The Drydock - Episode 215 (Part 2)

[@Halinspark]

If you want aircraft, "Rex's Hangar" is another good channel for a similar format to Drach, and "Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles" is good if you want really in depth mechanical understanding. Oh, and Paper Skies if you want WW2 and Cold War Soviet.

[@shanepatrick4534]

I thought I knew a lot about aircraft until I found Rex's Hanger. He has the most obscure aircraft imaginable on there, it's a great channel.

[@captain61games49]

Yes

[@pyro1047]

Agreed, Rex's Hanger if you want an entertaining overview and history of an aircraft. Greg if you want your brain to hurt trying to calculate horsepower, boost, turbo vs supercharged, and what it all actually means. Still entertaining though, and he does also do more "Basic" aircraft overviews, typically when discussing its service history.

[@charlesparr1611]

I've not found that Rex's grabs me anything like Drach managed from day one, but I sure do agree that he's a good source of knowledge. Drach manages to include so much fine context to so muchy of his work, hes good at evoking a feeling of human kinship to these people who are otherwise strangers to us. Sometimes to an extent that rivals the ability of a great storyteller, yet while staying true to history. Like his account of the battle of Samar, something I must have listened to a dozen times by now, which still thrills me every time. As for Greg's channel, the guy is a true treasure, I only regret how much of the technical aspect goes over my head, but even floundering around in the easy stuff is very rewarding, the guy can write and tell history with rare skill, differently from but similarly in impact to Drach. Still, your comment here has made me to decide to go look at Rex's Hanger again, thanks for that, I think he has deserved more effort from me, and it's good to be reminded.

[@snowstalker36]

I love Greg's ridiculous in depth overview of the smallest topic. Like turbo and super chargers. Reminds me a lot of C&Rsenal.

[@MultiZirkon]

I loved the thrust block question! Cred to whomever sent that one in. -- That was a thing I never had considered..

[@fzyturtle]

Regarding the Hood's turn to the left: I was visualizing the effects of this turn on the ship, and I realized that in addition to lifting more of the starboard side of the ship above water, the side of the ship would tilt away from the Bismarck, which in turn would make the incoming shell's angle of impact more perpendicular.

[@rwilderink]

O

[@brucewilliams1892]

About RN shore base names, I recall reading the following. In WW2 there was an influx of new recruits through the training bases. Use of ship terms within those bases: decks, companionways, galley, heads etc, and equivalent routines, helped prepare trainees for life on board ships. Until reading this I'd thought it irrelevant tradition.

[@charlesparr1611]

I agree with you. it does make me wonder why we call a floor a 'deck' just because it's aboard a ship. Is there an actual utility to having these marine terms for things that are AFIAK identical to things with more usual names on land. Is it tradition, or do some or all of these terms have importance because they have shadings of meaning. A somewhat related fact: In the design of commercial (and to a lesser extent residential) kitchens the word 'galley' denotes a specific layout of an aisle barely wide enough to allow two people to squeeze past each other, on both sides equipment and prep areas are arrayed in sections, and food is completed either at the end of the aisle, or handed across the counter/equipment on each side of the aisle to whoever shows up for it. Almost every restaurant will have a galley as their 'hotline' which is where waiters come to get completed plates. ther are a number of other ways to do this, though, so galley means something different from kitchen on land at least. Ironically, the only kitchen on a ship I toured after my cheffing career did not have a galley, which i find prtetty funny. To be fair, all the ones I have *seen* in movies and the like did have galleys or were galleys. So..... Yeah.

[@brucewilliams1892]

@@charlesparr1611 I guess 'deck' comes from a time of simpler boats, a hull with its single deck forming a working and perhaps living surface, with storage beneath in what would become known as a hold. Rather than representing a series of accomodation floors.

[@charlesparr1611]

@@brucewilliams1892 I just asked a guy who was in the navy, he said that decks and bulkheads refer to structural parts of the boat, not mere partitions, or at least there were times when that was a distinction. He said some of it is just tradition, and also a kind of socializing, which is I guess what was bing talked about already, becoming an accepted part of this new artificial tribe on your new floating home involves special new language, and eventually complex skills that others do not understand.... I also learned something else interesting, which is that one of the defining differences between a 'boat' and a 'ship' is that when you turn a boat, it leans like a motorcycle, but when you turn a ship, it leans opposite to a motorcycle. Until he said that I hd never noticed that big ships do in fact lean away from the turn. I had seen it but not really internalized it. This led to half an hour of watching huge nuclear powered aircraft carriers swerve under full steam, very cool stuff. I have a naval dictionary, one intended for fans of age of sail fiction that was written by fans of the Aubrey Maturin novels. I plan to dig it out and see if it contains anything on this aspect of the words and their usage. I bought it but barely glanced at it, quite a few years ago now.

[@KPen3750]

@1:55:20 I have seen interviews with sailors on New Jersey during her sea trials in 1968 (the one where she did 35.2 knots, the world speed record for battleships) saying that she was throwing a proper rooster tail off her stern. So its more than believable that Smith controlled and/or put the fire out using spray from South Dakota at 27-28 knots

[@michaelimbesi2314]

If you look at photos of Arleigh Burke-class ships running flat out, they produce a rooster tail that is actually higher than the flight deck at the stern of the ship. It’s definitely possible

[@dennisshank2715]

At 00:39:52 there was a question about a sub sinking a capitol ship in WW1. While not exactly a sub , If I remember correctly, The SMS Szent Istvan was sunk with two torpedo's by a Italian MTB off the coast of Pula on June 10, 1918. I think this may fit in with the spirit of the question.

[@PaulfromChicago]

55:10 Drach, I'm disappointed in you. This was the perfect opportunity to have a picture of Bat Shark Repellent.

[@sqij1]

A friend of mine served on an aircraft carrier in the Pacific in WW2; when the ship was re-equipped with new fighters, the old ones (Seafires) were just dumped over the side!

[@rupertboleyn3885]

Another factor with AA firepower was the *number* of directors. Having extra directors meant not spending time after engaging a target waiting for a solution before engaging the next, as one director could be directing fire whilst another was generating a firing solution on the next. The RN calculated that two fire directors and one gun was better than two guns and one director.

[@808bigisland]

Aloha, there are plenty of sharks :-) I freedive and spearfish and fish in reefs and the deep blue. Tigers, Whites, Thresher, blacktip, whitetip, some blue sharks and plenty of hammerheads. Recently I witnessed a dolphin pods good bye ceremony of a pod member, who was critically injured by a cookie cutter shark, to two large tigers lurking and circling. Two friends boat tipped over and they spent a night in the water between two islands. They said there was constant action below and some brushing happened. Watch a clip on old style akula and aku pole fishing to get an idea on how frenzied sharks can get when they smell blood.

[@michaelimbesi2314]

Excellent description of the functioning of thrust blocks!

[@sse_weston4138]

For the Dasher question, a sistership to Dasher, sister in form of their original merchant designs and likely very similar to conversion, HMS Avenger's end via U-boat saw a catastrophic explosion at the instant torpedoes hit. The ship immediately behind her reportedly scraped her bottom on the wreck after it submerged, to show how quickly the carrier went down. In my opinion, at least, it does give credence to British claims of a design flaw. Not conclusively of course, just looking towards poor old USS Liscome Bay, CVEs can explode relatively easily, but it adds, i think, to circumstantial evidence

[@richardschaffer5588]

All CVEs were very vulnerable to attack. FDR ( correctly in MHO) forced them on the USN, because of the need for naval aviation. The USN would have preferred a ‘proper warship’. One torpedo destroyed HMS Avenger & USS Lipscomb Bay but that war not a pillow fight. They were there, they did their jobs. Military assets must be risked, when something is too valuable to put at risk it becomes proportionately less valuable.

[@sse_weston4138]

@@richardschaffer5588 What is your point?

[@gneisenau89]

In the question about naval battles of 1943 one major naval development that was overlooked was the victory of the Allies over the German U Boots in the Battle of the Atlantic. After suffering 41 submarines lost in May 1943 (more than one a day, an unsustainable loss rate) German Admiral Doenitz withdrew his boats from the convoy lanes in the Atlantic, never really to return. The Kriegsmarine carried on, but without hope of victory. A very good book on this subject is Black May by University of Florida professor emeritus Michael Gannon.

[@brucewilliams1892]

The defeat was a result of many factors acting together. More ships allowed the admiralty to form support groups, along with training in Liverpool, techniques, centimeter radar and direction, hedgehog, accoustic torpedos, , small carriers, more support from the air forces from land, interception in the Bay of Biscay, operations research. As above, Black May is a comprehensive source.

[@wilsonj4705]

01:16:48 -" Why did Jean Bart chose to fight for France and not for his native Dutch Republic? " From the picture I would say because the French had better food.

[@TheWareek]

I would like to see more videos about support vessels. Especially in the pacific they were every bit as important as the aircraft carriers.

[@GrahamWKidd]

Skirting political squalls with broaching discussion of Cook and his impact on Australian Colonialisation. It is quite a light blue touch paper and stand back topic here Down Under. I really love that we on Drachinifel stay politics free, and I hope we stay that way

[@davidharner5865]

Cook was a Liche!

[@TheWareek]

Cannot see there problem with cook, about all he did was map the place and take some biological samples.

[@Frankenspank67]

Son asked what countries all drive on the WRONG side of the road like Great Britain. As we Google it and he started reading the list I started to chuckle as I realized that pretty much nearly every place, and there are many, that he named, was a former Colony of the Brits

[@BenState]

Why do you talk like that? Why do you capitalise colonialisation?

[@benwilson6145]

@@TheWareek The ignorant blame him for the actions of others.

[@jonathan_60503]

Drach, you seem to have slightly underestimated the sheer number of ex-USN submarine museum ships in the US :D. From Wiki I count 20 of them! (8 Balao; 1 Barbel; 6 Gato; 1 Greyback; 1 Mackerel; 2 Tench, and USS Nautilus -- I discounted the research subs, mini-subs, U-505, and the Foxtrot) Those 20 have a combined surface displacement of 32,800 tons -- comfortably surpassing the roughly 24,600 tons of a surfaced Typhoon.

[@alanzelanski7288]

Did you count USS Albacore?

[@jonathan_60503]

@@alanzelanski7288 No, she was one of the research subs I discounted

[@scarletpimpernel230]

Really magnificent-your level of knowledge. It's a pure intellectual pleasure just to listen to you answer these varied questions.

[@ronmoran6968]

The questioner that mentioned the F4F-4 and the FM-2 and asked about updating the older model to the newer standard obviously did not look up the history of the Wildcat/Martlet. Besides the fact an F4F-4 was built by Grumman and FM2 by General Motors, the FM2 was specifically modified for CVE use, with 4 M2's (instead of 6), a more powerful engine, and a taller vertical stabilizer to handle the increased torque

[@coldburn9956]

My bird loves fiddler on the roof and the tradition song specifically, I cracked up when you said that😂😂

[@stevevalley7835]

In the question about WWI subs torpedoing battleships, Drac excluded pre-dreadnoughts. The British sub E-11 slipped into the Sea of Marmara in 1915 and hit the Ottoman pre-dreadnought Barbaros Hayreddin with a single torpedo. The battleship capsized about 7 minutes later, then sank within a few more minutes.

[@Deilwynna]

he skipped pre-dreadnoughts because how vulnerable they are to underwater explosives like torpedoes

[@markbrandt3728]

And U-21 sank two British pre-dreadnoughts (HMS Triumph and HMS Majestic) in a 36 hour period off the Ottoman coast. During WWI, U-21 also sank two cruisers. Otto Hersing, the commander of U-21 from 1913 until just before the end of the war, set a record for the highest number of warships sunk by one submarine.

[@kennethdeanmiller7324]

Yeah, the bit about the HMS Hood turning to port & it exposing more of it's starboard side during its initial kick is a very plausible scenario in my opinion. When the Captain ordered the turn he was likely trying to not only protect the ship by changing it's bearing but also trying to have an angle so that the aft guns could begin firing. However, considering how a large ship kicks to the other side before it begins to turn the other way. So the Captain ordering the turn to port exposed the ship at the very moment the shell arrived that would cause it to explode. Had the Captain not given the order to turn when he did the ship may not have received the hit where it did & not had a catastrophic explosion. And the simple fact that the Hood had NOT had any refits in such à long time could have also been a contributing factor. And the fact that the Hood had been so neglected made the ship that much more vulnerable. 😢 Those poor men! The Hood & the Bismarck crews RIP.

[@akumaking1]

Can you review the history and development of submarines before WWI?

[@johnevans7261]

Nice photo of the old Gosport Ferry passing under the stern of Ark Royal about 17 minutes in.

[@thibaudduhamel2581]

Well here i was absolutely sure that the SMS Szent Istvan had been sent to the bottom by a sub. Turns out it was a MAS torpedo boat. The more you know...

[@DamianMaisano]

MAS 15, who is now a museum ship inside a building in the center of Rome!

[@mattblom3990]

We here in Vancouver, Canada had the HMCS Rainbow which was a second class cruiser and I can't even see her guns in most photos I've seen. If she was a 3rd class? We might as well have armed some canoes.

[@crd260]

Hello, fellow drachinifel patreon... Coquitlam here...

[@BuzbyWuzby]

Future question: to what extent (if at all) did navies take into account whether or not a battleship or cruiser could defeat itself in a battle i.e. facing-off against an identical clone of itself which was fighting for the enemy; primarily guns & armour but also speed & manoeuvrability for gun handling purposes

[@davidharner5865]

Love the question! Very few warships appear to me to meet the 'armoured against one's own main armament' criterion, including zero heavy cruisers. Just my observation.

[@gokbay3057]

@@davidharner5865 Well, destroyers mostly aren't armoured at all, and for the heavy cruisers the issue is the treaty limits. But a lot of battleships are in fact armoured against their own guns. Thought of course the effectiveness of the guns changed according to range so various navies mostly considered the expected battle range. As just about any battleship grade gun can penetrate whatever thickness of belt armour at close enough range.

[@timwilliamanderson]

My grandfather worked in Bremerton in Shipyard during World War II and remembers the battleship warspite

[@sIightIybored]

02:01:45 I believe one of the floating wooden training ships rotted away, and was replaced by an iron hulled visual replica

[@sIightIybored]

I remembered it, Training Ship Exmouth (1905) was a metal facsimile of a ship of the line to replace HMS Exmouth (1854).

[@metaknight115]

Hey Drach, how would some events have historically gone if the Scharnhorsts were armed with six 15 inch guns from the beginning?

[@michaelkovacic2608]

Early war operations would have been pretty much the same. During the encounter with Renown, both ships had very bad luck, with Scharnhorst disabling her own radar on the first salvo. Gneisenau's fire was pretty good, scoring 2 hits but only on unimportant areas. Renown then hit her foretop, killing her gunnery officer and throwing off her aim, which then prompted the Germans to call it a day and motor off. But I am pretty sure that the twins could have taken down the British WW1 era BBs quite comfortably. Due to lack of internal armor, their immunity against the 380mm/52 gun was very small. A 330mm belt of WW1 era armor won't protect you against a modern high-velocity gun. And between them, the twins could carry 12 of them, so basically 1 QE vs 1,5 Bismarcks. A QE won't walk away from that fight.

[@toddwebb7521]

That may not be a question of what they beat since they are likely to decline a fight as much as how do the British have to respond to them. If you need to put 2 Rs in a convoy they don't have that many old RS. Also a pair of twin 15 Scharnhorsts would be a much bigger threat to a Nelrod than a single Bismarck as with 2 of them and them having a speed advantage one of them could easily get on it's tail were it can't return fire and have gunnery practice conditions.

[@Colonel_Blimp]

@@michaelkovacic2608 The twins were running away from the moment they were sighted by Renown. Having bigger guns won’t offset the mindset and general mediocrity of kreigsmarine high command.

[@michaelkovacic2608]

@@Colonel_Blimp That statement is completely false. According to her war diary, Gneisenau picked up either Renown or some of her escorts by radar from a range of 25000 meters at 0200. Visibility to the West (where the contact was reported from) was very bad, with snow and rail squalls, while to the North and East visibility was quite good out to 20000 meters, and a cloudless horizon was seen. Thus, in the following battle, Renown enjoyed a massive visibility advantage. At 0459, Gneisenau's foretop reported a shadow to the West on the radar bearing. A minute later, the ship was identified as a Nelson class battleship. Alarm sounded. The enemy opened fire at 0505, but only the muzzle flashes were seen as the British ship was then again hidden behind snowsqualls. Gneisenau increased speed to 25 knots and began returning fire at 0511. At 0516, Gneisenau's captain observed a hit on the enemy ship halfway between bow and bridge, described as a "longish oval tongue of flame which rose quite distinctly ... like locomotive lights seen in a yellow mist" Range was 14600 meters. Gneisenau's secondary battery was preparing to open fire. At 0517, the captain called the first gunnery officer, telling him "Ihr Feuer liegt gut, gib ihm!", which roughly translates to "your fire is on target, let him have it!". There was no answer, and apparently at this time the foretop was hit, smashing the gear and killing 6 men, including the first gunnery officer, Fregattenkapitän Hans-Georg von Buchka. ONLY AFTER THIS HIT did the fleet commander order the ships to disengage, at 0519. So despite incorrectly identifying the enemy capital ship as the more dangerous Nelson, and being at a clear disadvantage due to the weather, Gneisenau's captain was eager to engage the British ship. While the Kriegsmarine was undoubtedly hampered by high-ranking flag officers, their seagoing personnel was certainly very brave and should not be criticised for decisions that were above their pay grade.

[@michaelkovacic2608]

@Uthur Rytan visibility for the Germans was extremely bad. Renown could at times only be seen due to her muzzle flashes. If I remember correctly, the commander of Scharnhorst's C turret could see nothing at all through the turret rangefinder by the time the order to open fire was given (since C turret was mounted very low). The Germans were apparently not sure about the number of their opponents, and during their high speed escape, there was a lot of chatter between the commanding officers of both ships, with Scharnhorst claiming that there were not 2, but 3 enemy capital ships - described as 1 Repulse, 1 Nelson and 1 unidentified one. Renown wasn't alone, she had an escort of 9 destroyers when she sailed from the UK, and was apparently joined by a Royal Navy tanker (whose silhouette seems to have led the Germans into identifying her as Nelson). I don't know about the number of destroyers present, since the storm had scattered them and Glowworm had already been sunk by Admiral Hipper a few hours earlier.

[@bjarkih1977]

On the good looking fighter question there's also the fact the carriers don't look good but many fight very well.

[@joshthomas-moore2656]

To go on the other side i think the Kongo's are great looking ships, but (And as much as it pains me as i do like them) they didn't do well in the war.

[@michaelkovacic2608]

Regarding the Bayern, the 350mm belt does not tell the whole story. Above the main belt, Bayern carried a very heavy 250mm upper belt and above this, an equally heavy 200mm casemate armor. The 350mm belt is also backed by a 80mm turtleback. The QE had a 330mm belt, but only a 1inch, roughly 25mm, deck behind it. While the 80mm on the Bayern perhaps had some limited usefulness as internal ballistic armor, 25mm is simply too thin to act as anything but a splinter catcher. QE upper hull armor is also significantly lighter, at 6inch, or roughly 150mm. While the 250mm and 200mm plating on the Bayern won't stop a BB shell unless heavily angled, it will reduce the kinetic energy quite a bit more than the corresponding 150mm armor on the QE, probably making the Bayern a bit less vulnerable to deep penetrations of the upper hull. I would like to point out, however, that the Germans went for a heavy upper belt instead of a heavy turtleback for most of their WW1 constructions, in contrast to the Bismarck class, which relied heavily on the scarp triangle. Previous German BBs like the König carried only a 50mm turtleback, as did their BC contemporaries of the Derfflinger class.

[@davidharner5865]

It appears that, other than speed, Bayern was a superior vessel than Bismarck.

[@michaelkovacic2608]

@@davidharner5865 Not at all. Both ships were state-of-the-art. Bismarck's protection was far superior, although Bayern's was excellent for her time.

[@silverhost9782]

@@michaelkovacic2608 'state of the art' lol

[@michaelkovacic2608]

@@silverhost9782 If you are interested in an actual discussion, then please state your point of view. If you just want to hate on the Bismarck, then get lost.

[@sireneracker8293]

@@davidharner5865 Bismarck's protection abandoned various of the WW1 era philosophies (like the heavily protected foreship, it was only splinterproof) and focused on threats that they anticipated to play a role (plunging fire and AP bombs). With Bayern having at best 30mm deck plates (two of them I think, one on the upper deck, one what we'd call citadel deck), while Bismarck upped her citadel deck to 80-95mm and 50mm (mostly, you'll also find 70 and 80mm spots there) on the upper deck, that becomes obvious. Also there's quite a difference between the two in auxiliary power (I doubt that Bayern would be able to power all the fire control equipment on Bismarck), anti aircraft armament and fire control...

[@ricardokowalski1579]

1:54:00 battlefield desperation is the mother of many a great idea

[@Depipro]

On the question about Jean Bart and Dunkerque, a correction to the one asking: Dunkerque was never a part of the Dutch Republic. In a sidenote to this: in 1600 an expedition led by Prince Maurice (Maurits) was sent that way on orders of Johan van Oldenbarnevelt, with the aim of dealing with the pirates based there who carried out raids on the Republic and thus aided the Spanish. This led to the Battle of Nieuwpoort, and it also infuriated the Prince, who (arguably rightly) pointed out that such an expedition, stretching supply lines and leaving the heartland of the Republic vulnerable, was a huge folly (he won at Nieuwpoort but then chose to turn back). Later, when Van Oldenbarnevelt was an old man associated with the "wrong" religious-political faction and the Prince had gained power, the latter had the former executed, mostly out of spite.

[@timsimms65707]

Made it all the way, thanks Drach!😎👍

[@stevewyckoff6904]

Really wish we could get identities attached to the photos displayed.

[@sadwingsraging3044]

1:31:19 😳 Remove DAKKA from an American ship?!!? Heretic!😫

[@hoppish088]

Re the HMS Dasher. If you had a problem with faulty construction, you would think that after 9 months of operational service the problems would have been recognized and documented at least. Especially something so poorly design that it will eventually sink the ship. Something so potentially catastrophic should have been fixed. Conversely it could have been badly designed or built and the jury rig to make it work was the root cause. Surely testimony from the few survivors shed some light on the nature of the problem in the avgas systems.

[@TheWareek]

On the question about the British T class subs, Darwin in the north of Australia would seem a very good place to base them and they could have been a real problem for the Japanese navy.

[@hughfisher9820]

Darwin got seriously bombed in Feb 1942 by the Kido Butai. After that there probably wasn't much enthusiasm for having a submarine base within range of Japanese carrier strikes. Fremantle made the journey times longer, but the subs in harbour and the initial/final stage of the journey didn't have to worry about air attack.

[@TheWareek]

@@hughfisher9820 would have required a major upgrade of darwin defences, but it would have made a good forward base several thousand miles closer to the japanese

[@hughfisher9820]

@@TheWareek As so often the case, it could be done but would it be worth the massive investment of time and money? Darwin in the 1940s was very isolated. There was no standard gauge railway line connecting it with the rest of Australia. (And would not be until 2004!) There might have been a single narrow gauge railway line sort of connecting to other remote parts of the NT, but the usual travel advice was to go by steamer. (Source: a historical roleplaying guide to Australia in the 1920s-1930s, plus some Wikipedia.) The Australian industry base was in the south-east, mostly around Sydney and Melbourne. There were east-west railways so stuff could be sent by train to Fremantle, but not to Darwin. Even for a more northerly city like Brisbane it would be quicker and easier to send stuff to Fremantle. Shipping by sea would be possible, but from the south-east to Darwin would put ships uncomfortably close to the Japanese. Ships going south around Australia would be safe, but then again Fremantle is a few thousand kilometres closer.

[@TheWareek]

@@hughfisher9820 in reality it hasnt changed that much.

[@robyoung703]

I don't think large see beasts adequately describes a great white shark. Also it's a bit funny to me that a nation that spanned the planet had a word for kraken (giant squid) for hundreds of years before they had a word for shark. Sharks may not be from around there but British people were going everywhere and very few people have ever seen a live giant squid

[@davidpnewton]

Sharks are very much from around here. Even big sharks. Basking shark sightings are fairly common around south west England. Big, man-eating sharks? Now that's where we tend not to have any thank goodness.

[@bkjeong4302]

And the scary thing is that the great white isn’t the biggest marine apex predator, not even today. Orcas are triple the weight.

[@davidpnewton]

@@bkjeong4302 sperm whales on top of that.

[@calvingreene90]

Instead of a third class cruiser build a gun heavy vitamin fed Destroyer. The biggest annoyance about the Mk 14 is aside from the magnetic detonators the problems were easy to fix.

[@billbrockman779]

8 battleship museums. Don’t forget the dreadnaught.

[@davidturner7577]

A thing people don't realize is how new nationalism is. Family, borough, town, city, lord, king, until pretty much the 19th century, the idea of national identity or loyalty was largely unthinkable. Nationalism is a construct of the modern state, a state which did not even exist prior.

[@nektulosnewbie]

Constantinople also had a fire beacon system and is more in line with the regional inspiration for Gondor.

[@tankfighter2767]

18:00:00 competing navys can't catch a break against the royal navy. Not only did Iron Duke have access to an aimbot at Jutland, but during ww2 they are shooting down planes using HACS!

[@calvingreene90]

Anyone that has the drive to explore is going to want to use what is found. The people that are most vocal about criticising colonialism are exactly the same kind of I'm more moral thus I must impose my beliefs on others that drove much of the colonization. Farmers are on the whole are* incapable of seeing people that wonder by every now and then as owning land. It is not my fault that my European ancestors were better at taking and holding land than my Native American ancestors. *are edited in.

[@rodrigogoncalves6165]

Was there any thought of appointing Admiral Cunningham as the commander of the BPF? Why wasnt he?

[@Colonel_Blimp]

He was too senior by then to command a mere fleet.

[@rodrigogoncalves6165]

@@Colonel_Blimp If he had been the commander, do you think anything significantly different would had happen?

[@Colonel_Blimp]

@@rodrigogoncalves6165 no

[@Colonel_Blimp]

The BPF operated as a Task Force within the US fleet. Strategic direction came from the US Admiral commanding. So Cunningham would have had little scope for independent action. As a 5 star admiral he would have outranked the seagoing US admirals (Halsey and Spruance) who were 4 stars. Fraser (Commander BPF) was also a 4 star. So he commanded from ashore while Rawlings (a 3 star) commanded the Commonwealth fleet at sea.

[@davidpnewton]

Andrew Cunningham? Of course not. He was First Sea Lord by then

[@newkubaq3027]

Has WWII scharnhost wreck been found? If not is it possible to find hes wreck location and photo it?

[@elliottjames8020]

I remember the speed of beacons. During the Queens Silver Jubilee I was staying with my parents outside Westbury in Wiltshire. I saw the beacon lit at Windsor Castle, I then went upstairs to see the beacon just by the chalk figure of the White Horse at Bratton Castle. It's about 75 miles from Windsor to Westbury. The Westbury beacon was lit 17 minutes after the one at Windsor.

[@geoguy001]

Is it true they were still stockpiling wood for the beacons in England well into the 20th century?

[@andrewfanner2245]

Our village green beacon has wood available🙂

[@geoguy001]

@@andrewfanner2245 more specifically I heard the British Government had a law on the books into the last century to stockpile wood for the coastal beacons...I was wondering if it was true

[@vincentlavallee2779]

With your very vast and amazing naval knowledge, at timestamp 50:24 I was a bit surprised that you did not mention the sinking of the USS Indianapolis in 1945 in heavily infested shark waters. This would have been the optimal moment to mention this utter disaster on behalf of the US Navy where hundreds of sailors died at the 'hand' of the shark over 4-5 days. Also, this ship had just dropped off the first atomic bomb at Tinian and was on its way to the Philippines.

[@bkjeong4302]

Only a few dozen people were killed by sharks during that incident; most were killed by exposure with the sharks eating their corpses after the fact.

[@mikesummers-smith4091]

Beacons were lit in 1887 to mark Queen Victoria's Golden Jubilee. AE Housman wrote, in _A Shropshire Lad_ From Clee to heaven the beacon burns, The shires have seen it plain, From north and south the sign returns And beacons burn again. (etc.) If there were beacons at the Diamond Jubilee in 1897, Tolkien would almost certainly have seen them.

[@michaelimbesi2314]

The Americans would have been well aware of the threat posed by sharks because of the infamous attacks along the Jersey Shore in 1916, which caused a mass panic and were actually what inspired the movie Jaws. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jersey_Shore_shark_attacks_of_1916

[@Niels_Larsen]

Well, the biggest reason that the king said no to the name Cromwell for a capital ship, was more due to the tensions with the Irish than anything else.

[@Charliecomet82]

You mean there were snowflakes back then, too? (SARC ON)

[@ramal5708]

9:13 1943 is pretty much the era where USN surface tactics are better post Rennell Island battle and although there's smaller actions compared to Guadalcanal, but in most cased the USN defeated IJN surface force in 1943. Look up Battle of Blackett Sea and naval battles during invasion of Bougainville

[@Cailus3542]

It's horrible to say, but that's likely because the US Navy's awful admirals were all killed during the catastrophes of 1942.

[@davidharner5865]

Speaking of incompetent leadership, 1943 also saw less activity in mAcarseholes area of influence.

[@brucewilliams1892]

Black May in 1943 was named by the surviving U-boats. Sinkings that month, 41 subs, were a defeat, causing them to be withdrawn from convoy routes. This allowed convoys to cross the N Atlantic with slight losses. Thus shipping troops and equipment for the Normandy landings was possible. The U-boats were defeated by improved training and tactics of convoy escorts and new equipment, free-ranging support groups, small carriers, hedgehog and accoustic torpedos, centimeter radar, aircraft with Leigh Lights, radio direction finding and operations research. I'm sure I've missed stuff. Code breaking, though this wasn't new. Perhaps The Boss will consider an episode.

[@red.5475]

I feel like the Japanese had a hard time disposing of ships that participated in the battle of Tsushima.

[@stanleyrogouski]

The Iowas knock it out of the park as far as aesthetics go. The Texas is probably the ugliest World War I era battleship they could have preserved.

[@SuperchargedSupercharged]

I love the Texas, it is NOT the ugliest. Yes the Iowa's look better, wish they had Queen Ann mansions.

[@chrisangus7078]

I thought the ships were royal ships the navy didn't become the royal navy until James 2 who made the navy royal which is why the British army is not the royal army .

[@frednone]

'Mountian Man Taxidermy', I see those guns are deep in Pennsyltucky.

[@sadwingsraging3044]

Well,,, there is an advantage to putting enough dye in the water that it impedes sight. If the MEN can't see the apex predator in the water with them they won't do the exact thing that said apex predator is conditioned to get triggered by. Thrashing struggling snacks announce the buffet is open for business.🤷‍♂️ Absolutely unintentional effect but it is possible it may have saved a few lives. Plus the giant patch of discolored water is far easier to spot from the air. Watched a show on some folks trying to come up with a shark repellent. They would come up with something, get it ready then go out to shark infested waters and get them into a feeding frenzy. Then they toss in the water what they thought would drive them away attached to a stuffed diving suit and watch. Most of them just got shredded. The best thing I seen that flat sent the sharks packing was when they tossed in a suit that was black and white striped like a sea snake. That thing hit the water and every shark there said _nope_ and feeding frenzy ended.

[@merlinwizard1000]

19th, 2 October 2022

[@justinbaren5578]

Drac. The tails of whalers and them cutting up the remains of sperm whales; both in warm waters and having it be a very dangerous position. American whalers knew them as far back as Mobby Dick. Once must think further.

[@justinbaren5578]

*one. sorry long time listener. If you check I was maybe in the hundreds, as far your followers. Coming off a ww1 kick. that in color is pretty good especially Navy footage. They carried a lake boat to fight the german lake boat. Ported. And Jutland. ww1 sucks for what it could of been. Had the US gotten in their war would of forced your hand into as equal a stupid thing as Jutland. Which the American press quotes "the jailed came out and beat up their jailers. Did so and went straight back to jail." That is how us yanks see Jutland. Meaning we do not care.

[@justinbaren5578]

*sooner i know we fought

[@justinbaren5578]

I get it I think. It just makes Kubrick's movie seem that much accurate. Jesus something wrong with our ships today? Ummm yeah looks like sir. Gosh darn it they just keep exploding. My good gravy. It would be like watching the North's first attacks during the civil war 1. The south just oblterated the pride of the north. not great general Lincoln is thinking stay positive.

[@kidmohair8151]

made it! (likingandcommenting in propitiation of the tube-u-all algo-deities)

[@Les537]

cool story, bro.

[@khankrum1]

Get it right matey! There was never an " English Republic"! It was the ENGLISH COMONWEALTH!

[@ScreamingSturmovik]

it's funny how 2 questions for in Ep 215 basically come down to smash or pass

[@prestonphelps1649]

The Author here is British doing a documentary on US military which is strange , but the issue is he can't resist putting in little tidbits dissing the usa and remarking about British superiority. Thats the same stuff I get from Brits abroad..... putting down americans. so odd. The British were masters of the sea and a huge power...... however that's no longer the case and hasnt been for 10 years. In fact Britian is a second rate power....... however Brits don't like to hear that.

[@chickenfishhybrid44]

It's an inferiority complex. Brits are the only people that can give Canadians a run for their money in that regard.

[@Thumpalumpacus]

English imperialism was not "supposed". Before you reply to me, ask the Indians. English/British/UKian imperialism was a fact, not "supposed". Get that bee out of your bonnet. The fact that we Americans practiced imperialism too in no way obviates Britain's imperialism. Nor does Britain's imperialism excuse our own. This whataboutism is crap.

[@anatolib.suvarov6621]

Algorithm Engagement Comment.

[@SuperchargedSupercharged]

Indeed I have made it

[@ericjones9487]

Bitish blow up many of their own ships, Drach can't believe it would happen again.