I’m sure I speak for everyone here Drach, if we miss a video or two because you need to rest up and get better we totally understand. I hope you feel better soon.

@Ulani101

5 ай бұрын

Agreed.

@grahamstrouse1165

5 ай бұрын

We need our Drach happy and healthy.

Please get well soon Drach 😢

@dillank3240

5 ай бұрын

I had norovirus once. That was one of the worst weekends of my life.

Burials at sea: current RAN practice (beyond the Drydock period) is to use bodybags and keep them on board until they can be flown home. Bearing in mind most of our ships don't have mortuaries, it turns out the ships' cold beer store (unlike the Brits, we treat our beer nicely) is a suitable alternative...

I seem to recall that on swedish moored mine during the second world war, the mine achor would have a bottom sensing sensor (basically a weight in a adjustable length chain. Say 5 fathoms as un exemple) hanging below the anchor. When the mine landed in the water, the mine would float on the surface and the achor would sink towards the bottom with the bottom sensor hanging down below the achor. As the anchor would sink, it with unroll the chain, connecting the mine to the achor. When the bottom sensing sensor hit the sea floor, the spool for the chain between the mine and the anchor would lock, pulling down the mine below the surface, until the anchor hit the sea floor, with the mine now floating at the depths set by the lenght on the bottom sensing sensor. All very simple and all mechinical, with only chains, weights and simple mechanical locks.

@AndrewGivens

5 ай бұрын

That seems to be how most weighted floating mines were anchored.

Expanding on the question of treaty cruisers being a good idea, for anyone, the objective of the treaty was to limit costs. If some navies chose to build a large glass canon, vs a smaller, but better balanced, design, that was their own decision. The parties to the treaty had already seen the direction cruisers were taking. The USN built the Tennessee class, starting in 1903: 10" guns, 504 feet long, displacing about 14,500 tons. In 1906, the RN started on the Invincibles, 12" guns, 567', 17,250 tons, evolutionary growth from the Tennessees. By the time of the Washington conference, the benchmarks for a cruiser larger than a "scout" had evolved to Hood, Lexington, and Amagi, each at an eye-popping cost. If some of the Hawkins class had not been building at the time of the conference, the treaty could just as easily have limited cruisers to 6,000 ton, 6" gun "scouts" only. Actually, thinking on the topic, it might have been better for all concerned, if the two Hawkinses that were still fitting out were scrapped, and the limits set at scout cruiser size, so a Dido class, for instance, does not need to worry about being wildly outgunned by a Hipper or a Zara.

Regarding the excess cordite as a cause of the disasters at Jutland, I think Campbell is spot on: "German charges were by no means flash proof when out of their magazine cases, but their ignition was delayed and they burnt relatively slowly, and no dangerous pressure rise occurred from a number of charges violently igniting at nearly the same instant, as occurred with British charges. Thus even in the Seydlitz at the Dogger Bank battle, when 62 complete 11in charges were involved in the fire in her after turrets, there was no explosion. There is no doubt that far too great a number of exposed charges were present in many British ships at Jutland, but this was at most only a contributory cause of the disasters that occurred. In the Lion's 'Q turret the ignition of 8-13.5in charges between magazines and guns, all of which were in hoist cages or authorized waiting positions, would have blown up the ship if `Q' magazines had not been closed, and very probably would have done so anyway if they had not been flooded, though the total weight of propellant that ignited was only about a sixth of that in the Seydlitz's fire." It was a matter of chemistry, negligence and bad design.

@AndrewGivens

5 ай бұрын

The bad design thing is the part of the myth that keeps coming back, again and again. If you don't stack charges where they can flash within a confined space and thus create sufficient overpressure to defeat the anti-flash measures (and the anti-flash measures are in place) then the design is not by definition bad. If you abuse it, it then becomes bad design. That can't be right. Do we still keep slipping back into Beatty's effalump trap?

@trauko1388

5 ай бұрын

@@AndrewGivens Let me explain this to you, claiming that "there were too many loose charges", means and implies that the antiflash measures actually work... which we actually know, DIDNT. Let me quote again: "There is no doubt that far too great a number of exposed charges were present in many British ships at Jutland, but this was at most only a contributory cause of the disasters that occurred. In the Lion's 'Q turret the ignition of 8-13.5in charges between magazines and guns, all of which were in hoist cages or authorized waiting positions, would have blown up the ship if `Q' magazines had not been closed, and very probably would have done so anyway if they had not been flooded, though the total weight of propellant that ignited was only about a sixth of that in the Seydlitz's fire." EIGHT charges, that is it, barely enough to fire TWO SHELLS since 4 were needed to fire a single shell. There were no excess charges in Lion, and yet, the ship almost blew up just like the others... and since dead sailors cant defend themselves, it is easy to blame them instead of tainting the "distinguised" naval careers of the people responsible. More? Because that is the MAIN issue, the ships were BADLY DESIGNED since their turrets were NOT FLASHTIGHT, there is no way around that, and no ammunition handling can fix that as Lion so clearly demonstrated. Or as Campbell puts it: "The real cause of the disasters was that the precautions for preventing flash of ignited propellant reaching a magazine were not matched to the behaviour of British charges, though if the British ships had had German charges it is very unlikely that they would have blown up. This was not, however, clear at the time. Unfortunately it was not realised how violently British charges would ignite in a turret fire, and the above flash doors were inadequate, the magazine doors were not flash tight under pressure, and flash had a free path to the handing room via the space between the fixed and rotating turret structures, and possibly via other routes. Also there were no magazine scuttles for passing charges, in fact, the magazine doors would be continuously open in action, and many more charges removed from their magazine cases, or in opened cases, than there should have been." "The method of ammunition supply to the heavy guns in British capital ships appeared to be reasonably safe in 1914, but no large scale trials with up-to-date turrets had been carried out, and this was the important and blameworthy omission." The RN never tested its turrets for flash... It is always hilarious to see people complain about the magazine doors being open during the action, I will let Jellicoe answer that one: ""I entirely concur with the Vice-Admiral Commanding, Battle-Cruiser Fleet, that there is no evidence that, in the ships lost, the precautions essential to the safety of cordite charges, as we knew them, were neglected. The drill and custom then in force was to keep all cages and waiting positions loaded and the magazine doors open, and all the evidence seems to show that if a turret was pierced by a shell which exploded inside it, the magazine was almost certain to blow up." - Jellicoe The fact that Lion survived, and THEN had a chain reaction with only the authorized charges exposed AND a flooded magazine, is invaluable, and tells us why this happened to the RN ships, and why the designers were full of BS. "Two or three minutes after the hit, the Lion's Chief Gunner, Mr Alexander Grant, visited `Q' magazine, and while there, one of the working chamber crew arrived in the handing room down the trunk, and told the Chief Gunner the state of affairs. Orders were given for the magazine doors to be closed and later for the magazine to be flooded. At 1628 the Chief Gunner was approaching the hatch to the handing room on the main deck, when a large sheet of flame came up the hatch killing several of the fire party in the vicinity. As soon as the smoke had sufficiently cleared, a party headed by the Chief Gunner went down to the handing room and other compartments, and found half the shell room crew in the shell room burned to death, as well as the magazine and half shell room crews in the handing room and switchboard flat. The paint in the handing room and shell room near the hoist was blackened and blistered but by no means all burnt, and the switchboard was blackened but intact. It was conjectured that the fire had spread from the gun-house to the working chamber via the electric cables as they were the only things burnt as opposed to blistered or blackened. All that is certain, however, is that a smouldering fire in the gun-house spread in some manner to the working chamber and ignited the charges there. The effect of the ignition of the eight charges that were between the handing room and 4ft above the working chamber, was very violent, although vented by the absence of part of the turret roof, and by the handing room hatch being open. The flame went as high as the mastheads, and `Q' magazine bulkheads were considerably buckled and bulged inwards although supported by the water in the magazine which had probably by then been completely flooded. If the magazine had still been open, the Lion would, without any doubt have followed the Indefatigable and Queen Mary. The above account is largely taken from Jellicoe's memorandum of 16 June 1916 which contained notes on the more important damage to the battlecruisers and the Warspite and was later reproduced in Grand Fleet Gunnery and Torpedo Order No 15 on the lessons of Jutland. There is no mention in this of the part played by Major FJW Harvey, RMLI, the officer of the turret, except that he sent a messenger to the bridge to report that the turret was out of action. Major Harvey was awarded a posthumous VC for giving orders to close the magazine doors and flood the magazine when he was mortally wounded; in the event the order to flood the magazine came from the Captain to the transmitting station, and William -Yeo, Stoker 1st class, special messenger to the transmitting station, was the man actually sent to order `Q' magazine to be flooded. The transmitting station asked for the order to be repeated, as the Lion had partially flooded `A' magazine in error at the Dogger Bank battle, and Grand Fleet Gunnery Orders after the action had indicated that the person in charge of a magazine, if there was no fire there, should take steps to find out why the order to flood had been given, and inform a responsible officer of what was occurring. In this case it was fortunate that `Q' magazine was flooded in time, as tests later showed that magazine doors as then fitted, were by no means flash tight when closed. As it was, a venting plate admitted a tongue of flame into the magazine but no harm was done. At that date magazine venting plates were fitted in handing rooms, so that a sudden pressure rise in the magazine from spontaneously ignited cordite would vent into the handing room and thence up the space between the fixed and revolving turret structures, and also up the turret trunk. They were not flash-tight in the reverse direction." Flash reached the magazine, the flash of enough charges for just 2 shots, you cant have LESS charges moving through the turret during combat, and yet, Lion proves the RN anti flash was nonexistent. Campbell is the one author that actually goes into detail of what happened from the reports, other books are just repeating the tales of the time that tried to protect the ones responsible for the bad designs, instead blaiming people who conviniently couldnt defend themselves aanymore. "Yeah, it was the fault of those bloody peasants, not our perfect ships..." I dont get why people try to defend RN designs when it is very easy to see that the capital ships lost... were mainly do to explosions: Audacious Indefatigable Queen Mary Invincible Vanguard Hood Barham All the ones lost to gunfire exploded, and so did 2 of the ones lost due to underwater damage. I think Royal Oak, Repulse and PoW were the ones that didnt explode, and those went down to underwater damages, which is by nature lass likely to reach a magazine. The RN ships had a glass chin.

@SkorjOlafsen

5 ай бұрын

@@AndrewGivensAny design that requires unlikely human behavior is bad design, though. If "abuse" is the norm, then you must design for it, not hope for the first-ever change in human nature. Of course, sometimes it can be challenging for designers to know what the actual behavior in the field is, _especially_ when it differs from the regs. One can't expect the designers to be super-human either.

@AndrewGivens

5 ай бұрын

@@trauko1388 Fair enough. I deserved that.

The thing about the Washington Treaty limits making it nearly impossible to make a truly balanced warship, that's kind of the treaty working as intended. The whole point was to limit every nation's military power, and thus prevent another arms race.

The plummet sea mine automatically and purely mechanically sets depth below water without needing pressure sensors or knowing the exact depth (so long as there can be enough cable to reach the bottom). A bottom anchor and cable drum with air-filled buoys is attached to the buoyant mine. The anchor and drum is set to sink more slowly than cable will pay out. Below the anchor & drum is a plummet weight on a line of the same length you want the mine to stay below surface level. When the plummet hits the sea bed, a mechanism locks the cable drum and releases air from the anchor. The (now rather heavy) anchor and drum then drag the mine below the surface. I'm not entirely sure when this was developed, but it seems to have been in play in the early 1900s.

@RobertCraft-re5sf

5 ай бұрын

The new modern sea mines are cool. They're passively activated by noise or magnetic or other means and launch a quiet torpedo at the target. I wish we could know more about undersea warfare, but so much of it is classified.

@onenote6619

5 ай бұрын

@@RobertCraft-re5sf Magnetic mines were a thing in WW2 and I think noise-activated plus wake-detecting mines were also coming into play. Noise homing torpedoes were certainly deployed in small numbers and I think that wake-homing was being investigated. If you want an 'interesting' idea, take a look at the VA-111 Shkval supercavitating torpedo which can - apparently - do 200 knots underwater. How much use it actually is would be another question, because nobody seems to have bothered copying it.

@AndrewGivens

5 ай бұрын

@@onenote6619 I believe acoustic mines were in use by the latter stages. Pressure mines absolutely were - the 175-ton turbine gunboats of the Denny type (Grey Goose and sisters) are regularly said to have been "converted" into fast minesweepers in 1944. I'm not sure how much conversion was required, as their role was described as wave-making to detonate pressure mines on the seabed. It sounds to me like their 6-foot draught and 30-knot speed was about what was required in shallow waters where the main targets of inshore mining would have been slow landing vessels.

Regarding the burials at sea... I seem to recall an occasion where a deceased sailor was buried with his aircraft due to the damage it sustained and the fact nobody really wanted to cut him out

@rootbeerpoptart

5 ай бұрын

I saw something about that recently, it probably happened more that once though. The instance I watched involved an American tail gunner. A large amount of the carrier's crew gathered around as the plane was pushed off.

@ExPatTanker

5 ай бұрын

I saw that one too - the Avenger was smashed and the poor turret gunner ate a 20mm cannon shell or 3 in the process. Just took his dog tags, took his prints, short service and then pushed the Avenger over the side :(

@rydplrs71

5 ай бұрын

That has to be a rare example. The chances of either landing, dying and being a complete wreck or being demolished inside a launching aircraft are all I can think of and then being sent overboard to clear the flight line

Jeezsh Drach! We would have given you a pass, my friend. You didn't need to do the "Drydock" for today, but you are successful because you are the type of person that does push through illness to get things like this done. Get well soon!

Morning drive to the ski slopes? Drydock time!!!!

On the topic of the IJN needing to achieve a 3:1 loss ratio against the USN as part of a theory of victory, a fairly basic sanity check was surely to ask if any extended peer/near-peer naval conflict had ever run such a lopsided ratio even when 'in the balance'. I can't think of one but maybe the channel can... (And as a footnote, Tameichi Hara's memoirs recount him doing similar maths on the eve of the war, getting an answer of 4:1 across both navies...and then going to see his admiral to respectfully express some doubts and ask why they don't stop at grabbing the Dutch East Indies instead.)

@Drachinifel

5 ай бұрын

The Russo Japanese War skewed towards that ratio after Tsushima, older conflicts like the Napleonic Wars went higher if you exclude losses to weather and look at combat only.

I love the Drach answer "in theory yes but in practice no"?? Has there ever been an answer in theory no, BUT, in practice yes?

@Yuzral

5 ай бұрын

It depends on how emphatic the "no" was - there's a point at which it's so emphatic that nobody will even try the practice. However, one theoretical that was definitely somewhere between "you have got to be joking" and "no" was: Theoretical - Our ships are at A and we would rather they were at B. Most of the route is within 20 miles of the enemy's home shoreline, is in a relatively narrow channel that has been heavily mined by both sides and is possibly *the* most guarded waterway our enemy has, by both sea and air. Our plan is to run like hell. Practical - The Channel Dash.

@mbryson2899

5 ай бұрын

​@@YuzralThat is a perfect example. 👍

@illuminatus3125

2 ай бұрын

Theory: you should not hit your electronic equipment when it is having problems because that's silly. Practice: you hit it, and it works again. Percussive maintenance.

Also sick here. Hope you feel better soon.

On the upgearing note for piston steam engines: While upgearing does reduce torque at the propshaft by simple rules of mechanics and losses due to friction will be greater because of the complexity, the other thing one has to remember is that propellers on ships are quite large and therefore the tip velocity at even crankshaft speed _can_ exceed that required for cavitation quite easily, and cavitation does cause damage, vibration, and all sorts of other nasty things. _really_ the only time I'd think you'd want to up-gear a propeller on a marine vessel _might_ be is if you're trying to propride on a 3-point Hydroplane and your engine is a WWII aircraft piston engine, and even _then_ I'm not sure.

@themanformerlyknownascomme777

5 ай бұрын

I'm imagining that this "gearing triple/quad expansion engines" is a bit different to steam motors

@jamesmchenry4708

5 ай бұрын

A triple/quad expansion engine is a type of steam piston engine, sorry if that was confusing.@@themanformerlyknownascomme777

Get well soon and Happy New year. Also the Nelson style of the king George v is awesome. Wish you would send that to World of warships. Even the vanguard also.

Thanks for answering my question about lighter-than-air aircraft! I too am also sick, as is everyone I know, all my colleagues, and all the kids at my children’s nursery, so I think the UK is just currently in the grip of some sort of widespread plague.

Good Job Sir. I know the algorithm does not understand the concept of "taking a day". But putting up a perfectly respectable podcast while sick AND having the local shore battery fire a warning shot... (51:05) You sir are a god!

Hope you feel better bro. Thanks for the entertainment while I clear the snow off my driveway.

Really great DD Thanks Drach

Burials at sea are still a thing, although these days they are for deceased veterans. When I was active duty, we conducted one about once a year. I personnally have made arrangements for myself, specifically at the mouth of the St. John's, most of my service was out of Mayport.

Thanks Drach and I hope you feel better very soon

Thanks for answering my question!

Happy New Year, Mr. And Mrs. Drach! May you both look back at this year and say... "That's when things went from good to GREAT!" (In Tony the Tiger's voice)

re Dutch subs, people might bein interested in a lesser known war film made during the War "The Silver fleet (1943) with Sir Ralph Richardson. It's basically about a Dutch Sub builder during the time of occupation, worth a watch. the whole movie is on YT

With all the material you've gathered, have you thought about doing a book? Maybe pick what seems to be the most popular topic and using the info from your vids and source material? Might be a hit.

The most honourable Drac… I don’t expect this question to be seen as I know how popular you are but have watched most all of your videos and especially appreciate the Canadian content you provide. Tir e pumping aside, it has long been said that the aircraft carrier replaced the battleship. Within the channel history. Please tell us what AA armament and escort a Battleship would need to take on and track down an Aircraft Carrier. I’m thinking WWII to make it interesting? Thank you and do you have merch?

@Drachinifel

5 ай бұрын

There are some posters available on the website and a link to the Etsy store as well :)

Sounded very good to me

Just happy New Year, Mr Alex, Drachinifel. It's another wooosh around the Sun.

Thanks Drach.

Get well soon! Feel free to take a rest.

Very best wish and get well soon

Norovirus? Drach, while I really enjoyed your episode on shipboard cooking during the Age of Sail, a special on hygiene isn't worth the risk to your health! Get well soon!

Get well soon. And what is perhaps a basic question. For ships like the Nelsons, why didn't they have turret 3 as super firing as well? Too much weight too high up?

Whisky will help your bad feeling. Don't change bad feelings for a headache, however.

Blimps I recall that they were used for anit submarine patrols off the east coast of america in WWII.

@johnlowe37

4 ай бұрын

The blimps operated off of all three US coasts (Atlantic, Pacific, and Gulf), along with the Caribbean. Mostly Goodyear K-Class blimps. Sadly, we lost one of the historic blimp hangars at the former NAS Santa Ana (later MCAS Tustin) to fire in November of 2023. Its sibling is still standing and there's still some hope that they'll eventually find a use for it.

During WW2 the US did use some ASW blimps on it's east and west coasts.

@John.0z

5 ай бұрын

I thought they were also used on the east coast as a part of the response to "The Second Happy Time"?

@davidbryden7904

5 ай бұрын

The El Toro Marine Corps Air Station in California had a pair of huge aircraft hangers used to house them.

@kemarisite

5 ай бұрын

The US would build 134 K-class blimps for anti-submarine warfare during the war. These would be used extensively in the Atlantic, with one (K-74) being shot down by U-134 off Florida in 1943.

hey Drach what's your opinion on what sank Britanic, mine or torpedo hit?

I know this is outside the scope of the channel, but can anyone help me understand why the subdivisions of the Arleigh Burkes are called "Flights"?

@grahamstrouse1165

5 ай бұрын

Basically for the same reason that different iterations of, say, the Abrams Main Battle Tank are designated M1, M1A1, M1A2 & so forth. All the Burke’s are based on the same basic design but newer versions of the destroyer have sufficient design changes & improvements compared to the older Burkes to warrant a different designation. The oldest Burkes (The Flight Is) have, for instance, fewer VLS cells, are a little smaller than Flight IIs, IIAs & IIIs & have less sophisticated versions of AEGIS. Some of these limitations & can be addressed in refits, some not so much. 🙂

@TheGoodGeneral59

5 ай бұрын

@@grahamstrouse1165 No i understand that, but not why theyre called "flights" specifically

@grahamstrouse1165

5 ай бұрын

@@TheGoodGeneral59As opposed to “tranches” or “blocks,” like the Virginias? I dunno, tbh.

Anyone else having issues seeing the Drydock when it is first posted? I am routinely only able to see the videos on Weds or Thursday - some 3-4 days after they post. Even if I search for them, they do not show up?

@ 30:05 Difference between the German figures due to: A) Supercharges? (Extra powder used in testing) or B) Worn Barrels? (i.e. Blow by lowering the muzzle velocity.)

@trauko1388

5 ай бұрын

No, penetration angle, normal KM tests were run with the plate at 20° obliquity to better demonstrate combat conditions, the better set of numbers were done perpendicular to the plate, that is 0° angle, which is what the RN usually did as well. So, the better set of numbers is what you should use to compare them to RN numbers.

I am just getting over COVID. Be well, Drachinifel.

Saturday night, 6 Jan 2024. Thanks for recording this even though sick Drach

Re uniform ?? Pop's told me that the British ball bottom trousers were bell bottomed to be easily rolled up for swabbing the deck? Does drach have an opinion on this?

Get well Drach.

Regarding this German 305mm vs British 13.5inch gun business, it would be great to look at the damage these guns could do to the ships they were fired at. How much damage did Lützow and Derfflinger inflict on the Splendid Cats and vice versa? Which parts of the ships were actually hit? How did the armor in this place perform? If penetration occured, how deep did the shell travel inside the ship before detonating? How much damage did the detonation of the shell actually do? How many shells were duds? And most importantly - although this isn't strictly about the gun itself - how accurate was shooting itself? How many hits were scored overall? What was the hit ratio? How tight were the salvo patterns? I know this would be a ton of work, but I feel like the results would be much more telling than simply discussing penetration values.

@toddwebb7521

5 ай бұрын

Well the German 12" had especially generous bursting charges for a 12". Like even slightly bigger than British and the British were known for having much more generous bursting charges than American or Japanese.

@trauko1388

5 ай бұрын

ASk and you shall receive... "There were four hits on the Barham, all from the Derfflinger, and probably by SAP shells, though the last may have been AP. The hit at about 1658 was one of the most destructive in the battle. The shell struck the 1 I/4in upper deck, where this formed the glacis near No 2 starboard 6in gun, in line with the aftermost part of `B' barbette and about 7ft from the ship's side. The angle of descent was estimated at 30-35° which indicates that the shell was deflected downwards by c5-10°. It pierced the upper deck (hole 2'/2ft x 1'/2ft) and burst 15ft from impact at the 3/gin main deck over the medical store, which was completely wrecked, as was the auxiliary wireless office on the main deck. Very severe damage was caused to light structure and the shell had a very marked incendiary effect. The starboard 6in hand-ups and dredger hoist, as well as the port dredger hoist were badly holed by fragments between the main and upper deck, and the starboard hoists were also holed between the main and middle deck. The flash of the burst passed via the hand-ups to No 2 starboard 6in casemate, causing a serious cordite fire and putting the gun's crew out of action. The flash of the shell-burst also passed down a trunk to the dynamo room on the platform deck and burned all the men there. The explosion blew a hole 7ft x 7ft in the main deck, and part of the shell head went through the 1in middle deck and was found in the lower conning tower. The 3/8in lower deck, forming the roof of the forward 6in magazine directly below the lower CT, was holed and this magazine and the 6in shell room filled with smoke. Other fragments also pierced the middle deck, and the starboard forward hydraulic pump was put out of action by fracture of the pressure pipe to the hydraulic governor, though the remaining three pumps kept all four turrets going. The largest hole in the middle deck measured 18in x 15m and that in the lower deck over the 6in magazine 15in x 12m." - "Jutland", Campbell As I am pretty sure you all know, the penetration of a magazine is a VERY serious event, had one of those fragments ignited a single charge a chain reaction would have started, destroying the ship. And this was supposedly the best RN BB type. The almost golden twinkie...

@trauko1388

5 ай бұрын

Plus a great deal has been unearthed about German guns in recent years, on 38cm and 30,5cm guns: "There was no problem foreseen for meeting these requirements for this new design, as these projectiles had successfully penetrated at 15 degrees with a large excess velocity, so much so that they had to be dug out several kilometers behind the test plates. However, the burster cavity was frequently damaged, starting from the area of the upper driving band groove. This was exactly the same experience that the British had in the early 1920s with their improved 15 inch (38.1 cm) Mark Va ("Greenboy"), of which a majority successfully penetrated a 10 inch (25.4 cm) plate at 20 degrees and a few penetrated in a condition fit to burst a 12 inch (30.5 cm) plate at a 20 degree obliquity. The British shells which passed this raised proof value were designated as "Superproof" and were painted with a blue band. In both nations, the penetration specifications imposed on the 15 inch (38.1 cm) and 38 cm projectiles were very challenging and difficult to meet. The real outlier here was the older German Psgr. 30.5 cm L/3.4, which was capable of meeting the 15 inch (38.1 cm) APC Mark Va regular proof specification of penetrating 10 inches (25.4 cm) at 20 deg, yet this projectile was considerably smaller and lighter than the British 15 inch (38.1 cm) projectile. Curiously, the same Psgr. 30.5 cm projectile was also about as good as the Psgr. 38 cm L/3.5 in penetrating thick KC armor at normal inclinations (0 degrees). Tests against an experimental 450 mm KC plate found little difference between the performances of the Psgr. 30.5 cm and 38 cm projectiles. One of the two 30.5 cm projectiles which managed to completely penetrate the plate also stayed intact in a condition fit to burst. Data extracted from BAMA RM6-3347 "Entwicklung unser Marineartillerie 1913-1920. Volume V (Issue II. "Gschosse")", originally classified "Geheim!" (SECRET), issued by the Reichswehrministerium, Marineleitung (Berlin 1923), p.3-15." AS a bonus, the RN tested the Russian 305mm against their 343mm ones... and they came up wanting: "British post-Jutland tests of Russian 12" M1909 APC [M1911 APC - TD] shells gave excellent results at 20 degrees obliquity, much better than the new Greenboy British 12" Mk VII APC shell did and seemingly on a par with the larger British 13.5" APC shells. Nathan Okun" RN shells were simply, not good. Not even the improved Greenboys.

@trauko1388

5 ай бұрын

Campbell is a treasure trove: "Experience of major calibre ammunition fires from the effect of enemy shells between 1914 and Jutland was limited to the Dogger Bank action, when there was a very large fire in the Seydlitz. In both the Lion and Tiger, a turret had also been hit during this battle, but no ammunition fire occurred. In the Seydlitz a 13.5in shell struck the aftermost barbette, and burst in holing the 9in armour, driving in red hot armour fragments. These ignited 1 Iin main and fore charges on the transfer rails in the working chamber. The flash shot up into the gun house and ignited the charges there, and down the lower hoists, setting fire to charges in them and in the handing room as well as to some in the magazine. The ignition of the charges was at first comparatively slow, as when the fumes of the burning charges in the working chamber began to penetrate to the handing room one deck below, the crew of the latter opened the bulkhead door, which opened towards the stern, to escape into the handing room of the after superfiring turret. At this moment the charges in the handing room ignited, and flash blew open the connecting door to the after superfiring turret, which opened towards the bows, and passing into this turret ignited charges in the handing room and some in the magazine, and the fire spread to the working chamber and gunhouse. In both handing rooms the main and fore charges ignited except for some in unopened magazine cases. In the magazines the fore charges in process of transport did so, but apparently not the main charges, even when in opened magazine cases. Altogether sixty-two complete (main and fore) charges totalling over six tons of propellant were destroyed. The main fear seems to have been that the heat of the fire, which melted some of the zinc magazine cases, would explode the shells in the shell rooms below, and not that the magazines would explode, but it was possible to flood the ammunition spaces and bring the fire under control before this occurred. It is an often repeated error to state that as a result of this fire the Germans introduced flash precautions before Jutland. Actually the principal step taken was drastically to limit the number of charges out of their magazine cases or in opened cases, though too many were still present at Jutland in the Derfflinger's two turrets in which fires occurred. As previously noted, some flash doors were fitted in the Lutzow, but this was not done in the Seydlitz or Derfflinger where flash reached the handing rooms, and the hinged flaps on the magazine scuttles were not flash tight in the British sense of the term. It may be noted that at the end of the war, the German 15in turrets were not flash tight by the then British standards. If the Seydlitz had had British charges at the Dogger Bank she would unquestionably have blown up."

@grahamstrouse1165

5 ай бұрын

@@trauko1388I think you mean Golden BB. Any Twinkie that ISN’T golden should be approached with caution…🙂

Campbell is a treasure trove: "Experience of major calibre ammunition fires from the effect of enemy shells between 1914 and Jutland was limited to the Dogger Bank action, when there was a very large fire in the Seydlitz. In both the Lion and Tiger, a turret had also been hit during this battle, but no ammunition fire occurred. In the Seydlitz a 13.5in shell struck the aftermost barbette, and burst in holing the 9in armour, driving in red hot armour fragments. These ignited 1 Iin main and fore charges on the transfer rails in the working chamber. The flash shot up into the gun house and ignited the charges there, and down the lower hoists, setting fire to charges in them and in the handing room as well as to some in the magazine. The ignition of the charges was at first comparatively slow, as when the fumes of the burning charges in the working chamber began to penetrate to the handing room one deck below, the crew of the latter opened the bulkhead door, which opened towards the stern, to escape into the handing room of the after superfiring turret. At this moment the charges in the handing room ignited, and flash blew open the connecting door to the after superfiring turret, which opened towards the bows, and passing into this turret ignited charges in the handing room and some in the magazine, and the fire spread to the working chamber and gunhouse. In both handing rooms the main and fore charges ignited except for some in unopened magazine cases. In the magazines the fore charges in process of transport did so, but apparently not the main charges, even when in opened magazine cases. Altogether sixty-two complete (main and fore) charges totalling over six tons of propellant were destroyed. The main fear seems to have been that the heat of the fire, which melted some of the zinc magazine cases, would explode the shells in the shell rooms below, and not that the magazines would explode, but it was possible to flood the ammunition spaces and bring the fire under control before this occurred. It is an often repeated error to state that as a result of this fire the Germans introduced flash precautions before Jutland. Actually the principal step taken was drastically to limit the number of charges out of their magazine cases or in opened cases, though too many were still present at Jutland in the Derfflinger's two turrets in which fires occurred. As previously noted, some flash doors were fitted in the Lutzow, but this was not done in the Seydlitz or Derfflinger where flash reached the handing rooms, and the hinged flaps on the magazine scuttles were not flash tight in the British sense of the term. It may be noted that at the end of the war, the German 1 Sin turrets were not flash tight by the then British standards. If the Seydlitz had had British charges at the Dogger Bank she would unquestionably have blown up."

April fool's question: what if the ijn sent nagato or hurana to fight godzilla instead of takao?

Stock up on zinc boys

Question: it occurs to me that corners are often found in armor schemes. However, in the cannons answer, it was ruthless drilled into us that corners are bad and must be avoided at all costs. Why then do engineers tolerate corners on armor schemes and not guns?

@MrNicoJac

5 ай бұрын

Armor has to keep stuff out, guns have to keep it in. And you cannot make one continuous armor plate for the entire side of a ship. Also, you'd only want to replace what got hit rather than wasting most of the (undamaged) armor.

Listening to this sick myself

@PaulfromChicago

5 ай бұрын

Same.

A great deal has been unearthed about German guns in recent years, on 38cm and 30,5cm guns: "There was no problem foreseen for meeting these requirements for this new design, as these projectiles had successfully penetrated at 15 degrees with a large excess velocity, so much so that they had to be dug out several kilometers behind the test plates. However, the burster cavity was frequently damaged, starting from the area of the upper driving band groove. This was exactly the same experience that the British had in the early 1920s with their improved 15 inch (38.1 cm) Mark Va ("Greenboy"), of which a majority successfully penetrated a 10 inch (25.4 cm) plate at 20 degrees and a few penetrated in a condition fit to burst a 12 inch (30.5 cm) plate at a 20 degree obliquity. The British shells which passed this raised proof value were designated as "Superproof" and were painted with a blue band. In both nations, the penetration specifications imposed on the 15 inch (38.1 cm) and 38 cm projectiles were very challenging and difficult to meet. The real outlier here was the older German Psgr. 30.5 cm L/3.4, which was capable of meeting the 15 inch (38.1 cm) APC Mark Va regular proof specification of penetrating 10 inches (25.4 cm) at 20 deg, yet this projectile was considerably smaller and lighter than the British 15 inch (38.1 cm) projectile. Curiously, the same Psgr. 30.5 cm projectile was also about as good as the Psgr. 38 cm L/3.5 in penetrating thick KC armor at normal inclinations (0 degrees). Tests against an experimental 450 mm KC plate found little difference between the performances of the Psgr. 30.5 cm and 38 cm projectiles. One of the two 30.5 cm projectiles which managed to completely penetrate the plate also stayed intact in a condition fit to burst. Data extracted from BAMA RM6-3347 "Entwicklung unser Marineartillerie 1913-1920. Volume V (Issue II. "Gschosse")", originally classified "Geheim!" (SECRET), issued by the Reichswehrministerium, Marineleitung (Berlin 1923), p.3-15." AS a bonus, the RN tested the Russian 305mm against their 343mm ones... and they came up wanting: "British post-Jutland tests of Russian 12" M1909 APC [M1911 APC - TD] shells gave excellent results at 20 degrees obliquity, much better than the new Greenboy British 12" Mk VII APC shell did and seemingly on a par with the larger British 13.5" APC shells. Nathan Okun" RN shells were simply, not good. Not even the improved Greenboys.

@GaryJones69420

3 ай бұрын

Once again trauko coming in with his yap. You're comparing an uncapped shell fired from a L/45 gun to a capped shell fired from a L/52 gun. Keep seething looser

A good swaller of watermelon shine will do wonders.

What if ya fire a atar shell on deck? Not much damage but the confusion must be massive

I think the Japanese overall concept of operations for defeating the US was sound but as I said in the "Own Goal" video the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor negated it. Had the Japanese declared war and only attacked in the Far East after the declaration public opinion was have been less intensely hostile and the country would not have been unified. The early war would have gone just as badly and the isolationist faction would have agitated for a negotiationsed peace.

Hi Drach, Have ALL the jutland docs been DECLASSIFIED by the Royal navy?

Nova virus,huge problem for cruise ships.Must have been a big problem for crowded battleshipss.

Im taking it from the photo of searchlight practice? That this was purely for some sort of propaganda purposes? Why were the ships hulls outlined with christmas lights?

Turret A ammunition handling: 100% Turret B ammunition handling: 100% Turret Q ammunition handling: 100% Turret X ammunition handling: 100% Turret Y ammunition handling:

Long Johnson ask’s…… too funny!!!!

Yeah, went through noro once. Sorry, man, stuff is horrific.

Interestingly there is quite a parrallel between japanese victory conditions and the ones planned for the war of the third reich against the soviet union. It was relatively clear from the get go that a protracted war against the SU couldnt be won. What was hoped for (and seemed relatively likely directly after the start of Barbarossa) was to inflict such heavy casualties that (as happened in the first world war) the population of the SU would revolt and subsequent instability woudl seal the deal. Problem was: that didnt happen.

Good evening everyone. I don’t think I clicked this video, but I was debating cleaning 16” of snow from my driveway or going to bed and dealing with it after work tomorrow. I’m thinking this is my sign…go to bed.

36:34 shout out to LONGJOHNSON

Dude!! You first! Get better

any chance we can get a weds special on Russian naval activities in WW 2 in particular the Baltic theater?

@GeorgeMoore55

5 ай бұрын

Hi Keith🌹🌹 How are you doing?

@keithmoore5306

5 ай бұрын

@@GeorgeMoore55fair to middling considering!!

@GeorgeMoore55

5 ай бұрын

@@keithmoore5306 Hmm sounds interesting

@GeorgeMoore55

5 ай бұрын

@@keithmoore5306 where are you from?

@keithmoore5306

5 ай бұрын

@@GeorgeMoore55originally southeast Kentucky Floyd county outside of Prestonsburg!! stuck up in ohio now!!

Auch that is really nasty. Take care.

:)

Get better Sir Drack

Ì like you sounding a little bit huskier ! Ñourish that flu !

1) Drach, an airship IS an aircraft, as are helicopters, airplanes and anything else that flies 2) No convoy was attacked when escorted by blimps 3) There was one obvious role for airships in WW2.- radar carriers. A high powered radar's antenna could be enclosed in the envelope, you could cruise for days at 10,000 feet without oxygen - as radar is line of sight, imagine that radar's range - and if you gave the crew oxygen and heated suits as the Germans did during the Great War you could exceed 20,000 feet (Zeppelins were accomplishing this in the second half of WW1) for a period. If you give the crew a pressurized cabin, you can do so for an extended period. Offensively, they would be great scouts, defensively, they could serve as air direction centers to coordinate interceptors (Due to the increased range, they could stand out of interception range). The idea was so attractive, that Admiral King approached Goodyear in 1942. The company said they could do it, but it would take several years to set up a production line - which killed the idea. The last USN blimps were post-WW2 N class radar pickets for use as part of the continental air defense network. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-class_blimp

@kemarisite

5 ай бұрын

I'm not sure about point 2, no convoy ever having been attacked when escorted by blimps. I have seen reliable claims that no ships were lost when escorted by blimps. I understand only two submarines were sunk by blimps, while only one K-class blimps was shot down by U-134 in 1943.

@grahamstrouse1165

5 ай бұрын

@@kemarisiteI don’t recall blimps being used in significant numbers as convoy escorts. Maybe convoys weren’t being attacked when blimps were around but if they’re rarely used this is kind of a dodgy assertion. They just weren’t very practical during WWII because they were so vulnerable.

@kemarisite

5 ай бұрын

@@grahamstrouse1165 you'd kind of have to define "significant". The US built well over a hundred K-class blimps beginning in 1938 and running through the war. They would obviously need to be kept away from the enemy coastline and fighter aircraft, but were incredibly useful along friendly coasts and out toward the mid-Atlantic because of their loiter time. The K-class could carry four depth charges and several machine guns.

@ROBERTN-ut2il

5 ай бұрын

@@grahamstrouse1165 Need to read some history

Hi all .Saving Private Ryan . On D Day 32 men in a landing craft in saving PRIV 24 max. Why USA soldiers were depression kids poor as f in puberty piss poor . Anybody know how many UK soldiers were in a landing craft D Day and Priv Ryan? DiD UK do a better depression?

33rd, 7 January 2024