There are quite a few channels on RU-vid - maybe you've seen some yourself - that specialise in using AI to restore / colourise / up-scale at 4k old film footage. Have you thought of getting in touch with one or two of them to do a collaboration to see what they could do with the intro footage for the Five Minute Guides / Drydock / etc. or any other old archive footage you may have. I think it would be fascinating, both the results but also the process. What do you think?
Can you do a guide on the Kriegsmarine's Dithmarschen-class supply ship? They did support all major Kriegsmarine operations with capital ships, including the very successful raids against Allied shipping by Admiral Graf Spee in 1939, Admiral Scheer in 1940 and Operation Berlin in 1941. The fact that both the Royal Navy and the US Navy operated captured ships for several years after WW2 should speak for itself.
I am not sure if this question has been answered already but do you think that the Deutschland class cargo submarines were a success for what they were designed for and why didn't the Kriegsmarine come up with something similar during the second world war? Did any other navies have a similar idea for cargo submarine? ( I am positive that Japan did but not in the same way)
I can't get this idea of converting battlecruisers into passenger liners out of my head. I'm thinking four revolving restaurants with hot meals whisked up the ammo loaders from kitchens located way below.
Speaking of Russian naval ships possibly being converted to passenger liners, my parents currently are on the Regent Seven Seas Navigator, who's hull was built originally as a Soviet satellite tracking ship right around the fall of the Soviet Union, was laid up for 10 years and then converted in Italy to a crusie ship. I imagine a crusie ship in 2022 has more sophisticated electronics and sensors than a satellite tracking ship did in 1990.
Many ships of the time had little superstructure compared to the 1930s-1940s. Just look at the Germany Moltke class or Seydlitz. With almost no AA guns, no radar and very little fire control is was evidently enough.
Pacific adventures aside the Russian navy rarely strayed far from port so supply, accommodation and auxiliary systems could all be minimal. Unlike British or French ships moving around the world needing to be at least capable of surviving a month or two at sea.
Most navies at that time still put little superstructures on their Dreadnoughts thought (compared to Inter-War and WW2 era anyway). What we saw on most ships at that time were actually a masts or funnels that have a catwalk built on them. Tegetthoff-class have their bridge installed between the top of their conning tower and funnels, US used Lattice masts (which was the ugliest thing to put on ships IMO), the Royal navy used Tripod masts which was very strong and could support a lot of weight so they were able to put a lot of equipments and rooms on it like searchlights, flag bridge, navigation bridge, chart room, rangefinders, conning tower so their masts looks like a superstructure but still essentially a mast. Imperial German Navy and Imperial Russian Navy still used pole masts on many of their ships (which could support less weight compared to tripods) so they appeared to have less superstructures.
@@thinaphonpetsiri9907 The Germans did switch to tripod masts later on, for example Derfflinger was refitted with one after Jutland, and later design evolutions of the Mackensen-class battlecruiser also had them.
So, back when my ships were dismasted in Napoleon Total War, they in reality became Russian ships? It was such an odd sight. The ships would looks like oil tankers or floating platforms.
One very nice feature of the Borodino class is that the main belt of 237,5mm was actually very high. It extended a fair bit below the waterline and also quite high up on the hull above the waterline. The main belt was also backed by both a 75mm turtleback and a 75mm torpedo bulkheld, so a shell would actually have to penetrate all 3 layers before reaching the magazines or engineering spaces. This layout is similar to armor layouts found on WW2 era German battleships, although the angles of the internal layers were less favourable. Despite the 237,5mm belt being rather thin, I assume that the entire side protection system would have afforded better protection than we might imagine, especially given how unreliable AP fuses in WW1 could be. A weak spot might have been the barbette armor. The main barbette armor was 247,5mm thick, but it extended only a little bit below the upper deck, and then was reduced to 147,5mm. If a shell managed to penetrate the 125mm upper belt intact, it had a decent chance of punching through this 147,5mm barbette protection - given that the fuse would not detonate the shell before actually penetrating this far into the hull.
@@bkjeong4302 Given the British experience with Bismarck, I'd argue that their armor layout would have been perfect for WW1 era battles, since deck armor wasn't really that big of a concern.
3:16 The Admiralty Manual of Seamanship 1964 volume 1 at page 37 states: “If there are two masts their names are determined by their size and position: if the foremost mast is larger it called the mainmast and the other is called the mizzenmast; if the aftermost mast is the larger it becomes the mainmast and the foremost mast is the foremast.” So the extra turret was positioned between the after funnel and the mizzenmast. 😊
Have you ever done a look at the Japanese Hiyo and Junyo? I have always thought these interesting as they were aircraft carriers made from supposed passenger lines. 🤔
Another great video Drach, thank you! I have a suggestion for a Ship's guide: HMAS Castlemaine, which resides now in Melbourne Australia as a museum ship!
Because of the lack of superstructure I got the impression there had been some confusion in the drawing office and someone had mistakenly picked up plans for a destroyer.
One of my favorite battlecruiser classes by specifications, alongside the Mackensens, the Tiger, and the French battlecruiser design by Gille. My opinion of a battlecruiser is based on its ability to not only crush armored cruisers, but to smash any class of pre-dreadnought as well. Something like the Invincibles, though capable of handily dealing with a rogue armored cruiser, would fall short of victory if faced by a supposedly obsolescent battleship.
Thee readily available documentation seems to have improved. When I was looking into these ships in the 1970s, the possible configurations were always given as 9 14`` in 3 turrets.
Despite the bad reputation that the imperial russian navy got during the russo-japanese wars, it did a fairly good job during WW1, and if these ships, and the likes of the Impertor Nikolai would have been finished, then the High seas fleet would have had other things to worry about besides the royal navy.
They were certainly very solid designs, but by the time they would have entered service, the Germans would have had large numbers of 15inch gunned ships to oppose them - the Bayern-class, which had excellent protection.
@@michaelkovacic2608 Although would they have been able to spare them from the north sea? In a prospective ww1 in 1916 scenario they would have been badly outnumbered in battlecruisers and with the Gargants all out things may have gotten tough in the Baltic. I think it really would depend on how things are going in minesweeping/laying technology though sadly.
@@benlewis4241 Why wouldn't the Germans have been able to spare the Bayerns, or any other ships from the high seas fleet for that matter. Its not like their heavy units actually left port to fight in the North Sea more than a handful of times. The Germans could have moved the ships in complete safety into the Baltic through the Kiel Canal. The British Grand Fleet wouldn't have been able to follow because pushing through Danish waters to enter the Baltic would have left their fleet very vulnerable to mines and submarines, both at the choke point in Danish waters and further inside the Baltic. It would also have meant leaving the coast of England vulnerable to raids from remaining ships of the High Seas Fleet.
@@jkirschy The Germans were very worried that the British would try some sort of daring raid into the German anchorages, or try to seize an offshore island like Heligoland or Sylt. In fact a lot of the prewar German planning seems to assume that the entire Grand Fleet will bullrush straight towards the largest German harbour for a knock-out blow. It seems silly to us now but I guess it makes sense to plan for the worst case scenario. After all at the same time the Royal Navy was playing with scenarios such as entire High Seas fleet attacks the BEF in the Channel and entire High Seas fleet sails into the Atlantic and the Russian navy Genuinely thought the German grand plan was going to be a massive naval invasion of Finland aiming for St Petersburg. When the war started a lot of political pressure started to launch an attack against the High Seas havens, and a fair bit of planning was done on the idea. While the Germans rarely left port (Although they did more times than many people think!) They were ready to meet a full scale Grand Fleet attack. Just imagine if First Heligoland had actually been a full scale grand fleet attack for example, but Germany had half its modern fleet in the Baltic.
@@jkirschy The Germans were actually very worried that the entire Grand Fleet would go straight in for a knock out blow against the north sea fleet bases. It seems silly to us now but a large part of German prewar planning was on the basis of stopping this. To be fair at the same time though the Russians were frantically building field defences (They conscripted over 40,000 men to work on them) in Helsinki to stop the anticipated German landings in Finland to open St Petersburg and the British held back a third of the BEF to defend Suffolk, so I guess most people planned on the assumption of the worst case scenario. But picture it as the worst case scenario for the High Seas Fleet, they have sent a significant fraction of their best ships to guard Koenigsberg and the trade to Sweden. Then the main lock of the Kiel canal is reported to have blown up and the entire Grand Fleet turns up off Heligoland and neutral sailors report mines and submarines amidst the belts. Of course we know that such a plan is too risky for the RN to try, but would you bet the German Empire that they will not try it anyway? IRL the UK never really tried it but there was significant political pressure to capture an island to establish a close blockade. Studies of capturing Heligoland Sylt or Borkum were considered as well as taking a Dutch island. In the end a combination of the extensive German preparations for such an attack, and the more pressing needs of a landing on the Belgium coast stopped such an attack, but they are not historically implausible.
About 3:45, looking at the deckplan view, I noticed the narrow portion of the bow, forward of the casemates, seemed unusually long. Would that have been for some hydrodynamic/speed purpose, an attempt to keep the casemates dry, or just a random design quirk, without particular rhyme or reason?
Russian naval military procurement at the time was huge and sometimes surprising (as foreign suppliers were involved in almost all class construction, supplying at various times guns, armour, boilers , engines and every other major component the national industry faced excessive demand of) . Officers entrusted to supervise the fitting out of the Russian imperial yacht managed to waste huge amount of money in flamboyant requests (including air-conditioning, in a 1896 ship) exceeding the imposed budget just for the sake of it, in the end convincing themselves they were going to be executed . Instead of being court-martialled as deserved, they were promoted as the lavish ship made envious every royal house in Europe .
I would be very interested, if you'd care to do one, in an edition that went into detail about capital ships below waterline torpedo tubes - how they work/where fitted/any successes etc..?
At the 4:30 mark, you have a drawing up of the battle-cruiser and it looks like it has more than one rudder. Is this the case? If so what this common? What are the advantages?
@@keefymckeefface8330 Thanks! I had seen ships with more than one rudder that were arranged side-by-side in parallel, i.e., athwartship, but never a fore-aft arrangement like this one appeared to have.
@@idaho_girl I think the fore and aft bit might be trick of perspective. Would need to see more detailed multi angle version of plans to be sure, but I really doubt the forward one is on centre line in front of middle prop. It would only ruin the effectiveness of the prop and rudder following it if it was. I suspect its offset in line with outer propshafts, but the guy drawing diagram wanted to show the extra rudders and skipped fact they not actually in line.
The turret in bow is higher because after completion of Sevastopol and Imperatritsa Mariya classes dreadnoughts (Sevastopol class is called Gangut class in English sources for some weird reason, same with Izmail class which weirdly is called Borodino by English sources), they noted that those ships had problems when encountering high waves or moving at max speed, so the front turret and front conning tower were showered in rain of splashes from those waves leading to problems in fire control (as rangefinder on top of conning tower was also under splashes) and aiming of foremost turret
I've always wondered about the private yachts and fishing vessels the US Coast Guard Commissioned in WW2, Schooner Mariette, Gertrude L Thebaud. Did any of these vessels see any action? What sort of crew compliment and equipment for their new warfare purpose. Thank you for your consideration.
A stuggle from the beginning, apparently. Much like in the 1:700 scale model world. Combrig has been working on a Paris Kommune from '44 for ages. Nothing exists of the major units from the Soviets in 1:700 in plastic or resin- Gagnut class. Fortunately though, Trumpeter is about to release a 1:700 TASHKIENT '40 or '44- I can't remember- a move in the right direction, anyway.... 🚬😎
@@Admin-gm3lc That's pre-historic times. Name some 1700-1800 Russian ships. Sweds were beaten on land by Russia near Poltava and after that (and death of Karl XII in Norway) Sweden's glory is no more. Turks are exception as they are always were beaten by Russia.
The construction of these battlecruisers was effectively halted after February 1917 Revolution, months before Bolsheviks October Revolution. Political disarray and numerous strikes by workers demanding huge wage increases that had been bankrupting private factories practically put the Russian industry to full stop by summer 1917.
I got very close to completing my copy of that kit, basically only needing rigging, railings, and ladders to finish...then it met with an accident and broke my heart.
Russia’s naval construction infrastructure was so bad I’m surprised they even got as far as they did Looks like a Gangut BC version. That nonexistent superstructure and lack of super firing turrets is to keep top weight down in case the vessel becomes encrusted with ice in Baltic or Northern operations
The nonexistent superstructure was because after Russo-Japanese war navy was against anything that is above armour and has nothing to do with the fighting. To be fair - since Russian 12" and especially 14" SAPs had as much explosive content as bloody 250kg bombs - it also had the intention to make sure their opponents will be made the same.
I always wondered why a large land-power with almost no good access to the open ocean thought it needed a navy. They still don't. Other than coastal patrol ships and ice breakers, they really don't need to keep major sea lanes open.
Prestige. And also the outside chance they may ever need to try and force the Dardanelles. At the time the Russians were looking to purchase these things, the Turks were shopping around for a couple of dreadnoughts themselves.
Because: 1) defense of your own coast line, ports and shipping routes, no matter how short, 2) protection of St. Petersbourg (the capital, back in the day), 3) attacking enemy's shipping routes and taking the fight to the enemy's fleet, to the extent possible. Control over the sea will allow to use the sea to land troops behind enemy lines, thus significantly influencing the amount of troops used against the land armies. Basically, just because you aren't 100% dependent on the sea routes, doesn't mean you need to abandon all your fleet to make the enemy''s life easier.
The Russian and Soviet navies have typically been excessively large prestige projects, but there is a need for somewhat significant forces to operate in the Black and Baltic seas. For the time period in question, having at least a few battleships around was reasonable.
@@SmilingIbis Army/navy of every country is a "waste of money" until you suddenly need one, and you don't have it. Since the ape took up the stick, the best and most profitable thing ever invented by humans was - killing other humans. So unless 8 billions of those murderous bastards are intending to change overnight, all these lethal toys will continue to be of importance in the future.
Can't help but say that they were probably right kind of ships, when we're talking about battlecruiser concept. Ultimately it wasn't battleship which needed maximum firepower over short period of time - battlecruiser did. Battleship, strictly speaking, could do fine with slightly smaller number of guns(optimal for fire control), but with a larger shell load per gun. Battlecruiser, on the contrary, absolutely needed concentrated 'burst'(more guns of the same caliber as a battleship), even at expense of shell numbers. Of course, a superfiring pair of turrets in front would've been even better - but we're talking about Russian design.
Russian tank crew were specially selected for their small size. A similar selection program could have opened new horizons in warship design - but wait, you need gorilla sized sailors to hand load the 6” casemate guns. Another good idea ruined by contact with reality…
Should have ordered from Vickers (they would have sold the Tsar the 16"/45 x 4 twin turrets, surely) - then the Russian Admiralty would have had the sheer delight of blowing Admiral Scheer out of the water, rather than Admiral Beatty...
No, Abrahamic religion was involved. Melville's hero was named after Abraham's son. And the ship was named after Turkish fortress that was named after Ibrahim's son (And Ibrahim is Arabic transcription of Abraham)
I'm trying to think of a time when the Russian navy was some kind of functioning, coherent entity, rather than a political football, or just a gunnery target and running joke?
@@jrd33 One can argue that that was the _Soviet_ navy. I generally don't, because I regard the CCCP as the Russian Empire in communist drag, but there are folks who take that whole thing very seriously.
During the reign of Peter I, obviously. During the Reign of Catherine II. At least to the point where Russian policy of "armed neutrality" was respected and Russian ships continue to run English blockade around 13 colonies. They also participated in the war of the second coalition on Mediterranean theatre. During the reign of Nicolas I fleet was hampered by financial and logistical issues but still had a solid cadre of naval officers and was able to contribute to the Greek war of independence among other things. "Gorshkov's fleet" during the cold war (at least until early 80s).
