The Drydock - Episode 313

[@marlinstout4180]

"Losing an ear, not a massive problem."- Yeah, unless your name is 'Jenkins'...

[@Yuzral]

To be fair, that was more someone else's problem rather than Jenkins'.

[@Aiwendill]

Blas de Lezo wants to know your location...

[@marlinstout4180]

@@Aiwendill No.

[@joshd3043]

Or van gogh

[@davidbrennan660]

The Battle Cruisers of WWI would have thought otherwise no doubt.

[@kennethdeanmiller7324]

@Drachinifel Q & A PLEASE? Dear Sir, on occasion or two I've heard you speak of the "Opium Wars". Until I heard you speak of it, I'd never heard of it. Is there anyway that you could do a special about these "Opium Wars"? And, of course, preferably without getting demonitized by KZbin, or having any other penalties that their rather idiotic "bots" may throw your way! Thank you in advance! Your awesome & one of the hardest workers on KZbin! I've been listening about 4 years now btw.

[@SebD18]

Thank you Drach for all the work you do and the amazing content you continue to produce week in week out 🫡

[@simonvalente2187]

Amen to than....

[@slytlygufy]

He is a wonder. The equivalent of a free university history course of study.

[@shadowwolf2608]

Thank you for answering my question, it put a smile on my face. Admittedly, I didn't get too deep into considering this when I asked the question. I only looked at the armor, weapons, speed, and tonnage of Hood and other ships. That is when I noticed that it seemed like Hood wasn't getting much more for her weight and appeared to have one of the inefficiencies of Bismark (4 twin turrets instead of 3 triples). It was quite enjoyable hearing you break down in simple terms the more advanced way of thinking about this.

[@Hendricus56]

And let's not forget, a lot of subs won't get drydocked, because they are on land, so they have no need to enter one for outside repairs. Especially when they aren't directly at the water line but a few meters or more inland

[@Ricky40369]

Excellent point. By the way, Cod was recently drydocked.

[@michaeljacob4287]

One more response on "all or nothing". I know that this is not a discussion of a battleship sinking. But South Dakota was pretty much rendered combat ineffective at the night knife fight at Guadaucanal, without any significant main armor penetration.

[@michaeljacob4287]

With respect to questions regarding the potential to a proto-Welland canal, it must be remembered that the current canal is actually the fourth "Welland" canal The first was built in 1824 but was only capable of taking vessels with a draft of less than 8 feet. There is another issue that was touched on in the discussion. Access to the canal itself would require transit through the entire St. Lawrence river system and what ever Canadian defenses would have been established at both Montreal and Quebec any defenses further downstream. It would be highly unlikely that a peaceful passage of an American warship stripped of its rigging would be favorably received.

[@patricknix5975]

Gaaah! Too much but so good! I am still trying to get through the last Drydock(s) and I get another! Not complaining as versus trying to get through it all. Great work, by the way!

[@TheDoctorMonkey]

35:48 I am trying to remember from our trips to Australia and Scandinavia (especially Sweden) what was happening with their museum subs-in-the-water My recollection was that in Sydney they had relatively recently drydocked their submarine or were planning on doing so and had the advantage of one of the former captains of the sub being among their volunteers to help with planning it In Gothenburg though they want to drydock their sub but are literally stuck in/by the mud meaning that they can’t move the few hundred metres to the dock to actually accomplish this The other museum subs I can think of outside North America are all on land so don’t have these issues or concerns

[@markspiers64]

Be safe my friend and thank you for the endless nights that you have put me to sleep, I have enjoyed your company and will miss you my friend keep you and yours safe, end days have come

[@AndrewPalmerMTL]

Regarding: 00:27:56 - Is there any record of a hedgehog being fired at a surfaced submarine, I was only half listening (sorry!) and somehow actually thought this was about the spiky small mammal, not the ASW weapon, and had a moment of "what??!!??"

[@steve-qc8hd]

00:35:47 the Netherlands were wanting to build a Schnarnhorst style battlecruiser to Design 1047 so possibly a more aggressive sales team might have helped with setting a shadow design office in the Netherlands. Of course, would be of little value elsewhere such as Sweden or Finland because unlike the Koninklijke Marine that could use a large asset in Java the Swedes and Finns only required coastal vessels, but then up until '1047' the Koninklijke Marine were also restricted to coastal vessels.

[@benjaminepstein5856]

I'm picturing Nelson's head in a tank on a robot body a la Nixon in Futurama.

[@davidmcintyre8145]

When it comes to spite we cannot forget Admiral king who cost tens of thousands of lives by not instituting a blackout on the US coast giving the U boats easy navigation and targeting and refused the idea of learning about convoys as well as not asking the RN about the fact the RN torpedoes worked

[@mkaustralia7136]

I think Drach’s video on Admiral King gives some different views on that decision - spite being well down on being a deciding factor

[@davidmcintyre8145]

@@mkaustralia7136 King hated the British almost as much as the Japanese Army hated the Japanese Navy. So spite was very high as a deciding factor

[@mkaustralia7136]

I have not delved into it as much as Drach, so I will take his word on it.

[@bradenhagen7977]

Honestly id love to watch you go through ships in port in world of warships. Just to hear your opinions, criticisms, and thoughts with a good model to demonstrate.

[@DavidBrown-yd9le]

As for subs being drydocked. USS Cod was drydocked in Erie Pa of few years ago.

[@chrismaverick9828]

She's looking pretty sharp now.

[@bryanstephens4800]

So much good information!

[@73Trident]

Another masterpiece DD. Thanks Drach.

[@jasperfromming6633]

Just finished last weeks drydock. Lets go for another one

[@questionmark05]

After the Nelson question, I can't forget the image of Nelson in a futurama head jar.

[@Papasmag]

Although it is outside the channels time period. The Historic Ship Nautilus was drydocked just two years ago. This ship however is a special case as it is still run and maintained by the US Navy and was drydocked in the ARDM-4 right in Groton CT where she sits as part of the Submarine Force Museum.

[@renegade2110]

I live a little less than an hour from USS Cod, i saw her when i was a kid! Im so gonna try to make it there

[@bkjeong4302]

Thanks for answering my question re; American subs! It should be mentioned that Japan also tried operating their submarines right outside American naval bases (especially in 1942 against American carriers) to intercept them on their way out and it didn’t work out for them (Enterprise for example avoided several such ambushes right outside her French Polynesian anchorage.)

[@ph89787]

I remember reading that between Santa Cruz and the Naval Battle of Guadalcanal. The IJN had attempted to sneak subs into Noumea harbour to sink Enterprise. But the destroyers and faulty recon meant that when they finally got into position. Enterprise and Task Force 16 steamed for Guadalcanal.

[@bkjeong4302]

@@ph89787 They actually tried that more than once.

[@ph89787]

@@bkjeong4302 It's one big game of whack-a-mole. Except the moles fight back.

[@genericpersonx333]

00:35:47 - How did the Germans stay current with submarine technology but fall behind in surface ship technology in the interwar period? Another factor is that we tend to underestimate how little submarines changed between 1918 and 1939. The fundamentals of the Diesel-Electric Submersible Torpedo-Boat were basically set by 1915, and it was mostly just a matter of refining the designs to get more efficiency out the tonnage, be it better battery-capacity, engine-power, and so on. This was the case for most ALL the naval powers. Germany, obliquely, was developing improvements in most all these areas as part of their surface-ship work. They wanted better diesels, better batteries, better metallurgy, welding techniques, and so on for their surface-ships, so when Germany was authorized to make submarines, it was not hard to adapt all that for the new U-Boats.

[@dougjb7848]

52:30 also, 15” is simply overkill for commerce raiding, which was the primary mission of the PS after coastal defense was de-emphasized.

[@ewok40k]

I would posit that both scuttling the Hochseeflotte and French fleet at Toulon would be spite turned to eleven. "We lost the war, but you are not getting our ships!"😂😂😂😂

[@williamharvey8895]

Scapa flow also.

[@ottovonbismarck2443]

@@williamharvey8895 Scapa Flow was the Hochseeflotte scuttling. He mentioned it, pea brain. Cheers ! 🙂 PS: I'm just bored, so let's have a good old bar brawl and a few dozen beers. Your turn, Sir.

[@leftyo9589]

interesting seeing your photo of the Bowfin in pearl harbor. last time i saw it in 1995, and several visits over the years prior to that, the bow dive planes were extended.

[@genericpersonx333]

00:58:47 - How many lost body parts before Nelson would have had to retire? Rank has its privileges can't be understated here. Services tend to offer far more support to their physically less-able senior officers than lesser ranks on the grounds that they are senior officers who, theoretically, are less expendable. For example, my good friend spent most of his US Army service with the sole job of cooking special food for a general who had extreme digestive problems. Normally, his condition called for medical-discharge, but the Army not kept him working but paid a small fortune every year just to keep him fed. It is unlikely he'd have kept his job if he had been Enlisted or not had stars on his shoulder.

[@marting1056]

Transporting bricks: there is a parallel in the roman time, the ships tranporting agricultural goods from Egypt and Africa(Tunisia) to Italy and Rom often took bricks with them on the way back. it was also about having a ballast you can sell on your destination port

[@benwilson6145]

Many ships use heavy low value cargo as ballast. The ports on East Fife has the old houses roofed with red Dutch pantiles taken over from holland by vessels coming to get barrels of fish. All over the former colonies there are slate roof take from quarries in Scotland and Wales. Panamax bulk carries still load crushed rock from GlenSanda Quarry situated off Oban and take it to Houston.

[@PSPaaskynen]

Maybe fewer museum subs need drydocking, because many are displayed on land. At least, that is the case with the three that I know of (EML Lembit in Tallinn, Vesikko in Helsinki and HNLMS Tonijn in Den Helder).

[@Owktree]

An earlier Welland Canal won't change the Great Lakes balance that much since that just gets you between Lake Erie and Lake Ontario. Lake Ontario to the Gulf of St Lawrence is quite a large complication. And most of the length of the St Lawrence River, including a few major rapids, lie entirely in Canadian territory.

[@88porpoise]

The first rates were built on Lake Ontario. So the Welland Canal is irrelevant to going via the St Lawrence and, for various political, economic, and practical reasons (many of which would still result in the US pushing back against it a century later), an early 19th century St Lawrence Seaway wasn't happening. Which I think was how Drach interpreted the question. However, the Welland Canal is likely the correct one for the question as the Welland Canal did connect Lake Ontario to the Atlantic via the Erie Canal and Hudson River. It may have even been viable to expand the Erie Canal to be large enough for a first rate to pass. It almost certainly wouldn't be cost effective but strategically it seems like less of an issue for the US to defend than the St Lawrence as if they can't hold the Erie Canal things are already really bad. Although, I suspect you are more likely to see a branch of the Erie Canal up to Lake Ontario rather than a separate Canal around Niagara Falls.

[@tomhalla426]

The issue with the Washington Naval Treaty is that the parties had different motives. The US had just had a change of government, and did not want to continue funding the existing programs. Plus, some spite with the Royal Navy. All the other participants were broke from WWI, and could not really afford their building programs. Plus, for an elephant in the room, the only medium term use for said warships would be to make war on each other.

[@pmbeavis4467]

Would love to see a video on the Clipper Ships

[@GrahamWKidd]

Thanks Drach!!!

[@stephenrickstrew7237]

The USS KIDD DD 661 just entered dry dock ( floating ) for some much needed repairs .. Their website has an excellent KZbin video about it ..with quality drone footage…It’s some good news for us here in the US .. as The SS United States is bound to be a dive site ..

[@Ricky40369]

I don't consider that good news. I've been a supporter of the SS United States for quite a while. Sad.

[@notshapedforsportivetricks2912]

10,000 tons might be a big price to pay for an extra six knots of speed , but it should be remembered that Hood wasn't intended to be a single ship class. She was intended to have three sisters. If you've got four of those monsters on the loose, plus possibly a couple of G3s acting as a squadron; and that's another kettle of fish altogether

[@theresalwaysacolley634]

Subs are smaller, so you don't hear about them going to drydock. But they do. USS Cod went to drydock a couple of years ago. Quite a bit of metal was replaced both forward and aft. Was drydocked in the conventional way on blocks. See the Cod's web content.

[@SamAlley-l9j]

Thanks Drach.

[@magnemoe1]

11:00 Forcing your way up an canal sounds idiotic dangerous, more so on an canal with locks who should be pretty easy to disable leaving you stranded. Even if you has couple of battalions of marines to prevent direct danger to the ships.

[@steve-qc8hd]

00:55:49 Burial at sea in the ancient Mediterranean who be of religions who required burial before sunset, (only surviving faiths from that period are Jewish and Zoroastrian) probably meant immediate burial would be essential.

[@tomhalla426]

As far as I know, Zoroastrians did not practice burial or cremation, but exposure, as with the Parsi Towers of Silence.

[@filmbuffo5616]

@@tomhalla426 Dropping the body overboard could be considered a form of 'exposure'.

[@garethjones3334]

RE : Bismarck and efficiency. I recently read online that the reason (main at least) Bismarck was as large as it was due to excessive redundancy, for example auxiliary ammo hoists in turrets, double the required (non-propulsion) power to run the ship systems etc. Is this correct, and if so is it rather a case of Germans overcomplicated rather than inefficiency?

[@USAACbrat]

in the Gret Lakes, weren't those ships built with green wood? That would limit service anyway.

[@FRix73]

Would you consider putting measurements in both imperial and metric in your scripts? It bothers me when i can't do the maths quickly enough in my head when i'm listening to your videos. Cheers from Poland!

[@TimMeinschein-j4s]

@ 23:31: Another advantage that the US Sub picket line had was quite simply: Radar! Unlike a somewhat useless floatplane that left the "I-Boat" very vulnerable during the launching and recovering of the float plane

[@onenote6619]

The US recognised that and tried out radar picket subs with the Sailfish class. It didn't quite work out, but if the full value of ship-borne radar in early WW2 had been recognised ......

[@TimMeinschein-j4s]

@@onenote6619 But by the Gatos got forward deployed a lot of those issues had been worked out!

[@paulthewall4764]

I’ll see you at USNI!

[@mikecegelski1208]

USS Cod was in dry dock just a few years ago

[@TimMeinschein-j4s]

@ 58:47 I figure that at one point, if he were had lost the use of his legs, they would have Assigned Nelson, in a wheelchair to the Royal Navy Headquarters to help staff it, plus having him wheeled to Whitehall, and Parliament for Budgetary Meetings! (Hard to say: "No we're going to give you the money you say the Navy needs" to such a hero!)

[@AnimeSunglasses]

1:00:30 I am now imagining Futurama Nelson

[@kierenevans2521]

I'm just imagine Nelson as a head in a jar commanding the fleet.

[@philiphumphrey1548]

Re. All or nothing armour scheme. One could argue that the Bismarck had its mission ended by the hit to the bow, losing much of its fuel and reducing its top speed (because of water ingress at speed). Tirpitz was effectively finished as a fighting force by the fleet air arm Fairey Barracuda raid. The bombs failed to penetrate the armoured deck, but did so much damage to the superstructure above it that the ship was out of action until 617 squadron (Lancasters) finished it off.

[@benwilson6145]

You cannot armour the superstructure, its too heavy

[@johnshepherd9676]

You forgot about South Dakota. She took a beating without every being in danger of sinking.

[@williamharvey8895]

I heard the baby seamine in the background. One wonders when she will photobomb a live episode. I am looking forward to that❤.

[@notshapedforsportivetricks2912]

On the topic of what body parts Nelson would have to lose to be invalided out of the service, I can only think of two.; and I'm too polite to mention them.

[@brucewilliams1892]

Re the hedgehog photo at 00:28, the three officers chatting might have a surprise were the weapons actually fired by the rating, so I assume it's posed. Each weapon seems to have a propellor, might this be to arm it in air, or falling through water?

[@Blockio1999]

Could you argue that Bismarck was screwed over by the nothing part of her armor scheme, with the hit to her fuel tanks slowing her down?

[@tagfu2226]

Wouldn’t there be a problem getting ships of the line down the St. Lawrence River.

[@kennethdeanmiller7324]

Yeah, another thing about the USS New Orleans & Chippewa is IF they were completed they would have been using NON- SEASONED WOOD. And that in itself is A BIG REASON to NOT finish them. If you use green wood the ships are not going to last very long & have major amounts of trouble staying afloat & last maybe 3-5 years at best. So building those ships would have been a very LARGE waste of time & money for very little gain. And like Drach said too, they would have to remove them from the area too & doing all that for 2 ships that haven't been built yet? Nah, totally not worth the hassle for something that would have actually been more in the Royal Navies benefit than the USA's benefit at that time. And now look? Over 100 years have gone by & no "warships" are in the Great Lakes! Did Canada or GB give us an "OK" during WW2 to have the Carrier training vessels on the Great Lakes? AND did the US train any Royal Navy pilots on those carriers?

[@robcrane3512]

Think I'm right in saying there were at least a couple of South African Naval Forces coastal forces flotillas operating in a South East Asia. (Also at least one Burmese flotilla although unlike the South Africans I think they had only RNVR officers)

[@GrahamWKidd]

My Patreon Drydock question finds it's way into a weekly drydock again ... 🤔 🙂

[@Trek001]

Mine didn't get answer at all last week

[@stevevalley7835]

wrt the G3 carrier conversion question, I do not find anything in the Washington treaty that is relevant to the conversions of Courageous and Glorious. All capital ships of each nation are listed on either the retention list, or disposal list. The Courageouses are on neither list. My takeaway from that omission is that, as the Admiralty had called them "light cruisers" since inception, the treaty respected that, called them "cruisers", and grandfathered them, just as all the armored cruisers that exceeded treaty limits in displacement and gun size were grandfathered. The treaty clause about converting existing or building ships to carriers does not apply to the Courageouses either. The clause only relates to the conversion of ships that exceed the treaty limit of 27,000 tons. Even after conversion, the Courageouses were well under 27,000, so the treaty clause would not apply. First London would have provided an incentive to reclassify the Courageouses as anything but cruisers due to the establishment of cruiser fleet displacement limits, but the conversions were already done, so First London did not cause their conversion either. My suspicion is Courageous and Glorious were converted due to an Admiralty assessment that they would make better carriers than they did cruisers. Given the cost of the conversions, I almost wonder if the Admiralty would have been better off if it had built new, optimized, carrier hulls, transferred the machinery from the Courageous class hulls, then scrapped the Courageouses as a mistake.

[@ricdintino9502]

@Amigodiver posted several excellent videos on his channel of the USS Cod in drydock back in 2021.

[@DrHenry1987]

Would Nelson at the Battle of Copenhagen be a bit of spite against both sides?

[@onenote6619]

For the brick & marble trade in more remote outposts, your average citizen is going to build their homes and businesses from whatever is available locally - dry stone, wood, adobe, whatever. Only the wealthy and/or important would want European-style buildings, and they would be the only ones able to pay the premium for long-distance transport. So the incentive to create a local source would be low until the outpost had built up considerably in size. On the subject of spite in military decisions - would that include the relationship between Japanese Army and Japanese Navy in WW2? Or is 'mutual dislike' more appropriate? Presumably, if Nelson had taken a chunk of shrapnel in the larynx, retirement would have been a necessity. Running a battle via sign language would have been tricky. Although it is amusing to think of Nelson at a meeting of Captains, furiously pinning paper signal flags onto a clothesline strung across the table.

[@myparceltape1169]

Have you not heard of the ship sailing across the Atlantic with a cargo of bricks for the grand city hall of New York.? It may have been more than a nonsense song, especially as ships needed to be ballasted properly if intended to bring back a more valuable cargo.

[@onenote6619]

@@myparceltape1169 Using the bricks as ballast would very likely have been the way it was done. Although, soaking them in salt water might have some funny effects at the other end. It does still require the hassle of re-ballasting at each end of the journey - you can't simply unload the bricks and leave the ship bobbing like a cork at anchor. It would take a significant number of ships per building using that method, though the premium for doing so would surely be less than hauling them as proper cargo. I wonder if building materials other than bricks were transported by that method. I recall that Neal Stephenson mentions construction of Manila Cathedral by that method, but have no idea if if that is fact or fabrication.

[@myparceltape1169]

@@onenote6619 Now you mention it, Cork was the port they supposedly left from.

[@emonhunter8107]

The video you did recently regarding smaller actions involving cruisers and destroyers was great would you be able to do another similar video on specifically just smaller actions that don't get much attention? If you've already done a vid like this could you direct me to it, thank you

[@808bigisland]

Great Nelson skit😂 Japanese submarine shelled Hilo, Hawaii and sank a US transporter right before PH and the declaration of war.

[@theodoremartine3414]

How was it (or is it still) that so many details of ship design, technology, and construction were seemingly available to any other country?

[@dougjb7848]

They are not today. Until the early 1900s it was commonplace for navies to publish (at least general) information about new technology, construction etc. it was normal for officers from different navies to have ongoing correspondence, visit each other’s ships etc. Starting just before Dreadnought, in large part because of the rivalry between Great Britain and Germany, navies decided to put that stuff under wraps.

[@theodoremartine3414]

@@dougjb7848 Thank you. The current-day secrecy makes sense to me, and those earlier days of sharing seem rather ill-advised. A sign of a different time, I suppose. I wonder which is better?

[@EmpressTori]

Can you do a video on the collision between Arizona and Oklahoma in October 1941?

[@scottgiles7546]

Being slow and/or forgetful, has the reason been explained WHY the Courageous Class carriers were never given full length flight decks, useful as they would have been?

[@WALTERBROADDUS]

It's an evolution thing. They are making this up as they go along.

[@MildyHistorical]

Could the King George V class have been able to achieve 35,000 displacement with the planned 9 15 inch 45s or would they have had to sacrifice a gun in aft turret and bring it down to 8 guns?

[@solutionless123]

Did Hood not have an all or nothing armor scheme? Because clearly her armor was...a bit of an issue

[@bluelemming5296]

Actually, if you carefully compare the major stats, you'll see that Hood _as completed_ had pretty much the same armor as the Iron Duke class battleship. Iron Duke was commissioned in 1914 and would be the flagship of the Grand Fleet at Jutland because she was a modern battleship design by WW1 standards. If you look at the stats for the WW1 Queen Elizabeth class battleships (completed during WW1) they also had pretty similiar armor to Hood - a bit more belt armor, but less in a few other places, as built. These ships served through a number of key engagements in WW2. The major stats don't tell the whole story. If you look at the armor drawings, you'll see that there's a lot going on that's not captured in a small set of major stats. There were some improvements in the details from Iron Duke to Hood, based on lessons learned during the war, which is why Hood was considered to be a very well armored ship when she commissioned. In fact, she was considered in many ways to be the best armored ship of her era. As Drach has pointed out in his excellent video, the loss of Hood was almost certainly due a shell going through the water and under the main armor belt when the ship was going at high speed and turning (which exposed more of the lower hull). _It's likely that ANY of the WW1 era battleships serving in WW2 (such as Warspite or Barham) would have blown up if subject to the same attack while turning at high speed, so nothing unique to Hood._ Even had Hood received a major armor refit, it's unlikely that refit would have added protection against this unusual attack since nobody was thinking about the problem in the right way yet. Everybody knew that shells could go underwater and detonate, but ships had armor that went below the waterline that was intended to take care of that. What nobody had considered or would consider for a long time was the issue of high speed bow waves (and turning) increasing the vulnerability versus underwater attacks. They knew that Hood was vulnerable due to having WW1 grade deck armor, but they never considered that a deeper, more subtle vulnerability might exist - and in fact I don't think anybody would start publishing on this issue until the 21st century. Looking at pictures of the King George V class undergoing speed trials, I suspect they would also have been vulnerable to this attack. The best protection would have been an improved hull design to reduce the bow wave, and extra armor low down in key locations. The US Navy would consider this issue with their fast battleships - the Iowa is known for having has a relatively small bow wave, and I think they did place extra armor in some key places as a result of considering this issue. But that's late 1930's, maybe even early 1940s - and the design issue probably wasn't declassified and made public knowledge until long after the war (not sure). Also not sure whether the Japanese looked at this in the design of the Yamato class - as far as I can tell from pictures the bow wave is pretty large, but I can't tell how deep the armor goes.

[@skeltonpg]

All or nothing - didn't Bismarck hit PoW's conning tower (6 in plate IIRC) passing straight through without exploding. There were casualties.

[@ROBERTNABORNEY-jx5il]

And somebody in the RN wrecked both of Bs main battery directors early in the execution

[@readingrailroadfan7683]

Wouldn’t the G3’s not being started be an advantage because they would technically be carriers from the ground up? Thus being more efficient than the Lexingtons.

[@ROBERTNABORNEY-jx5il]

The Treaty did not allow new ships, only conversions

[@readingrailroadfan7683]

@@ROBERTNABORNEY-jx5il I more meant if the RN was able to get away with it.

[@danieltaylor5231]

Wait so they don't do burial at sea on the Dover to Calais ferry?

[@leftcoaster67]

Insulting the HMS Hood? AN UNBELIEVER! SHAME! SHAME!

[@raymcconnell4815]

Oh! Mate : Jack Sparrow would have no trouble talking his way out of a difficult situation and sell hìs maps or charts 😅😅

[@bigsarge2085]

⚓️

[@stargazer5784]

I've heard you and Norman Friedman mention before that 10,000 tons was a lot to pay for 6 extra knots of speed, but that isn't all that was gained, and any veteran of the naval conflicts of WW2 would tell you that speed is life. You even said yourself in one of your videos that if given a choice of what ship to serve on during WW2, you would have chosen an Iowa. The Mark 7 16 inch was far better than the Mark 6, the fire control systems were better, the quality of armor and layout was better, there were more extensive and better sensor systems installed, and a host of other improvements. The 'efficiency' of a design (comparing Hood to an Iowa) doesn't mean diddly when preparing to go up against the navy that Japan brought to the table at the start of WW2. You may consider Bismarck to be an inefficient design, but look at how much it took to sink her, and she was completely alone at the time and crippled! Had the British caught up with her as part of a much more substantial German fleet, her 'inefficient' design would have devastated their ranks. Sorry about the rant Drach, but it is what it is. The Yamatos (please don't point those guns at me), Iowas, and the very hard to sink Bismarcks, were bad a$$ designs that remain unmatched to this day. Had there ever been an encounter between any two of them, the ensuing battle would have been glorious. Cheers.

[@marting1056]

May be or may be not. the Bismarck lost very early in her last stand her fire control, just because design reasons. May be think it in this way: do more efficient Bismarck, Tirpiz and the pair of Scharnhorst/Gneisenau and you could have three additional treaty cruisers in your fleet!

[@stevenhill7614]

When will be at the USS Cod ?

[@leftcoaster67]

Enjoy the Labour Day/ Bank Holiday Drach.

[@JennyMingClarke]

Just Thinking I bet the Vikings did Burial at sea. If anyone can read old Norse I suggest studying the text of their sagas.

[@GrahamWKidd]

Spring tomorrow and Drach tonight!! Alright!! 😊

[@thomaslinton5765]

Visit USS Cod in Cleveland, Ohio. - short road trip [1hr, 38 mins] from Erie, NY (Naval Park - USS The Sullivans, USS Little Rock, USS Croaker, and PTF-17.). USS COD HOME PORT Home |Hours | Tour Cod | Historical Articles | Links to other Submarines USS COD SS-224 World War II Fleet Submarine The USS COD Submarine Memorial is a National Historic Landmark and is docked in Cleveland, Ohio. UPCOMING EVENTS for 2024

[@ricdintino9502]

USS Cod being an example of a museum sub that was recently drydocked, 2021 in Erie, PA.

[@thomaslinton5765]

@@ricdintino9502 Seems to be back home I can see it on Google Earth.

[@henryplantagenet219]

In the bar of Battleshipheaven tonight it can be assumed that Bismarck has no big issues with efficiency talk, when looking at Hood and betting with Scharnhorst how far a British twin turret can fly when motivated well enough.

[@ottovonbismarck2443]

To German interwar naval development: as Drach said, a) the limits were too severe and b) money. Subs are a hell of a lot cheaper than surface vessels; so you have some rope for "experiments" and implementing the latest developments; the more so because you are not actually building a flotilla. It's not that Germany didn't try to keep up with surface ships, they were handicapped in the same way that the British couldn't field a decent tank or do combined arms on land. You just can't have it all.

[@benwilson6145]

Perhaps if look back into the history of tanks you will find that the British invented combined arms in the 1930's long before Germany or the USA. The Germans attended the maneuver's as observers and learned from it. The British also invented the first modern tank in WW2, the Centurion, a way superior to any other tank and the model for the modern MBT.

[@ottovonbismarck2443]

@@benwilson6145 That's all true. The more fascinating it is that they never seemed to get it done during the war, except Lybia 1940 when they chased the Italians. As for Centurion in May 1945: Hmpf. A 17pdr (76,2mm) in 1945 wasn't cutting edge, road speed was below average; admittedly I think that is not the most important point anyway. Armor was good, maneuverability (as in off-road) very good. There was a lot of potential for upgrades, as later DECADES would proove; it was with later upgrades that it really became a great tank. On the other hand, it was no true WW2 tank ! Neither was it the model for the modern MBT. There wasn't anything new to it. Russia had T-34, which set new standards in 1941/42. By all means, it was an MBT. Panzer III and IV were at various stages MBTs for Germany, though not exactly setting new standards. Sherman was an MBT, also not setting any new standards. Panther set new MBT standards in 1943. Centurion came with a better armor layout but the gun wasn't any better, neither was the engine. Where is the new standard ?

[@benwilson6145]

I think that a bit of research will show that just as O’Connor defeat of the Italians in North Africa, this was replicated by Montgomerie’s vulture like destruction of Rommel’s Africa Corp in North Africa. Rommels failure to follow the combined armour doctrine is shown after the Africa’ Corp defeat at Mareth/Medenine, this was described by a Major in the Royal Tank Regiment (David Belchem), later to be the youngest Major General in the British Army) as. The three Panzer Divisions had such overwhelming success at Kasserine that their leaders and advisors were overconfident. They did not concern themselves with diversionary tactics, they adopted a phalanx type attack, demanding each division create a breach in the Eighth Army positions. Further research will show that Centurions of the Indian Army destroyed The US Armour of the Pakistani's. The Centurions of the Israeli Army destroyed the Panzers of the Syrian Army and later the Russian tanks also.

[@ottovonbismarck2443]

@@benwilson6145 Monty was chasing the Africakorps after a WW1 style breakthrough. This wasn't really combined arms, this was an overkill artillery barrage on a crippled enemy. Monty couldn't do much if he wasn't massively outnumbering the enemy in every aspect. O'Connor could. Operation Goodwood in Normandy was a textbook example of how you don't do it. Credits to the US industry and Allied logistics that replaced British Shermans faster than they could loose them. And I'm not too big a fan of Rommel either. He could have possibly (with a few question marks) ended the African campaign in 1941 but decided to do it brilliant and failed. Hybris. Tunisia, as you've mentioned, was Germany failing at combined arms, I won't deny it. As you perhaps might have noticed, Sir, I was relating to WW2 tanks. What British tanks did in the 60s and 70s is of no concern. You also might have noticed that I already agreed on Centurion being a great tank in later decades. Just not in WW2. Btw, Israeli Shermans also destroyed Arab armor left right and centre, so where does this lead us to ? The answer is simple: Israeli tankers were way better trained than their opponents. And the IDF gave a textbook example on combined arms as well. And didn't Jordania have Centurions as well (I'm not sure here) ? If so, they were beaten within the same 6 days.

[@genericpersonx333]

00:39:01 - Why transport bricks from the Netherlands to Batavia? Was there an international trade of stolen maps and charts? Also note, European colonists, especially in earlier times, tended to really strive to keep their European foods, architecture, and other material culture when they set up in colonies. English colonials in the Caribbean were notorious for their refusing to change any aspect of their English lifestyles just because they were living on tropical islands for lengthy periods of time. So far as most were concerned, they were just there temporarily to make some money before returning to proper lives in England, so they just lived as they would in England despite the heat and sun. For example, most English kept wearing full woolen-clothing, made their homes in the English style from imported stone, and would eat almost nothing but imported wheat and beef. The only way you knew they were not in England was because outside their windows were palm trees and blazing sunshine, not oaks and chilly overcast.

[@salty4496]

:)

[@merlinwizard1000]

38th, 1 September 2024

[@skeltonpg]

burial at sea - Norse tradition?

[@WALTERBROADDUS]

More simple necessity every place.

[@baxter9725]

please Could you make a video on what if the the Bismarck made it TO France day 41

[@bkjeong4302]

@@baxter9725 She gets destroyed and is useless. The end.

[@ROBERTNABORNEY-jx5il]

Warspite sails into Brest and destroys her at point-bank range.

[@WALTERBROADDUS]

She becomes a bomb Target magnet.

[@mkaustralia7136]

Drach has discussed this in several dry docks what if questions and the answer is far too short even for a 5 minute video

[@skeltonpg]

re Hood efficiency - her design was bad enough that none of her sisters was completed.

[@davefinfrock3324]

More like when the British learned the Germans had cancelled all capital ship production, so you didn't need all those 42,000t capital ships--particularly those that were much less than half completed. Throw in the lessons you were starting to learn after Jutland and...well, lets just finish the most advanced one since she was mostly done anyway.

[@skeltonpg]

@@davefinfrock3324 They stopped the build, did a pile of updating and redesign, and continued. There's no doubt they considered the result imperfect. (with good reason, she was overweight, had an obsolete armor scheme . . .) You are correct that the sunk money had a lot to do with continuing her. Possibly the really inadequate armour on all the Repulses and weird sisters had something to do with it too. She was definitely better than any other BC they had.

[@WALTERBROADDUS]

That has more to do with the end of the war, than anything else.

[@valiantredneck]

Anyone else remember when a so-called C’C’s was appreciated of their followers and would acknowledge comments and compliments…? Now… Not so much. Very, very sad.