The Drydock - Episode 075

[@Drachinifel]

Pinned post for Q&A :)

[@horikyosuke4794]

I have several questions 1) What would happen if Soviets finished Izmail class battlecruisers, I see that they could finish only Izmail and Borodino but neither Navarin and/or Kinburn maybe Navarin or Kinburn would be aircraft carrier instead. Or what if Russians laid down all Izmail immediately after Gangut class in (1910 or 1911 (and thus they have all 4 battlecruiser commissioned somewhere in 1915-1916)) Would Russian Empire/USSR join London Naval treaty after they finished 2 Izmails (or if they have 4 Izmails if they were laid down in 1910 or 1911). Also if it happened, would Izmails be most powerful battlecruisers in the world? becouse looking at their characteristics they are pretty strong ships to wrecken with. 2) why Iowa didn't sunk after her explosion in B turret in 1989? If it would be any other ship it would be a death sentence to them. 3) If Heihachiro Togo and Akiyama Saneyuki would lived to 1950's (somehow) and participated in WW2 how things would have changed? Yes Togo was Admiral of another era but still, assuming he would learned naval tactics from 1920+ and what he and Akiyama could do? (This is repost by the way)

[@themightynanto3158]

How good were the italian naval anti aircraft guns of ww2 compared to the german and japanese ones and to the allied ones?

[@airplanemaster1]

What would you describe to be the aesthetic styles of each nation's warships (WW2 era)? Examples being the Omaha class' being "old fashioned" for using casemates, RN ships by having a "utilitarian beauty," etc.

[@sarjim4381]

What kind of fire control system was there on an 18th century warship? Was it just point and shoot, or were the some kinds of sighting and aiming devices?

[@matchesburn]

I decided to summit my first question to you, Drach, and sadly... it's a bit of a dumb one, but one I don't recall hearing much about. In the past I have played some video games (Warship Gunner 2, it was... kind of like the Ace Combat for ships of its time) where ship-based guns can be used for torpedo defense by shooting into the water (the shell type wasn't specified, sadly) and destroying, damaging, or diverting incoming torpedoes that way. Has any country tried using main or secondary guns in an attempt to thwart incoming torpedoes? Could such a thing even work, even with specialized shells? (Tangentially related, the U.S. Navy cancelled their nearly billion dollar automated anti-torpedo quasi-active defense hard-kill systems for Nimitz and Gerald Ford class supercarriers because they couldn't get it to perform satisfactory. And that system used mini-torpedoes, noise makers and various decoys and electronic counter-measures. So the idea that a gun could just fire into the water and stop a torpedo somehow isn't looking too good, but I won't know until I ask. Thanks for the videos, Drach.)

[@rlosable]

In terms of amusing signals: The signal for the High Seas Fleet to scuttle itself in Scapa Flow was "Paragraph 11". It is a reference to the drinking rules of student fraternities in Germany (to which pretty much all officers would have belonged at some point), where paragraph 11 is "Es wird weiter gesoffen" or "one keeps on drinking". Here it was a reference to the similarity in German between "abgesoffen" (sinking) and "weitergesoffen" (drinking). So basically the phrase meant: Bottoms up!

[@rlosable]

@@NightRaven-lh1bf The signal is well documented, but rarely anyone explains whay Paragraph 11. Would have been obvious for Germans back then 😉

[@WildBillCox13]

Copied and linked around. Wonderful, revealing, detail in the otherwise chaotic tapestry of a world at war.

[@falloutghoul1]

"One keeps on sinking"

[@AtheistIII]

and zhey say ve cant be funny...

[@Wankerstew]

Good stuff, thank you

[@MrTapierwithmustache]

The "goodluck to everybody in 2020" turned out to be more neccesary than expected

[@jonsouth1545]

I served in the Navy and can happily tell you that the normal waterline signs inside the ship at loaded displacement are for damage control to cut a long story short it helps in combatting flooding most modern ones will now glow in the dark

[@georgea.567]

1:51:48 I have a good signal from Denys Rayner's autobiography 𝑬𝒔𝒄𝒐𝒓𝒕 about his time in the RNVR during WW2 "I remember a day in a full Atlantic gale when a corvette had approached close to the 𝙑𝙚𝙧𝙗𝙚𝙣𝙖 to pass along a visual signal. She had been flinging herself half out of the water as she came round the corner of the convoy, and we had made to her 'I can see your dome,' (referring to the asdic dome which was fixed to the ship's keel almost beneath the bridge). The reply came back like a flash, 'How indelicate of you to mention it."

[@barryjones8842]

Highly recommend Cdr Rayner's writings to those that have not discovered them. Great books (love 𝑬𝒔𝒄𝒐𝒓𝒕).

[@alexandermonro6768]

In a collection of signals published in book form under the title of Send another signal, collected by Jack Broome, one that sticks in my mind: First corvette to second corvette, during North Atlantic gale when both ships were rolling violently: "Have just seen down your funnel. Fire is burning brightly. "

[@georgea.567]

@@barryjones8842 Of his books I have only read Escort, but even so, it is my favorite WW2 memoir.

[@iansadler4309]

@@alexandermonro6768 A signal from PQ17, when Broome was Senior Office Escort Captain P617 (a s/m) to Keppel "If attacked I intend to remain on the surface as long as possible" Keppel to P617 "So do I"

[@NathanOkun]

Concerning US Navy post-WWII non-pointing and non-firing zones for weapons to prevent them from damaging your own ship, missile launchers later also had them (rotating/elevating rail-type launchers used prior to the modern vertical launch systems). These involved several overlapping systems. First, in the calculating computer that controlled the launcher, most such missile systems had internal lock-outs to the cams/gears that physically prevented the calculator from ordering the aiming of the launcher in those directions. For these analog computing systems, these adjustments had to be manually inserted after a newly-overhauled ship had the interfering directions measured during the overhaul. This became extremely complex to maximize aiming when digital computers replaced the analog designs and very detailed adjustments now became possible by inserting the values into the computer code -- this was a VERY TEDIOUS JOB (I did this a number of times for TERRIER when updating the new ship programs). In addition, the missile launchers themselves had cams and gearing to prevent such inadvertent aiming by having circuit cutouts in the firing circuits and, in the larger missile systems, having physical cams/gears inserted into the launcher motor systems that caused the launcher to physically shift upward to a higher elevation angle when the bearing angle went into a danger zone. This caused the launcher to report "NOT SYNCHRONIZED" back to the manned missile control console and this cut the firing circuits there, too. Thus, there were many separate systems all designed to prevent self-damage and, to my knowledge, this never happened. Later, I had a sudden "light-bulb" idea that said to me: "These are GUIDED MISSILES, so why not simply aim the launcher near to but outside of the forbidden zones (usually upward) ON PURPOSE and use the missile's guidance system to 'take up the slack' in making the missile hit the target?" That is what "guided missile" means, doesn't it??? This would eliminate most (not all due to guidance radar blind spots, of course) such firing limits, assuming that the missile could turn tight enough close to the firing ship, where this was the major aiming limit against "on-th-deck" enemy aircraft. This BENEFICIAL SUGGESTION was sent for TERRIER to the Applied Physics Lab of John Hopkins University, TERRIER's Design Agent for the US Navy, and they ran a lot of "Monte Carlo" randomized scenarios and found that TERRIER could be fired at a considerable offset to the optimum aiming angle and still hit all kinds of targets most of the time. This was ado[ted -- I got $400 as my reward -- as what later was termed "CURVED FIRE MODE" and spread to other US missile systems, too. I think that it was also the start of the vertical launch concept in the US Navy, since that is the ultimate "CURVED FIRE" design, is it not? My best contribution to missile technology...

[@nickboy3024]

I asked a friend in the RAN about the waterline markings and his best guess is that there are certain emergencies that react differently depending if you're above or below such as flooding or a hull breach

[@99IronDuke]

Is anyone sure that sign was not there just to let tourists know?

[@ShadrachVS1]

@@99IronDuke my friend was aboard the USS Gary, it had some of these on board... his note is that they were reminders to let Damage control teams know what compartments fall where in regards to the waterline.

[@robg9236]

@@ShadrachVS1 If the damage control teams need a plaque to know what is above/below the waterline, their training is pretty poor. Also, in a damged condition the waterline might be moving up or down.

[@BornRandy62]

During the damage control following the minestrike (s) to Princeton we had multiple teams split up doing multiple things . Some may have been Topsiders and non Snipes but we still needed timely accurate information. Especially when reports were phoned into damage control central by non damage control party sources. Like the foot wide breach of radio control on three bulkheads. The switchboard at the end of number three gas turbine generator that didn't get dipped into a sea of jet fuel because it got blown off its mounting so had about a foot of extra altitude.

[@ShadrachVS1]

@@robg9236 so, in addition to all of their specialized training, you would spend time training every single seaman on board in all of the intricacies of damage control? It's a lofty goal, but hardly practical. It wasn't so much for the experienced and fully trained DCTs, it was for people pressed into the duty in emergencies. Then again, he served in the 00's not the 40's... that may make a difference.

[@sarjim4381]

PT Boats got more standardized armament as the war progressed, but they were pushed out ASAP from 1940-1942 as a force in being. Since the assumption was their four torpedoes would be the main offensive weapons, a pair of dual .50 caliber machine guns was included, mostly to keep the heads of enemy gunners down. By early 1943, it was clear the role of the PT was going to be to stop small vessels from resupplying Japanese islands as we hopped over them. These Japanese boats were mostly very shallow draft barges, and torpedoes were useless against them. Many were quite heavily armored against PT boat attack. This started an arms race between Japanese and USN crews about which would have the most effective armament. PTs never returned to anything larger than forward floating dry docks or small shipyards established by the SeaBees on conquered islands. There wasn't much formality when it came to adding or deleting equipment from boats. It was pretty much up to each skipper what he could scrounge. The arguably best Japanese barge buster was the Pontiac M4 37 mm cannon taken from crashed or salvaged P-39 fighters. P-39s were plentiful in the Pacific, and more M4s became available as the P-39 was taken out of service for replacement by more modern aircraft. Every boat in my dad's squadron was eventually equipped with a bow mounted 37 mm gun, and most of them were installed by the crews with the help of the few shipfitters available. They next started scrounging every 20 mm oerlikon they could find and nailing them down anywhere there was deck space. One of the few authorized additions was a stern mounted 40 mm from mid 1943 as the kamikaze threat increased. By end of the war, my dad's boat had three 20 mm cannon, one astern of the 37 and one each on the deck next to the charthouse, and the Bofors gun at the stern. Two more twin 50s were installed athwartships of the charthouse, and eight 5" rocket launchers were bolted on just ahead of the charthouse. My dad said the rockets, that were supposed to be used for shore bombardment, were usually fired at barges as the boat first ran into attack. They weren't accurate at all, and dad doesn't remembered any barges sunk with them. They were pretty terrifying coming at the Japanese at night with all the flames, smoke, and noise each rocket created. Many of the barges were manned by Japanese fishermen, and he says several barges just ran up the while flag rather than enduring any more of those things headed at them.

[@AdamMGTF]

Excellent addition as always Sar Jim :) I always thought the pt boats really summed up the American way of waging war. A microcosm of the men and the nation. I cant imagine many RN servicemen being quite so resourceful or many officers approving of the throughly unofficial modifications! With one exception. The early Q boats in ww1. They were organised and built in very much the same spirit.

[@sarjim4381]

@@AdamMGTF You're welcome, but don't sell the average RN bloke short when it comes to inventiveness. MTB/MGB crews operating out of Bombay and Malta were renown for how quickly they could strip a captured merchant ship clean of supplies and weapons like the Breda 13.2 mm machine guns much prized by RN crews. I have no doubt RN crews left to their own devices in the Pacific could have become just as adept at scrounging. We also can't forget that without the purchase of that first Scott-Paine motor torpedo boat from England for the "Plywood Derby", it's doubtful the USN would have had more than a few inferior quality PT boats available by the outbreak of war.

[@mikeg.1374]

@@sarjim4381 Those Limeys sure would come in handy around the Strait of Hormuz now.

[@PepRock01]

To the Ben Hur question. One of the biggest flaws was the fact that the Romans and Greeks used professional rowers not slaves. Slaves were a thing during medieval galley warfare.

[@thebigg2345]

Some additional info about the Highball weapon... The weapon was designed with a fusing system similar to that of the dambusters Upkeep, in that it was intended to sink before detonation, with the extreme backspin making it 'hug' the hull as it did so. Tests were promising, and they believed the weapon had a good chance of exploding under the hull of a ship like Tirpitz, which would be far more effective than a regular torpedo. The original plan was to launch the first Highball attack (against Tirpitz) at the same time as the dambusters mission, so as not to tip off the enemy about the new type of weapon. The main reason it was never deployed against Tirpitz was that Tirpitz was being kept at pretty much the extreme (one way!) range for a Highball equipped Mosquito, even with drop tanks fitted. Various plans were made, such as dropping the bombs then ditching somewhere like Sweden, but none of the plans were deemed practical, so the weapon was never deployed.

[@ShadrachVS1]

42:20 According to my US Navy friend; it is a reminder for Damage Control teams. It helps them determine areas that are potentially in need of locking down in the case of flooding, etc.

[@phylismaddox4880]

That seems the most likely.

[@jadeekelgor2588]

Yes. I was taught it had to do with damage control, counter flooding, etc.

[@klassehkhornate9636]

So that's questions on converting Fuso, Ise, Gangut, Lion, and Tiger and their sisters into carriers in one drydock. Nice

[@99IronDuke]

I just wish people would stop wanting to turn slow battleships in to crappy, slow, aircraft carriers.

[@seppiya9115]

It could be worse, I once saw somebody suggesting that the Germans could've converted their Deutschland-class predreadnoughts into carriers.

[@georgea.567]

@@seppiya9115 What would have happened if the Royal Navy had decided to convert HMS Victory to an aircraft carrier, and had her at Trafalgar?

[@charlesdewitt8087]

@@seppiya9115 That sounds like something I'd try in HOI4 only for the game to say that it was too crazy. In fact I think I did try that in HOI once.

[@ousou78]

Convert every BB into carriers even Iowas following Shinano's path!

[@Oddball0311]

With regards to zeppelin for asw work, the USN had a hundred or so K-Class blimps that they used for that exact purpose. One the K-74 was shot down by the U-134 in the straights of Florida in July of 1943.

[@christopherconard2831]

With the Yamato scenario, now I'm picturing a squadron of PT boats screaming around like a pack of angry Chihuahuas.

[@lezardvaleth2304]

Regarding 01:34:18, the time displaced destroyer, the ship in question is the JDS Mirai, a fictional helicopter defense destroyer of a fictional class, the Yukinami. This class is ostensibly an upgraded version of the Kongos, and more similar in design to the Atagos or the Arleigh Burke FlightIIA's. Its expanded hangar carries an SH-60J Seahawk and a fictional Vulcan/Avenger-armed VTOL based on the Bell XV-15. Its missile magazines are armed with RIM-7 Sparrows and at least 1 Tomahawk missile, which is acknowledged to be in contravention of modern real JSDF naval policy, as well as a complement of the usual CIWS and a 127mm deck gun. None of the armaments are futuristically fantastic, although as noted the use of Tomahawks and the armed recon VTOL do not strictly conform with any real modern equivalents. In the animation and the orginal comic, the VTOL (called a MVSA-32J Umidori) is frequently used as a plot device to allow scene changes away from the confines of the ship and sea.

[@BleedingUranium]

Wow, it even has its own extremely detailed wikipedia page. :O

[@mikemullen5563]

Re: Signals... My dad taught at the US Naval War College in the 60's. After a class on decision making, one of his Chilean students, a commander, came up and told him he was steaming out in the Pacific on a destroyer, and got a signal "There has been a coup. Which side are you on?" He apparently had guessed right.

[@benwilson6145]

I find it highly unlikely that anyone would throw coins at the returning Grand Fleet from the Forth Bridge because the only bridge at the time was the Rail Bridge with no pedestrian access, the road bridge with pedestrian access was not opened until the mid 60's. There was for a long time a belief that is was lucky to throw a coin into the Forth as you passed over it in a train for the first time. This lead to people on ships passing under the rail bridge staying inside as you passed underneath the bridge.

[@Alobo075]

Another 1939 Royal Navy advantage - No Beatty or Seymour.

[@joeblow9657]

Quite right. Also, the ships tended to explode less frequently than the battle cruisers at Jutland. Hood being an exception of course.

[@fabianzimmermann5495]

Now that you mention it, I can‘t believe he forgot that.

[@alganhar1]

Erm, it is not *just* geigercounters that require low background steel. Any equipment that requires the highest sensitivity for radionuclides requires low background steel. This includes geigercounters, but also includes a variety of medical scanners, a fairly sizeable bunch of scientific equipment, not to mention a variety of Aeronautical and space sensors. All of which are sort of important. As for using those scuttled ships in Scapa flow, that is where a sizeable proportion of low background steel is already coming from. Those ships are absolutely perfect *because* they are not grave sites, and they are in relatively shallow water. A significant proportion of the merchant ships sunk by the Kreigsmarine and High Seas fleet submarines during both world wars *ARE* grave sites, thus should *not* be disturbed. Just because they are not warships does not reduce the courage or sacrifice of those men who crewed them, thus they should be afforded the same respect and rights afforded to warships considered war graves..... This dream you have of seeing all those High Seas Fleet ships kept as museums is just that, a dream, one that is never going to come to fruition. Perhaps one or two could be raised and refurbished as museums, but the most efficient use of the vast majority of the scuttled High Seas Fleet is as low background steel.

[@murderouskitten2577]

still - you all can go and loot some nonfamous russian , french or english wreck. People should really learn to lean the High Seas Fleet alone . It belongs to German Empire , and only it. Rest and just scavangers and thiefs. It is really too bad the modern day germans are too spinless to object to this kind of prospecting.

[@willrogers3793]

I don’t see why there should be any more fuss about salvaging *any* of the wrecks around the British Isles, considering that the Royal Navy had absolutely no qualms about using the wreck of the Lusitania for target practice for years on end despite it also being a “war grave”. If there’s anything less respectful to do to a war grave than plundering it, I’d say blowing it up even further probably fits the bill. Don’t get me wrong, I would vastly prefer that *all* wartime wrecks, regardless of whether they were scuttled or not, be left in peace. Doing anything other than diving on them or possibly recovering minor artifacts for museums or memorials just strikes me as highly distasteful. I freely admit I know next to nothing about metallurgy or the sciences involved, but I’d much rather somebody found a less ghoulish alternative to cannibalizing old shipwrecks for steel.

[@murderouskitten2577]

@@willrogers3793 i could not agree more !

[@benwilson6145]

The majority of the High Seas Fleet (the shallower ones) were salvage in the 1930's by a brilliant engineer, Ernest Cox. there is an interesting book about it by Gerald Bowman "The Man who bought a Navy". Very interesting book, my favorite picture is a German destroyer in a drydock sitting on its funnel/accommodation.

[@alecblunden8615]

I'm glad to hear you feel war Graves should be sacroscant. It's a commendable view not always shared by modern governments.

[@davefranklin7305]

One of my favorite signals, though via TBS, not flags: Off Bougainville, USS Spence was mistaken for a Japanese ship by Arleigh Burke's destroyer ("31 knot Burke" was COMDESRON 23, not an individual ship captain). Suddenly a dozen+ 5" shells slammed into the sea near Spence. Captain Austin on Spence grabbed the TBS and said "We've just had a bad close miss. I hope you are not shooting at us!" After confirming Spence had not actually been hit, Burke replied "Well, you'll have to excuse the next four salvos, they're already on the way!"

[@jameson1239]

And the nest lines I can imagine the next things captain Austin said were “ oh god oh fuck oh god oh fuck”

[@Ealsante]

@@jameson1239 "Burke, you [four lines of redacted text]"

[@admiraltiberius1989]

Absolutely fantastic marathon of a video sir. Thank you for all the work you do. It's a shame that the Spruance class of destroyers didn't have longer a service history. The class embodied the qualities of the man they were named after. The Last Ship show had such promise and it went wrong so quickly. It's a real shame. But typical of Hollywood. During the Korean war, the battleship Wisconsin was hit by shore batteries and she responded by plastering the battery and surrounding area with multiple salvos of 16inch shell fire. One of her escorting destroyers flashed the signal "Temper Temper."

[@scottgray3945]

Skip bombing against naval units where used extensively and very effectively by the Allies in the southwest Pacific theater.

[@AdamMGTF]

Used throughout the war. I've read of accounts as early as 1939 in one of Hastings books. Obviously long before there was a pacific theatre,😂

[@aaronstorey9712]

The soviets also used it to great effect in the black sea

[@jadeekelgor2588]

Trimaran ships should have a central hull roughly 3x the breadth of either of the sides. Thus a single engine but 3 rudders! I would think that the form of such a ship would lend itself best for aircraft launch and recovery. Much like the US riverine forces in the Vietnam war. Unfortunately such vessels make very large targets even if they could travel at 40 knts. They would, of course, make excellent US submarine resupply and repair prepositioned mid-ocean in early 1942.

[@glennricafrente58]

1:51:33 My favorite anecdote from Make Another Signal: First ship to second ship: "Don't look around now, but I think we're being followed."

[@taivaankumma]

54:17 "I know some people don't like the Queen Anne's Mansions..." Really, there are people who don't like HMS Warspite?

[@murderouskitten2577]

well , it is not that we dont like the QE class , it is just that there are very large amount of ships who looks far better . IMO best looking ship - Admiral Hipper class , Prinze Eugeon especially. Having said that - one can like the ship and it's exploits and still dislike how the ship looks.

[@kristianfagerstrom7011]

Age of sail all the way! :-)

[@AnimeSunglasses]

Look, not EVERYBODY can have good taste!

[@wierdalien1]

The Queen Anne's mansions are sexy.

[@wierdalien1]

@@murderouskitten2577 Eugenz* and no. You are clearly blind

[@Mr-Q2]

26:22 "Get the Japanese Army involved." Now that is an impressive magic trick

[@Thirdbase9]

That's actually a simple trick. Just tell them that the IJN is now using the the US Battle Ensign for their new flag. The Japanese Army pilots will then do their best to sink those darn IJN Navy pukes.

[@Mr-Q2]

@@Thirdbase9 that would probably do the trick

[@BornRandy62]

The Japanese Navy has just deployed fully armed ships and aircraft to the gulf to "monitor shipping" and gather information .

[@scottgiles7546]

Getting their army involved is easy to believe. On which side is the question...

[@JohnSmith-kg2rt]

@@scottgiles7546 no that is easy against the Japanese Navy obliviously

[@jimharrison5725]

Odd gun and ship combos would include PG gunboats built for the Coast Guard in the USNavy in WWII. You had a 1800 ton 255 ft steam electric ship armed with a twin 5”38 forward and aft. They were quite unstable due to all that topside weight and quickly lost the aft mount and eventually had the forward mount reduced to a single. They stayed in that configuration for their careers eventually serving as shore battery duty in Vietnam

[@dancingaces4562]

I definitely recommend watching Zipang, it is an amazing anime. Aside from a few things (getting said destroyer to the past, tiltrotor aircraft onboard), it seems to be fairly realistic, especially in terms of how the characters act, as it gets you to properly think about what would happen if you got sent back, adding in that they have moral conflict with what to do being from Japan. Also, the ship is based on the Kongō-class or Atago-class guided missile destroyers.

[@HARMstudio6]

Hey I don’t know if you remember me but you helped me with some sources for a semester paper awhile back. Thank you so much I ended up getting a 95 those sources helped me so much

[@michaeljones9861]

Thanks for answering my question Drach. I always thought it was odd that after the RN insisted on 8 inch cruisers at Wasington in order to keep the Hawkins class that they were later down gunning them

[@Eulemunin]

Water line marks tell the damage control crews what kind of patches to use, but I can source this now lost the white paper a move. The need to keep pressurized water out of the hull requires different patches and braces. And putting the wrong system in means failure knowing where that water line is keep you floating longer.

[@mackenziebeeney3764]

I like the insane idea of the trimaran Iowa cause you’d increase the engine power, and you could take out the amidships torpedo protection from the center hull as the side hulls would do that on *their* outsides, then go ham on that there cause the interior doesn’t need it either. Or rather if it does then you’re already screwed so.

[@kemarisite]

For the Japanese, after the major battles of 1942 it would still have been a big help to have a lot more anti-submarine vessels in service. Even taking a year to build, starting at the beginning of 1943 they start getting those AS ships into service just about the time the US submarine fleet gets a working Mark 14 torpedo.

[@xgford94]

Strange but true...Time travel is more plausible than WW2 era Japanese army and navy working together

[@tbretten]

"Artillery before gunpowder was a little bit hit and miss" 😂

[@lloydcollins6337]

One of the other major uses of low background steel is for surgical scalpels (which can't be reused indefinitely) - this is as some medical procedures need to use radiation to detect things so they don't want to detect the surgeons tools.

[@davidvonkettering204]

I recognized Admirals Cunningham and Spruance by their photos. I need help. HAPPY NEW YEAR! Love, David PS, In Admiral Nimitz's Graybook, there are several instances of ship's own turrets firing into another on their ship.

[@camrsr5463]

53:01 I would like to be photographed on the HMS Agincourt holding up 7 fingers.

[@jimtaylor294]

Ah Zipang. As a Brit' whim has seen it, I thought it rather good. The studio behind it certainly did a good job balancing patriotic sympathy with WWII era Japan, with the postwar realization that they'd been on the wrong side of history in said war. The characters of the series also are confronted with a really compelling internal conflict between wanting to help their ancestors, and the conviction not to interfere with established history. (one I think anyone can relate to) The technical accuracy was also quite decent, albeit with some liberties taken (the vtol 'plane of the Mirai for instance doesn't exist).

[@alecblunden8615]

The only advantages a modern guided missile ship would have are in electronics and surface to surface missiles. The advantages in speed, manoeuvrability and general sturdiness all favour the WW2 ships - and most of the effectiveness of the surface to surface missiles is that their targets are chock a block with electronics, all essential. The WW2 version were nowhere near as vulnerable and could well prevail.

[@jimtaylor294]

@@alecblunden8615 No disagreement on survivability from me. Armour is one thing warships today lag behind their ancestors in, for various reasons.

[@talltroll7092]

@@alecblunden8615 The Mirais' primary advantages are speed and ranged combat. They can outpace literally anything else afloat, and engage accurately targets they can't even see, by using modern radar, and in at least one case laser designation of a stockpile of flour

[@raymondsmart496]

My grandfather was at Jutland on HMS Tiger, serving on the guns

[@ficklefingeroffate]

a 2 hour dry dock? My Sunday morning is complete!

[@pfalzerwaldgumby4798]

The „New Jersey“ would never have waited in line. No one from New Jersey waits in line. Just try to get through the Lincoln Tunnel. :)

[@detritus23]

Pfälzerwald Gumby Just because you don’t know how to merge in heavy traffic, don’t be hating...just get out of the way. ;) Actually, proper “bridge and the tunnelers” take mass transit. But, no one can explain the “jug handle.”

[@LiveErrors]

but how about the USS Black Dragon?

[@bkjeong4302]

New Jersey would probably not even get to wait in line due to the fact even Allied AA wouldn’t be able to change the outcome of Ten-Go (which was never expected to succeed anyways).

[@mikeg.1374]

@@stanleyrogouski We'll cross that bridge when he reopens it. BTW, where is CC these days?

[@fabiomarangon2748]

Well, it's one of the fastest, so theoretically it could get first place as the line is still forming... lol.

[@BB.61]

49:44 When the U.S.S. Houston CA-30 was participating in the Battle of Bali Sea one of her Curtiss SOC Seagull float planes was preparing to launch for scouting duties. It didnt have a chance to leave the ship before a nearby 5"/25 antiaircraft gun opened up on Japanese aircraft. Its catapult was so close that the gun blast from the 5" gun ripped the canvas skin right off of the airplane with its engine still running.

[@liberator235]

So as far as the “waterline mark” it’s mostly for tourists on museum ships. Of all the active naval ships I’ve been on I’ve never seen any waterline mark

[@deryckkent6181]

having worked on Naval vessels, it is a marker on where the ship will flood to prior major damage adjusting the water line

[@liberator235]

Deryck Kent I don’t know man, I’ve never seen any physical “waterline mark” inside the skin of a ship, especially on amphibs ‘cause that shit changes a lot

[@mossbergmaniac1947]

@@liberator235 I found a manual for the navy internal marking standards from 1936 and it has a internal waterline standard in there. I've never seen the marking either, but I've never seen them in the ships I've been on.

[@gwtpictgwtpict4214]

From memory Nelson originally wanted "England confides that every man will do his duty" to be flown by HMS Victory at Trafalger, but agreed to his flag lieutenants suggestion of substituting "expects" for "confides" as expects existed in the code book whereas confides would have to have been spelled out letter by letter.

[@CharlesStearman]

I believe the original intention was to signal "Nelson confides..." but both words were changed to words that existed in the signal book.

[@CharlesStearman]

He actually wanted to send "Nelson confides . . ." but both words were changed to ones that existed in the signal book. As it was, "duty" still had to be spelt out.

[@AdamMGTF]

Drach mentioned this in a previous dry Dock. Your both right. Also. Note a similar signal by the Japanese Admiral just before the battle of tsushima.

[@CSSVirginia]

Getting close to 100k Drac!

[@scottgiles7546]

You're typing that like it is a monetary unit. "That will cost you 100,000 Drac's."

[@grahamariss2111]

Surely the Scharnhorst is an example of where you create a mirror image of a British Battlecruiser, taking a heavy cruiser arnament but having battleship protection and ending up with something as equally flawed when asked to deal with anything bigger than a heavy cruiser.

[@cernwoad]

Just reviewed your piece on the Crown colony class, would be interesting to see a comparison between Town class and Fletcher's size and comparison between 5" destroyer guns and 6" cruiser guns.

[@AdamMGTF]

I'm pretty sure that was discussed in a earlier dry Dock :)

[@karlvongazenberg8398]

OK, press like, get coffee, launch video

[@rascalferret]

ditto

[@sarjim4381]

The USN had about 600 PT boats *as well* as all those Fletchers, Sumners, and Gearings, plus a crapload of DE's. The Japanese never developed the kinds of sonars and radars that could have made large numbers of coastal patrol craft useful. By 1944, Japanese ships were being sunk at a rate between two and three times the capacity of Japanese shipyards to replace them. The Japanese Navy was pretty well doomed by 1943 no matter what they did.

[@f1b0nacc1sequence7]

They were doomed before that.....before Pearl Harbor....

[@sarjim4381]

@@f1b0nacc1sequence7 Before the US or Britain entered the war? I don't think they were doomed then.

[@f1b0nacc1sequence7]

They were doomed the moment they decided to attack the European colonies....the US put a strangehold on their economy, and it was only a matter of time. No oil, no navy... So yes, before the US and the UK entered the war, they were still doomed.

[@AdamMGTF]

@@f1b0nacc1sequence7 can't fully agree there. There was still the possibility of buying oil on the open market. Not enough to operate the full navy to full potential (training etc). But they could have kept their economy going. They also had a land war on the go in China etc. This you'd think would sake their lust for expansion. But obviously not. The navy would not be able to do as it liked thanks to the oil embargo. But a lack of oil doesn't sink ships. Though of course this sort of thinking was a foreign idea to the Japanese at the time. The underlying point is. Until late 41 and the attacks on the British empire and the US. They hadnt lost their navy and japan's destruction was far from a forgone conclusion.

[@f1b0nacc1sequence7]

@@AdamMGTF With respect, what 'open market' are you referring to? In 1940 (when this began to be a problem in earnest), the worlds oil was tied up between the US and the Middle East (controlled by the UK for all intents and purposes) and neither of those were going to sell a drop to the Japanese. This wasn't just the Japanese military (and remember, the IJA was using up scads of oil running their attempted conquest of China), but Japanese domestic consumption as well. Their economy was near cratering, and that was what drove them into the war in the first place. There was no practical source for the Japanese outside of the US that didn't involve conquest of someone else's colonies, and the IJN was adamant that they couldn't protect that supply if the US was allowed to remain in control of the Philipines unmolested. You are most correct, the lack of oil does not sink ships, but it does render them immobile, at which point they might as well be sunk. Worse, this also meant that the Japanese wouldn't be able to operate aircraft (or keep their pilots trained), and that would have meant the end of Japan as a modern military power. Look at the impact of oil shortages on Germany during the war, and they had access to a LOT more oil than the Japanese had any hopes of getting. Without access to American oil and scrap metal (notably steel and to a much lesser extent aluminium), Japan's economy could not function for very long without having to attempt to seize someone else's reserves (the Dutch East Indies), and that would draw the Americans and UK into the war without question. This meant that the Japanese were doomed the moment that they triggered the embargo, which in practice means the moment that they decided to strike at French Indochina. It isn't impossible to make the argument that the moment that they struck at Manchuria the process was irreversible, but I will concede that is probably a bit of a reach to claim certainty for...

[@richardcutts196]

On the no RN in WW1 question. WW1 was going to happen, there were too many people that wanted a war. the question is what form it would take. If Germany had reversed it's policy of attacking in the west and holding in the east, and does not invade Belgium, then Britain would have (probably) stayed out of the war. This would have lead to a much shorter war.

[@CharlesStearman]

One of Britain's long-term foreign policy objectives was to stop any single Continental power gaining control of all the Channel ports (as the French had under Napoleon) , which is one of the reasons why they opposed Germany's invasion of Belgium and France.

[@richardcutts196]

Kind of the point. No war with Britain.

[@thomaslinton1001]

Kennan's one volume history of WWII describes use of "skip-bombing" against Japanese shipping in the southwest Pacific. There are films, and the bombs seem to bee conventional "iron bombs."

[@AdamMGTF]

They will be. Skip bombing was a tactic developed before the war even started. Used against merchantmen as early as 1939 :)

[@havokvladimirovichstalinov]

I wish I had some decent computer design skill, I really want to see Drach's Trimaran Atlantowa.

[@jadeekelgor2588]

Probably "TORONTO" LOL

[@JohnRodriguesPhotographer]

I have wondered about a trimaran carrier. The outer hulls being a big part of the TDS. The trimaran would do away with the angled flight deck. Exchanging that for two straight through landing decks. This would also provide up to 6 catapults. a central, aerodynamic Island to reduce turbulence could top it off. Behind and in front of the island could be elevators and deck parking. Maybe find room for VLS boxes for SAMs. The Sea Sparrow is long in the tooth.

[@willrogers3793]

21:00 in which First Sea Lord Drachinifel hints at his role as the secret founding member of SPECTRE.

[@dwightehowell8179]

1:31:31 Roman war galleys commonly carried archers or slingers. A least one source said that it was normal for a Roman soldier to have a sling in their gear. The likelihood that a war galley would not have somebody equipped to fire missiles of some sort seems improbable. The ships shown seem to be single bankers while triremes would have been much more likely as making up the core of a war fleet heading into combat.

[@Drachinifel]

Man-portable projectile weapons would be slightly different to 'artillery' as such (OK technically they're the same thing but you get what I mean) :)

[@dwightehowell8179]

@@Drachinifel True enough but a single banker isn't likely to be carrying much in the way of artillery. Maybe one very small one? A double banker might still have just one while I suppose a larger ship could have one or two? It rather depends on having some real deck space to put them on, the size of the weapons, and making sure the sails were out of the way. I get the impression that the people who did the modals would have been well served to have gone to Athens and look at the recreation they have or at least some video about it. To me there isn't much resemblance except in a rather vague way.

[@benwilson6145]

The marked deck line on a battle ship and your post of the Load line for a merchant ship will not be directly related. Samuel Plimsol was the inventor of the Load line, I'm sure he's on Wikipedia. This is to allow sufficient reserve stability in case of damage to ship. A naval ship has no need of this as they do not carry cargo. To try a logical guess it may be the equivalent of Deck Line marking, this is the highest line that that the ship can make water tight (not weather tight). In a merchant ship this is the line that the freeboard is measured from.

[@MrSheep-uv7up]

The Zipang if i remember correctly was a kongo class aegis gmd

[@jimtaylor294]

Sort of. The 'Mirai' is based on them (in rather impressive detail), but a fictional class.

[@leoschorberschofskie4628]

Can modern naval aa-missles successfully target a propeller engine aircraft, especially something as slow as a swordfish? Wouldn't the head signature be to small and to weak in comparison to a modern jet engine and would therefore not been able to hit a swordfish, considering the high speed of the missel?

[@johnnyscott3698]

Good question Leo

[@EradWir]

Comes down to what seeker head a missile has

[@mdtdragon]

All of Norman Friedman works are well worth the read. All make a good addition to any library.

[@PCardon13]

Relating to the civilian shipping subject - One of the more popular forms of overseas civilian transport that was left during ww2 was actually the air line. The BBC collects accounts of the past from older people, and one of them - I don't have the link unfortunately - talked about taking the airline to Singapore I believe. It would include arriving in Southampton, being rowed in a small boat out to a Short Empire (the less prickly cousin of the Short Sunderland), possibly having tea with the crew while the aircraft was prepped and loaded, and then taking off, landing on small lakes in France, in the bay of Genoa (or was it Naples?) continuing to Cairo, hopping over to Karachi, and continuing onwards. During the Second World war things had to be adapted, partly because everything that could fly for extended periods of time over water was having bombs and guns strapped to it, but the line continued because mail was considered an important factor in civilian morale, and a lot of children and civilians had been evacuated to very distant places such as Australia. In India, particularly Karachi which was a big BOAC terminal, mail would frequently be handed over to other companies like Imperial Airways and later QANTAS who made the last jumps to outposts like Hong Kong, Singapore, and especially Sidney. The entry of Italy into the war made the Mediterranean very unfrequentable, so the horseshoe route was developed, which passed through Portugal, which allowed civilian traffic, steered clear of the African coast, and then crossed through friendly sub-Saharan African territories to land in Egypt and resupply there, or in the enormous ATC that (I think it was Khartoum) was turning into. Then again to Karachi and relatively peaceful India, which must have felt like a great relief to civilians who had just spent months or years in war torn and bombed out Europe. The entry of Japan into the war also threw another wrench into the plan, especially when they started advancing west from Siam. The limits of the Shorts were really starting to show at this point - they just no longer had the autonomy to fly across to Australia, and by February 1942 it was pretty much over. The last flying boat left Singapore on the 4th, 11 days before the bloody fall. Air planes continued to be of vital service: there were streams of refugees trying to get out of the Indies, and survivors of Singapore and maybe other british dependencies trying to reconnect with Imperial forces, and the flying boats were vital for them: they'd fly out of Java or Surubaya for a few weeks transporting refugees, land in Broome, refuel, and then take off for a major Australian city. The Japanese put an end to that when they raided Broome on the 3rd of March, slaughtering dutch civilians loaded in Dorniers and other planes waiting for take-off. That pretty much marked the cutoff of links between the Empire and Australia and New Zealand. Granted, it was still possible for mail to be wired or taken by ship, but given the Japanese went as far as raiding Sri Lanka, it must have been a nerve wracking experience that people might have tried to avoid. I imagine it must have had an impact it must have had on the population, although perhaps relatively small because it was expensive to fly or mail by air. The Royal Australian Air Force still needed documents and personnel to be transferred, so they set up the 'double sunrise' route in 1943, a year after the cutoff, to fly people in extreme secrecy from Sri Lanka to Australia. It took 27 to 33 hours, an extremely long period of time, took place in total darkness when the time to fly over Japanese territory came (avoiding detection), and involved stripping the catalinas of anything that was not critically involved in propelling it up and forwards in order to fill it with fuel. There were only 3 passengers and a pilot.

[@NH365]

What was the ship that was not built that had it been could have had the greatest impact on naval warfare in its time in retrospect?

[@barryhopesgthope686]

What about Landing Ship Tank conversion to Piper Cub carriers, how many were made? I know they were for launching spotter planes for field artillery.

[@WildBillCox13]

My Spin on a hypothetical rejuvenation of the IJN in '44? Like Drach said, it takes time to launch hulls, to fit out ships, and to work them up for combat duty. The planning would have needed to begin in the fourth quarter of '41 at the latest. Modifications are cheaper, time-wise, if not too extensive. For extensive conversions you night as well build a new one from the ground up. I cite the Italian Aguila, and the various proposals for Kriegsmarine cruiser conversions. And the Ise/Hyuga thing. What was that, anyway? A ninja tool for the Village Hidden in Stupidity? Still, a few things stand out: 1) the Japanese had a goodly number of Vickers PomPom from various new possessions, or scavenged from wrecks. The plans and tooling and even samples of Bofors M32 gun could've been transferred through U--Boat activity (there were historical precedents). Devote all of the IJN's resources into mass production of 40mm AAA and ammunition, load down the Akisuki class ships with single and dual mount (the quad was late innovation) 40mm, rather than 25mm. Then just focus on the Akisukis, and also produce a small ASW escort for the crude oil safaris. 2) Clear the N1K1J for carrier Ops. Poke friendly holes (for ventilation) in the Taiho's sides, and use her as a plane magnet for the allied forces. If you need more aggro, pair her up with the Yamatos. 3) Fortify Truk. Maybe unload all of those superfluous 25mm guns there. 4) Ask the Kwantung Army to offer to help Chiang eliminate the Communists in a two--pronged offensive. Make a deal to pay him, as the representative of the legal government of China (a la Pu-Yi), a large indemnity in art, sculpture, financial aid, western medicines, some great opium (which Chiang would use to, ahem, "motivate national sentiment") and sake, and offers of both technological exchange and cooperative ventures, and thereby seek to pacify China . . . and bring its resources of food and minerals under one roof. 5) Treat the Pacific side Panama canal locks like the British treated the gates at St Nazaire en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Nazaire_Raid. 6) Offer aid to Vichy. Perhaps transport "agents provocateurs" to the African littoral by submarine? Run a ninja hit on De Gaulle? Or, even better, to keep up a plausibly deniable dialog between the two halves of the French People in case of an eventual rapproachment? 7) Change the Navy's effing codes. Frequently. And with prejudice. Or, alternatively, make a deal with the Ainu, like we did with the Navajo. Use them as Code Talkers. 8) Submarines, submarines, submarines. Remember, your original plan to bring the US fleet into a Grand Battle can only work if your subs can go for his carriers, while he's pounding your decoy (see number 2 above) to smoldering ruin. 9) Make an open appeal to return prisoners as a gesture of civilized comportment. Offer any allied prisoner a pardon if he signs a pledge to make war no more against the rightful rulers of the world. With all the food from a willing China, you'll be able to raise the standard of living for your peasantry, AND feed prisoners like you'd want the emperor to be treated if conditions were reversed. Very Buddhist of us. Western fools would misrepresent it as adherence to their silly "Christian virtues". 10) If you have all those new resources . . . perhaps you might reach out to your natural partner in world trade . . . India. After all, they hate Churchill, too. Spread a few rupees around and see what happens. 11) Send an official embassy to the USA, with full autonomy to negotiate and . . . offer to sell them Chinese scrap iron and Dutch Crude oil below scale. Not to generate good will, mind you, but to insult the bastards for starting this whole thing in the first place. 12) Offer a diaspora group citizenship if its members would like to colonize some of your new possessions. Protest in world maritime courts if their rights are abused by allied acts of terror. Why? Number 11, M----------r. Who's the Good Guy NOW? Hehe.

[@tbmike23]

Drach. I wish to know more about the logic, or strategic reasoning, behind the Second London Naval Treaty, and it's relation to not only Japan leaving not only the treaty, but the league of nations as well, in addition to the decision to let Germany out of the Versailles treaty. The Washington naval treaty I understand, even the first LNT I can sympathize with, please help me to understand the rationale behind going further down the limitation treaty rabbit hole, during the great slump, when all the aggressor nations of the world have violated it, even with france and Italy blatantly doing so several times over. I know many disparate factors were at play, but since the treaties played such a large role in the imminent naval warfare, to the point that some believe it helped bring it about, I'm very interested in your thoughts on the matter.

[@ovk-ih1zp]

U.S. PT Boat crews were second only the U.S. Navy SubTheives in their effectiveness of acquiring ANYTHING that would go "BANG" at either end. By late war if it wasn't nearly impossible to cleanly walk the deck of an American PT Boat, their crews were doing something VERY wrong. I've seen photos of late war Elco or Higgins boats that had the "Standard" load-out of a 37mm Autocannon on the forecastle, a single OR twin 20mm Oerlikon behind that off-set a PAIR of 8-cell 5" artillery rockets on each bridge wing, 2 pair of twin .50cal Browning's, 2 drop racks for MK13 torpedoes 2 depth charges on each side & a 40mm Bofors on the fantail. This was "STANDARD" load out. The crew had ADDED a second twin Oerlikon up front, 2 twin .30cal or .50cal Browning's on the front wings of the bridge, a 81mm morter on either side of the bridge, a 3-tube 4.5" rocket launcher on each rear wing of the bridge, a pair of twin .50cals just aft of the torpedo racks & 2 single mount Oerlikon inside of the depth charges. Believe me, if it would go Bang or Boom & the crew could steal a mount for it, it ended up somewhere on their boat.

[@douggallagher8809]

When will people realize that the IJN's only way to alter the outcome of the war in the Pacific is to do 2 things: change their doctrine on fleet actions(like what Drach states) & improve their industrial base. Not only did the IJN barely keep damaged ships working(but not for long) but they could not replace any losses in any significant way. It is possible to to win anything but a race to the most losses of ships when your industry can not complete(or compete) any ships in any significant numbers to show the marked change of prewar doctrine, into war time necessity. Which is why Yamamoto tried & failed at a knockout punch at Pearl Harbor(though a 2nd killing blow would still be needed to be dealt with the US fleet not at Pearl). The simple fact that the US doubled, during the war, the total of IJN carriers, from beginning to the end of the war, with the Essex class alone, and had aircraft & full trained pilots

[@bkjeong4302]

Doug Gallagher I’m not sure even changing their doctrine would help at all. The US economy was just too powerful.

[@WALTERBROADDUS]

@@bkjeong4302 If Bombing 6 and Bombing 3 not get lucky at Midway, the IJN does have a shot to control the Pacific. For a year at least.

[@LionofCaliban]

I don't think the IJN could have done anything to change the outcome of the war. The simple fact is in this case, the war is as much economic, population and industrial. The US had all of the above in excess to get the win. The IJN didn't have anything they could rely on long term. The only way the IJN win was not to play.

[@bkjeong4302]

There Be Game This basically.

[@LionofCaliban]

@Nguyen Johnathan See, I don't see the problem that way. You had a political....... well, you had an ideology that fundamentally forced the war onto a nation that had no way to express that idea. You had a group that war was the accepted goal, not a victory in war, just the goal of being in or at war. At least, being blunt about the extreme nationalist government to military junta on some level. It's political, it never is easy to express in simple terms. The IJN as an implement of that government was expected to go along with and they did. I'd argue in the later phase of the war they should have rightly called out what were suicide tactics. Losses that became badges of honour should have been called out. Unfortunately, some of their commanders have attitudes I can't appreciate on a cultural level. (Third generation Australian of largely European centric ancestry, Japan and South East Asian is just not my part world, I get it to a certain degree but not in any real depth) and what I would consider outright bad attitudes towards command. The concern was to maintain honour, not to preserve the life of the personnel under their command or the assets of their command. Those two I mention I believe should be the priority of a ship's captain. Sure, take your ship into danger, into battle, don't do it stupidly. Don't do it if that engagement is a pointless waste of resources. Especially in the case of the later actions, last action of the Yamato. The actions of the Imperial Japanese forces isn't something to write home about and at least, as I was saying above, they wanted war for the sake of war. They had a severely racist agenda, a system which would divert a lot of resources to Japan purely for the benefit of the Japanese. Despite any claims to the opposite are indefensible.

[@kemarisite]

There is a record of South Dakota setting one of its aircraft on fire with one salvo from its rear turret, and then blowing the burning aircraft over the side on a following salvo. This happened during the engagement of November 14-15, 1942.

[@gazdev4016]

I've heard that the Atlanta class was top heavy, especially after upgrades. Would a tri-hull Atlanta been better?

[@cr4zyj4ck]

Multi hull ships have lower carrying capacity than similar sized monohull ships. This is why you almost never see commercial vessels as anything other than monohull vessels, with an exception for fast passenger ferries, since people aren't very heavy cargo, all things considered. A ship that's top heavy should either be widened, lengthened, or have more ballast added, or a combination of all three.

[@jjdladams82]

So always use gun powder with lots of excessive muzzle flash to make your enemy think you are bigger than you are.

[@Dave5843-d9m]

The Fairy Swordfish gets a lot of stick but they were used throughout WW2. They hammered the Italians at Taranto and were the only reason the RN was able to stop Bismarck. They struggled against Scharnhorst but were also about the only aircraft capable of operating from the heaving deck of an Atlantic carrier. The Germans hit them time and again at Denmark Straight but AA rounds just went straight through doing no significant damage.

[@ivanmonahhov2314]

The funniest part of Last Ship was the the first season. And the ending boy was it derpy. Also a video on the Kirov class light cruisers would be awesome.

[@TheDancingHyena]

"artillery before gunpowder was a little hit and miss..." lul

[@hughfisher9820]

Additional note on French interwar carriers from the book "Three Republics One Navy" by Anthony Clayton: François Darlan, head of the French Navy for most of the 1930s and into WW2, thought aircraft carriers were useless and a dangerous diversion of resources. Not an uncommon attitude in any navy, but the French administrative system at the time was very autocratic so what he thought became policy.

[@PaulfromChicago]

A little known fact about signals at Trafalgar: HMS Africa was apart from the rest of the fleet to the north but due to bad weather increasing wind, made it in time. When requested by Nelson how he made it to the battle, Captain Digby had the signal hoisted: I bless the rains.

[@VintageCarHistory]

Oh, did I laugh my ass off on this one... Bravo!

[@stevevalley7835]

So many questions about converting BBs and BCs to carriers. The Lexingtons had speed and length, but were also terribly inefficient as carriers. I have been banging on for a bit about what a mistake the Lexingtons were, especially as the treaty tonnage limits were known when work on the conversion started. For the same tonnage as the two Lexingtons, the USN could have built three Yorktowns, with enough tonnage left over to make the Wasp another Yorktown. The result would have been more operational flexibility and survivability due to having more hulls, and more aircraft embarked.

[@AdamMGTF]

Your forgetting politics. The ships had been started already and Congress was pretty set on a conversion of them rather than new hulls. Plus. The treaty allowed for their tonnage because they would be conversions. Economics played a part as well. Given the various domestic political, economic and geo political (treaty) factors involved. The USN managed to come out well ahead. Yes your theory may fit nicely into a ideal fleet or what not. But the conditions at the time wouldn't allow it. History isnt about ships after all. Its about people. And all the comicated reasoning there involved.

[@stevevalley7835]

@@AdamMGTF the pro-air faction in the USN had been sketching out what they considered to be the "ideal" carrier, without having any operating knowledge of carriers. The conversions fit their "ideal" perfectly, so they pushed for it. The maximum carrier tonnage allowed for carriers in the treaty was 27,000. An extra clause had to be inserted to allow for two conversions. There is considerable debate whether the USN lied and the ship's displacement actually exceeded even the additional tonnage the extra clause allowed. Japan used the same clause to build Akagi and Kaga. Without any direct operating experience, it is a wonder the Lexington design came out as well as it did, rather than looking like the original configuration of Kaga.

[@grahamariss2111]

Wouldn't the Long Lance have not been suitable for a Submarine even if it was big enough, because its long range could not have been exploited because from a Submarines periscope you don't have the ability (because of lack of height) to see far enough. If you could see it, you could hit it with your 21''.

[@kemarisite]

True as far as it goes. However, every WW2 torpedo I've checked on had at least two, and frequently three, speed settings. Fuel and oxidizer are fixed, so range is however far the torpedo will travel with that fixed supply of fuel at that speed setting. The 24" Type 93 had a slow speed setting of about 36 knots, which produced a range of about 40 km, beyond visual range from a sub in all likelihood. The fast speed setting was 48-50 knots, which cut the range to about 20 km. The 21" Type 95 would maintain that fast speed, but only had a range of about 5.5 km, easily long enough when most submarines are creeping to with a couple km anyway. The two weapons are actually the same overall length (9 m), but the extra diameter makes the type 93 much heavier, 2700 kg compared to 1700 kg, and with a substantially larger warhead in addition to far more fuel and oxidizer.

[@ke7eha]

Consider the following for the modern destroyer being transported back: The hulls of American ships were massively strong for the era. The US used significant quantities of special treatement steel (STS) as hull plating and as mechanical structure, and was basically the only nation to do so because of the sheer expense of STS. As I understand, it is similar to non-cemented armor steel, though it has some other alloying elements to improve the mechanical properties. American battleships have 1.5" thick STS hull plating, more armor than most modern destroyers have in total and that is before you hit the armor. Heavy cruisers of the era are not far behind. I doubt the warheads on modern anti-shipping missiles will be able to penetrate the hull, let alone the armor plate. Just compare the Iowa-class killer (the S-N-2 Styx, which has a 1000 pound shaped-charge warhead) to any modern anti-ship missile, it's barely even the same sport that they are playing.

[@thebronzegoose9169]

Make a video about the history of gunnery control systems please

[@barryjones8842]

Yup. Agree. Fire control is arguably more important than the various gun stats.

[@AdamMGTF]

It is on his special list. Along with about 4 years worth of content. If you want a special moved up the list. You can become a patron and vote for it. Otherwise he does things in the order they were asked (I think this was first asked for over a year ago). I mention the patron thing as he isn't like other you tubers. He doesn't bang on about it. Doesn't ask for patrons or support or anything. He does this with no expectation of reward in his own time.

[@lambastepirate]

No planes had the ability to carry a nuke and be able to take off from a carrier in 1945 the bombs where way to heavy and large at that time also i don't think the V-2 had enough thrust to even lift the bomb much less the range you would need.

[@AdamMGTF]

It was a pretty out their hypothetical scenario. The person asking the question sort of gave him an impossible scenario. I reckon the answer was more a case of humouring the questioner.

[@CanuckWolfman]

USS Buck (DD-761) to USS Wisconsin (BB-64) after the latter retaliated for a single 152mm shore gun hit with a full 16" broadside: "Temper, temper..."

[@calvingreene90]

In building a trimaran battleship the outer hulls would be the torpedo defense making the center hull much slimmer really altering drag so you might not need the engines in the outer hulls particularly if they are really narrow for their length.

[@Dave_Sisson]

If you look at the modern design of the 400 foot, 40 knot, trimaran fast ferries, they are really monohull ships with a couple of small outrigger hulls placed well back on the ship. So the front 40% of the main hull would get no protection from the outer hulls.

[@calvingreene90]

@@Dave_Sisson If you design it that way. Speed is not the only criteria in battleship design.

[@benjohnston9455]

Would be good to hear about Admiral Spruinz? and how he got involved in the fight where and when that was. It is very rare that you hear of Admiral's actually participating in the battle during an engagement. It is why I have always respected Rommell tremendously since he was never afraid to get his hands dirty and share the load with his men.

[@MartinCHorowitz]

The only planes that could deliver a 1945 nuke were the B29 and Lancaster(with some bomb mount mods), a Habbakuk carrier would have been reacquired.. Best delivery mechanism, would have been a Japanese I400 submarine with a bomb in the hangar bay. Wether a sucide crew or they left the bom under water and escaped is your option.

[@AdamMGTF]

I think by that point he was humouring the questioner as the question itself was impossible to give a real answer to

[@nathanbrown8680]

If you're going to stick a pair of anti-air cruisers to the side of a larger ship as AA mounts, wouldn't it be easier to attach them to a carrier directly instead of to a battleship that will act as a carrier escort? That way there are no worries about the blast from the main guns. Speed and armor over firepower seems like a good recipe for a cruiser killer. Its prey can't seriously hurt it and its armament doesn't tempt admirals to try to put it in the line of battle.

[@jonadabtheunsightly]

Regarding fume extraction: according to the biography by Alan Villiers, the explorer/cartographer James Cook used fire barrels on lower decks to create air convection in order to get stale air out of the ship, as an anti-scurvy measure. (He also introduced sauerkraut, among other things, and between various measures effectively conquered the scurvy problem.) This would've been in the eighteenth century. Admittedly, such a system was not intended to, and would not have been able to, keep up with the production of fumes from a steam engine.

[@mikeg.1374]

Anti-scorubics go waaay back; pesto was promoted as one by the Genoese in Renaissance times. Anyone aware of any earlier remedies?

[@Goldtiger405]

A modern Japanese Destroyer shows up in 1942 and it then sails into Tokyo Harbor and demands surrender to the Americans. That poor Lt or LT Commander says stop it. I want to see Hiroshima and Nagaski. Also the French fleet should have agreed and set sail for New York harbor.

[@ianmajor8757]

according to my understanding a ballista was as capable of firing stones albeit small ones as it was of firing bolts, so in theory as damaging as a small cannon ball ?

[@lambastepirate]

I would say not nearly as deadly the cannon ball is traveling at a much greater velocity at least 7-10 times faster than a ballista ball. It was used as a anti personnel weapon on land kinda like a big sniper rifle today and for starting fires in wooden defenses Brittish archeologists have found a skeleton with a ballista bolt lodged in his spine shot through the center of his chest. I doubt a ballista could pierce the hull of the average ship maybe crack a plank at best. I think it was used to shoot at the commander of the opposing ship or a group of soldiers/archers try to pin 2-3 of them together either of those would kill the enemies moral!

[@benwilson6145]

The British Minister of Shipping at the outbreak on WW2 requisitioned pretty much every Passenger Ship, Cargo Ship and Tanker in the British Empire. The Passenger ships were used as Troop Transports, Armed Merchant Cruisers , and Hospital ships, As the war progressed other ships were chartered from invaded countries like the Netherlands and Norway. There were berths available for some ships but on government approval. There were some Neutral Ships from Sweden, Spain, Portugal, Turkey and even Egypt. There is an interesting tale on KZbin of USA Missionaries having difficulty in getting to Africa to carry out Gods work. They eventually got passage on an Egyptian ship the Zamzam, There they joined other civilian including a a Life Magazine photographer. As the sun rose one morning they had bee stalked by the raider Atlantis who immediately opened fire on the ship with at least 70 shells. the ship was on fire and sank. It is heart breaking to hear the words of a four year old thinking he was going to die. The the Neutral American Passengers were transferred the blockade runner Dresden who told them they were going to land them in Brazil, Instead they were sent to France locked in a hold expecting to be sunk at any time.Another Passenger Ship to be attacked by a German Raider was the SS Nankin, it was enroute from Perth to Calcutta. The vessel and crew were captured including and many civilian passengers Men Women and Children. The Civilians were handed over by the Germans to the tender care of the Japanese where they were interred in great hardships.

[@ShuRugal]

@41:40 - just a guess, but that sounds like the sort of information you want to know if you're loading in ship's stores which may be sensitive to getting wet. You probably want things that go "boom" to be stowed below the waterline wherever possible, and things like foodstuffs stowed above.

[@KPen3750]

As with all american ships including PT-boats, "Yup, we needs more guns." When you get to the PBR's of the Vietnam war, oh my the choices they had! (One research material is The Grand Tour: Seamen)

[@mikeg.1374]

To understand the why of all the wild weapons welded onto PT boats, you only have to look at how Americans have been souping up their cars and speedboats since the internal combustion engine went mobile.

[@KPen3750]

@@mikeg.1374 oh I know. The PT's had gear driven supercharged engines and the crews would change ratios to get more power and add other goodies for more power. Its awesome!!

[@mikeg.1374]

Nitrous? 😎

[@jimwolaver9375]

I served in the US Navy from 1991 through 2010. I cannot speak with specific authority to the question about the sign aboard Iowa, but I can speak in general terms about how the US Navy communicates. The plaque on broadway aboard Iowa was likely added after the ship was made a museum. It is probably there purely as a "you are here" type of thing for the amusement/information of tourists. As for not transporting things above the waterline, the crew would have been trained not to transport those items above the 3rd deck (or whatever deck on whatever particular ship. Any signs posted to warn the crew would have explicitly said "DO NOT TRANSPORT (specification) ABOVE THIS DECK." The Navy is fond of communicating with its Sailors in a very direct manner.

[@jeebus6263]

42:00 the answer of the minute, My guess would be if there's any plumbing that goes outside the hull especially if we're doing emergency maintenance it may be useful to know where not to cut it without first operating a shut-off valve.

[@zacharyelliott2487]

@Drachinifel 00:01:10 just get 25-50 magic Judy Bombers. Not all Judys are terrifying, but the "Magic Judys" sure are...

[@rickkephartactual7706]

For "oddly armed warships" I think I would have mentioned the US ship (USS O'Bannon DD 450) that threw potatoes at a Japanese submarine if I remember correctly en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_O%27Bannon_%28DD-450%29

[@Nightverslonn]

At 46:26, what are the series of diagonal lines running top to bottom from the deck down about half way to the water line?

[@fooman2108]

Wasn't the 109 sunk with an army 57mm gun strapped to the focs'le, which is one reason that half rolled over?

[@tokul76]

00:54 Of cause warspite and captain uniform :) Without any misrepresentation.

[@galbert117]

Watching this in June of 2020...spoke too soon Drach...spoke too soon...

[@kyle857]

I wonder if warspite limping back into port was the inspiration for the enterprise doing the same thing in The Search for Spock.