The Drydock - Episode 315

[@chrismaverick9828]

It was great to meet you at the USS Cod, Drach. I didn't expect my light hearted question about how bad you messed up the kitchen making the hard tack and bergu to extend as far as it did, but in your typical way you gave us a look at the level of thought going into your content, and I thought that was great. You might collab with Max Miller or maybe even the Townsends on those trains of thought, as I know James Townsend has done a few videos on 18th and 19th century officers meals. Thanks for making for a great day.

[@TexasSpectre]

"At D-Day the naval assets were far more hesitant about providing active support in places like Omaha Beach than they were in the Pacific..." "The close in fire support from three destroyers may have saved the Omaha Beach landings..." USS Texas BB-35: "What am I, chopped liver?" For those that don't know, BB-35 saw the three destroyers closing on the beach for fire support, decided that she couldn't let them have all the fun and followed them in. Being a much larger capital ship, she couldn't get *quite* as close to the beach as her smaller, younger sisters - but she mounted ten 14"/45s as her main armament with the destroyer's 5 inch guns as her secondaries, so she didn't need to get in that far, She closed to 3000 yards off the waterline, as close as she could get without grounding on the sea bottom and went to maximum rate fire on all weapons that could bear, on every target she could see. And she could see further than the destroyers due to her greater size (height and larger optics). Texas immediately blew open exit D-1 off the beach with her main guns in direct fire mode, something the 5" guns of the destroyers hadn't been able to do, allowing Allied forces to finally get off the beach and get inland. She then proceeded to engage in gun duels with everything from artillery emplacements to gun pits to even individual snipers. Yes, that's right, Texas would respond to someone sniping from a trench or over the cliffs with a very personal and direct express delivery of 1125 pounds of 14" shell and high explosive - she was even noted to score direct intentional hits against individual soldiers. She was hit by German fire a few times for no casualties and no significant damage; after a while the Germans realized that maybe getting the attention of the big angry old battleship was perhaps not the greatest of ideas. Not to denigrate the achievements of the Frankford, Doyle and Emmons, but Texas should also be remembered for her contributions - and to be fair, her reversal of the normal state of affairs by escorting her smaller sisters in as far as she could, because capital ships didn't *do* that in that era.

[@marckyle5895]

I would have had someone on the bow with a depth sounder hollering 'Mark" every few minutes!

[@Edawgpilot]

Everything is truly bigger in Texas, including the egotistical inflating of the achievements of second-line obsolete support ships like USS Texas

[@GEOHHADDAD]

Did the Captain of USS Texas intentionally create a list in order to gain better elevation of her guns?

[@TexasSpectre]

@@GEOHHADDAD Same ship, same captain, same crew, a few days later a bit up the coast. After the events of D-Day, BB-35 retired back to Portsmouth in the UK to replenish her depleted magazines and restock other supplies then returned to the French coast to continue to provide fire support. By 15 June, the Germans had retreated past the nominal maximum range of Texas' guns. Just as they were sighing in relief that the rain of 14 inch HE was over, Texas sent them one last accurate fire mission *beyond* its supposed maximum range - just something for the Germans to remember her by. This was achieved by flooding her starboard torpedo blister to achieve a 2 degree list on that side, elevating the guns run out to port an additional 2 degrees of elevation more than they could accomplish on their own. End result was a nasty surprise for German troops that thought they were safe. That ship *really* didn't like the land armies of her nation's enemies. I have a sneaky suspicion that if they could have mounted her on treads that afforded sufficient mobility, she would have cheerfully chased the Germans back to Berlin on land, for all that she was a naval vessel. I'm very happy that she's been saved as a museum ship and is still with us today.

[@onenote6619]

18:13 Pretty much all of the specifically incendiary devices I can think of were not designed with any kind of accuracy in mind, which would make them a bit useless against ships. . Saying that, I can think of one very accurate incendiary that *was* tested successfully - the Bat Bomb. 21:00 Drachinifel mentions that someone who came up with the concept of 'sticky gasoline' then thought about adding White Phosphorus and everyone said 'nope'. As it turns out, this was foreshadowed by the British who did indeed come up with (and produced literal millions of) a device filled with both sticky gasoline *and* WP. To make it even more bowel-clenching, said mixture was held in a glass bottle and sealed with a beer cap. The whole could either be thrown, fired from a Northover Projector mortar, or quietly buried and forgotten about. The Number 76 'Special Incendiary'. Still being dug up in the early 2000s at a site I worked at. The chaps digging a fibre-optic trench sensibly walked away and called the bomb squad.

[@DanielsPolitics1]

The US AN-M47 also used NP with a WP igniter. As to accuracy, I concur. In WW2 the state of the art in incendiary bombing was steerable clusters, which help you hit a chosen part of a city, or on a good day improved your odds of hitting a large factory. But those were steering clusters of bombs between 2 lb and 6 lb - not a serious threat to a ship in most cases. They wanted an "appliance fire" (i.e. one which requires a fire engine, not merely fire watchers/stirrup pump) ASAP, and the time to that was always measured in minutes, in typical domestic buildings with (flammable) furnishings, wooden construction, etc. Bomber Harris had a quite ridiculous fixation on getting steerable clusters for his preferred incendiary bombs, and increased supply of the same bombs. I'm pretty sure we didn't have the raw materials to make them, but he wouldn't listen to sense.

[@ricardokowalski1579]

We been toying with the idea of fiery man made horror at least since greek fire. Maybe since we tamed fire.

[@onenote6619]

@@DanielsPolitics1 As I recall a common load for Lancasters was a 4000-pound high-capacity 'cookie' plus large numbers of small incendiary devices. The massive blast wave from the big bomb would blow off roof slates and leave the flammable interior open for the little guys. If going for a ship, the bigger bomb had a worthy payload, but was highly not-aerodynamic and hitting a ship reliably would not be feasible.

[@DanielsPolitics1]

@@onenote6619 I feel like a number of (somewhat) smaller HE bombs may have been more common, but I think I recall use of a single 4,000 lb bomb as well. The object, as I recall, being mainly to open up buildings to allow good air flow. The incendiaries themselves often could penetrate roofs, although not always, and they kept trying to improve penetration.

[@greenseaships]

Not gonna lie. Was hoping that Drach would use a picture of the Star Trek USS Thunderchild for his Thunderchild question. Would have made 2 drydocks in a row starting off with Star Trek ships.

[@jonathanstrong4812]

TNG novel involving the Borg-war the Thunderchild and their entire crew was assimilated by the Borg 7 of 9 and the person which who was the only persons escaped from them

[@micnorton9487]

I WISH Drach would stop indulging ST fans with stuff that ISN'T related to naval ships battles personnel or naval infrastructure or whatever ON EARTH lol,, BUT since Drach has the best navy related channel on KZbin imo oh well...🖖

[@greenseaships]

@@micnorton9487 LMAO He himself is a Star Trek fan and he'll do what he likes! Good day sir! :D

[@benjaminnickerson3961]

If I cared about Star Trek, I'd be inclined to agree with mic here; better to have it compiled in one place. As it is I don't care to look for Star Trek, and I'd rather have it "mixed in" as it were rather than having a Star Trek special take the place of a regularly scheduled drydock.

[@micnorton9487]

@@benjaminnickerson3961 BUT GUYS,, I said I WISH Drach wouldn't indulge ST lore,, but realistically there's so much overlap between ST fans and naval fans that it's not a major issue... I like ST also and sub to a bunch of ST channels but imo Drach's channel is so good I'd never complain about the issue directly...🖖

[@bzzcks]

A pleasure to meet you, albeit briefly, next to the deck gun on the USS Cod. On a day where Nicki Minaj, Rod Stewart, and Billy Joel came to Cleveland, the real star was Drach. Safe travels and thanks for the high quality content.

[@scooterdescooter4018]

Sunday mornings are best with warships and coffee.

[@CharlesStearman]

Drums were of course used for internal communication of orders on an age-of-sail ship, such as calling the crew to action stations, hence the expression "beating to quarters."

[@richardbennett1856]

Cheers. It's Sunday. The Drydock, Church and No Work! I make brunch and watch some football. The research every week is so impressive. Thanks!

[@DavidConnor]

I would like to suggest that while you're in the NY State capital region to visit USS Slater that you also visit The Watervliet Arsenal. An active Arsenal with a museum. They built 16" naval rifles. My Grandfather, a USMC In France in WWI, worked there in the interwar and WWII period. I bet they'll give you a special tour.

[@edwardloomis887]

Watervliet has had a public affairs officer who would be the best entry point. It used to be John Snyder. Am not sure who replaced him.

[@BB63Veteran]

Thanks for fielding my question. I guess I should have clarified that I was mainly thinking about the high level B-17's spotting the carriers. Neither here nor there, but I always wondered...

[@richardbennett1856]

But that was a very good question and may have caused havoc on Kido Butai at Midway. If not sink any carriers. I bet 100 or so little WP bottles from a bomber would cause havoc with flight operations. It's just really volatile ordinance.

[@WALTERBROADDUS]

​@@richardbennett1856 Midway is already pretty full of airplanes. As I recall they do have B-26's in their first real action. Sending b-17s would be kind of a stretch. And high-level bombing doesn't work on ships very well.

[@WALTERBROADDUS]

The Navy already had PBY's for search purposes. Midway is already pretty crowded. Not sure there's room for b-17s? Although the Army did send the first b-26's.

[@fzyturtle]

There was a squadron of b-17's stationed on Midway; they were used for patrols, and attempted level bombing some of the Japanese carriers during the battle. "Attempted" being the operative word.

[@EricLouchis]

Very much enjoyed your panel discussion on the battle of Leyte Gulf.

[@thomasknobbe4472]

Bummer about your car, hope it is already fixed and up and safely running. Your description of the trip to the garage is a very good illustration of how eye witness testimony of a stressful event can vary from person to person. We tend to lock onto what our minds feel is most immediately important to our own safety, or to that of those persons who are in our care. A person who has been robbed at gunpoint may be able to tell you much detail about the gun, but very little about the facial characteristics of the assailant. That gun was much more important, in the moment. As would be antiaircraft fire and cannon fire from that Zero on your tail, if you are attacking the Kido Butai in 1942.

[@alganhar1]

Also brings to mind other events. The ordeal of the crew of the Indianapolis springs to mind for example. How many of those crew were *actually* killed by sharks, and how many actually died and simply went under due to exposure, exhaustion, succumbing from wounds and other more 'normal' reasons. I am not saying there were no shark attacks, merely that they probably were not as common as the survivors remember, through no fault of theirs. After all, those crew knew next to nothing about sharks, and shark attacks are absolutely horrifying even if the victim does survive, so they are probably going to be VERY memorable to the survivors. It has always been my opinion as a Marine Ecologist that there were less sharks present than the survivors remembered, and fewer attacks (though I am not trying to claim there were none, that there were some is irrefutable). But the survivors inflated those numbers simply because thats the way our brains work. Pert of the reason I think this is through knowledge of the animals, like little things such as sharks are not actually particularly attracted by blood in the water, the scent of rotting meat however will attract their attention for miles. Blood does not send them into a feeding frenzy, though the presence of lots of NORMAL prey (so prey they regularly and naturally hunt) WILL. They are much, much more cautious when it comes to potential prey they are unfamiliar with... like a bunch of sailors in the water.... In that case they would likely use 'tasting' attacks, where they go in, bite to literally taste the potential prey and back off.... Those tasting attacks actually fit the pattern described by survivors far better than a feeding frenzy as well. Had sharks gone into a frenzy among those guys... few, if any of those in the water would have survived more than an hour or so.....

[@micnorton9487]

​@@alganhar1I'd never considered that,, sounds logical...

[@GrahamWKidd]

Saturday night, post dinner food coma and Drach. Perfection.

[@tekteam26]

But what if the British had built Rodney and Nelson as 35,000 ton ships with three triple 15" turrets? The tonnage saved by reducing the guns would probably have allowed the Royal Navy to have upgraded their engines to produce 60,000 - 75,000 horsepower. That would have given those battleships a speed of 26-27 knots which would be enough to reasonably consider them to be 'fast battleships' and capable of operating with Hood, Renown and Repulse as the fast capital ship wing of the battleline.

[@4353HUNVRTNG]

That's pretty much the F3 design.

[@jbepsilon]

As mentioned, this is pretty much the F3 design. In retrospect, arguably would have been a better choice than the historical NelRods. But hey, 16" was the maximum allowed by the treaty and they really really wanted that, so.. Additionally, had they instead built the F3's, it's likely they wouldn't have pushed so hard for the 14" restriction for the 1936 treaty, and thus have build the KGV's with improved versions of those same 3x3 15" turrets. Which, one hopes, would have worked better at Denmark Strait. And made logistics a bit easier by using the 15" everywhere instead of having to support 14", 15", and 16".

[@AgentTasmania]

Q&A: what was the reason for the enlargement of guns in the early-mid 1800s before the rise of armour making it necessary? Given the 42pdr being deemed a bit larger than practical for handling and the fact all but the lightest guns could reliably damage anything afloat.

[@andrewketchum960]

I agree with the third scenario for the USS United States, originally as a carrier with larger nuclear bombers (like the A-3 Skywarrier), but then modified a few years later to carry fighter and attack aircraft. Like the modifications of the Essex class carriers to have angled flight decks (e.g USS Lexington CV-16), etc. As Drach says, the US Navy would have had too much money invested to decommission a relatively new carrier.

[@alganhar1]

Makes more sense to me as well. Especially a carrier of that size at the time. Makes much more sense to bring her in and refit her into a conventional carrier than to scrap a potentially useful hull of that kind of size. Especially if they give her the angled flight deck at the same time, and given the period there is probably no reason not to do so as they were already considering just that with the other Fleet Carriers of the time....

[@fightforaglobalfirstamendm5617]

46:24 i think an improved Admiral class with 4, triple 15" gun turrets, same 12" belt but increasing the barbettes and the magazines upto 15" same as the turrets while maintaining 30 knots would be magnitudes superior to the NelRods. However the issue was displacement, the NelRods where built to treaty standards if there were no treaty standards then they would have built two G3's.

[@antoninuspius1747]

Just to add on the sweetspot carrier speed to support flight OPs. While it may be thought that "faster is better", there is an actual "sweetspot" range. As speed increases so does turbulance from the island and other things, both in size of affected area as well as strength.

[@Ranzoe813]

Drach you may be one of the hqrdest working most consistent small youtube channel i know of...your work ethic alone will simply outdo the comp...let alone your wonderful sense of humor and quality of content, am i surprised that other big time naval history channels struggle to match your views/subs?...battleship nj/tank musuem channels would like a word sir

[@JuStsme0nE123]

I reconstruct early medieval instruments as part of my reenactment stand. Most musical instruments are very moisture sensitive, the drums especially so as they are animal hide and lose their tension win moist air. Which may occasionally happen.... at sea. Flutes and trumpets are unique in this as they are nearly unaffected by moisture in their loudness and playability, although they may be out of tune. (File your complaints later, first attack the French!) High-pitched fluting may not carry far, but it is in the frequency range not also occupied by your average ambient noises and thus are easy to pick out of the background. Low-frequency flutes are inefficiënt and thus won't help for long range, the same is true for high frequency trumpets. But low frequency trumpets can be extremely loud and carry far, despite being in the more cluttered frequency range. Plenty of marginalia of medieval ships with hornblowers on them around, too. PS; the instruments found on mary rose were awesome. I do want to reconstruct them someday, and I blame Drach for getting me to visit.

[@atypicalprogrammer5777]

1:34 The ram Tordenskiold (or Tordenskjold) was named after a Norwegian-Danish Vice-Admiral Peter Wessel, who took the name Tordenskjold when ennobled after the great northern war in 1716. BTW, I kind of hope you cover the naval aspect of the Great Northern War some day, although most sources are in Danish, Swedish and Russian.

[@barelyasurvivor1257]

Another great, informative, and interesting Drachinifel video. Thank You.

[@SmilefortheJudge]

Eeeeek he answered my question! Best opening tune on all of KZbin. Awesome answer too.

[@duncanbuchanan3269]

Hi Drach I lost a Timing Belt many years ago. I can empathise, it is very scary. Especially at speed. By the way: What vehicle were you driving and how many miles were on the clock? Timing belt failures these days are pretty unusual and infrequent.

[@terrylawrence7498]

Mr Gardner is bad ass. More from him. Love the show.

[@Jayne22]

Hope you are enjoying your trip. 😊

[@mattwardman]

I fully approve that you drive a People Carrier, not a Tonka Tank.

[@charleswade2514]

There’s no flat bed car haulers in the uk? I’m glad you and your family are safe. Having vehicles die while driving is scary.

[@Paludion]

Thanks again for answering one of my questions. I hadn't considered Dakar at all because I thought it was as firmly controled by the Vichy regime as Morroco, Algeria or Tunisia, but indeed it is far away enough from the Axis forces that any french assets in the area are not in any immediate risk of falling into their hands, without having to cross an entire ocean or sail to the east coast of Africa. I wonder if De Gaulle would have been able to get his legitimacy by taking control of Senegal, instead of having to wrestle control of Syria with british help...

[@billbrockman779]

I hate to hear of your timing belt problems. Glad it turned out OK.

[@stevevalley7835]

where did he mention that?

[@kennethdeanmiller7324]

My very first car, an '83 Chevy Chevette 4 speed stick. When we bought it I had never driven a stick shift. I drove it home & learned on the way. Needless to say, I picked it up quick. Only dumped the clutch once before I got the hang of it. But before a year had gone by my timing belt stripped out. And so I fixed it. My Uncle in law, Jerry told me how. And putting the new belt on wasn't difficult, it was getting the timing right after that was the challenge. But the way Jerry explained it to me I only had to take it back off once to get it right. Which wasn't bad. I ended up having to put another transmission in it too. Because it was a stick shift it wasn't difficult either. Hardest part was that I had to pry the transmission past the exhaust pipe. My next car was a '79 Camaro. I totally miss both of those cars. The Chevette because it was a good car with GREAT gas mileage & the Camaro because it was just so fun to drive it. I sold the Camaro back in 2005 so we could buy an '89 Bronco. Which was another great vehicle! Gas mileage was awful but still a good truck & easy to work on & replace stuff, except for all the rust. But most Fords are fairly prone to having a lot of rust.

[@michaelmoorrees3585]

@@stevevalley7835 - Towards the end of the 2nd to last question. I had a timing belt snap, too. Fortunately, just as was starting the engine. The engine did not start, I immediately heard something "off", so stopped cranking, hence no engine damage. In my case. After the new timing belt installed, car ran fine, for many years there after.

[@tomdolan9761]

It’s always bad timing that undermines our day one way or another

[@spikespa5208]

Comparing a car engine failure on the motorway to reporting a ship sighting under fire: getting the car out of traffic and safely to the side of the road while at the same time noting the make and model of the vehicles around you. Multi-tasking just isn't all that easy at times.

[@samsmith2635]

I love how there was 12 comments in the first 60 seconds, thanks again for another Drydock!

[@hughgordon6435]

may be pantheon (early viewers) commenting at their time of release?

[@stevevalley7835]

What puzzles me about Nelson and Rodney: I get that the UK was allowed to build those two new ships, the US was allowed to complete two Colorados, and Japan was allowed to keep Mutsu, but why did the treaty require Italy and France to wait until the late 20s to build new capital ships?

[@alganhar1]

I am pretty certain it did not. I am positive that France and Italy waited longer mostly for economic reasons.

[@stevevalley7835]

@@alganhar1 the treaty specifically allows France and Italy to lay down 35,000 tons of capital ships, each, in 1927, 1929, while everyone else could not start building again until 1931. When First London extended the capital ship building moratorium through 1936, France and Italy retained the rights to lay down the ships under their 1927 and 1929 permits. Those ships became the Dunkerques and first two Littorios. France's battleship "France" found a reef and sank in 1922. The Washington treaty allowed immediate replacement of ships lost by accident. France used the left over tonnage from the Dunkerques and France, to build Richelieu. Yes, France and Italy deferred using their 1927 and 1929 construction permits, but the question remains, why were France and Italy not allowed to build new, "post-Dreadnought" ships immediately, as the US, UK, and Japan were?

[@lasselund1643]

Tordenskjold or Thundershield were the name of a danish/norwegian naval hero, Peter wessel Tordenskjold. The danish ship were named after him.

[@dfell1236]

Really enjoyed this one, thanks Drach

[@btarsunvalley457]

I think on the United States vs. Midway service life you missed another option that may have given it an even longer life than the historical Midway. Early angled deck conversion with heavy bombers through the 1960's, followed by the United States becoming the training carrier, while having relatively low hours on the engineering plant. With the segregated hanger space, lack of an island, and an enormous target to aim for, it would be ideal for both flight crews and maint. crews to gain at sea experience.

[@uradgula5258]

Yep, "Tordenskjold" is literally "Thunder-shield" in danish. Named after Peter Wessel (1690-1710) of the Great Northern War fame

[@kirgan1000]

You have USS Dunderberg, Swedish for "thunder mountain"

[@marckyle5895]

Drach, it sounds as if your people carrier has an interference engine, by which I mean that the piston and the valves occupy the same space at different moments in time as the combustion cycle repeats itself 2,000 times a minute. Belt maintenance is a critical item in keeping them that way. Yes, they are expensive but are a maintenance item to be done a just a few times each decade and can be budgeted for. Or find a vehicle with a non-inteference engine which can then be maintained like we Americans do, i.e. ignored totally until lights come on as long as you change the oil.

[@ariancontreras4358]

I remember Dr. Clarke citing the Bearn as one of the main reasons why France didn't pursue Naval Aviation as seriously as the United Kingdom, the United States of America or the Empire of Japan. Considering the horrible elevator system, I can see why.

[@coldwarrior78]

Hi Drach. Doing a great job. Question: You have said on several occasions that the German ships built between the wars were planned to oppose the French. While I understand how the French were viewed as a threat, how could anyone plan or even conceptualize a war with France that did not include war with Britain? Any naval war had to include the UK on one side or the other. Was there really any chance Britain would remain neutral during a European war in the 30s or 40s?

[@hughgordon6435]

one of my favourite cartoons ,regarding drum signals? two slaves on the oars of a galley saying to each other?..., oh god not waterskiing speed again?

[@hrhenderson51]

Re Thunderchild ... still wondering how the real Royal Navy (and Army, for that matter) would have fared against Wells' Martians. My guess is, quite well. The "heat ray" is a line of sight weapon and also would take quite some time to penetrate battleship armor. Meanwhile, a battleship shell hitting anywhere near one of those fragile war machines would have crumpled it.

[@antoninuspius1747]

A&A: OK, so much for dock yard cranes. What about the history of permanent, ship mounted cranes? Davits had been around for a long time but when and who implemented the first ship mounted, dedicated cranes?

[@greenseaships]

25:11- They were DESTROYER CAPTAINS. 'Nuff said.

[@steve-qc8hd]

00:09:23 Martlet Wildcats would probably the final accepted type for Bearn, F6 Hellcat would be beyond it. Whether Bearn could run even the light weight Bearcat of 1945/6 is very debatable

[@gerald5344]

Sorry about your engine! I had that happen myself this summer. Getting it replaced with a new one from the manufacturer was about 1/3 the cost of a new car.

[@rashkavar]

So...one thing I must admit I've never fully understood: why did the French Navy opt to follow Vichy France orders and surrender? It's entirely possible that I'm misremembering when certain things come to light in the war, but I'm pretty sure by the surrender of France, there was already a fairly widespread idea that Hitler's Germany was an existential threat to Europe - that is, the kind of thing you don't just *not* fight because they beat your country (indeed, the kind of thing that, when they beat your country, the rational response is to curse them out soundly and fight 5 times as hard. (See Polish pilots in the Battle of Britain, Tito's Yugoslavia, and various other heroes of undergrounds and free-country soldiers serving their governments-in-exile). The French Navy has a somewhat unique opportunity in that they're A: a fairly powerful navy with a number of major military assets, overseas resupply points, and so on that would allow them to operate with a degree of independence from their homeland (at least compared to something like the French Army, or something like the Polish Navy which was only really outfitted for coastal defense (and, notably, sent a significant portion of its force over to Britain so they could continue the war when the battle for Poland was clearly over) and B: are quite closely allied with the British, who are possibly still the world's navy that is most capable of operating pretty much wherever they want due to a worldwide chain of logistical support systems. This to me seems like a strong incentive to adopt the aforementioned rational response of cursing the Germans out soundly and quintupling down on the determination to fight back and win. Or am I forgetting just how quick the British were to launch Operation Catapult? Because, yes, as soon as that goes off, French naval officers opting not to continue their alliance with the British becomes extremely understandable. Of the many outrages perpetrated by the British in WWII, that's certainly on the short list of particularly heinous ones, and one that would, naturally, hit particularly hard for French naval officers. (Before anyone gets defensive, please remember that in WWII, EVERYONE did some pretty horrible stuff. Acknowledging Britain's list of war crimes does not diminish the existence of lists attributable to other countries or the fact that some of those countries' lists are *much* longer and grimmer.)

[@wilsonj4705]

The image at 56:13 got me thinking as it appears to shows gunfire from at least one of the fighters hitting the flight deck. I would have thought at that point the fighters would have held their fire both to limit damage to the carrier from their gunfire and to hopefully not cause the B-26 to crash into the flight deck. Is this "artistic license" (if that's the right term to use here) on the part of the artist or it actually happened and maybe a case of target fixation?

[@llllib]

Drach calls Bearn short. So mean! 😄

[@voqiir3802]

[Good Ending] The year is 2024, having sat mothballed in the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard since her decommissioning in 2013, the USS United States is formally transferred into the ownership of a newly created national naval memorial in Galveston, where she will sit adjacent to the recently drydocked USS Texas

[@terrylawrence7498]

B 26. Just checking out a IJN carrier. Classic

[@leftcoaster67]

On ships like the HMS Hood. They had 6 torpedo tubes, 3 on each broadside. How much weight did those tubes cost? I understand it's a good well we have a firing solution let them go. Was the the weight worth the cost to install them? Or would it not really made a difference in more ammunition, or extra armour?

[@jameshain1248]

Another Drach feast for a Saturday night

[@edwardloomis887]

Regarding the Thunderchild question at 00:49, the U.S. has had one USS Thunderbolt, a Cyclone class patrol ship, PC-12. Thunderbolt has operated in the Persian Gulf and had at least one close encounter with an Iranian fast attack boat with warning shots fired.

[@hektor6766]

One of the things I miss about vintage American engines: timing chains, not belts. Nearing the opportunity to get the Sube in for a new belt, crossing my fingers until then.

[@CaptainCoffee37]

Glad to hear you and your family are safe after your engine blew up! However, please explain why you had to be in the vehicle while being towed all that way with a towbar? Is that an English thing? In the USA you'd just have a tow truck pick up the front wheels, or pull the whole vehicle onto the back of the bed if a wrecker. Either way no one is in the disabled vehicle. The process you describe sounds incredibly unsafe, glad to hear it went ok. 😂

[@bryanstephens4800]

You have strange towing in the UK. In the US they would never have you in the car while they tow it. Heck, most tow trucks are flatbeds. Hope it does not cost too much.

[@MediumRareOpinions]

In my past experience there was a a passenger capacity in the tow truck cab. Riding in the car sounds strange to me too so I wouldn't say it's normal for the UK

[@alganhar1]

Its unusual in the UK as well. Most tow trucks here are also flat beds, either the entire car would be pulled up onto the truck, or at the very least the front of the car. Personally this is the first time I have heard of someone having to be in a towed vehicle being towed by an actual tow truck for decades. Normally the occupants of the car would be in the tow truck cab as there would be no requirement for someone to steer the car as its either fully on the bed, or the front of the car is precisely for that reason.

[@CharlesStearman]

@@alganhar1 I've been towed a couple of times in the UK and both times it was by a first-response breakdown service vehicle, when the engineer was unable to fix the car by the roadside.

[@brucewilliams1892]

Re 24:58, Destroyers at Omaha: were such fitted with echo sounders at the time?

[@davidtanner665]

Five years ago today was my last visit to Slater.

[@pauldonlin3439]

33:33 when the Doom OST kicks in…

[@709badwolf]

👋🏼 was a little confused at first,,, ,,, but i was on + 50 speed 👍

[@mike117vz]

Had all the lexingtons been converted into carriers, what would the us navy have built after?

[@grathian]

Dakar is 1700nm from Mers el Kebir. not exactly "close". It is a quarter of the way around Africa... Shipyard flags (Bethlehem Steel, Bath Iron Works, etc) were flown by ships under construction before turnover to the Navy. We flew the US ensign & jack as normal during the three weeks between turnover and commissioning on USS Boone FFG-28 in April-May 1982.

[@sarcasticstartrek7719]

It's Thunder Child, not Thunderchild. Thunderchild was the mis-spelling used in Star Trek First contact.

[@skeltonpg]

re carrier sweet spot - catapult capability became important

[@Fluffinator129]

Does anyone know where the interview with Mr. Gardner is? I can't find ot anywhere.

[@MichaelCampin]

You need to treat like with like, I used to make the same mistake , from 40k to 50k it's an increase of 25% but from 50k down to 40k is 20%. Yes it is confusing but mathematics always is. Keep up the good work

[@DanielsPolitics1]

Re 18:10 I'm not sure Drach gets everything right about uses of napalm. He may be right about how late NP was used, although I'm a bit surprised and I'll check my sources. It's Drach so he probably is right about that one. I'll check first operational use of the AN-M69, and the designs of the smaller clustered incendiary bombs. He is wrong about no-one ever combining NP and WP. The usual configuration of the American AN-M47 used an igniter made of WP. It's a somewhat unusual weapon, the only NP bomb I've come across that could in principle static detonate satisfactorily - most rely on the impact speed to rupture the tank and spread the NP, while AN-M47 uses a burster, with an igniter wrapped round it. Bulletpicker gives a good description, and points to the sources (mainly original US military manuals) in the links at the bottom of the entry. There was also certainly an intention to use napalm over water, which is why the AN-M47 was also able to be fitted with a Sodium igniter, expressly for use over water. Whether the intention was to use navally I am unsure. The design is noted in US Navy Bomb *Disposal* documents, but I am unsure whether it was for employment against naval targets. A later development made of plasticised WP (with no NP) was procured by the USN. It isn't technically napalm, but other thickened oils were used before the first year of the war in flamethrowers and in fixed flame fougasse devices (including a very ingenious German design). I think use of drop tanks as incendiary bombs was a known technique, not merely an improvisation. I can't put my hand on the source right now (annoyingly, as I was working on the area just yesterday) but I'll have a look. I think the idea was to drop them and then shoot them, in the context of low level fighter sweeps in 44 or 45 in the ETO. I also have some of the papers on order at TNA, but won't be able to check them until next week. Just in case Drach sees this, I want to mention the 30 lb J Bomb, because I think Drach would enjoy it (and I suspect he'll make a working replica).

[@alganhar1]

Sounds like the AN-M47 would be of more use against troops in the water (a horrifying prospect!), or maybe against harbour facilities? Even if the actual piers are made of concrete there is plenty of inflammable stuff lying around dockside that napalm could have a whale of a time with, and it could render said dockside unusable at least for a while. I mean a bunch of dockyard workers are going to be rather uninclined to load a ship if they are on fire! Or if the dock is on fire, and the stuff they are supposed to load is on fire, and the fuel lines are on fire... and its all on fire! I am not really convinced any incendiaries would be of huge use against shipping of the time unless you could punch them through the deck armour and have all that fiery gooeyness go off deep in the guts of the ship. And for that you may as well have used a HE bomb as its likely going to have a similar effect simply because there is just so much inflammable stuff hanging around in a ships vitals that the HE could ignite.

[@DanielsPolitics1]

@@alganhar1 I think the main use of AN-M47 was with the WP igniter, on land. I'm unsure what the intended application of the Sodium igniter version was, other than that it is expressly for use over water.

[@alganhar1]

@@DanielsPolitics1 Yeah, should have mentioned I was talking about the sodium fused version. I still can't really work out WHY though. Dockyard denial is the only real application I can think of assuming you are attacking from seaward. Nothing else seems to make any sense when it comes to deploying napalm over water. Maybe I am missing something obvious. Can't even really use it for say clearing mangrove you might not want around, as what makes mangrove a git to move through is the water itself, and all those roots under the water, which napalm is not going to affect in the slightest. About all it will do is maybe clear sight lanes, which could be good or bad depending on the situation. So really struggling when it comes to the why of that version of the weapon! I am wondering if its one of those cases you often come across when it comes to the application of a relatively new weapon of 'why not'? I mean nuclear sea mines and torpedoes were both a thing, and both are just a tad overkill!!!

[@DanielsPolitics1]

@@alganhar1 If I get time I'll try and dig around for use cases - but I'm usually less successful in doing so with US weapons than with British ones. I do know vehicle mounted flamethrowers were used to remove a troublesome position on a wharf (and possibly also to suppress positions generally in river crossings?) in Italy. That's a different use case really, but I mention it as it is the only "fire near water" use I can think of.

[@leftcoaster67]

In the Spanish Civil War, Germans experimented with "flambos" a version of napalm.

[@steve-qc8hd]

00:33:09 Signal canons were also used.

[@hermatred572]

Nice

[@fearthehoneybadger]

Thomas, what about a ship called Moonpuppy?

[@TheJuggtron]

Drach - you're an engineer - how the hell did you get an interference piston engine and not do the timing belt?

[@Drachinifel]

Recommended replacement milage was almost twice the milage at point of sale, I usually replace belts at 2/3rds recommended to be safe, this went a lot before that. :(

[@stevewyckoff6904]

How much would the required carrier speed for creating wind across the deck be mitigated by catapult capabilities?

[@WALTERBROADDUS]

I don't understand your question ❓ even with a catapult, you require wind over the deck.

[@stevevalley7835]

Eons ago, I saw a US Navy recruiting ad with a pic of a Phantom, and the headline "0-150mph in 2.3 seconds", or something like that. So, even if the ship is making 30 kts, and the plane's engines are at full throttle, most of the initial plane speed is generated by the cat. There were days when I was on the Lex, that there was hardly any wind at all. All the Airdales had was the approximation of top speed that those tired old engines could generate, plus the push from the cat.

[@stevewyckoff6904]

@@WALTERBROADDUS See reply below. "Apparent wind", either from carrier speed or catapult speed, is about creating lift at launch. Doesn't matter.

[@hughgordon6435]

drach, sir? in the opposite of the shore bombardment? I seen to recall you once told us that the Germans exploded 😮an undersea magazine at sevadtopol? How? was the shell amor peircing,HE, delayed fuse?It seems from previous answers about shells hitting water there is no way an ordinary shell could survive hitting water?

[@keefymckeefface8330]

it was no ordinary shell- armor piercing round from the massive schwerer Gustav railway gun. something like 8,000lb projectile off top head.

[@stanislavkostarnov2157]

maybe someone knows, what does the Letter ア mean in the landing zone of the carrier on the last picture?

[@dimasgirl2749]

That might be a kanji character, but I don't speak or read Japanese well enough to say what it is.

[@stanislavkostarnov2157]

@@dimasgirl2749 I read Japanese well enough to know what the character its A written in Katakana (given the use at the time, possibly also a numeral value) it's just, whilst I guess it can signify primary runway... it does not really seem that, more likely to have had some other use which I am not aware of... my understanding was, the usual markers were 赤・イ and 青 but these were further down the deck...

[@Trek001]

Drach and a bacon butty on a Saturday morning... Yeah, life is good First

[@riverraven7359]

Didn't the Japanese use an incendiary HE round in the Russo-Japanese war? Glass tubes of acid inside the main charge I think?

[@sooflower_183]

Yo drach, where can I find the video where u explained why you don’t cover modern ships (~1950-today)

[@garychisholm2174]

Simply his area of expertise is not modern; and many modern ships have classified specifics wherein he cannot be assured of his information.

[@WALTERBROADDUS]

Short Answer? Not his area of expertise. Involves a lot of politics for the Cold War. Lot of information is still classified. Etcetera ,etcetera, etcetera.

[@sooflower_183]

@@WALTERBROADDUS but do u know where to find the video or what’s its title is, I’ll like to watch it

[@WALTERBROADDUS]

@@sooflower_183 your going back years now... try his earlier dry docks.

[@tomdolan9761]

Had the Navy built United States I’d expect the US Navy would have eventually given her an angled flight deck and seriously developed the F-111 Aardvark as a carrier aircraft

[@tomdolan9761]

I think they had already committed to developing the F4 Phantom as a missile carrying fighter. She first flew in 1954. This is all prior to Vietnam and for that matter Korea when the USN rediscovered the value in cannon armed dogfighting and first instituted Top Gun to reteach the tactics.

[@WALTERBROADDUS]

The Navy had the A-3 And A-5.

[@tomdolan9761]

@@WALTERBROADDUSThey still had some A3s and A7s when I served but super carriers have long lives. I’d suggest to you that in 20 years the Ford class won’t be operating the SuperHornet or the F35C. Something else will have been developed

[@WALTERBROADDUS]

@@tomdolan9761 the Next Generation 6th generation fighter is already on the drawing boards. Next Generation aircraft are also going to be manned optional.

[@tiomoidofangle102]

How does nuclear power on an aircraft carrier affect the organization of the engineering department compared to a conventionally powered ship?

[@filmbuffo5616]

Which current US carriers are "conventionally powered" rather than nuclear powered? If there aren't any, wouldn't nuclear power itself be the "conventional power" for this class of vessels?

[@WALTERBROADDUS]

​@@filmbuffo5616there are no conventionally powered carriers anymore in the United States Navy. They are all been retired.

[@WALTERBROADDUS]

Short answer? they require you to go to nuclear Power School.

[@Knight6831]

The United States class would be given an angled flight deck

[@Thom4ES]

Vote early ,vote often!

[@markjames4951]

00:14:44 - Operational issues for a Free French fleet in exile? I would have thought if the Germans could keep the Tirpitz ( plus many others ) seaworthy ( and repaired ) in a Fyord in Norway then the many ports of French Indo-China would have changed the perspective of the whole war.

[@WALTERBROADDUS]

How do you reach Indochina undetected? And what are they supposed to do there? There is zero logistics and no fuel.

[@Dave_Sisson]

Have a look at a map of the time, almost all of the Indian Ocean was bordered by British territory, they also had all but one of the islands in the middle of the ocean. There is no way a ship that size would not be detected and hunted down by a bunch of British battleships and carriers.

[@markjames4951]

@@Dave_Sisson Why would the British object if as Drach is supposing the French travelled to a different location other than the choice of destinations which were not on the WEST COAST of Africa right up alongside the British Convoy routes not all convoys went across the Atlantic a lot went up the West Coast of Africa. The first two choices were you might notice the British were going to pay compensation!! (a) Sail with us and continue to fight for victory against the Germans and Italians. (b) Sail with reduced crews under our control to a British port. The reduced crews will be repatriated at the earliest moment. If either of these courses is adopted by you, we will restore your ships to France at the conclusion of the war or pay full compensation, if they are damaged meanwhile. (c) Alternatively, if you feel bound to stipulate that your ships should not be used against the Germans or Italians unless these break the Armistice, then sail them with us with reduced crews, to some French port in the West Indies, Martinique, for instance, where they can be demilitarised to our satisfaction or he perhaps entrusted to the United States and remain safe until the end of the war, the crews being repatriated. The French Indo China WERE SUPPLYING OIL TO CHINA and the Japanese attacked them in Sept 1940 "hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/1940-07-04/debates/5b3e0cdc-25db-4ee3-bd4c-bc0a26f94395/FrenchFleet" now we have the terms of the Armistice I have used a Yale UNI just in case you think it is fake read the EXCEPT bits which are very important given that the English Channel is only 22 miles wide , the range of a Destroyer gun is about 10 miles and the Germans were about to attack Britain "avalon.law.yale.edu/wwii/frgearm.asp" "ARTICLE VIII. The French war fleet is to collect in ports to be designated more particularly, and under German and/or Italian control to demobilize and lay upÂ-with the exception of those units released to the French Government for protection of French interests in its colonial empire. The peacetime stations of ships should control the designation of ports. The German Government solemnly declares to the French Government that it does not intend to use the French War Fleet which is in harbors under German control for its purposes in war, with the exception of units necessary for the purposes of guarding the coast and sweeping mines. It further solemnly and expressly declares that it does not intend to bring up any demands respecting the French War Fleet at the conclusion of a peace. All warships outside France are to be recalled to France with the exception of that portion of the French War Fleet which shall be designated to represent French interests in the colonial empire." And finally a word from a Mr Hitler on SeaLowe "Translations of 12 Top-Secret directives for the above operation,signed by HITLER, KEITEL and JODL in July, August, September and October, 1940*" "The sea routes must be cleared of mines. Both flanks of the Straits of Dover and the Western approaches to. the Channel, approximately on a line from Alderney to Portland , must be so heavily mined as to be completely inaccessible." "Navy: will provide and safeguard the invasion fleet and direct it to the individual points of embarkation. As fan as possible , ships belonging to defeated- nations are to be used." (Sgd.) Hitler (initialled.) KEITEL and .JQDL "www.raf.mod.uk/what-we-do/our-history/air-historical-branch/ahb-translations-from-captured-german-documents/operation-sea-lion-invasion-of-britain/"

[@markjames4951]

@@Dave_Sisson The British did not want to sink the French Navy and the French in Indo China (the Japanese invaded them for it later in 1940 ) were sending huge amounts of oil and military equipment to China ( that both the British and USA wanted ) and guess what if they decide that they want to come back they will be spotted. It would also mean the French Fleet was not right next to the convoy routes from S Africa Aus Ind NZ etc and Hitler could not use the French Navy as planned to clear mines and lay mines ( defend ) in the Channel which is what Hitler stipulated in Article 8 of the armistice less those ships required to defend French colonies.

[@Dave_Sisson]

@@markjames4951 I was replying to original post about the *German* battleship Tirpitz possibly relocating to Indo China by pointing out that it could never get there. I don't know how you got the idea that I was saying anything about the French (Vichy or otherwise) and their navy?

[@jmac3997]

🎉👍

[@karacaddy]

Can you make a video about Mahmudiye Galleon, the largest sailing warship in the world? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_ship_Mahmudiye

[@whodat7523]

@Drach, and everyone else... I virtually never do plugs, but if you love naval history and battleships, and you might find this skit hilarious: kzbin.info/www/bejne/e6XOhaiVedp2l6c

[@robertmatch6550]

Listen to this at Starbucks

[@hgh425]

Dear drach. You need to give up on the old ICE tech.

[@ramjam720]

When they invented the submarine that could launch nuclear missiles the "Bomber" carrier became instantly obsolete.

[@merlinwizard1000]

47th, 15 September 2024