Pinned post for Q&A :)

@HushPuppy-sz4dp

8 ай бұрын

@Drachnifel I could recall when the first german U-boat was created, but I believe the idea was written down in the 1860 and 1880s

@d.olivergutierrez8690

8 ай бұрын

what will be the british destroyers equivalent to the american allen m sumner, gearing classes.

@alanwilliams4443

8 ай бұрын

Would you classify the USN PC(subchasers) as a corvette or large gunboat in WW2?

@memecat57

8 ай бұрын

How different would Jutland have been if the british had the greenboy shell? I remember you mentioning that the British shells at Jutland were not very reliable on impact.

@themanformerlyknownascomme777

8 ай бұрын

previously, you've described the Mediteranian during the age of the Greeks and Romans as having two weather states "perfectly calm and why are you out from your port you stupid moron" did the latter ever rear up again during the Age of Sail or beyond? what was the general experience of the various navies against such storms in the Mediteranian?

With all this in mind, would you consider a Battlecruiser a Torpedo boat destroyer-destroyer-destroyer-destroyer-destroyer?

@bkjeong4302

8 ай бұрын

Or a cruiser destroyer.

@josephlongbone4255

8 ай бұрын

@@bkjeong4302 yes but a heavy cruiser destroys a light cruiser which destroys a flotilla leader which destroys a regular destroyer which destroys torpedo boats, sooo...

@autistickid6972

8 ай бұрын

Does that mean a battleship is a torpedo boat destroyer-destroyer-destroyer-destroyer-destroyer-destroyer?

@josephlongbone4255

8 ай бұрын

@@autistickid6972 you are going to go far in the Navy.

@bkjeong4302

8 ай бұрын

@@autistickid6972 More of a torpedo boat destroyer-destroyer-destroyer-destroyer-destroyer-destroyer-destroyer, since a battleship’s job is to counter other capital ships (though they can’t do much about a carrier for the most part), not just enemy battlecruisers. And speaking of carriers, they were torpedo boat destroyer-destroyer-destroyer-destroyer-destroyer-destroyer-destroyer-destroyers (when used against enemy battleships) or torpedo boat destroyer-destroyer-destroyer-destroyer-destroyer-destroyer-destroyer-destroyer-destroyers (when used against another carrier).

"The torpedo boat would appear and disappear" Things you can say as both the spotter on the _Kamchatka_ and as someone explaining the history of ship classes

@camenbert5837

8 ай бұрын

"Herr Schroedinger, what is so good about your new torpedo boat?" "I have designed it after my cat..."

@19:00 the Kamchatka would like to point out there are ALWAYS torpedo boats.

@Deroven

8 ай бұрын

And for that reason kamchatka remains my favorite disaster.

@LWGanucheau

8 ай бұрын

Just because you can’t see them… doesn’t mean they aren’t there.

@bkjeong4302

8 ай бұрын

Kamchatka would classify every single ship designation as a torpedo boat.

@ag7898

8 ай бұрын

My favorite Drach/Kamchatcha crossover I have ever seen was Animarchy's video on Aurora where Drach came over and did a guest appearance AS Kamchatcha.

@Deroven

8 ай бұрын

@@ag7898 brother you're not going to say that and NOT link it 😂

An escort destroyer is not a destroyer escort. THAT is some world class trivia! Keep up the good work! 😊

@AndrewGivens

8 ай бұрын

Wikipedia thinks that escort destroyers *are* destroyer escorts, because Wikipedia Is American and Wikipedia Editors Are Not Experts.

@abrahamdozer6273

8 ай бұрын

Also, one navy's Destroyer Escort was another navy's Frigate that said Destroyer Escort was modeled after.

@jeebusk

8 ай бұрын

I hope whoever updates google translate is paying attention :)

@HighlanderNorth1

7 ай бұрын

👉 Since nobody is discussing the class of small ships known as "corvettes", I thought I'd post a colorized historical video of 2 rare Egyptian corvettes operating in the Mediterranean: kzread.info/dash/bejne/aqpstKxuddbWgso.htmlsi=pkcVNeB5Zjjn6W6E

@abrahamdozer6273

7 ай бұрын

@@HighlanderNorth1 I was on the last surviving one in May. It's in Halifax.

Only Drach's Details could explain the difference between an escort destroyer and and a destroyer escort: which is why I'm still listening 47 minutes in, and will happily listen to this all again.

@brianomalley7501

8 ай бұрын

I agree he is the man no does it as good as him not even close

@HighlanderNorth1

7 ай бұрын

👉 Well, since there wasn't much discussion of the smallest class of warships(corvettes), here's some colorized historical video of 2 rare Egyptian corvettes operating in the Mediterranean: kzread.info/dash/bejne/aqpstKxuddbWgso.htmlsi=pkcVNeB5Zjjn6W6E

19:00 "Sorry chaps, no torpedo boats for you to destroy today" "Aww"

And now a challenge! One video on small warships: sloops, avisos, minelayers, minesweepers, gunboats, PT boats, monitors, etc...

@dougjb7848

8 ай бұрын

E (S)-boats …

"Self Escorting Torpedo Boat" is the term i will now use for particularly poorly armored Destroyers from now on.

This is the video I was looking for when I first found your channel about a year ago. I wanted to know what a destroyer was, as in what makes it a destroyer and not a light cruiser or torpedo boat. After watching your video on the development of the destroyer class I then wanted to know what delineated every other class. And here is that video. Thank you.

@lim-dulspaladin50

8 ай бұрын

For myself it was the difference between a battleship, a battle cruiser and dreadnought / pre-dreadnought. Many of Drac's videos are excellent for clarity of the why these nomenclature changed

@TheRezro

8 ай бұрын

I think he has one of earlier videos what explain exactly how terms come to be. Because it is actually different then people think so: Development of torpedoes make small Torpedo Boats a direct treat to Capital ships. So as defense older class of Gunboats was picked. What also become equipped in Torpedoes, superseding them in that task. But Torpedo Gunboats were not exactly sea worthy. So Spanish design larger seaworthy Torpedo Gunboat, what was called Destruktor. It inspired class of oceanic so called Torpedo Destroyers. What were still relatively small. But those start growing rapidly also being armed with AA and anti-Sub weapons, losing and later regaining torpedo focus. And after WW2 Americans basically fused them with Fleet Leader class, what was type of Light Cruiser attached to fleet. Those were called Fleet Destroyers, but after introduction of guided missiles those become Guided Missile Destroyers, so just Destroyers as other types died out. Meanwhile because Destroyers as dedicated fleet escorts, become simply too big and costly. British reinvent term Corvette for Flower class anti-sub ship. British also use term Sloop, but no one else does that and generally if even is used usually the opposite way as intended. Because Corvettes become from cheap, a specialized coastal war ships. While only circumstance when terms Escort or Sloop could be used is basically armed civilian vessel (aka Q-ship). When proper Corvette is not available. Term Frigate was used by US in reference to ship larger then Destroyer, but after those grow. US reclassify them with European definition. What was used to something what could be defined as "Coastal Destroyer". I remind that unlike boats Corvettes and Frigates can operate at sea. Just perform better in coastal areas then larger Destroyers, while not being fast enough to fallow War Fleet at full speed.

One type of ship that I think you could've mentioned was the Monitor type. It had use as a coastal defense craft, shallow draft river warship and off shore stable gun platform. Many nations built them and used them. And when 1st introduced, they were a front-line warship in the American Civil War. And even Britain sent one to confront the German warships in the channel dash.

@jacobdill4499

8 ай бұрын

He might stick them with the video on the weird ship types.

@rdfox76

8 ай бұрын

The early ones would have fit into the "turret ironclad" category, being essentially the first turret ironclads; the type pretty much fell out of favor and into disuse by the late 1870s (except in the US Navy, which Congress was trying to starve to death). The US saw a burst of building new "monitors" in the late 1890s related to the perceived lack of protection for coastal cities during the Spanish-American War, but these were essentially second-class predreadnoughts that were restricted (by short range and limited seakeeping) to coastal duties only, and were largely out of service by WW1. The ones that arose again in World War One were very much in the "niche type" category, being specialized shore bombardment vessels.

@ronaldgray5707

8 ай бұрын

Maybe, but the monitor does fill a warship role that others do not. That of a low freeboard and shallow draft stable gun platform. Monitors saw action on the Danube, Mississippi and Rhine rivers to name a few. They were used recently by the Americans in 1970`s in Vietnam. They have been around a long time. But not in open seas. In any case, interesting to ponder, maybe a niche type, maybe not. The fact that they evolved like the other ship classes proves rather than disproves my point.

@mpetersen6

8 ай бұрын

​@@ronaldgray5707 The US Navy river monitors of Vietnam have an IJA analog in some of their patrol craft built to operate on rivers in support of ground troops. The USN ones were based on landing craft iirc. The US was also using the late WWll rocket bombardment ships in Vietnam. The ones with the launchers based on the 40mm Bofors mount with fire control directors.

@RonTodd-gb1eo

8 ай бұрын

I would like to see torpedo rams covered in that.@@jacobdill4499

I love to see people speaking about "age of steam" like something from long ago, despite modern ship's turbines still run with it. If you think further, even the state-of-art nuclear power plants actually are nothing more than just a huge kettles. We're still living in the age of steam, it's just surrounding machinery that got just a bit improved, but steam itself is still here. Anyways, thank you for video.

@Melody_Raventress

8 ай бұрын

I was thinking about that just the other day. The continuity of technology, with each new generation incorporating the new and re-aranging the old around it. It's amazing.

@mpetersen6

8 ай бұрын

I think of the Age of Steam as being the period of double and triple expansion steam engines. The AoS effectively came to an end with Turbina and Dreadnought. Even though steam piston engine technology continued in use on the cargo and passenger side for some time. Turbines and reduction gearing aren't cheap. Steam piston technology finally replaced by diesel.

@merafirewing6591

8 ай бұрын

​@@mpetersen6 still diesel is the worst option to pick.

@mpetersen6

8 ай бұрын

@@merafirewing6591 Then why are modern cargo ships diesel. One likely reason is power density. The same output in smaller volume.

@MichaelW.Keller

4 ай бұрын

@mpetersen6 diesel engines have better fuel economy. When the engines are built right, they were known to be more reliable.

The trafalgar class battleships were of such a bizarre design, can we get a review of them?

Obvously the term for a ship with multiple 16"+ guns, considerable speed and/or armour increases should be the "Compuglobal Hyper Mega Dreadnought"

The fact that the Brits managed to walk away from Washington with all of their aircraft carriers and the ability to build more (iirc) is stunning. The argument put forth was that they were experimental ships. It really is impressive considering some of them stuck around quite a while.

Does anybody see torpedo boats?

Torpedo boats, Very Scarey (even if absent!) - ask Kamchatka.

“Fast battleship” has been a term that always had been baffling for me in regards to how certain secondary sources described Axis battleships of WWII, and how some people absolutely stick to the idea the Axis battleships were universally far larger and far slower than Allied contemporaries (not that this mattered for either side in the end given how battleships ended up strategically in WWII…). The Yamatos for example are not considered fast battleships in some sources, on the basis that they were a bit too slow to keep up with carriers, even though the same sources consider the NorCals, SoDaks and KGVs to be fast battleships (which has also led to the misconception that the NorCals and SoDaks were much faster than any Axis contemporary battleship and able to keep up with carriers). The idea seems to be that because they’re often called “superbattleships”, by definition they couldn’t be fast battleships. Bismarck also often gets the “heavily armed and armoured but sluggish compared to the smaller, much faster Allied capital ships” treatment (when in reality it was the other way around, with Bismarck being on the fast end of WWII capital ships while also being poorly protected and a bit underarmed for her size). I’ve even seen people sincerely claim that she was much slower than the NorCals and SoDaks and unable to serve as a carrier escort (assuming the Kriegsmarine ever got Graf Zeppelin operational), even though she was actually faster than the. NorCals and SoDaks. On the other hand, the Littorios for some reason are almost universally treated as fast battleships, which indicates this whole thing is the result of a general miscommunication issue with the public rather than being an attempt to downplay Axis vessels.

@MrStachey97

8 ай бұрын

I think the term “fast battleship” is really only based on the perspective of when the ship is built. In 1915 the Queen Elizabeth’s were “fast battleships.” Most battleships of the time topped out at 20-22 knots where the QE’s could go 24. I think the difference between a “battleship” and a “fast battleship” can be as small as the 2 knots between 28 knots and 30 knots. I do think the NoCals and SoDaks are incorrectly classified because they can’t make 30 knots to keep up with aircraft carriers at full ahead.

@gokbay3057

8 ай бұрын

Many people also don't consider Treaty/Fast Battleships as being dreadnoughts. My personal classification is that Battleship is the big inclusive term, which divides into ironclads, pre-dreadnoughts and dreadnoughts (you could also include ships of the line and semi-dreadnoughts as a separate category), superdreadnoughts are dreadnoughts with guns larger than 12" but remain dreadnoughts, meanwhile all classes of fast battleship other than the Scharnhorst class are superdreadnoughts (and therefore also dreadnoughts, speaking of which, Scharnhorsts are dreadnoughts).

@MichaelW.Keller

4 ай бұрын

Fast battleships are the ships that could reach a speed of 30-33 knots. The battleships capable of that speed were used to escort Aircraft carriers for anti-aircraft protection. Some people confuse battlecruisers as fast battleships. That would be a mistake. They don't have the armor protection like the Dreadnought battleships have. The Bismarck wasn't under armed. The London & Washington treaties forbids guns larger than 15 inch caliber.

@bkjeong4302

4 ай бұрын

@@MichaelW.Keller - providing AA protection was NOT the reason for ANY battleship ever being built. Battleships were built as capital ships to fight other battleships, even the ones that ended up being used as carrier escorts (which was the result of them becoming obsolete before they were complete). That’s why they were defined by their big guns (which were useless for AA purposes) and not their AA. - by your logic, over half the American fast battleships (six out of ten) aren’t fast battleships because they couldn’t hit 30+ knots. - The only 30+kt battleships ever used as carrier escorts were the Iowas (the other American fast battleships, the KGVs, and less often the Yamatos were used for it as well but they could not reach 30+ knots). Vanguard was completed after the war, the Germans and Italians didn’t manage to get any carriers into service, and France fell before they managed to complete the Richelieus. And again, even the Iowas were never intended to serve as carrier AA escorts-and they were HILARIOUSLY oversized and pointlessly expensive for that role, which was something Fletchers or CLAAs could already handle (as they were as fast as or even faster than the Iowas, were much cheaper and took far less time to build, and their lack of 16” guns was not an issue in an AA role since 16” guns are useless for AA). - Bismarck WAS underarmed for her size. The WNT also banned battleships above 35000 tons, which Bismarck exceeded by around 5000 tons, so she broke the treaty ANYWAYS without actually having the firepower or protection to justify it.

@Fulcrum205

3 ай бұрын

Fast Battleship is a contextual term. In the USN the standard type battleships were 21kt vessels.

If you asked me what does a torpedo boat look like... I'd have piulled up a picture of PT 109, or suggest watching old episodes of the comedy 'McHale's Navy'. When I was a kid I was very enamored of torpedo boats and their adventurous independent operations in the South Pacific.

I definitely want the weird vessels covered.

Drach, you describing the evolution of the dreadnaught into the super-dreadnaught makes me wonder, if the dreadnaughts were constantly in a race for the biggest gun, with a constant increase in caliber that showed no signs of slowing down until the treaty system put an artificial stop to the whole business. Why didn't pre-dreadnaughts have this same arms race? Were the advantages of guns larger than 13in just not very relevant to pre-dreadnaughts for some reason, like lack of adequate fire control?

@jacobdill4499

8 ай бұрын

I am curious what his answer is as well but I have a feeling it has to do with loading times of heavy shells before mechanically assisted loading started becoming a thing and the lack of long range fire control.

@notshapedforsportivetricks2912

8 ай бұрын

Our host answered this in a recent drydock. According to him, it came down to optics and loading speed. While a 13,5" gun could be expected to have a longer range than a 12" gun and a bigger punch, the limitations of optical range finders and fire control at the time meant that a 12" gun represented the longest effective range for ships of that era.

@pedrofelipefreitas2666

8 ай бұрын

For one, the dreadnought represented a whole new category of ship, making other capital ships obsolete. However, there was only one dreadnought in existence, so the Germans had the opportunity to make their fleet as powerful or even more so than the british by outbuilding them. And so the arms race began...

@MichaelW.Keller

4 ай бұрын

@pedrofelipefreitas2666 if you read your history of dreadnoughts, the Germans could not out build the Royal Navy. Germany didn't have the shipyards to do so. The first German dreadnought didn't appear until 1909. The Royal Navy had about 4 dreadnoughts by that time.

If Drachinifel made beer it would probably be the best beer in the world!

@connormclernon26

8 ай бұрын

Lager, ale, IPA, stout?

@murderouskitten2577

8 ай бұрын

If he decides to make lager he sgould hire me and we are all set.

@markmaher4548

8 ай бұрын

​@@connormclernon26Preferably a dark ale, a black IPA or a double chocolate stout. I know, I'm being fussy, but I like my ales 😂😂😂😂

@F-Man

8 ай бұрын

A dark ale, with aromatic hints of bunker c.

@minklmank

8 ай бұрын

Drachinifels Original Bunker C Beer - aged in the fuel tanks of museum ships all over the world. I've always wanted to taste the difference between a battleship and a destroyer

I had a realization not too long ago. The Deutschlands/Graf Spees gave us the perfect type name options for ships like Alaska: Panzerschiff or Pocket Battleship. Graf Spee and her sisters were effectively the first super-cruisers, designed to counter the cruisers that might be found escorting convoys, but fast enough to outrun battleships/battlecruisers. Also, Constellation was effectively a longer, lighter, and faster Colorado.

@lector-dogmatixsicarii1537

8 ай бұрын

'Grand Cruiser' sells the type if it was fully realized. Say it with me: "Arise, Mega Ultra Cruiser, Arise!" Basic parameters -Guns between heavy cruiser and full battleship (flatter trajectory naval rifle qualities to take advantage of design mission) -Armor that will allow it to run through a heavy cruiser (consider Bismarck's British lurker getting the Other Health Impairment for tailgating instead of a Hipper peeling off) -Speed, high sustained rate focus (in excess of cruisers) -Machinery that takes advantage of their 2/3rds battleship size with the benefits given by leaned down armor thicknesses/hull form vs contemporary battleship armor for a) more easily sustained speed b) more efficiency for extended inter-theater missions c) mission sustainment CB removes BC illusions by putting the C in the large scale cruising purpose first, versus Admiralty cursing BC's to be the 'HMS Famous -explosion- Photo' class, because they think the C is silent and the B stands for "Battleship for slap fighting with real BB's, but faster". Microwave take: The cancelled CC's would have been better serviced redone as mid caliber ships with more consistently applied armor similar to late model heavy cruiser armor. It's simply in the name name 'Command Cruiser'. Investing in heavy use of experimental welding, with certain aluminum substitutions, saves a bit on not being an alarming violation of "da rules" as well. The ships would have had the electric generating capacity and space for a ton of fancy electronics/CIC and obscene tiers of anti air when the US starts snorting hits of 5inch/38 and Bofors. Most critically, you're clown shoes and a wig faster than a Kongo or Admiral that would be panic deployed after you, combining with being an excuse for the 12inch/50 Mk8 appearing sooner; it really compares interestingly with the 356mm/45.

Not to nitpick but the USN used frigate to mean destroyer leader (later cruiser) post WW2 until 1975, and kept using Destroyer Escort until '75. The Knox and Perry class were originally DE/DEG respectively 6:57

@danhammond8406

8 ай бұрын

To be fair this is beyond what the channel usually covers

@egoalter1276

8 ай бұрын

Oh. So thats wjere the frigates larger than destroyers rhing comes from.

@forcea1454

8 ай бұрын

DE/DEGs were also often referred to as Ocean Escorts, rather than as Destroyer Escorts, with the Perry class being designated as Patrol Frigates (PF, like the Tacoma class) whilst under construction, although they probably should have been designated as DEGs.

@Whatismoo

8 ай бұрын

@@forcea1454 Do you have a source to that? The NHHC folks I talked to gave me the impression it was a DEG? I know the ROCN calls them PFGs though.

@Whatismoo

8 ай бұрын

I might be thinking of the Brooke and Garcia class tho

Obviously the next step up from a super-cruiser would be the super-duper cruiser. Same for the next step up from a super-dreadnought.

@mpetersen6

8 ай бұрын

The super duper pooper cruiser.

@pedrofelipefreitas2666

8 ай бұрын

Hyper cruiser! ULTRA CRUISER!! *ULTIMATE CRUISER*!!!

@pedrofelipefreitas2666

8 ай бұрын

Hyper cruiser! ULTRA CRUISER!! *ULTIMATE CRUISER* !!!

A video on coastal defense ships1860-ish through 1945 would be popular. That covers an important role, and some very niche ships. The recent videos on the Swedish coastal defense ships seem to have been well received, let's get on to the Danish ironclads and the wonderfully odd German designs of the 1880s and 1890s.

You know, I honestly thought that heavy cruisers pre-dated 1930 LNT, with the difference between light and heavy being in armor protection. Huh. That's wild. Also, I tend to think of "super cruisers" as "intermediate cruisers" since they fall between heavy cruisers and battle cruisers. That way I can also toss stuff like Panzerschiff in there.

Thank you for your excellent channel! My take is Escort Destroyers were a very British requirement emerging in the '30s - their most distinct difference from the US 'DEs' was short range and a heavy dual purpose gun armament. The British needed to escort convoys in contested coastal waters, particularly in the North Sea to take 'coals from Newcastle' to London (the main energy source of the time) and to escort convoys through the Mediterranean to the Suez canal. In both circumstances merchants were likely to come under attack from land based aircraft and motor torpedo boats as well as conventional destroyers and torpedo boats and submarines. Thus escorts needed the speed and firepower to take on these threats as well as ASW capabilities. The first Escort Destroyers were converted from first world war V&W class destroyers and called 'short ranged escorts'. These retained destroyer speed but lost the conventional 4.7" guns, gaining both ASW equipment and two twin 4" dual-purpose gun mounts. The Hunt-classes were the same size as WW1 destroyers but purpose built 'short-ranged escorts', with 25kt speed, two twin 4" mounts and ASW kit. They were smaller than fleet destroyers. During the war, most of both the converted and purpose built escort destroyers gained a 'bow-chaser' 40mm pom pom or 57mm Molins gun, to deal with E-boats (S-boats) as well as a heavy light AA armament. The RN also converted many older destroyers into 'long-ranged' escort destroyers for Atlantic and Arctic escort duties. These lost a boiler on each shaft for reduced 25kt speed, and two of their 4.7" guns, gaining more bunkering capacity, and an ASW and AA suite in return. A few of the 'war-emergency' fleet destroyer classes were built to this specification to provide ASW escort for carrier task forces, such as the 'O' class. The late war 'Weapon' class were also the 'long range escort sisters of the Battle class destroyers, designed for for Pacific service. After the war the Royal Navy's Escort Destroyer and Frigate categories merged as the rebuilt Type 15 and 16 Frigates (all converted from War Emergency destroyer hulls). The post-war Type 12 and Type 14 Frigates were essentially ASW and general purpose Escort Destroyers designed to escort carrier task groups, and although the idea of a separate and slower diesel powered variant for convoy escort was flirted with (the Type 10), they were not built except as a small number of aircraft direction and AA versions (Type 41 and Type 61 Frigates). Both proved too slow to work with the fleet and the diesel powered option was not continued with (Battle-class destroyers needed to be converted for aircraft direction and guided missile 'destroyers' became the primary air defence platforms). Interestingly, the 'Hunts' were widely used as small conventional destroyers in the Mediterranean to counter Italian torpedo boats and to escort 'Task Force 68' a carrier task force formed itself of Escort Carriers, to provide air support during the invasions of Sicily and Italy.

I've come to refer to Gen 1 battlecruisers as Dreadnought Armored Cruisers, with everything after being considered Battlecruisers. I just feel that those first 2 British classes of battlecruiser are so different in protection and intended role to be considered distinctly different what came after (like the Splendid Cats and Kongo).

@DABrock-author

8 ай бұрын

I like the way Dr. Alexander Clarke defines it. The first generation were Battle Cruisers (two words), primarily intended as the step up from armored cruisers in the commerce protection/ raiding role (Invincible, Indefatigable, Blücher). Then came Battle-Cruisers (hyphenated), which started becoming part of the battle fleet (Kongos, Splendid Cats, etc). Then finally there are Battlecruisers (one word), which are the last generation, and starting to blur the lines into fast battleships (Hood).

@robertsantamaria6857

8 ай бұрын

@@DABrock-author well, I can't argue with Dr. Clarke. That is a much better way of thinking about it.

@marjae2767

8 ай бұрын

What about Large Light Cruisers?

@hanzzel6086

8 ай бұрын

​@@marjae2767Ahh, my favorite "it's not a capital ship! Promise!" loop hole

It's always been my assumption that the category 'dreadnought' fell out of use around 1920 because in the post-WW1 years, everyone scrapped their pre-dreadnoughts, making that particular distinction obselete.

@youmukonpaku3168

8 ай бұрын

yeah, since it's "[pre-] dreadnought battleship" so just like "fast battleship", once there's no pre-dreadnoughts, the distinction is useless and it's just a battleship; once most of the WW1 veterans were refitted, sunk, or scrapped, "fast-" wasn't really an important distinction anymore either and once again they just became "battleship."

On the "Is Hood a battle cruiser or fast battleship" question I think it's a fast battleship from the time it launches till the treaty battleships start coming out but it's a battle cruiser after that point.

@tomhalla426

8 ай бұрын

I would disagree. Hood was laid down as a battle cruiser, but completed as a fast battleship.

@egoalter1276

8 ай бұрын

A battlecruiser is a battleship tonnage vessel that has cruiser speeds, and either lacks protection from its own armament at effective battle range, or lacks battleship armament.

@bkjeong4302

8 ай бұрын

@@egoalter1276 The “not protected against its own main guns at reasonable battle ranges” definition would make the Iowas, Yamatos and Littorios (and the cancelled Montanas and super-Yamatos/A-150s) battlecruisers, on account of the fact the 16”/50, the 18.1” and the Italian 15” guns were capable of penetrating literally all belt armour ever put on a ship at reasonable combat ranges, including their own armour belts. So not exactly a sane definition…

@bkjeong4302

8 ай бұрын

Hood is still roughly comparable to Bismarck even once the WWII-gen fast battleships start coming out, so by your logic Bismarck is a battlecruiser? (Granted, given that Bismarck was underarmoured for her generation, that might actually make sense).

@michaelmcnally2331

8 ай бұрын

At the time with the speed of Hood then it would have been a BattleCruiser. Anything above 24th in Royal Navy documents was a BattleCruiser no matter the level of armour in the 1920’s. Is why the G3 were referred to as Battlecruisers in RN docs even though most would argue she was an early Fast battleship in practical terms with the levels of protection.

Have you ever thought to cover early gyrocopters in naval aviation? I only heard about them recently and think that it would be a fascinating topic. And good video as always!

@RhodokTribesman

8 ай бұрын

As someone who's only knowledgeable in fixed-wing flight, gyrocopters are utterly terrifying in concept haha

A design that may have been possible but never seen (at least to my knowledge) is a metal hulled sailing ship with turret mounted cannon.

@Tuning3434

8 ай бұрын

Sounds a bit like HMS Captain... and while existing, it was proven not possible.

@AndrewGivens

8 ай бұрын

@@Tuning3434 See also Rolf Krake, HMS Wivern & Scorpion, HMS Monarch, HMS Neptune, Grosser Kurfurst class - which collectively show that it was more feasible than Captain suggests, but also that the results were highly variable dependent on very particular factors of design. Doable, but easy to do wrong. See also, for comparison, all French barbette ironclads, from Ocean to Redoutable and second-class types from Alma to Bayard for a high-freeboard take on a 'sailing ship' (from the age of sail and steam) making use of rotating gun mountings with wider arcs of fire than a fixed broadside. Largely successful.

Love the semantics of naval history

I know dedicated amphibious assault ships didn't really exist in this era but those types got me wondering what amphibious assaults looked like from a naval perspective in this era. I know there are some videos on the channel covering particular raids and assaults but I don't remember ever seeing anything going over the general strategies of amphibious landings in the ww2 era. maybe something for me to simply go back and try to glean more from videos covering Anzo, Normandy, and some of the pacific campaigns or maybe look for another channel on the topic, but a thought. Fun video as usual, Drach

@bkjeong4302

8 ай бұрын

Amphibious assault ships did exist in the WWII era: the Imperial Japanese Army (not navy) purpose-built a couple, and they’ve been covered in the video on IJA vessels. The first of these two, the Shinshuu Maru, had a pretty successful career until she got sunk as part of Mogami’s teamkill (sort of) salvo at Sunda Strait (she was landing Japanese troops at the time and Mogami was among the escorting IJN forces). She was refloated and was sunk again later in the war.

@mpetersen6

8 ай бұрын

Th Amphibious ship in the USN was taken by Liberty Ships and purpose built Amphibious ships (see Away all Boats). Plus the LSTs and LSMs. Which led to the LSMR. A lot of firepower in very short time period with a long reload.

@Fulcrum205

3 ай бұрын

They certainly did exist. The US converted a bunch of WW1 destroyers into APDs. Generally, the rear turret amd torpedoes were removed to carry landing craft and some of the internal space cleared for berthing troops. This was also done with destroyer escorts. There were a host of various landing ships, attack transports, etc

This is not going to be Gushing, we're British after all but I would like to thank you after I found your channel during lockdown, it got me back into thinking I really wanted to read history at university but picked the wrong degree, but I start my OU history degree next week, and it's partly down to you. So thank you.

1:55 till 3:40 visit of a British Home fleet with king Edward VII to Yugoslavia in 1933. Battleships: Queen Elisabeth, Royal Sovereign, Revenge and Royal Oak. Aircraft carriers: Glorious, Courageous and Eagle. Cruisers: London, Sussex, Devonshire, Shropshire, Delhi, Capetown, Ceres, Coventry and Leander. Destroyers: Codrington, Arrow, Active, Anthony, Acheron, Ardent, Acasta, Duncan, Delight, Diamond, Decoy, Duchess, Daring, Dainty, Diana, Defender, Achates, Antelope, Douglas, Keith, Basilisk, Beagle, Blanche, Boreas, Boadicea, Bulldog, Brazen and Brilliant. Submarines: Thames, Regent, Regulus, Rover i Oberon. Submarine tender: Cyclops. Repair ship: Resource.

@hanzzel6086

8 ай бұрын

Thank you.

I'd like to see a WoW kind of game taking place from earlier protected cruisers, ironclads, etc. Up to the time of Dreadnought and Texas etc. That would be some thing I would be interested in

Having just watched this and knowing we're sliding downhill towards Halloween, i find it most appropriate that your last picture of a carrier was the Grey Ghost, CV-6. So SCARY how she could be "sunk" so many times... And still sail into Tokyo harbor to say "howdy" after the war. Or was she saying... "Nice try, y'all!"

@Dr.LightMarker5613

7 ай бұрын

"The reports of my death have been.....greatly exaggerated..."

Great subject, thank you!

You are the best content maker about Navy 🌞 Thank you for your job 🙏

Thank you for the overview

This was brilliant! Thank you!!

Well done, Drachinifel!

Thank you! I really struggled to understand difference between protected cruiser and armoured cruiser! Very clear now!

Thanks Drach. I've been wondering about these ships evolved with their names.

Keep doing this, I've enjoyed your videos since the beginning! My DE was an oil fueled stream turbine. The reduction gear was huge.

Sometimes I listen to military channels like this as to fall asleep. I did not in fact fall asleep. And now want to listen to it again. ❤from 🇨🇦

And I finally knew where the word "Destroyer" came from. It's around the 20:00 mark, and it was when the ship type "Torpedo Boat Destroyer", was added torpedoes, and had its name shortened. Thanks Drach, knowledge is priceless, and you keep spreading it around for free. You rock. And the Kamchatka as well, but on a different level, of course 😂.

@blockmasterscott

8 ай бұрын

Dang, I missed that one. That’s really good to know! 👍💪

@hansvonmannschaft9062

8 ай бұрын

​@@blockmasterscott My pleasure sir, I could've missed it just as well, and to think that I've been wondering why that name since I was a kid! Have a good one mate!

@Galactipod

8 ай бұрын

Drach actually has a full video about the transformation, so you're in luck.

@hansvonmannschaft9062

8 ай бұрын

@@Galactipod Woohoo gonna look it up! Thanks dearly m'friend!👍🏼

@Galactipod

7 ай бұрын

@@hansvonmannschaft9062Idk if you've found it but it's the two videos on the history of destroyers.

I love these video so much. Thank you Dr Drach.

After becoming completely addicted to UA: Dreadnoughts, this video was exactly what I needed. Love your work, have a great holiday!

Well done! Thanks.

Brilliant as ever 👍🏻

Awesome thanks

Well done Drach for getting through that. 😅

Thanks Drach.

Nice werk Could you do a video about Submarine pariscope design and evolution?

@johncordes7885

8 ай бұрын

With and without hammers

Having classifications clearly has its benefits. I wonder how much trouble it has caused.

EXCELLENT! Cleared up all of my confusion as to what meant what during any given moment period. However, when did the term “battleship “ come in to use? I guess with pre-dreadnoughts?

@gwtpictgwtpict4214

8 ай бұрын

You could argue it goes back to the age of sail, a 'ship of the line' being a contraction of a 'ship of the line of battle', ie a ship fit to serve in the line of battle, hence a battleship. I may be playing with words here.

Exhaustive evergreen content.

@Drachnifel I could recall when the first german U-boat was created

Odd Drach has ignored torpedo cruisers, they were quite a fad for some time, even in the RN although quickly discarded, a bit like the (mentioned) torpedo gunboat.

@mpetersen6

8 ай бұрын

But not necessarily torpedo armament on cruisers unless you are the USN.

jolly helpful

Thanks!

The one type i think missing is the coastal defence battleships. They seem common enough to not just be weird specials.

Was it the story Alice in Wonderland were Lewis Carrol said I think of six impossible things before breakfast, I've just saved this vlog, as I find the need to laydown in a darkened room, How you maintain your sanity escapes me.😉Thank you anyway for risking your grey matter

Could you make a dedicated video about the design of HMS dreadnaught

LIke Dr Clarke, I dislike the term Pre-Dreadnought. What would you use as an alternative, or are we stuck with it?

@Drachinifel

7 ай бұрын

You could use Battleship, then you'd have to use Dreadnought Battleship as well

The Frigate designation in the post war US Navy was applied to the class of ships that filled antiaircraft cruiser role formerly held by the Atlanta/Oakland class light cruisers. The class of ships that filled the RN frigate role were origninally designated DE for Ocean Escort. The were redesignated frigates as part of NATO standardization.

@forcea1454

8 ай бұрын

US postwar Frigates filled the destroyer role, not the cruiser role (the separate designation of anti-aircraft cruiser is redundant when all of your modernised and new-build cruisers are expected to be anti-aircraft cruisers), Frigates end up being the size of small cruisers because of the volume requirements of the systems they carry, alongside the requirements of high speed and endurance to keep up with the Carriers.

@johnshepherd9676

8 ай бұрын

@@forcea1454 Both the Leahy and Belknap Classes were originally called frigates and were reclassified as cruisers in the mid 1970s. The destroyer role was taken by the Adams class DDGs which were a modified Forest Sherman design. The two Frigate/Cruiser classes were similar in size and role to the Omaha and Atlanta Classes.

@forcea1454

8 ай бұрын

@@johnshepherd9676 The Coontz, Leahy and Belknap classes were all designed to destroyer standards, as the were the Bainbridge, Truxtun, California and Virginia classes, and evolved from the Mitscher class, which were designed as destroyers. In much the way that Second World War Carrier Task Groups were defended by screens of destroyers, Cold War Task Groups were defended by Frigates. The Cruisers were there to provided Fighter Direction and Flag Facilities for the Frigates, and this role was filled by the Long Beach and Second World War conversions. The roles the Frigates performed were still very much destroyer roles, their size was driven up by the volume of the Terrier magazines, centerline space required for radars, and high seakeeping speeds and long endurance required to escort the carriers. Comparing the size of weight-critical gun-armed ships, and volume-critical missile-armed ships is irrelevant, the role they perform us much more important The Adams class is a weird aberration that existed to do more general-purpose tasks, and provide a hull to carry Tartars, later DDG designs in the 1950s and 60s, although not built, end up being a similar size to the earlier frigates for the same reasons (endurance, and volume required for systems like NTDS and SQS-26). Only the improvements to Tartar's performance in the 60s made it a viable competitor to Terrier (alongside pop-up threats like Submarine-launched Anti-ship missiles making the faster response times of the various Tartar GMLS systems more important), there were numerous attempts to do away with Tartar-armed DDGs in the 1950s, and to build Terrier-armed DLGs exclusively.

I only know these terms from Stellaris so this is fascinating

So where do the Alaska's fall in this since you didnt bring them up. Are they super cruisers what i think they should be or battle cruisers or are the something of there own?

I'm sad you don't cover more of the 20th Century so you could be inflicted with trying to do a video like this and work around the USNs spasms of ship classifications since the late 50s.

we need drachinifel 2 post WW2 boogaloo. i love the content and would love to listen to you go on and on about ships of any time period.

No wonder I've had some (a lot really) confusion about various Warship designations, seems all parties called their ships som

wait, did Drachinifel skip MTB (saw action during ww2) torpedo cruiser and coastal defence ship ?

When you think about it, the name frigate really fits the ships. At the time of the frigate, you had the ship of the line. Ships of the line would become battleships and cruisers. The frigate would run around and attack anyone and escape from the bigger ships. That is a simple way of describing the destroyers and frigates.

It's all very well having the "battleship -1 turret" etc as a casual observation of what battlecruisers were being built (for about a 5-6 year period), but I think problems are caused when we start trying to use that prescriptively to determine what exactly a battlecruiser actually is... And hence we have disagreements about if some ships are battlecruisers or not (at least, using a universal definition system). Indeed, I think you started by defining battlecruiser by role (which in turn dictates their characteristics), but very quickly seemed to switched into using characteristics as the definition. In general I prefer role-based definitions as they are more flexible and open to different nations philosophies about how to build a ship to fulfil that role (rather than judging everyone by a pattern observed mainly in the royal navy during a very short period). If you really want to distinguish battlecruisers more granularly by spec, I would suggest using '1st class' and '2nd class' battlecruisers to differentiate those designed to stand up in the line of battle against other battlecruisers (1st class), and those purely designed to hunt down and overmatch cruisers (2nd class). You could go further and split them into 3 different generations too (analogous to the original dreadnoughts, super dreadnoughts and later 1930s-40s designs of battleships). This system would make: - Hood a 1st class battlecruiser (of the 2nd generation). - Alaska a 2nd class battlecruiser (of the 3rd generation). - Invincible & Indefatigable 2nd class (1st gen) battlecruisers. - All WW1 German battlecruisers that were actually built 1st class (1st gen) battlecruisers. - Renown would start off as 2nd class (2nd gen) and be refitted to become 1st class (2nd gen) battlecruisers. - Dunkerque could be considered a 1st class (3rd gen) battlecruiser (as opposed to a 2nd class battleship... Since they were built in response to the Deutschland-class panzerschiffe/ /armoured cruisers).

At 20:58 there is a picture of a destroyer, but taken from a very low flying aircraft

US Navy CV has 90 plus. When plane supply short they held less.

31:01 since the 1st class of armored cruiser came about later than the 2nd or 3rd class, were they originally called the 1st & second class respectively?

Some of the largest Armored Cruisers were the pre-dreadnought Battle Cruisers 🙂

Timestamps Intro and clarifications - 1:57 General escorts - 3:35 Corvette - 3:35 Frigate(destroyer escort) - 6:32 Escort destroyer - 12:56 Fleet escort fast attack - 15:15 Torpedo boat - 15:32 Torpedo gunboat - 18:02 Destroyer - 19:41 Cruiser - 23:19 Scout cruiser - 24:45 Protected cruiser - 26:34 Armored cruiser - 31:46 Light cruiser - 34:56 Heavy cruiser - 39:53 Super/Large cruiser - 41:23 Capital ships - 43:10 Gunships - 43:25 Ironclad - 43:25 Pre-dreadnought battleship - 49:34 Dreadnought battleship - 52:59 Super-dreadnought battleship - 53:47 Fast battleship - 55:10 Super Battleship - 56:14 Battlecruiser - 57:34 Aircraft carriers - 1:02:56 Escort carrier - 1:03:05 Light carrier - 1:03:49 Fleet carrier - 1:04:53 Conclusion - 1:07:08 P.S: Feel free to use if it is to your liking drach :) I always wanted a video like this so I felt compelled to at least give the timestamps, hugs from Brazil!

Auxileries can be one of the most important types of vessels in any Navy. Colliers and oilers can keep your fleet at sea. What's the point of steaming X number of units of choice if once there you have to immediately turn around to refuel. (1) Replenishment ships providing food or munitions. Repair ships for the breakage/damage your own crew cannot handle for a variety of reason that can save a trip to a major yard. And having a forward basing option cannot work with out them. 1) It wasn't until nuclear became an option that cruising range could once again could approach Age of Sail ranges. Limited by food and water. When or if one of the smaller non Tokamak Fusion designs prove workable almost all new ships wouls likely be built using them. Lest you think that sounds like a pipe dream the US Navy was funding non Tokamak fusion research earlier this century. Funding was limited to a certain amount due their being a cutoff point above which all research funding had to go through the Dept of Energy. The DOE at the time was deadset (and likely still is) against all non Tokamak reactor designs. Contrary to what we hear it is actually fairly easy to build a reactor that achieves fusion. People have built them in home workshops. The difficult parts is getting power back out.

What is that ship at 48:55?

44:20, " If it has non structural iron on the sides " LOL

"The torpedo boat would appear and disappear." I think they started calling them u-boats at that point.

Wonder what graf zeppelin would’ve been considered given that it pretty much was supposed to do everything as a commerce raider

The one that confuses me is Sloop of War. I think of a sloop as a smallish sailing vessel. Some USN Sloops of War around the Civil War period were not small for their time period.

@youmukonpaku3168

8 ай бұрын

the US Navy of this era was trying desperately to not be starved into becoming the USS One Dinghy With Half An Oar, and called things whatever they hoped they could slip through Congress before anyone saw the blueprints.

@hanzzel6086

8 ай бұрын

​@@youmukonpaku3168 Another example of that would be the brief lived "Diplomatic" Cruisers. Considering the U.S was in one of its isolationist phases at the time it is a bit odd that they got funded, but then again, the U.S has never considered Gunboat Diplomacy to truly be out of fashion.

At around 15:00... the L68 sure looks like it's riding pretty low in the water...what's the story?

@josephdietrich

8 ай бұрын

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Eridge_(L68)

You either die a torpedo boat or live long enough to become the torpedo boat destroyer.

I think something like this video is why I found this channel in the first place, though really I was wondering why a star destroyer is so much larger than “frigates” and some “cruisers.” I still don’t really know, but after many videos on this channel I have a good idea of why things developed the way they did here on Earth. Still haven’t found any good answers to the Star Wars questions, though.

@hanzzel6086

8 ай бұрын

Because it sounds cool and terrifying.

May favorite definition of a cruiser: The largest class of ships that can be built in reasonable numbers capable of fleet operations. "Think Guadalcanal."

I would love to see what you think of Australasian AS/NZS 3112 plugs and outlets. They’re not tamper-resistant (yet) but they do have a few simple but clever features. And they seem so close to the US style that I can’t imagine it would be too crazy a change (if that was to ever happen)

@EMP_castlebravo

8 ай бұрын

I posted this on a video from Technology Connections. How the hell did this end up on Drachs video?😂

Do we know which ship it is at 9:33 ?

Super cruiser or light battleship? Or maybe Escort Battleship? Cruiser Destroyer? Anti-Cruiser Cruiser?

For the torpilleurs, in case you fancy having a go at the French pronunciation, try - Tor.pea.yeuh (or yer but without rolling yer ars) ;-P

I spent my last night as a "civilian" at a hotel outside Newport RI. The next day at 0700, I reported for duty as a freshly minted Ensign. I remember that night for only one reason. I knew I was going to sea, and soon, on my first real warship. Up until then all my "service" as a cadet had been as part of a training crew. After I sewed on that 1st gold strip I knew it was "business". The reason I remember that last night is I stayed up and watched "The Cruel Sea". Later, I named my first true sea going sailboat "Compass Rose".

Can Drach do a review of USS Kidd?

@Drachinifel

8 ай бұрын

When I visit her :D

@akumaking1

8 ай бұрын

@@Drachinifel I meant in general, including her flying the Jolly Roger.

Anyone else find themselves bejng soothed to sleep by his voice? (In a good way)

Tacos on the high seas. I have yet to eat tacos on the high seas.