IJN I-19 - Guide 099

The I-19, a cruiser submarine of the Imperial Japanese Navy, is today's subject.
Want to support the channel? - / drachinifel
Want to talk about ships? / discord
Next on the list:
-HMS Ark Royal
-ORP Błyskawica
-USS West Virginia
-Amagi Class
-Tosa Class
-Alaska class
-Derfflinger class
-Yorktown class
-Tre Kronor class
-Nelson class
-Gato class
-Admiralen class
-H class (NB)
-Greek 'Monarch' class destroyers
-'Habbakuk' project
-USS Texas
-USS Olympia
-HIJMS Mikasa
-County class
-KMS Tirpitz
-Montana class
-Florida class
-USS Salt Lake City
-Storozhevoy
-Flower class
-USS San Juan
-HMS Sheffield
-USS Johnston
-Dido class
-Hunt class
-HMS Vanguard
-Mogami class
-Almirante Grau
-Surcouf
-Von der Tann
-Massena
-HMCS Magnificent
-HMCS Bonaventure
-HMCS Ontario
-HMCS Quebec
-Lion class BC
-USS Wasp
-HMS Blake
-HMS Romala/Ramola
-South Dakota (1930's)
-SMS Emden
-Väinämöinen and Ilmarinen
-Destroyer Velos
-U.S.S. John R. Craig
-C class
-HMS Caroline
-HMS Hermes
-Iron Duke
-Kronprinz Erzerzorg Rudolph.
-HMS Eagle
-Ise class
-18 inch monitor
-Mogami
-Vanguard
-De Zeven Provinciën
-South American Dreadnoughts
-Fletcher class
-USS Langley
-Kongo class
-Grom class
-St Louis class
-H class special
-All-big-gun designs
-USS Oregon
-Gascogne
-Alsace
-Lyon and Normandie classes
-Leander class
-HMS Ajax
-Project 1047
-O class
-R class
-Battle class
-Daring class
-USS Indianapolis
-Atago/Takao
-Midway class
-Graf Zeppelin
-Bathurst class
-RHS Queen Olga
-HMS Belfast
-Aurora
-Imperator Nikolai I
-USS Helena
-USS Tennesse
-HMNZS New Zealand
-HMS Queen Mary
-USS Marblehead
-New York class
-L-20e
-Abdiel class
-Panserskib (Armoured ship) Rolf Krake
-HMS Victoria
-USS Galena (1862)
-HMS Charybdis
-Eidsvold class
-IJN “Special” DD's
-SMS Emden
-Ships of Battle of Campeche
-HMS Tiger
-USS England (DE-635)
-Tashkent
-1934A Class
-HMS Plym (K271)
-Siegfried class
Specials:
-Fire Control Systems
-Protected Cruisers
-Scout Cruisers
-Naval Artillery
-Tirpitz (damage history)
-Treaty Battleship comparison
-Warrior to Pre-dreadnought
-British BC Ammo Handling
-Naval AA Special
-Drydocks
Music - / ncmepicmusic

[@hohenstaufenz]

Holy shit, 6 torpedo salvo manages to hit 3 different ships, sinking 2 and maim the other. What a well calculated shot.

[@gruntforever7437]

The most devastating single torpedo salvo in submarine history.

[@Strong_UP_Calvins_zombie]

Truly an expert submariner, a master of his craft. Give that entire crew a medal

[@danieparriott265]

@@Strong_UP_Calvins_zombie Or just lucky to have overconfident targets ...

[@Strong_UP_Calvins_zombie]

@@danieparriott265 however you put it the enemy was still sent below........where they belong

[@TooLateForIeago]

Battleships never fail to amaze me: "Captain, there's a hole in our hull below the waterline I could park a truck in." "No biggie. See to the wounded and maintain station."

[@danieparriott265]

They WERE actually built to expect battle ....

[@jsheridan8753]

How unfortunate do you have to be that you launch a daring bombing raid on a massive heavily defended naval base and nobody even notices? For those pilots it was the greatest mission of their lives, for America it was Tuesday. Possibly.

[@Archangelm127]

It was Sunday, IIRC

[@Deevo037]

Get that guy's number Dick, I'll report him for safety violations.

[@tyree9055]

"So which idiot fired their guns in the wrong direction at the bombardment range?" 😅

[@nektulosnewbie]

Imagine if this had happened to the Doolittle Raid.

[@VersusARCH]

"LOL, hold my sake and watch this!" Captain Takakazu Kinashi about to end an entire carrier task force with a single torpedo salvo.

[@m.steward9146]

Yeah, I'm thinking based.

[@Salmon_Rush_Die]

IJN submarines were considered near the bottom of the Naval hierarchy. Officers who found themselves assigned to a submarine were basically being punished or were considered less competent.

[@user-vd5td2tr8u]

A Japanese officer's performance at military academy influences which ship he is assigned to, but it is not that simple. Submarine crews require skill and patience, so many have long military careers. Also, Teruhiko Miyoshi, who was the captain of the battleship Mutsu, originally graduated from submarine school and was an officer specializing in submarines. However, in any case, it is said that it is difficult for officers assigned to submarines to get promoted, so perhaps this is a problem in Japan, where submarines are looked down upon. Does something like this happen in the US or UK?

[@sarjim4381]

The weakness of all all these large submarines was the poor torpedo loadout. The I-19 was 45 longer than a Gato class sub and 1,000 tons heavier surfaced and 1,200 tons heavier submerged. They also needed a crew of 94 officers and men compared to the average of 70 on a Gato. Even with all that extra tonnage and length, she was only three knots faster on the surface and a knot slower submerged than a Gato. She carried 17 torpedoes with no stern torpedo tubes compared to six bow and four stern tubes on a Gato. Her one superior trait was range, 14,000 miles at 16 knots and about 20,000 miles at 10 knots. The Japanese just added too many roles to one sub.

[@carriertaiyo2694]

Then failed to use them effectively, excluding occasional exceptions like this vid.

[@sarjim4381]

@@carriertaiyo2694 The Japanese had a much different strategy than the US. They viewed their fleet submarines as literal submerge member of the fleet, and their role was to hunt down and sink warships. There are stories of Japanese sub commanders letting merchant ships pass when they were down to their last six or so torpedoes to conserve them for warships. They didn't build enough subs to replace losses and never envisioned a role for smaller subs to defend the home islands. The Japanese believed the war would be won with one gigantic fleet action, and submarines were just another part of the fleet.

[@ruedelta]

@@sarjim4381 They didn't really have a choice. Their industry didn't allow them to use more distributed strategies.

[@jamestheotherone742]

@@ruedelta They could have. If they had foreseen that the war in the Pacific would become an asymmetric attritional one and not the "killing stroke" they had wanted (and lost). All those capital ships and carriers that they built before and in the early war, that wound up getting sunk or bottled up in Japanese harbors would have made a LOT of submarines which would have made it extremely costly for the US to conduct the Island hopping campaign and greatly hampered British shipping to India and Indo-china. .

[@exaltdragon]

That's an apples to oranges comparison. This class was clearly designed for different roles from standard diesel-electric attack submarines, performing a role closer to what the US did with the S-1. Junsui-Otsu's actually carried floatplanes, hangars, catapults and small bombs. You're comparing the ancestor of modern hunter-killers vs SSBNs.

[@Kwolfx]

Japanese submarine operations were hampered by inept command decisions and sometimes just inept command, at the highest levels. For example, the Admiral in charge of the submarines which were supposed to scout Pearl Harbor to spot and possibly attack American aircraft carriers leaving Pearl for the Battle of Midway, didn't bother to inform anyone that all of his submarines had failed to leave on time and wouldn't be in place to do their job. By the time these submarines were nearing Pearl Harbor the American carriers were nearing their cruising stations north of Midway. So when Admiral Nagumo and his staff with Kido Butai didn't receive any messages from these submarines, they assumed that the American aircraft carriers were still in Pearl Harbor. Even worse, Japanese submarines weren't sent to patrol specific areas. They were sent to patrol specific lines within specific areas and to reach specific points each day. This meant that when orders to IJN submarines were intercepted and decoded, hunter-killer groups could be sent to a specific map reference rather than an area which might encompass many square miles. In one case, a series of intercepted and decoded messages allowed the destroyer escort U.S.S. England (Named after Ensign John C. England, who was killed at Pearl Harbor); working with a team of other DE's, to wipe out an entire cordon line of Japanese submarines, and set a record by sinking 7 submarines in 12 days.

[@101jir]

"So when Admiral Nagumo and his staff with Kido Butai didn't receive any messages from these submarines, they assumed that the American aircraft carriers were still in Pearl Harbor." yeah, going off what you said, not generally a good idea to have an agreement in war where no response is taken to mean the most optimistic result.

[@brentgranger7856]

Make sure you see Uncle Drach's recent video on the USS England.

[@hymanocohann2698]

Their system didn't allow inisutive, or reward it.

[@larrytischler570]

@@brentgranger7856 indeed. My mother had a brother in the Coast Guard on a DE mostly in the Atlantic. The stories he told of trying to get subs with depth charges were epic and his ship the Joyce only brought up one. The England killed five in a few days. Super record for the time.

[@jarrodyuki7081]

if only japan won midway.

[@mayuri4184]

Fact: I-19 is also the only Interstate to use the Metric System.

[@hamishneilson7140]

Why’s that?

[@mayuri4184]

@@hamishneilson7140 Beats me. Something something metricisation something something.

[@lightningwingdragon973]

Sorry what?

[@doomguy.23frommars60]

Thats a road people

[@johnfisher9692]

The Japanese use of submarines was very different to the German. The concentration on attacking warships made the task of guarding convoys in the Pacific much easier for the US Navy. I shudder to think of the havoc of German U-boats using wolf pack attacks against the less experienced US escorts in the Pacific The large size of the Japanese subs worked against them in evading an attacking warship.

[@oceanhome2023]

Although both sides knew the importance of carriers the Japanese stuck to the glorious position that the Battleship was pre eminent. All of the best officers wanted to be on the surface fleet. Submarines were considered low class the butt of jokes even , no officers wanted a post on a Sub as it was a dead end. The subs were disrespected almost to the end of the War . If they had used the strategy the Germans did the war would have been much bloodier

[@RJLbwb]

There were U Boats operating out of Singapoor but the Pacific is very big, military convoys small and infrequent.

[@e-care-books9867]

Fun related fact, there were also Dutch (allied) subs operating in the Pacific both before and after Pearl Harbor.

[@admiraltiberius1989]

Japanese submarines and tactics regarding submarine warfare get a bad rapt but...in the first 18 months of the war they were extremely effective. They made sure Yorktown would never make port when it appeared she just might survive Midway. They kept Saratoga out of 3 of the 4 carrier battles around the Solomon islands by forcing her into dry dock. And they sunk Wasp along with other warships and merchant craft.

[@watcherzero5256]

It is worth contrasting with the American submarine captains who were the opposite extreme, extremely timid in their attacks, often returning with full loads of torpedoes despite encountering targets of opportunity.

[@admiraltiberius1989]

@@watcherzero5256 I wouldn't go that far... especially once the older, pre war Captains and leadership were either pushed out or forced to change. The main issue was the torpedoes, the crews just didn't trust them to work because they usually didn't. Also until sub tenders were docked in Brisbane, American subs were having to make the long haul from Pearl to the Southern and Central Pacific.

[@jamestheotherone742]

@@watcherzero5256 Much of that "timidity" came because USN had crappy torpedoes. They could only effectively engage when they could safely do so with the deck gun.

[@redforeman3686]

@@jamestheotherone742 Yes, the dreaded Mark 14. The torpedo would even run circular sometimes back at the submarine.

[@matthewwilson5019]

@@redforeman3686 hence why sub captains were not so keen on using them lol

[@josynaemikohler6572]

Now, that we are at submarines, how about about SM U-21. She managed during her career, to sink aside of merchant vessels, 1 scout cruiser, 1 armored cruiser and 2 battleships.

[@exaltdragon]

Excellent timing. I just finished Gakken's _"I Gou Sensuikan"_ it's really the definitive written work on Japanese subs in ww2.

[@7thsealord888]

Imperial Japan built a number of submarines. Interestingly, one was built by the Imperial Japanese ARMY. It was kept a secret from the Navy, and used to resupply remote outposts.

[@bkjeong4302]

7thsealord The IJN built tons of subs, but while they did kill some warships including capital ships, they were the one navy that never took subs seriously.

[@SeraphoftheRoundTable]

@@bkjeong4302 Yet the boats they built were actually quite capable. Just used in the wrong way. I always found that interesting.

[@bkjeong4302]

Jared Young True. Still it’s generally accepted that submarines and ASW were the weak point of the IJN, and one that went a long way towards defeat.

[@7thsealord888]

The IJN did largely model itself on the Royal Navy. But, whether due to cultural differences or other causes, they seemed to take a lot of wrong lessons, or at least twist the ideas in weird ways. The RN always had a strong emphasis on commerce protection, even if they didn't always handle it very well. For the IJN, keeping the merchant ships running consistently seemed to be of much less importance than beefing up their main fleet - it was usually only second or third string ships that had anything to do with convoys.

[@talonharibon8577]

Ahh the so called sniper of the fleet, Iku... I mean I-19

[@citroen08]

"Fufu~. My sniper soul is burning~."

[@mayuri4184]

はーい！いく、いくの！

[@ignacejespers8201]

I see you're a man of culture as well

[@connormclernon26]

Talon Haribon LEWDMARINE!!!!

[@Ozraptor4]

Iku won a dazzling victory! I'm expecting a reward from you Admiral~

[@ariancontreras4358]

The real problem with the Japanese Submarine fleet is that there was no attempt at standardization. They both had an equivalent of the Gato class and types that could carry aircraft. In the end it was too varied. Same problem with their destroyers and light cruisers having too many different guns.

[@wickhogendoorn9292]

Can you do the IJN I-400

[@Drachinifel]

It's on the list to do :)

[@wickhogendoorn9292]

Thx

[@Troglodytarum]

@@Drachinifel ah yes, the list that is going to take longer than the actual war to complete.

[@vespelian5274]

The Imperial Japanese submarine service, despite some excellent boats, had a lamentable war record: 1-19 was a rare exception. They were however impressed with the hand full of Type VIIC U-boats they acquired. They were unique in having army submarines as well as purely naval units due to the problems of island supply.

[@DukeNukem1231]

You should take a look at HMS Campbeltown. I'm not sure of most of it's service history, but it's involvement in operation chariot is deserving enough.

[@lexington476]

Can you do more on Japanese submarines? We never hear about them during World War II. They were there, but they did not seem to do much.

[@washingtonradio]

The Japanese submarine doctrine was to directly support the fleet either as scouts, attacking warships, or other support operations such as resupply. They were not used like German or US boats to primarily attack merchant ships. Thus, while often successful in their missions they never achieved a critical success or even came close to one. The Germans in 2 wars came very close to winning the war by breaking the Atlantic supply lines for the UK. German U-boots generally did not attack warships. The USN basically did that against Japan in the Pacific which left the Japanese in a very poor supply situation with rampant fuel shortages, food shortages, etc. by the end of the war. One of the perils of being a resource poor island nation, you can be effectively blockaded if your enemy is willing to make the effort to do so. However, Japanese attacks on US merchant convoys would not intrinsically harm the US war effort as the US is a continental power the is basically resource independent then and even is to a large extent today. Very hard to starve the US population as the subs could not sink trucks or trains in Iowa. So attacking US merchant convoys in the Pacific would be mostly attacking US military convoys. Success would hamper operations but not stop them.

[@lexington476]

Jay Lozier Thanks for the info. Yes the US can definitely feed itself from domestic resources, even today.

[@lexington476]

Jay Lozier I still want to see more about Japanese submarines, you just never hear about them.

[@ariancontreras4358]

@@washingtonradio They still could have done a lot of damage when the USA only had three oilers capable of refueling at Sea in the Pacific. They also could have done some damage sinking western merchant ships but instead only did it as a terror tactic. At the very least they could have bought more time.

[@Edax_Royeaux]

@@washingtonradio The Germans never came close to winning the war in the Atlantic. The supply line for the UK was not critical for their survival, it only hampered their peak efficiency. The British didn't need peak effectively to beat the Germans, especially with the US entering the either war.

[@spookyshadowhawk6776]

A very effective Torpedo spread! You wonder how it would have effected the Pacific War if the Japanese had properly used their Submarines and convoyed their merchant shipping. I suspect the lack of fuel had a lot to do with this. The entire Japanese Strategy depended on a quick end to their war, as the Industrial Power of the United States far exceeded that of Japan. After 1943, Japan was hopelessly outclassed by American Naval Production, Japan continued to order Ship's they couldn't build, because the American Submarines continued to sink the merchant ship's that carried the raw materials they needed. Germany made the same mistake, building Battleships that had little Effect as they spend most of the war as RAF targets in Port, Aircraft Carriers they didn't know how to use and a surface fleet that was of little use to them. If instead they had a thousand type 7 and two hundred type 9 U-Boats at the beginning of the war, Germany might have Forced the British to consider peace as more attractive than it's surface fleet ever did. But to Germany and Japan, the Submarine just didn't have the Status and precived power of Battleships and the classic surface fleet of the past. Lucky for Us!!!

[@larrytischler570]

I don't think it was luck. Nimitz was a submariner who knew how to use them best. He also used them as scouts when decoded Japanese messages indicated mass movements and they were required to send a report of strength, position, speed, direction, before attacking.

[@Justathought81]

Love you format, presentation and information given... found your channel a few days ago and im super excited to go through your whole catalogue. Well done and thank you for your work

[@feanorn8409]

I have a suggestion. The most succesful commerce raider of WW2, German auxiliary cruiser Pinguin HSK 5. It sank much more ships (154,710 gross register tons) than the other commerce raiders, despite her short history. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_auxiliary_cruiser_Pinguin Ships like this one often got a much more exciting history than most of the real warships. Because they were used with more risk. They are not as popular as real warships. But the crews of them and their victims were also very brave !

[@pickeljarsforhillary102]

Deep diving content.

[@cutieteal]

PickelJars ForHillary this put a smile on my face

[@hshs5756]

With subs, it's never a question of whether you're going to sink or not, it's a question of whether you'll ever make it back to the surface. Every submarine dive is a controlled sinking, which then balances on a razor's edge to disaster until she's safely back on the surface.

[@treyhelms5282]

I can't fathom how Drach has the time to make these. He must be under a lot of pressure.

[@colindunnigan8621]

@@treyhelms5282 rimshot

[@antiussentiment]

Best story so far.. ..and all your stories are good man. ~ smiles ~

[@nolunchiseverfree]

Q&A: Would love a longer review and criticism of Japanese sub design and doctrine.

[@yhwhswarrior6086]

I like your channel a lot. The first one I watched was about the USS Texas.

[@hndc5435]

I was hoping exactly about this guide this week. Damn its like christmas :p

[@T3hderk87]

Daaaaasng!! That thing is going FAST! 0:45

[@user-xd1gt9if2v]

I love this channel!!!!🎉🎉❤🎉🎉

[@Roger-my5in]

Having finally watched the armo(u)red vs unarmo(u)red carriers comparison video, how about a video looking at German v Japanese v American v etc submarines. Almost every major power had them but what differing design philosophies were applied and how tactically significant were they and their contributions in WW2. Maybe also a little back history into the evolution of submarines in general.

[@BHuang92]

Having one of the largest merchant fleets in the world, you would think the Japanese would care much to consider protecting their merchant ships during ww2. But no. Their whole strategy was based on Kantai Kessen or Decisive Battle Doctrine. Like the American naval theory by Mahan, it focuses on a decisive victory using all capital ships which the Japanese included submarines in that role. However, when the Americans entered the war, they began to follow the Royal Navy's doctrine by Corbett which focuses on aiming at communications and shipping supplies as a key strategy in naval warfare. Due to the organization of the Japanese for their own specific doctrine, they had a hard time adapting to the changing nature of the Pacific war whereas the Americans changed to Corbett' s due to the way their navy was organized and the fact that the Pearl Harbor attacks showed the vulnerability of their capital ships. Also the U.S Navy learned lessons from the Atlantic campaign conducts as how to use the convoy system as well as picking up German wolf pack doctrine. By the time the Japanese began shifting to a different doctrine it was too late.

[@bushyfromoz8834]

#QnA - what were the politics behind the Royal Australian Navy being forced to decommission its flagship HMAS Australia, an Indefatigable class battlecruiser that has been paid for by the Australian Government, so that the Royal Navy could meet the terms of the Washington Naval Treaty

[@trooperdgb9722]

Considered "part" of the RN for those purposes. Up until WW2 the two navies were in many ways twinned organisations. Most senior positions in the RAN were filled by RN officers... while the RAN was still "growing" it's own senior officers... Remember the RAN did not exist until 1911 (prior to that there was the RN's "Australia Squadron" and the various colonial Naval Forces.... ) The first entry to the Royal Australian Naval College was in 1913.... so the RAN had no home grown officers at all until that class graduated as Midshipmen in 1916... The first RAN officer to command a warship was LEUT Norman Shaw who was posted in command of the RN submarine HMS H27 in 1926. The first RAN College graduate to reach the rank of CAPT was H B Farncomb in June 1937...so you can see the RN influence remained very strong for long time.

[@chrisnorman1183]

Awesome!

[@gottjager760]

I have noticed something about these "5 minute guides", they just kind of aren't. 5 minutes that is, not guides they are most definitely guides.

[@Drachinifel]

Hence the 'more or less' disclaimer :) Although to be fair if you take off the c.30 seconds of into, they usually come in at 5 mins +/- a minute, this one's a bit longer though, and Wednesday specials are uncapped in time. :)

[@audacityHD]

GottJäger sshhh that’s better if it’s longer

[@jamesbarca7229]

That was like The History Guy. He used to say 5 minutes, but his videos were always longer than that, so he changed it to 10-15 minutes. He does make excellent content, though. His latest video is about USS Ward...kzbin.info/www/bejne/npS5n3Wve7hqpJo

[@WALTERBROADDUS]

And hamburgers are not made from ham.....

[@seanshi2945]

Aww snap! First sub!! Keep up the good work

[@1Korlash]

The IJN sub fleet: A textbook case of why good equipment doesn't mean much if your doctrine and mentality are bad.

[@inouelenhatduy]

yup have great submarine , just didn't know how to used it

[@LuqmanHM]

#QnA what do u think is the most effective submarine design of ww2 and also a few other notable successful designs?

[@BHuang92]

I would argue that the German Type VII class and Type IX U-boats, the British T-class, and the American Gato class as successful submarines to see service. The German Type XXI, the best submarine design that was very influential in future submarine designs, came too late to see action during WWII.

[@Robert53area]

Depends on what you mean most effective, do mean designing submarines of the future, or effective for what they did. If your talking about designs that would change the world, the i400s double hull design, is what built the typhoon class submarine, which mission is to retaliation and end the world. And the first ssbn design for the us as well, the gato is what most of SSNs are based on. The type 7 and type 21 is what meny nations have built their modern desiel designs on. As kills and tonnage, probably the narwhal and gato, and type 7

[@billhuber2964]

Very interesting.

[@MoltenMouseMetal]

Crash-Dive was a hell of a series.

[@benbaselet2026]

That torpedo luck would end up in a Jingles video if it happened in world of warships.

[@MordalfusGrea]

The Surcouf? I think that's the name, the submarine with twin 8" guns

[@Grimmwoldds]

Yes, but with the same problems as the type 1936A destroyers. Guns too large/heavy for the platform.

[@rogerhwerner6997]

It's probably fortunate for the 1-19 captain that he was lost in combat. Had he survived the war, he likely would have ended up on the galkows for war crimes. BTW...Mark Felton has a lovely video on Operation K1. Felton's video is excellent and worth a view!

[@huichuanyang8105]

holy shit 6 torps 6 hits. That's some accuracy

[@dmenace9827]

Can we see something on the Daring Class Destroyer. I served on Australia's last Daring, HMAS Vendetta, back in the 70s.

[@audeamus1180]

Considering Vampire was the last Daring in service I find your claim to be a joke.

[@3sco955]

I-401 Next?

[@santiago5388]

So you now know lads. When it comes to this "shooting metal fishes from below business" thre are three kinds of folks. Badass warriors that sink even trains. Lucky guys that get three hits in one salvo. And loosers that fail at lauch when their wolfpack is having a feel day. Which one are you? (If you get the sabaton reference you get a hug. If you get the history reference you get a cookie)

[@saintfelician4life]

Santiago Trujillo Tobon Under fire under water may 42 and bury did fail the test

[@dmenace9827]

Not to mention all the US submarines that sank themselves when their torpedoes ran in circles.

[@tcpratt1660]

@@dmenace9827 The submarines didn't sink themselves...they were BuOrd'ed!

[@conradmeek5142]

I am sure someone mentioned this, but since it is my first time posting here I feel the single biggest problem with Japanese submarine warfare was strategy. Their doctrine prioritized warships over transports (ours did too, but rapidly changed based on German doctrine) this is reflected in all other things down the line. Positioning, tactics et cetera. Lastly large portions of the submarine fleet being used as transports (though somewhat understandable) was a complete waste. The same can be said of many of their destroyers. They were throwing good money after bad.

[@salemengineer2130]

If you already have a clip covering this, I apologize. I have always been amazed that the Japanese didn't attempt to use submarines to attack the US supply lines that lead from the Pacific coast of the US to Hawaii and then on the Australia (or the various islands in Polynesia). After all, by 1941, they had the example of how successful the U-boats were in the Atlantic. I have read that the IJN considered going after merchant ships and supply ships was somehow beneath them but you would have thought that somebody in a position of authority would have ordered them to just do it. My understanding is that the US military interviewed a lot of Japanese military decision makers right after the war to better understand what drove their strategy and tactics. Did anything from that explain why they didn't go after the supply train?

[@ExGavalonnj]

Could you do a special on each major nations types of Sub classes in WWII? Either all at once or nation by nation.

[@jamesburdock2085]

I read a book about the British navy K class subs, fueled by coal I believe. They nearly all had disasters if i remember correctly, it would be worth an episode recounting their design and their fates. Thats if you've not already covered them previously.

[@larrytischler570]

I believe after the Wasp was sunk that area around the Solomons was called Torpedo Junction. Losing the Wasp at that time really hurt the US Navy. They asked the Brits to give back a carrier and were turned down. Admirals King and Nimitz never got over that refusal. It was a lean time and the Enterprise had a sign "The Enterprise vs Japan".

[@erict7840]

You should do a video about wog day, the timeless tradition of initiating sailors who cross the equator for the first time

[@TJ-USMC]

My Dad a "Plank-Owner" at the age of 16, served aboard the USS Radford during WWII from 1942-1945, and was an ammo passer on Gun Turret 2, he finished his Military Career in the Marine Corps serving in Korea and 2 tours in Vietnam, "Semper-Fi"

[@jessemarcus]

You should do HMCS Sackville (Flower class corvette) or the HMCS Boneventure (one of the Canadian Aircraft carriers from back in the day)

[@bigbigmurphy]

Yes, I19!

[@keitatsutsumi]

I like the jokes you put in your videos, though my respect goes out to the victims of these attacks. Could you do a couple of videos breaking down the fleet/naval aviation tactics of ww2 countries?

[@EinachserLS]

While you´re doing subs, a Type VII C might be interesting, U96 especially.

[@billy4072]

The minute I hear the word “ironically “ 👍👌😂

[@tricap1542]

Q&A...How about Mrs Drachinifel narrating a video or two?

[@deaks25]

For other submarines, how about a couple of interesting but quirky ideas: the British M-Class & French Surcouf Cruiser Subs/Submarine Monitors?

[@adamdubin1276]

You forget the other effect of Operation K, a 2 meter crated that was made on the Theodore Roosevelt High School Grounds in Honolulu

[@Marxman-bi5yu]

2 years late as this came up in recommendations....but damn if that ending wasn't a case of Instant Karma.

[@anthonygreenfield123]

Wow, American late war destroyers were pretty good sub hunters with their asdic, radar and debt charges. Even sinking a sub in the middle of the night.

[@samstewart4807]

wow I had no idea the attack was that successful.

[@RevilloPhoenix]

Too many big ships, not enough small ships, I wanna hear about the USS Laffey. :D

[@animal16365]

Q&A Could you do a video on the Essex class carriers post war modernization programs

[@bushyfromoz8834]

#QnA - not really, but I don’t know how else to make the suggestion for your 5 minute series. Could I suggest some episodes on the Australian Amphion/Perth/modified Leander class light cruisers, particularly HMAS Sydney’s and Perth who both had firey ends. The V class destroyers of the “Scrap Iron Flotilla” who had some quite glorious careers in the Mediterranean, including resupplying the garrison of Tobruk. And lastly the Australian County class cruisers role in the Pacific, Particularly the crew of HMAS Canberra who the USN tried to blame for the debacle at the battle of Savo Island despite there being multiple failures amongst the allied forces present.

[@tierfuehrer2]

Does nobody notice.....6 six torps salvo of which 5 hit targets. + One above surface hit as a bonus!!! That is amazing!!!

[@hajoos.8360]

About the Fiji-incident is to mention, that Japanese commanders knew about the reason of Dönitz' Laconia-order and the behaviour of US air forces.

[@rogerjustus1220]

My father was on the Radford at this time.

[@jj-nv1kf]

Loved this episode! Want to hear more about your theory as to why the Japanese didn't use radar earlier in the war, as according to some they had it at the before the outbreak they just didn't think it was I don't know useful?

[@rutabagasteu]

One thing the Japanese Navy had that other navies didn't. Excellent night action training and very good binoculars.

[@hymanocohann2698]

At that time, who knew if it were detectable, coudda been a beacon.

[@mebeasensei]

I-25 launched a plane in Bass Strait and flew all around Melbourne unscathed in late February 1942.

[@bjorntorlarsson]

Three hits whereof two sunk!? That's maximum allowed in the classic guessing game "Battleship".

[@drewfullhart1750]

Please do more about submarimes

[@audacityHD]

Please make a video in that high speed sub u mentioned that thing looks so high tech for its time looks like a modern day sub

[@audacityHD]

Or I -52 please

[@mauser98kar]

Moral of the story - don't do unnecessary villainy, or else someone will spot you and waste you.

[@Bors9]

Plz more on japanese ww2 submarines

[@siloseeairenicus5889]

it's letter "I" but it's pronounced as "E", together with the other two classes "Ro" and "Ha", they form "iroha" a common word and lyric in Japanese.

[@RRW359]

Fun fact: I think it was a B1 not an A1, but a Japanese sub managed to launch the only attack on the US (not including territories) during WW2.

[@avnrulz8587]

The float planes were hangared when not in use, though, yes? Hangar very small.

[@Drachinifel]

Yes, broken down and packed away like an Ikea kit.

[@avnrulz8587]

@@Drachinifel I should know better, but my OCD made me do it. Enjoying these videos very much, keep up the good work.

[@chemputer]

About the Type 95. Oxygen is *_never_* a fuel. It's an oxidizer. Fuel + oxidizer gives combustion. The type 95 carries its own oxygen supply *in addition to* it's fuel supply, kerosene, because being underwater, it can't use the 21% oxygen supply from the atmosphere. It's just like a rocket. They carry their own oxidizer and fuel, combine them to produce combustion, and use that for propulsion. Although, despite the fuel being the same (the Saturn V ran on highly refined Kerosene/Oxygen), it obviously doesn't use a rocket engine, but instead just a simple "wet-heater" which appears to be a term unique to torpedoes, that means, as far as I can tell, a steam turbine engine that uses the heat of combustion to produce steam from seawater (I guess given that you're hoping it _explodes_ shortly after launch you're not too worried about potential deposits on the pipes, so seawater is fine) to power the turbines. The combustion could take place quite literally in a flooded chamber, as the oxygen supply is provided, as long as they had some method of ignition, such as an underwater flare or match or something. Or they ignited it normally, such as with a spark (which would also work underwater), and then flooded the chamber, but then you'd risk explosion as the water isn't there to carry the energy away, and the steam turbines would be "powered" for a moment by the exhaust products from the combustion. Man, a video on the development of torpedoes would be awesome.

[@liammartinez1484]

Can you do videos on the other very successful submarines as far as ships sunk.

[@hitoshisawa8479]

Now to find I19

[@americanpatrol4603]

Kind of late to chime in but any series on submarines should not forget doing something on the career of Wanklyn's great but now-forgotten HMS Upholder in the Med. And obviously, I am not British so I am not being a homer but rather a naval aficionado.

[@paulmanson253]

Years ago there was a brief article in an oddball magazine I literally picked off a parking lot. The article was about the Royal Navy steam powered submarines. The idea was that fast long range units capable of keeping up with the Fleet were desirable. Needless to say,they were more dangerous to their crews than anyone else. Cannot remember the class or names given out,too many years ago. Erecting a smokestack after surfacing was no joke. Or a really bad joke,looking at it with macabre humour. Might be a subject you would like to tackle. I do not suppose any other nation did this particular daft idea. They had their own. Cheers.

[@Drachinifel]

Sounds like the K class :)

[@paulmanson253]

@@Drachinifel Too many years,but was there a K30 that sank in the Channel ? I suppose Google would know so will check.

[@paulmanson253]

@@Drachinifel Holy crow. Much worse than the magazine article suggested. I suppose they detailed K26,as it was mentioned post WW1. One fuzzy photo,but I do remember that bulbous bow. What a disastrous idea.

[@drewgrant3030]

As you are covering submarines how about the "K"- boats, the Royal Navy's steam powered fleet subs of around the time of WW1??

[@b.griffin317]

do the gato class next.

[@nicholasrocha2414]

The level of irony in the history of naval warfare is uncanny.

[@salem8251]

Could you do a video on the IJN Yukikaze (1. Pretty sure I spelled that correctly 2. Pretty sure that’s the right ship I’m thinking of) it has a very lucky history for itself and unlucky for everyone and everything around it

[@inouelenhatduy]

too bad the lame Taiwanese scrap her , she would be amazing museum ship

[@blogsblogs2348]

Good info.. I never realised a single submarine attack had hit both a carrier and a battleship... think this is likely the only ever such incident

[@benturner85]

Now that you are doing submarines, I'm curious on what your take on Americas five sub classes of V class submarines, Barracuda, Argonaut, Narwhal, Dolphin, & Cuttlefish.

[@bismark2442]

Do the I 400 sub class next

[@exaltdragon]

2:22 A minor correction: It was not 1*2000HP electric motor but rather 2*1000HP motors. 2 motors obviously being better than 1 for redundancy.

[@raulduke6105]

Great subs and the Wars best torpedo s but not a clue how to use them

[@andreisrr]

Can you do the Indianapolis incident? Eith both side, the trial, King's grudge, and later turnaround?

[@SW1EmpireAtWar]

@Drachinifel Would you ever do a video on the Montana class of battleships following the Iowa class of the United States Navy?

[@Drachinifel]

They're on the list, we'll get to them eventually :)

[@SW1EmpireAtWar]

@@Drachinifel Thanks and I must have overlooked it the first time, my mistake.

[@Drachinifel]

@@SW1EmpireAtWar The list on the video's in only partial, at the rate I release videos, I have 3.5 years of requests for ship guides :)

[@SW1EmpireAtWar]

@@Drachinifel Then that's quite a lot of requests, wish you the best of luck with it :)

[@marttiinnanen4911]

Please do an episode of Finnish submarine 'Vetehinen'.

[@collinpapp9076]

Do a guide on the New Jersey bb16 (not the Iowa)

[@welshwaffs]

Hi have you done a video on the British submarines in the Mediterranean? Especially the ones operating out of Malta? I can’t remember the names but they are featured heavily in James Holland’s book fortress Malta

[@Drachinifel]

Not yet, more sub content upcoming in 2019!

[@craigpalmer9196]

Q&A what was the BB shell load out ww1/ww2 ap vs he ..Thanks