The Drydock - Episode 260

00:00:00 - Intro
00:00:52 - 1919 Air Raid on Wilhelmshaven simulation?
00:04:53 - Why did a lot of secondary batteries across various nations all hover at about the same calibre of gun?
00:10:36 - How did the British supply aircraft to Malta?
00:15:31 - Of the following three classes: Queen Elizabeth, Hood and the Bismarcks. Which one would benifit the most if they were designed with triple turrets instead of twins?
00:23:14 - Why did the Germans tell everyone that the Bismarck's were Washington and London treaty compliant even though they were not a part of ether?
00:28:14 - Are the 5inch 38 turrets on US battleships, destroyers, cruisers and carriers all the same design/build?
00:33:07 - If Beresford blockaded the Channel could the 2nd Pacific Squadron have sailed around the UK?
00:37:14 - Drach's videos not showing up in recommendations?
00:43:03 - How would the design of ships in antiquity, the classic age of sail, and the age of steam and iron/steel change if the world's seas and oceans were comprised of fresh water instead of salt water?
00:46:52 - What aspect(s) of naval warfare do you think naval wargames rules overlook or overemphasise and what would your ideal wargames rules do with those aspects?
00:51:30 - IJN reaction to the mutiny against the Emperor?
00:54:33 - How would TF 11/14 handled the Japanese Second Carrier Division during the Battle of Wake Island in late 1941?
00:58:27 - What did a typical WWII transatlantic Allied convoy formation look like, and how did it try to maximize its defense against U-boat attacks?
01:02:46 - Were other nations invited to take part in a given nations fleet exercises in the time period the channel covers?

[@Kevin_Kennelly]

260 episodes. Five years of Drydock. Congrats on a good job Drach. Thanks for all the work.

[@Irisishunter]

Absolutely, the amount of work you put in is jaw dropping. Please allow yourself to take more breaks :) not that I do not love the content, but I know what burn out is like.

[@ImpmanPDX]

Been a long road since robot voice 5 minute guides

[@frankbodenschatz173]

Your work is fantastic, and I have now had to replace one set of worn-out headphones with my new JBL set. Brilliant quality audio over the B-52 tinnitus.

[@TrickiVicBB71]

5 years. Wow. I remember being around when it was just 5 minute guides with robot voices

[@mahbriggs]

I got started around Drydock #50 or so! It has been fun, hopefully another 5 years to come!

[@HEDGE1011]

Thanks for all your hard work Drach. You have single-handedly revived the love of naval history I had in my teens. I’m sending you a small donation in appreciation of your hard work, particularly now that I’ve heard of your pecuniary strangulation due to gross Internet buffoonery. Best regards always from the colonies! 🇺🇸🇬🇧

[@donmeyering5367]

Does buffoonery indicate enough malicious intent?

[@johngregory4801]

5 years of learning about things i didn't know i cared about - Its not just what you know, Drach, its how you present it! 😊

[@GARDENER42]

Regarding shell weight: Back in the 1970's, a bag of bricklaying sand or cement was 1cwt/112lbs/51kg. Believe me, unloading these by hand of a wagon was an absolute chore & used to leave us utterly knackered. I can't imagine the strain of doing something similar whilst under fire in a heaving hull might be like.

[@--Dani]

Well at least the dry dock has same jingle...👍

[@hisdadjames4876]

Is it the 5minute guide music that has changed? Why? 🫤

[@thcdreams654]

It's the best one too, that song is a banger.

[@hisdadjames4876]

@@thcdreams654 A ‘banger’….love it😂😂😂

[@camenbert5837]

I've always wondered how the make the metal clinky noises in it. (Not enough to do any research, obv)

[@hisdadjames4876]

@@camenbert5837 Rivet hammers?

[@williamharvey8895]

I remember drydock #1. Drach had not to long before then had switched from the robo voice to live. The first drydock was very short. I bet Drach couldn't imagine how large his following would get. And I wish his Chanel to grow even more. 5 years, seems like yesterday.

[@shawnagne9007]

Started watching drydocks 2 years ago finally got caught up. Your videos are awesome and very informative.

[@coldwarrior78]

As a soldier, I studied the land side of military history but was not terribly interested in ships. Thank you for changing my mind! Also thank you for doing such a balanced and professional job. I have learned a tremendous amount that I never knew I needed to know.

[@charlesmarino2027]

I see that I'm not the only one who marks these as watched by liking them. 37 likes on an hour long video in three minutes.

[@mahbriggs]

We know from experience we are going to like them!

[@frankhoeppel2314]

Like death and taxes, it’s a guarantee. It will be good.

[@MrTScolaro]

Presumably patreons have earlier access.

[@mahbriggs]

There are certain channels that I always "like", because I know from experience it will be fun, interresting, informative or some combination of the above! Drachinfel's channel is one of those! Guaranteed good content!

[@phluphie]

No need to watch. At 260 eps in, I know what it is, I know what I’m getting and I know I’m gonna like. So I’m gonna hit that like button even though I know I’m not gonna get around to watching for another few days.

[@Kellen6795]

Congrats on 5 years of drydock!

[@nomoss9600]

Ahoy! The greatest thing about 5 years of content is that I have lots of catching up to do. Thank you for your genuine contribution to preserving naval history.

[@ellisonms]

I am one of the very few wargamers left who played Fletcher Pratt's Naval War Game. In that, we physically aimed our broadsides and specified their range and displacement of shot. We addressed your "visibility" issue by the judges laying folding chairs between the fleets so we had to look through/around the chairs to determine what our enemy was doing. (And yes, we used binoculars regularly!) The net effect was to introduce range and visibility variables into the games. It seems like that game would induce the variables that you decry!

[@stuartwald2395]

There have been numerous analyses of the failure to relieve Wake, and the problems included the failure to understand how much fuel wartime maneuvering would cost, the lack of training of underway refueling in less than perfect conditions, and Admiral Pye being, well, Admiral Pye (he wound up commanding TF1, the old battleships based in San Francisco during the Battle of Midway, as his last field post). The real problem was that the Pacific Fleet carrier task forces were divided, with 14 (Saratoga) going towards Wake, 11 (Lexington) heading for the Marshalls, and 8 (Enterprise) being held back as not going anywhere. A decisive concentration of power (2 or all 3 carriers together) would have had a chance of not only saving Wake but also killing Soryu and Hiryu, but absent that it was likely best that Saratoga and her Buffaloes did not go up alone against them.

[@WALTERBROADDUS]

And thus the bitter feud between the Navy and USMC Begins. They were mad about Wake. Even more so about Guadalcanal. 🙇🏽‍♂️

[@DubGathoni]

36:40, there is also the matter of the time loss. If you spend an extra 2-3 weeks going around Scotland and Ireland, that is going to play havoc with the already strained timetable, and who knows how much that that will cause problems.

[@Alex-cw3rz]

Due to the fact of how lucky the shot was that sunk Hood, changing the speed at all even just 1/20 of a knot means she would not have sunk as she did or at all.

[@jame3shook]

change a factor, change the randomness of the dice roll.....lol

[@keithmoore5306]

that could have happened or it could have that scenario or it could have been a direct hit to a magazine!

[@USS-SNAKE-ISLAND]

Talk about finding the "chink" in the armor. Damn.

[@simperous4308]

Maybe they should have designed her better and not relied on luck…?

[@Alex-cw3rz]

@@keithmoore5306 well it couldn't as were it hit was the only way to get a direct hit in the magazine at that angle

[@kemarisite]

Although Tokyo is a coastal area also, the simple fact is that the bulk of Japanese naval assets and infrastructure were concentrated further south around the inland sea between Shikoku and Hondhu, around Hiroshima and the shipyards at Kure.

[@USS-SNAKE-ISLAND]

And those shipyards/slipways date WAY back in Japanese history, before Tokyo was ever even the capital city.

[@JessWLStuart]

I wonder if the air raid on Toronto in WWII would have been successful if the Wilhelmshaven raid had occurred? Also, the Sopwith Cuckoo is a favorite plane of mine for the same reason the Second Doctor (Who) is the most intriguing Doctor to me - a lack of available viewing material!

[@polaris6644]

The air raid on Toronto? I didn't know the Japanese managed to get their carriers down the St Lawrence

[@jeremypnet]

Taranto

[@chrisschanbacher9061]

​@@polaris6644I believe the battle cry was surrender pronto, or we'll level Toronto 😂

[@LeCharles07]

10:11 "Sorry, your back problems are not service related."

[@prussianhill]

With regards to wargaming the Whilemshaven raid... I wouldnt allow for the fear of perfection get too much in the way of things. Youve always been honest and forthright with qualifications in your past wargame runs, and those runs have been received well in the past.

[@robertsantamaria6857]

I feel like the "which 4 two gun turret ship would benefit from being a 4 three gun turret ship" was about what if Bismarck had the Scharnhorst 11" gun and turrets.

[@RussBeatle63]

Congrats Drach on 5 years of pure quality! my 1919 raid question was finally answered...someone else asked thankfully! my question 4+ yrs ago must be lost at sea. would it really have been 500+ allied planes in the attack? would Furious be part of the attack? or would most come from land bases with the rest launched from the Battleships/cruisers?

[@ActionSlaps]

Cheers Drach. 260 is a big number. Big like my biceps.

[@SuperchargedSupercharged]

Love patron drydocks, all day learning entertainment!

[@mahbriggs]

Sorry to hear about your problems with KZbin!Hopefully you are done with that problem! And you arent the only one complaining! KZbin has been very messed up over it's rules and enforcement of them! Hopefully they will get their act together! Because if they continue to screw over there content providers, they wont have any!

[@roberthilton5328]

It's Dean Wormer's "Double Secret Probation"!

[@MrCdr1212]

Drac, I love your videos.

[@thcdreams654]

Regarding the lack of recommendations. KZbins mobile app has been super buggy on and off for 3 weeks. All videos show 2 likes and comments don't appear. But I still get your videos recommended, though they are always the same ones. There is one drydock you have with 1.6 million views and the app always wants me to watch that after finishing one of your videos.

[@GaldirEonai]

The thing about a fresh water ocean is that it would say very interesting things about the lack of certain minerals in the crust. It'd be very difficult to imagine an even remotely earth-like planet forming without enough sodium, so the only ways to get something like it is to have a _very_ young planet or one that had the sodium somehow removed...

[@admanpaulandrew]

Great piece as always, thanks Drach.

[@jefferyindorf699]

Thanks!

[@lewiswestfall2687]

Thanks Drach

[@jackray1337]

Great show. Bravo Zulu.

[@genericpersonx333]

00:23:14 - Why did the Germans tell everyone that the Bismarck's were Washington and London treaty compliant even though they were not a part of ether? A critical feature of the Anglo-German Naval Agreement is that it was vague and ill-defined, a masterpiece of Nazi diplomacy which gave them enormous room for interpretation and fudging because the other side didn't demand significant stipulation on key points. Ribbentrop basically played off the fact that the British Government really didn't think any German fleet only 35% of the Royal Navy could represent a significant threat, so they were not too worried about the fine details. For example, Germany only "favored" the broad categorizations the Royal Navy operated under. The Royal Navy's categorizations were mostly defined by the naval treaties, but nowhere in the Anglo-German Naval Agreement was Germany actually bound by any specific limitations on ship size and design. Ribbentrop only IMPLIED the Kriegsmarine would build no ship significantly bigger than anything the British had. Another important provision is Section G, which includes language that accepts that since ships don't quite divide perfectly like numbers do on paper, Germans were allowed to overbuild the 35% limit by a small margin rather than be compelled to have wasted tonnage or build ships significantly weaker than British designs. For example, Germany had at least 183,000 tons of capital ship under the AGNA (35% of 525,000, though Britain maintained more than 525,000 in practice, but let's put that aside for now). If Germany had built only Washington/London-compliant ships, and built them to the same size as British designs, then Germany would have only five ships of 35,000 tons for 175,000 tons total, thus wasting 8,000 tons! Well, one could read Section G as saying that since Germany had wiggle-room on the 35% tonnage cap and shouldn't be compelled to build lesser ships than Britain just because of the 35% limit, Germany should be allowed to add that ~8,000 tons onto the hulls it did build. Since the AGNA had little language governing this, one could in theory have one capital ship of 43,000 tons instead of dividing that 8,000 tons evenly across all the hulls! Also must mind the British were aware they still had the problem of HMS Hood being over 40,000 tons, so Britain could not be too strict on the 35,000-ton limit. The whole point of the AGNA was to give Germany a reasonable fleet, but one that could surely never be big enough to actually challenge the Royal Navy on its own, and arguing over destroyers being only 1,850 tons or battleships only 35,000 tons was seen as detrimental to compelling Germany to only 35%.

[@randyfant2588]

I agree that visibility is an underappreciated issue in all wargames, due to board visibility. This is best done with a "double-blind" system where the player have separate bords/maps showing only what they see and a Ref. adding/removing/moving opposing units on each map. I did see a Midway simulation which used a hidden movement and declared recon system which did a very good job of representing the fog-of-war effect on the strategic level. As for overblown - hands down it is the torpedo. The unguided torpedos of WWII were extremely inaccurate. Some people point to a few incidents where multiple hits were made and only count those hits while completely ignoring all of the missis that occurred in the same engagement as well as all the engagements where no hits are scored. For example, Jutland involved multiple destroyer attack by both sides but the actual torpedo hits were single digit (depending on account/source) yet in wargames unguided torpedoes are as dangerous as pre-WWI theorists wrongly thought they would be. Herbert Werner stated that U-boats had to close within 750m to launch an accurate torpedo attack. launching torpedos from further out (note: against lumbering convoys of civilian cargo ships) were unlikely to result in hits. As you said with guns being overpowered because players like to hit, torpedoes are even more so.

[@joakimgreber4708]

15:31 Splendid name !

[@RedXlV]

Regarding a triple turret version of the QEs? Your notion of a rebuild that removes the aft superfiring turret so that they can end up with useful speed in their 1930s refit has another implication going forward. You now have something a lot more interesting than the Courageous-class's twin turrets to put on HMS Vanguard. If we assume that as in reality, only Warspite, Valiant, and Queen Elizabeth went through full rebuilds since the outbreak of WW2 interrupted the schedule, that leaves three triple turrets to work with. Which means that Vanguard wouldn't need nearly so much redesign work relative to the Lion-class as she went through IRL, because she doesn't need to be lengthened to make room for a 4th turret. This would likely mean she would be given the same thickness of belt armor as the KGVs rather than having it thinned to 14 inches to make up for the longer hull. The simpler process of simply redesigning the Lions to use smaller turrets rather than having to accommodate an AB-XY layout also likely would've sped up the entire process, potentially allowing Vanguard to be laid down in 1940 instead of 1941. The question then is, would that result in Vanguard being completed before the war ended? At one point her construction was prioritized out of hopes that she could be completed in 1944 by diverting resources from other ships, but labor shortages made that impossible and she dropped back down the priority list. But even given said labor shortages, if her construction had begun a year sooner that might actually have been an achievable goal. Not that it really would've mattered much, since there weren't a lot of surface ships left to fight at that point.

[@stevevalley7835]

My first concern would be the beam of a QE being broad enough to accommodate triple turrets. Wiki shows a QE having a beam of 90 feet. The 1916 design for the Lexingtons had a maximum beam of 91', but #1 and #4 turrets were twins, due to the taper of the bow and stern, and those were 14" guns. Nevada, with triple 14", had a beam of 95'. Hood, with twin 15" had a beam of 104', while the J3, with three triple 15" turrets, had a beam of 106'. The Littorios, with triple 15" had a beam of over 107'. Bismark, with a beam of 118', would probably have no problem taking three triple turrets. To answer the question Drac responded to, I would say easily practical for Bismark to have three triples, and through a few more shells at both Hood and PoW. Hood, if starting from a clean sheet, could certainly have been fattened a bit, to accommodate triple 15". I am dubious about the QEs. I suspect they would need to be broadened significantly to take the larger turrets. That wrecks the length to beam ratio. To maintain speed, they would need to be lengthened proportionally to the broader beam. The Exchequer was already hyperventilating about the cost of the QEs. Escalate the cost even more, by building a longer and wider hull to accommodate triple turrets, and the Exchequer may go into full apoplectic fit and spike the entire program.

[@RedXlV]

@@stevevalley7835 A triple-turret QE class, as Drach said, would almost certainly have just dispensed with the idea of being a "fast battleship" and been designed instead as a regular battleship with immense firepower. Though that leaves me thinking of something else: what the impact of such a design would be in the other navies of the world, particularly the United States and Japan. Would that level of firepower have spurred them adopt 16-inch guns several years earlier (as in, on the New Mexicos and Ises)?

[@stevevalley7835]

@@RedXlV Drac did not address the cost. Building a bigger hull, and putting more guns on it, will raise the cost. If the Exchequer did go along with it? The US Congress didn't want to spend anything. and the head of BuOrd was a tireless promoter of the 14" gun, over the 16". When the British introduced the 15", I saw a lot of FUD in the US press, claiming the British 15" was subject to such a high rate of wear it was nearly useless, therefore the US 14" was better. Starting with the Pennsylvanias, the US was mounting 12 guns, up from 10 on the Nevadas, which were contemporaries of the 8 gun QEs. I doubt putting more guns on the QEs would impact USN policy, because, in the USN's eyes, they had the more heavily armed ships anyway. What finally tipped the General Board and SecNav to 16", was their analysis of Jutland, in summer 1916. Their hands were tied as far as the Colorado class was concerned. The 1916 Navy Act, which authorized the Colorados, Lexingtons and South Dakotas, put a cost limit on the Colorados, so they could not be anything but a Tennessee modified with 8-16". There was no cost limit in the Act for the South Dakotas, so they escalated to 12-16", on a substantially larger hull: 60 feet longer and 9 feet wider.

[@73Trident]

Great as usual thanks for all the hard work on these.

[@natthaphonhongcharoen]

Question is, what would Hood's freeboard be like if she had 4 triples instead of twins?

[@dvpierce248]

It would have been a coastal defense monitor.

[@CaptainBanjo-fw4fq]

Or a submarine.

[@RedXlV]

I'm not sure how much that would change, since she'd have a wider hull if that design had been adopted.

[@Benepene]

You know the K-Class Submarine? Pretty much that.

[@johnfisher9692]

Bismarck's freeboard wasn't that great either. German ships were famous for being very poor seaboats.

[@MemorialRifleRange]

Years ago I had a company using cement bags, the bags weighed 94 lbs/42.6 kg, a pallet had 36 bags, pick them up, though a doorway. haul them to a trailer, step up on trailer and another 3-4 meters and carefully stack them without breaking. about 15-20 meters total. The 36 bags was pretty close to max I could do in one go. Though I am not a small guy, I am not big either and prolly a good representative of an avg, size and avg. ability at 40 years old, I think at age 20 and under combat 50+ would have been realistic. I think a shell might be easier to pick up and maneuver than a fragile paper bag.

[@dougjb7848]

6:25 Long-range fire control principle, ca. 1905: 1) Choose target 2) Guess target’s course and speed 3) Guess where that course and speed will place the target when your shells arrive 4) Rotate turret so guns point somewhere near a bearing to 3) 5) Elevate guns so they point near enough where they need to be to make shells arrive at 3) 6) Fire guns 7) … 8) PROFIT!!

[@dougjb7848]

@@jackgee3200 Up to the Battle of the Yellow Sea on 10 August 1904, naval guns were controlled locally by a gunnery officer. The Dumaresq table was developed ~1902, and the Dreyer not until 1908. The director system of fire control was incorporated first into battleship designs by the Royal Navy in 1912. So, y’know … :-(

[@cameronnewton7053]

Instructions unclear, one of my crewmen is sitting on the turret with a Telephone and playing a real life game of Battleship

[@andrewmoreton7171]

I believe Fear God and Dreadnought naval rules have rules for torpedo bombers, certainly the WW2 version does and is cross compatible

[@user-hw1qo2mu9e]

Thank you Drach

[@richardwimpenny4342]

Re wargaming a hypothetical aerial raid on Wilhelmshaven and a suitable set of wargame rules, I have used ‘Fear God and Dread Nought’ and ‘Seekreig 5’ over the years and reel one of these may answer. Regarding AA defences at said naval base, there you have me! Richard Wimpenny.

[@kennethdeanmiller7324]

I tell you what a person, company, or organization (cough, cough...youtube) that can't admit when they are wrong, apologize for it & make it right with NO repercussions is imho a piece of dung organization. You would think that in today's massively connected world that such an organization would show a lot more appreciation for people that make there channel successful!! 2 years ago I rarely EVER WATCHED KZbin. AND IF IT WERE NOT FOR MR DRACHINIFEL, I WOULD PROBABLY wouldn't watch near as much as I do. Because Drach is mainly what I watch. I do listen to a lot of Grateful Dead as well but I don't do most of that on KZbin cuz of commercials popping up in the middle of a song. After that happens a couple times I hit the Internet Archive where I know there are no commercials.

[@mikhailiagacesa3406]

Good luck!

[@vicpecka7356]

Favorite set of rules for: WW1 & WW2. Age of Sail. Pre-Dreadnaughts.

[@rayner417]

So glad the music for this intro is still here. 😂😂

[@Aelvir114]

30:22 You can also find a 5"/38 in an open single mounting in front of the St James Episcopal Church in Wilmington, Delaware, which also retains the shield below the gun. Probably about the only good warship related thing preserved here. On another note, USS St Louis and USS Helena have noticeable different shape compared to most twins. Seems to have a much lower top and the roof is noticeably discolored from the rest of the turret

[@greenseaships]

Drach- on choosing the Hood for the 3-gun turrets are you taking into account that the extra weight that is slowing her down is ALSO bringing Y turret pretty much below sea level? Other changes would have to be made before 'the Royal Navy's largest submarine' could accommodate the extra guns.

[@Edax_Royeaux]

I guess Hood is unique in that she's has the original design with far less armor.

[@themanformerlyknownascomme777]

Hood's hull could support triples without any major stability issues, least according to the British design studies.

[@tippedover98765]

40:59 I guess there won't be a future video titled "Swearing like a sailor with Drach"

[@davidmcintyre8145]

However a QE with 12 15/42s possibly the most accurate heavy naval gun in history and small tube boilers would have been a 25-26 kt ship which would still have after being properly modernised a 25-26 kt ship even in WW II remembering that the modernised and much heavier Warspite was a mere 0.25 kts slower than her original form

[@kennethdeanmiller7324]

My take on KZbin NOT recommending your videos is are they stupid? I found your channel because of my interest in WW2. Yet because I enjoy your content I keep coming back & that gives them more views, so they can sale commercials. If it were NOT for your videos my KZbin usage would plummet severly from lack of interest. PLUS, because I didn't find your channel until you had already made 3-4 years worth of videos I watch a lot in an effort to catch up on everything I missed. And I'm sure you know that with 260 Drydocks & 300+ ship guides, that is a large quantity of quality videos. And I tend to like to watch a lot of stuff over & over so I find stuff I missed & stuff I just enjoy watching more than once.

[@petergreenson]

Oh yeah great timing on the vid

[@camrsr5463]

That bit about the US civil war video was creepy. Not surprising at all. lol

[@grahamstrouse1165]

If you look at WWII DP secondaries & modern tank guns you’ll find that the cut-off for weapons that need to be fired rapidly (mostly manually) settled in at 4” to 5”. Most human bodies just can handle anything much larger for an extended period of time.

[@paulthewall4764]

Frankly I’m astonished that any outlet on social media allows an honest and factual representation of history. You have done a great job. I have followed you, DAILY, since at least four years ago. Good on you.

[@mattbowden4996]

On wargaming the 1919 raid - the big problem is that outcome would depend almost entirely on the performance of of some completely novel and untested technologies and just because we know the torpedo bomber was a successful in WW2, it doesn't mean the very first iteration of the concept would work as planned. Accordingly, the success or failure of the simulated raid would hinge entirely on the assumptions you made about the performance of the Sopwith Cuckoo and there is basically no data out there with which to make a call on where you should peg the Cuckoo's effectiveness. Assume it works as well as a WW2 torpedo bomber and the raid will be a smashing success, assume it doesn't work at all and the raid will be an abject failure. There will be a mathematical level of effectiveness that will tip the raid from failure to success, but how do you know how that compares to the actual capability of the aircraft? As to you comment about people who don't like to see the Germans lose - sorry Drach, I'm going to have to call you on this. Whilst there are definitely a bunch of noisy Wehraboos out there , there are also people on line who don't seem particularly keen on giving the High Seas Fleet credit for any of the things that they did achieve historically - much less give them a fair shake of the stick in a hypothetical - and I'm afraid that one of the more notable examples is you. We all have our biases and you are right that there are more than enough people out there horrendously biased in favour of the Germans, but I'm afraid your house has enough glass in it that you should be careful where you throw bricks. On the whole I like your content a great deal, but you are the guy who somehow managed to portray the Battle of Moon Sound as a draw...

[@inTIMMYdator44]

Huns still fuming over 100 years later. 🇬🇧🇫🇷🇺🇸🇮🇹🇷🇺🇯🇵

[@mattbowden4996]

@@inTIMMYdator44 I'm hardly a hun, I'm British.

[@MrTScolaro]

I think Drach has characterized the Battle of Moon Sound as less of a victory than it should have been given the balance of forces.

[@mattbowden4996]

@@MrTScolaro That's still damning an ultimately successful operation with the faintest of praise.

[@Drachinifel]

By all rights a single pre-dreadnought should've been a walkover for two full dreadnoughts. That Slava managed what she did, even though she was ultimately lost, is both a mark in favour of the Imperial Russian Navy and against the HSF

[@kommandantgalileo]

Had the QEs had triple turrets, wouldn't the Revenges also have triple turrets? How would that effect them?

[@deckape714]

Right then Take this algorithm!

[@baxtersands9955]

I wonder what impact a successful air raid sinking or damaging much of the high seas fleet would have on how the treaties treated carriers?

[@nicknchicken5381]

34:00 the other biggest problem would be the Kamchatka seeing “Japanese torpedo boats!”

[@BleedingUranium]

A great way to get around KZbin's algorithm/recommendation shenanigans is simply to avoid them as much as possible; change your KZbin bookmark (etc) from the useless "Home" page to the simply-chronological "Subscriptions" page.

[@paulbryner6251]

Actually, Drach the Saratoga was not carrying ammo and supplies for Wake Island. The seaplane tender Tangier was the ship with the troops and supplies for the island. However, Saratoga would have been extremely vulnerable to Japanese attack as she only had 13 Wildcats in her VF squadron. The Marine fighter squadron that she was ferrying to Wake had Brewster Buffalos. I believe that they were the squadron that was butchered at Midway six months later.

[@davefranklin4136]

WRT the Relief of Wake Island question and response, I believe it was in the question itself it was posited about Admiral Pye cancelling the operation due to lack of intelligence on IJN BBs. Drach's response focused (correctly IMO) on the carrier aspect (i.e. 2 IJN vs. 1 USN). I'm curious if the question was a misspeak, or if there is some reference I'm not aware of that Pye (sure, I realize he was a BB admiral) was concerned about IJN BBs as opposed to carriers?

[@jonaskingofsparta]

while I remain skeptical regarding the ability of QE's hull to take 4 more guns, it's interesting to think about what ramifications the availability of triple turrets would have for Renown and Repulse. Would they have ended up with 9 guns? Or the historical 6, but in 2 triples fore? I would consider both better than their historical layout.

[@KenR1800]

Drach, have you ever considered releasing videos on other platforms such as Rumble in addition to YT? It would help with the censorship issues.

[@rashkavar]

So...those 5 inch gun mounts pictured at 30:50 (and there abouts)...I don't see any obvious infrastructure around them that would let then turn side to side, just up and down (assuming the weather proofing plates were removed in favour of something with more flexibility, I assume that's a thing for museum ships and long term mothballing since there's less maintenance and no expectation of having to ready the guns to fire at a moment's notice). So how limited is the ability to aim these sorts of guns? I'm sure they have some lateral movement, because a gun with no lateral aiming is probably more of a liability than an asset, but given the angle of the picture, I've got no idea how much it could turn.

[@jlvfr]

2nd Pacific Squadron: Look out! _Irish_ torpedo boats !

[@jonathanstrong4812]

the whole voyage was a nightmarish thing where as the IJN which who trained trained to a extreme amount where as the Russian Fleet which who was a comedy of nautical errors

[@johnshepherd9676]

What was left of the Japanese Navy in August 1945? How many ships were operationally capable even if the Army plotters approached the Navy for support?

[@kennethdeanmiller7324]

Concerning Saratoga at Wake Island I'm convinced that whoever made the decision to call Saratoga back from Wake Island did the right thing. Although, it was basically abandoning the men holding the Island, it would have ended with Saratoga being sunk & all the aircraft & men lost. In hindsight we can now say that however I'm sure every pilot aboard wanted to attack. But 2 carriers against one is probably not a good outcome for the one. And with the US not having many carriers anyway it was a major gamble. Too much of a gamble for a war that was just beginning.

[@MarcosElMalo2]

Happy Anniversary!! You’ve built a reputation is the number one naval historian on KZbin. It is now time you throw that reputation away by weighing in on the T-14 controversy. Haha, just kidding! 🤡 Keep up the excellence! 🍻

[@cameronnewton7053]

"They're going to win the war!" "They're useless!" "They haven't even entered mass production!" What a mess the whole situation is....

[@graveyard1979]

Well, after showing THIS very special ship at 37:14, now you have no option but to cover her in a future video that surely will be flagged as cruel and unusual punishment for all the watchers.

[@seanmalloy7249]

23:14 Even if the Germans did not intend to _actually_ abide by the tonnage limitations spelled out in the Washington Naval Treaty, making the observations and caveats to create the impression that they _would_ is a useful piece of diplomatic window-dressing, because the other countries would be more likely to expect that Germany would fall in line, because if they intended to ignore the tonnage limits from day one, they wouldn't bother raising the points that they did.

[@USS-SNAKE-ISLAND]

This channel is the LEAST offensive channel on the entire internet. For KZbin to "punish" this channel for anything inappropriate stands as a testament to just how messed up KZbin really is.

[@bryansmith1920]

@ 1:50ish do you know who the maker of a single seat Kinda looks like a Bristol Fe 9/8 but a single seater ???

[@dougjb7848]

Do you mean “what plane is at 1:50?”

[@davidmcintyre8145]

The Pentland firth has done severe damage to many ships up to and including pre dreadnaughts and dreadnaughts which had their bridges destroyed by storms in WWI and even thrown oil tankers ashore. The Russian Squadron would likely have been crushed by the firth and driven ashore. Remember the Caledonian Canal was built so ships up to and including battleships of the time that could fit through the locks did not have to face the Pentland firth

[@benwilson6145]

Caledonian Canal max dimensions 150 ft by 35ft by draft 15.5 ft, definitely need to be pocket dreadnaughts

[@davidmcintyre8145]

@@benwilson6145 When was the Caledonian canal opened? was it not 1822? At that point the typical battleship was a 74 gun 3rd rate ship of the line not a dreadnaught and the canal was planned much earlier with the act being passed in 1802 when smaller sail of the line and frigates could certainly have passed through the planned canal especially at light draughts

[@jasperfromming6633]

Were did the queen elizabeths benefit from having a high soeed in ww2 werent they doing convois and other slow stuff ? Ps. Drach does not include every quuestion in the drydock right ?

[@Bossdom2010]

Drach do you like making these videos

[@Andy_Ross1962]

Fresh water would make boiler feed water supply a lot easier.

[@mikedx2706]

@Drach: Can you give us your opinion about whether the new "Sea Baby" Ukrainian marine drones would be effective in damaging a WW2 era battleship/ destroyer/ submarine? I am wondering if modern military ships have weaker defenses against torpedoes than their WW2 era counterparts had because of the modern reliance on electronic defense systems, instead of kinetic defense systems.

[@MLCloneCODgamer]

This is a little unrelated, but why did ships usually have 3 masts in the golden age of sail? Prior, many galleons had 4 masts. I'm wondering what the advantage in speed/maneuverability it between 3 and 4 masts.

[@Crazyfrog41]

I feel like he may have answered this in one of the early drydockes... if I am remembering correctly... changes in sail layout, and an increase in total sail area per mast ment that the 4th mast would just end up getting in the way and actually REDUCE efficiency instead of increase it

[@MLCloneCODgamer]

@@Crazyfrog41 Thanks! Sorry for not replying sooner

[@Crazyfrog41]

@@MLCloneCODgamer it's cool... just glad I could help

[@2down4up]

Hey Drach, if it makes you feel any better, for the last 8 months to maybe a year now I haven’t been getting any videos recommended to me by any of my subscribed to channels save for one. I just accepted that KZbin was being KZbin and therefore evil and so I just went through all my subscribed to channels manually. Very strange the way KZbin works and they’re hiding behind bots and other complete nonsense it’s only making things worse.

[@tombogan03884]

Sorry to hear you also are being suppressed by KZbin.

[@SCjunk]

43:05 the only effective way get a You Tube appeal removed is via Twitter, which is an odd way to run a company isn't it youtube?

[@PaulfromChicago]

50:12 That's baloney. I have it on good authority that gunnery is funnery.

[@drewhardin3992]

Sadly, more than likely your recommendation problem is related to a feature in the model that downweights any flagged content. These values are probably kept even if you appeal and overturn, and the model then penalizes you going forward. Eventually, if the model uses any decay features, your flagged content eventually 'goes away'. This is pure speculation, but the reality is that the ML algorithms at this scale rarely have the ability to solve individual problems very well. Since flagged content hits KZbin's ad revenue directly, they probably put a fairly high focus on it in the model. This is a guess, but these models are highly imperfect and subject to adversarial attacks like the one you had happen.

[@mindaugasstankus5943]

Regulars and semi-regulars just shouldn't solely depend on YT recommendations, subscription systems. Bookmark page/channel. And if capable, support creator by totally different means/channels.

[@joshthomas-moore2656]

42:49 Assuming KZbin isn't guilty here. Maybe the youtube review thing still read your channel as having the mark on the video even after it was removed and the system messed up and didn't recommend you, assuming innocent till proven guilty.

[@ricardokowalski1579]

👍

[@whtalt92]

Not unfeasible, but still concerning, when you consider that these same controls would need to be used on GCP. And like the overgrown bookshop and the juggernaut from Washington, sometimes the financial controls tend to err to the disadvantage of customers.

[@bryansmith1920]

Could anyone imagine a world in the WW1 era with a Kriegsmarine Sunk Taranto Style, by a few Bi-planes

[@dougjb7848]

No. That posits that air-dropped torpedoes, and the technique used to drop them, were as effective in 1919 as they were in 1940.

[@jasonbrannock1698]

How did the American navy get the 12in/50 work when the British couldn't?? J🐺🐺🐺🐺

[@keithmoore5306]

it's more than you Drach most of my gun channels are getting hit right and left! it might be because of the Othias video!!

[@elliottjames8020]

Re Wargame Rules, command and Control is one of my Pet Peeves. The reason I like the rules "Admirals" for AoS free from War Artisan. Adiral of the Fleet (a Seekrieg V sariation is good. Best approach I've found for large actions like Jutland is a minicampaig with an indepedent umpire, once contact is made, then transfer to the table. Umpire can alos handle signalling to put a Beaty on you.

[@wesleyfoster1967]

Just wanted to be counted.

[@OnboardG1]

I suspect the recommendation thing might be your channel getting some hidden flag for an extreme content strike that reduced your reach and that wasn’t removed after your video was restored. Like getting a post restored after being Zucced but still being in FB jail.

[@bigsarge2085]

👍

[@phluphie]

Dearest Drach. Perhaps you are aware that Lazerpig just dropped a new video in the ongoing YT drama over the T-14’s engine. This drama involves Pig, some guy named Red something, the Chieftain and some other YTers I’ve never heard of and whose names I can’t remember. My question is, now that Lazerpig has challenged everyone involved to a duel of armed merchant cruisers and called “dibs” on the Great Eastern, would you be so kind as to insert yourself into this silly nontroversy over a Russian tank? Thank you and be well, sir.

[@CustodianShieldCaptain]

Yes! We DEMAND an sequel to HMS By Jove to one up the pig!

[@davidbrennan660]

38:00 KZbin is as bent as politics, for sure.... shadow banning is a thing Drach.

[@dougjb7848]

15:03 A flight in the career of Drachinifel, Navigator Extraordinaire: “Where’s the North African coast?” “It’s … ummm … off to starboard. I guess?” “Good. We’re on course.”

[@jonathanstrong4812]

heh heh heh

[@salty4496]

:)

[@nicolamarchbank1846]

Rum party for Episode 300 Drach? I think your army of fans would be up for that.

[@LaurenceCMag]

Algorithm 😅

[@dougjb7848]

Glad to hear that this music hasn’t been targeted by slimeball parasites.

[@WALTERBROADDUS]

Slimeball parasites? That's a bit harsh.