The Drydock - Episode 321 (Part 2)

[@TrickiVicBB71]

We are all proud that museums, colleges, and other historians take you seriously. Being able to export naval history to the masses. I have been around since your robo voice 5 minute voices.

[@gwtpictgwtpict4214]

Also date back to the robo voice days, still here because why wouldn't anyone with an interest in naval military history not be?

[@johngregory4801]

Was it Guuide #5 that was on SMS Nassau? "These ships make me angry, really angry" in that robo voice. CLASSIC!!!

[@camenbert5837]

I'd love to see the Inland Revenue going through your expenses? "You can use that for work? You lucky lucky lucky..."

[@Primarch359]

1:10:16 the inserted "At least not at the moment" had me cackling. Your little sarcastic asides are the best part of the channel. Followed closely by you skill in video titles. Battle carpentry!

[@bluelemming5296]

For those interested in this sort of thing, author Harry Turtledove did a two book alternate history/fiction series about a Japanese WW2 invasion of Hawaii: _Days of Infamy_ Here's my independent perspective as a long term student of military history. The US forces probably totaled around 50k personnel. Many of these would not be line infantry, and few of them would really be ready for war. The US had two understrength and inexperienced infantry divisions, so the Japanese would probably want at least three oversized infantry divisions with first line troops, plus control of the air. The force used to invade Singapore - about 36k men - is probably a reasonable estimate of numbers. They also have to supply personnel to man the naval and air bases once captured. That's going to require 30-50 transports to carry the men and their equipment and initial supplies. That's a lot of troops and ships to free up, plus they need to be supplied over the long term. The initial invasion seems possible based on the outcome of the battles for Singapore and the Philippines, where much larger - but inexperienced - Allied forces were defeated by smaller - but experienced - Japanese forces. Between Kalkin Gol and the long campaigns in China, Japan likely had a decent stiffening of recently experienced soldiers in their forces, which probably contributed quite a bit to their early victories. Long term prospects, on the other hand, are very poor. WW2 had very high logistics demands different from any previous war: see _Supplying War, Logistics from Wallenstein to Patton_ by Martin van Creveld for an introduction to some of the issues. Given the limited supplies of oil possessed by Japan, and the distances involved, a serious Japanese occupation of Hawaii really doesn't seem logistically feasible. It's unlikely from a logistics perspective they could ever hope to build up and maintain a large enough force to stop a counter-invasion, no matter how much time they were given. Hence, the strategic value of Hawaii for Japan does not justify the expense of taking it, given the poor long term prospects of actually keeping it - plus the likely high costs of trying to do so, and failing. It's not A Bridge Too Far, but it's definitely an island chain too far.

[@TrickiVicBB71]

Great write up

[@washingtonradio]

This is a point Yamamoto made to the IJA, Japan did not have the capability to wage a protracted war with US. If the US didn't surrender quickly, something Yamamoto didn't believe would happen, Japan was going to lose the war, only thing that needed to be worked out were the details. Also Japan did capture some of the Aleutian Islands can had trouble supporting garrisons there against less intense US pressure.

[@notshapedforsportivetricks2912]

I agree that Japan's long term prospects of retaining thw Hawaiian Islands are very poor due to the logistical considerations that you mention. Nevertheless, the Japanese leadership might have considered it as a short-term bargaining chip to force the US into negotiations. They didn't all hold with Yamamoto's Sleeping Giant view.

[@TheDoctorMonkey]

7:49 “the world wonders” fits in here perfectly and perhaps appropriately

[@Captain_Seafort]

00:45:39 The slight issue with this is that QE wasn't at Jutland. If her carrier successor had shown up at Gallipoli, on the other hand, I can see her having a pretty substantial effect.

[@Colonel_Blimp]

War winning even.

[@cycloneranger7927]

I was going to say the same thing. QE was in dock during the battle.

[@richardcutts196]

00:27:47 I believe the various naval treaties had a great deal too do with the development of more efficient machinery. The quest to build 10k ton cruisers required lighter machinery to have a shot at providing SOME armored protection while keeping up an acceptable speed.

[@TrickiVicBB71]

Armored Carriers did a video on Fairey Barracuda. Pilots didn't like how it would violently and suddenly unassemble itself mid-air early on in its life

[@sk43999]

Do you mean "armoured archivist"? Very mixed bag of opinions from former pilots - probably depends on which version they flew. The biggest problem was that it was underpowered - a Merlin engine is fine for a single person aircraft like a fighter but not for a 3-person aircraft like a torpedo/dive bomber. Operating in the Pacific (high temps) exacerbated the problem. I've read that the high wing (required to accommodate the "observer") also caused problems in development. It took 6 years from time of specification (1937) to entry into service (1943). Grumman Avenger took only 3 years (39 to 42) and had a bigger engine (Wright Twin Cyclone) that was already in commercial use in Mar of 39.

[@TrickiVicBB71]

@sk43999 Yes. ARMOURED ARCHIVIST. He changed his name, and I keep referring his old channel name.

[@lawsontse1545]

33:23 You didn't consider the mark 23 nuclear shell. After a quick messing around on nukemap, the entire US fast battleship fleet each equipped with the theoretical complement of 10 nuclear shell should just about be able to flatten (covered with heavily damaged radius)Jersey

[@alganhar1]

Still not going to delete the island though. You may destroy everything on the surface but the islands still going to be there afterwards.

[@Betrix5060]

@@alganhar1 I think the fundamental issue here is that writers don't understand what firepower is required to remove an island/planet from existence. The latter is likely in the gigaton range, so the sort of thing that would have global effects, and the former is just straight up petatons and would require turning the entire sun into a laser and pointing it at earth for a week to replicate. It's the same issue that visual media has with accelerations, where if you aren't pulling double digit gees you look positively sluggish, and the opposite issue of ranges, where everyone is within throwing distance when instead they should be at least halfway to the horizon.

[@kennethdeanmiller7324]

The story of HMS Stewart being in between Italian heavy cruisers & opening up with it's "Italian" machine gun with special tracer rounds that makes the Italians think it's "a confused friendly" shows just how crazy night actions can be. I've recently been trying to read Lundgren's summations of the night battles around Guadal Canal. And now, realizing that USS Washington may have accidentally fired on her own escorts is a very sobering & sad situation. And definitely explains Admiral Lee's reluctance to fire on Kirishima until he's positive it's an enemy vessel. AND it also explains his reluctance for further night battles without the proper training of the crews that would be involved.

[@yosemitesm07]

Drach has my dream job

[@duwop544]

Ah, it's called a "Knuckle"? Thank you for describing this, it's a very visible thing for British ships of the period and had long been interested in the why's. Good stuff!

[@dougjb7848]

12:00 I dunno about that. The Red Army was just a few miles from Hitler’s bunker by May 1945, which was when the US was pretty sure Thin Man was ready. If the US had detonated Thin Man over Berlin in May 1945 they would have killed 10s of 1000s of Red Army troops, which would have caused the USSR to declare war on the western Allies. There is no way Truman would have authorized that. There likely was no way the US could have had Thin Man ready earlier than April, and absolutely no way the US could have convinced Stalin to pause the Red Army at a point safely away from the effects of an atomic bomb over Berlin. Rather than saying “Ultra had no effect on the development of the atomic bomb,” the reality is that “the development of the atomic bomb had no effect on the end of the war in Europe.”

[@PalleRasmussen]

But how far would the Red Army be, without Ultra helping both them and the Western Allies? Do not forget where large parts of the Luftwaffe was deployed and lost for example. Hint; it was not in the East. Most of the German military production went into producing planes, and most of those were lost in the Med and West.

[@nothim7321]

Missed opportunity

[@Rocketsong]

If CVN-65 is present at Midway instead of CV-6, I think she has the range to hit the trailing force, so not only is the Kido Butai knocked out without the chance to counterstrike (saving Yorktown), 1st Fleet is getting mauled as well, taking two light carriers, and Yamato herself off the board.

[@treyriver5676]

With out doubt... as the USN can in air refuel.

[@kurshetl]

re the nitrous oxide as the oxidizer in a torpedo. It might make some sense as the sole oxidizer if held in liquid form. It can be kept liquid at about 30 atm at 0C and 50 atm at 20C, which isn't that difficult to contain. It's not very reactive at ambient temperatures, and it's 35% oxygen - so the liquid has about the same oxygen density as pure oxygen at ~300 atm, which is a lot more difficult to contain and dangerous. It would need to be protected from high temperatures in storage, though - the pressure goes up *very* fast at temps above 20C.

[@DABrock-author]

That's exactly what the Texas Navy does in my 'Republic of Texas Navy' alternate history series. (Apologies to Drach for the shameless self-promotion, but this was too good an opportunity to pass up.) The Texans not only have nitrous oxide torpedos, they also use it in their aircraft, much like the German GM1 system that came out late in WW2. That is a very good point about the temperature sensitivity of liquid N2O, I'll have to see about working that into the book I'm working on now. Perhaps an unfortunate accident?

[@onenote6619]

11:20 The atom bomb aside, ULTRA was instrumental to the battle of Midway on the Pacific side. Also instrumental on the North African side (immediately post-war, everyone assumed Montgomery was reading Rommel's mind when he was actually reading his mail). It is very hard to make a real assessment because the secret was kept so well and for so long. 1:05:00 The major difference between American and Japanese pilots is that the former flew for a while and got sent back home to train new pilots. The Japanese flew until they died (with minor exceptions). But that's not an officer vs enlisted thing. 1:10:00 While it's an interesting concept, if Ikara is a torpedo bomber, then a CAPTOR mine is a submarine. 1:45:00 Given that Nitrous Oxide is primarily an oxidiser and the (highly successful) Type 93 used pure oxygen in the same role, it would seem that Nitrous (66-ish% nitrogen, 34-ish% oxygen) might be a half-way house. Making pure oxygen on board a ship is rather easier than making nitrous oxide, though. It could cause damage to aero-engines that were designed for normal atmospheric composition, but that was clearly not an issue for the Type 93. 2:19:00 'Winkle' Brown landed a Mosquito on HMS Indefatigable in 1944. And, of course, USS Hornet deployed B25s one-way in 1942. But, yeah. Wing folding is an issue. The earliest I can think of are the F7F Tigercat (Midway-class carriers) and Sea Hornet.

[@Bidimus1]

Ultra was not used as JN-25 was a code book system. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_naval_codes

[@onenote6619]

@@Bidimus1 As I understand it, 'Ultra' was the catch-all term used for Allied signals intelligence throughout the war. Individual codes had their own names - like 'red', 'purple', and yes, JN-25. the US end of this was known as 'magic'.

[@FrankBarnwell-xi8my]

Thanks Drachinifel for making my entire Sunday + Perun

[@johnshepherd9676]

The Barracuda had roughly the same performance of the SB2U Vindicator with a slightly higher payload because it had to carry the torpedo. Along with better performance the Avenger and Helldiver typically carried 2000lbs off the carrier and up to 4000lbs of a land base. The FAA preferred multirole aircraft the smaller airwing. The large airwing on Japanese and American carriers allowed for more specialization. The companion multirole Firefly had superior performance as a strike aircraft to US types but you should compare it to the Hellcat and Corsair both of which could carry equivalent ordinance in the attack role. Both were vastly superior fighters to the Firefly.

[@PalleRasmussen]

A video comparing US GB battleship designs? Yes please. I love the fast US battleships. Maybe include the French? As for SeaBees, I am fairly certain Seth and Bill will do them at some point.

[@rackstraw]

02:19:13 The USN did issue a specification for a twin-engine carrier-based fighter in 1938, which resulted in the Grumman XF5F-1 Skyrocket. The Navy chose to stick with single-engined fighters already in production, though the XF5F-1 would go on to comic book fame as the Blackhawks' aircraft of choice. Development work on the XF5F-1 would support the later F7F Tigercat intended for the Midway class large carriers; however, only one variant would be certified for carrier service. Most aircraft would go to Marine Corps squadrons, and the type would serve in Korea and in civilian service as water bombers for firefighting.

[@chiseldrock]

well Drach, you've out done yourself almost 6 hours of gems. Thanks!

[@rackstraw]

02:19:13 Out of scope for the question, but the USN would field twin-engined aircraft starting in 1950, first with the AJ (later A-2) Savage to give the Midway-class carriers nuclear strike capability, then with the S2F (laser S-2) Tracker family, which was used extensively throughout the fleet starting in 1952, serving also as the basis for the E-1 Tracer Airborne Early Warning and C-1 Trader Carrier Onboard Delivery aircraft.

[@king_br0k]

1:46:02 I think the question was asking about using nos instead of compressed air or pure oxygen

[@StephenMontsaroff]

37:00 Just reinforce my geek credit, the original Star Trek has general order 24 to destroy the inhabited surface of a planet, from A Taste of Armageddon.

[@michalsoukup1021]

Re:officer pilots versus enlisted pilots, it should lead to Japanese needing some more administrative officers. A pilot officer in USN is serving a dual job, they are of course aviators by day, but they also are responsible for a given area of administrative work.

[@65gtotrips]

@46:36 - The greatest historical impact question…In the photo, what is the purpose of that horizontal arm on the starboard side, with the dangling ropes or chains ?

[@535phobos]

Docking for boats.

[@SmilefortheJudge]

It’s six letters. Kupsky. I know. Yes. I was related to the guy from the Russian second squadron. I wish you’d speak about jazz bands like you’ve done episodes on ice cream. They do that with jazz bands to this day and poor Glenn Miller. I just saw a band under a turret last July 4. So awesome. Besides signals can you elaborate on the jazz bands on carriers and battleships

[@FltCaptAlan]

Um Drach, didn't QE miss out on Jutland? her 4 sisters were there, but QE herself wasn't, my understanding of the question was that we were replacing the actual QE with her modern counterpart, not the class as a whole

[@robreaper7026]

I assume you mean QE at Jutland, since QE2 is not born at that time (let alone be Queen)

[@FltCaptAlan]

@@robreaper7026 yeah sorry fixed

[@myparceltape1169]

I think Jutland is within range of a carrier in drydock.

[@snowstalker36]

For airborne lifeboats, the US had the A-1 lifeboat made in response to the earlier British one. I think it made it into service for the last year of WW2.

[@DethOnHigh]

The problem is that Oahu is essentially one big military base and has been for quite some time and had a significant amount of Army and Marine combat units already stationed there. To take the island Japan would have had to sent 100 to 1000 times as much equipment, weapons, and troops in order to defeat the standing forces that were already there and supplied, and do it before the US reinforces by sea and air. Oahu is a very tough nut to crack, even back then. Speaking from experience from having been stationed at Schofield Barracks, the terrain and vegetation heavily favors the defenders. It would be similar to Guadalcanal, except the US has a massive home field advantage.

[@bluelemming5296]

The rule of thumb is you want 3x the troops the enemy has, in general, modified by circumstances. The defenders in Hawaii would have some advantages to adjust that, but the Japanese would have total control of the air and that would massively trump everything special the defenders had going for them, given the relatively poor quality of the AA defenses that were available and the high pilot quality in the Japanese forces at that time - and the skill the Japanese demonstrated at tactical air support in their offensive operations over the coming year (a skill it would take years for Allied pilots to learn). At that point in history, the Germans were really the only ones with good tactical land-based AA - a problem having to do with the sudden change in the speeds of military aircraft in the years before the war, outstripping the planning and procurement systems of most armies. US ground forces would suffer badly in North Africa in 1942-1943 from enemy tactical air power, which confirms the relative weakness of US AA capabilities at that point in time. Worse, they didn't have enough - compare the numbers of AA guns in Hawaii to those defending London at that point in the war, you'll find the defenses of Hawaii aren't even in shouting distance, not even remotely close. Once the Japanese started to prioritize taking out the guns they wouldn't have lasted long. The two US infantry divisions in Hawaii were understrength and had no combat experience, and were suffering from the long draw-down, in terms of morale, equipment, and training. A peacetime military tends to have a lot of people in command positions that aren't good choices as combat leaders, and that's almost certainly going to be a major consideration limiting the US forces effectiveness at this point in history in Hawaii. The Japanese, on the other hand, were stiffened by combat veterans from their campaigns in Kalkin Gol and China. They would have many NCOs and officers that had recent combat experience, so small unit leadership would have been very effective - which combined with good tactical air support would prove decisive. They also had an airborne capability, which was used to good effect in capturing key spots in the Dutch East Indies - and could have been repurposed for use in Hawaii (perhaps to seize the oil tank farms after air power destroyed the AA guns). In practice, the Japanese defeated the garrisons of the Philippines and Singapore without needing 3x the troops. This in spite of the 'home field' advantage, and the advantage conferred by the brutally rugged terrain of the Bataan and Malay Peninsula, and the fact that the defenders in both cases actually outnumbered them. The Japanese were really good at operating in brutal terrain: the British actually thought it was impossible for military forces to traverse the Malay Peninsula due to the terrain, the Japanese proved them badly wrong. Of course, MacArthur was probably worth at least a couple divisions to the other side at that point in his career, given how badly he failed to plan and then fell apart. So yes, the Japanese could have taken Hawaii - my guess is Oahu would have fallen in under a week - but as my other post shows, they couldn't have kept it, and taking it ultimately would have been an ever bigger disaster than the plan they adopted. Once you understand how good the Japanese really were - sure they also had some significant weaknesses but those would not become apparent for a long time - it makes it so much more impressive that the Allied forces were able to defeat them.

[@AsbestosMuffins]

10:49 probably don't wanna be un Halifax during ww1 for one very specific incident

[@andon_RT]

I was thinking the same thing. Halifax during WWI? I will pass, thank you.

[@88porpoise]

​@@andon_RTJust make sure you are out of town on December 6, 1917 and all is good.

[@notshapedforsportivetricks2912]

Too bloody cold, anyhow. The West Indies would be nice, though.

[@Guardias]

In regards to the glassing question, what if Atomic Annie style shells were used in the bombardment?

[@jonyungk]

If you want to expand the "favorite ghosty/spooky/supernatural tale from the Naval history for the period this channel covers" to literature, there's Daphne du Maurier's short story "The Escort," which takes place during WW2 and features an appearance by a certain well-known admiral.

[@myparceltape1169]

The mirage above the water looks very well drawn.

[@DingyHarry59]

What was the size of a Trafalgar era ship of the line, dimensions and pounds of powder. Was there any effort made to "armor" them (surround them with thicker timbers, store water around them......).

[@DingyHarry59]

The size of their magazine (i meant to type).

[@CharlesStearman]

The novel "Sloop of War" by Alexander Kent (set during the American Revolution) features a Royal Navy sloop which has two 32-pounder long guns mounted as bow chasers. It has always seemed improbable to me that a sloop could handle the weight and recoil of such powerful guns. Was this ever actually done?

[@alganhar1]

To put the 'hitting an Island with explosives' thing into perspective.... Earth was once hit by an ENTIRE PLANET, its what formed the moon! And Earth is kinda, sorta, still here! At least I assume we are not all living in a matrix style series of dream pods!!! Big chunks of land tend to be pretty sturdy....

[@mikolajgrotowski]

Reusability in the early Cold War is a debatable condition. Germany had squadrons of F100 fighter-bombers stationed to launch a nuclear attack on Moscow. The catch is that the fuel was for a one-way flight, so the mission profile was that after the attack the pilot was to turn around, fly out of the blast zone and then eject. In this context, such missiles can be classified as bombers. As a former pilot, the problem for me is the lack of crew. Even today, an armed drone is an armed drone, not a bomber. So for me the qualification is the crew, its absence moves the object to the missile/drone category.

[@JonathanakaPotter]

I agree. However I suspect that as time moves on, and more specialised drones are developed and become mainstream, the nomenclature will change. Once you have flights of drones tasked to shoot down other drones and yet more assigned to drop bombs/missiles on targets and return to base, I imagine people will start talking about 'drone bombers', 'drone fighters' etc.

[@myparceltape1169]

That's interesting about the range of the plane. Before it was cancelled a Geography teacher said the TSR2 would be a one way trip.

[@ORMONDROPON]

Why does the Kagero have degrees markers on the outside of its forward turret? What benefit do people outside of that turret get by seeing those markers?

[@onenote6619]

With respect to Hawaii, Japan failed to hold onto a smaller island (Guadalcanal) that was a a lot closer to the home islands. And Guadalcanal didn't have a large local population. Given the general behaviour of Imperial Japan toward local populations, it's a fair bet that they would not receive a friendly welcome.

[@PalleRasmussen]

Tokyo - Honolulu 6200 km Tokyo - Guadalcanal 5450 km "A lot closer"?

[@dougjb7848]

35:00 Also, the majority of the energy liberated went up into the air. What if the explosives had been tunneled into the surface to a depth of, say, 100’ and the tunnels collapsed onto the explosives (which presumably would have initiated the detonation of said explosives)?

[@burnedrat7416]

Notice you you didn't use the Italian shells in your cep example. Thank you for that..😆

[@jonathan_60503]

1:12:45 - a drone equipped to drop a torpedo and come back you say? Sounds like the 1960's QH-50 DASH of the US Navy. (Unless you're looking for a fixed wing drone to be that first drone torpedo bomber).

[@devonlord99]

That definition would also include helicopters so I think fixed wing is a requirement there.

[@chiseldrock]

thank you happy halloween

[@skeltonpg]

re Obliterating Island ISTR an Admiralty study comparing the effectiveness of 6" gunfire to 15" for shore bombardment. The 6" was much more effective (the metric was destruction of infantry & armour compared the the crewing of the ships involved).

[@notshapedforsportivetricks2912]

A minor point of pedantry, Drach re the pronunciation of Ikara. In the RAN it was pronounced "eye-kara", not "ee-kara". Not that it really matters. It's not exactly a word used conversationally.

[@joshthomasmoorenew]

2:03:48 I have a question...for Beatty "WHY???!!!"

[@samsmith2635]

1:20:30 We will meet one day! Maybe we can even forge together. I still want to forge an anchor in the old Smithy in Chatham

[@hansbroger946]

A Kirov sitting in harbor during the siege of Leningrad makes life very difficult for the Luftwaffe... and probably turns Hans-Ulrich Rudel into a casualty statistic instead of the slayer of Marat.

[@paininthepatoot]

Re: the question regarding twin engine fighters vs carrier size. I believe the twin engine Gruman Tigercat just missed WWII.

[@Johndoe-jd]

33:24 During the Vietnam War (outside of the channel ages) USS New Jersey BB-62, destroyed a chunk of Tiger Island. The news exaggerated it and said NJ sank an island

[@darthteej1]

Considering QE barely has its F-35s at IOC I think you're giving Kaga short thrift. Assuming they have targeting radars and gun pods they could savage a strike at Midway then mission kill or sink US carriers. Their biggest problem is finding enemy CVs though so I do think you're right QE would have more of an impact at Jutland where the High Seas Fleet is much more concentrated

[@marckyle5895]

The Whirlwind had a 95kt stall speed while a F4F Dash Three, which also lacked folding wings, had a stalling speed of 70-75 kts depending on weight, gear position and engine power, so Westland would have needed to integrate lift enhancers or the RN invent angled decks ten years sooner. Imagine HMS Ark Royal The First with angled deck but still hydraulic catapaults!

[@WALTERBROADDUS]

Spooky Naval tale? Hard to beat the Flight 19 story. Or The Blimp crew that disappeared. 👻

[@TheDoctorMonkey]

1:05:03 I’ll take 3 like this and can I get two that look more like Renown or Repulse so I get 6x 15”/42 but over 30kt please

[@GrahamWKidd]

And part deux to complete the set!!

[@TheDoctorMonkey]

1:05:36 one for Alex Clarke?

[@gwc656g]

What ship is that when you are reading the questions?

[@Drachinifel]

USS Oregon

[@gwc656g]

@@Drachinifel thanks

[@markjoenks2217]

Using the hit rate of Taffy 3 as a baseline, could a swarm of 20 destroyers sink Yamato during Operation Ten-Go?

[@gary_stavropoulos]

While I agree a modern carrier at Jutland is the right answer, with everything Enterprise did it is interesting to think about what could happen.

[@ottomeineke9230]

My father was on the American version of this. His craft had 4 big Liberty engines to provide power and could reach take off speed for some large twin engine bombers. Crew of 6 to 8 plus aircrew. They were to be towed across the Atlantic to take part in the planned attack on helgoland. The bombers had the range to bomb the target and make it back to land. He never made it to the north Atlantic as the war ended. The planes would just leap off the deck.

[@MegaMark0000]

WW1… you’d like to be in Halifax? Are you sure about that Drach? There’s nothing that happened during WW1 at Halifax harbour that may make you reconsider?

[@Drachinifel]

@@MegaMark0000 I'd like to think I can institute some shipping management changes in time 😀

[@questionmark05]

1:12:30 the RAAF is working on the loyal wingman. But at least at the moment I think that's just a fighter.

[@stanleyrogouski]

Alaska was faster than Renown. Makes me wonder. Which ship would win in a straight-up one-on-one fight, captain and crew being equal?

[@myparceltape1169]

Alaska could stay out of range of the 15 inch guns.

[@dmcarpenter2470]

Unmanned, drop torpedo and return? DASH. Cold War, but it was done.

[@gwc656g]

idea for difference in enlisted pilot vs officer pilot--- cheaper pay for an enlisted person.

[@GrahamWKidd]

5 ½ hours in total!!

[@illinoiscentralrailroadfan6015]

Drach remember QE missed Jutland because she was in drydock for refit guide 008

[@myparceltape1169]

If in drydock where are the F-35Bs? Other than in range.

[@kennethdeanmiller7324]

It's very difficult to imagine that the Japanese would have been able to take Hawaii cuz of all the Army & Marine troops stationed there.

[@bluelemming5296]

In 1941, Hawaii was still a bit of a backwater, and it had a smaller military presence than most folks realize, in part due to the fact that the US military had been tiny for a very long time. The population, including US military, would grow significantly during 1941, and even more during the war. On 8 December 1941 it came down to basically two under-strength and under-supplied infantry divisions and some supporting forces, ~25k US Army personnel. I haven't found any indications of major Marine units - a few battalions were staging through to various islands and still had some people on site, and some Marine installations. Counting these Marines, I'd guess another ~1k-2k folks that could function as infantry. If you can find better numbers, feel free to contribute. Aside from these, the remaining the military personnel were not infantry, and non-infantry military personnel in general would not be expected to contribute much to fighting on land. Figure another 10-15k people for the Army Air Corps and Navy, not counting the naval personnel assigned to ships (most of whom would be gone one way or another by the time an invasion started). This is far fewer personnel than the British had to defend Singapore (85k), or the USA had to defend the Philippines (120k) - both of which fell to Japanese forces that were numerically smaller than the defenders, but had control of the air. Both Singapore and the Philippines had brutal terrain, and the Japanese displayed their ability to fight very effectively in that terrain, so the terrain in Hawaii would not likely be a problem for them. In Hawaii, assuming an invasion right after the initial attack, with the Kido Butai deployed, control of the air would belong to the Japanese in a matter of at most days, including the suppression of the relatively weak AA defenses and the aircraft not destroyed during the initial attack. Army and Navy officers of the day both expressed doubts as to whether Hawaii could be held. Also, available resources had to be shared with the US West Coast and the Panama Canal Zone. However, once the decision was made to hold Hawaii, they did reinforce quickly (another 7k troops would arrive in a matter of weeks!) and continued to do so throughout 1942. Not saying it would have been a good idea for the Japanese to invade, but it seems plausible that they could have been successful had they allocated appropriate resources and done so immediately after the Pearl Harbour attack. In that case, I imagine the US would be able to take them back within the next year or so.

[@JennyMingClarke]

I think ultimately you are overstating the importance of Jutland. Jutland only affects the war if the British Lose. Hence Churchill's comment that Jellicoe was the only man who could lose the war in an afternoon. Even if the entire High seas Fleet gets wiped out, The Germans can continue WW1. They are primarily fighting a land war with a submarine campaign attached. Yes it would be a humiliating and expensive defeat. But all that happens is the Blockade continues and the war goes on. If the British lose on the other hand then it's over for them. Blockade is finished. Supplies to the UK become impossible as the High seas Fleet can range into the Atlantic UK starves. The British know that this is why they had to have the Naval arms race with the Germans in the first place. Naval supremacy is existential for the UK, Wheras for the Germans it's lots of nice shiny toys. It's an army large enough to fight the French & the Russians simultaneously that is existential for them.

[@TheDoctorMonkey]

30:03 could you not just paint it red?

[@bkjeong4302]

33:55 The IJN did (illegally) completely destroy a small Korean islet in the leadup to Tsushima for target practice. Yet another war crime they never apologized for. Against a larger island I doubt it’s really going to work, though.

[@MrSlientdeath]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/fX6XhImad9akg8k Ryan explains the dents in the dents in the hull here. It's called oil canning. He says it is the plate expanding due to heat from the sun.

[@AbdoulieSecka-d1m]

P 0:10 ❤ 😊o I 0:12 😊 😊 0:14 😊 😊 ❤ 0:17 😅😊 0:17 0:18 😮 😊 P 😅 P

[@kennethdeanmiller7324]

In the very first ten minutes you are talking about "what if" the Japanese took Midway & Pearl Harbor? Well in that case the Doolittle Raid could have been MUCH MUCH BIGGER cuz there would have been little threat around the Japanese Islands. And then most of the ships trying to protect the Hawaii islands and Midway will be pulled back to the home islands. But the thing was that the Japanese didn't have enough troops to take Hawaii cuz most troops they had were busy taking & holding more lucrative holdings such as the Dutch oil fields. Plus still trying to kill as many Chinese as possible.

[@PalleRasmussen]

How would the American ships get there? They would have to bunker somewhere, and that was usually in Hawaii. The Pacific is not a piddling little lake that you can row across in a day.

[@FrankBarnwell-xi8my]

Hoping Drachinifel is enjoying the USA and Leyte Gulf 80th.

[@deejayimm]

2:03:20 Hitler's ships? Ooops lol

[@AndrewPalmerMTL]

For the "Most historically impactful swap?" section, you selected HMS Queen Elizabeth at Jutland as your preferred candidate. But surely HMS Queen Elizabeth herself - the specific ship, not the class - was NOT at Jutland? edit: on scanning the comments, I see that someone already made this point, late to the party ...

[@AbdoulieSecka-d1m]

Po😊 0:04 0:04 😅 😊 😅 😅 😊W

[@michaelmorley7719]

Ryan did a whole video on the "oil canning" phenomenon that causes hull plating to be dished in. kzbin.info/www/bejne/fX6XhImad9akg8kfeature=shared

[@leftcoaster67]

Population of Hawaii in 1941 was 422,770. If only 10-30% was males of fighting age, that would be very difficult to take Hawaii. American's don't like being told what to do. So it would be very, very ugly.

[@FrankBarnwell-xi8my]

In 1940-41 Hawaii was Hawaiians and Japanese/Americans . Not discounting what you mean. But Hawaii and Midway are closer to the United States than Japan. The USA war department decided to make Hawaii a base for defense. Not talking crap here. An uncle explained it to me in the 90s

[@WALTERBROADDUS]

​@@FrankBarnwell-xi8mythis whole invasion of Hawaii thing keeps coming up. It never makes any sense. And never has any practical way of being pulled off. Midway makes even less sense. You don't even have water to support the force there.

[@808bigisland]

Only it wasn’t an US state in 1941. It was an occupied territory run by republican slave holders and garrisoned by US troops. Most islanders were very indifferent to which empire would rule.

[@WALTERBROADDUS]

@@808bigisland they have enough troubles trying to run the Philippines. Hawaii is too far, too defended, too populated to make a landing.

[@808bigisland]

@@WALTERBROADDUS A Japanese sub shelled the town of Hilo and sank an US Army transport at B.I before Pearl Harbor. One small Hawaiian island was occupied by Japanese for two weeks.

[@merlinwizard1000]

14th, 27 October 2024

[@salty4496]

:)

[@antoninuspius1747]

Have to correct or maybe more accurately temper your comments on the atomic bombs in WWII as related to Ultra. From what I have read, after the US dropped the 2 atomic bombs they only had 1 more ready to go, and it would have taken 6 months to a year to get enough fissile material to build more, and still your only talking about a couple more, not dozens or even handfuls, so the notion that the US could start dropping a bunch of nukes is not realistic.

[@Drachinifel]

@antoninuspius1747 could you let me know where you read that? The various places I've seen figures suggest anything from 3 to 10 devices would've been ready within 3 months of the initial drops.

[@antoninuspius1747]

@@Drachinifel I'll have to access the memory banks on that one. It was numerous years ago when I read that. I would say it's common knowledge they would have had one ready to go in a week or so, and you mention 3 to 10... that isn't toooooo far off from what I read way back. From memory the number I read was based on production from I think it was two sites, the big one in Tennesee and a smaller one in Washington State. I'll do a little hunting and see what I can turn up. May be a case of more recent research refining the number. And by recent I mean the last 25 years, LOL. I'm an old fart.

[@antoninuspius1747]

Sent you an email of the situation as I could figure out. Obvious title. It was fairly long, but if anyone here is interested, I'll copy it here.

[@johndoe-lo1yx]

question drach, of all the engineering processes shown in the intro to this video exactly which are you proficient in? My guess is none yet like most of your videos you profess a knowledge gleaned from second third fourth hand sources making you a poor historian at best and a youtube grifter at worst. So I ask again what real first hand naval experience do you have?

[@mikewindsor5759]

History is generally written by historians, not neccesarily by people with experience of the topic in question. Sometimes experience in a given field is beneficial to the writing of it's history, but there is a risk that said experience is a limiting factor in the perception of the field being written about (eg in the naval history field, experience in a destroyer, or a particular navy, could lead to the writer giving undue emphasis to destroyer battles or to the particulatr navy served in, when writing their history). On the other hand, those without direct experience can gain a wider and deeper oversight into multiple facets of their chosen field, by extensive reading and appropriate intellectual filtering. I for one respect deeply this one individual who seems to have done the graft of reading and filtering (and absorbing - that's the hard part!) enormous tracts of naval history, and filed it away in his extensive mental database, to be retreived at will for our education and entertainment. The fact that people with the kind of experience in limited fields, and therefore perhaps at greater depth in those fields also respect him tells you all you need to know! I also know for a fact, despite never having met him, (on the bucket list!) that he is a humble and sensitive human being. When he had the "day job", my wife was working in the same building, for the same employer (in a different field) having just as (or a more) miserable experience as he was, and therefore sat alone in the canteen. Alex saw this and came to sit next to my wife to keep her company - perhaps on more than one occasion as she recognised him on one of the live drydocks I was watching at one point - and that made her time there marginally less miserable. So Alex (Drach) has my thanks for both human and naval historical excellence. If you have been watching this channel from almost the beginning, as I have, you will know what proficiency Alex has in the various engineering fields he claims expertise in. He will explain publicly when he is asked a question he does not have the expertise to answer that his knowledge is limited, and therefore will either decline to answer the question, or explain that he would at best answer with an educated guess, as in this video. Sometimes he gets things wrong, we all do, but his hit rate is far higher than most of us I would venture to guess! What purpose does your question have other than to make you feel better about yourself? Do you have any naval experience yourself? You may have very deep, very specific experience, in a particular field that you may be irritated that Alex is not as knowledgeable as you on. If that's the case, your personal reputation would be far better served by enlightening us all if your knowledge is better than Drach's, rather than making snide comments by asking loaded questions. Do yourself (and all of us) a favour, raise your game!

[@johndoe-lo1yx]

@@mikewindsor5759 ' He will explain publicly when he is asked a question he does not have the expertise to answer that his knowledge is limited, and therefore will either decline to answer the question, or explain that he would at best answer with an educated guess', as in this video' or in other words he has no primary experience in the subjects he creates videos on, this is not snide comments this calling out a bad historian and the fact drach declines to respond having had his inaccuracies pointed out repeatedly reinforces my view he is a poor historian and a youtube grifter . 'but his hit rate is far higher than most of us - does his hit rate negate his complete lack of experience of naval steam plant, of course it doeset and drach is regurgitating wikipedia tier inaccurate rubbish and claiming this is is fact So yet again Drach, ,what is your real world experience with naval technology other than regurgitating other peoples experiences and knowledge

[@myparceltape1169]

It would be good of you to enlighten us all with your knowledge of naval history. If necessary, get a ghostwriter to write a book we would finish.

[@fzyturtle]

You should ask Chieftain his thoughts on the necessity of having experience in a field before writing about it.

[@johndoe-lo1yx]

@@myparceltape1169 your kinda making my point for me , Drach readily admits no first world experience in naval engineering or maintenance yet has built a career out of regurgitating information, knowledge which is second hand and open to interpretation at best and presenting it as fact. So yet again Drach, and I am expecting no answer at all lest it disrupt your lucrative career of presenting yourself as a naval historian, exactly what real world first had experience do you have maintaining servicing and fixing vessels