The Drydock - Episode 203

[@stephenrickstrew7237]

I was rewatching DryDock Episode 1 … and you remarked on if it was popular you might do more … 202 episodes later .. I think it sure is … Thanks Very Much Drach for all the History you have brought to life …

[@johnnash5118]

I was a timber sawyer at Hull-Oakes Lumber Co. Dawson, Oregon from @1988-1995. I trimmed very large Douglas fir timbers for the USS Constitution refurbishment. The specifications required the highest strength-to-weight species of adequate availability, which only “compression wood” Doug firs provide. Compression wood can only form at the base of trees over 200’ tall with tons of the tree weighed down on the trunk base. This wood is twice as dense and strong as construction grade lumber, but still much lighter than hardwood species.

[@notshapedforsportivetricks2912]

Fascinating. I have read contemporary accounts that dismissed Humphrey's ships as "a few fir-built frigates", which implies that fir was an inferior timber for ship building. Doubly puzzling as I understoid that the US frigates were mostly built from white oak. Possibly the fir was only used for key parts of the ship? Can anyone clarify this?

[@903lew]

@@notshapedforsportivetricks2912 You build masts out of Fir

[@johnnash5118]

@@notshapedforsportivetricks2912 The Fir timbers and beams were made for the interior framing, which was painted.

[@notshapedforsportivetricks2912]

@@johnnash5118 Ahah! I thought that something like that might be the case. Thanks!

[@ciaranquinlan8710]

Got to meet Drac today in person at TankFest Couldn't meet a nicer guy! Great to hear some US highlights and lil teases of future content Hope you enjoyed TankFest Deffo need a Drac top 5 tanks ASAP

[@tomdolan9761]

Consider the naval connection with the ‘Tank’. Winston Churchill as First Lord of the Admiralty hid its development costs in the budget by calling it a tank when the Royal Army refused to develop it.

[@glennricafrente58]

Your narration of the footage of the highball bomb tests felt reminiscent of your segment on the USS Enterprise Tokyo Drift back in Drydock 137. I find your voiceover explaining historical footage very compelling and hope you can do more.

[@brucewilliams1892]

@ 25:44 Q. The UK Beaufighter and variants were used in low-level attacks on Axis shippping. One version had 8 x 3-in rockets at 60-pounds weight each, often quoted as the equivalent of a Light Cruiser's firepower. Standard fighter fit was 4 x cannon, 6 x .303" MG. Another variant dropped a torpedo.

[@williamlloyd3769]

Wikipedia - The Resolute desk, also known as the Hayes desk, is a nineteenth-century partners desk used by several presidents of the United States in the White House as the Oval Office desk, including the five most recent presidents. The desk was a gift from Queen Victoria to President Rutherford B. Hayes in 1880 and was built from the oak timbers of the British Arctic exploration ship HMS Resolute.

[@icemule]

Wow never knew that, thx.

[@strydyrhellzrydyr1345]

A Partners desk.... You say that... But don't say anything about, said partner... Which is the part I was hoping to read about... If you know can you tell me???

[@seanmalloy7249]

25:44 It wasn't a widely-practiced tactic, but the Pathfinder group of the RAF, flying Mosquitos, developed techniques for skip-bombing delayed fuse bombs into railway tunnel mouths to collapse them.

[@steelhammer96]

regarding 00:23:28, back then it was important to get fresh air into the uboat/sub, sitting anchored on the surface allowed for the crew to open all the hatches ventilate a good part, if not all of the ship. That in turn allowed for better resting of the crew and so on.

[@myparceltape1169]

Could they also listen with hydrophones from a quiet sub. This would at least give an alert and possibly the direction.

[@spikespa5208]

Mid-ocean R&R.

[@kennethdeanmiller7324]

Speaking of furniture, yes, you'd be surprised things that can be made into furniture. My Stepdad, worked for a while at a place that built furniture out of whiskey barrels.

[@Alex-cw3rz]

33:32 "unauthorised piercings of the bulkhead" at first I thought you were referring to the damage the mine had caused and I thought what a funny way to put it, unfortunately you meant the crew had earlier on. But still I'm just imagining a newspaper heading Titanic sinks due to an icebrug making an unauthorised hole in the side of the ship.

[@mbryson2899]

My mind immediately thought "glory holes," but I'm a 12-year-old boy at heart. 😜

[@stevevalley7835]

I can understand how that could have been a problem on Nevada, as she was nearly 25 years old on December 7th, plenty of time for slack maintenance and modifications to compromise the ship's watertight integrity. Audacious had only been in commission for a year when she sank. Doesn't seem likely that Audacious would be in as poor condition as Nevada was. More likely due to inadequate below waterline protection and not having an adequate "material condition" set for the threat that materialized.

[@alitlweird]

@@mbryson2899 Well, it _IS_ a Navy chat… ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[@frednone]

Unfortunatly navy's still haven't learned this lesson. I was onboard Ranger when the November 1, 1983 fire happened. It stared in 4 Main Machinery room, but spread to 2 Aux Machinery Room when bilge openings that had deteriated and not been fixed allowed the mixture of fuel oil and water to pass between the spaces. Fortunatly the fire was quickly contained, but it was one of the things sited in the report on the fire. Later we had a fire and I was tasked in keeping water away from electrical busses in one of the main switchboard rooms. Water from fire fighting was flowing through the stuffing tubes for the electrical cableing. If we had ever taken battle damage I have real doubts of the ships ability to remain afloat.

[@xlerb2286]

My dad was a sonarman on a PC in the Pacific. At that time and place if you got a contact you sent some depth charges after it because while it might be a whale, it wasn't an ally submarine. He only had one contact the whole war. He and the commanding officer agreed it was probably a whale, but best be certain. My dad was a kind hearted man, I think that whale bothered him for decades. And that's about the only war story he ever told me. He had friends he'd grown up with that weren't so lucky in the war. None of those folk talked about the war years, not to a kid anyway.

[@mattblom3990]

4:20 I just love those big 19th century rivets on military technology. It's like brutalist art.

[@thehandoftheking3314]

Greatest moment of my KZbin existence. Getting a question on the dry dock. Thank you Drach

[@igorkratka]

Was hoping to come across your way on tank Fest on Sunday and say in person how big fan of you I am but the place was big, crowds numerous and so somehow missed you this time. Anyway, being your huge fan, Drachinifel! Thank you for top quality naval channel!

[@jsmith6145]

Watching the drydock while living on a ship in drydock, how convenient

[@philipjooste9075]

With reference to instances of sister ships ending up on opposite sides in a battle, you might want to look at the Battle of Libreville on 9 November 1940, when the Free French sloop (aviso) Savorgnan de Brazza sank her sister ship, Bougainville, whose crew had sided with Vichy France.

[@osheape]

Thanks for all the hard work you put into making these videos.

[@CharlesStearman]

Regarding submarines sunk by friendly fire, HMS Oxley was sunk by her fellow British submarine HMS Triton on 9th September 1939, just a few days after the start of WW2. They were operating in neighbouring patrol areas off Norway when the Oxley strayed six miles outside her assigned area and was spotted by Triton - it was night and both subs were on the surface. Triton's captain made several attempts to signal the other submarine but got no response so assumed it was hostile and torpedoed it.

[@Johnnycdrums]

My contractor would go crazy for all those strong beams and teak planking. Just look at the price of good lumber these days. Once we learn how the surfaces were joined we could disassemble it properly and for maximum value.

[@zippy5131]

Ah my dear sir, oh what woe is upon me and it is all your good doings after digging out my 'General Quarters' Rules book part deux of course, routing around in the loft and coming up with some Navwar ships WW1. And now a small fortune later, am now equipped with much WW1'ness from the good shop of Navwar, now to paint. I would love to hear about the battle of Heligoland Bight, if it hasn't already been covered. Now to binge watch more and paint things.

[@robandcheryls]

Great episode my good man. 🇨🇦

[@ArcticTemper]

Thank you for answering! Can't wait for the next UBoat update, you should give it a go if you haven't

[@Alex-cw3rz]

25:44 skipping bombs interestingly derives from cannon balls and how they would skip them to increase range

[@stevewyckoff6904]

Really need a Wednesday special on Barnes Wallis.

[@frankbarnwell____]

Try skipping stones on a pond. Or any water.

[@notshapedforsportivetricks2912]

According to the movie "The Dambusters", at the Battle of Trafalgar, Nelson dismissed the french flagship with a yorker. Obviously Michael Redgraves' sense of humour.

[@brucewilliams1892]

Barnes Wallis added backspin to the Upkeep bomb, perhaps to help range, but to 'stick' sinking bomb close to dam face before explosion. Don't know about little round version.

[@saynomore8795]

The section on Parrotts and Brookes and for a little bit Dahlgrens was rather... interesting. For one, the information on the tests that you used, Drach, sounds a bit off, as Parrotts were never made in 11". The durability problems of Parrotts also most likely did not come from them being overcharged. Compared to much more advanced construction technique of Dahlgrens and their technological predecessors, the Rodmans, they were not designed to last. Their brittle wrought iron/cast iron body with the reinforcing hoop was quick to manufacture, but could not withstand heavy chamber pressures, or lots of shots fired. This is also why Dahlgrens and Rodmans were able to come in high calibers with heavy charges, like the XV and XX models of Dahlgrens, but Parrotts were limited to 8" and 10" variants. Sorry for the rant, but other than that, I loved the video as usual! Keep it up!

[@georgesmith2657]

I am not a historian nor do I have any real knowledge about the development of naval guns. I find it difficult to believe any Navy would put guns on their warships that they knew were subject to failure. This is not planned maintenance like relining a battleship Cannon. I suspect some bureaucrat decided to defend a bad decision by saying "yes we knew that it's all going according to plan" the current analogy would be Russia's assertion that it's invasion of Ukraine is going according to plan"

[@saynomore8795]

@@georgesmith2657 That analogy is very close! The major problem is that the Parrotts were not quite up to any standard in manufacture. Brittle metal, with the quickest possible manufacturing procedures, doesn't indicate they were meant to last at all, and pretty much leans towards them being more or less expendable, and also mass-producable. I like to think of them as akin to the Sherman tank of naval cannon - they do the job, and you can always make several to replace each one that breaks. In essence, they weren't designed to blow themselves apart, but them doing so was expected because they were just designed to do just enough and nothing more. (Once again I just gotta say that analogy works pretty well for the most part!)

[@billbrockman779]

Regarding Attack Cargo Ships, the historical novel “Away All Boats” and the movie of the same name are good.

[@carsonagenic6285]

USS Belinda

[@gilbertohlson6363]

Excellent movie. I watched it the other day.

[@colbeausabre8842]

The Author, Kenneth Dodson, served on an AKA in WW2. The same way Herman Wouk served on a DMS.

[@gerardmdelaney]

And Eddie Arnold was a Beachmaster in the Pacific. @@colbeausabre8842

[@timstatler7714]

Heard on the news yesterday that they discovered the wreck of the USS Samuel B Roberts of Samar fame.

[@davidbringle379]

Absolutely enjoy your narratives. This one in particular. There is a Parrot gun in a nearby park that was used in Mobile Bay campaign. Other the barrel rifling being quite eroded it appears it could be used. Though I assume fuse hole has been blocked?

[@robinstevenson6690]

Drach - perhaps the most famous example of wooden ship timbers used to make furniture is the "Resolute Desk" which sits in the U.S. White House (President's Oval Office) - a gift from Queen Victoria to President Hayes in 1880, built from the timbers of the HMS Resolute.

[@ShuRugal]

RE: Shoveling coal. Couldn't you make a hopper-fed firebox for the boiler? let gravity move the coal? Maybe some conveyor belts to move coal to the hoppers from the bunkers? it would add a lot of machinery volume, but it would be sustainable at speed.

[@jonathanj8303]

Liberty, the arts and crafts movement department store in London, has most of its structure built from salvaged timbers from two RN ships, allegedly HMS Impregnable and HMS Hindustan. The store wasn't finished until 1924, so even pretty recently, life-expired ships were apparently a good source of seasoned timber. I gave up trying to work out which HMS Impregnable, but it wasn't the 1810 version that was a near copy of HMS Victory. That used to construct St Conan's Kirk, Loch Awe, having since been renamed HMS Kent, then finally HMS Caledonia...

[@georgewnewman3201]

00:28:14 - Would coal fired large warships have been a viable option for Italy in WW2? I have shoveled coal and I have hauled hay, as in manhandling 110-to-120-pound (50-55 kg or 5.5 to 6 stone) bales of hay, and I can tell you I'd rather spend the whole of an 8-hour day in a hayfield hauling hay bales as spend 1 hour shoveling coal.

[@stevevalley7835]

Mechanical stokers were developed for railroad locomotives shortly after 1900. Some used an auger to move coal from the tender, into a crusher, then the pulverized coal was sprayed into the firebox by a jet of steam or a mechanical slinger.

[@billbolton]

14 lbs in a stone, so 8 to 8 and a half stones. Hope you don't mind the pedantry

[@georgewnewman3201]

@@billbolton I thought it was 20; my mistake. My point though was I'd rather spend 8 hrs lifting those bales than 1 hr shoveling coal.

[@billbolton]

@@georgewnewman3201 I've never shovelled coal, but I've crawled thru a loft space thru loose insulation in Houston in the summer, and guess its something like that; as in something to avoid and minimize as much as possible. I appreciate your point.

[@georgewnewman3201]

@@billbolton Well, if it wasn't for my asthma and allergies, I probably wouldn't mind the hayfield or the coal as much, but I think off hand I'd rather shovel coal and risk black lung than crawl through loose insulation and yes, I actually grew up doing all three. fibers in the lungs and all down your clothes vs coal dust in your lungs vs hay seeds down your clothes.

[@hw97karbine]

My understanding is that Malaya's list was deliberate, so that the Highball bombs would impact well above the waterline.

[@williamsmallshaw5266]

The distinction between an Attack Cargo Ship (AKA) and a Cargo Ship (AK) was the sequence of the load out of these ships. An AKA was used for initial support of amphibious operations. They were load in a way that prioritized the order of off load of supplies. This was a rather inefficient load out with respect to load efficiency (maximizing load capacity) but enabled the timely offload of military supplies to support the amphibious operations. Mid to late war as the Maritime Commission standard hulls became prevalent the distinction between AK and AKA ships of the same hull type were similar in configuration. The only major distinction was their mission assignment.

[@robertmatch6550]

Watching and listening. Maybe dozing a bit pre coffee. Thanks!

[@DeliveryMcGee]

It just amuses me so that the tampions in Victory's guns are secured with a cord, like the cork in a toy popgun -- presumably they were meant (or at least allowed) to be shot out, if there wasn't time to remove and stow them properly. Was it the same for the 15-16" modern guns (shooting them out, I mean, obv no lanyard)? I'd assume so, given the pressures involved, that thing would go flying before causing a problem.

[@yedwy]

Speaking of the older 12” 35s could they have been usefoul for making some monitor or coastal defence bbs?

[@johnjackson4322]

Concerning recycling of ship components. One of the finer Highland distilleries (Glenfarclas), has repurposed the first class lounge of a long ago scrapped Canadian Pacific steamship as their tasting room. Apparently the then owner took a liking to the vessel from his travelling days and took the opportunity to bid on the room and contents as the vessel went to the breakers. JJ

[@wom_Bat]

Ww2 my gramps did the coal shoveling like 80% from milay to Sumatra. The engine was under manned for the transport ship. That was enough to make him exhausted at 17.

[@lucajohnen6719]

I have a big deja vu on that first question

[@Yeti_1317]

Thank you again for visiting us. I'm sorry you came during road construction season but it is preferential to our other season, winter. Canadian fevour aside, my favourite book is Six Frigates, have you read it? I personally believe this was the pinnacle of naval genious. Not as a piece of literature but as a solution to a conundrum.

[@hughbeein1265]

Curious now as to the amount of cabinetry/furnishings made from famous ships still existing. And how many know their pantrys history.

[@mikolajgrotowski]

As "skip bombing" Soviet planes use this technic too, mostly late 44 and 45. It is possible this was borrowed from the USA, as the first squadrons who use it fly on western planes, but later soviet planes, bombers and attackers use it too (but this may be because western planes were used to attacking ships because can carry torpedos, and most soviet planes not). I remember the polish translation on Russian name was "topmasztowanie", as a plane should fly on the mast level of the ship. It was preferred then torpedo use, especially on soviet planes, as soviet torpedos was not available in great numbers, and soviet constructions planes often cannot carry such long payload. In soviet propaganda materials this was invented by soviet pilots, but is possible it was borrow from manuals for western planes.

[@Fronzel41]

"The Dutch at Copenhagen" 🤣

[@crichtonbruce4329]

The segment on wooden warship scrapping really got me thinking about the economics of this, EG: during the latter half of the age of sail the forests of England were becoming denuded of suitable timbers, therefore the salvage of sound timbers would (I presume) for both new ships and building construction would become increasingly important. Also, the end of the age of sail roughly corresponds with the early parts of the industrial revolution and it's need for massive amounts of very large factories which needed massive amounts of timber to build. Are there any studies on this topic someone could recommend?

[@brucewilliams1892]

Oliver Rackham wrote about trees and woodland through history. Nothing exclusive about shipbuilding, but parts of chapters in broader works. Woodlands, Rackham, Collins, 2006 might be a good one to start, Chap 11. He makes use of original sources.

[@brucewilliams1892]

Rackham deflates a few traditional but unsupported beliefs, eg forests were cut down to fuel the furnaces. Coppice wood being more efficient and renewed on about ten-year cycles for charcoal.

[@middleway5271]

These Drydocks are really stacking up!

[@bjarkih1977]

Saltwater and tarred timber is excellent as housing frames etc. due to them being less prone to rot and such since insects and other predators of wood don't like tar. Shipwrecks were a source for many houses in coastal areas, especially if there wasn't any other source of wood in the area.

[@jonsouth1545]

several of my ancestors used to put lights on the cliffs and rocks at night so that ships would run aground thinking they were coming to harbour so we could use strip the ship and sell the timbers

[@spikespa5208]

Example: timber frames from USS Chesapeake (1799) used in a mill in Wickham in England. Still there.

[@billbolton]

@@jonsouth1545 a bold admission on a channel dedicated to ships.

[@lewiswestfall2687]

Thanks Drach

[@scott_hunts]

Can’t wait for the episode with Othias to drop,

[@notshapedforsportivetricks2912]

My goidness, that Argentine cruiser is a pretty little ship!

[@wom_Bat]

You know every 400 episodes is a musical? 🎼🎶

[@kelloggswag]

USS Dorado was sunk by friendly fire in the Caribbean although that was by aircraft. I believe the loss of USS Seawolf was lost to friendly fire too

[@ouroboris]

Love the new intro 😍

[@Edax_Royeaux]

1:00:06 "And it very nearly worked for the Dutch at Copenhagen. It was a pity they were facing against Nelson and didn't really care that he was losing for most of that battle. " I was unaware the Dutch were involved at Copenhagen. I'd have thought the Dutch fleet would have been effectively neutralized after the Battle of Camperdown.

[@phineasdecool8982]

I think also the Danes was surprised that the Dutch defended Copenhagen against Nelson. I must ask my aunt about it. She lives in Copenhagen and should know about that!

[@williamsmallshaw5266]

AKAs were generally armed with single 5 inch 38s or a single 3 inch 50s, if not both. 5 inch on the stern, 3 inch on a raised platform in the bow.

[@kennethdeanmiller7324]

Wow, the US of the Campbelltown, or however you spell it, at St Nazairre on the Drydock there, everyone there after the raid claimed it was a "failed" mission to take out the Drydock. After the Campbelltown disappeared in collasal explosion & took out the Drydock gates... it wasn't such a "failed" mission anymore!!!

[@red.5475]

I would like to know more about why the Courbet and Paris didn't do anything during the war but accommodation service, as opposed to convoy duty?

[@colbeausabre8842]

Red - Undoubtably due to their physical condition - both were on the disposal list and the MN planned to scrap both as soon as Jean Bart was in commission. Britain had limited resources and must have decided that it wasn't worth spending them on a pair of obsolete ships.

[@bjturon]

The US President's "Resolute Desk" was made from the timbers of HMS Resolute, a gift from Queen Victoria to the United States.

[@kyle857]

We gave her back Obamas book or something stupid like that.

[@Vid-FX]

Many a church or large hall roof in the late 19th early 20th century used the frames and knees and shaped timbers of old warships.

[@davidmcintyre8145]

You forgot to mention the Basque Roads operation in which fireships and indeed the explosion ships designed by Cochrane were used

[@MakeMeThinkAgain]

I disagree about the Indian Ocean raid being a mistake. I think the Japanese offensives in the Central Pacific were the mistakes -- largely a result of the Doolittle Raid. Hurting the British in the Indian Ocean was the best chance to knock Britain out of the war. This raid helped the Germans while the offensives in the mid-Pacific did nothing for the Germans. When the Japanese went East the Axis's chances of winning the war virtually came to an end. Privateers would be the Age of Sail version of asymmetric warfare.

[@ThomasAllen90]

Friendlies taking out own subs, was avoided "more often then it happened". Damn, not a high bar.

[@ericfunderburgh6080]

Were ships ever fitted with an automatic coaling system like used on the Union Pacific Big Boys before they converted them to oil fire?

[@williamsmallshaw5266]

AKAs did not generally have facilities to carry troops. Troop transport was facilitated by ships with an APA designation.

[@AnimeSunglasses]

1:00:00 In Which Drach makes a Jingles-ism and confuses the Danes with the Dutch...

[@alitlweird]

What is the name of the intro song? And is there an extended version?

[@ricardokowalski1579]

11:05 I find it funny when people say that recycling is "modern" People with limited resources wasted nothing, even ashes were gathered to make soap A whole wooden ship being dismantled would be a boon for an entire year.

[@silentotto5099]

I once saw a show where the presenters showed a wooden beam which was a part of the structure of an old barn in southern England. They suspected the beam may have come from the Mayflower and they thought so because the ship had been broken up in a nearby port at just about the time the barn had been built, the beam had telltale marks and cuts which clearly identified it as having come from a ship and a repaired crack in the beam matched the story of a beam on the Mayflower having cracked during a storm and being repaired by the crew of the ship as it was carrying the Pilgrims to Massachusetts While I considered that pretty slim evidence for having found a bit of the Mayflower, it does speak to your point that very little was wasted in years past, especially ship timbers.

[@billbolton]

@@silentotto5099 put away the power tools and try shaping wood with old hand tools; then you will realize the value in something that has already been made.

[@silentotto5099]

@@billbolton That and a big wooden beam wasn't an easy thing to get one's hands on in England even during the 1600s. Thinking about big wooden beams reminds me of another story I once read... There was a church in England that had been built sometime in the 14th century. After it's centuries of use it needed some serious work to its roof. The parish called in a carpenter to see what needed to be done, and the carpenter told them that as far as the repairs went it was a pretty straight forward job, but the problem would be finding timbers of the size required. So, they led the carpenter to a nearby stand of 400 year old oak trees on the parish grounds to get what he needed. Apparently the trees had been planted when the church was built just for that reason. I always thought that was some pretty impressive forward planning.

[@colbeausabre8842]

@@silentotto5099 Admiral Sir Cuthbert Collingwood had the habit of wandering around his estate with a pocket full of acorns, that he would drop in places he thought auspicious. Those oaks are just about ready to be harvested to build British warships. " had his home at Morpeth, in Northumberland, and when he was there on half pay or on leave he loved to walk over the hills with his dog Bounce. He always started off with a handful of acorns in his pockets, and as he walked he would press an acorn into the soil whenever he saw a good place for an oak tree to grow. Some of the oaks he planted are probably still growing more than a century and a half later ready to be cut to build ships of the line at a time when nuclear submarines are patrolling the seas, because Collingwood's purpose was to make sure that the Navy would never want for oaks to build the fighting ships upon which the country's safety depended."

[@Nipplator99999999999]

8:23 - Merica!

[@nickdanger3802]

0.52 U 505 captured by USN. On display in Chicago.

[@christophermancini7380]

Good ol' Barnes Wallis!

[@ronaldfinkelstein6335]

What is "seasoned" wood? I am reasonably certain it does not involve the use of condiments. And how did the term come to be?

[@akriegguardsman]

Pls do video on first sino Japanese war naval battles

[@RedXlV]

With regard to cannibalizing pre-dreadnoughts to built speed up the construction of 1st-generation dreadnoughts...that's more viable for other nations besides the UK. The US Navy, for example, had a total of 8 pre-dreadnoughts that used the same 12"/45 twin turrets as the South Carolina, Delaware, and Florida classes. And the Mississippi-class despite being the newest of America's pre-dreadnoughts were quite bad ships due to being seriously undersized, so stealing their turrets to build a 3rd South Carolina (or perhaps also stealing their 9" belt armor and making a battlecruiser version of the South Carolinas, to help with the US Navy's critical shortage of any real scouting force) seems like it could've been a good idea. Similarly, when Japan was building the Satsuma-class as semi-dreadnoughts because of their shortage of 12"/45 guns, there were a total of 4 armored cruisers and 3 pre-dreadnoughts either in service or under construction that each had a pair of 12"/45 twin turrets of their own. It seems to be that at the very least Aki (Satsuma's turbine-powered sister ship) should've been built as a proper dreadnought by cancelling Mikasa's upgrade to 12"/45s and delaying the armored cruiser Kurama in the same way that the British did with Lord Nelson and Agamemnon.

[@stevevalley7835]

The Mississippis were sold to Greece in the summer of 1914. As a quick path to a USN scout cruiser, they could have pulled the 7"/45 tertiary battery off of the Connecticuts. Historically, most of those 7" were removed from the Connecticuts during the war with the intent of deploying them as field artillery. Most of the Maine class predreadnoughts were in the reserve squadron by then. Their 6"/50 secondaries could have been used on scout cruisers as well. The British were clearly desperate for serviceable guns for monitors. The Lord Clives used 12"/35s pulled off Majestic class pre-dreadnoughts. As an exercise, I looked at what the US could have sold the UK for monitors, if FDR was making decisions, rather than Wilson. Settled on the 12"/40, after modification to resolve their habit of blowing their muzzles off. There were 6 twin 12"/40s on the three Maine class ships, and 4 more turrets on the Arkansas class monitors. The guns on all these ships were expendable by 1914: the Maines were in reserve, and most of the monitors found a new use as sub tenders. The Illinois class was also in reserve, but it gets complicated. The Illinois had an early mod of the same Mk IV turret, but mounted 13"/35s. According to my pre WWI US Naval Academy gunnery text, everything in the turret was mounted to the turntable. The turntable was made of common steel plate and angle iron. So the drill would have been to make a new turntable for the turrets from the Illinois class to accept 12"/40s, then pull the guns, mounts, and lugs from three of the Virginias to equip the Mk IV turrets. That would give the RN 16 gun and turret sets to build monitors around.

[@stevevalley7835]

One additional thought, USN 12" turrets prior to the Mk 7s used on the South Carolinas were not suitable for new warships. The earlier turrets had the man training the turret and the men elevating the guns standing in cupolas on the roof of the turret. The sighting scopes were attached to the guns by a complicated linkage. No matter how precisely the linkage components were made, there was always some slop. As engagement ranges increased, the error caused by the slop in the linkage became more significant. And, when firing directly ahead, the men would be standing in the muzzle blast from a superfiring gun. The Mk 7 solved both of those problems, by moving the sights to the front and sides of the turret. The elevation scopes were rigidly attached to the gun trunnion, so there was no slop, and moving the sights got the men out of the muzzle blast of a superfiring turret. A Mk 4 or Mk 6 turret would be fine for a monitor, but not a warship.

[@sandrodunatov485]

A viable option for Italy in WW2 would have been to enter war only after having enough oil for the Army, steel, planes, tanks and even guns. Of the three armed forces, the Navy was the only one to be more or less ready for a war or to have any sizable quantity of oil (or anything else) in storage thanks to the very conservative policies of admiral Cavagnari (on the other side this also meant no oil, or ammonitions, for futile expensive things like training) . The Navy had to give oil to the Army, the Air Force, the industry, even to the police. The Army still had depleted warehouses and stocks after supplying the war effort in Spain for the Civil War years before. Also, quality coal mines in Italy are non-existent, to the point that it is easier to extract oil in Italy than coal. Steel-making plants in Italy used low-grade coal from Sardinia but that is totally unsuitable for ship propulsion.

[@billbolton]

Yes, from a strategic perspective Italy did not know who it was going to fight (they stationed troops to the north just in case Hitler tried something) and would be dependent on foreign oil or coal. Things could have been very different if they had realised the riches of oil in Libya.

[@colbeausabre8842]

The best option for Italy would have been to sit out WW2. It wouldn't have lost in African colonies and the Fascists would have been in power for many years - look at Franco in Spain.

[@leotoro51]

15:49 - that's ridiculous, I have Pavlov's dog reflex ! Each time I heard Discord notification sound in the background of this video I try to change browser tab ... in the car ... using my wipers control lever ... cause I was listening to Your video as podcast, when I was driving. Mate, please, for the sake of my mental health, mute Discord Please :)

[@DaremoKamen]

Weren't the timbers of the captured USS Chesapeake used to build a mill in the UK?

[@bigblue6917]

There was a reported blue on blue for a coastal command aircraft sink a RN submarine during WW2. The submarine was on the surface and near the British coast when it was spotted by the aircraft. There was a RN submarine which was to have transited that area but should have been clear of it by that time. The aircraft's captain believe that was not the a RN submarine but a German U-Boat decided to attack. They attacked the the submarine which was hit and then rolled over and sank. When he got back he reported the sinking but there was a problem. It turned out the RN submarine was reported missing. There was an enquiry where the pilot pointed out that the submarine he had sunk had a rust hull below the waterline whereas the RN submarine was new which meant there would have been no rust. His problem was that when it rolled over he was the only one who saw the the bottom of the submarine so no one else could confirm what he saw. He was court-martialled which ended his flying career. Skip bombing could be as dangerous for the aircraft and its crew as it was the enemy. One problem was that the first skip of bomb could skip higher then the hight it was dropped at. More than one aircraft was destroyed when it was hit by its own bomb which had skipped back up and hit the aircraft. And even near misses could cause some consternation especially to the tail gunner of one aircraft as it passed so close the airman claimed he could have reached out and touched it as it went passed. As to the ends of gun barrels being polished. There is a post WW2 story of senior British officer who insisted that all the artillery guns under his command, 25 pounders I believe, had the paint of the first six inches from the end of the barrel removed and polished when on parade. Whether it happened or not I do not know. But in the version I was told the barrels were brass which had to be polished every day. This leads me to think that if the story was true then we are looking at some sort of cap rather than brass as to the best of my knowledge the barrel of the 25 pounder was not made of brass. The thing that makes me doubt it is true is the fact that the gun had a muzzle brake. Which was not brass either.

[@colbeausabre8842]

Big Blue The 25 Pounder had a steel barrel, not brass

[@MagnusVictor2015]

With regards to the first question, has there ever been a military operation to try to 'cause' enemy friendly-fire against their own submarines? Say, having a Royal Navy submarine creep in underwater near a Kriegsmarine submarine base and torpedo a few targets, so that enemy patrols in that area may be made to engage submarines more aggressively?

[@robertslugg8361]

Look up resawing timbers. It is a whole thing in itself.

[@ross.venner]

11:05 - Two examples of building using ships' timbers, The Chesapeake Mill (obviously from the American frigate) and Fareham Sailing Club (ships used not known.)

[@mbryson2899]

@Arglebargle IV, it was either you or someone else, wasn't it? 😉

[@stevevalley7835]

wrt the question about reusing existing guns to expedite battleship construction, the first option that crosses my mind is to have the Admiralty retain all of the 13.5" Mk V heavy shell guns when their original ships were scrapped. By my figuring, that would be 80 guns, plus whatever spares were in inventory to support the ships originally built with them. Using the 13.5s would also comply with the reduction in gun size to 14" in Second London. Alternately, the USN apparently had ordered 14"/50s for the battlecruisers at the same time as the guns were ordered for the Tennessee class BBs, then the battlecruisers moved on to the 16"/50, leaving the USN with a large, surplus inventory of new 14" guns. Reportedly 119 14"/50s were built, to support only 5 BBs that used them. Even allowing for 24 spares, 2 complete sets of replacements, to support the USN BBs, USN need would be 84 guns, leaving 35 available for potential sale to the UK, enough for 2 KGVs, plus a full set of spares. The problem with using the US guns would be powder, as they would need to be fed USN smokeless, rather than cordite, for optimal performance. During WWI, the RN used US built 14"/45s on one class of monitors. They experimented with cordite in them and, reportedly, suffered a significant loss of range. The problem with any existing 13.5" or 14" gun would be turrets, which are also time consuming to build. Salvaged 13.5" would have twin turrets. USN 14" would require new turrets to be built. Twin turrets are not weight or space efficient, which becomes an issue when complying with the treaty displacement limits, and the displacement limit was not increased until mid 1938. The gun size escalator triggered in April 1937. The return to 16" guns a year before the displacement limit increase makes me want to cast a lustful eye on the triple 16" turrets on the Nelsons, moving them to more capable hulls.

[@colbeausabre8842]

Steve Valley. You don't want the 16 inchers from Nelson and Rodney. They were generally regarded as a failure. The mounts were nothing to write home about either, having a complex system of interlocks that was prone to getting out of order "From inadequate firing trials, a mistaken theory was promulgated by the Director of Naval Ordnance (DNO) that held that a high-velocity, low-weight projectile would have superior armor penetration characteristics at large oblique angles of impact, a conclusion which was the opposite of previous findings. This theory was not substantiated by later trials, but these took place too late to affect the decision to use a lightweight APC projectile for new designs. As a result, these guns proved to be only marginally better in terms of armor penetration than the previous 15"/42 (38.1 cm) Mark I and much less satisfactory than those older guns in terms of accuracy and barrel life. Numerous problems with liner wear, interlocks and turret roller-bearings were found and corrected in the late 1920s and early 1930s, but it wasn't until 1934 that Nelson's guns were first fired in a long, sixteen rounds per gun, all-gun sequence. A number of breakdowns occurred during this test, resulting in an energetic effort to correct the deficiencies. By 1939 the majority of the problems found had been rectified. However, these mountings were never trouble-free during the careers of Nelson and Rodney and they cannot be considered to have been a successful design."

[@stevevalley7835]

@@colbeausabre8842 yes, I have read those criticisms of the Nelson mounts. The task was to find what was readily at hand to expedite new BB construction, not what was ideal. Given a choice between twin 13.5" mounts plucked off an Iron Duke, twin 15" plucked off a Revenge, USN surplus 14", for which mounts and turrets would need to be made, or the Nelson turrets, I would go with the Nelsons to get 9-16" guns on a modern hull, rather than 6-13.5".

[@RedXlV]

@@stevevalley7835 Particularly since a heavier 2,250 lb shell *was* designed for the Nelsons' guns, just never implemented because that would cost more money that just going through all the already-built lightweight shells. It probably wouldn't have been hard to adapt the Nelsons' 16"/45 Mk I guns to fire the 2,375 lb shell that was planned for the Lions' 16"/45 Mk IV. As for old 13.5" twin turrets...the best use for those would be if you were going to build a small battlecruiser to server as a "cruiser-killer". Instead of using the old 13.5" guns, instead adapt the turrets for any spare 14"/45 Mk VII barrels (like the pair of coastal guns at Dover) for ammunition commonality with the KGVs. IIRC, the 14" Mk VII was actually designed to be able to drop into those turrets, because originally they planned to use Iron Duke (then demilitarized as a gunnery training ship) to test the guns at sea while the KGVs were still under construction.

[@stevevalley7835]

@@RedXlV Yes, I was thinking of using the twin 13.5" on something along the lines of a Scharnhorst. Of course, any scenario using 13.5" would depend on the Admiralty retaining the gun and turret sets and armor when the Iron Dukes were scrapped in the early 30s. I read somewhere they did retain some of the guns, but I don't know about the rest. Once the gun size escalator triggered in April 37, the Admiralty could do something with the 8 twin 15" turrets that were in inventory: the 4 from Courageous and Glorious, the two on the Erebus class monitors, the one on Marshal Soult and one new one in warehouse. Again, prior to the displacement escalator triggering in June 38, they would be looking at a Scharnhorst. After June 38, they could build two Vanguards. As Drac noted, armor would be an issue, as they were already making the armor for the five KGVs, unless it was feasible to strip the armor off the Revenges. That brings us back to the Nelsons: triple gun and turret sets, and armor. wrt the 2,375lb shell, my concern would be overpressuring the tube by going to such a heavy shell, but if the 2.250 had proved out, use that. Using the Nelson turrets would enable building something along the lines of a North Carolina, and, as the turrets had been debugged, they might not have the issues that were experienced with the KGV quad turrets early on. But, stripping two serviceable battleships, even if to build two much more capable ones, on the eve of war, would be controversial.

[@TruthNTime]

Did all of the battleships in WW2 have armored citadels such as the Iowa class did, or was it pretty much game over for the ships that didn't have them if the bridge took a direct hit?

[@kemarisite]

I presume you mean the armored conning tower? They were popular for quite a while, but by WW2 the British had abandoned them because the officers so rarely used them. Prince of Wales took a direct hit (that did not detonate) to the compass platform that killed or wounded pretty much every man there. Did not threaten the ship itself.

[@colbeausabre8842]

@@kemarisite There is a scene in the 1960 movie where an officer deeper in the ships notices that something is dripping from a voice pipe, puts his hand under it and is appalled to realize it is blood. About 5:30 into this video kzbin.info/www/bejne/npS7pYCIqZZ7obM

[@kemarisite]

@@colbeausabre8842 I rewatched some of the battle scenes from Sink the Bismark within the last couple months and remember that scene well.

[@triarii_00]

On the question of coal. did any navies ever consider mechanical stokers? US railroads had built very large articulated steam engines in the early 1900's most of these were dropped, because one fireman could not stoke fast enough to keep the steam up. the Union Pacific 4000 class bigboys used a mechanical auto stoker to allow them to work. did any Navy ever consider such a device to bridge the gap between coal and oil firing? for a further note, the US southern pacific railroad made a locao of similar size to the 4000's, the 'cab forward' class. these were locos with reversed boilers and had to use oil. the oil was only used because there was now way to reasonably stoke these locos and maintain good visibility.

[@colbeausabre8842]

triarii And Bunker C oil was so cheap, refineries would parctiaclly pay you to take it off their hands

[@triarii_00]

@@colbeausabre8842 well if you are anyone other than Germany or Italy

[@bjturon]

Parrott guns seen as so dangerous that the US Congress eventually banned their use outside of static displays on the town square. Dahlgren guns on the other hand were very well regarded for not exploding, the orginally conceived as shell guns for sinking wooden ships, larger charges and increase caliber to 15 inches (XV gun) let them easily defeated Confederate ironclads by bashing through the armor plate. In the 1870s many of the 11-inch Dahlgrens were converted from smoothbore to 8-inch rifles that performed well enough, serving into the 1890s.

[@stnylan]

The Dutch at Copenhagen? :)

[@mflashhist500]

Do we know if the Captain of HMS Audacious ever got another command or did he join the ranks of Captains who have earned the “displeasure of their Lordships of the Admiralty” ??

[@DanielsPolitics1]

He seems to have been second in command of a battle squadron, and then superintendent of Dover, so I don’t think he was blacklisted. He was also made a Commander of the Order of St Micheal and St George in 1919.

[@WildBillCox13]

Sister ships engaged . . . including ocean liners?

[@benwilson6145]

The last wooden wall broken up that I know of was the TS Dolphin, "HMS Dolphin (1882)" . She was beached at Boness on the River Forth 1980/81. The major value was said to be the copper sheathing on the hull. The timber was burnt. This was a tragedy.

[@USS_Grey_Ghost]

THEY FOUND THE SAMUEL B. ROBERTS WRECK

[@samsignorelli]

Re repurposing of broken up wooden ships...the Resolute Desk -- used by many US Presidents -- was made from wood from the HMS Resolute.

[@benwilson6145]

I note that the "attack cargo ship"' shown, and others I can find have no cranes. They do have derricks.

[@colbeausabre8842]

Ben Wilson. Eventually they all had quadrupod masts with 30 and 10 ton capacity booms www.shipscribe.com/usnaux/AKA/alcyone1-07.jpg www.navsource.org/archives/10/02/100200104.jpg

[@seavee2000]

Thank you.

[@jamesmaclennan4525]

With regard to the reuse of scrapped wooden ships, the timbers of HMS Hindustan and HMS Impregnable are part of the structure of Liberty's on Great Marlbough Street London

[@nickdanger3802]

USS Nevada Returned to service: October 1942

[@gustav331]

59:50 You probably meant Danish, not Dutch haha

[@Drachinifel]

Yeah, that!

[@colbeausabre8842]

Yeah, I'll take a Danish

[@PalleRasmussen]

DUTCH! DUTCH! Did you just call me Dutch Drach?!

[@thomaslinton5765]

So the movie stories of IJN subs cooperating with IJN destroyers hunting U.S. subs?

[@timengineman2nd714]

During D-Day (Normandy Landings) there was a break-down of radio communications between the troops ashore and their support ships, including fire support. Was it water in the radios ashore, or wrong crystals installed, or extra layers (such as calling an Army Officer who then passed it on to a Navy Officer, who passed it on to the Radio Operators on his ship, who passed it onto "the shooters") getting in the way? (Or a combination of the above?) >>> Also, there was a destroyer, very close in to the Omaha Beach that actually using where a M-5 Stuart tank (which had it's track blown off) was shooting as it's "target director". Namely where the tank was shooting the Benson Class Destroyer would shoot with it's 5 inch cannon... Can you find out what the ship's name was???

[@eskhawk]

Wasn't Samuel Pepes a good Sea Lord in cutting corruption and waste?

[@colbeausabre8842]

He was neither a Sea Lord or First Lord, he first served as Clerk of the Acts and later, Secretary of the Admiralty, important civil service staff positions, but not in the chain of command " Pepys had no maritime experience, but he rose to be the Chief Secretary to the Admiralty under both King Charles II and King James II through patronage, diligence, and his talent for administration. His influence and reforms at the Admiralty were important in the early professionalisation of the Royal Navy"

[@hughgordon6435]

Saw the question on riiles ,and thought how would drach know , then saw the actual "rifles" and ohhhh!