Do you think for videos and stories, all source material used should be properly cited in video and text file? Past videos have relied heavily on books and word presses, and I think us viewers would benefit from and increase our knowledge and the original authors would like the increase in book sales or website traffic. I realise it is much more work, but I think it would be the right thing to do.
Were there any ships during WW2 that engaged hostile vessels from all three of the major axis powers? I know there are ships, such as Warspite and Saumarez that have engaged two, but I can't find anything on if any ship directly engaged ships from all three of them.
Suction: I was on a destroyer hit by a carrier at near 90° and almost dead center. The ship went on it's side, the carrier sailed thru and split the hull. On the stern, protected by several full bulkheads between engine and boiler rooms, righted itself and floated, and I was ok. The bow stayed on it's side, filled and sank in 3 minutes. Close friends birthing in the bow had to make their way either thru the bow hatch or the hatch near the sprayshield that had water flowing in. The crew on watch in the superstructure and the people getting out from below, gathered on the bow side until the captain ordered them in the water and away from the ship. One friend was swimming with about 25 others, was pulled under twice. He barely made the surface the first time and when he stopped and drew a breath was pulled down again. The first time was the worst. He was picked up by one of the carriers' boats, but the others were gone. This was 1969, 3am local, and the Evans DD-754 with HMAS Melbourne, the peacetime tonnage record holder. I sent much of my life on the ocean, I'm still on a ship, and a captain 50 years. In all that time, the Melbourne had the most professional crew I ever saw. They had many boats with search lights in the water in moments. Also all their helos were in the air. We lost 74, but it would have been more without Melbourne's fast reaction. BB's: Until gliding smart bombs, naval gunfire was the best support in coastal areas. In Vietnam a few years, I had the chance to compare 16", 8". and 5" results. And I knew a senior marine that had been under Japanese BB shells on Guadalcanal. Every round hurt and said it was the scariest thing he faced including Peleliu and Okinawa. The 16" gunfire was a real killer of morale for the Vietcong and the North Vietnamese wouldn't enter peace talks until the New Jersey was decommissioned. If BBs weren't so expensive to operate, I think they should have stayed in service until the gliding smart bombs. The would have been even more valuable with a AA missile system. You do a great job with your research and analysis. You always get a thumbs up from me.
For those interested, there is a Wikipedia article about the collision incident: it's called the _Melbourne-Evans collision._ Can recommend, and for what it's worth, the depiction of events here seems in agreement. During the exercise, the escorting Evans was instructed to take up position as plane guard (ready to rescue aircraft/crew following carrier accidents) as the Melbourne prepared to launch aircraft for an anti-submarine exercise. However, the Evans, which was forward to port of the Melbourne, instead of turning away to port and back behind the carrier, instead decided to turn starboard _towards_ the carrier. There were last-ditch attempts to turn away (read the article), but Evans did so erratically. They collided, and the destroyer was cut in two. (Just imagine the sheer force required to do so, damn.) The fault was placed at the two inexperienced lieutenants on watch on the Evans who failed to follow procedure, even after very explicit instructions had been previously given by Cpt Stevenson of the Melbourne to the destroyer captains on how to handle their ships around the much larger carrier, even repeated after there was a near miss with another US destroyer, the Larson. The master of the Evans was likewise faulted for placing those two inexperienced officers on watch; he was himself sleeping at the time of the incident. They were all convicted of dereliction of duty. There was also a court-martial of Stevenson, who was honourably acquitted, but he was still effectively demoted afterwards; all apparently in an attempt to appease the Americans who didn't want to accept full responsibility. The official joint inquiry was also a bit of a sham; the presiding (US) Rear Admiral clearly had an agenda and showed clear favouritism. However, the actions and gallantry of the crew of the Melbourne during the rescue were deservedly commended. In particular, the entire helicopter squadron got medals, as well as five other individuals. Members of Melbourne's crew did not hesitate to dive into the water to rescue survivors (which is, of course, generally very dangerous to do). Also that they managed to so quickly secure the wrecked stern of Evans with lines impressed me. Hats off to you, sir, that must have been an absolutely harrowing experience. My sincere condolences for your mates; it was a travesty. I hope your mate who got out is well.
I just watched fireworks on the New Jersey. A band was playing under A turret. It’s all fun and games till you remember what those things can do. I have the dry dock song in my head now haha. Happy Fourth of July
The value of kamikazes was covered by Bernhard Kast from Military History Visualized. He looked at raid aircraft numbers losses versus hit rates and found for the same number of aircraft losses the kamikaze attacks were more successful. His verdict was the kamikaze tactic was not stupid or desperate but a (somewhat) successful adaptation to the increasing effectiveness of American fleet air defense. As a former US Naval Officer, when in a cynical mood, I'd like to note that today's Fleet with Standard Missiles, Aegis Combat System, airborne surveillance radars and cooperative engagement has FINALLY solved the kamikaze defense problem.
@@DM-mi4je For land vehicles or grounded aircraft drone kamikzaes work well. (look at the switchblades) Against ships even if you somehow manage to smack a drone into even a small ship its not going to do much unless some personel are on the deck when it does hit mainly due to said drone being too small to really do anything against a warship of any size.
It absolutely was a desperate tactic it just isn't a thoughtless one. No one is doing suicide bombing attacks if they have other options, the Japanese didn't have other options so they were desperate.
@@DM-mi4je At this point laser systems are sort of an analog for kinetic 20mm Oerlikons. As power technology increases the effectiveness of the 40mm Bofors is in reach.
AND ALL YOU GUYS FAIL to learn the lesson of any of this... Yeah the original poster was right, a couple of trillion dollars worth of research and development and deployment on billion dollar ships, and you solve the problem of a terrorist diving into a target,, *almost..* Let's roll out the flags for that...... Meanwhile, nuclear weapons have put us all on The chopping block.... And still you guys are wondering how to build that better mousetrap to kill people... Sincerely astounding...
Drach, the water displacement/suction example and the vision over London example for spotting are so good. Absolutely perfect. I’m disappointed that I only have one like to give.
I think a useful addition would have been adding hundreds and thousands or some similarly small buoyant solid (beads of polystyrene?) to show them getting drawn down despite being something that would otherwise float.
WOW. Your practical demonstration of range with your London example makes it even more incredible just how good aiming computers and fire directors were for the time. Not only were the distances so great; but both the the target and the source of fire were in motion. Incredible. These kinds of perspectives are what make your channel so wonderful. Merry Christmas, Drachinifel.
This is the practical kind of stuff that is truly necessary for videos about big things to truly make humans understand. The distances are astounding to humans. It takes hours for us to run them, minutes to drive them, and a battleship could level the whole thing in seconds.
It's also a good explanation for how reconnaissance planes can mistake a destroyer for a battleship. It's just so difficult to find anything and then also recognise what it is.
Fortunately with a 32" monitor I could just make out your large battleship at 30,000 yards, but even zoomed in really quite small and fuzzy. Really makes me appreciate the fact Warspite could land hits at that range.
I’ve read several accounts of sinkings including Titanic and some people got drawn into the ship as water poured in but as the air was “exhaled” the victim was blown out and thereby survived the experience. As a former sailor with 47k sea miles, w’m glad my ship never had a serious accident since I worked at at least 15 feet below the waterline .
My father had a Midshipman cruise on the Missouri. (1950). As part of that, they engaged in target practice with the 16in guns. They "accidentally" dialed out the mechanical deviator. The plunging dummy shells obliterated the target barge, ending the exercise. 😂
😂 We did the same thing on the Coast Guard cutter I served aboard, except it was our 3" gun. The inflatable target was eliminated on the first shot which was supposed to go over... put a quick end to gunnery exercises.
We did something similar on my DDG. After coming out of drydock, we went to the Caribbean for a shakedown and weapons system check. We launched a Tartar missile with a telemetry package at a target drone, but right after leaving the rail, the thing went haywire and had to be destroyed. Next they ran up a white one, which proceeded to run straight past the drone, looped back down, and blew the drone out of the sky. It made an impressive sight.
00:38:48 - What ships actually looked like at early 20th century naval warfare ranges? Filming this piece outside, on a clear English day, was an inspired bit of production. Thank you.
Yeah keep in mind he's got a digital cam on a tripod, I have an old set of German navy binoculars, I've tried to keep my eye on a ship about ten miles out, from solid ground, can barely hold it steady enough to spot it, guess that's why mounted binoculars are so common on warships 😮
In water, denser an object, the faster it will accelerate in sinking. The thicker the atmosphere, the more pronounced the effect. The faster it sinks, the stronger the suction. Maybe I misheard, but it seems like he explained that quite well.
The suction isn’t the problem - it’s the aeration of the water by the air leaving the ship reducing the density of the water above the ship. Exploding munitions (like depth charges) don’t help either.
I’m glad you did the range view thing, as a fisherman that’s spent a lot of time offshore, some days you can’t see anything and then some days at 3 miles a boat will look huge with the mirage effect
With the suction, a lot will depend on where you are and how the ship sinks. With the Titanic, Colonel Gracie and Charles Lightoller reporting a lot of suction when the bow plunged and they were engulfed. But the ship's baker reported simply stepping off the stern with almost no suction. Since the most stable position for a ship nearly full of water is with the bow or stern pointing straight up, it can slide down into the water displacing relatively little. The main danger probably comes earlier when it's still relatively level but starting to rotate. Probably made worse by water pouring into openings in the decks and superstructures.
Yeah, and a lot will depend on the speed the ship sinks, the bow of Titanic plunging would result in a fast moving water column and a lot of suction, if the stern was only barely negatively buoyant the suction would be very little and by the time the aft section picked up speed the worst of the falling water column would be too deep to noticeably affect the surface.
Lightoller also had the added negative effect of being pinned against a grate (I’ve forgotten if it was a Fidley or a fan trunk) that was rapidly filling with down-rushing water. As far as chief baker Joughin, I prefer to think he was just magic, since not only did he not get pulled down by the suction of the stern (the deeper portions of which were already imploding) he also survived in the cold water, treading next to Collapsible B, far longer than he had any right to.
I also recall some accounts talking about a number of people being sucked into the depths of the ship as the Titanic's funnels separated from the rest of the ship. Apparently, some of the funnels remained watertight until the top, exposed part popped off.
good job explaining the suction. I always doubted Mythbuster's result on this though would not have known how to explain it. I love the show, but they had a number of screw-ups, especially when scaling physics. the deadly wooden splinters caused by cannonballs on period sailing ships comes to mind here...
@@ThePuschkin1986 If memory serves, the Mythbusters cannon & splinters segment used something like a 6-pounder, which would seldom be found on warships of any decent size.
The best explanation of naval gunnery I've heard is "being in a rocking chair and trying to blow coins off the mantel across the room". I'm never not impressed that they found solutions to all that.
Great video! I think your analysis of the downward drag is confusing a couple of details, but the overall direction is correct. There are two things influencing the velocity and volume of the water pulled behind an object as it sinks; the velocity of the sinking object and its surface area (in the direction of sinking). Drag behind an object (the amount of force it exerts on the fluid in front and behind it) is proportional to the velocity-squared, the area, the water density (rho), and the drag coefficient (C), giving D = C*rho*A*V^2 At a steady sinking rate (approximately correct - water is super viscous) the drag balances out the force due to gravity, `mg` giving mg = C*rho*A*V^2 -> V = sqrt(mg / CA) The ship's mass m is proportional to the length L^3, and the area is proportional to L^2 (this isn't exactly true, but is roughly so for smaller ships - if you double the length you're going to be roughly doubling the width). So m/A = L*k1, where k1 is some proportionality constant (dependent on a lot of design details that don't matter for this scaling analysis). This gives us V ~ sqrt(L) * k2 Remarkably, the sinking velocity of the ship scales _less_ than linearly with the size of the ship. But, increasing the size of the ship by a factor of 4 does still change the velocity of the water pulling you down by a factor of 2. But now you have to consider the volume of water pulled past the ship. And this flow rate f ~ A * V ~ L^2 * sqrt(L) * k3 (area A being displaced at velocity V), which gives a final answer for the volume of water pulled behind the ship, each second, of ```` f ~ L^(5/2) * k3 ```` Ultimately, there are 3 factors that make being stuck on a sinking ship really bad news: 1) The velocity of the water pulling you down scales by a factor of sqrt(L). The bigger the ship, the faster you have to swim upward to escape the pull down. 2) The overall flow rate of the water around you scales by L^(5/2). There is a _lot_ more water being displaced as the ship grows, which contributes to all sorts of vortices and turbulent effects that will keep you trapped, spinning around and unable to keep escaping in a constant direction. 3) The length dimensions of the ship are increased by L. This is the distance you'd have to swim sideways to escape the downward tug. Which gets harder the more that the turbulence is tossing you around. Ultimately, the mythbusters tested a "scale" model of the ship, but didn't keep the various dimensional proportionalities constant. There are a lot of factors here that make a larger sinking object a lot more dangerous.
Great video Drach, in particular I liked the picking out a vessel at the various ranges, as well as the slow motion demonstrating the "suction" caused by a ship sinking and debunking the debunking video! As usual a very well produced episode.
Same here. Those were both remarkable demos, especially when considering the former was essentially free, and the latter, extremely low budget once the camera is acquired.
I have seen the debunking video, the failure to take scale into account was immediately obvious. It would have made more sense to replace Adam with a much smaller dummy of appropriate buoyancy.
This was a interesting vidieo, yesterday, 12/19, i was into listening to the unauthorizedpacificwarpodcast, on Phillipine sea, and jon parshall suggested that air losses there led directly to kamikazes, your analysis here confirms to me what he was getting at. Have a great hpliday season to you and mrs.drach
I came here to say this. Really looking forward to your next collaboration with those gentlemen. Any chance you’ll have a piece of their video(s) on Leyte Gulf?
Very nice! As to the “suction “ issue, the first “crude” diagram tells it all. Water coming in from the sides to fill the void left by the sinking ship draws anything nearby on the surface e. g. the crew. Into the rapidly filling area above the sinking ship. The wider the ship and the faster the sink rate the stronger the affect. It should be recalled that the human body is only 4-8% less dense than the sea so we are not very buoyant. I’d always taken the narratives of the survivors of sinkings at face value, but your demonstration clearly corroborates them.
Also, as you go deeper you lose buoyancy to compression effects as the water pressure increases. At a certain point (near 50 m) your buoyancy vanishes, and you sink. Also, if enough air is escaping from a sinking wreck, the water may be effectively froth and therefore much less dense than the human body and unable to support it.
Thank you for the real-life comparisons on the engagement ranges and ship sizes. You always read about battles being fought at several miles or however-many-yards away, but I don't think there's been much comparison on the subject, or even film captured. The only example of in-action combat that I recall is some film that was shot from Prinz Eugene as the Bismarck was firing away from several miles ahead of her at Hood. In that one, Bismarck is a large sliver of black against the horizon and I don't think Hood is even visible in that film.
Nice to hear the pom-pom getting a resurgence due to the Kamikaze threat. By pure looks alone, I always like how they look. _Now imagine what a single Phalanx/Goalkeeper CIWS can do_
Less than you would think. Keep in mind the Phalanx and Oerlikon are both 20mm weapons, one just has a ridiculously higher rate of fire compared to the other. The most effective ammo type against Kamikaze was anything with a VT proximity fuse, capable of doing immediately crippling damage to the aircraft (or pilot) to the point of dropping said aircraft short of its target. Is why the 5" 38 DP mount was so demanded.
Whilst kamikazes may not have had the desired strategic effect, one thing they did influence at considerable monetary and resource expenditure was forcing the US Navy to up-gun their anti-aircraft countermeasures. Obviously, in the end that effect was not enough to change the course of the war in their favor, but it did have some very real effects.
A superb engineering demonstration of the effect of suction in a liquid environment. What made it even better as that Drach could show the effect quite clearly without the audience needing to have an expert understanding of the complex mathematics of forces in liquids. Very well done indeed, Drach.
I feel like the discussion of _precisely_ when the end of battleships was doesn't emphasize nearly enough the critical roles gun-armed surface combatants would play in naval warfare for even a couple decades to come after the war. Battleships specifically are an incredibly expensive way to provide that admittedly somewhat secondary capability, yes, but you didn't really have to stretch to find a role for them if you had one
@fluffly3606 There was a study during the Vietnam war that found that the vast majority of carrier air missions could have been accomplished faster, more effectively, and at less cost with battleship gunnery. In effect, it was the carriers that had become almost obsolete - though they would make a comeback later. This had to do with the increased effectiveness of air defense systems, and the enormous cost of both the aircraft and the training for the crew (something around 1 million dollars each) - a lot of lives were lost operating the airplanes, and an enormous amount of money was wasted when they were shot down. To make matters worse, in some cases the carriers couldn't accomplish the mission, because the aircraft were just too vulnerable and the air defenses too strong. The battleships could fire shells from Korea or WW2 - which already existed and cost a lot less than aircraft did - and the air defense systems of the time were far more effective against the aircraft than against incoming battleship shells. The accuracy and effectiveness of battleship gunnery had already been demonstrated against land targets on many occasions in WW2. As long as the infantry could operate within a certain distance of the coast the battleships could provide superb fire support.
The hypothetical kamikazes in 1942 discussion reminds me of the scene in Star Trek: Deep Space Nine where relatively small Jem'Hadar fighters destroyed the USS Odyssey, a Galaxy-class starship (same as the USS Enterprise-D), in suicide attack runs in the *first* battle between the Federation and the Dominion. It was an "Oh shit" moment that signified how ferocious and formidable the Dominion was going to be from the very start, which, I am sure, was inspired by our historical memory of how ferocious the Japanese were at the end.
Especially as it was one of extremely few times a Galaxy-class was seen to be destroyed (USS Yamato being another notable example), and it's actually even more impactful retroactively when compared to the large battles later in the war, where we see groups of Galaxys tearing through opposition without visibly taking the slightest bit of damage.
I like when at first they were kicking the Federations butts cause "phased poleron beam weaponry, we never thought that shields would need to block these!" but then a couple episodes later they were like "oh yeah our shields block those now"
It took 2 seasons to reliably shield ships from Dominion weapons. In universe that’s well over a year/year & a half. That’s long enough for a technologically advanced faction like the Federation to develop better shields.
@@seeingeyegod Yeah, the Jem'Hadar were always called elite, powerful, efficient. And when we saw them in action they were the most pathetic, unskilled and weak enemies ever. Armed Jem'Hadar with the moment of surprise? No macht for a bunch of federation personal, who didn't even have hand to hand combat training and experience. The dominion was described as powerful and dangerous - and shown to be weak and a joke. The whole war - which was supposed to be some highlight of DS9 - was IMO udder rubbish and completly boring. I only watched DS9 this year (never saw it before), but I never bothered to finish DS9 and stopped during the middle of the war. The first few seasons were ok (not great, but ok), but the supposed highlight of the show made me stop watching it. After I felt bored to death and stopped watching, I rewatched B5 for the 5th or 6th time - and had a great time again.
That reminded me of a section I read from the story of USS Aaron Ward at Okinawa. One of kamikazes attacking was shot down by some steel-nerved seaman manning 20mm Oerlikon who literally moved stream of shells vertically to cut off Zero wing. Eyewitness then thought "that man deserved Medal of Honor"
A nice slow motion representation of this can be had using a thick cake batter with a large spoon pushed into it. the sides sink in and overflow the middle, which is where the sailor would be floating. Of course it isn't so much a vacuum as an overtopping of the sailor. The edge of the batter will continue to follow the spoon as it sinks, at least for a distance relative to the size of the spoon. If you can hold your breath long enough, and Don't Panic! ( advice from Hitchhiker's guide, of course,) you could survive. scatter a few peppercorns on the surface and you can see how it will pull sailors in from the sides as well. Nicely done discussions, as always!!
You do a great job of trying to get everyone to understand what the field of battle looks like. As a combat veteran I understood but still love the length you went for your viewers.
If you want to find out the Kamikaze pilots thoughts about their missions and their final thoughts in letters to their families, please read a book called 'The Sun Goes Down' a very thought provoking book, I will try and find my copy and post the ISBN number if anybody is interested.
Regarding Kamikaze attacks in 1942, I'll add that using poorly-trained recruits for offensive suicide strikes on major targets would have saved their elite pilots for CAP and other defensive roles that had far lower loss rates than attacking roles, thus preserving them for probably the entire war, while making it much easier to ramp-up offensive strikes and increase their effectiveness.
The perspective you provided on battle distances / what would enemy ships look like through high powered binoculars was flabbergasting. It totally changed how I think about naval battles.
I read somewhere about a problem with the Kamakazi raids. Because no one returned from the raids, the Japanese high command had no way of assessing the effectiveness of the tactic, and believed the raids to be much more effective than they actually were.
Regarding ship apparent sizes, most impressive presentation and very interesting info. Well done, thank you! I would like to add another perspective, hope it will help: Hood was 260m long and was fatally hit by Bismarck at distance of 16500m. Scaling down to more comprehensible sizes, in this situation Hood length was equivalent to (roughly) the width of small finger at arms length. Literally shooting big guns at a fly...
I had forgotten about the kaiten. I saw a book on it back in the 60s. At one time, I had a copy of Popular Science magazine, April 1943 with the cover article titled "Shall we quit building battleships". I also remembered a friend playing a pre-aircraft carrier naval war game in which the players could design their own ships of war. His first game took advantage of the mass production mechanic and he designed a 'destroyer 'class' with torpedos, a 4" bow gun and good speed which wasn't too expensive to build. His opponents were all about a combined fleet of battleships, cruisers and destroyers for Jutland like actions. In his first battle, his opponents were faced with many hundreds of his destroyers. They sunk a lot of them but were eventually overwhelmed, torpedoed and sunk. The mass production rules were afterward revised. : ). Finally, your discussion of the rams reminded me of an amusing article I read by Alyssa Faden on the battle of Lissa and the armored ram, Affondatore. I see you have also talked of this battle and that will be what I view next. Thank you for all the great memories.
Great video, good perspective on how distant enemy ships appear to the MK1 eyeball. No need to hire a boat and sail around a museum ship when you've got London.
Kamikazes did an enormous amount of damage considering the expenditure. As for being insane, the Japanese, quite frankly, had few other options to cause any real damage.
The tactic was terrifyingly effective... Western propaganda always liked to call the kamikazes suicide missions, when the simple fact is when you take off of an aircraft carrier and go to attack an enemy's warships, you're already putting your life on the line... One may as well call The devastator runs on the Japanese warships at Midway suicide missions, because that's basically what they were... But while The dev's didn't score one hit, the kamikazes were horrifyingly effective against the American picket destroyers surrounding Japan... And while those planes may have been used to attack American ships conventionally, the dismal state of air crews by that time and the rising number of volunteers for the Kamikaze service sort of made the tactic a given... As for the definition of suicide, there is no connotation of hopelessness or despair, or worthlessness in a kamikaze attack... This was combat and Men die in combat,, and when other pilots when their planes were damaged purposely crashed them into an American ship, it was noted that the ratio of military gain outweighed military loss... So the only reason the tactic was adopted generally was because it was effective....
Allies tried packing strategic bombers with explosives, aim at a U-boat pen, then bail out. Sort of a kamikaze crossed with Fritz X. Allies also had weapons very similar to Fritz X with the human weapon controller observing and guiding from an orbiting aircraft.
@@amerigo88One of those operations, against a NAZI supergun, resulted in the death of John F. Kennedy's older brother when his plane exploded prematurely. As he was being groomed, by his powerful father, to be president of the US, it changed American history. Sadly, it turned out to be unnecessary as the target had already been destroyed by British earthquake bombs.
Drach, you can change the music all you like, but once a year I'm still going to complain about the poor housekeeping on that dreadnought that sends debris flying everywhere when the guns are fired.
Kamikaze attacks were responsible for dropping the plethora of 20mm and 40mm guns because they were ineffective at stopping Kamikazes. One benefit of dropping the 20 and 40mm guns was that they could reduce the size of the crew without sacrificing effectiveness.
Not so much dropping the 40mm guns...I believe they were keeping twin and single mounts...but they had figured out that they could do a 1 for 1 replacement of 40mm quad mounts for the new automatic twin 76mm gun mounts. That definitely did much reduce the crew needed to feed a 40mm quad, you are totally correct there, but since the 76mm anti aircraft shell could fit a proximity fuse and the 40mm could not the twin 76mm was actually hugely more effective than that old quad 40mm.
The only 40 mm Bofors was quite effective against Kamikazes. The lighter 20 mm Oerlikons which were less effective but US Navy ships still loaded up on both of them through the end of the war.
@@grahamstrouse1165 Dang, I could have sworn they came in before the end on a few ships...looks like I was mixed up between the Mark 22 and Mark 33 mounts. My bad.
@@iKvetch558 That was the hope, but the twin 3" mount came out heavier than a quad 40 so generally they were exchanged two twins for three quads... Some ships did lightening measures and went one for one if I remember correctly. (Note: this also assumes that what I read was correct!!!)
Honestly the fundamental problem for shore based attempts to take out a battleship: the kind of guns you need to kill a battleship are *very* hard to move on land. So the odds are, you either don't have those guns in the area the enemy has decided to bombard, or you have guns in that area, but everyone knows you have a very cool fortress installation with massive guns so they do something to circumvent those guns, be it saboteurs such as the fictional example Guns of Navarone or a land invasion intended to silence the gun emplacements such as the sadly very real Gallipoli campaign in WWI (which targeted the guns in the Dardanelles strait that prevented the Royal Navy from just showing up in Istanbul and theoretically knocking the Ottomans out of the war in one fell swoop. The only example I can think of where a shore fortress really managed to do anything with its big guns was the Osloborg Fortress in Norway sinking the heavy cruiser Blucher, which more or less decided it was going to just steam past perimeter fortresses and dump troops in Oslo. And that's kinda a combination of sheer idiocy on the part of the Germans (who decided to load the Blucher with so many troops and shore munitions that its deck was effectively an ammo dump and its interior spaces housed a bunch of troopers who had no idea what anything was and probably couldn't help but be in the way of the crew, all combined with the decision that "it's night, our lights are off, therefore we are invincible") and a good deal of luck on the part of the Norwegian (Olsoborg was more of a training post, but they just so happened to have a couple of old hands around who actually knew how to use the positively ancient cannon and torpedo systems well enough to get everything loaded and get one good shot off with each system). It didn't *completely* derail the invasion of Norway, but that one incident threw off a good chunk of the overall plan.
RE: the suction caused by sinking ships; there was a chap called Charles Joughin, who remained on RMS Titanic after all the life boats left - and out of the 1500 people left on board after that point he was the only one to survived by some miracle, even though he swam around in the very cold water for a very long time - reported that when the stern section went down he was able to 'ride' like an elevator and managed to keep his head above the water, (he said something along the lines his head may have been wetted, but no more). So does the suction only happen with some ships or was he making that bit up?
It depends on a number of factors but speed of descent is a key one, a ship or part of a ship that is only just negatively buoyant and sinks slowly will have a much slower water column on the surface at least which reduces the 'suction' felt quite a bit.
@@DrachinifelPossibly the Titanic's stern was efficient in the water (as it is designed to be when sailing) and simply didn't drag much water with it. It is easier to imagine water flowing in from the sides as she sinks than following directly after her.
Battleships on the other hand are quite good counter to swarms of medium and light ships. They tend to make a mess of them. Gotta love typical Drach understatement/humor
To be fair though, most of these ships had numerous people trying to spot enemy ships, and as for spotting by aviation, the spotter planes often did fly directly over targets and fail to spot them due to weather or simple difficulty spotting. Still though, it blows my mind that ships at that range could even remotely fire accurately while they were moving, their target was moving, they had only limited knowledge of wind ballistics between them and their targets, and because the shells took so long to reach their targets.
Another great video, really liked the range part outside it puts things in perspective, the wind was not a nuisance and just imagine this with waves shows us how difficult things were at the time. As for the ramequin it was brilliant !
I was always horrified by the notion of being sucked INTO the ship if it sank. Imagine being anywhere near the larger openings, hanger bay doors, large hatchways, etc., when water starts gushing into them. You're going in with it, into a pitch-dark cavernous interior, unable to tell which way is up or which way is out. I never really thought about the suction of the ship itself, so add that to my list of things to have nightmares about. That sinking scene from the film Titanic looks like Hollywood hype drama but maybe it's not as wrong as you think.
There is no way a human can resist the force of that water. You won't stand a chance. But you won't drown, and you won't suffer. That water will promptly slam you unconscious or dead against either steel ship structure or waterborne debris (in any fast-moving flood, waterborne debris is far more murderous than the water itself). That's if the force of the water itself doesn't snap your neck first. Take comfort in that: It's quicker that way.
Seth and Bill talked about The Great Marianas Turkey Shoot, yesterday. According to them, it was the devastating results of that confrontation that made the Japanese switch to Kamikaze.
The section at 39:54 suddenly makes some things make a lot more sense. I have been playing War Thunder Naval recently and this puts into great perspective how close quarters those battles are. For those who don't know, in the average Naval Battle for war thunder you will barely ever see ranges beyond 15,000 yards and most commonly at around 8,000 to 6,000 yards.
The main reason that people are sucked down with a ship is, of course, that most people are inside the ship and unable to reach an exit. But I fully agree with your analysis. The same effect can be seen horizontally when water flows past an obstruction like a stone. Depending on the size of the stone, and the volume of water, the eddy current that flows back to the stone (i.e. down in case of a sinking) can be strong enough to keep objects trapped behind the stone. But I love your practical demonstration with the food colouring.
A common method to take a break, or change direction, during a kayak run down a river is to make use of those big rocks and pull in behind them for a short time. Depending on exact hydrodynamics one might not even have to paddle once actually behind the rock.
Additionally, in certain situations, air escaping from a sinking hull can fill the water with so many bubbles that the water becomes something closer to froth. This is much less dense than both water and the human body, and cannot support a human by buoyancy.
The aeration of the water above the sinking ship is a bigger problem. When the water above the hull consists of 10-50% air you aren’t going to be able to swim in it. Low head dams have the same problem.
I rly liked your way try to give us an example how range in reality looked like. Yes movies have influenced that in unrealistic way. Was an eye opener for me how that must be back than on battleship given the lack of modern electronics and range finding and targeting systems
I always loved playing Fighting Steel, especially when the camera went into "shell flight" mode. The amount of time it took for the salvo to reach the target was astonishing.
Thank's for showing the sizes of ships from different distances and the weather was ideal to get an idea in my head of the problem of spotting and then shooting at a thin side on ship with falling shots and hitting it. Merry Christmas 🌲🎅🎁
People seem to forget that during 9/11 there were unarmed American airforce planes in the air. With pilots on record, saying they would have flown thier planes into passenger airlines if ordered to do so. Of course they wouldnt have been forced to do so at gunpoint. But that would do it willingly to save other peoples lives. Japanese Kamikaze's weretn insane. They were doing what they thought they had to to save Japanese lives.
Let's not forget the firebombing of Japanese urban areas taking place at the time, and the starvation of the population due to supplies being cut off. There was every motivation to such a sacrifice even without cultural and religious factors.
There is a fundamental difference between situational suicide and institutional suicide. Deliberately sending out people to die from the outset, en masse, without the option of survival, is uniquely horrific. I do believe that the Allied governments were capable of that. They were simply never desperate enough.
More like saving Japanese hornor - which they, admittedly, often valued more than lives. Had they valued just lives, they would have surrendered or at least negotiated some peace deal long before Kamikazes were a thing.
One thing you didn't add into your calculations was the velocity at which the ship sinks. The equation for force is F=ma, where a=acceleration, or metres per second squared. A sinking ship that is accelerating will generate a lot of more force compared to a ship that is slowly sinking. It is the combination of the mass (displacement) and acceleration that creates the suction effect (i.e. the faster a ship is sinking, the more suction).
Yeah, battleships as a giant AA platform was definitely a viable use for them. Some of the new fast battleships that saw action around Guadalcanal probably saved Enterprise.
Definitely with North Carolina and South Dakota. I’m of the opinion that had North Carolina not been with Enterprise’s Task Force 16 at Eastern Solomons. Then the chances of her making back to Pearl and being repaired in time for Santa Cruz were low. Let alone being able to survive the battle.
... I think Drach is overly concentrated on the naval aspect of the Kamikaze which is sensible since they were attacking American naval vessels.... What filled the ranks of the Kamikaze service however was the horrible fire bombings of Japan... looking at it from the point of view of a Japanese soldier who was on Japan at that time, if my family had just been killed in a bombing, I don't think I'd have much to live for either, and I'd want to get some revenge at the enemy....
Actually, stuffing an Ise with kamikaze aircraft might potentially be a reasonable use. If they don't have to land, you could use regular aircraft and get them closer.
The Japanese sense of suicide before defeat/dishonour was well and truly ingrained during the war in China. With lone pilots, out of fuel and ammo chose to ram their planes into Chinese defences rather than bail or risk landing in Chinese territory. Or of infantry bayonet or sword rushing machine gun lines (And oftentimes succeeding in clearing the structures). Their propaganda go so grand and omnipresent that generals had to order officers and men to STOP doing kamikaze runs during the war when they were on the offensive and winning. Even in recon missions you had soldiers breaking from the unit and charging US marine infantry columns with a knife or a sword in the hopes of killing just one and scaring the rest off (And earning glory in the process).
I loved they way you showed the suction of a ship going down. There is another reason to get away also anything that can float will be coming up at a rapid rate. Like broken bits of planking that hits you become a kebab.
Wow. Drach's use of London to illustrate what warships might look at range immediately tells you why the Italians wanted no further part of HMS Warspite after she landed her record-setting hit.
FWIW, the quick and dirty "close enough for government work" range approximation that we used in the US Navy was that 2,000 yards was more or less equivalent to 1 nautical mile.
Outstanding demos, Drach. Given the known wildly erroneous reports from aerial scouts at sea, or the wildly inflated claims of fighter pilots, it's easy to understand that visibility must have been a big problem.
Drach, I've been a huge but silent fan for years now. I've always wondered about the true effects of a swimmers proximity to a sinking ship. Your demonstration with the: (heavy) ramekin, food coloring and the column if water shot with a high speed camera was BRILLIANT! you illuminated the subject beyond words. Thank you!
Very good to enjoy this extra long and cogent episode. However, at (@53.30) I believe my previous point (as a retired designer) that engineers should never be allowed to play unsupervised near any graphics is proven? Your ranging and latter experiments, which I hope will be renamed to: "Drach's Ramekins" were much more effective. Phone and their cameras are great tools.
I think putting some cork bits on the surface of the water near the ship analogue to represent people who had already left would be helpful as well. Plus, it's the same buoyancy as the life vests.
54:31 - “the good ship” *Arbitrary* GCU Escarpment class, Culture fleet, would like to point out it is not normally oblong, but a fetching lozenge shape, can come in any color you like and has a really interesting intergalactic collection of water-ice crystals it would be happy to share with you if you have a spare month or two 😹
A surprising aspect of the Kamikaze phenomenon was that some of the pilots were more interested in sacrificing themselves for the Emperor than in actually hitting an enemy ship. Some pilots just went out and crashed into the ocean.
I have read and recall from your AAA evaluation program , the eight barrel Pom Pom was hindered not only by lack of trade round but the rate of fire , when viewed from difficulty of reloading , led many RN commanders to use only half the barrels at a time.
Tracer was eventually added to the pom-pom mid-war, and you are correct, in normal circumstances the lengthy reloading process meant under sustained attack it was sometimes better with the bigger mounts to fire some barrels and have reloads take place with the other half still available, but when it came to a kamikaze simply chewing it apart with all 8 barrels was a very useful feature. :)
When it comes to kamikazes, we must take into account the words of General Tacticus: "It is always useful to face an enemy who is prepared to die for his country. This means that both you and he have exactly the same aim in mind". Although the Japanese ignored his advice in the later half of the war in the Pacific in regard to ensuring against defeat when out-numbered, out-weaponed and out-positioned: "Don't have a battle". When it came to the invasion of Japan, the Allies took his advice to heart: "After the first battle of Sto Lat, I formulated a policy which has stood me in good stead in other battles. It is this: if the enemy has an impregnable stronghold, see he stays there". Even the Germans in the first half of WW2 followed his advice: "...A crucial factor, I have always found, is NOT the size of the forces. It is the positioning and commitment of reserves, the bringing of power to a point..." If only General Lucas had remember his Tacticus on beachheads at Anzio: "If you want your men to spend much time wielding a shovel, encourage them to become farmers".
I realize the conversation on battleships was for post-Dec 1941 but my thoughts went to what Warspite did in Narvik in 1940. Battleships - aside from the serious shore bombardment capabilities - were still serious threats to even groups of smaller warships throughout WWII unless the other side had serious air superiority. There's a reason the Lords payed for the big ships and Teddy Roosevelt did too! (and yes I know Teddy was WWI but...USS Texas (BB-35)!!)
Despite what some people seem to think, battleships were still extremely useful throughout most of the war. Carriers didn't really replace them either, outside of the open Pacific. It was more anti-ship missile technology which became impossible to armour against and the fact there were none on the other side that killed the battleship. Even with the missile technology they were still somewhat useful in theory, even if in just forcing the enemy to have to counter them. But the cost was not justified, especially in an era of relative peace between great powers and the fact only the US still had them into the late 1960s.
I would like to point out that many kamikaze pilots were not exactly volunteers. There are letters from some of the pilots that show that they really didn’t want to go, but felt that the dishonor would have been too much for their families to bear if they didn’t go through with it.
Awesome, myth busters myth busted with food colouring and a bowl. Such a clear and simple demonstration and yet i while i watched the food colouring I was imagining the terror of being in the water, sucked down by my sinkinking ship. Thanks for a great demo.
Gerhard Weinberg in "A World at Arms" (highly recommended!) points out that even the suicide aspect of it could be rationalized. Due to lack of training, most Japanese pilots by that time of the war were not returning from missions anyway, meaning that most missions were already suicide missions, and for not much result. Even on the grand strategic level, Weinberg also points out that the Japanese aim by that time in the war was to make the war costly enough to bring the allies to the negotiations table in the hope that they might hold on to some part of their empire. The Japanese knew that their chances of actually winning were slim by that time.
Understanding the tactical aspects of kamikaze attacks, the Japanese, strategically could never figure the Americans out. The word "resolve" was apparently not in their lexicon when understanding the American psyche. Sneak attacks, and suicide engagements (i.e. banzai/kamikaze) was akin to pouring gasoline on a conflagration.
In the day in smaller vessels, the crews below decks could gage the range by which guns are firing. First were the 5-38's,then the 40mm's,and 20mm's! When the 20's went off they were bracing for impact!
Excellent (and highly appreciated!) real world demonstrations of what you would see while engaging enemies at various ranges. The sinking ship suction experiment is fantastic, and why it hasn’t been common knowledge shows a real flaw in human intellect. Until now. 😂
