Tribus Montibus Oceanography
Tribus Montibus Oceanography
www.tribusmontibusoceanography.com/
This channel and the website are dedicated to dispelling the deep-rooted popular myths about the ocean tides. It amazes me to find that there is no shortage of people who are willing to explain the ocean tides to you. Yet, most 'explainers' would have better kept their mouth shut as they repeat the same misconceptions. What amazes me even more is how few of them ever check their notions with real-world information, as they would soon notice that something is 'off'. Most of the few, who do notice, reason their doubts away with the excuse that there are 'always some delays and losses', after which they happily return to the popular misconceptions.
I hope I can help out some, who have doubts about the popular explanation. I apologize beforehand for the resistance they will encounter, as many will rather defend their mistaken beliefs than critically rethink them and prefer to ridicule such 'threatening notions'.
Пікірлер
Bakit kailangan pang pangalanan. Na Corvette frigate destroyer cruiser. Eh ku gumawa nalang ng malaking barko na mas malakas pa Kay sa lahat
A great look at the subject. Thanks.
In Canada you ask the government for a Destroyer, and they say "No, way too expensive, go away!!" So you ask for a Frigate, and they so, "Oh alright then, go ahead....and stop bothering us!." ....so then you build a big Frigate.
Good show, but too much background noise please!
So then what is a SLOOP?
Why so much background noise? OTHERWISE a very good video, thank you.
The flower class looks like it wouldve been fun to pilot
Thank you, Tribes Montibus. This helps resolve a conundrum I encounter every time I am down at my waterfront.
Hello Ted, Thanks for your kind reply. The fact that you noticed something was 'off', already makes you part of a select minority. Ever since I started looking into these matters I have been surprised by how few people even notice that real-world observations don't match the model which is suggested in schoolbooks and most other popular sources. I also grew up inland myself. I studied aerospace engineering at Delft University but decided to become an airline pilot nevertheless. Only when I took up sailing, some 20 years ago, did I notice, like you did, that there was no correlation between the moon being overhead (which never really happens at 52 North latitude anyway) and the high tide. I started asking around and reading whatever material I could find. To no avail. It still amazes me today that this is a subject about which you need to know what the answer is before you can find appropriate sources. Yet, very few people (I estimate somewhere around 1% of those who believe they understand the ocean tides) can give you correct answers. Most just repeat the popular explanation and have been satisfied with vague reasoning to explain away the inconsistencies. I am proud to say that I figured it out for myself. Applying the physical principles I learned in Delft I started theorizing about how forces could be applied to ocean water to create a tidal rise. It was quickly obvious to me that the popular 'the moon's gravitational attraction pulls the water upwards' could never be made to work. I came up with a more logical hypothesis which could be made to work. Only afterwards did I find out that I had stumbled upon the exact mechanism which is believed to be the cause of the tides by oceanographers and earth scientists. But I am rather proud to say that I discovered it for myself. Pity that it had already been discovered (over 100 years ago), otherwise I would really have been a pioneer. The Nobel Prize would have looked great on my mantelpiece. But I'm amazed at how few people are aware of it, although it is common knowledge to every student of physical oceanography around the world. Of course it doesn't really help that even many respected scientist, like astrophysicist Neil DeGrasse Tyson are unaware and actually reinforce the popular, yet incorrect, explanation. The problem appears to be that many astrophysicists understand tidal forces very well, from an astronomical point of view, but are unaware of their own lack of understanding of the appropriate hydrodynamics of the oceans. In that respect a simpleton, like yours truly, has a distinct advantage. Nowadays I can easily point people towards the appropriate sources and papers (the material on the NOAA website is a treasure trove, for instance). But hardly anyone listens because, at first glance, they believe this explanation to be some hare-brained private theory, like flat-earth. It was actually much easier to figure out your whereabouts. I did indeed wonder, from your question, where you were. Because the same phase difference can also occur at many locations around the North Sea or, for that matter, in most of the other seas and oceans around the globe. But is really was as simple as clicking on your profile and seeing the video about the geese. Kind regards, Garret
Thank you, Garret,@@TribusMontibus. What a wonderful learning journey you took. Maybe tell Neil DeGrasse Tyson. I've been trying to get Quirks and Quarks to answer my question; now I'll send your link to them.
@@TedHopk Hello Ted, in my experience people like NdGT are difficult to reach. I used to be a flight instructor and one of my former students became head of training for Extra Vehicular Activities at NASA. He has trained many astronauts and has met many well known people like Elon Musk and NdGT. He tells me that when he first met NdGT, Neil asked himm 'how many astrophysicists do you know who can do the moonwalk' and proceeded to do the moonwalk. My friend says he found Neil to be a very nice person. But even through him, I doubt I could reach Neil. But, what's more, I expect to get the same reaction I get from many other respected people. When confronted with something which surprises them this much, they will typically assume that this is some hare brained little theory, dreamt up by a small group of conspiracy theory minded skeptics.
I suppose so, Garret,@@TribusMontibus. I sent your blink to Q&Q along with the PBS link and will keep my fingers crossed that Bob MacDonald will get in touch with you. Bob lives in Victoria and I suggested to him that he actually go to his waterfront when the Moon is on Victoria's meridian and check the tide.
@@TedHopk Hello Ted, Ah, Victoria! That's typically our planning alternate when we fly to Vancouver. Supposing that all runways are suddenly blocked at YVR we plan to divert to YYJ or, if the Victoria weather is bad or the airport otherwise blocked, to Abbotsford or Seattle. In fact, I'll be in Vancouver this coming weekend. I'm not sure if Bob ever makes his way out to the Vancouver Harbour Flight Center, where the seaplanes go up and down with the tides. But it's within a stone's throw of our hotel and I'll be happy to point out the apparent time discrepancy to him. Kind regards, Garret p.s. We don't have Q&Q where I live but, some years ago, I picked up Q&Q's book 'Guide to Space' from a book store. I like the light hearted approach. It's a fun way to teach things without getting stuffy.
Back when i was growing up the frigate was primarily an asw platform with limited aa and anti ship capability. Destroyers were primarily AA with limited sub and anti ship
The Americans followed historical naval tradition in nomenclature. The Brits botched it. Eventually the US (characteristically) generously made allowances for British classification mistakes.
How about: anything with Aegis-like systems and performs long range air defense is designated a cruiser. Everything else, which focus more on ASW and anti-surface roles, is a frigate. And then we get rid of the destroyer and corvette designations.
At 14:51 in your video, you explain that the potential rise of water is 52 cm, by integrating all accelerations from the lateral to the sublunar point. Shouldn't one calculate the Integral from the lateral point (90°) to the next lateral point ( (-)90°) because the accelerations that make up the wave come from both sides. And to even think further, shouldn't it be all accelerations from all sides because the earth isn't a circle but a sphere?
I have a question to the part at 4:40 in your video: You explain that locations which are the same distance away from the moon will have the same amount of force applied but the force points somewhere else. Until now everything is fine. But then it is explained that the netforce of the other locations will point downwards due to vectoraddition of the forces. This is where I have a problem: If we add the vectors of the force, it should be orientated downwards to the left, due to the vectors having the same length (the amount of force) and one being angled to the bottom right. The resulting forcevector isn't pointing downwards. The location where the netforce is pointing downwards should be closer to the moon than the center of earth. Then the angled forcevector would be a hypothenuse of a right triangle, therefore having a larger amount of force than the vector of the centre of earth which would be the bottomside of the triangle, guaranteeing that the netforce would be perpendicular to the bottomside (forcevector of the centre of earth). Am I missing something? Clarification would be appreciated. :)
Hello, No, you aren't missing anything. You are totally correct, if you are referring to 'the lateral point' (the point 90 degrees from the sublunar point). Here the net acceleration for a mass, due to the gravitational influence of the moon points slightly away from the moon due to the angle you refer to. The actual 'neutral point' where the resultant acceleration points straight downward is slightly forward of the lateral point. Mind you, what I am really adding (subtracting) are vectors of acceleration, not really forces. A mass in space may have an absolute acceleration due to a certain gravitational attraction from a mass (in this case; the moon). But when you are trying to figure out the net influence of that attraction in an environment, you need to correct for the acceleration of that environment (in this case; the earth underneath) due to the same gravitational attraction. That's what the tides are all about. That's also where many people fail a real understanding, because they remain fixed on absolute attractions and forces rather than the comparison. Another caution; don't lose sight of the comparative dimensions. The average Earth-Moon distance is measured in hundreds of thousands of kilometers while Earth's radius is measured in only thousands. The angles we are talking about are incredibly small in magnitude. I'm on vacation in the French Alps (riding my bike up hills which are a bit too steep for me) right now so I don't have my laptop with me. But I could look up in my spreadsheet where the neutral point is and just how small the angles are. Typically you have to read it two or three times before realizing how small such numbers are. Many draw the tidal force envelope as symmetrical. But as you correctly deduce, that isn't correct. It isn't exactly, longitudinally, symmetrical. But many an 'explainer' is already so happy that he/she can get people to understand why 'the far side' also experiences tidal forces which raise the water that he/she takes this tiny, negligible asymmetry for granted. Kind regards
Thanks for the fast answer! But I actually didn't mean the point that is 90° from the sublunar point. I mean the point that is on the surface of the earth and is the same distance away from the moon as you show it in your video. Should be around 80-85° (?), marked by the dashed line in 4:40 . Also wanted to say that your video is superb! :D Just one more question: Why vectors of acceleration and not forces? Sure you can explain the tides with comparisons of the accelerations. But the reference point (the centre of earth) doesn't fall into the moon. The centripetal/centrifugal force is counterbalancing the gravitational attraction of the centre of earth to the moon. Therefore we can speak of forces (?) Or is it because F=m*a ? Because we can't apply a particular force to a single point on a planet, due to not knowing what the mass of a single point is? But even if that's the case, one could just "measure" the forces of a grain of sand in different locations giving a broad estimate of the envelope now made up of forcevectors.
Hello again, To be honest, the geometry of the vectors, within the range you are talking about, gets complicated. It is no longer a matter of trigonometry with fixed values of the vectors which are involved. They change with every next iteration as a varying position-to-moon distance requires a recalculation of the 'local' acceleration vector. This becomes an exercise in differential equations which would have made my head spin during my student days. Either way, when I wrote my spreadsheet, that wasn't the problem I was trying to solve. So the spreadsheet isn't especially suited to finding that exact answer. But I can tell you that you are off by a significant amount, in your estimate. The spreadsheet does allow me to fumble around with the numbers a bit. This shows the 'neutral point' to be in the vicinity of 89.1299 degrees away from the sublunar point. My answer to your second question is a lot easier. There are very good, practical reasons for comparing accelerations rather than forces. The aim is to find out what effect the moon's gravitational attraction has on any given mass in any given position on or within the earth. The earth moves roughly like a huge blob through space. The deformations of the planet and variations of various masses, on and within, are insignificant within our context. Therefore you can easily calculate the acceleration vector, for the entire earth, due to the moon's gravitational attraction. Mind you, this certainly doesn't mean that the earth is getting closer to the moon. But the moon is constantly pulling the earth away from the elliptical orbit which the earth would have described around the sun if the moon hadn't been there. In the end it's really the Earth-Moon barycenter which describes the orbit around the sun. This means that you end up with an acceleration vector which is the same for any position on or within the earth. It would, at this stage, be rather meaningless to use forces anyway because the magnitude of the gravitational force on the entire earth isn't useful for any local comparison. But it's most important to realize that, for tidal purposes, you need to compare the gravitational influence on a local mass to the gravitational influence on the entire environment (the earth). By comparing both (the vector addition) you are left with a net acceleration which can be added up for local masses (using F=m*a) to get meaningful results. Kind regards
@@TribusMontibus thanks again! :) Yeah the 85° were just eyeballed from the schematics from your video, were the distances of moon and earth were changed to visualize the stark contrast of the vectors. And with the fact that I should bear in mind that the scales of the radius and the distance from earth to moon are magnitudes away from each other, as you state in your previous comment, I should have realised that it should be really close to 90° . Loved also the explanation for the use of vectors of acceleration instead of forcevectors. Thanks for clarifying!
@@TribusMontibus hello again! After some thought I tried to calculate the tangential force that pushes the water and came up with my own formula. I checked my results with the values of your video and they matched (hurray!) . I came back to ask you if you know a much more simple formula for these forces. I calculated them over many steps with long terms and tried to find a simple version on the Internet, but couldn't find any. Do you know any? Even if it is really oversimplified, I would love to see it.
I enjoyed your work and editing, but could I ask that in future you write the names of the type of ship (or whatever you're making a vid about) alongside the images, it just helps me keep visual track of what you're speaking about. Really interesting work though! Thanks. I learnt a lot.
"What's a frigate?" "It's when you just don't give a damn anymore." - Martin Crane (from the series "Frasier" episode "An Affair to Forget")
'What the Frig?....'
They most likely named this after the 007 goldeneye level.
Thank you so much! I was having trouble sleeping, but this video fixed that.
Erg interesant. Bedankt
[15:02] I think it's more correct to say that the US Navy was the only english-speaking navy that was still using the term "destroyer escort". I'm not sure if there's more, but at least the Indonesian Navy (TNI AL) has been consistently using the term for their frigates and corvettes. Even the latest 10514 SIGMA frigates are classified as "Perusak Kawal Rudal", which translates to "Missile Destroyer Escort".
The Distinction have really become blurred. As someone else pointed out that Britain likes to call things different names because it makes them sound cheaper, in Germany we call most of our large Ships Frigates and do not have destroyers or cruisers. Many argue that that is because destroyer sounds very aggresive and we therefore try to avoid that name. But our upcoming Frigates are longer then the arleigh-burke class destroyers and with over 10.000t they also have more displacement then the ticonderoga class cruisers. And the Destroyers that are meant to replace the arleigh-burke in the US are planned to have over 13.000t of displacement, making them far heavier then the ticonderoga class cruisers.
Easy. Sailor says I wanted to be on a battleship, but they said i wasn’t qualified so I said frig it
Take a look at the Type 26 'frigates' that the UK, Canada and Australia are building - they are similar in size and capability to USN's Arleigh Burke DDs (close to 9,000 tons). In each of those navies, most, if not all, of their current frigates displace about half that tonnage, and are generally much less capable then the Type 26s.
Alvaro de Bazán from Spain could be categorized as a destroyer. We created the class so why don’t keep it . But no. Our government just throws away our legacy just as it did our only carrier Principe de Asturias.
Despite being afraid I might have misused navy class ship names in my novels, I'm glad this video taught me that there is no real hard agreed on definitions. Although, in my case, I use the terms in a sci-fi "space navy" setting. The way I understood the classification has in general (although always exceptions) gone from big/slow to small/fast: Carrier -> Cruiser -> Frigate -> Corvette. Destroyers really did seem to mess things up as being able to fit into Cruiser or after, or in Frigate (or vice versa) or after. But I do think big/slow to small/fast is the best standard as it is based on the reality of physics which won't change barring extremely radical inventions (such as gravity control tech). Armaments aren't a good measure as even with the same class that has changed in recent history within the same type. Nor is role the best standard since that has changed over time (again even within the same class) and will likely change in the future too. Generally, again due to the rules of physics, the bigger the ship; the slower it goes, but also usually has more total capable firepower. While the smaller the ship, the faster it can be but also literally due to size limits can't carry as much total capable firepower.
It seems that due to all the classification confusion, at some point they just threw up their hands and said, "Frigate!".
They started out to build a battleships, found it was too expensive and said "FRIGATE" 🤣🤣🤣
"a sloop is a sailboat with a single mast..." Maybe "escort sloop" would have been a bad name. A horrible name. But that's not quite here nor there. It points at what is : boat people have a chronic problem with trying to pigeon hole things. "What is a frigate a frigate?" Because somebody with no understanding of what was actually going on insisted on classifying something according to pre-established (and already bad) pigeon holes. Like if I have a fancy for numbers that can be divided by two. So I call them The Even Numbers. And somebody says "what about five?" Well it's used for counting stuff, so it's an even number. And next thing you know, pi is an even number.
But the guns are 0.5 calibers too short to be a heavy battleship, even though the armour could out-stun a gazelle at 30000 yards and its left screw was counter rotating even though the tips had yet to be painted yellow by the time it underwent sea trials....
Hail Hypnotoad!
It’s a boat full of irony coz they full of men 🤷🏻♂️🤣🤣🤣
Could also be that for a somewhat pacifist nation like the Netherlands, it is easier to sell the concept of "Frigates" than "Destroyers". When you talk about destroyers, one thinks of war. Talk about frigates and there is this sense of romantic days of old when real man braved the high seas.
Thanks . Lots of good information
I tried to understand the difference between ships, but frigate all to hell, I couldn’t
It's called a frigate, because it is against navy regulations to say fvck it.
quite oncesided. as if only english and americans defined ship classes and the rest of the world had no say in it. What about germans, russians, japanese ? after i watch half of it i found my time is better used elsewhere. PS: as an ex navy person who has seen the frigates and destroyers from up close, i can say that there is no real size/displacement difference - the speed is about the same etc. So that is why germany i.e. builds no destroyers (i think they are all decomissioned, and were of american build anyhow) , but different type of frigates. While america seem to be very fond of their "destroyers" of different type put them next to each other you will understand why those class differences no longer matter as much as in the tallship era. speed wise they are all around 30kn or slightly faster. Armament and capabilities are tied to the role they have to fill in the greater alliance context.
before 20th century: sailor: captan, destroyer ahead. captan : open fire. crush them. destroyer : run for life !! 21st century : sailor : captan, destroyer detected. captan : run for life !! destroyer : missiles otw
Grenades????
Because the designer used another name that was improper
I think most people already know that answer to be honest with you.. a frigate is a frigate as it's tonnage is less than that of a destroyer, it is not as heavily armed as a Destroyer. and it does not carry a crew compliment the same size as a destroyer. Frigates are actually more of the same class as a Destroyer escort. which too was smaller than a standard Destroyer. sharing many of the same differences as a frigate. a frigate is a smaller version of a much more heavily armed and larger vessel. if you were to set a frigate next to a destroyer the differences become very apparent. So as stated above I think most people know what the differences between the two classes of ship are as it's just a matter of common sence when you look at the ship's.
Same reason a coupe isnt a sedan
In 1973 I reported aboard USS Gridley DLG-21 call both a “destroyer leader guided missile” and a “guided missile frigate”. Then in 1990 I reported aboard USS Gary FFG-51 a guided missile frigate. They were the second and sixth ships I served on.
Available fire power on board? 😮
corvettes?
The Royal Navy pulled the same trick with funding when they were told they couldn't have anymore aircraft carriers. So they built the Invincible class... and called them 'Through-Deck Cruisers'.
Are CC Cutters really Frigates?
Today, every navy can classified their ship as they like (usually for political reason), Japan for example, we know Izumo class ship looks like an Aircraft Carrier, it can carry V-22 Osprey even F-35B, but they classifying Izumo and her sister ship as "Helicopter Destroyer", even huge Admiral Kuznetsov Aircraft Carrier classified as "Aircraft Capable Carrying CRUISER" by Russian Navy so it can sail from black sea towards Mediterranean by bosphorus strait because Turkey and NATO won't let any "Aircraft Carrier" crossing bosphorus. Meanwhile in some latin american countries, Cactus Class Buoy Tender sometime classified as "DESTROYER" by Dominican Navy for example ARD Almirante Juan Alejandro Acosta, that buoy tender are smaller than most torpedo boat or patrol boat. 🤣🤣🤣
When shall we see drone launching ships? Drone carriers?
I don't know if I'd say that there's no historical justification for the modern frigate class since they are clear spiritual successors. Frigates were originally designed as more lightly armed surface combatants with long range endurance not really intended for major engagements but for enforcement in far away regions. That is what modern frigates do as well, they do not quite have the armament of a destroyer however often they have greater sustainment capabilities and are more flexible, being able to take on long range missions on their own with relatively little support. They might not be much faster than other surface combatants but speed also isn't really how you choose your battles these days, it's more about not being seen, if you're close enough that speed really matters then you're probably screwed because you're not outrunning a missile. Frigates generally are able to pick their battles because they can stay at sea for very long periods of time and have excellent sensor complements, they aren't outrunning their opponent but rather not running into them in the first place. The difference with a destroyer is that while a destroyer can do the same things (though I don't see why that matters, in the age of sail a ship of the line could technically also be used for the same missions as a frigate, it'd just be a waste), they are purpose built for combat as part of a fleet and primarily for escorting carriers (since all navies are built around carriers these days and that's what all the roles should be seen in relation to) and are not as flexible as frigates, and generally much larger. Frigates can have onboard machine shops to make them more independent, or they can have sea lift capabilities, it can even go as far as the Danish navy where the frigates are capable of doing literally everything because of the STANFLEX system. If there's one actual big change from historic frigates then it's this, that modern frigates are incredibly flexible but also you couldn't really make a wooden warship very flexible, ships in the age of sail couldn't really do all that much compared to modern ones so it seems more like an obvious evolution of the type.
Hello, Although you make some valid points, I stand by my viewpoint. If there are parallels with age-of-sail frigates, they have come about through coincidence and development. They were never the justification for designating modern frigates as 'frigates' (apart from the USN post WW2 frigates, until they too took the wrong turn). Besides, reasoning like that, you'd have to call modern destroyers cruisers or even ships-of-the-line. In my opinion the historical justification doesn't hold up. Kind regards from Montreal
@@TribusMontibus Didn't expect a reply so thanks for that. I think that's a pretty USN and RN-centric view of things though. It's not like all navies in the entire world decided to designate their ships frigates because the RN did it, you even showed an example of classifications not lining up with the Dutch Tromp class because of differing classification schemes, and there are other examples like the Danish navy classifying Hunt class escort destroyers as frigates. You might be right that the classification makes little sense in the USN and RN but it's a pretty broad and sweeping statement to declare that this means it must be the case in literally every navy in the world. Also you are wrong to say that the Frigate class died out completely in the late 19th century, several remained in active use such as the Niels Juel screw frigates up until the early 1900s even if they were in the end relegated to being barrack ships. In the Danish navy therefore there's only a fairly small gap with no active frigates from 1910-1945 which also happened to be a period where the Danish navy just saw a lot of cuts and only operated a few coastal defense ships. Both before and after this period frigates would make up the main force of the Danish navy and take on the exact same missions, though with the modern frigates being much more capable. This would seem like a pretty clear example of at least one navy having clear continuity in the role of the frigate. This is further evidenced by the first indigenous frigate of the Danish navy, the Peder Skram class, being already very large and heavily armed (even if that did only fire on innocent vacation homes) with a respectable top speed. Also I don't see how this leads to calling modern destroyers cruisers or ships-of-the-line. They have no similarities in mission whatsoever. Destroyers can be defined in their role as escorts for capital ships, modern destroyers are still doing that as they're intended to escort carriers. Being more capable doesn't change their basic mission, if ship classes can't become more capable over time then no class can last longer than 30 years at most. Cruisers were ships meant primarily for long range patrol duty in colonial empires, with enough armor and armament to engage anything they'd come across and also participate in major battles, and ships-of-the-line were meant as the primary surface combatant in a battle line and not really anything else except maybe coastal bombardment. The USN doesn't even have an AShM in service right now so categorically their destroyers cannot be seen as equivalents of ships mainly meant for direct combat with enemy ships, and even in navies that do have AShMs on their destroyers they are still clearly meant primarily to protect carriers while said carriers provide the majority of the striking capability. Also the name ship-of-the-line kinda implies there being a line of battle which isn't a thing anymore.
@@hedgehog3180 Hello, I'll have to get back on that (much) later. In an hour I'm supposed to go fly to Europe and saturday morning I'll be starting in a 2000km endurance gravel bike race, following which, I leave for the Middle East. So I'm going to be a bit busy. Your last message happened to catch me while I was having a cup of coffee during the last quiet moments I'll have for a few weeks. Kind regards
Je uitspraak is beter dan native engelsen/amerikanen :). Waar je veel teruggrijpt op de US en UK vloot vind ik het jammer dat je de NL schepen er niet bij pakt. Ik heb op de Nederlandse jagers en fregatten van de Holland en Van Speyk klasse gevaren. Capabele schepen destijds. De GW klasse was zijn tijd ver vooruit, de S-fregatten en later de M-fregatten waren ook mooi Hollands vernuft.
Goedemorgen, Ik zie je punt. Eerlijk gezegd heb ik ook ernstig overwogen om de Holland klasse specifiek te vernoemen, zeker omdat dit zou illustreren hoe verwarrend de categorisatie wordt indien je ook nog eens 'onderzeebootjagers' beschouwt omdat de KM zich daar specifiek op toelegde. Ik heb besloten om dat niet te doen omdat, wanneer je even niet goed oplet, bij kijkers verwarring zou kunnen ontstaan dat je het dan had over een soort 'destroyer escort'. Ik hoef jou niet uit te leggen dat de Holland klasse verre van die categorie af stond. Dus dan had ik ook nog het principe van een 'submarine destroyer' moeten introduceren in een video die al gevaarlijk lang werd. Dus heb ik me voornamelijk gehouden bij de 'meest in het oog springende' USN en RN klassen. Ook uit die landen krijg ik (terechte) vragen waarom ik andere belangwekkende klassen niet heb vernoemd. Over toepassing van Hollands vernuft op marineschepen die internationale wortels hebben zou je alleen al tien video's kunnen vullen. Maar eerlijk gezegd ben ik bang dat mijn kennis daarover anecdotaal en te oppervlakkig is om het echt goed recht te doen. Ik probeer geen video's te maken omwille van het video's maken. Wanneer ik er een maak hoop ik dat het iets nuttigs zegt. Ik overweeg nog om er een te maken over de Slag in de Javazee, omdat ik daarover informatie/inzichten heb die je niet terugvindt in boeken (zelfs niet in de uitgaven van de laatste jaren). Maar dat onderzoek heb ik nog niet tevredenstellend afgerond om er al een sluitend, goedlopend verhaal van te kunnen maken. Gezin, werk en andere hobby's nemen op dit moment veel tijd in beslag. Eigenlijk had ik ook niet verwacht dat deze video een miljoen kijkers zou trekken. Ik heb hem redelijk snel, als 'tussendoortje', gemaakt. Ik zou er waarschijnlijk meer zorg aan hebben besteed (en beter geluid) als ik dit had geweten. Met vriendelijke groet (nu even vanuit Montreal), Geert
You begin by showing sailing Frigates, that are FASTER ships that sacrificed armor and armament for sailing ability, BUT LATER you refer to the definition of Frigates as SLOWER ships. Frankly, between your UK Frigates vs Corvettes, and UK vs US you're all over the map providing very little in the way of true definition per your title ('cuz maybe there isn't one).
You clearly haven't understood the video at all. That's exactly the point of the video! There is no generally accepted definition. It's not my video which is 'all over the map'., the (mis-) use of the words 'frigate' and 'corvette' is. Maybe you ought to pay more attention to content, before commenting like that.
@@TribusMontibus Yes, you are correct, I missed that point (and only made it just past the WWII portion). However, you reference back to points you made previously that contradict yourself or at least are inconsistent. The title and the narration seem to be building (erroneously) to a conclusion, which, _I guess,_ is not your intention at all. Thanks for the response, though (to my not so complimentary comment).
@@georgehugh3455 Hello George, No problem. I understand that20 minutes is quite a long haul to sit through. The video was made for people who have always wondered about 'what exactly makes a frigate a frigate'. There really is no definitive answer to that (even though my video's title might suggest there is). But I attempt to take viewers through the f* up in naval history, with some questionably motivated decisions, which led to the confusion. My true answers are somewhere towards the end of the video. 'A frigate is a frigate because the owner decided to call it a frigate' and 'corvette or frigate, it's still a wasrship'. Kind regards, Garret