The Drydock - Episode 231

[@barrydysert2974]

Drach says Japanese torpedo boat and i think the Kamchatka 😂

[@paulthiessen6444]

That’s the real reason they were not fighting the Chinese, they were busy pestering the Russians

[@toddwebb7521]

Do you see torpedo boats

[@Aiwendill]

@@toddwebb7521 shut up and get back into formation! we are still in baltic sea! :P

[@PsychicalTraumaPL]

You've killed me with that 🤣🤣🤣

[@davidbrennan660]

I open fire.... but have trouble hitting even the ocean.

[@stephenrickstrew7237]

Hot Coffee and a fresh DryDock …. And a big thanks to our Author for these excellent episodes and great historical artwork ..!

[@toddwebb7521]

A nice Irish coffee (whiskey added for those who aren't aware of the meaning) and a cigar while sitting on the covered front porch on a room temperature morning and looking at the lake makes for a good morning drydock

[@1949crewchief]

When I say this its a good thing. I have insomnia because I cannot shut my brain off. Your knowledge and delivery of that knowledge gets my attention so much it allows me to focus on you and lets my brain shut down to finally get sleep. By the time your episode is done I have learned alot and get to sleep sometimes 3 hrs earlier than normal.

[@KibuFox]

In regards to 00:47, there is something that should be noted here, technology wise. With early engines, you will very often see references in the original texts to "oil electric" or "kerosene electric" engines, as well as "oil" and "kerosene" engines. This leads many researchers to think that these engines literally run off of light oil, or kerosene. This isn't the case. Keeping in mind that the term "diesel fuel" didn't come into common use until about 1936, with the advent of more popular diesel engines being produced around the world by Mercedes-Benz. Prior to that, a multitude of various terms were used for this fuel type, including (but not limited to), coal-oil, kerosene, oil, and lighting fluid. Another thing that is often missed, is the composition of early diesel fuel. Contrary to what you implied, diesel isn't always a kind of oil distillate, and didn't suffer greatly from distribution issues. In fact, the composition of diesel fuel would vary by nation. For example, in the US, diesel fuel was being made from oil, which was cheap and easily obtained. Distribution of this was already in place through rail networks, with oil transportation having began in earnest in the late 1800's. By the time of WW1, it was relatively easy to transport fuel oil (including diesel) where it needed to be. In nations that lacked large oil reserves, however, diesel was produced from coal. Specifically coal-tar would be distilled to produce a coal based diesel. This type of diesel was of a lower quality than the oil diesel, but with the early engines that didn't really matter that much as you weren't getting a great deal of power out of it to begin with. Distribution there, however, did tend to prove problematic, as fuel oil transportation by rail (everything went by rail) in those days was in its infancy, and it would be well into the 1920's, early 1930's before Europe and Britain caught up to the United States. In short, if an engine is listed as using kerosene prior to about 1936, then it is actually a diesel engine. The term 'diesel' fuel wasn't in wide use at that point in time, which is why the name doesn't make sense. Meaning that yes, there were very early diesel engines in submarines, they just weren't called 'diesel'.

[@kemarisite]

IIRC, Otto Diesel's first demonstration compression-ignition engine was run on peanut oil.

[@KibuFox]

@@kemarisite I believe so, yes. However by the time of early submarines, "oil electric" or "oil" engines were actually quite common already in various uses. Railroads were already moving that direction, with 'oil' locomotives in full use by 1906 in Europe. Those locomotives had engines/prime movers in them easily large enough to power early submarines. I think Drach fell victim to the common misunderstanding about early diesel engines, thinking that 'kerosene' was the kerosene of today. I can't really fault him for that, as it's not something that's widely known outside people who actively research early diesel production, and early diesel engine use.

[@mancubwwa]

I knew a guy who used to run his diesel microvan on a mix of actual diesel and vegetable oil he got in a supermarket on the cheap. Diesel engine, especially naturally-aspirated diesel engine, can run on almost anything vaguely oily, although it won't run very long on bad fuel.

[@KibuFox]

@@mancubwwa I've heard such, but the point I was getting at with the original post, was back in the early days of 'diesel' engines... they weren't called diesel engines. They tended to be called oil, or kerosene engines, because at that time, diesel fuel wasn't called, well diesel. It wasn't until the 1930's that the name "Diesel Fuel" began to be used.

[@mtgAzim]

21:43 is that where "tampon" comes from? Some German U-boat gunner is back home, and his wife has "her friend", and he goes "I know how to fix this..."

[@mbryson2899]

Now I have "Barrett's Privateers" by Stan Rogers stuck in my head. Life could be worse... 😁

[@leftcoaster67]

I wish I was in Sherbrooke now!!!!!

[@camenbert5837]

Check out the Fishermans Friends version

[@erikvandootingh7402]

Regarding 42:06 on Japanese use of flares - another book that addresses the Battle of Rennell Island is "Blazing Star, Setting Sun" by Jeffrey Cox. In this author's description of the battle, green float flares were dropped to starboard and red ones to port, apparently marking the path of the US ships like navigational lights. Plain white floats flares were apparently used to mark direction as a line later appeared across the path of the ships to point the way back to base for the Japanese planes. The source cited for this particular passage is "La Vallette Rennell Island Report 3", though there are many others in the bibliography covering this battle as well.

[@leftcoaster67]

The idea for the Seadart was a part of the Seaplane Striking Force plan. They wanted to strike against Russia, or other cold war combatants. But they felt that Carriers are vulnerable. The idea is to have a small force that's easy to disperse. Can hide in harbours, and islands. The Sea Dart would escort/defend the Sea Master Bomber/Minelayers. They would be served by flying boat transports (Marlins/Tradewinds). They could be also serviced by Tenders, or even Submarines. Good idea, and inexpensive compared to building carriers. But the technology wasn't really ready.

[@TotallyDapper]

I’d love to see a modern imagining of the idea, although the time for it to be of military use has passed. Jet-powered seaplanes are cool.

[@indplt1595]

Fleet Admiral Leahy was considerably more important than most historians consider, as the only in-depth book written about Leahy's life and outsized influence since Leahy published his understated memoir in 1950 was by Phillips Payson O'Brien, Professor of Strategic Studies at the University of St. Andrews in 2019. O'Brien began an in-depth study of the interplay between President Franklin D. Roosevelt and the U.S. military in How the War Was Won: Air-Sea Power and Allied Victory in World War II, published in 2015 when O'Brien noticed that FDR essentially acted as a unitary executive during the Second World War. O'Brien argues that it was because of Admiral Leahy, who had developed a close relationship with FDR streching back to the future president's tenure as Undersecretary of the Navy during Wilson's presidency from 1913-21, that FDR could consolidate power safe in the knowledge that, after conferring with his Chief of Staff and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs to craft the president's desired policy, that Leahy would implement FDR's policy to the letter. Roosevelt's long history with both the Navy and Leahy since 1913 manifested itself in a Navy-heavy policy culminating in the fact that General George Marshall envisioned fielding an army numbering in excess of 250 divisions but had to settle for 90 while Leahy directed the policy that ordered and began construction on over 100 escort carriers, 32 Essex-class fleet carriers and six Midway-class carriers along with the planes to fill them and the escorting warships to screen them at the expense of the firepower Marshall and Arnold desired to put on the European Theater of Operations. Leahy's outsized influence with both FDR and Truman (Leahy retained his position as Chief of Staff and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs until 1949) was so great O'Brien titled his 2019 study on Admiral Leahy The Second Most Powerful Man in the World: The Life of Admiral William D. Leahy, Roosevelt's Chief of Staff. If Roosevelt had gotten his way in 1944, it would have been abundantly obvious that Leahy wasn't merely the highest-ranking active-duty American military officer during WWII (General of the Armies John J. Pershing lived until 1948 and outranked all of the five star officers): "In early January 1944, an increasingly weak President Franklin Roosevelt turned to William Leahy in the White House and told his longtime friend that he wanted to make Leahy, since 1942 the president’s chief of staff, America’s only serving five-star military officer. FDR said nothing about promoting Army Chief of Staff George Marshall, Chief of Naval Operations Ernest King, or General of the Air Force Henry Arnold, but Leahy was adamant that the other Joint Chiefs of Staff be advanced as well, and the president relented. Leahy quickly moved on Roosevelt’s plan, meeting with Representative Carl Vinson (D-Georgia), chairman of the House Naval Affairs Committee and a longtime Leahy friend. The plan entered the congressional pipeline." www.historynet.com/dying-fdrs-right-hand-man-ran-the-war/ O'Brien also raises the curious point that other historians still assert the U.S. adopted a "Germany First" policy in December 1941 when American fighting men and material were sent to the Pacific in 1942 in such numbers the policy was decidedly "Japan First" until Operation Torch, and American policy morphed into prosecuting the wars against Europe and Japan with equal ferocity thereafter. O'Brien directly credits Admiral Leahy with this evolution, as the Joint Chiefs of Staff were a swirling mess of recrimination until Leahy returned from Vichy France, to use his "simple sailor" character to direct the top brass to FDR and Leahy's desired policy. Perhaps Professor O'Brien would jump at the opportunity to explain his Air-Sea Super Battlefield theory and Leahy's influence over American policy and strategy...though his theory of Japan First seems a little thin when in effect the ETO was run by the War Department and the PTO was the province of the Navy Department. The U.S. Army even created Army Service Forces to handle logistics in the ETO, mirroring Nimitz's Service Squadrons in the Pacific, without which American operations would have failed completely even if the U.S. had focused everything on the ETO first. But this went beyond logistics. General Marshall almost entirely kept the Marine Corps out of North African and European operations despite the USMC having trained incessantly for 25 years to conduct amphibious operations, and near-disasters in Italian amphibious assaults showed the U.S. Army was suffering steep learning curves while the Marines showed their expertise in the first month they went on the offensive in the Battle of Alligator Creek. The same occured in the Pacific until November 1942. U.S. Army ground forces were almost entirely absent in the PTO until after Operation Torch, with MacArthur's forces being largely Australian and Halsey's being USMC and USN, and even after GIs began to arrive in the South Pacific Marshall had neglected to send a seasoned flag officer to command them. Rather it took Hap Arnold's point man in the Pacific, USAAF Lt. General Millard Fillmore "Miff" Harmon to take command of all Army forces and work hand-in-glove with his superior, Admiral Halsey. This remarkable camaraderie even extended into the next-door theater, as Douglas MacArthur had taken a shine to the SOUTHPAC commander, Halsey. Meanwhile the U.S. Army was a hotbed of political intrigue, not only from SACEUR and future president Eisenhower, but MacArthur was potentially going to pull a McClellan in 1944 if the proma donna wasn't tasked with the ulimate mission of retaking the Philippines. This alternatively could explain why FDR essentially made Admiral Leahy acting commander-in-chief as the president was dying in 1944 and 1945. A consummate operator with no higher ambition that serving as POTUS's right-hand-man, O'Brien convincingly argues Leahy continued to implement FDR's policy after the president's health failed and ensured a smooth transiton to Truman, who unfortunately was a little too enamored with General Marshall.

[@bkjeong4302]

To give you some idea as to how hard it was to build the Shokakus: they took as long as the Yamatos from keel laying to entering service, and the slipways they were built in had to be enlarged to accommodate them. Edit: for reference, Shokaku and Zuikaku were laid down in the autumn of 1937 and entered service in the autumn of 1941, while Yamato and Musashi were laid down in late 1937 and early 1938 respectively (as part of the same naval expansion as the Shokakus) and entered service in late 1941 and mid-1942 respectively. And keep in mind, the Shokakus were rushed into service for the PH raid.

[@ph89787]

Throw in Taihou taking three years (yes I know she’s a different design) and Japan can’t really mass produce anything larger.

[@bkjeong4302]

@@ph89787 Fully agreed. They also couldn’t build a larger number of smaller battleships instead of the Yamatos unless they wanted to ditch the Shokakus and maybe even Taiho.

[@ph89787]

@@bkjeong4302 for the life of me. I’m still wondering where they were would be getting the resources and slipways if they went ahead with five of the Hakuryuu (G-15) designs. As part of 4th supplementary program.

[@ph89787]

@@bkjeong4302 Also, a part of me now imagines the US Navy finding out the full specifications Unryus and ordering a bunch of Yorktowns (albeit modernised to 1944 standards) just to spite the IJN. I know it’s not realistic. But it would be funny.

[@bkjeong4302]

@@ph89787 That would be even more spiteful than sending Enterprise and JUST Enterprise to finally get rid of Zuikaku at Cape Engano. Let them fight for one last time.

[@samsignorelli]

YAY! My Sea Dart question made it! I just wish the pic Drach used was of the bird in San Diego...that one never had the yellow visibility striping on the tail or engine inlets as far as I know. I have yet to find a pic of the SD 'Dart in action that I could verify WAS that plane.

[@philvanderlaan5942]

Despite being US naval aviation, every time I hear Sea Dart I think a Royal Navy missile system rather than a U.S. Navy fighter.

[@samsignorelli]

@@philvanderlaan5942 Probably because the missile system was actually deployed.

[@johnshepherd9676]

Even without the technical problems the Sea Dart was going nowhere. The first US Navy (marginally) supersonic fighter, the F4D Skyray, had its first flight two year before the Seadart, the F11F Tiger flew a little more than one year after and the F8U two years after. The Seadart would have been rendered unnecessary by 1956.

[@SirThoreth]

Glad it made it. I always love seeing the Sea Dart when I'm down in Balboa Park.

[@samsignorelli]

@@SirThoreth I've always considered that one MY airplane! I got a chance to sit in the cockpit and have the canopy lowered early on...i am STILL amazed any pilot could see sufficiently out the windscreen, given the shallow angle and structural soar down the centerline (same as on all the Convair delta planes, and the SR-71).

[@jayfelsberg1931]

Krupp owned Germania Werft, a major shipbuilding concern, and like others building early U-boats, used heavy oil for surface running. It was not satisfactory in any way, so wen this yob named Rudolf Diesel was ushered unto Fritz Krupp's office with the design for a new type of compact, efficient engine, the owner took notice. He was soon reading the evaluation of the engine by his staff and listening to Rudy as he was getting a blank contract out of his desk drawer. The story is related in William Manchester's "Arms of Krupp."

[@roberthilton5328]

New KZbin banner panel, with sponsorship and all. First time I've seen it, looks snazzy!

[@johnfisher9692]

Thanks Drach.. As always it brightens my day with a new Drydock

[@t5ruxlee210]

Creating lamp oil from crude oil was necessary once the whale oil sources for lighting were greatly diminished. "Petrol" at the time was a near worthless byproduct which came out of the refining equipment spout at a lower temperature before the desired, valuable, "Kerosene" showed up. That was the reason why petrol as a fuel was such a major attraction for inventors trying to get an ICE motor perfected to run on it. People were literally being paid to haul the explosive stuff away, no questions asked. Its only retail glimmer of hope at the time was as a dry cleaning liquid for home use sold in small amounts by some pharmacies.

[@blackcorp0001]

Fascinating as always ... great 👍 work 👏

[@Niels_Larsen]

Thank you for answering my question.

[@anatolib.suvarov6621]

Regarding the use of flares by the Japanese spotters, I suspect that the red and green marker buoy was to mark Port and Starboard which would also indicate the direction of travel. I don't know this, but it seems to make sense to me.

[@davidbrennan660]

Given the Japanese have a thing about Green and Blue ( language) ... (look at their traffic lights)..it might have been a Blue.

[@davidmcintyre8145]

when talking of the Montanas'or indeed any of the later battleships it must be remembered that not only was tallboy in production as was Grand Slam the RN at least had an AP 2000lb bomb that in post war tests could go right through a Nelson or even a KGV from the weather deck to below the keel as well as B-bomb where it was understood that even a 250 lb B-bomb could cripple or sink any ship and B-bomb was planned in flavours up to 2000lb and finally there was highball. Then of course magnetic and other influence torpedoes had been immeasurably improved meaning that"one torpedo one ship"the fampous dictum of Otto Kretschmer was increasingly a reality

[@alanhughes6753]

Regarding RN ship names, the Temeraire was not the only name reused from a captured ship. The RN at Trafalgar also had an HMS Neptune, named for a captured ship. Interestingly the French also had a "Neptune" that replaced the captured ship, and the Spanish had a "Neptuno." Sadly they did not meet for a party during the battle!

[@PointyHairedJedi]

Enterprise is another one!

[@KenR1800]

USS President as well.

[@abefroman4953]

Wish you'd do an episode or two on WWII Amphibious ships. Small, ugly and not very glamorous, but very important workhorses.

[@Alex-cw3rz]

59:18 what does the dot camouflage do on the funnel and side of the ship?

[@Edax_Royeaux]

It breaks up the outlines of the funnel.

[@robertslugg8361]

The problem with newer, faster, battleships is that the whole concept of the battle line depends on the boats all having (using) roughly the same speed, so the advantages of a faster one, by say 10 knots, would have been wasted until there was much larger fleet of them that could all truck along at the higher speed.

[@Hendricus56]

Short question guys: Does anyone remember the previous drydock where he talked about the size reduction under Fisher? I've been looking for it for a while (and the list with all questions covered isn't exactly up to date, checked that already)

[@Freerangechicken396]

Do a Elbonia video

[@TheWareek]

another way to stop corrosion at sea is to coat the metal with Vaseline. It is however VERY important to remove it from your hands because otherwise the hand rails on ladders can become coated. Don't know if deliberate or not but on HMAS Swan went down a ladder were one handrail was coated with alarming results.

[@taylorjeffords1719]

Similar conditions to the sailing of the Russian fleet to the Pacific, there were no Japaneese torpedo boats.

[@richardschaffer5588]

Built a plastic model back in the day. What a kludge in there with Kclass subs, or IJN submarine aircraft carriers, just look at the spray from a smooth sea! But how weirdly cool!

[@kemarisite]

Just for comparison with those 150-200 ton Japanese torpedo boats in the 1890s, the US PT boats of WW2 displaced 50-100 tons and PT-109 (JFKs) and PT-493 (lost at Surigao Strait) in particular displaced 56 tons.

[@MARGATEorcMAULER]

You are looking quite "official"on the new banner.

[@GrahamWKidd]

Ah yes, Saturday night. Joy. New 5 Minute Ship guide next. Joy.

[@billbolton]

Good morning!

[@CTXSLPR]

I believe USS Slater even has a video of recharging the stern depth charge rack using a block and tackle.

[@Archie2c]

In reference to Temeraire history will remember the Name Enterprise

[@Edax_Royeaux]

Which apparently they also stole from the French as the first HMS Enterprise was originally L'Entreprise.

[@f12mnb]

During WW1 and WW2 were the crews rotated on / off? How was this done? There are so many technical issues - with particular ships and could span decades of tech development. ? How did the personnel office handle things and track where the same or rotate people?

[@manythingslefttobuild]

32:30 Marshal Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto.

[@SCjunk]

Re K guns the spigot is pretty heavy too

[@Trek001]

I have come back from the future to tell you Drach has just released The Drydock Episode 6000

[@charlescasturo9146]

So how are things in September 2503?

[@Trek001]

@@charlescasturo9146 Pretty much okay - First Sea Lord Drach has just finally allowed ships built in the 50s - 60s to be talked about

[@camenbert5837]

Hold-outs still maintain the Bismark was scuttled, even after the wreck has been raised and sailors recreated by androids

[@wastedangelematis]

Αhh yeeesh. .. relax time

[@harrykilman5634]

Deck gun maintenance. Night surfacing to charge batteries was a good time to scramble the gun crew to wipe down the gun and grease the moving parts. You have to be on the surface anyway. Since no one in WWII had a nuclear boat this surfacing was pretty much required on a daily basis.

[@robertchandler6254]

G'day Drach, I've just watched the excellent 1944 wartime doco-drama - Western Approaches, which from what I've read was largely filmed using amateur actors who were real Royal Navy and British merchant navy officers and sailors. As an example The RN destroyer skipper is listed 'Captain W. Kerr', but I couldn't seem to find any information on his career. I've seen your video on the Western Approaches museum and I was wondering if there was any history of these men who acted? I can't readily access the museum from Australia. Thanks mate.

[@davidbrennan660]

The mile stone of the week is pasted. Back to work tomorrow..oh sweet torture you cause us Drach!

[@Depipro]

I hear Drach say: "The year before Fisher...", and my mind continues the sentence in Drach's voice: "started fishing for freshly fished fish..."

[@camenbert5837]

Should the RN be split into BF (before Fisher) and AP (Anno Pesciae)?

[@Depipro]

@@camenbert5837 I like this, but for a more direct Latin translation I propose "Anno Piscatoris" for AP.

[@camenbert5837]

My Latin is not what is was...

[@Depipro]

@@camenbert5837 I confess to having double-checked the correct word myself as well.

[@robertmatch6550]

Way cool and early enough

[@skywise001]

5:50 What is the madness your showing on screen?

[@cactusman1771]

What would a theoretical ship look like if it was made up of all the worst aspects of each nations navies during ww2? For example USN mark 14 torpedoes, IJN AA defense, Italian guns/shells, etc.

[@bkjeong4302]

Italian guns were fine, and even the shell quality issue has been overstated by poor historiography (namely, historians taking Iachiano as fact when he was intentionally misblaming supposed bad naval design and supposedly badly manufactured shells to cover up his incompetence and lack of aggression). Anyways, here’s an idea for the “worst possible WWII battleship”: a Sovetsky Soyuz (so over 80,000 tons fully loaded) with a NorCal’s vibration/speed issues and belt/deck armour thickness, compounded by said armour being arranged in Bismarck’s armour layout, Bismarck’s medium-caliber AA (which consisted of BOLT-ACTION SINGLE-SHOT AA weapons), Yamato’s light AA (so the Japanese 25mm, which still isn’t as bad as that German 37mm), Scharnhorst’s main battery firing modified poison gas shells a la Richelieu (pre-US refit/completion), Bismarck’s triple-screw propulsion, and topped off by a torpedo defence system that’s an unholy combination of Yamato’s and Iowa’s (both of which, especially the former, had major structural weaknesses). You now have a battleship that weighs 80,000 tons at full load but only has 9x11” guns, which fire shells that don’t work properly because their aerodynamics are now crap thanks to the poison gas modification, the ship has no effective medium AA and only a minimally effective light AA, has an anti-torpedo defence that might as well not exist, has relatively little protection against incoming shells at any combat ranges, has so little reserve buoyancy it can be sunk even if it’s citadel somehow manages to survive a battle intact, cannot steer with its props alone if it takes a bad stern hit, and cannot make its design speed without risking its hull vibrating itself apart.

[@renebatsch2555]

Ahoy, What is the music I hear at the beginning of every Drydock episode ? I neeeeeeeeeeeeeed to know. - two year subscriber. Also people, I recommend some good 'sailer coffee' called 'inka' from Poland.

[@sundiver137]

It's "Wat Dat Dee" by Cab Calloway.

[@lunarguard01]

Question, what videos should I watch about German commerce raiding, specifically ones where they disguised the ships as foreign merchant ships.

[@connormclernon26]

Have you ever visited her Maritime Museum in Norfolk, Va and if so what did you think of it? It’s going through a remodel right now getting rid of the Nelson exhibit and we’ll see what it becomes. A good few models

[@mickclark9722]

could you do a video about how many Battlestars were awarded to the USA Battleships during WW2.

[@leftcoaster67]

Was the HMS Incomparable a practical design? Did UK armouries could they have built a 20" gun?

[@Edax_Royeaux]

The Germans built two 31" guns in WWII, I don't see why the UK would be incapable of making a 20" guns.

[@gerardlabelle9626]

@@Edax_Royeaux didn’t those huge cannon have very short barrel lives, from erosion? I’m sure they would be lined, but wouldn’t replacing the liners be time consuming? Also, I just realized that 20” is 1/2 meter 😮

[@Edax_Royeaux]

@@gerardlabelle9626 I've heard the barrel life of the Iowa 16" gun was about 290 rounds, depending on the propellant charges used. The Gustav Gun had fired 47 rounds and worn out its original barrel, which had already fired around 250 rounds during testing and development. Seems comparable to me.

[@Wolfeson28]

32:51 That pause after he says Halsey's name...you just know he's thinking about and suppressing the urge to insert something like "well, maybe *Halsey* could have stood to get shot down somewhere around late 1943".

[@jeebusk]

24:00, what is this strange assumption that you would need a license

[@SCjunk]

Drac. No german U boat had petrol engines first German U boat U1 was powered by twin Körtin heavy oil motors (1906) Germany built the Karps for Russia. Only in 1913 did the Germans use diesels in U19 again two 850hp each four stokes by M.A.N.

[@Drachinifel]

I probably could've worded that better to "non-diesel engines"

[@SCjunk]

@@Drachinifel Yep allways a problem answering Q & A on the internet. but interesting enough the marketing for the Körting company said Gasoline -meaning a "distilate" -being kerosene, -of course the famous blind alley of multi-fuel engines -which weren't much good outside the engineering shed.

[@toddwebb7521]

As far as a type that could have been built earlier, other than the fact there wasn't anything that needed that big of a response there's no real reason someone couldn't have built a ship similar to Orion/Bretagne/New York at around the same time as dreadnought. There was certainly liners and stuff bigger it's not like you couldn't make a power plant that big and 13.5 and larger guns had already been a thing in the ironclad era, they just chose to gu up in number of 12 in turrets in a gradual expansion instead of going straight there for practical and logistical reasons

[@nektulosnewbie]

It's not just rubbing it in the enemies face, its tradition and the RNs been one of the more conservative navies of the world, so it stands that simply integrating and then maintaining a name would be what they'd do. Compare it to the breakdown in tradition in the USN where names are all over the place and they're now getting a carrier built named after someone who, tradition states, should have a destroyer named after them.

[@Edax_Royeaux]

It would certainly be awkward if we named the next Ford class CV to be USS Nagato.

[@nektulosnewbie]

@@Edax_Royeaux you made a successor Guerriere and Java each. By all rights those should be carrier names today alongside the rest of the of the building of the active fleet.

[@metaknight115]

41:20 How come Drachinifel keeps going back and forwards over whether "Iowa's guns were so OP and could penetrate any bit of armor on Yamato at all ranges" and "Yamato's armor was well equipped to deal with Iowa's shells, and boasted large immunity zones. He also contradicted himself when he said Montana's guns were as good as Yamato's, as he has stated the exact opposite in previous videos, and indeed, testing with both ships proves that Yamato could penetrate more steel.

[@bkjeong4302]

To be honest, I don’t think either Yamato or Iowa have any immunity zone at reasonable combat ranges against each other’s shells, with the exception of Yamato’s turret face plate.

[@Drachinifel]

With Montana I was referring to the wider context. The Yamato has more powerful guns, whilst the Montana has more of them. Couple 12 guns with late war US radar directed fire control and Montanas guns taken as a collective whole are sufficient to fight a Yamato. The indicative performance the US thought it would get from an 18" gun wouldn't overcome the downsides if dropping to 8 guns. Montana also has more armour than an Iowa and so can duke it out better simply by that standard alone. So a Montana is a reasonable match for a Yamato is a straight up gun duel whereas an Iowa with fewer guns and thinner armour, would be at a disadvantage in daylight combat.

[@metaknight115]

@@Drachinifel Oh, that makes since. I can agree with that. Thank you for the enlightenment. I also just noticed a spelling mistake where I said "Iowa's guns were so OP and could penetrate any bit of armor on Iowa's at all ranges". I have since corrected it and deeply apologize.

[@metaknight115]

@@bkjeong4302 I beleive that Yamato's belt and deck were immune to Iowa' gunfire from ranges ranging from 20-30,000 yards to 18-36,000 yards, depending on the source. Her turret barbettes were almost completely immune to Iowa's gunfire

[@timwilliamanderson]

8:12 British man talks about submarines for defensive purposes, Argentinians mad

[@johngregory4801]

The ignominy of attacking an enemy base... And no one noticing.

[@bartlago5466]

The Sky-Diver from UFO was a lot cooler than Seadart

[@johnbuchman4854]

Captain Carlan--is that you???

[@bartlago5466]

@@johnbuchman4854 Nope mobile driver

[@johnbuchman4854]

@@bartlago5466 Interceptor pilot is the billet to have!

[@DeliveryMcGee]

The comedy answer to the question of preventing corrosion on u-boat deck guns is ... the majority of the Kriegsmarine's boats didn't last long enough to rust. Edit: and by "comedy option" I mean the vast majority of the boats were lost in action.

[@uncleroysmusic]

400k subs...16k views....1k likes. How lazy have we become that we can't even push a button on something we like? Sad.

[@salty4496]

:)

[@TeddyBelcher4kultrawide]

Cincinnati invented salted pork to save your navy from fort Washington we fed your navy

[@merlinwizard1000]

42nd, 22 January 2023

[@craigpalmer9196]

whipple :}

[@craigpalmer9196]

a reason to play the Yankee privateer !