and Buenos Aires we're deeply involved in the action after Graf Spee stoped there.

[@davemacnicol8404]

Lol sounds like a desperately bored naval attache talking

[@jameshealy4594]

On determining the status of a muzzle loading cannon, couldn't the crew use a rammer or other similar stick/pole to check the depth of free bore? You could even make marks on it such as 6ft loaded, 7ft empty and simply observe which mark lines up with the muzzle. Is there something I'm missing?

[@Simon_Nonymous]

I am very sure I have actually seen this at a reenactment, plus the pricking of the vent also served to see if there was a charge in the breech

[@williammorgan5320]

Oh my, doesn't Drach look all smart and fancy in his cap 'n gown look? (Just kidding) I particularly like the Groucho-style caterpillar eyebrows. Hah!

[@erikgranqvist3680]

In Swedish, the term in media is almost allways "krigsskepp" or "krigsfartyg". It litterarly translate to war ship. The Swedish word for battleship is "slagskepp" - translate directly to battleship. I guess that it has a bit to do with the fact that full blown attleships have never been a thing in Swedish waters We had a few pocket battleships (if you are feeling generous). In the olden days they were called "pansarskepp", the same type of designation as in German. But that term never stuck much past WW2.

[@stnylan]

I think a legacy of Nelson video is a capital idea.

[@maineway56turner22]

Muzzleloader’s usually mark their ram rods the distance it,s down the barrel after loading. That way they can use it to check if it is loaded or not.

[@toddwebb7521]

Well Corium (the Latin word for leather) is ultimately the origin of the French word for leather, so it goes all the way back to Rome

[@paranoidrodent]

Pretty much. The Romance languages are basically Latin dialects with two millennia of extra mileage (which let them diverge from a dialect continuum to distinct languages). Drach does have the right word for battleships in French (cuirassés). It’s one way of saying an armoured (something) that has a well-understood contextual meaning an armoured ship. It emphasizes the durability of battleships but really it’s just the term for ironclads continuing to evolve.

[@seanmalloy7249]

You could make the 14", 15", and 16" projectiles the same weight while maintaining the same proportions by playing games with the size of the bursting charge relative to the projectiles. With the same weight but different diameters, they will have different areal densities, which will affect their exterior ballistics, leading to the larger projectiles losing velocity slightly faster, so they would have a slightly reduced penetration at range, but I don't know if that would wind up disappearing into the noise with the other variables.

[@danwilliams4051]

HMS Defiant. Damn the Defiant !

[@Pusserdoc]

Regarding Cerberus: the thing to remember is that she was only intended to operate within Port Philip Bay as an adjunct to the shore defences at Fort Nepean (Nep-pee-anne - sorry Drach :-)) and Fort Queenscliff. In effect she acted as an additional shore battery that just happened to float: tactical mobility was very very secondary. Mind you, all the Russians or anyone else had to do was land shore parties from Westernport and the forts would've been rendered moot, leaving Cerberus as the only option. Incidentally, Fort Nepean fired the first Empire shots in anger in both world wars: WWI to stop a German merchant ship doing a runner, and WWII when an Australian merchant ship took too long to identify herself.

[@johnshepherd9676]

Assuming the Hood survived the war would she be as famous a ship as she is from meeting her tragic end? It is often the case that tragedy makes ships more notable than ships that survive.

[@WALTERBROADDUS]

Her death makes her notable.

[@gokbay3057]

Definitly not as famous thought she was a rather famous ship at the time of her sinking having spent much of the Interwar Era sailing around the world, showing the flag so probably one of the more well known WW2 British capital ships but certainly less so than IRL.

[@dougjb7848]

If she’d played active part in sinking Bismarck, or faced off against the RM alongside Warspite, yes she would’ve finished the war quite famous.

[@stevevalley7835]

wrt rangfinding, as Drac said, estimating range tended to be the more difficult problem. That lead to advocacy of higher velocity guns, as their flatter trajectory increased danger space at the target. But, when the fighting instructions say to head directly toward the enemy to bring range down to 12-16,000 yards, that offers the enemy a danger space, ie allowance for range finding error, the full length of the ship, 600-800 feet, to shoot at, if they fire in a high ballistic trajectory, rather than fire in a flat trajectory. Drac noted in his piece on one of the USN battleships he visited, the USN provided reduced charges for it's guns, so they had the option of firing in a high trajectory to better penetrate a deck, turning decades of gunnery theory on it's head.

[@colbeausabre8842]

The US Army had three models of 12 inch Sea Coast mortar, to drop shells down on to lightly armored decks. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12-inch_coast_defense_mortar#:~:text=The%2012-inch%20coast%20defense%20mortar%20was%20a%20weapon,on%20mortars%2C%20not%20guns%2C%20to%20defend%20American%20harbors.

[@GrahamWKidd]

Fun Fridays are for Fun, and as far as I am concerned can be literally anything you @Drachinifel want them to be. As long as you don't poison yourself again!!

[@Owen-fn8ff]

French battleships are called Cuirassier, which means “armoured” or “ironclad”

[@canicheenrage]

Cuirassés. Which indeed means armor-clad. Cuirassier is a chest-armored cavalryman.

[@ricardokowalski1579]

In spanish "acorazado" was used. Meaning "has a shell", like a turttle or an armadillo.

[@Iain1957]

Regarding the defence of Port Phillip against the Russians. The topography is an issue - it’s a narrow entrance and a strong tide as there is a deep undersea shelf which made manoeuvring difficult and then sandbanks and shoals dead ahead with the channels to the west and east. Near the start of the eastern channel - leading to Melbourne there was a low-level battery of 8 inches in h-p carriages at South Chanel island. With batteries at Fort Queenscliff and Fort Nepean on each side of the entrance the whole area was quite well defended. Much would depend on the rate of fire of the disappearing guns and fire control on both sides. However, the real issue would have been logistics. The reports on defences in Australia have stressed the issue of coal supplies for any attackers using steam warships. You would need a steam warship to assault through the Port Phillip heads in order to ensure manoeuvrability against tide and shallows. But coal would be an issue because if you had to stand off for a few days how would you resupply. There are few ports on that coast where you could shelter and coal your ships and where would you get the coal from? The historical records indicate that the military minds were thinking that a navy operating against Australia would have to capture a coal port on the NSW coast to obtain coal supplies to operate in a sustained way against Australia. A one-off surprise raid might work particularly on a Saturday when everyone was off watching sport or Sunday when they were all at Church. Of course, there is no defence against mispronunciation although as Evan Nepean was one of yours - he was a senior minister in various government roles so of course everything in Empire was named after him, the name might be familiar.

[@johnjephcote7636]

Capt.Fitroy had become very interested in setting up a Meteorolgical Office with especial application to coastal storm warning. He had no backing from the Government (what a surprise!) and a miniscule staff, compared with the United States' own nascent met.office. The electric telegraph made the Government change it mind later on.

[@williammorgan5320]

Re: the hot sauce video. Born Canadian with UK background, my palate for hot and spicy foods was geared more towards Mexican and Latin-American pepper type heat sources. I was always astounded by the lack of "ooomph" in British cuisine. Exceedingly bland often comes to mind. Especially being so close to Spain and the ties to colonial India. Funny to watch you guys get burnt as you really don't understand any of the repercussions of, and ways of eating, hot foods. Your first mistake was "the cumulative effect" of compounding sauce upon sauce. That's kinda obvious, so I'll leave that there. Your second was "speed". Hot foods require a speedier approach (without contemplative breaks in between bites) to appreciate heat. Third, always have a glass of milk (yes milk) on stand-by for that 'blow your mind too hot too handle' event. For the after-after effects, I rely on Alka-Seltzer and corn starch (not in the same way, nudge-nudge-wink-wink). Cheers!

[@chriswilliams1944]

Fascinating as ever, drach. Quick question: the final question, re Strasbourg, in the photo she's flying the tricolour on the bow and mizzen(?) but on the main she has the White Ensign. Was that usual for the Free French forces, to distinguish from the Vichy forces, or was there some other reason?

[@cp1cupcake]

I though the last Nelson video should have been split into 2-3 with the interviews with the various people spread out.

[@chemech]

Canal and channel have the same root in Latin... and in German at least there is really only the one word - Canal - for both meanings. I would not be surprised to learn that the same holds true in Russian.

[@ericpigeon6179]

Yes it is dix neuf mille. For someone who hasn’t spoke French in what I assume is years that was good.

[@willcaputo1]

It's so weird seeing you without a beard.

[@vincentlavallee2779]

Another comment, form the thorn in the side! At 46:58 the discussion came up again about using the term battlecruiser or battleship. AGAIN, this is totally a British term and the term battlecruiser was invented by the Brits because they could not make fast battleships. So, in order to get a battle type ship to have the definite higher speed, that had to build such ships with less armor, but NOT necessarily smaller guns. This then leads to confusion. Also, the term battlecruiser (even to Drach) meant that these type were not using in mainline battles. This all made sens when there was a real difference. So, both the US and Japan were heavily influence and tutored by Britain until the mid 19 teens. Both Japan (in th4 late 1920's and the US left the Brit behind, and never used the term battlcrusier ever again, and both dropped the term 'battlecruiser' completely because these countries figured out how to build fast battleships. These had almost everything the old battleships had, PLUS the enhanced speed. Furthermore, these were also are considered to be main line battleships, to be used in direct conflicts. This doesn't mean that they would all beat the other WW I battleships, but they would have been used in direct combat. But the bottom line is that the term 'battlecruiser' is really just a Brit term, and really applied only time around in the late 19 teens, and became fairly obsolete by WW II. On another point I need to make, is that the comment about 'the ship with more guns will come out on top' is also totally false. Look at what happened with the Hood (8 guns vs. the Bismark with also 8 guns). In dependent of it being totally clobbered early on into the battle, it was not able to use all of its guns when fighting the Bismark. In fact, it was in its maneuvering to turn the ship so that it could use all it guns, which may have been the major reason it got clobbered. So, the battle situation has a lot more to do with the outcome. Another battleships had guns only on the front, so this ship would not have been able to fire ANYTHING if it is caught from behind, so the number of guns it had is meaningless in this situation. And lastly, with Drach's frequent comments about the Littorio's problems with their ammo, resulted in it being very lowly rated, which is also a false rating. It is like saying that the US submarine in WW II was terrible because the torpedoes did not explode. The Italian Littorio class battleship was the best European battleship in WW II, better than all the British ones, the French one, and the German ships.

[@issacfoster1113]

Littorio best Eu BB? lol

[@edmondbarrett3968]

I have a copy of The Betrayal by Fisher's sparring partner, Lord Beresford. It never uses the term Battlecruiser, instead the term Large Armoured Cruiser or Invisibles.

[@johnjephcote7636]

I think that 'battleship' in Polish could be okręt wojenny or maybe pancernik. The former is simply a 'ship of war/warship' and the latter would cover 'battleship/gunship/ironclad/dreadnought and armadillo!

[@TrickiVicBB71]

A young Drach without his beard. Wow, you look like my ex- scale miniature painter in Ontario

[@davidharner5865]

Your argument regarding 'Strasbourg\DunQuerke' demonstrates that the 'USN fast BBs' are actually Battle Cruisers: not armoured against their own guns.

[@paladamashkin8981]

Answer the question about the mark 14 torpedo. You must consider there are entire books written on the subject. One of the biggest reasons it was not corrected was the US Navy made their own Torpedoes at the time and the senator that controlled the district in which they were made was also the head of the Armed Forces Committee this was thousands of jobs in his district and jealously guarded them and they can do no wrong. Throughout the war this caused a shortage of torpedoes until the point that the senator could no longer fight it. Then they ended up opening two more lines of torpedoes. One of these was the electric torpedo. The reason nobody bothered to fix the mark 14 was because they simply did not have enough Mark 14s to stop the production line check them. Kind of like how the P-40 had many upgrades that were supposed to be done including in Merlin engine and they never stopped the production line because they couldn't afford to. Two of the three primary submarine Commanders Brisbane and Atlantic command, we're both involved in the creation of the mark 14th torpedo and the Magnetic Detonator which was Christy. So you have much of the most important torpedo command involved in the creation of something that they do not have enough of, being told to stop production of what they do not have enough of and do testing, while being protected by what was one of the most powerful senators of the time, and you have your typical hurricane of government involvement

[@nomdefamille4807]

a very petty point but should not most of the "pocket" ships (eg Spee) have been referred to as "pocket battle cruisers" on the basis that they were not armoured to anything like the requirement to protect against their own main armament?

[@friendsinmyhead2195]

Drach please do a santisima Trinidad or principe de Asturias guide

[@leftcoaster67]

How come the US 16" guns on the North Carolina's had less issues on the ship, where as there was problems on the Nelson Class battleships? Was it the all or nothing arrangement, or was it simply greater displacement absorbed the shock from the 16" guns?

[@johnshepherd9676]

Both classes were about the same displacement. The US had more experience with triple turrets than the RN and that could be the most important factor.

[@tomdolan9761]

The Second Amendment…..as Yamamoto once reputedly remarked….’a riflemen behind every blade of grass’….lol

[@AndrewPalmerMTL]

re: 00:56:28 - Interwar battleship armament value? - I'd suggest multiplying by expected # of hits rather than by # of barrels.

[@patrickwhaley4111]

An heavily armoured British ship name, HMS Cataphract, after the Persian armoured cavalry.

[@bryanstephens4800]

Saturday morning maritime goodness.

[@haraldpettersen3649]

Bryan Stephens - And I'm taking a Sunday Maritime Relaxation, have seen it before but am enjoying it again. Have a good Sunday my friend.

[@bryanstephens4800]

@@haraldpettersen3649 you too

[@fidjeenjanrjsnsfh]

46:58 because there is no practical difference between the two in the interwar period?

[@graveyard1979]

IIRC MN used term cuirasse d'escadre indiscriminately of the ship generation. Hoche was cuirasse d'escadre, so was Danton and Courbet.

[@lexington476]

1:09:43 remember, sometimes it's more important to find fault and assess blame 🙂.

[@SteeGrav]

Cuirassier translate directly into armored ship, meaning battle ship.

[@blueboats7530]

If I watch the Fun Friday With Hot Sauce a second time will it nudge the metrics over the line?

[@DaremoKamen]

About the gun caliber question, I never got as far as differential equations which can upset all your expectations, but since the basic gas law says work done by a set pressure varies with the volume it expands through and starting with the same propellant charge the initial pressure would also be the same wouldn't the 16 shell get the most work since it expands through the largest volume? And hence the highest muzzle velocity? Whatever the muzzle velocity, assuming equal shell density a 16 inch shell would lose velocity faster than a 14 inch of the same mass once it leaves the muzzle.

[@matthewyang7893]

In real life, the shells wouldn't be the same size and therefore according to my understanding the 16 inch shell has more weight to it meaning that air and gases don't affect it as much. A lighter shell suffers from being relatively light to the volume of the shell. Overall I get your point, technically, yes, but if a shell that is bigger than another one has the same weight but more volume the densities have to be different... screwing over that assumption entirely. Just a little thing to point out that if something is bigger and has the same weight as something smaller, the overall density of the bigger object must be lower than the smaller.

[@CharlesStearman]

@@matthewyang7893 One way of reducing the density/weight of a shell would be to increase the size of the bursting charge (since explosives are less dense than steel), but there would be a limit in how far you could go the other way before the bursting charge was reduced to zero.

[@matthewyang7893]

@@CharlesStearman Well, yes, but at some point you're also turning into an HE shell...and then a bag of explosive charge...

[@stevevalley7835]

As Matthew said, apparently, in the real world, a heavier shell retains it's momentum better than a lighter shell. The propellant charge in a larger gun is going to be larger than the charge in a smaller gun. If the same charge is pushing a larger shell, seems the PSI on the back of the larger shell will be lower, because the burning propellant can only generate a set amount of hot gas, and it has a larger space to expand into. The issue I have been wrestling with is I have been looking for the velocity of SC Cordite, so I can perform some recoil calculations, but have not been able to find it. I'm sure the difference in die size would made a difference too, as a smaller die size means more sticks of Cordite can fit in a given space, with more surface area exposed, so the burn rate is higher, but at this point, I will settle for *any* velocity spec for SC.

[@donshively9395]

Odd question for you, sir. I am sure that all the masts I see on ww1 and ww2 battleships hold mostly radio lines. However, if in an emergency, such as being totally out of fuel, or battle damage, might a modern warship break out sail for these masts and limp home?

[@dougjb7848]

Likely no. Sail-bearing masts need to be in a configuration very different from masts to carry antennas. The amount of sail-area that could be supported by those masts simply couldn’t capture enough wind (pressure) to move a battleship.

[@kennethdeanmiller7324]

Yeah, considering the tonnage of most warships ever since they changed from iron clads to steel, warships basically just weigh far too much for a sail, especially a "make-shift" sail to make much of a difference. Or so I would think. The only way I could see it helping is : say that the ship is also in a place where their is also a current going the same way the ship needs to go & a wind also going in the same direction. In that case a "make-shift" sail could possibly help. However, it would be extremely unlikely to be in such circumstances. And most Navies would simply send out a tug boat or two to try to get the ship to safety. And also probably send a couple of cruisers or what they may have near by, in order to remove crew if a gail blows up or to try to protect the ship best they can

[@kemarisite]

Canister shell makes a certain amount of sense when torpedoes had a range of 500-1,000 yards. As for engineering degrees and working in your field of study, my own degrees are in radiation health physics (supervising meter-wavers and calculating doses) and industrial engineering (time studies and ergonomics). My actual work experience is almost entirely in the area of environmental engineering, across several Media including hazardous waste and air quality. At least I'm not a pottery major who then walked across America to find himself and start a freelance journalism career.

[@WALTERBROADDUS]

Yep, slim job prospects in fields like naval architecture and Marine Engineering. Not to mention, very few schools.

[@Dave_Sisson]

@@WALTERBROADDUS That depends where you are. The United States only build naval and coastal vessels, but Europe churns out a wide variety of cruise liners and other ships every year as well as naval vessels. Asia does an even greater variety of freighters. Then there are more niche categories like the two Australian shipyards that have a monopoly on big 1,000+ passenger, 40 knot catamaran ferries. But if you live in a place that doesn't build much, you would have to be prepared to move locations.

[@kenm4678]

Did you notice the Fitzroy portrait has a reverse face on the vest?

[@toddwebb7521]

Well one potential modifier you didn't even get into on the barrel count discussion is "how many barrels do you have in forward arcs where you don't need to be broadside on in order to fire them?" An 8 gun, guns forward design like Dunkerque/Richelieu has 8 guns of forward firepower, a 4 on each end conventional 8 gun ship like Bismarck or Queen Elizabeth only has 4. 9 gun ships in triples have 6 forward as do 12 gun ships in triples as does the KGV 10 gun A Nevada layout 10 gun has 5 forward, a Texas/Iron Duke layout with a Q turret only has 4 forward like a 8 gun A 12 gun in doubles like Arkansas/Fuso only has 4 forward.

[@johnfisher9692]

Thanks for another great video Drach. I read one of the reasons the British went to the 13.5inch was the 12inch MK:X was a failure due to inaccuracy and barrel whipping. Is this true and can a gun be TOO long and the excessive length cause problems?

[@Simon_Nonymous]

I can't answer the first part, but on the second part - yes. Barrel whip is one issue, in that the longer and slimmer a barrel is, the more like a tuning fork it gets, so harmonics become increasingly an issue. Also to keep the projectile accelerating down the longer tube requires more propellant, leading to the breach/barrel needing to be stronger at the closed end, a bigger charge needs to handled, plus higher bore pressures can lead to quicker throat and bore erosion. I'm coming at this from small arms and tank guns, and there's a reason why they pretty much tend to sit within a certain range re calibre or the L number. Guns like the German 7.5cm L70 and 8.8cm L71 were unusual I'd say. Hope that helps :-)

[@salamisalesexpress]

1:06:58 In theory, theory and practice concur. In practice, theory and practice differ.

[@88porpoise]

Now, I absolutely would never defend BurOrd on the M14 torpedoes as they continued to insist there was nothing wrong in the face of a mountain of evidence. But it isn't totally unreasonable that the initial assumption when failure reports came in were that it was user error. If it were user error. It would have been far from the first or only piece of equipment that was good and reliable but failed due to user error (usually due to some screw up or bad decisions resulting in wrong/no training). My knowledge is more.from the Army, but I am sure the Navy was little different in these regards. One example that come to mind are the gun stabilizer in the Sherman that someone decided was too important of a secret to teach the soldiers how to use and it was widely derided, except for the one unit that was properly trained to use and loved it. Or the leg-bags that were widely derided and complete garbage by US forces, but were perfectly adequate for the job for the British, because the US paratroopers were not trained they just packed in whatever fit and they were overloaded and released to quickly causing the lines to fail.

[@RonOhio]

In small arms, a smaller caliber with a heavy bullet and a high ballistic coefficient can fight above its class and perform as well as or better than a larger bore with a bullet of average weight for the caliber. ie 6.5 or 7mm Mauser vs .303. Was this ever applied to capital ship guns to get more weight of explosives into the shell or to flatten the trajectory at long range? Would a smaller frontal area increase penetration, or would the longer shell be more likely to breakup?

[@colbeausabre8842]

US "Superheavy" rounds were heavier, but as they were the same caliber, this was done by making them longer. This only works up to a point, as past a critical length to diameter ratio, a gyroscopically stabilized projectile becomes unstable. Hence the trend in tank guns to smooth bore guns firing drag (fin) stabilized long rod penetrators

[@johnd2058]

1:08:00 Can confirm it recurs in American military culture, e.g. Army in '90s

[@samstewart4807]

hi drach, have you done? or would you consider making a list of top10? videos viewers would like to see made and then letting us vote on which videos we want? maybe you have a list of 100? videos members would like you to make? and you would make the top 10?

[@Moredread25]

I enjoyed the Nelson part 3 video. The special guests were unexpected. It took me several days to get to watching it because it was so long. More Nelson content is welcome, but maybe you want to split it into multiple videos. Long form content does well for you though. I watched part of the hot sauce interview; it was fine but also long. I have less time to watch videos now.

[@MrNicoJac]

1:05:22 I would actually argue that denialism is _by definition_ malice. (especially in a war context, where servicemen's lives depend on ordnance working as advertised!) In such a context, if someone shows up and claims that something does not work, I'd say it's a moral (and patriotic) *duty* to hear them out and order tests to verify their claims. Now, if those test results then turn out to be inconclusive, that can result in incompetence being my verdict. But misinterpreting the result to suit one's career/reputation, would already be malice. Failure to order tests would also be malice - after all, your fellow citizens are risking their lives using these items, and your country has a war to win. As Perun so eloquently summarized recently, "war does not tolerate bullshit." Reality/physics does not care about reputations. So any chance/rumour of war materiel not functioning as intended, should be followed up on with vigor. And those in positions of influence who fail to do so, should be court marshalled. Risking the lives of others for your career is nothing less than cowardice and treason....

[@tomdolan9761]

In the US military you have warriors and you have uniformed bureaucrats sometimes unaffectionatly referred to as REMFs. Whether it’s the MK14 or the Bradley Fighting Vehicle lives are unimportant if it.gets in the way of personal advancement.

[@stevevalley7835]

With regard to BuOrd and the Mk 14, the problem may be, not only the designers trying to protect their reputation, but, also, a degree of deference being given to the "experts". In the USN, the Mk 13 aerial torpedo, and the 1.1" AA gun joined their pantheon of designs that looked good on paper. The Tennessee class BBs could have had 16" guns, if not for the advocacy of the 14", by Admiral Strauss at BuOrd. The Nelsons could have had more effective guns, except for the embrace, by the RN Director of Naval Ordinance, of the light shell/high velocity theory, a theory that the Germans seem to have also embraced, considering Bismark's 15" shells were close to 200lbs lighter than a British or Italian 15". I am still trying to discover the real reason the KGVs mounted 14" guns. The 14" armament was neither lighter, nor cheaper, than the 15" alternative. The official excuses offered by most scribes, including Raven, make no sense. The only thing I can think of is embrace by either DNO, or someone else at the highest level of, or higher than, the Admiralty, embraced the same theory as Strauss, which had been discredited 20 years earlier.

[@RonJohn63]

1:03:53 This same CYA "protect your reputation _uber alles"_ is the same reason why the Russian cruiser _Moscow_ was so easily sunk by a couple of cruise missiles.

[@bkjeong4302]

The WWII Marine Nationale has been considered by some historians to have been a much larger waste of resources than the Maginot Line, and honestly I’m inclined to agree.

[@roberthilton5328]

For the Kongo class, I could believe that the class were called 'battleships' or 'battlecruisers', based on the source media. Sources who get information from Japanese propaganda, like press or diplomatic I could see calling them 'battleships'; how much of non-military consumers would know the difference? Other sources like IJN itself I'd imagine is more likely to use 'battlecruiser', especially talking amongst themselves in official correspondence.

[@ph89787]

To Ching Lee their target practice

[@BHuang92]

I would classify the Kongō-class as battlecruiser/battleship due to the modernization process to conversion.

[@gokbay3057]

Japan reclassified them as Battleships after a refit (thought they had also reclassified some of their Armoured Cruisers as Battlecruisers around the time of WW1 so you know, trusting Japan with ship classifications might be problematic) but most of the improvement was their speed rather than their protection.

[@AlricOfRahls]

In Russian battleships are still called Ships of the Line, only abbreviated into a single word.

[@jfess1911]

I am fairly certain that the 16" shell would have the highest muzzle velocity but slow down faster. With the constraints of the same volume of propellant, same mass of projectiles, and same barrel length, the larger diameter projectile would have more surface area of base against which the pressure would push and its barrel has a larger internal swept volume for propellant action. Both of these increase the amount of energy the expanding propellant will be able to impart upon the projectile. The reason longer barrels increase velocity (to a point) is that they have a larger internal swept volume. In the small-arms world, there are several examples, the 30-06 and 35 Whelen, and various cartridges based on the 308 Win case (.243 Win, 260 Rem, 7mm-08, 308, 338 Federal). In each example, loading the same weight bullet in the next one or two larger diameter cartridges will increase the muzzle velocity. As far as range, typically the smaller diameter will eventually travel farther than the larger one. It will start out slower but maintain velocity better due to its higher Ballistic Coefficient (BC). BC is calculated by form factor (shape) multiplied by sectional density. Even if all the shells had the same form factor (as suggested by several comments), the lower sectional density would reduce the BC.

[@teotwawkitommy01]

14"/45 lists max powder charge at 420# while 16"/50 lists 700#. Also 14" shell lists at 1400# while 16" at 2110#. Assuming the 14" gun doesn't simply explode with a 75% over charge, I think Drach underestimates the pressure spike in the smaller chamber. I think the 14" super heavy shell is gonna fly significantly faster and penetrate significantly more armor than the 16" shell. FWIW the 30-06, 35 Whelen, and 7mm-08 all predate the 308 Winchester so it can't be the parent cartridge. The 308 Winchester was developed from the 300 Savage.

[@jfess1911]

@@teotwawkitommy01 I was apparently unclear. The 30-06 and 35 Whelen share the same case whereas the others are based on the 308 case. The "-08" on 7mm-08 shows it is based on the 308 case. There are minor changes to the case dimensions to prevent chambering in a firearm with a different, but related cartridge. There was purely necked-down 30-06 to make a 7mm-06 wildcat, but Remington made some minor dimension changes and introduced it as the 280 Rem. The shoulder was pushed slightly foreword and OAL made longer to (hopefully) prevent it being fired in a 30-06 rifle. You are right about the 308 (7.62x51) being developed from the 300 Savage. The US Army tweaked it quite bit by changing the taper, shoulder angle, neck length and raising chamber pressures.

[@Nemo-vg7sr]

French navy in WWI question: Was there any plans for the RN to reinforce the Med had Italy honoured her commitments and entered the war alongside Germany and Austria?

[@jannekiljunen6784]

I think you can justify calling Kongos battleships to reflect their intended role as such. I think comparing them to something way more modern is a bit misplaced, even with upgrades a good comparison would be to other close contemporaries. I mean we're not really questioning Queen Elisabeths being battleships because they can't beat something decades newer. It is of course a matter of what criteria and classification system one chooses to use, I basically go with what the navy in question called it and what was the intended purpose (so ignoring obvious cheats calling battlecruisers a large cruiser just to get it built in wartime).

[@davidbryden7904]

I couldn't help myself; when Drach describes baby Drach receiving his diploma, I envision a baby, wearing both a diaper and a beard!! 😜🤷‍♂️✌️🌏☮️

[@TheShrike616]

If it helps: raid in French is pronounced exactly the same as in English.